European Super League under a different guise? Some of us are still in favour…
When the European Super League emerged last year, the knee-jerk reaction declared it was a horrific thing which had to be resisted.
Six Premier League teams were caught in bed with the breakaway, but seeing the backlash, almost immediately issued mea culpas and pretended they hadn’t really meant to agree to it, the ESL meant nothing to them and they definitely wouldn’t get into bed with it again.
While few believed those owners’ greasy hostage-style videos declaring their love for fans and club, many thought it had put the issue to bed. It hasn’t.
Eighteen months on, Real Madrid, Juventus and Barcelona are still not saying sorry about the ESL and are not backing down on the concept. Quite the reverse. They’re cooking up another variation, having asked the European Court of Justice for a ruling on UEFA’s monopoly of European football.
Why should UEFA occupy this exalted position? Who died and made them King or Queen? That’s the question. It’s not like they’ve done much to protect football from the worst sorts of greedy capitalism and nothing at all to prevent clubs being bought by the worst people.
If things go the rebels’ way, the ground is already being prepared for another Super League proposal, different from before, in that it wouldn’t be a sealed league, but the same in that it would be very profitable for the participants.
The sealed league was the main objection that was voiced to the idea last year. Will that change make it more acceptable?
I was in the minority who always favoured an ESL. Why? Because it is the easiest and quickest way to completely reset football, taking out the rich clubs who are boxing off every league for themselves and letting them roll around on the Super League bed of money. Obviously, in an ideal world, it wouldn’t be necessary, but it clearly is.
No-one outside of the fans of clubs that routinely win leagues or finish in the top positions wants to see those clubs dominate everything in perpetuity. Too many games are closer to exhibition than to competition and as financial disparity hardens, that is only going to get worse and worse. Something has to be done.
Asking clubs like Brentford to consistently be able to compete against clubs which have spent over £200 million this year alone and often even more than that, is ridiculous and all but impossible.
Real, Juve and Barca are right to be concerned that the Premier League has become a financial behemoth that can’t be competed with. Their outlook is of course, totally selfish, and they are about as far from financially responsible as it is possible to be. Even so, in many respects they’re on the right side of the argument.
Why have UEFA had this monopoly for 70 years? It has allowed the grotesque financial imbalances to happen, it has waived through all the heinous ownership models, it has overseen the Premier League to become a driver of insane inflation and has done nothing to stop it. It has allowed the Champions League to become a tournament only a handful of clubs can ever win and it is introducing the 36-team Swiss model format that many think will make it even more stupidly bloated, and will do nothing to address any of the imbalances already endemic to European football.
In short, UEFA has already crashed the car.
Everything that is wrong with modern football happened under UEFA. Questioning their position as the game’s overseers is, in that light, far from unreasonable.
A proposal that the clubs should run the new ESL not UEFA makes sense. In the same way that the Premier League is owned by the 20 shareholder clubs who play in it each season, the new ESL would be likewise. The league creates its own rules on everything from admin to finances, voted on by the participants. That’s attractive for potential participants.
These three rebel clubs have deliberately left the specifics of their new concept open in order to be able to attract as much support for the change from UEFA governance to in-house decision making, if the ECJ rules that UEFA’s monopoly can indeed be challenged. It’s also designed not to give red meat to potential critics at this stage.
It’s often said that fans of breakaway ESL clubs wouldn’t put up with it. But, to be frank, those clubs have already warped sufficient minds
to their ‘best league in the world’ way of thinking. Ultimately they see this new development as just another bitter pill the fans have to and will swallow.
English football fans have shown very little ability or inclination to reject all manner of terrible impositions, from evil owners to high ticket prices. They’ve shown themselves to be easily bribed by promises of money to spend on transfers and only protest when results are not up to standard. Owners assume they will just support the club regardless and all evidence to date is that they’re right.
So a new ESL will be sold to them and they will accept it.
Actually, I suspect many would like the idea. Surely playing a competitive game against, say, Real Madrid, is more exciting for Manchester City fans than a 4-0 walkover against Southampton?
Stripping the Big Six from the Premier League would enforce serious financial shrinkage for those left behind, at least in the short to medium term. Frankly, the Big Six create most of the income which is divvied up between the other 14. They feel that 14 have been poncing off their glamour and ability to attract big crowds for a long time. From the greedy capitalists’ point of view which sees football only in terms of financial gain, you can see their point.
Taking them out of the equation would immediately depress transfer fees and wage inflation through reduction of broadcast rights fees. Clubs would have much less money.
But a competition without The Big Six would be so much more competitive and unpredictable. The Premier League, or whatever organisation replaces it, could sell it as a more democratic league; the People’s League, maybe. It would be no surprise to find it was a very attractive product which would attract substantial TV audiences and ad revenue. But less money to pay big wages and fees is not a bad thing. Less money, better distributed, would be a positive thing. And an ESL is a chance to reset financial restrictions to deliver more sustainable and sane finances.
But plans have not yet hardened and the rebels have to work out how clubs can be relegated out of, or qualify for, its new league.
So there are certainly problems to be resolved. But one thing is for sure, how things have been is not how they will be forever. Big Big Money is destroying competitive football, and Big Big Money has all the power. We need to stop pretending that football is still like it was 40 or 50 years ago.
We need a modern solution for the modern problems massive financial imbalance has created. The ESL is that solution.
And is there really anything to be worried about in a European Super League? A small elite have grown so wealthy by fair means or foul, that no-one else can seriously compete with them. They are making leagues semi-dysfunctional as competitions right across Europe. If they only play each other, the games would be fairer battles and be of more interest than they are right now.
The Big Six’s big games against each other would still happen in the ESL and most of the big derby games would still happen, with the exception of the Merseyside one.
A break from how things have been done is a perfect time to introduce a whole new way to do business for the remaining leagues.
We can enjoy watching the monied ESL clubs battle it out, while we return the domestic game to the bosom of the people who birthed it.
Now, c’mon, that’s not the worst idea you’ve ever heard, now, is it?
