European Super League

This just isn't true, though. Arsenal has no chance of making the Champions League this year. In an ESL, they are guaranteed to participate every year. This move closes the door to every club in the EPL except the ESL members from participation. Think of all the money Everton, Leicester and West Ham have invested in trying to qualify for Europe. Think of what Leeds might try in the coming years. A breakway ESL renders all their efforts pointless. And as talent follows the clubs playing midweek in Europe, their ability to recruit stars would diminish to near zero. UCL was/is a goal and a consequence of the EPL, not a threat.

Imagine if this was done in 2008... where would Man City be right now? They were a mid-table club that had been relegated seven years prior in 2001. This breakway league permanently would prevent any team from following in Man City's footsteps. If that's not harming the domestic leagues, I don't know what is.

A breakway ESL decimates the next tier of clubs which, in turn, makes the domestic leagues that much less competitive. The only relevant decision in the domestic leagues will be the champion and like 4 out of 5 seasons we know that maybe a month from the end.

I don't follow. Or maybe you missed what was announced. UEFA and FIFA said players would be banned from international competition, period. The whole argument about being a free agent in international play is weird, since there are limits and many players would be cup tied. But it doesn't matter. FIFA is throwing its weight in here, too. Actually, all confederations are: https://bleacherreport.com/articles...ld-cup-bans-if-parent-clubs-join-super-league

But the reformed UCL proposal was actually an attempt to placate most of the clubs in question by guaranteeing more spots in the UCL proper for the top leagues and more guaranteed games for those clubs. And they just all signed up to play a guaranteed 18 European games in the ESL group stage, which is five more games than any club who qualifies directly into the UCL would play if they won the entire competition. The clubs want more games, not fewer. This paragraph is insinuating something that is demonstrably false. Read the article below, which contains this line, "An elite group of clubs has long asked UEFA for more guaranteed games in the Champions League, and to play each other more often before the knockout rounds."

https://www.si.com/soccer/2021/04/16/champions-league-format-expansion-uefa-approval#:~:text=An elite group of clubs,a traditional round-robin group.

The clubs in question asked UEFA for more games. UEFA was working to accommodate that--against the wishes of smaller leagues and clubs--and these 12 super clubs pulled the rug out from under them.

I am not sure how much evidence there is for what's being asserted here, which I've seen asserted elsewhere. As @RedStar91 points out, no one watches the ICC which is a test run of this ESL. And what does UCL broadcast ratings across Europe actually look like? Does they increase as we reach the knockout stages period or does they increase only when big teams play? Was Porto v Chelsea a historical low for recent times because Porto was involved or did it rate just like any other quarterfinal? I truly don't know the answer. But this whole "people only want to watch the big clubs play other big clubs" gets thrown around without much data to back it up. I'd also posit that while it's true Barcelona v Man United is always going to be a huge draw globally, I'm not quite sure Spurs v AC Milan is in the same zip code. So even the argument of "everyone wants to watch the big clubs," if true, starts to have diminishing returns after the first five or six super clubs.

This seems far too simplistic. No one knows what they can do practically because no one, apparently, foresaw how strong the pushback was going to be. Even today, Real's chairman is out simply saying that FIFA will "never" ban players and UEFA simply will not kick Real and other clubs out of this year's UCL. He's offering nothing to support those assertions. It's simply a high-level game of chicken.

Now, maybe he's right. Calling UEFA's bluff is interesting because UEFA needs the tv revenue from four semifinals. So he could win that one. And if he does, UEFA will look weak. But do I think a bunch of lawyers were consulted to plot out what UEFA might do in response and then assure him they would simply bluster? No. I don't. And I don't think lawyers gave advice about UEFA and FIFA being unable to take certain actions because it seems pretty clear that they either can or that litigation surrounding such decisions would stretch on for years.

You might be right on this. But if so, it is drastic posturing given where things were in negotiations over UCL format reforms. It's also very interesting that Bayern, PSG and Dortmund didn't join--apparently they thought this wasn't posturing or, I suppose, the postuing was far too aggressive and likely counterprodutive.

It's hard to see who will blink first here. Normally I'd say UEFA, but public opinion (as well as media, players, managers, smaller clubs, etc.) is with them so strongly. The next steps are going to be fascinating.

 

Not quite, they enter the CL if they win the Europa League, and that is a distinct possibility

 

This is the key issue as the ESL is predicated on vast television revenue flowing in. I remember how Fox was blindsided several years ago whey they put in a low ball renewal bid for EPL matches and NBC surprised them with a higher one to get the contract. Has NBC realized a profit on this investment? I don't know. CL and EL matches all moved to PPV this year and it was relatively inexpensive for me to get a subscription to CBS+ (now Paramount+) so that I could follow Ajax legitimately (e.g., no dodgy Russian streams). Again, are they getting a return on their investment? In the US we have seen other domestic leagues move around to other networks to good advantage with both Bundesliga and Serie A on ESPN+ (though I think Serie A is moving next season). Would an ESL diminish those broadcast agreements?

The other real issue for me is whether the permanent members of the ESL would continue to support development academies if they can just go out and buy proven talent? Isn't this pretty much what ManCity with a couple of exceptions does right now? If this is the case should not clubs such as Ajax get an added bonus if one of their academy players moves on to a Super League team? Why should the transfer of de Ligt (Juventus) or de Jong (Barca) be accompanied by an extra €10-20M more for the development? According to Florentino Perez of Madrid, the Super League will help soccer at all levels. Let him prove it by putting something like this into the governance.

 

Because there's no universal right to play in a competition sanctioned by an international NGO? FIFA employs plenty of restrictions on who can play and metes out its own discipline. I'm sure there would be legal challenges--probably in the EU courts--but I'm not sure how they would play out. What governmental or intergovernmental body could tell FIFA (and the confederations) how to run their own events? It would be an ugly process and at first glance FIFA seems on pretty decent ground to me.

I think it would be less of employment contracts and more the threat of no World Cups or international appointments and no domestic leagues via a FIFA ban. The PGMOL wouldn't say "you're done." The FA would have to say "you're banned by FIFA, so you're done."

Again, we are years away from this and I don't think this is coming to fruition as it was laid out. It's fun to speculate but this is either collapsing or occuring with accommodation. So the point is moot for referees or everything will work out for referees. One of the two.

 

European Super League: April 18, 2021 - April 20, 2021

 

Guess they couldn’t figure out the referee thing.

 

We've been mostly off-topic here so I don't feel much guilt saying that I am very interested to see how Real Madrid's chairman eats crow in the next 48 hours. He orchestrated this, it seems. After it was announced Sunday and flopped and then UEFA issued threats, he doubled down by flatly saying it would never happen.

All his English counterparts blinked. The game of chicken is over. Now it's time to figure out how the rest of the clubs bail. But Real Madrid is fascinating because its chairman has been the ringleader, the most outspoken, and Real Madrid is the only remaining club with something huge to lose right now (being kicked out of Champion's League). I would love to be a fly on the wall in that board room right now.

 

We might disagree. I think he was right to call the bluff if no one on his side would fold. But City and Chelsea did. United, under the same threat in the UEL, also folded.

There’s only one team left under threat and it is the most vocal club, the ringleader, and the guy who called the bluff. But now he’s standing with no allies. It’s now much easier for UEFA to kick Real out because giving the spot to Liverpool is a viable option when it wasn’t previously. You could punish Real and still play the semis. You’re right in asserting that they never really could have done that if all four affected teams stood firm.

And this is why he needs to eat crow and pull Real out. I just want to see how he does it.

 

Other people's money!