UEFA Superleague idea

Discussion in 'UEFA and Europe' started by barroldinho, Aug 3, 2009.

  1. Within the context of European football it is, as it is, in contrast to the USA, considered a cultural heritage. To circumvent that the ESL needs a cartel structure, which is forbidden by law.
    However if there's a higher cause served with something forbidden under EU law, it is possible to get an exemption from EU laws. An example is the rule that no under 18 year old and in case of EU citizens under 16 is allowed to play for a club outside his country. Normally it infringes the freedom of movement and labour. This rule got the exemption from the European Commission for it is ment to serve the higher cause of fighting child trafficking.

    But good luck trying to convince the EU that the whole purpose of the ESL, lining the pockets of billionairs, is a higher cause.
     
  2. soccerr9

    soccerr9 Member+

    Jun 6, 2005
    If the alternative is an ESL breakaway, then the bottom 5 will be out of luck either way. The teams ranked 15 and below will at least have the opportunity to avoid regulation by playing well enough.

    A 20 team domestic league is arbitrary. If the tops teams are obligated to worry about clubs ranked 15 and below then why not have a 25 team league or 30 to help even lower rated clubs? It would mean more uncompetitive fixtures.

    So the way it is now isn't ideal. Moving to a breakaway Super League would kill the domestic game. So yes, I think I'd rather an expanded CL with more fixtures with fewer domestic matches by moving to a 15 team first division.
     
  3. That situation was created by UEFA, that bowed for the threat of the big clubs to break away. Article after article about the legal consequences and barriers show it's a mission impossible to form a cross border break away league. UK clubs can't join that Euro league because of the Brexit, cross border leagues will be blocked by the EU, unless it can be proven to serve a higher purpose and cartel structures have even a higher mountain to climb to be given green light.

    The great thing about this ESL thing is that once and for all it will be decided if those clubs threatening had a real hammer or a fluffy one. In case of a fluffy one the big clubs are going to pay for their bullying.
    Either way, this ESL thing is going to change the make up of European soccer.
     
  4. An interesting book on the subject of the ESL is this one:
    EU Sports Law and Breakaway Leagues in Football
    Door Katarina Pijetlovic

    In it on page 287, the possibility of clubs to be both member of an UEFA league and the ESL is ruled out as the EU court has decided it can be ruled out by an organization that a member can be member too of a competing entity.
    It basically means you can't compete with the organization you're a member of.
    So no safeguard for the clubs to be member of and earn money in the existing league, while building up the new league
     
  5. on page 293 it is interesting to read that running a league cannot be entrusted to clubs or investors, but has to be done by a governing body:
    upload_2018-11-7_4-38-55.png
     
  6. soccerr9

    soccerr9 Member+

    Jun 6, 2005
    Whether or not an ESL happens (which isn't something I'd want to see as a fan of the domestic leagues), the current club situation isn't great either.

    The top 4-6 clubs dominate the bottom half of the table in Italy, England, and Spain. Germany and France have a bit more unpredictability, but the top team is far better than the teams fighting against relegation.

    Meanwhile the Champions league is just too short. There aren't enough fixtures. Clubs of smaller countries would even benefit from more CL games since they would play a greater number of matches against the European elite. I'd imagine that this would help them financially.

    So if the ESL is being used as a bargaining tool to actually reform the balance between the domestic and European fixtures, then I think it may be a helpful.
     
  7. If it turns out that the ESL is a fata morgana, it takes a extortion weapon from the hands of the superclubs and we can work towards a less topclub skewed media payout. It also gives the UEFA back the possibility to turn back the more and more lining of the pockets of the top clubs in the CL.
    If for instance Ajax would win the CL and ManCity doesnot get passed the last eight, or maybe even passed the last 16, Ajax would get far less money than city because Ajax is from a small country.
    Imagine that Kim Cleijsters, the Belgian multiple Wimbledon winner, would be payed less for winning it than Serena Williams, if she would be eliminated in the quarter final as coming from the far bigger USA. Nobody would accept that.
     
  8. That would take leagues of 16-17 teams to provide more match days for the CL.
     
  9. Steve Page

    Steve Page Member

    Oct 30, 2013
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Champions League isn't too short, it is too long. People don't care for most of the group stage matches.

    The disparity in money mostly comes from domestic league TV deals rather than the Champions League distribution.
     
  10. ??
    PSV earned with their run into the quarter final, stopped by one penalty by Atletico Madrid about half the money the big four leagues clubs that were eliminated in the same round bagged, which is a whopping 40 million difference.
    PSV doesnot make a tenth of that in TV money in the Dutch league. With that difference as a Dutch club (PSV, Feyenoord, Ajax) you can afford to buy and pay two players that really can make the difference in being able to get to the next stage.
     
  11. Steve Page

    Steve Page Member

    Oct 30, 2013
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    The UK Government is in the business of getting re-elected. It may not appear that way much of the time but it is the case. The quality of league football is far more important to the public than the quality of the national team. Supporters of the big clubs would vote against the Government if they thought their teams had been weakened. Giving young English players more opportunity may be desirable but it will not affect votes either way.

    Thoroughly agree that the people who want a super league do not understand the level of opposition they will face. Public opinion in the UK is that the commercialisation of football has gone far too far already, especially in England. No politician would back the removal of our top clubs from our domestic league.

    Most likely it just suits everyone to suggest this every few years in order to push their agenda elsewhere. The clubs involved get to wield a threat in negotiations whilst Governments and UEFA get to grandstand.
     
  12. Steve Page

    Steve Page Member

    Oct 30, 2013
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    40 million is nothing in the context of 100 million for clubs relegated from the Premier League.
     
  13. Yup, but in the European CL context it does matter for clubs like the Dutch and Belgian ones.
     
  14. soccerr9

    soccerr9 Member+

    Jun 6, 2005
    People don't care about the group stage when it's clear who will advance before matches are even played. They are very entertaining when a greater number of good sides are grouped together. Look at the Napoli, Liverpool, PSG group or Barca, Inter, Tottenham one. These matches have been super entertaining.
     
  15. Steve Page

    Steve Page Member

    Oct 30, 2013
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    What it would do is move them further ahead of their domestic opponents. This link (https://talksport.com/football/3763...ned-tv-and-their-final-position-180518283150/) shows just how much money is in the Premier League. It is actually split a lot more fairly/evenly than Champions League money. However, if Champions League money was split this way it would massively skew leagues such as in The Netherlands. The Super League idea is regularly floated in order to ensure that Champions League TV money is not distributed more evenly.
     
  16. soccerr9

    soccerr9 Member+

    Jun 6, 2005
    Yes exactly which is what I mentioned above. An expanded CL (same number of teams but more fixtures) and a smaller domestic league (15/16 teams) is a better way to go than an ESL that essentially kills the domestic game.
     
  17. Steve Page

    Steve Page Member

    Oct 30, 2013
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    You generally get a couple of decent groups each year. A majority of matches are relatively uninteresting. Of course you cannot watch them all but the overall feel is underwhelming.
     
  18. Steve Page

    Steve Page Member

    Oct 30, 2013
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    More money to the Champions League competitors further cements their domestic advantage. At the same time there would be more dead rubber European fixtures to bore the pants off everyone. In addition you would be chucking ~4 proud teams out of domestic top divisions. The non-Champions League teams that remain in the top division have ~8 fewer fixtures.

    Any changes to football should focus on clipping the wings of the top clubs to the benefit of the rest.
     
    Hideo repped this.
  19. Well, if the legal challenges to that ESL prove to be deadly, it heralds the freeing of the UEFA from the grip of the superclubs, as their extortion instrument is from that moment made of rubber.
    Then the UEFA can start to clip wings.
     
  20. Robert Borden

    Robert Borden Member+

    Chelsea
    Canada
    Apr 19, 2017
    Toronto, Ontario
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
  21. Ahem, no. I posted this in another thread:
     
  22. Robert Borden

    Robert Borden Member+

    Chelsea
    Canada
    Apr 19, 2017
    Toronto, Ontario
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    Not sure that this applies here.

    The ESL teams would take themselves out of the FIFA umbrella. Why in the world should FIFA be obliged to allow the players in it's tournaments???

    If they were kicked out of FIFA for unjust reasons and banned the players on top of that, you have a point here.

    However, those teams "CHOOSE" to leave the sanctioning body and the players "CHOOSE" to stay with those teams "KNOWING" that they wouldn't be allowed in the World Cup "A privilege, not a right"

    What politicians says versus what a court would end up ruling on at the end is apple and oranges. There's no laws forcing FIFA to allow X players in it's tournaments outside it's umbrella.

    FIFA would go to court very fast on this and they'd most likely win.
     
  23. No, it's about abusing power as a federation. The EU Commission has ordered that a federation cannot ban individuals from participating in events organized by them as a retalliation for taking part in an event outside of their federation. So if FIFA would let's say ban Kevin de Bruyne from future WC matches, because he plays for ManCity in the ESL, it is abuse of power.
    And no, FIFA wouldnot win it, as a sportsfederation already has been punished for doing so. It would be rather pointless and serve only to line the pockets of lawyers to go into a fight another league already has done and lost.

    Second, soccer and national teams are part of the cultural heritage in Europe. To ban a player like Kevin de Bruyne as a measure of retaliation for him playing in the ESL, would be an infringement of the rights of both Belgium and Kevin to be part of that cultural heritage by abusing your power.

    Anyway, people specialized in EU law and sports already subscribed the validity of the EU Commissionair's warning.
     

Share This Page