The collapse of the European Super League took place one year ago. The most revolutionary project in the history of the club game began to fall apart when the club issued a statement that they would be withdrawing. Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus were the last three clubs to make public apologies.
They have not given up the fight and continue to do battle in European courts, arguing that the two organizations are abusing a monopolistic position in violation of competition law by acting as both regulators and competition organizers. A lot will depend on the verdict returned by the European Court of Justice. The issues that led to the formation of the league have not gone away.
Does this mean the Super League could return?
If the ECJ finds in favor of Real Madrid, I think it is almost certain. It would depend on the wording of the verdict, but if the court rules that clubs cannot be punished by regulatory bodies for organizing their own tournaments and playing them against whoever they want, then it would be possible.
I would imagine most of the clubs would be back on board after they apologized and said they made a terrible mistake. They would say they were following the law. The law allowed them to form a league.
How likely is it that the ECJ will support the Super League? Will it issue a verdict?
We don't know if it will issue a verdict or not. It is expected to be later this year, but it is just speculation. It could decide that there are no grounds to make a ruling. We would be in a state of limbo. It could give football an exemption from some aspects of competition law. That would signal the end of the Super League.
If the ECJ concludes that professional football is primarily a business and European law guarantees the right to businesses to compete as they see fit, would that be a problem? That is another matter.
A: What is the counterargument of UEFA?
The latest news and reaction from Gabriele.
I would imagine that the first thing the organization would say is that it is not a business, but a public trust that runs the game from amateur to professionals. The most lucrative competition in club sport doesn't squirrel away the profits. They are given back to clubs and federations to support the game. The police, the public health service, and the highway system are all examples of a monopoly. Every penny is reinvested for the common good.
It is a classic socialism vs capitalism argument. I think the political mood in Europe will determine where the ECJ stands on this.
What is it right now?
In terms of numbers, I think there is still widespread opposition. The 12 Super League clubs may have been among the biggest in Europe, but they only represent three leagues. If the ECJ gave the green light, you can still argue that a number of clubs from just five nations would join.
There are many more nations and clubs in Europe. Fans of other clubs turn into voters on election day. The ECJ is supposed to be independent of politics, but in reality it is guided by current sentiment. The way in which the project was introduced has caused the sentiment among non-Super League clubs to be against it.
What do you mean?
The Super League was terrible at explaining why this is necessary. It said that the system is broken and that it is the best way to fix it.
It was never explained how solidarity payments to those outside the Super League would benefit the rest of football. When you look at the financial state of many of the Super League clubs, it is not a surprise that many of you are doing this to be greedy.
Their business argument included guaranteeing places for themselves, generating more revenue by playing more games, keeping a bigger slice of that revenue, and promising to enforce cost controls like salary caps.
Why were so many fans of Super League clubs against it, despite the fact that non-Super League fans were against it? Was it the media's reaction?
I don't think so. The pyramid system has served European football well for over 100 years, and even fans whose clubs would have benefited from it see their own club as sitting atop a greater whole. It came across as a power grab and, I think, even among the most pro-Super League fans, they still bristled at it. People like to see themselves as bad guys.
The business argument for the Super League is more European games, more spots for big clubs, bigger slice of the pie for big clubs and tighter financial controls.
It was pretty much. That's why some say it's a Super League by another name and things like the historical coefficient are what rankles many. The new rules cap spending as a percentage of revenue.
So the Super League clubs got what they wanted? At least some of it?
I think so. I think this speaks to the fact that some of their concerns were legitimate. I guess every business wants more money and lower costs. I understand how playing more games will bring in more revenue, but if everyone makes more money, you have to spend more money on transfers and wages.
The problem with cost controls is that they need to be enforced and they need to be transparent, ideally without discouraging legitimate investment. The Paris Saint-Germain and Manchester City cases with clubs being sanctioned and then appealing and often winning, has made it difficult for the European Union to do that.
We don't know much about the new enforcement mechanisms, but unless they are tough and transparent, European football won't rid itself of this notion of illegality. That will lead to more cynicism and acrimony. European football has a trust problem.
The other problem is the imbalance of resources.
That is built into the system, and that makes it difficult for UEFA to cater to all levels of the game. We already have a tiered system, with massive polarization at the top. In the coming days, Paris Saint-Germain will make it eight of the last 10 from the French top flight, as well as a ninth in a row in the Italian top flight. There isn't a lot of variety in terms of who qualifies for the Champions League when you have different teams winning it. Since 2005, only one side outside the Big Six has finished in the top four.
There are different ownership structures and goals within the group of super clubs. The owners of City and Paris Saint-Germain are not simply motivated by profit and have a lot of resources. Real Madrid, Barcelona, and other nonprofits invest in the club but don't measure success by the bottom line. The owners of AC Milan and other teams want to turn a profit in the long run.
The nature of the landscape is so different. globalisation and commercialisation have made it more extreme. I am skeptical about the prospects of a club-run Super League, regardless of what the ECJ rules. This isn't the NFL. These are not like-minded owners and clubs. These are entities that are too different to work together on their own, so they wanted the seal of approval from the EU. They wanted their cake and wanted to eat it as well.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
