Super League: Should we be surprised? This has all happened before.

[stevoc]

A trip down memory lane for anyone who doesn't remember or are too young to know how the Premier League came to be. The situations aren't exactly the same but these clubs have pulled this shit before and they're doing it again. The PL ended up being a great competition that benefited all of football. But it was born from the same desire for more money and power for the big clubs.

Despite significant European success in the 1970s and early 1980s, the late 1980s marked a low point for English football. Stadiums were crumbling, supporters endured poor facilities, hooliganism was rife, and English clubs had been banned from European competition for five years following the Heysel Stadium disaster in 1985. The Football League First Division, the top level of English football since 1888, was behind leagues such as Italy's Serie A and Spain's La Liga in attendances and revenues, and several top English players had moved abroad.

By the turn of the 1990s the downward trend was starting to reverse. At the 1990 FIFA World Cup, England reached the semi-finals; UEFA, European football's governing body, lifted the five-year ban on English clubs playing in European competitions in 1990, resulting in Manchester United lifting the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup in 1991. The Taylor Report on stadium safety standards, which proposed expensive upgrades to create all-seater stadiums in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster, was published in January 1990.

During the 1980s major English clubs had begun to transform into business ventures, applying commercial principles to club administration to maximise revenue. Martin Edwards of Manchester United, Irving Scholar of Tottenham Hotspur, and David Dein of Arsenal were among the leaders in this transformation. The commercial imperative led to the top clubs seeking to increase their power and revenue: the clubs in Division One threatened to break away from the Football League, and in so doing they managed to increase their voting power and gain a more favourable financial arrangement, taking a 50% share of all television and sponsorship income in 1986. They demanded that television companies should pay more for their coverage of football matches, and revenue from television grew in importance. The Football League received £6.3 million for a two-year agreement in 1986, but by 1988, in a deal agreed with ITV, the price rose to £44 million over four years with the leading clubs taking 75% of the cash. According to Scholar who was involved in the negotiations of television deals, each of the First Division clubs received only around £25,000 per year from television rights before 1986, this increased to around £50,000 in the 1986 negotiation, then to £600,000 in 1988. The 1988 negotiations were conducted under the threat of ten clubs leaving to form a "super league", but they were eventually persuaded to stay, with the top clubs taking the lion's share of the deal. The negotiations also convinced the bigger clubs that in order to receive enough votes, they needed to take the whole of First Division with them instead of a smaller "super league". By the beginning of the 1990s, the big clubs again considered breaking away, especially now that they had to fund the cost of stadium upgrade as proposed by the Taylor Report.

In 1990, the managing director of London Weekend Television (LWT), Greg Dyke, met with the representatives of the "big five" football clubs in England (Manchester United, Liverpool, Tottenham Hotspur, Everton and Arsenal) over a dinner. The meeting was to pave the way for a breakaway from The Football League. Dyke believed that it would be more lucrative for LWT if only the larger clubs in the country were featured on national television and wanted to establish whether the clubs would be interested in a larger share of television rights money. The five clubs agreed with the suggestion and decided to press ahead with it; however, the league would have no credibility without the backing of The Football Association, and so David Dein of Arsenal held talks to see whether the FA were receptive to the idea. The FA did not enjoy an amicable relationship with the Football League at the time and considered it as a way to weaken the Football League's position. The FA released a report in June 1991, Blueprint for the Future of Football, that supported the plan for Premier League with FA the ultimate authority that would oversee the breakaway league.

Foundation (1990s)
See also: Foundation of the Premier League
At the close of the 1990–1991 season, a proposal was tabled for the establishment of a new league that would bring more money into the game overall. The Founder Members Agreement, signed on 17 July 1991 by the game's top-flight clubs, established the basic principles for setting up the FA Premier League. The newly formed top division was to have commercial independence from The Football Association and the Football League, giving the FA Premier League licence to negotiate its own broadcast and sponsorship agreements. The argument given at the time was that the extra income would allow English clubs to compete with teams across Europe. Although Dyke played a significant role in the creation of the Premier League, he and ITV (of which LWT was part) lost out in the bidding for broadcast rights: BSkyB won with a bid of £304 million over five years, with the BBC awarded the highlights package broadcast on Match of the Day.

The First Division clubs resigned en masse from the Football League in 1992, and on 27 May that year the FA Premier League was formed as a limited company, working out of an office at the Football Association's then headquarters in Lancaster Gate. The 22 inaugural members of the new Premier League were:

Arsenal
Aston Villa
Blackburn Rovers
Chelsea
Coventry City
Crystal Palace
Everton
Ipswich Town
Leeds United
Liverpool
Manchester City
Manchester United
Middlesbrough
Norwich City
Nottingham Forest
Oldham Athletic
Queens Park Rangers
Sheffield United
Sheffield Wednesday
Southampton
Tottenham Hotspur
Wimbledon

This meant a break-up of the 104-year-old Football League that had operated until then with four divisions; the Premier League would operate with a single division and the Football League with three. There was no change in competition format; the same number of teams competed in the top flight, and promotion and relegation between the Premier League and the new First Division remained the same as the old First and Second Divisions with three teams relegated from the league and three promoted.

The league held its first season in 1992–93. It was composed of 22 clubs for that season. The first Premier League goal was scored by Brian Deane of Sheffield United in a 2–1 win against Manchester United. Luton Town, Notts County, and West Ham United were the three teams relegated from the old First Division at the end of the 1991–92 season, and did not take part in the inaugural Premier League season.

 

[DutchSerb]

Its not even comparable is it? Because the clubs (Florentino, Glazer, Agnelli) themselves are overseeing this and not an organ like the FA. Plus they can actually relegate..

 

[sglowrider]

Precisely. This is why former players or even current players who are so critical of this new evolution are just hypocritical and lacking knowledge/history. Neville, Keane have been all been early beneficiaries of the breakaway group of Five including Manchester United in 92.

So it's a bit rich of them to say it's destroying to soul of football when the same words were used back in 1992. The ex-players retired millionaires. Compared that to the pre-PL players who if lucky owned and managed pubs themselves or had to do the talk circuit, getting by.

All businesses undergo some evolutionary pivot points at some stage. This is no different.

 

[UnofficialDevil]

I'm old enough to remember this is not the same. This is the end of football. We just changed 130 year old rules cancelled relegation and promotion. Not the same.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Precisely. This is why former players or even current players who are so critical of this new evolution are just hypocritical and lacking knowledge/history. Neville, Keane have been all been early beneficiaries of the breakaway group of Five including Manchester United in 92.

So it's a bit rich of them to say it's destroying to soul of football when the same words were used back in 1992. The ex-players retired millionaires. Compared that to the pre-PL players who if lucky owned and managed pubs themselves or had to do the talk circuit, getting by.

All businesses undergo some evolutionary pivot points at some stage. This is no different.

I think the main issue is the privilege of the founding 15. Otherwise everything is life has to move on and evolve at some.point although I do like things how they are

 

[Cascarino]

Precisely. This is why former players or even current players who are so critical of this new evolution are just hypocritical and lacking knowledge/history. Neville, Keane have been all been early beneficiaries of the breakaway group of Five including Manchester United in 92.

So it's a bit rich of them to say it's destroying to soul of football when the same words were used back in 1992. The ex-players retired millionaires. Compared that to the pre-PL players who if lucky owned and managed pubs themselves or had to do the talk circuit, getting by.

All businesses undergo some evolutionary pivot points at some stage. This is no different.

I've seen a few people make this argument and I don't think it really holds up. If when the PL was formed 90% of the founding teams were forbidden from relegation, then maybe the argument would make sense.

 

[stevoc]

I'm old enough to remember this is not the same. This is the end of football.

This Super League is worse no doubt, but it's the same thinking and motivations behind it.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I've seen a few people make this argument and I don't think it really holds up. If when the PL was formed 90% of the founding teams were forbidden from relegation, then maybe the argument would make sense.

Yup. I think that's the part that kills this idea.

 

[UnofficialDevil]

This Super League is worse no doubt, but it's the same thinking and motivations behind it.

It's always been about money we all know that. But this is totally different. It's disgraceful. It really is the end of football, not exaggerating one bit. It's definitely the end of English football that's for sure.

 

[Cascarino]

Yup. I think that's the part that kills this idea.

Didn't see your comment before I posted but yeah completely agree. Evolving the competitions is fine, but the staunch opposition stems from the guaranteed place not based on merit but on money.

 

[Charlie Foley]

I've seen a few people make this argument and I don't think it really holds up. If when the PL was formed 90% of the founding teams were forbidden from relegation, then maybe the argument would make sense.

It doesn’t hold up at all. It is stupid.

 

[stevoc]

It's always been about money we all know that. But this is totally different. It's disgraceful. It really is the end of football, not exaggerating one bit. It's definitely the end of English football that's for sure.

Certainly the end of football as we know it. And certainly to the detriment of football.

 

[sglowrider]

I've seen a few people make this argument and I don't think it really holds up. If when the PL was formed 90% of the founding teams were forbidden from relegation, then maybe the argument would make sense.

Depends how you look at it. The SL cant afford to do relegation until they have enough clubs signed on or having some linkage with the domestic leagues. They cant pitch it to clubs if they start shouting that 'you could get relegated if you join'. Nobody will take the risk.
They could eventually do a club-owned Champions League and cutting out UEFA -- like what the formation of the PL did to the FA. Also the founding clubs could get compensated for taking the risk of joining early -- like in a start-up or in the long run, get a different compensation model for being a founding member like Ferrari in F1.

 

[FahadiHossein]

I think the main issue is the privilege of the founding 15. Otherwise everything is life has to move on and evolve at some.point although I do like things how they are

Yes, I agree. I do think clubs are able to negotiate for better deals, for e.g., selling the TV rights to Amazon or Netflix for twice the price rather than waiting for UEFA to do so for them.
But, why should Arsenal, Spurs and Milan be in there? Especially Arsenal and Milan, as these two have hardly been the elites for the past 4 to 5 years, finishing the league behind 1/4 of the clubs in their domestic leagues? And now, they are trying to get access to a pool of money that Leicester, West Ham and Napoli deserve?

 

[Scholsey2004]

False equivalency. The issue here isnt the amount of money, its the fact that its a closed club where the founding teams can never be dislodged from the gravy train. Its anti-aspirational.

 

[UnofficialDevil]

Certainly the end of football as we know it. And certainly to the detriment of football.

It's more than damaged. No relegation no promotion? Then what's the bloody point. I just can't believe it.

 

[KikiDaKats]

Not the same. A rebranding and creation can’t be labelled the same. Most fans knew the rebranding was necessary at the time of the game.
Hindsight, feels like this is what Riola was implying the other day when he made that attack on FIFA.

 

[FatTails]

I’m so glad someone made this thread because this terrible argument keeps coming up over and over in every thread.

It is not the same. There are similarities, but there are massive differences.

1. For starters, only 6 teams have played in every premier league season, rather than 15 out 20 who are guaranteed to always be there (unless the franchise doesn’t sell enough merch eventually, maybe?)
2. Secondly, at its formation, it was the teams who happened to be in the top division at the time, rather than weird collection of teams based on value of the club or revenue (hence skipping over West Ham for example, and inviting Spurs and Arsenal).
3. Relegation/promotion technically means that anyone can be in the premier league in a particular season, or be out of it. 49 different teams have played in the premier league. As said before, in the ESL 15 are guaranteed and 5 are invited based on whatever criteria the 5 find works for them.
4. Premier league replaced the existing league almost like-for-like. The teams were the same, venues were the same, prizes were largely in-line (qualifying to Europe and winning the title for the top English league)
5. The super league creates two tiers of clubs at the domestic level: those who have to have great seasons to qualify for Europe, and those can simply field kids and finish 16th, and are guaranteed to be in an even more glamorous European cup. This completely (or at least to a large extent) devalues the domestic competitions.

Honestly I find it shocking that this poor comparison keeps getting made.

 

[Dr Foo]

Would the super League be more palatable if all teams could be relegated? I guess that's the main crux of anti competition greed

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Didn't see your comment before I posted but yeah completely agree. Evolving the competitions is fine, but the staunch opposition stems from the guaranteed place not based on merit but on money.

It's basically them saying we are Real Madrid, Manchester United etc hence we deserve this chunk of the pie rather than anyone who does XYZ deserves it. That's just an awful concept really.

Additionally, as many have said that new conceptions often replace the traditionally ones as is the cycle of life. However can you trust the new competition to be run by such people who have only profit and power as their motive, to actually run the thing well? Perez said they can reduce match lengths. It reminds of that silly tennis tournament that they play with teams.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Would the super League be more palatable if all teams could be relegated? I guess that's the main crux of anti competition greed

Yes. That and the special revenue share for founding clubs although that I can still understand to an extent. Having said that, I still prefer meetings with European giants being rare and once in awhile, but I guess things constantly change.

 

[Cascarino]

Depends how you look at it. The SL cant afford to do relegation until they have enough clubs signed on or having some linkage with the domestic leagues. They cant pitch it to clubs if they start shouting that 'you could get relegated if you join'. Nobody will take the risk.
They could eventually do a club-owned Champions League and cutting out UEFA -- like what the formation of the PL did to the FA. Also the founding clubs could get compensated for taking the risk of joining early -- like in a start-up or in the long run, get a different compensation model for being a founding member like Ferrari in F1.

I think had the clubs formed a champions league where they cut out UEFA, yet kept the same accessibility for all clubs through placement based qualification, the opposition would be much less fierce and the whole ordeal would be more akin to the formation of the PL. There would still be the grumbling that comes with all change, but it would be far more palatable if it wasn't a locked in league created to line the owners pockets against the wishes of fans everywhere. It's not that I don't understand why some supporters would want a shakeup, but I feel that the ESL have gone about it in a way that is massively disappointing and offputting for many fans.

It's basically them saying we are Real Madrid, Manchester United etc hence we deserve this chunk of the pie rather than anyone who does XYZ deserves it. That's just an awful concept really.

Additionally, as many have said that new conceptions often replace the traditionally ones as is the cycle of life. However can you trust the new competition to be run by such people who have only profit and power as their motive, to actually run the thing well? Perez said they can reduce match lengths. It reminds of that silly tennis tournament that they play with teams.

I loved Fernandes post "dreams can't be buy". A world class player playing for a team that hypothetically would be in the ESL, yet goes against it because he understands the inherent unfairness. It's a testament to the unpopularity of the ESL that virtually all of my friends who support the teams guaranteed a spot, are strongly against the idea. Arsenal (no disrespect) prove the almost arbitrary selection process, where performance and results aren't the primary driver in the choice of clubs but rather that they would bring more money in than a team like Leicester for example.

 

[utdalltheway]

Would the super League be more palatable if all teams could be relegated? I guess that's the main crux of anti competition greed

The American owners wouldn't go for that. I betcha that's what sticks in their craw, that they only get to have CL footy IF they make the top 4.
They want more certainty than that and they're used to it, as that's how it's done with the franchises in the US.
tbh, you'd be daft to think that as founders of this ESL they wouldn't go further and play some games in the ME, Asia, the US, etc.
Ads during the game, even more PPV, best of 3 "finals", etc.
The Americanisation of the sport (in the ESL) is not going to stop at just not having relegation. It's their "league" so they'll do what they want. No UEFA rules for them.

That's why this is different from the PL. Its the owners, and what they're used to.

 

[Abizzz]

I can't comprehend how people don't understand the fundamental difference a closed shop brings, making any comparison to the formation of the PL moot.

Would the super League be more palatable if all teams could be relegated? I guess that's the main crux of anti competition greed

The entire point is to keep that from happening.

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

It's not the same at all.

 

[Cheimoon]

I've seen a few people make this argument and I don't think it really holds up. If when the PL was formed 90% of the founding teams were forbidden from relegation, then maybe the argument would make sense.

I do see the parallel personally. It's the logical next step to secure even more money.

They can't again break away with the league or with the CL, as those are already standalone things. They can't siphon off more money to the CL, as the EL already received a fraction of the revenue. And they don't want to change that for the clubs that don't make the CL, cause dividing European revenue across the CL and the EL would spread the money far too wide.

So really their only remaining step (in terms of money grabbing) was finding a way that all these clubs would be guaranteed CL football every season. UEFA isn't going to give that soon enough (although I'm sure they would eventually; they've given in to everything gradually so far), and so their only remaining avenue is to create a league of their own.

I know that, conceptually, that's different from creating the EPL; but it's the same underlying principle (how can we make more money) and the same execution (what's the next incremental step that changes the minimum for maximum effect). You might disagree with the latter, but these clubs' proposal is that they remain in their domestic league and 5 clubs get to join the ESL each season. So from their perspective, it's probably really 'just' a reform of the CL, and everything else stays the same.

I'm not trying to justify this btw. I hate it, and I hate how money has become the great decider in football since the early 90s. Maybe I'm just forgetting what it did before that time - but I haven't seen much soul in top football in a few decades, so the (partial) loss of relegation/promotion in European football isn't its death knell for me.

 

[MinGin]

A trip down memory lane for anyone who doesn't remember or are too young to know how the Premier League came to be. The situations aren't exactly the same but these clubs have pulled this shit before and they're doing it again. The PL ended up being a great competition that benefited all of football. But it was born from the same desire for more money and power for the big clubs.

Did PL startup with no promotion and regelation？
Did the standard of the PL clubs selection be chosen by reputation with or without quality？

This is a completely different in the foundation totally. The concept of Super League is if you rich enough, you will good enough.
You have no chance to promote in that league without a invitation or a suger daddy's recommendation. Not because you havent that quantity, just because you are poor in money.

The football at Euro competition history was build on if you good enough, you will rich enough. At least you will deserve what you devoted.

This is a us verison in football version of capitalist.
Rich get richer, poor get poorer. No way you can join them in competition. They are in a closed loop league, maybe they will open some place for some poor guys, but do you think the founders will walk out in that "League" which in-charge by them because their quality did not deserved?
If the team is the poorest In that "League", any target of the club aim in the view of competition for in that season? You can see what the aim of the bottom team fight for in the current competition style (Which compare with NBA, at least the poorest team can get a something like draft pick for the future)

 

[Cascarino]

I do see the parallel personally. It's the logical next step to secure even more money.

They can't again break away with the league or with the CL, as those are already standalone things. They can't siphon off more money to the CL, as the EL already received a fraction of the revenue. And they don't want to change that for the clubs that don't make the CL, cause dividing European revenue across the CL and the EL would spread the money far too wide.

So really their only remaining step (in terms of money grabbing) was finding a way that all these clubs would be guaranteed CL football every season. UEFA isn't going to give that soon enough (although I'm sure they would eventually; they've given in to everything gradually so far), and so their only remaining avenue is to create a league of their own.

I know that, conceptually, that's different from creating the EPL; but it's the same underlying principle (how can we make more money) and the same execution (what's the next incremental step that changes the minimum for maximum effect). You might disagree with the latter, but these clubs' proposal is that they remain in their domestic league and 5 clubs get to join the ESL each season. So from their perspective, it's probably really 'just' a reform of the CL, and everything else stays the same.

I'm not trying to justify this btw. I hate it, and I hate how money has become the great decider in football since the early 90s. Maybe I'm just forgetting what it did before that time - but I haven't seen much soul in top football in a few decades, so the (partial) loss of relegation/promotion in European football isn't its death knell for me.

I fully agree with you that there is a parallel seen in the motivation of the creation of both competitions, and there are massive similarities in the way the interests of the few hold the most sway, but I disagree with the argument that this is no different to the formation of the PL and that the acceptance of one should lead to acceptance of the other (I know you haven't made these arguments, but rather posters above and in other threads, as is their right).

The idea that because one accepted the formation of the PL so should accept the formation of the EPL falls down for me at the exclusionary nature of the competition. When the premier league was formed, the teams entered were done so on merit. The teams who had finished within the top 22 spaces were the ones entered. There was no special treatment from being one of the 'founding teams', success or relegation would be a reflection of performance, a team wouldn't be exempt from relegation by the sole benefit of having been there at the start. I have massive problems with the formation (primarily excluding the football league financially from the big money) and the general rampant inequality in football that this propagated, but by its nature more palatable than the ESL through the lens of competition, if not morals.

The ESL was not formed through meritocracy. Performance is not the primary assessor, but rather which clubs are the most lucrative. Alongside the lack of meritocracy in choosing the initial founding clubs, they've made it known that these founders will be guaranteed entry in the competition for the next two decades, regardless of results. From their perspective it probably is a reformation of the CL, but to me it is the creation of their own cartel.

I'm with you on the hate of how money has warped football. Despite the vast majority of supporters being staunchly opposed to the idea, the business interests of a few men is the only factor that matters. I guess this has been the case for a long time.

 

[kouroux]

The world is about money and will always be about money. It's incredibly arrogant to think most haven't grasped that yet.

 

[MinGin]

I do see the parallel personally. It's the logical next step to secure even more money.

They can't again break away with the league or with the CL, as those are already standalone things. They can't siphon off more money to the CL, as the EL already received a fraction of the revenue. And they don't want to change that for the clubs that don't make the CL, cause dividing European revenue across the CL and the EL would spread the money far too wide.

So really their only remaining step (in terms of money grabbing) was finding a way that all these clubs would be guaranteed CL football every season. UEFA isn't going to give that soon enough (although I'm sure they would eventually; they've given in to everything gradually so far), and so their only remaining avenue is to create a league of their own.

I know that, conceptually, that's different from creating the EPL; but it's the same underlying principle (how can we make more money) and the same execution (what's the next incremental step that changes the minimum for maximum effect). You might disagree with the latter, but these clubs' proposal is that they remain in their domestic league and 5 clubs get to join the ESL each season. So from their perspective, it's probably really 'just' a reform of the CL, and everything else stays the same.

I'm not trying to justify this btw. I hate it, and I hate how money has become the great decider in football since the early 90s. Maybe I'm just forgetting what it did before that time - but I haven't seen much soul in top football in a few decades, so the (partial) loss of relegation/promotion in European football isn't its death knell for me.

They represent the biggest fan base on the world and the most attractive football club in the history. So, their attractive power of super league would be bigger than the sum of the rest. And all revenue (i.e. TV, broadcast, sponsors etc) will own in their pocket only, unlike now, the cash pool is shared depended on your place in the table or get the fruit what you plant. That League, the earth clubs have no chance to compete with that sky clubs anymore, even in competition or a match or a touch. THEY WILL BE UNTOUCHABLE.

Of cause they want to remain in domestic league in this stage. The quality distance between them and the rest are not that huge, if they are rich enough to buy every quality players in Start XI, bench, Team B, Team C, the attractive of the domestic league will be dropped down. But can you imagine an only-business man in-charge league if their league become to be untouchable and the cash pool in football was pumped out by them, will they cast off the poor financial club?

5 clubs get into that league is sounded like, "we are getting a party, let's invite some clown to get the fun." No matter how hard the clown play, the sky clubs will never back to the earth.

And, why they have that power to invite/select/instruct earth clubs to join their party without any consideration of team quality but reputation?

 

[KikiDaKats]

I think had the clubs formed a champions league where they cut out UEFA, yet kept the same accessibility for all clubs through placement based qualification, the opposition would be much less fierce and the whole ordeal would be more akin to the formation of the PL. There would still be the grumbling that comes with all change, but it would be far more palatable if it wasn't a locked in league created to line the owners pockets against the wishes of fans everywhere. It's not that I don't understand why some supporters would want a shakeup, but I feel that the ESL have gone about it in a way that is massively disappointing and offputting for many fans.



I loved Fernandes post "dreams can't be buy". A world class player playing for a team that hypothetically would be in the ESL, yet goes against it because he understands the inherent unfairness. It's a testament to the unpopularity of the ESL that virtually all of my friends who support the teams guaranteed a spot, are strongly against the idea. Arsenal (no disrespect) prove the almost arbitrary selection process, where performance and results aren't the primary driver in the choice of clubs but rather that they would bring more money in than a team like Leicester for example.

These clubs have had it their way for too long and now feel they own the game. They pushed for UEFA to increase the qualification spots for their countries but when more spots were opened up for teams from lesser leagues by complaining about too many games.
I miss seeing a Red Star Belgrade or Porto out of the doldrums. Football has to be fair so dreams can be achieved. Ajax is as big a club as any of those clubs on that list.
Sports is for dreamers.

 

[The Siege]

The difference between these two situations is that the big clubs got what they wanted when they demanded it during the Premier League, courtesy the FA and the strained relationship with the Football League. And the FA made sure the big clubs stayed with the rest and didn't break up the family. The threats were exactly the same, the opposition just backed down.

UEFA's new set of reforms still won't come close to giving these mega clubs the regular financial influx they require for stability. These 12 clubs have over 7 billion dollars worth of debt between them, and COVID has not been kind. So they're willing to let our idea of 'football' burn to build a moat around them, the moat that money can jump across only when they want to let it jump. For scale, if UEFA persuaded them to stay in the Champions League, they'd have to give these 12 clubs all of the major monies from television rights and deals, guarantee them qualification so they qualified for those TV rights and deals, and the other clubs would essentially be there to scrap up the trinkets. There's no way UEFA could have agreed to this, so there was an impasse from which the Super League will likely be born. Even if UEFA agreed to all of the auto qualification norms, they'd still have no answer for the cash injection that these clubs would get from being part of the Super League.

 

[Giggs86]

Clubs like United, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, Liverpool, Milan, all earned the right to be in the top competition without going through qualifications. As elitist as it may sound, this is how it supposed to be.

 

[Abizzz]

Clubs like United, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, Liverpool, Milan, all earned the right to be in the top competition without going through qualifications. As elitist as it may sound, this is how it supposed to be.

It's not the top competition of anything. It's just a single league without anything underneath it. It's the pinnacle of nothing.

 

[Giggs86]

It's not the top competition of anything. It's just a single league without anything underneath it. It's the pinnacle of nothing.

What's underneath the CL? The EL? Who cares about the EL?
Winning a competition that consists 12 out of the 14-15 best teams in the world will be the new CL trophy.

 

[Abizzz]

What's underneath the CL? The EL? Who cares about the EL?
Winning a competition that consists 12 out of the 14-15 best teams in the world will be the new CL trophy.

The CL is the result of the national leagues which are all the results of national pyramids. Whoever wins the CL can truly claim to be the best in Europe. Whoever wins this JPMorgan league will be the best in the JPMorgan league.

 

[Giggs86]

The CL is the result of the national leagues which are all the results of national pyramids. Whoever wins the CL can truly claim to be the best in Europe. Whoever wins this JPMorgan league will be the best in the JPMorgan league.

Assuming Bayern will join too, in the last 25 years or so each CL winner was from the Super League clubs (besides Porto and Dortmund). So whoever wins the SL can easily claim to be the best in Europe. Especially considering that the winner of the CL will be someone like Leicester or Ajax.

 

[Abizzz]

Assuming Bayern will join too, in the last 25 years or so each CL winner was from the Super League clubs (besides Porto and Dortmund). So whoever wins the SL can easily claim to be the best in Europe. Especially considering that the winner of the CL will be someone like Leicester or Ajax.

They can claim it but they won't have proven it and whatever title they win won't have anything like the allure of becoming the best in Europe with thousands of teams participating. They'll be "The best of Europe" in the same manner the NBA champions are the best in the world. It will be meaningless.

 

[The Boy]

I’m so glad someone made this thread because this terrible argument keeps coming up over and over in every thread.

It is not the same. There are similarities, but there are massive differences.

1. For starters, only 6 teams have played in every premier league season, rather than 15 out 20 who are guaranteed to always be there (unless the franchise doesn’t sell enough merch eventually, maybe?)
2. Secondly, at its formation, it was the teams who happened to be in the top division at the time, rather than weird collection of teams based on value of the club or revenue (hence skipping over West Ham for example, and inviting Spurs and Arsenal).
3. Relegation/promotion technically means that anyone can be in the premier league in a particular season, or be out of it. 49 different teams have played in the premier league. As said before, in the ESL 15 are guaranteed and 5 are invited based on whatever criteria the 5 find works for them.
4. Premier league replaced the existing league almost like-for-like. The teams were the same, venues were the same, prizes were largely in-line (qualifying to Europe and winning the title for the top English league)
5. The super league creates two tiers of clubs at the domestic level: those who have to have great seasons to qualify for Europe, and those can simply field kids and finish 16th, and are guaranteed to be in an even more glamorous European cup. This completely (or at least to a large extent) devalues the domestic competitions.

Honestly I find it shocking that this poor comparison keeps getting made.

Good post sums it up nicely.

 

[Giggs86]

They can claim it but they won't have proven it and whatever title they win won't have anything like the allure of becoming the best in Europe with thousands of teams participating. They'll be "The best of Europe" in the same manner the NBA champions are the best in the world. It will be meaningless.

But the NBA champions are the best in the world. It is not meaningless. It is like saying that the FA Cup winners are the real best team in England because thousands of teams participate, while the PL only consists 20 teams so it doesn't have the same allure.