OT: World’s Biggest Soccer Clubs Confirm New Breakaway Super League
https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/world-biggest-soccer-clubs-confirm-223031416.html
I thought this was somewhat relevant to Michigan football, because I can’t believe at this point the super powers in college football haven’t decided to do the same thing. Yes, power 5 teams make a lot of money right now, but they could make way way way more money if they split off from their respective conferences. (Granted, the soccer proposal has teams staying in their conference, this is just in additional to their standard schedule.)
Interesting.
I'd be curious what the players think of this? Presumably, player contracts are dependent on having an understanding of how many games their contracts encompass?
Adding 12-24 game 'mid week' between league games seems like a lot to me at least?
Right, and if national leagues follow through with threats to eject the self-appointed super clubs. . . Going to be interesting to watch play out.
I really wonder if this could end up being like the 1994 MLB strike - or even worse - and the popularity of the sport could take a huge hit, assuming that neither side backs down.
There's no question that the popularity of the EPL, Serie A, La Liga, and the Champions League will suffer greatly if they kick out all the biggest teams.
At the same time, the founders of the Super League were hoping to play that competition during the week and still participate in their domestic league and cup on the weekends. So they weren't counting on the Super League being the only competition for the clubs involved - something that now seems like a possibility if the league ends up happening.
So now you're talking about a situation for teams like Manchester United where you're trying to replace 2 or 3 historic competitions that your fans cared a lot about with a new competition that you're hoping they'll care just as much about. And you're doing it in a climate where the rest of the world - plus many of your own fans - see you as a villain for putting money ahead of everything else. And if people are mad at you over that, it's only going to get worse when they blame you for making their favorite players ineligible to play for the national team.
I, for one, am someone who loves seeing these historic clubs play against each other and I'm sure the owners of these clubs were hoping that they'd have fans like me extremely excited at the prospect of watching these team face off more often. Instead, my first instinct is to not watch this league at all since it was designed to make the rich richer at the expense of everyone other than the owners of these teams. And I say that because not only is the formation of this league bad for every team that wasn't invited, it even has the potential to be a really bad thing for the players and fans of the teams involved.
Obviously Manchester United's entire fan base is not going to vanish into thin air overnight, but I do think it's plausible that a lot less people watch the Super League than these teams are expecting. If they already have the TV contracts drawn up and agreed upon, I don't doubt that they'll increase revenue in the short term. But long term, these teams could end up alienating their fans and doing irreparable damage to their own brands in addition to damaging the leagues and teams that they left behind. I'm not saying that's the only possible outcome because it's also possible that the Super League could become by far the most popular soccer league in history - something like the soccer version of the NFL - and the owners who are already billionaires now might look back and think this was the best decision they ever made. But I also think there's a real possibility that this could turn out bad in the long term for everyone involved and for the sport in general.
And I say that as someone who has always hated FIFA and UEFA.
Just wanted to add some perspective for any football/basketball fans that aren't huge soccer fans.
European soccer is a lot like college basketball in that there are 3 main competitions per year (basketball - conference regular season, conference tourney, NCAA tourney or NIT; soccer - domestic league, domestic cup, Champions League or Europa League). There are a couple of teams (Kansas, Kentucky, Bayern, Juventus, a couple others) where winning titles every year is the expectation but for most of the best teams, any year where you even win one title out of three is a very successful season. Also, each competition has a lot of rivalries, history and tradition involved, even more so in soccer than in college basketball. But using Michigan basketball as an example, each competition has a lot of appeal for me as a Michigan bball fan. I love the traditional match-ups in Big Ten play like Michigan-IU, Michigan-NW, Michigan-Purdue, Michigan-Wisconsin, Michigan-MSU, etc. I mentioned Michigan-NW because, for me at least, there's even a lot of appeal when we play some of the weaker teams in the conference because they're still traditional conference rivals. The BTT is also incredibly exciting in its own right... I have so many incredible memories from the last 20 years of the BTT, even years when we weren't good. And then the NCAA tournament is amazing, of course, especially when 2 huge teams play each other in one of the later rounds... Michigan - Kansas, Michigan - Kentucky, Michigan - Syracuse, Michigan-Duke... there have been some great match-ups and games during the Beilein/Howard era let alone going back to previous generations.
What's being proposed is similar to if the 16 most popular college bball teams decided to opt out of the NCAA tournament and have their own NCAA tournament where they automatically make it every year and they keep all the money without the NCAA or any other team getting a cut - but the NCAA is still free to hold the NCAA tournament for everyone else. And of course the NCAA tournament wouldn't be the same without the 16 biggest teams. As Michigan fans, I think most of us would miss the actual NCAA tournament, although some people might like automatically making the Sweet 16 every year and making more money which in theory could lead to more success against the rest of the conference if we can spend more on coaches, facilities, etc (and in soccer the teams will be able to spend more on players).
But, if FIFA, UEFA, and the FAs of the countries involve hold their ground, the teams that are going to form their own tournament would also be kicked out of their own conferences and conference tournaments. And that's where this plan could really backfire in terms of fan support. This would be the equivalent of Michigan expecting to help form a "new" NCAA tournament but still play in the Big Ten and BTT, only to find out that if it leaves the existing NCAA tournament it's also kicked out of the Big Ten and BTT and also can't join any other conference.
Thanks for the explanation. Sounds like a very bad idea.
April 19th, 2021 at 11:50 AM ^
I think you've badly mistaken the amount of leverage FIFA, UEFA, and the FAs have over the richest and most powerful clubs in soccer. FIFA would be subjecting itself to billions of dollars in losses if it "held [its] ground", as you put it.
If it banned many of the world's best players from its tournament, the contracts FIFA already signed would have to be renegotiated to avoid dozens of lawsuits for breach of contract.
As this article notes, the reason the FAs are terrified of this is precisely because
Without the top teams, UEFA and the domestic leagues would face demands for millions of dollars in refunds from the broadcasters who pay billions for television rights to air their tournaments.
Obviously it would depend on how the lawsuits turn out but I think the demands from broadcasters would be somewhat without merit. When you buy the rights to the EPL, you know that theoretically Chelsea or City could get relegated and not be part of the league. Same thing for the Champions League, when a broadcaster buys the rights there's always a chance that some (or many) of the top teams will not qualify.
Sure, the EPL might have trouble getting nearly as much money the next time they have to negotiate a TV deal, but I think it would be very hard to force them to give money back to broadcasters. None of the current TV agreements included a guarantee that certain teams or players would be active.
Meanwhile, you're going to have teams like Chelsea losing fan support left and right (it's already happening) because their fans are irate that they're walking away from historic competitions like the EPL and FA Cup just to make a quick buck in a competition that no one is excited about at the moment.
I think a lot of people are underestimating how much pressure there is going to be on teams like Manchester United and Chelsea to back down and are overestimating how much immediate pressure or financial trouble leagues like the EPL are going to face.
I'll just say that I think your legal analysis as to FIFA's position is incorrect. Legal doctrines in this area are flexible enough to treat the natural cycles of competition differently than the type of blanket ban that is being contemplated.
You may be right, I'm no lawyer. Personally, I can't see how this would be different from a cheating scandal where a few of the top teams all get sent to the second division. These teams are basically violating their leagues' rules and being sanctioned. When, Milan, Fiorentina, and Juventus all got caught cheating and missed the next Champions League because of it, there was no renegotiation of the Champions League's TV deal, as far as I know. Obviously that was a way smaller scale, but I can't personally think of a single time where a TV deal has been voided because of some members of a league being relegated, caught cheating, or anything else. Maybe you could offer some examples.
I think this is clearly different from the examples you gave for a few reasons: its magnitude, its unforeseeability, and because FIFA and UEFA are technically separate entities.
First, it's much easier to prove damages with an issue of this scale where large differences in viewership could put billions of dollars at stake, which makes a lawsuit much more likely. Banning every player in the new league from the World Cup is in an entirely different category from the cheating scandals you mentioned or yearly relegation. If it doesn't cost FIFA a lot of money, then it could cost the networks or sponsors who are not getting the viewership that was promised.
Secondly, things like cheating and relegation are generally foreseeable and likely either explicitly or implicitly included in the terms of the contract. A blanket ban of the type being contemplated here is likely not.
Third, it would be difficult for FIFA to argue here that the ban was part of the normal course of business and should not be regarded as a breach because FIFA is not obligated to carry water for UEFA. It has no cause to sabotage its own tournament because some club teams are having a dispute with UEFA.
(I also think it's notable that the New York Times raised the same issue here.)
Yes, it's a possibility but it's not at all certain. In fact the the defending european champions and runnersup have stayed out of it while teams that are faring relatively poorly are trying to join it. (Since were doing the college basketball analogy: imagine a breakaway college league with teams like duke msu and north carolina, (historically great teams that didnt make or barely made the tournament wanting to be guaranteed postseason basketball) but baylor, gonzaga and ucla stay with NCAA.
April 19th, 2021 at 12:17 PM ^
@egrfree
NASCAR Perspective on this move...seriously.
A few years back, NASCAR determined with it's ownership group that instead of running a driver/fan friendly operation they would change the dynamics to one more of a "league". As such, they moved from the fan popular "run what you brung" model where basically anybody could show up at a track and try to qualify (pending meeting NASCAR specs) to a "league" where owners of teams bought "charters" that were sold to 36 "teams". Note that often many of these "charters" (up to 4) could be owned by one individual so a four car team was possible as of 2016. Further, charters could be sold/transferred. Having a charter guaranteed the owner a) a spot in the field and b) a share of the purse. Kind of anti-competitive seeming? The move left "independent" owners struggling because the share of the purse for independent teams was far less than the charter teams (and barely enough to allow for cost recovery/R&D).
The outcomes of this move by NASCAR has been to enrich some owners/teams but also to create a static and stale competitive environment and this is reflected in the ratings. The chance that a random driver/team could win pre-charter was unlikely but did happen, at times. Since 2016 ratings have been down and only stabilized last year during the pandemic. NASCAR is nowhere near the early 2000's ratings due to many factors (including the NFL like highlighting "the brand" over driver personality).
This brings us to the Super League which, sadly, would cause the same outcome and outrage for fans of European football worldwide. The league founders would always be present and this defeats the most important principle for fans of club football in Europe...that their team could advance in the pyramid and beat the biggest teams. In 2015/2016 Leicester City (who were terrible for much of my life) shockingly won the Premier League and went on to various international competitions. This significantly enriched the club and they will probably be a fixture in the Premiership for some time. The opportunity for teams to move up/down in across the many leagues in the UK is among the most powerful incentives for fans. We see this in the outrage currently from every involved and non-involved fanbase.
This is a profit move by some owners. Nothing more. Probably also a negotiation tactic of some form (brinksmanship) with FIFA/UEFA. That said, if those organizations froze out the 15 Super League teams no fans of the other teams that took their place would even care. The risk for these teams is that FIFA/UEFA and the leagues just hold the line and freeze them out for a few years until they crawl back.
For really big clubs, this wouldn't be that many extra especially for those who go deep in their domestic cup competitions and in the CL. The bigger backlash will likely come from players who are unable to play for their national teams in 2022.
April 18th, 2021 at 10:37 PM ^
I would be really interested in seeing if FIFA would actually be willing to follow through on such a threat.
Personally, I think FIFA's threat to ban players from the World Cup is a lot like the NCAA's threat to ban California teams from competition if the California law allowing players to keep NIL rights goes into effect. That is to say, I think it's empty.
To ban the best players in the world from playing in the World Cup, FIFA would be doing enormous damage to its own competition. It would likely cost the organization hundreds of millions (maybe billions) of dollars. Would they be willing to shoot themselves in the foot like that? I'm super skeptical.
Having a bunch of top players out for the World Cup would definitely be a blow for FIFA, but I wonder if it would be as big of a blow as most think it would.
Not everyone will see it this way, but for me, the World Cup is kind of like college football or basketball in that its appeal is the pageantry, the colors, the tradition, the uniforms, the music, the fans, the national anthems and flags, etc, much more than a desire to see the top level of the sport.
College football and college basketball are a much lower level of play than the NFL or NBA, but I like college football and bball so much more than pro football or basketball for the reasons mentioned above.
Similarly, the World Cup is a way lower level of play than the Champions League or the EPL but I'll watch a Morocco-Iran game in the World Cup over almost any professional soccer game because of what an amazing event the World Cup is. There is just nothing like watching two teams come out of the tunnel and sing their national anthems, and then go to battle with their entire country behind them. And FWIW, Morocco-Iran turned out to be an amazing game in the last World Cup even though neither of those teams has very much star power.
So I agree that it would suck for some huge stars to miss the World Cup, but I'm not sure that it would completely ruin the event like many are assuming.
Also, there are still a lot of huge stars that wouldn't be in the Super League including Kylian Mbappe, the current best player in the world, and Neymar who is still one of the 5 or so most famous players in the world. And to me, interest in the World Cup is not as driven by stars as, for example, interest in the NBA.
And I do see both sides of this debate, some, because when I was first becoming a huge soccer fan - in the build up to the 2002 World Cup - the opportunity to watch Ronaldo, Beckham, Zidane, Michael Owen, and others was definitely a big part of the excitement for me. But I was also excited to watch every game, even games that didn't have any star players like Paraguay-Slovenia which turned out to be a classic.
One other thing, FIFA has already sold the TV rights for 2022 and 2026. So if they had to, they might be content to just hold the event even without players from the clubs mentioned - since they already cashed in on the TV rights before there was any thought that some stars could be banned. And then they'd still have until 2030 to hope for the Super League to fall apart if it loses fan support due to the players being banned from international competition and the clubs being banned from their own domestic leagues.
April 19th, 2021 at 11:34 AM ^
I think you're making a few incorrect assumptions. For starters, I think a lot of soccer fans do watch the World Cup to see the best national teams and the best players play, and I think losing those guys would cause a dramatic loss in interest.
More importantly, your last paragraph assumes that FIFA can keep all the money it's getting from its TV rights even though it will have now enforced a ban on most of the world's best players. I have not seen FIFA's contracts, but I seriously doubt that is true. As a lot of the coverage has indicated, one of the reasons why the domestic leagues are so afraid of this super league is because it has the potential to mess up their current deals. Without their best teams, the networks and sponsors could sue the leagues for breach of contract for failing to provide the agreed upon product.
The fact that FIFA already sold the TV rights for 2022 and 2026 doesn't make things better for FIFA; it makes things worse. It means they've budgeted all that money already and enforcing the ban is likely to cause a large amount of that money to disappear as sponsors and TV networks refuse to pay the same price for an inferior product.
FIFA banning the world's best players will mean subjecting themselves to potentially dozens of lawsuits for breach of contract and forcing themselves to renegotiate billions of dollars in prearranged deals.
April 19th, 2021 at 12:27 PM ^
World Cup is about nationalism not star power. Fans will only care about which players play for their teams if it means they might impact the potential of winning or losing. The problem the Super League is going to have is that none of the impacted fanbases even want it.
April 19th, 2021 at 12:48 PM ^
The reason this is happening now is it's the only time, ever, they could do it without facing protests and boycotts from their fans.
The World Cup is about both nationalism and star power. And as you said, fans are absolutely going to care about which players play because it will have a major impact on wins and losses. And because fans will care, sponsors will also care, which means potentially billions of dollars in losses for FIFA.
Honestly, I don't see it. England fans care about the St. George's Cross, Brazil fans about the Green/Yellow. The problems sponsors and networks have is that FIFA draws ratings and has multiple options for their business on television. Fans absolutely will care about players missing games but they won't blame FIFA, they'll blame the new league for screwing with their national teams, and that will more or less be that.
April 18th, 2021 at 10:43 PM ^
You have to figure that if this new league is successfully lauched, the games in the Super League would replace participating in the Champions League. So take those games off the table. Then the SL clubs will probably only play their B-team for "League Cup" level games. Those come out as well.
What I don't understand is how the midweek SL games would actually work. The various leagues like PL, La Liga, etc. schedule games in the middle of the week already. How do the SL teams juggle that?
The really fun part is if FIFA involves itself and somehow disallows players participating in the SL from playing for their national teams in the World Cup. Then the Super League will have big problems.
Ultimately, I think UEFA and FIFA will open the coffers and the big teams will get more dough and this will fade into the night.
Oh. I expected to read a summary of the article and the thread title. Woops
Teams reportedly included are:
Arsenal, Chelsea, Man U, Man City, Tottenham, Liverpool, Bayern Munich, and PSG.
This would be huge, and would shake up soccer around the globe. Interesting
So, no DC United?
/s
In the **European** Super League? no.
I see the "/s" but the joke only works if it makes sense.....
No PSG or Bayern.
UEFA and the domestic leagues are 100% against it, austensibly because it would ruin the domestic leagues, take away from other tournaments like the FA Cup and make scheduling an even bigger nightmare.
O course we shouldn't pretend that it's not also a money concern for them. If these clubs do this they won't participate in Champions League (so UEFA says) and thus the top revenue (and eyeball-drawing) clubs would not be part of the draw.
Its also a big money grab for these owners as the league stands to be mostly closed (no relegation) for most of the founding members, this guaranteeing revenue, much like the NFL or NBA.
The things that stands out most to me though is how much the fans don't want this.
More details are needed still I think to understand full implications, but I am 100% against this initiative.
This likely cripples the domestic league pyramid which is largely propped up by the big clubs. It'd also be a shame to lose games like Manchester United vs Burnley etc...
Its about $ on both sides at the end of the day, but I'd hate to see the domestic leagues ruined over this.
It's hard to describe how much I hate this. These days it seems like sports leagues intentionally do whatever they can to send a whopping middle finger to their fans in the service of earning more revenue - at every level and in every country. You can tell that this has a distinctly American flavor to it too, many of the VPs of this new league would be members of the American ownership groups at Manchester United, Liverpool, and Arsenal. I've been a United fan for over a decade now (I know I know it was kind of a chickenshit move to begin with), but if they actually go through with this I will find a new club to support.
Absolutely has an icky American feel for this proposal. It’s basically making an American sports league with no relegation - which is superior to what American sports leagues do and I wish was brought over to America.
FIFA just brought down their hammer on the idea too - not that it’ll be a permanent decision, of course.
Yes. Very American...
April 18th, 2021 at 10:18 PM ^
If you’re a Manchester United fan, sing the Manchester United song.
”My baby takes the morning train....”
April 18th, 2021 at 11:02 PM ^
“Pretty good. Pretty damn good, lads!!!”
If you've been a United fan for over a decade now( and yes that's a terrible bandwagon move, like someone from England declaring themselves a Yankees fan), then you have to have known that this is an idea that has been kicking around for a long time. Quite possibly the pandemic finally drove everyone crazy enough to try it, but this is not a new idea and I very much doubt it was sole-sourced American as you seem to desperately need to believe.
I agree that its a terrible idea and even though my Spurs have somehow made the cut(God knows why) I still hate it even if it might be good for them in the long run.
April 19th, 2021 at 12:25 PM ^
I should clarify: it's not entirely an American-driven idea. RMA and Juve are pushing this too, but in the context of the EPL from what I've read it's been the American-owned teams (who are the real historical entities in England) that almost bullied the other ones into signing on. The worst part about the NFL is that someone like Stan Kroenke can bully his way out of St. Louis - purely because he wants more money at the expense of public funding - and we end up with 2 football teams in LA (and a $2B stadium where all the proceeds go straight to the owners' pockets). Unsurprisingly, Stan Kroenke owns Arsenal, and the Glazer family (who own the Tampa Bay Bucs) own Manchester United.
April 19th, 2021 at 10:38 AM ^
Americanization of European Football Is Nothing New
For those who believe that this Super League reflects the sudden Americanization of European football, read The Club: How the English Premier League Became the Wildest, Richest, Most Disruptive Force in Sports by Joshua Robinson and Jonathan Clegg.
If much of what you know about European football is based on the English Premier League that has had matches broadcast on NBC and NBCSN since the 2013-14 season, then you might be surprised to learn that when England’s Premier League began in 1992, the ownership of the most powerful clubs in England at that time relied heavily on the United States’ National Football League as their model for increasing popularity and financial rewards.
As a reminder, NBC/Universal’s rights to broadcast English Premier League matches ends with the 2021-22 season. Because NBC/Universal plans to shut down NBC Sports Network by the end of this year and shift Premier League broadcasts to USA Network and the Peacock streaming service, it’s increasingly possible that the Premier League’s dissatisfaction with NBC/Universal’s shift of EPL broadcasts is going to make it harder for NBC/Universal to win the next contract to broadcast EPL matches in the United States. LINK
"European soccer should be more like the American sports leagues" said no one ever, except apparently the Glaciers and Henrys of the world.
Lots of bashing of American sports leagues in the thread. What exactly is wrong with American sports leagues? From a pure competitive standpoint the NFL is about the best league in the world and I don't think its particularly close.
I don't view the comments in this thread as bashing American sports leagues, but rather bashing the application of the American sports structure to European soccer. The American sports system has the potential to destroy some of the very unique and interesting components of domestic soccer leagues, such as relegation. Also, this super league will only further exacerbate the money issue in soccer and we will end up with something more akin to F1 than the NFL.
The NFL is probably a great example of why this proposal should not be adopted and there should be more even distribution of TV revenue within leagues.
Fair enough if you would prefer the European model remain intact, that's a perfectly reasonable position to have. My question is more so about what exactly is wrong with the American sports model? For instance, your last sentence contradicts itself. You say the NFL structure is a model that should not be replicated but then call for more TV revenue distribution which is in fact one of the main pillars of the NFL structure. I may not be fully understanding your reply so just to clarify, what don't you like about the NFL's structure and how would it negatively impact European soccer?
I have no problem with the American sports model, I was trying to explain the general idea of applying American sports systems to European soccer. There are certain components of the NFL and American sports model that I would love to see incorporated into soccer - TV revenue distribution and a salary cap. However, I much prefer crowning a season champion instead of playoffs and relegation/promotion in European soccer. The super league doesn't affect these necessarily but has the potential to do so.
I dislike the Super League approach because it creates founding members with only limited opportunity for relegation so a team's performance doesn't impact its ability to play in the league. I view this as the "American" component of the Super League.
The NFL consists of players almost exclusively from one country. Im not sure how you define pure competition but I feel like the NFL is in last place in at least the United States and it isn't particularly close.
MLB, NBA, & NHL are all far more global than the NFL drawing in competitors from all over the world. Then there is the EPL which blows all three of them away.
I'm referring to pure competition from an organization standpoint, meaning individual teams. The NFL, more than any other league, has actively pursued to make the playing field for each team as fair as possible. From the salary cap, the draft, revenue sharing ect, everything they do is to try to even the playing field as much as possible.
April 19th, 2021 at 12:14 AM ^
I’m genuinely curious how you define “global.”
Opening up an NFL roster at random: Arizona's 53-man roster has 52 players from the US proper and one from American Samoa.
First NBA roster I look at (OKC) has, by birthplace, 9 Americans, 2 Canadians, 2 from France, and one each from Serbia, Argentina, the Ukraine and the Dominican.
The Red Wings currently have 5 Americans, 10 Canadians, a Dane, 3 Swedes, a Finn, 3 Czechs, 3 Russians and a German.
The Padres have, besides the US, players from Cuba, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, Japan, Panama, South Korea, the Dominican and the Netherlands Antilles.
I don't know how careful a definition of "global" you need to notice that one of these sports is unlike the others.
April 18th, 2021 at 10:08 PM ^
Part of the issue is the complete disregard for the current system. Promotion/relegation is deeply intertwined with the history of every club in Europe, even the current best teams have not been that way forever. By creating the Super League, you essentially entrench them as too big to fail clubs. It’s like if college football created a conference of only the best programs. Would you want to watch UM get smashed 2-3 times a year by the likes of Alabama, OSU and Clemson but rake in billions of dollars of revenue and then act like they’re doing it all for the love of the game? This is essentially what Tottenham and Arsenal are signing up for - making money with absolutely zero need to be competitive.
What made me laugh is seeing shit clubs like Arsenal on the list lmao.
And I’m an Arsenal fan.
April 18th, 2021 at 10:00 PM ^
It's not a perfect comparison but Arsenal is currently the Michigan of the EPL.
But Arsenal's history is incredible. And they're 2nd in England in terms of trophies won.
April 18th, 2021 at 10:16 PM ^
Right which only highlights the idiocracy when clubs like Marseille have great histories (and actual Champions League trophies) but get left out, but shit clubs like Man City and Tottenham get the privileges. GTFO
Yeah not sure why Man City and Tottenham get included. The amount of trophies between the two is laughable.
April 19th, 2021 at 10:44 AM ^
really? you're not sure?
It$ pretty $traightforward: https://www.statista.com/statistics/300578/team-value-of-soccer-teams/