Advertising
For premium support please call:
The last supporters of a European Super League tried to revive the concept on Thursday after a landmark court ruling limited the ability of UEFA and FIFA to block a breakaway league between soccer’s dominant clubs.
In a long-awaited judgment, the European Union’s Court of Justice wrote that UEFA and FIFA, the European and global soccer governing bodies, were “abusing a dominant position” when they opposed and threatened to sanction the so-called Super League in 2021.
The architects of the league, an opaque corporation called A22, subsidized through Real Madrid and FC Barcelona, were quick to reveal the plans made, adding a new meritocratic format for men’s and women’s competitions that would usurp the current UEFA Champions League.
But the Court of Justice clarified that its ruling “does not mean that a festival such as the transfer of the Super League must necessarily be approved”. And that’s not to say that the Super League will suddenly come back to life.
In fact, the entire ruling, which consists of 258 paragraphs, is more favorable to UEFA and FIFA than previous headlines suggested. This doesn’t necessarily diminish their strength or invalidate their self-proclaimed positions in the sport’s most sensible place.
And no legalese could invalidate the fundamental reason the Super League swiftly collapsed in 2021, two days after 12 top clubs tried to launch it. Nine of those 12 clubs withdrew amid backlash from fans, coaches, players, politicians and a broad coalition of soccer’s established stakeholders. The establishment viewed the project as a greedy attempt by wealthy owners and commercially driven institutions to consolidate power. On Thursday, the establishment rose once again to shout down a potential Super League 2.0.
So no, the explosive upgrade is imminent. Here’s what we know about the future of the Super League following Thursday’s decision, which is final.
A22 had accused UEFA of exercising an illegal monopoly over European football, by controlling tournaments (such as the Champions League), promoting advertising rights to monetize them, and enforcing regulations that prevent other entities from creating rogue tournaments (such as the Super League). challenging the supremacy of the Champions League.
The court ruled, in essence, that UEFA had indeed done so in 2021. “FIFA and UEFA regulations subject any new football assignments to clubs to their prior approval, such as the Super League, and prohibit clubs and players from betting on those competitions. are illegal,” the court said in a statement.
Its full reasoning and context, however, are more nuanced. The regulations were illegal because they were not sufficiently “transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate”. However, with some updates, regulations have a right to exist.
Paragraph 144 of the court’s judgment crucially showed that UEFA and FIFA can apply regulations that “ensure the homogeneity and coordination of competitions within an appropriate overall calendar” and regulations that “promote the holding of sporting competitions based on equivalent opportunities. “and merit.
So, if regulations are replaced to comply with EU legislation (a procedure that already began last year), UEFA can (and probably will continue) to implement European football.
And UEFA turns out (and probably would) to save it from forming a Super League, unless member clubs break absolutely with the established design of football, adding domestic leagues, something they have explicitly stated they would not.
“We will continue to shape the European sports model collectively with national associations, leagues, clubs, fans, players, coaches, EU institutions, governments and partners alike,” UEFA said in a statement.
And FIFA will continue to control world football. ” With the utmost respect to the European Court of Justice,” FIFA President Gianni Infantino said in a statement, “today’s ruling does not replace anything. “
Despite all these details, Real Madrid president Florentino Perez “welcomed the resolution. “
A22 boldly proclaimed: “After almost 70 years, UEFA’s monopoly on European football has come to an end. Without worrying about sanctions, clubs can now brazenly propose and talk about new concepts for European competitions during the week. With the #DerechoACompete, a new era begins.
In a few hours, with pre-produced videos on a remodeled website, they had already proposed two of those contests.
The “European Men’s Super League” would be an expanded, amended version of the reviled April 2021 Super League — with one key difference: Nobody would be guaranteed a permanent place in it.
In 2021, the 12 founders introduced a 20-team league. They had hoped to woo three other classic powerhouses, and indicated that those 15 clubs would be excluded from relegation from the Super League. Only five spots would be open to others, up to qualification in the domestic leagues.
This semi-closed format reeked blatantly of selfishness. This has led to widespread and scathing reprimands. Thus, two and a half years later, the new proposal provides for promotions and relegations.
The redesigned format would come with 64 groups divided into 3 levels: 16 in the first level, 16 in the second and 32 in the third. And after the season. . .
On point 1: two qualified last autumn to point 2; Tier 2 finishers upgrade to Tier 1.
On point 2: two qualified last autumn at point 3; Tier 3 finishers upgrade to Tier 2.
At point 3: 20 of the 32 organisations (the bottom five in an eight-team organisation) are absolutely excluded from the Super League; they are replaced by other clubs that, as in the current Champions League, qualify thanks to their performances in their domestic leagues.
The women’s format would mirror the first two tiers of the men’s competition. Both are explained, verbally and visually, here and here. The organizations would be divided into organizations of eight, with the top 4 from each organization qualifying for a classic playoff. Matches would be played midweek during the season, replacing the Champions League but allowing clubs to remain in their popular domestic leagues.
A22 also announced grand plans to create a free, direct-to-consumer streaming platform; “strictly” the “monetary sustainability rules”; make more money than ever; and then share at least €400 million a year, or 8% of Super League revenue, with grassroots and non-Super League clubs.
A22 and its sponsors, however, have not detailed how they would achieve this. And they have a global problem: they don’t have 64, or even 32 clubs that need to participate. They have two.
Within 48 hours of their April 2021 announcement, nine of the 12 founders — Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham, Atletico Madrid, Inter Milan and AC Milan — pulled out of the project.
Real Madrid, Barca and Juventus held firm until Juve also pulled out last summer.
The two Spanish giants forged ahead and celebrated Thursday’s ruling. Perez, the Real president, said it would mark an inflection point and “a great day for the history of football and for the history of sport.”
But their former partners quickly distanced themselves from the Super League. “Our position has not changed,” Manchester United said in a brief Thursday statement. Nor has Bayern Munich’s — “such a competition would be an attack on the importance of the national leagues and the structure of European football,” CEO Jan Christian Dreesen said in a statement. “So let me make it very clear once again that the door for the Super League remains closed at FC Bayern.”
Borussia Dortmund, PSG, Atletico Madrid, Inter Milan, Manchester City, Chelsea and a long list of other big clubs have also opposed it. The English Premier League, as a united entity, said it “continues to reject such a concept. “The European Club Association, an organization representing more than 400 professional clubs, said Thursday’s court ruling “does not endorse or endorse in any way a Super League project. “
“In short, the world of football moved on from the Super League years ago, and progressive reforms will continue,” the ECA said.
UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin spoke at a press conference when most of its members were united in their opposition and took aim at the A22 and those resisting the Super League.
“Christmas is coming; they saw a big, well-decorated box under the tree; they were super satisfied and celebrating,” Ceferin sang. “But then when they opened the box, they realized there wasn’t much inside. “
For now, the Super League itself is very much dead. A22 is a corporate zombie. But the concept will likely never die because the market forces that fueled it still exist.
The dynamics of forces in European football have evolved over the last decade. Wealth and talent migrated to Inglaterra. La Premier League makes a lot of money; their clubs court players with this money; the players create an entertaining product, which the Premier League sells to broadcasters and sponsors for lucrative sums, which make their way to the clubs, who can then attract even more important players.
The cycle, catalyzed by gigantic television contracts, has become irreversible. And continental Europe is struggling to stay on its feet. According to Transfermarkt data compiled via Yahoo Sports, the annual gap in net spending between the Premier League and the other four “big five” leagues combined was around €200 million in 2011-12, the last season before the EPL gets its first genuine television. Five years later, the hole widened to 800 million people. Last summer, that number rose to $1. 35 billion, and it was even higher in January.
To keep pace with England, continental superclubs such as Barcelona and Real Madrid are pushing for a higher percentage of their domestic league revenues, which, in turn, exacerbates domestic inequality. Spending within those leagues is incredibly uneven. Even before COVID-19 During the pandemic, in 2019, the English Premier League’s highest-spending club spent 10 times more than its poorest club. In Italy’s Serie A, the ratio was 16:1; in the German Bundesliga, 22 to 1; in the Spanish La Liga, 25 to 1; and in the French Ligue 1, 36 to 1.
A surprising number of clubs in Italy, France, Spain and other countries (including Barcelona) are now in monetary difficulty. And if they can’t reverse the cycle, they’ll probably have to break it.
Their first attempt, the 2021 Super League, was an overreach. It was poorly conceived, poorly communicated and politically miscalculated. Its mistakes and subsequent collapse stained the entire Super League concept, so much so that Thursday’s proposal — which is far more sensible — was summarily dismissed as a nonstarter. It has failed.
But similar concepts still have merit. The current trajectory of European football is not sustainable. The rich are getting richer and the poor are becoming poor. The same groups win. Something has to change. Disruption is necessary.
Advertising
Advertising
Advertisement
Advertising
Advertising
Advertising
Advertising
Advertising
Advertising
Advertisement
Advertising