European Super League

[shark]

Have to laugh at the fake hysteria. The same people making excuses for the premier league being the exact same thing as it was pre 1992 but only being rebranded, are the same people that claim Liverpool have only won the league once.
You couldn't make it up. Hypocrites. According to them, the "Premier League" is fine, but a big no no to the European super league.
The games gone

16 of the premier league's 22 founding members have been relegated since its foundation. 49 different clubs have played in it. It has it's flaws, but at least the results on the pitch matter.

[thewobbler]

Have to laugh at the fake hysteria. The same people making excuses for the premier league being the exact same thing as it was pre 1992 but only being rebranded, are the same people that claim Liverpool have only won the league once.
You couldn't make it up. Hypocrites. According to them, the "Premier League" is fine, but a big no no to the European super league.
The games gone

It's not really the same thing. Until 1991, all 92 clubs had equal voting rights and in effect a group of the weakest clubs could dictate terms to the largest clubs.

What the PL did was maintain almost identical structures to before, but while ensuring that the biggest clubs could pursue financial arrangements that would allow them to match Italian clubs.

The change was oddly enough an implementation of equality: basically "we all started with an equal chance of getting ahead, but that doesn't mean we have to be equal in all things forever"

As Leicester and Man City have shown, progress through the ranks has always been possible

——

What we are facing now isn't the same thing. It's an attempted corporate takeover of football.

[Hound]

Going to be fascinating to see what happens next.

Not sure I'd be dismissing this as just a negotiating tactic, as we're a very long way through the negotiations and UEFA have already made concessions. 

This idea/threat has been put to UEFA many months ago as a negotiating tactic. This has resulted in UEFA changing the format of the Champions League (expected to be formally announced today), where there are 2 backdoor slots for big clubs. So Liverpool could finish 5th in the league and get a backdoor slot (Arsenal, Spurs and maybe Juve could all be looking for such slots though).

It's going to need Premier League approval to get off the ground. As Gary Neville said this morning, how can the other clubs approve this, when by doing so you are guaranteeing the Big 6 an extra £100m a year (maybe £300m a year) so that would surely mean they would lock in those top six positions for ever more?

Is the next negotiating tactic that if the Premier League doesn't approve it, the big 6 will threaten to join the Super League full time rather than just midweek?

The various FA's, UEFA and FIFA could scupper this in one fair swoop.
Play in this league and you're banned from all other sanctioned football leagues and tournaments, World cups and all.

The players would have to think long and hard about that one.

Absolutely.

Although the various FA's, UEFA and FIFA are all separate bodies, with varying levels of competency.

It will come to the Breakaway Clubs versus UEFA, in attempting to get the FAs and FIFA onside. If the clubs do manage to persuade their national leagues to accept it, then I think they'd get FIFA onside too, as FIFA will want the best players playing international football.

But if it did come to an unreconcilable position and the FAs/FIFA/UEFA all held firm and the breakaways decided to form their own European Super League and they got their multi billion TV deals all set up, I don't think players missing out on international football would scupper it.

Would many players take a 50% paycut to join West Ham, Southampton, etc. because it would allow them play international football?
(If such a thing did get off the ground, I think FIFA would buckle soon enough anyway).

(I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of conversation, it's also impossible to imagine the club owners getting away with this!)

[seafoid]

Have to laugh at the fake hysteria. The same people making excuses for the premier league being the exact same thing as it was pre 1992 but only being rebranded, are the same people that claim Liverpool have only won the league once.
You couldn't make it up. Hypocrites. According to them, the "Premier League" is fine, but a big no no to the European super league.
The games gone

It's not really the same thing. Until 1991, all 92 clubs had equal voting rights and in effect a group of the weakest clubs could dictate terms to the largest clubs.

What the PL did was maintain almost identical structures to before, but while ensuring that the biggest clubs could pursue financial arrangements that would allow them to match Italian clubs.

The change was oddly enough an implementation of equality: basically "we all started with an equal chance of getting ahead, but that doesn't mean we have to be equal in all things forever"

As Leicester and Man City have shown, progress through the ranks has always been possible

——

What we are facing now isn't the same thing. It's an attempted corporate takeover of football.

The EPL is an intermediate stage between the Football League and this proposal.

in the 30 years prior to the EPL, 9 clubs won

Ipswich
Forest
Liverpool
Leeds
Derby
Man Utd
Everton
Villa

Several outsiders

In the EPL era, 7 clubs have won

Blackburn
Chelsea
Liverpool
Man Utd
Chelsea
Man City
Leicester

Only 1 non moneybags
The big moneybags teams win more EPL titles than they did in the Football League .

This latest proposal is about turning football into a reliable cashflow.

[thewobbler]

I'm not really sure how FIFA/UEFA could interpret employment law in such a way that they can prevent players changing "code" in either direction.

I'd then expect it would be up to each individual FA to honour a gentleman's agreement not to select the "renegades". Good luck with that one.

—-/

This is going to happen folks.

But the better news is that there's at least a 50:50 chance it will fall on its face within a few years.

The risks the clubs are taking:

1. That people will always tune into say Man Utd v Madrid, regardless of circumstance. Footballers are innately horrible bastards. So when they've nothing to play for, they don't try. And a competition with only one prize, and no relegation, would have dead rubbers once a quarter the season is gone, and half the games would be dead rubbers from the halfway point. That's not entertainment, and champions league viewing figures show that people don't tune into European dead rubbers.

2. That the players won't just run their own coup on this one, and leave finances exactly as they are... or maybe worse. The new competition won't have salary caps, and won't have honour among clubs. Some like Mbappe could horse trade his way to a million a week. Which is okay. The problems will really happen when the Mbappe lites are claiming half a million a week to watch dead rubber games from the bench.

3. The leagues in Spain, England and Italy might continue to prosper without those 12 clubs. Now don't get me wrong they wouldn't have the same pulling power. But sponsorship and tv rights needs bidding wars to become lucrative. If the major car manufacturers are happy to be associated with national competitions, and then major investment banks the same, then there may not quite be the level of contributions for the new competition, as predicted.

[bennydorano]

The ESL offers no improvement on anything structural, that is the most obvious issue, it is a clear pull up the ladder behind you money grab. It's such a retrograde step for football in general, I'd love to see a confrontation

[shark]

I'm not really sure how FIFA/UEFA could interpret employment law in such a way that they can prevent players changing "code" in either direction.

I'd then expect it would be up to each individual FA to honour a gentleman's agreement not to select the "renegades". Good luck with that one.

—-/

This is going to happen folks.

But the better news is that there's at least a 50:50 chance it will fall on its face within a few years.

The risks the clubs are taking:

1. That people will always tune into say Man Utd v Madrid, regardless of circumstance. Footballers are innately horrible bastards. So when they've nothing to play for, they don't try. And a competition with only one prize, and no relegation, would have dead rubbers once a quarter the season is gone, and half the games would be dead rubbers from the halfway point. That's not entertainment, and champions league viewing figures show that people don't tune into European dead rubbers.

2. That the players won't just run their own coup on this one, and leave finances exactly as they are... or maybe worse. The new competition won't have salary caps, and won't have honour among clubs. Some like Mbappe could horse trade his way to a million a week. Which is okay. The problems will really happen when the Mbappe lites are claiming half a million a week to watch dead rubber games from the bench.

3. The leagues in Spain, England and Italy might continue to prosper without those 12 clubs. Now don't get me wrong they wouldn't have the same pulling power. But sponsorship and tv rights needs bidding wars to become lucrative. If the major car manufacturers are happy to be associated with national competitions, and then major investment banks the same, then there may not quite be the level of contributions for the new competition, as predicted.

This isn't even in question, in my option.
In England, games outside the Premier League get 130% of the combined attendances of the Premier League its self. Albeit spread across many many more games, and for much cheaper ticket prices. Nobody in Africa/Asia is interested in clubs outside the top few - but the people who actually go to the games are very much interested. I think these clubs are overplaying their hand. Of course they may realise this and it may all be about anchoring for bargaining power.

[Hound]

Interesting points wobbler

1. That people will always tune into say Man Utd v Madrid, regardless of circumstance. Footballers are innately horrible bastards. So when they've nothing to play for, they don't try. And a competition with only one prize, and no relegation, would have dead rubbers once a quarter the season is gone, and half the games would be dead rubbers from the halfway point. That's not entertainment, and champions league viewing figures show that people don't tune into European dead rubbers.

Agreed. The premier league always has dead rubbers from mid table teams towards the end of the season, and there's never really an issue with them as teams do seem to want to finish say 9th instead of 12th, etc. It would presumably be more pronounced under this system. They'll probably build something into it that allows for some minor reason why it's better to finish higher. NFL is never worried about dead rubbers. Once the stadiums are full and TV deals done, it may not matter hugely.

2. That the players won't just run their own coup on this one, and leave finances exactly as they are... or maybe worse. The new competition won't have salary caps, and won't have honour among clubs. Some like Mbappe could horse trade his way to a million a week. Which is okay. The problems will really happen when the Mbappe lites are claiming half a million a week to watch dead rubber games from the bench.

I think the 12 clubs are proposing to agree to an agreed spend per year.

3. The leagues in Spain, England and Italy might continue to prosper without those 12 clubs. Now don't get me wrong they wouldn't have the same pulling power. But sponsorship and tv rights needs bidding wars to become lucrative. If the major car manufacturers are happy to be associated with national competitions, and then major investment banks the same, then there may not quite be the level of contributions for the new competition, as predicted.

Agreed.

[BennyCake]

There was a time I'd rarely miss a CL game or highlights. Nowadays I rarely even watch the semis/final. There are too many teams (who aren't even their league winners), too many meaningless games. It's boring watching the same teams playing over and over again.

But fans are fickle. They will buy tickets to any old shite. Blind loyalty, while money is sucked from their wallets.

Yes the PL is full of money men but it's still the results that matter.

[bennydorano]

There was a time I'd rarely miss a CL game or highlights. Nowadays I rarely even watch the semis/final. There are too many teams (who aren't even their league winners), too many meaningless games. It's boring watching the same teams playing over and over again.

But fans are fickle. They will buy tickets to any old shite. Blind loyalty, while money is sucked from their wallets.

Yes the PL is full of money men but it's still the results that matter.

Been going that way myself, the lack of fans also highlights how much atmosphere matters and actually masks the muck that's on offer a lot of the time.

[TabClear]

The dead rubber point is a key one for me. CL pool round 6 usually has at least half the pools with dead rubbers. As a Liverpool fan the only thing keeping me interested at the minute is trying to get the Top 4 spot. If that doesnt matter then I am pretty sure I would find something else to do tonight. I would guess they will address this by US type Top 4 in each group into "post season" etc.

There are successful closed leagues such as US sports and AFL in Australia but based on very different principles. The AFL obviously is the national sport and I think the big clubs have effective B Teams in local regional leagues that seems to work quite well. The NFL is an absolute money rules everything concept (anyone who has seen Ballers on Sky with Dwayne Johnson will appreciate). They do not give one fcuk about anything other than  money. How else can you just move a team thousands of miles to a different city?

One thing the single leagues usually have in common is a draft. This helps to keep it competitive and generally does not allow one team to completely dominate for long periods like Bayern/Barca/Utd/Liverpool/RM/Juve have in the past. That is something that will be interesting if this ever came about,  all these clubs used to winning something eevry couple of years might have to get used to No Trophies being the norm.

All in all I do not have a problem replacing the CL. I think Uefa have brought this on themselves with their constant changes (all designed to line their own pockets) but the concept of a closed shop is totally wrong.

[laoislad]

Are we all in agreement it's hilarious that Spurs are included in this Super League?

[Louther]

There was a time I'd rarely miss a CL game or highlights. Nowadays I rarely even watch the semis/final. There are too many teams (who aren't even their league winners), too many meaningless games. It's boring watching the same teams playing over and over again.

But fans are fickle. They will buy tickets to any old shite. Blind loyalty, while money is sucked from their wallets.

Yes the PL is full of money men but it's still the results that matter.

Been going that way myself, the lack of fans also highlights how much atmosphere matters and actually masks the muck that's on offer a lot of the time.

Are you two related? 

[thewobbler]

Are we all in agreement it's hilarious that Spurs are included in this Super League?

I'm rolling over backwards laughing at how the 9th richest club in the world managed to get a place in a financially elite football competition.

[seafoid]

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/ken-early-super-league-s-naked-power-grab-aims-for-permanent-aristocracy-1.4540872

Ken Early: Super League's naked power-grab aims for permanent aristocracy
Breakaway attempt is a gamble on the nature of fandom across the world
Today was meant to be a good day down at Uefa HQ. At 1.30 this afternoon they were due to unveil the big Champions League revamp.
The Swiss System, or as Uefa's press release put it: "Every. Game. Counts." Four extra games for everybody, four extra places in the competition, more money all round – what's not to like?
Well, lots of things actually, but what are you going to do – it's not like there's some other Champions League you can go and watch instead.
As it turned out, by mid-afternoon on Sunday,  Uefa found itself issuing the most dramatic call to arms in the organisation's history.
A joint statement from the European governing body along with the football associations and leagues in each of England, Spain and Italy read: "[We] have learned that a few English, Spanish and Italian clubs may be planning to announce their creation of a closed, so-called Super League. If this were to happen, we wish to reiterate that we . . . will remain united in our efforts to stop this cynical project, a project that is founded on the self-interest of a few clubs at a time when society needs solidarity more than ever.

"We will consider all measures available to us . . ... to prevent this happening . . . We call on all lovers of football, supporters and politicians, to join us in fighting against such a project if it were to be announced. This persistent self-interest of a few has been going on for too long. Enough is enough."
"This persistent self-interest of a few" has indeed been going on a long time.
It has been the force driving the reorganisation of European football since the 1980s, and Uefa are well-placed to know because they've been negotiating with it at every turn. The Champions League reforms to be announced today were just the latest stage in that decades-long process, the latest concession in a long Cold War in which the balance of power has shifted gradually but steadily in favour of the biggest clubs.
News of the planned breakaway suggests those clubs finally feel as though they hold the whip hand.
Uefa's statement, with its reference to "a time when society needs solidarity more than ever" made it sound as though they were shocked and outraged that the clubs could make a break for it now, in the tragic context of the pandemic.

Their indignation was shared by pundit Gary Neville, who told Sky Sports "to bring forward proposals in the midst of Covid and the economic crisis for all clubs is an absolute scandal".
Such moral grandstanding misses the point that the pandemic is literally the crisis that has prompted the would-be breakaway clubs to make their move.
Last November, the European Club Association's annual report predicted that Covid would inflict €5 billion of losses on European football clubs by the end of the 2021 season.
Meanwhile the TV rights market has been curdling for some time. The Premier League lost a Chinese TV contract worth nearly half a billion dollars, the French league's new TV deal collapsed in December, while the German and Italian TV rights auctions did not meet expectations.
The big clubs in the Premier League have long felt as though they should be getting a bigger share of the pie; the League has been able to contain this anger by making sure the pie keeps growing. Now that trend has reversed the anger is becoming explosive.
Incremental measures

The logic of European football at the top end has long suggested the eventual establishment of some kind of superleague. The essential problem is that the game in Europe is an uncontrolled arms race between clubs who aren't all playing by the same commercial rules.
Uefa's effort at an arms-limitation treaty in the form of Financial Fair Play failed miserably. We have a Champions League semi-final line-up where three of the four clubs are owned by petro-billionaires or -trillionaires.
The big clubs' need for more and more money to fund spiralling wage and transfer costs is an itch that can never be scratched by the sort of incremental measures Uefa planned to announce today.

An NFL-style organisation incorporating spending restrictions such as salary caps is the only way to escape the arms race dynamic that has seen the likes of Barcelona – Europe's biggest club by turnover – plunge themselves into a billion euro of debt.
The major obstacle to the establishment of this American-style owners' paradise has always been: can't get there from here.
The European football structure has grown up organically over 150 years, rather than being designed rationally according to which regional conurbation could best support a profitable franchise at any given time. Nobody has yet come up with a way by which the members of this Euro-NFL could be selected. Until now.
With previous successful plans to enrich the biggest clubs, such as the Premier League or the Champions League, it was always clear how the new formations would relate to the existing structure.

The Champions League created enormous new financial rewards for participating clubs, but if you wanted to collect them you had to qualify first. So while in practice the Champions League has entrenched elitism and inequality, in principle it remains a competition your team might get to play in.
The proposed breakaway league, with its permanent cast of 15 or 16 founder members, is different. It's a naked power-grab by a self-appointed group of gangster clubs who want to set themselves up as a permanent aristocracy.
A gamble
They must have anticipated that everyone else was going to hate it , since their proposal benefits nobody but themselves. The interesting question is: how do they expect to get away with it?
The breakaway is a gamble on the nature of fandom. The clubs would be betting that most existing fans would not be repulsed by the move, that the casual fans would tune in to see the top players, and that the angry objectors would be a noisy minority.
They might find they're grappling with larger forces than they'd reckoned with.
In an impassioned tirade on Sky Sports, Neville's key accusation was that the club owners had "no loyalty to this country or these leagues". Nigel Farage's tweet also hit on the theme of foreign subversion: "A breakaway European Union of Football backed by globalist banks and the so-called "Big Six" must fail."
With populist nationalism in the ascendant, the clubs are standing up for the rights of the international billionaire class to maximise profits. In an age of division and rancour, hating this idea might be the one thing all the peoples of Europe can agree on.