Footballs biggest open secret: The European Super League

[Prodigal7]

I've not seen it discussed much in the wider media so I wanted to post it here. I'm not ITK myself but I know someone who knows someone

Apparently, due to the increasing number of wealthy hobby owners of football clubs like Chelsea, City, PSG etc Europe's elite clubs are looking to protect their financial and competitive positions by creating a European Super League separate from UEFA. The logic being that the gigantic sums of money that wealthy owners (sometimes even countries) can throw at the best players to get them to join a club means historically larger clubs such as United, Real etc wouldn't be able to compete and it was deemed unfair. This was what gave rise to FFP. FFP kept the old guard from creating the Super League but now that FFP has effectively been thrown out in court, there is a big push to create this league again and exclude clubs like Man City, PSG and possibly Chelsea from it. A lot of people see this super league as inevitable and this FFP ruling is the immediate nudge needed to get it started.

Obviously a lot of English football purists and fans of teams that aren't United, Liverpool and Arsenal/Cheslea (who would be part of this Super League) would not be a fan of it. The moral question of whether a club should be able to spend their way to success can be told from both points of view but the reason against it is that other clubs put themselves into debt to compete and possibly go bankrupt, which was the basis for FFP.

Personally, I'd love to see United regularly against the best teams in the world as I'm a United fan and I think as it would be best for the club we shouldn't be frowned upon for pursuing it. It could be good for the English national team to have so many of the best English players concentrated in 3 teams too. We, along with other PL clubs have been most resistant to it until recently due to the popularity of the PL globally but now FFP has been invalidated and City would inevitably spend unlimited money to bring players to them. Same could apply with Newcastle if their takeover is approved, along with Chelsea being given free reign again.

Interested to hear other people's thoughts?

 

[JPRouve]

The only rumour of a super league includes PSG, City and Manchester City.

https://slate.com/culture/2018/12/super-league-soccer-teams-rumors.html

 

[Prodigal7]

The only rumour of a super league includes PSG, City and Manchester City.

https://slate.com/culture/2018/12/super-league-soccer-teams-rumors.html

That wouldn't work.

This is the one going around mostly and for the last 5 or 6 years:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...laugh-try-form-European-Super-League-now.html

Martin Samuel is obviously against it.

 

[Gary_Walsh_Nou_Camp_Hell]

Will never happen.

Bayern, Real, Juve etc. All enjoy being the big boys in their domestic leagues, winning trophies and watching their team batter inferior opposition.

Moving to a super league could result in any of the big clubs facing mid table obscurity. Or even worse cannon fodder near the bottom of the league.

Fans couldn't afford to travel to away games all over Europe so often and it would kill the game as a live spectator sport.

 

[JPRouve]

That wouldn't work.

This is the one going around mostly and for the last 5 or 6 years:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...laugh-try-form-European-Super-League-now.html

Martin Samuel is obviously against it.

That's not a rumour but an opinion piece. I linked you to an actual rumour based on Football Leaks documents about actual talks between clubs.

 

[Gary_Walsh_Nou_Camp_Hell]

That's not a rumour but an opinion piece. I linked you to an actual rumour based on Football Leaks documents about actual talks between clubs.

It's been mooted for decades. Non starter.

 

[Prodigal7]

Will never happen.

Bayern, Real, Juve etc. All enjoy being the big boys in their domestic leagues, winning trophies and watching their team batter inferior opposition.

Moving to a super league could result in any of the big clubs facing mid table obscurity. Or even worse cannon fodder near the bottom of the league.

Fans couldn't afford to travel to away games all over Europe so often and it would kill the game as a live spectator sport.

But this is the misunderstood part. Juve are among the biggest advocates for it (you can hear it from their CEO) because they earn feck all money from their domestic league and are consistently losing players to other leagues, damaging their ability to compete in the CL. Clubs are businesses as well in the end and they would make more money from a European Superleague.

 

[The Cat]

No thanks. I'm fine with playing the other European giants whenever we draw them in the CL.

 

[JPRouve]

It's been mooted for decades. Non starter.

I agree. I'm just making the point that the anti Chelsea-PSG-City super league isn't a thing. There is no point discussing something that no Football executive wants, Chelsea and PSG have been politically active in Football and are buddies with the other ECA members, City are a mystery they don't seem to be involved in Football politics but maybe they are.

 

[Prodigal7]

That's not a rumour but an opinion piece. I linked you to an actual rumour based on Football Leaks documents about actual talks between clubs.

Reading your article through it said those clubs would probably be invited, it didn't ay for sure though. The whole purpose of the league is to guard against unsustainable hobby spending and protect the position of the old guard so no doubt there'd be a lot of conditions for those clubs to join it.

 

[Gorse Hill Red]

exclude clubs like Man City, PSG and possibly Chelsea from it.

On what basis can you exclude these sort of teams?

 

[Prodigal7]

On what basis can you exclude these sort of teams?

The basis of my post above. Obviously the teams who decide to form this league would decide who joins it in the future and when they join it.

 

[adexkola]

On what basis can you exclude these sort of teams?

They didn't "earn" their success (whatever the feck that means)

 

[JPRouve]

Reading your article through it said those clubs would probably be invited, it didn't ay for sure though. The whole purpose of the league is to guard against unsustainable hobby spending so no doubt there'd be a lot of conditions for those clubs to join it.

Because they were listed in the document and the all purpose of the league is to increase revenue between the big clubs, it has nothing to do with guarding against unsustainable hobby spendings. It's on Mediapart and Der Spiegel, Football leaks sections. The following clubs, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, PSG, AC Milan, Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal would be the founding members with Atlético Madrid, AS Roma, Inter Milan, Borussia Dortmund and Marseille being the first clubs invited.

https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...-for-elite-league-of-top-clubs-a-1236447.html

The 11 clubs listed as "founders" of the European Super League -- the ones that would apparently not face relegation -- are Real Madrid, FC Barcelona, Manchester United, Juventus Turin, FC Chelsea, FC Arsenal, Paris Saint-Germain, Manchester City, FC Liverpool, AC Milan -- and Bayern Munich. All seven clubs in the secret society are represented. The five "initial guests," according to the document, would be Atlético Madrid, Borussia Dortmund, Olympique Marseille, Inter Milan and AS Roma.

 

[WolfInSharp'sClothing]

FFP was meant to be about protecting clubs from spending money they haven't got, not protecting the elite clubs from new money.

United's revenues are still more than 3 times the revenues of most other Premier League clubs. Your net spending over the last 10 years has been around £400m more than the club that's going to finish about 20 points clear in the league this season. It's only £50m short of PSG over the same period. That's anything but a level playing field!

Probably an unpopular opinion on here, but if wealthy football club owners want to inject wealth into a football club, as long as it is sustainable, they should be able to.

 

[Adam-Utd]

Think it would be shite personally.

It's exciting player them every now and again as it usually means you've done well in Europe and your domestic league.

if we played them every week it would just feel like any normal league, the excitement would be gone.

 

[SilentWitness]

I’d have to seriously consider watching football again or feeding into it if this happened to be honest.

 

[Prodigal7]

Because they were listed in the document and the all purpose of the league is to increase revenue between the big clubs, it has nothing to do with guarding against unsustainable hobby spendings. It's on Mediapart and Der Spiegel, Football leaks sections. The following clubs, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, PSG, AC Milan, Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal would be the founding members with Atlético Madrid, AS Roma, Inter Milan, Borussia Dortmund and Marseille being the first clubs invited.

From your own article:
"One of the first reports claimed that Real Madrid, AC Milan, Arsenal, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Juventus, and Manchester United discussed forming a breakaway league with “an option for leaving the national leagues and their football associations behind entirely.” Per the report, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, and Paris Saint-Germain would also be invited to join the league, which would begin in 2021."

 

[golden_blunder]

I've not seen it discussed much in the wider media so I wanted to post it here. I'm not ITK myself but I know someone who knows someone

Apparently, due to the increasing number of wealthy hobby owners of football clubs like Chelsea, City, PSG etc Europe's elite clubs are looking to protect their financial and competitive positions by creating a European Super League separate from UEFA. The logic being that the gigantic sums of money that wealthy owners (sometimes even countries) can throw at the best players to get them to join a club means historically larger clubs such as United, Real etc wouldn't be able to compete and it was deemed unfair. This was what gave rise to FFP. FFP kept the old guard from creating the Super League but now that FFP has effectively been thrown out in court, there is a big push to create this league again and exclude clubs like Man City, PSG and possibly Chelsea from it. A lot of people see this super league as inevitable and this FFP ruling is the immediate nudge needed to get it started.

Obviously a lot of English football purists and fans of teams that aren't United, Liverpool and Arsenal/Cheslea (who would be part of this Super League) would not be a fan of it. The moral question of whether a club should be able to spend their way to success can be told from both points of view but the reason against it is that other clubs put themselves into debt to compete and possibly go bankrupt, which was the basis for FFP.

Personally, I'd love to see United regularly against the best teams in the world as I'm a United fan and I think as it would be best for the club we shouldn't be frowned upon for pursuing it. It could be good for the English national team to have so many of the best English players concentrated in 3 teams too. We, along with other PL clubs have been most resistant to it until recently due to the popularity of the PL globally but now FFP has been invalidated and City would inevitably spend unlimited money to bring players to them. Same could apply with Newcastle if their takeover is approved, along with Chelsea being given free reign again.

Interested to hear other people's thoughts?

it would be the death of club football in my opinion. CL is popular because it’s a short competition. If it became the norm it would become boring. Secondly clubs should always participate in their own national leagues, it’s where their bread and butter fans are from.

 

[JPRouve]

From your own article:
"One of the first reports claimed that Real Madrid, AC Milan, Arsenal, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Juventus, and Manchester United discussed forming a breakaway league with “an option for leaving the national leagues and their football associations behind entirely.” Per the report, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, and Paris Saint-Germain would also be invited to join the league, which would begin in 2021."

I linked you to the source in the edit.

 

[golden_blunder]

IMO football should be looking at ways to bring salaries and transfer fees down - give football back to the local communities rather than creating yet another tier based on money. Where does it end? In years to come United v Madrid every week on ppv because it generates the most money?
It actually sickens me that fans support these type of proposals. Football is a working mans/woman’s game.

 

[Prodigal7]

IMO football should be looking at ways to bring salaries and transfer fees down - give football back to the local communities rather than creating yet another tier based on money. Where does it end? In years to come United v Madrid every week on ppv because it generates the most money?
It actually sickens me that fans support these type of proposals. Football is a working mans/woman’s game.

Seems to be a common opinion. But wouldn't you want to see the best teams with the best players competing as regularly as possible. Local clubs will still exist to follow, it just means you'd have guaranteed regular top level football between the best teams.

 

[Makelele]

I personally do not believe it will happen anytime soon, simply because of the European football culture. At the same time I believe it can definitely happen because that very culture seems to be changing, mostly because of the rise of globalization, social media, etc, which has changed the landscape of football fandom drastically. Local fans of the biggest clubs are important, but less important than they were 10 years ago. If this continues, the path to a European Super League will be a question of when not if.

But to think that City, PSG or any other super rich club that has owners that are willing to pump billions into the supply chains of such a super league would be barred because they dont have the "history", is seriously deluding themselves.

Also, the notion of history in this context is laughable and completely illogical.

 

[Makelele]

IMO football should be looking at ways to bring salaries and transfer fees down - give football back to the local communities rather than creating yet another tier based on money. Where does it end? In years to come United v Madrid every week on ppv because it generates the most money?
It actually sickens me that fans support these type of proposals. Football is a working mans/woman’s game.

Exactly! This is why I can't take suggestions of FFP and such seriously. How does it benefit the community? Football should open doors in society, not pocket canals to the the rich.

 

[JPRouve]

IMO football should be looking at ways to bring salaries and transfer fees down - give football back to the local communities rather than creating yet another tier based on money. Where does it end? In years to come United v Madrid every week on ppv because it generates the most money?
It actually sickens me that fans support these type of proposals. Football is a working mans/woman’s game.

I'm against the Super League because like others I like the fact that big fixtures between United and Barcelona are an event. I love PL and Bundesliga football and wouldn't want to see it harmed. But I don't buy your arguments, you will still have local football and at a good level, it will be like Rugby in SA, Australia and New Zealand local leagues are fun to watch, though Australian rugby is a mess but that's not due to Super Rugby and Super Rugby is great. As for money in Football, I also disagree because the money will be generated anyway because games are broadcasted and ads are a thing, I'm totally against the idea that broadcasters and all the manufacturers that are making money on the back of Football should keep it for themselves instead of having to pay the exposure that they gained from footballers work.

 

[Gio]

I'm not buying the idea that 'traditionally' big clubs want to separate themselves from non-traditionally-big clubs because they're not traditionally big enough - by deleting a 150-year-old traditional league structure to create a rogue league outwith the traditional structures and ethics of the game.

City and PSG have had a decade of pumping oil money into the game to buy what they like yet have fallen short in Europe where a 'traditional' giant in Real Madrid who have won 4 out of the last 5 Champions Leagues. If they're going to go to the hassle of creating a superleague, it'll include every club that can make them more money. It'll be driven squarely by finances as @JPRouve says.

My more cynical take is that the idea is used as an empty threat every now and then to influence UEFA to curry yet more favourable terms in seeding and resource allocation.

 

[Prodigal7]

I personally do not believe it will happen anytime soon, simply because of the European football culture. At the same time I believe it can definitely happen because that very culture seems to be changing, mostly because of the rise of globalization, social media, etc, which has changed the landscape of football fandom drastically. Local fans of the biggest clubs are important, but less important than they were 10 years ago. If this continues, the path to a European Super League will be a question of when not if.

But to think that City, PSG or any other super rich club that has owners that are willing to pump billions into the supply chains of such a super league would be barred because they dont have the "history", is seriously deluding themselves.

Also, the notion of history in this context is laughable and completely illogical.

"History" is just an abstract term so not sure what you're really talking about. The only measure of a club to a league is based on the number of fans, as they're the ones that will watch the games and bring in revenue for the league. There's also the opinion of most clubs that they don't want to include teams like PSG into a super league as they could effectively offer all their players gazillions to join them without any financial worries. By excluding them they're not as attractive a prospect for those players. Rightly or wrongly that's how clubs will think.

 

[Prodigal7]

I'm against the Super League because like others I like the fact that big fixtures between United and Barcelona are an event. I love PL and Bundesliga football and wouldn't want to see it harmed. But I don't buy your arguments, you will still have local football and at a good level, it will be like Rugby in SA, Australia and New Zealand local leagues are fun to watch, though Australian rugby is a mess but that's not due to Super Rugby and Super Rugby is great. As for money in Football, I also disagree because the money will be generated anyway because games are broadcasted and ads are a thing, I'm totally against the idea that broadcasters and all the manufacturers that are making money on the back of Football should keep it for themselves instead of having to pay the exposure that they gained from footballers work.

And this is generally how opinion break down. Cultural/lifestyle purists vs Footballing purists. You're the former and I'm the latter. Most people I see here would be the former I think.

 

[Valencia's Left Foot]

I've not seen it discussed much in the wider media so I wanted to post it here. I'm not ITK myself but I know someone who knows someone

Apparently, due to the increasing number of wealthy hobby owners of football clubs like Chelsea, City, PSG etc Europe's elite clubs are looking to protect their financial and competitive positions by creating a European Super League separate from UEFA. The logic being that the gigantic sums of money that wealthy owners (sometimes even countries) can throw at the best players to get them to join a club means historically larger clubs such as United, Real etc wouldn't be able to compete and it was deemed unfair. This was what gave rise to FFP. FFP kept the old guard from creating the Super League but now that FFP has effectively been thrown out in court, there is a big push to create this league again and exclude clubs like Man City, PSG and possibly Chelsea from it. A lot of people see this super league as inevitable and this FFP ruling is the immediate nudge needed to get it started.

Obviously a lot of English football purists and fans of teams that aren't United, Liverpool and Arsenal/Cheslea (who would be part of this Super League) would not be a fan of it. The moral question of whether a club should be able to spend their way to success can be told from both points of view but the reason against it is that other clubs put themselves into debt to compete and possibly go bankrupt, which was the basis for FFP.

Personally, I'd love to see United regularly against the best teams in the world as I'm a United fan and I think as it would be best for the club we shouldn't be frowned upon for pursuing it. It could be good for the English national team to have so many of the best English players concentrated in 3 teams too. We, along with other PL clubs have been most resistant to it until recently due to the popularity of the PL globally but now FFP has been invalidated and City would inevitably spend unlimited money to bring players to them. Same could apply with Newcastle if their takeover is approved, along with Chelsea being given free reign again.

Interested to hear other people's thoughts?

You wouldn’t need to exclude city, psg etc. By creating one league, they can create financial consistency and establish caps (salary and transfers) that all clubs must agree to if they want to enter the league, much like the NFL and NBA.

 

[SteveJ]

On what basis can you exclude these sort of teams?

Taste.

 

[JPRouve]

I'm not buying the idea that 'traditionally' big clubs want to separate themselves from non-traditionally-big clubs because they're not traditionally big enough - by deleting a 150-year-old traditional league structure to create a rogue league outwith the traditional structures and ethics of the game.

City and PSG have had a decade of pumping oil money into the game to buy what they like yet have fallen short in Europe where a 'traditional' giant in Real Madrid who have won 4 out of the last 5 Champions Leagues. If they're going to go to the hassle of creating a superleague, it'll include every club that can make them more money. It'll be driven squarely by finances as @JPRouve says.

My more cynical take is that the idea is used as an empty threat every now and then to influence UEFA to curry yet more favourable terms in seeding and resource allocation.

That's exaclty what they are doing, it's driven by the richest members of the ECA. Their goal is to get as much guaranteed money out the UEFA as they can and they also have a problem with the UEFA who they think isn't maximizing CL and EL revenues. The last negotiations between the UEFA and top clubs should convince people of what they want, they made sure to guarantee CL spots for the top leagues and added a way to make money by taking into account the past 10 years and market pool.

 

[Prodigal7]

Exactly! This is why I can't take suggestions of FFP and such seriously. How does it benefit the community? Football should open doors in society, not pocket canals to the the rich.

It benefits communities as bankrolling clubs is unsustainable and does two things:
1. drives up the debts of clubs trying to compete with bankrolled clubs. We had £780m of debt as a result of competing with City and Chelsea pre FFP. Post FFP at this moment we have circa 400m in debt
2. Using Chelsea as an example again, bankrolled clubs can do more damage to themselves in the long run. Roman A for example never paid off all of Chelsea's debts. He has a holding company that Chelsea owes circa $1bn too and clearly it's a ticking time bomb until he decides to pay it off.

FFP was designed to make the game more sustainable based on hard evidence but obviously your City, CHelsea, PSG fans etc will say it's the rich clubs trying to hold them back, which is still true I imagine.

 

[Valencia's Left Foot]

I'm not buying the idea that 'traditionally' big clubs want to separate themselves from non-traditionally-big clubs because they're not traditionally big enough - by deleting a 150-year-old traditional league structure to create a rogue league outwith the traditional structures and ethics of the game.

City and PSG have had a decade of pumping oil money into the game to buy what they like yet have fallen short in Europe where a 'traditional' giant in Real Madrid who have won 4 out of the last 5 Champions Leagues. If they're going to go to the hassle of creating a superleague, it'll include every club that can make them more money. It'll be driven squarely by finances as @JPRouve says.

My more cynical take is that the idea is used as an empty threat every now and then to influence UEFA to curry yet more favourable terms in seeding and resource allocation.

Agreed. It’s a threat that the big EPL clubs have been using in backchannels for a while to get the smaller English clubs to allow for the bigger clubs to take a bigger piece of the pie.

 

[JJ12]

I don’t want any part of a super league

 

[JPRouve]

And this is generally how opinion break down. Cultural/lifestyle purists vs Footballing purists. You're the former and I'm the latter. Most people I see here would be the former I think.

I would describe myself as a traditionalist more than a purist, I don't see my opinion as better particularly when I like the system in other sports. I just like Football as it has been for my entire life.

 

[Cheimoon]

I'm not a fan of this, but if it happens, the best comparison is probably the NFL. All teams owned by millionaires (except Green Bay), no or very little travelling fans, little history for a lot of teams - but anyway the most popular tv sport in North America, with huge, packed stadiums, and salary caps to even out the money. So if it happens, I think this European Super League (ESL) would be a roaring commercial success.

I also think the clubs involved have enough money and power to not have to care about UEFA and local FAs: if they want their ESL, they can just do it, and UEFA and the FAs will have to find a way to work with the ESL, as it will feature the best players and attract the biggest sponsors and audiences. My only hope, really, is that the love of traditions will prevail.

 

[golden_blunder]

Seems to be a common opinion. But wouldn't you want to see the best teams with the best players competing as regularly as possible. Local clubs will still exist to follow, it just means you'd have guaranteed regular top level football between the best teams.

No
I want such games to remain exciting, something to look forward to

 

[golden_blunder]

I feel strongly about this - this would be the death of football for me as something I invest my time (and sometimes finances in)

 

[Baneofthegame]

IMO football should be looking at ways to bring salaries and transfer fees down - give football back to the local communities rather than creating yet another tier based on money. Where does it end? In years to come United v Madrid every week on ppv because it generates the most money?
It actually sickens me that fans support these type of proposals. Football is a working mans/woman’s game.

Agree with this, it would ruin football as we know it in my opinion. Then again having unlimited cash for some clubs is also ruining football in another way with wages and fees.

 

[Green_Red]

Its a funny argument isn't it. Clubs like Real Madrid and Manchester United have their very foundations set in the fact that they were bought by wealthy businessmen that then proceeded to plough money into the club in an attempt to secure dominance over other football clubs. Fast forward 100 years and said clubs aren't happy that a new wave of football clubs are experiencing the very same process. In my opinion, and this will be controversial, if I buy a football club who the feck are FIFA or UEFA or anyone else for that matter to tell me I can't invest in my new asset. It's absolutely ridiculous. Can you imagine being told what you can spend your money on? Oh, you can't upgrade your back garden because your neighbour isn't as rich as you and can't afford the type of things you are upgrading your back garden to. What would you say? Exactly, feck off! Would you then form a back garden committee with your other neighbours and say, you can call around because you lived on this street longer and you haven't bought a lovely new back garden? Of course not, you mind your own business.