Does 5% of European revenue mean only from Champions League and Europa League play, or also from domestic leagues? Because that seems awfully light, especially for the handful of teams that won’t be playing in those leagues next year.
New Euro Super league to be announced Sunday
- Thread starter Clears Cleaver
- Start date
I don’t think the main cause of the big clubs amassing too much talent is the lack of player power in getting out. Small teams aren’t selling their talented players to large teams against the players’ will. All players already have the right to block transfers. Transfers aren’t trades like in American sports, they actually have to get the players to agree to the new contracts and to agree to working at their new employer before the transfer can happen. That includes enticements like a (often considerable) salary increase.
Players also have all manner of means to get out if they want more playing time, including skipping out on training, telling the world they want a transfer, and formally requesting to be put on the transfer list (which does come at the cost of jeopardizing any loyalty bonus in the player’s salary). An out clause for playing time might help but player power in European football is such that a top player who’s unhappy usually finds a way to get out.
Back on the table. There will apparently be an announcement today, with varying reports reporting the clubs pushing the idea again. It seems obvious that the big Spanish and Italian clubs will be central but beyond that its kind of unclear.
They seem to be trying to correct arguably the two biggest mistakes they made last time, emphasizing that there will be no permanent members and that this would be a replacement for the CL, not for domestic leagues.
We'll see where this all goes.
View: https://twitter.com/AranchaMOBILE/status/1499375114953048065
They seem to be trying to correct arguably the two biggest mistakes they made last time, emphasizing that there will be no permanent members and that this would be a replacement for the CL, not for domestic leagues.
We'll see where this all goes.
View: https://twitter.com/AranchaMOBILE/status/1499375114953048065
Yeah, I agree. They are ghouls.
On one hand, I like the idea of a Champions League in which the best teams play each other. But this structure eliminates the chance for an exciting match-up or knock-out in the group stages, as well as seems to reduce the chance that a big club does not advance beyond the group stages -- for me, this outcome creates suspense.
That's a fair critique but also the status quo is an incredibly corrupt and incompetent UEFA putting out a shitty product that isn't monetized very well and unduly influenced by a different set of uber wealthy clubs owned by despotic petrostates.
The CL is really boring and its only going to get worse in a few years when they expand the format to 36 teams. Meanwhile, UEFA has no interest at all in using its position to do anything positive for the game in terms of enforcing financial fair play, putting limits on state-owned clubs, or doing anything about the increasing lack of competitiveness within many of the biggest domestic leagues.
Its perfectly reasonable to ask whether a new regulator pushed by the likes of Perez and Agnelli would really be better, but at least in theory there is a huge possibility for improvement because the status quo is terrible.
The status quo has been made worse by these same clubs lobbying for constant expansion so their financials aren’t ruined when they no longer win. They’ve created the monster I don’t see how they are also the solution.
IMO the very rich people running these clubs are being muscled out of the grift by primarily Qatar and are having fit about it. This has always been about revenue streams and the inability to compete when the CL money goes away
Any group of fans could come up with a more compelling Champions league format. I don’t happen to think the current structure is all that bad except for all the extra games non top 5 league teams have to play just to get in. Cup football will always lend itself to upsets so the easiest thing they could do is eliminate group stages and just make teams play constant do or die matches.
I do tend to agree with you on this. The question is how this super league would in any way be better? These clubs made it clear the first time around that they felt that they were entitled to more of the pie, and I think we agree that they already have too much pie. Anything they come up with will only be for their benefit. Put another way, what is wrong with the current system for Juventus, Barcelona or any of the other players?
UEFA is corrupt, you’re right. But I’d rather stick with the corruption I know than the corruption I don’t, and these mega clubs are corrupt too.
Agree here as well. They won’t eliminate the group stages because that could mean fewer games for top teams, though. I remember those dual group stages and do agree that the current system is a step up.
The initial attempt has left such a sour taste in my mouth that I still can’t bring myself to root for my beloved Barcelona. I watch their games simply to see if Dest is playing (and he’s been playing well lately). I find myself rooting against all of the teams involved in the initial super league attempt. I tune in for every Sevilla match hoping against all hope that they’ll win La Liga. Same thing with Napoli in Serie A. So I do have a natural bias against any second attempt at a super league and I readily admit it.
I think my overall problem is that these massive clubs think and act like they’re bigger than the game. The reality is that they’re not. Any one of them could be relegated down five tiers and the game wouldn’t miss a beat.
It's back.
I'm more sympathetic this time around, though I still condemn how the clubs did this originally. The teams involved came across as supremely arrogant and entitled. If the scope had been wider, permanent teams omitted, and the messaging framed around restoring some level of spending parity, then it may have had a shot. Having so many of the teams that represented the problem of have vs. have not completely destroyed the concept from the start.
The timing this time around is better. The January transfer window renewed the spotlight on the spending problem, not only within England itself but also England's power over the rest of the continent. Chelsea's spending spree's legality isn't easily understood by anybody, let alone casuals. City have just been caught in the spotlight again. Big teams are for sale with the general perception that ownership can no longer see a path to compete under the current rules.
I don't think any variant of the Super League solves this problem, but if this is more of a gambit to get UEFA to close loopholes and level the playing field then let's have at it.
I'm more sympathetic this time around, though I still condemn how the clubs did this originally. The teams involved came across as supremely arrogant and entitled. If the scope had been wider, permanent teams omitted, and the messaging framed around restoring some level of spending parity, then it may have had a shot. Having so many of the teams that represented the problem of have vs. have not completely destroyed the concept from the start.
The timing this time around is better. The January transfer window renewed the spotlight on the spending problem, not only within England itself but also England's power over the rest of the continent. Chelsea's spending spree's legality isn't easily understood by anybody, let alone casuals. City have just been caught in the spotlight again. Big teams are for sale with the general perception that ownership can no longer see a path to compete under the current rules.
I don't think any variant of the Super League solves this problem, but if this is more of a gambit to get UEFA to close loopholes and level the playing field then let's have at it.
"Financial sustainability rules should allow clubs to only spend a fixed percentage of their annual football-related revenue on player salaries and net transfers with appropriate provisions for smaller clubs and transition rules."
This remains the money quote and the central problem. Sign me not up for yet another system where the usual suspects try to tie spending to revenue generation so that they can permanently entrench themselves at the top. The most annoying thing about my club’s current predicament is that the rules that were created were idiotic and this just continues with that. Real Madrid, having spent years abusing everyone with their financial might, now wants to lock in a system where they get to outspend everyone because they got to grow first. It’s a shambolic approach.
This remains the money quote and the central problem. Sign me not up for yet another system where the usual suspects try to tie spending to revenue generation so that they can permanently entrench themselves at the top. The most annoying thing about my club’s current predicament is that the rules that were created were idiotic and this just continues with that. Real Madrid, having spent years abusing everyone with their financial might, now wants to lock in a system where they get to outspend everyone because they got to grow first. It’s a shambolic approach.
Real Madrid play in La Liga where that’s already the case. Your overall point remains though, that tying expenses to revenue (or in Spain’s case, projected revenue) is designed to keep the top teams at the top.
Club soccer is broken. I agree with any supporters of any Super League on that point. I think maybe we differ in how it’s broken or in the way to fix it. For me, the biggest clubs have too much money and spend too much money compared to the rest, so the solution isn’t to create a system that rewards these teams with even more guaranteed revenue. Any club who wants to join a Super League already benefits from the system as it is. It’s solely designed for them to get an even bigger advantage, to keep even more money.
I’ll just stick to La Liga because it’s what I know best. In my lifetime, Real Sociedad, Athletic Club, Depor, and Valencia have won La Liga, but the last of those was 20 years ago. I don’t see any way that any of these clubs, or any other outside of Barcelona, Real Madrid, and Atleti win La Liga ever. The introduction of mass amounts of money, regardless of the source- oil or whatever- has killed the game.
We agree. My point is that if these cretins were serious about actually making the playing field level they’d be proposing spending caps and luxury taxes. Instead every time these usual suspects approach this topic they try to codify their financial advantage so they can remain at the top. They couch it as money “earned” as if the vast majority of the money isn’t from whoring their brands out globally. And those brands, of course, have more value because they used to outspend everyone and thus have more relevance globally. Remember when Leicester improbably won the prem? In the world these people supposedly inhabit they would have apparently jumped up to being able to spend like United but of course in the real world they got a small jump in prize money and had their club picked apart by richer clubs.
Fans continuing to support these proposals of clubs which aren’t the existing top clubs are Turkeys voting for Thanksgiving. If the architects of the current FFP and this super league proposal were proposing actual things to solve the problems of potential limitless funds in football I’d fully support them. As it stands they just remain businesses trying to ensure they can guarantee the annual income of the SL/CL cash
Super League potential format announced.
64 teams.
3 divisions (Star, Gold and Blue) with promotions and relegations.
14 games each season per team.
7 at home.
7 away.
It will be an open competition
Two phases: League and playoffs.
https://x.com/fabrizioromano/status/1737791190324416839?s=46&t=XvGOrrWIyL-5CHVVL_0JYQ
64 teams.
3 divisions (Star, Gold and Blue) with promotions and relegations.
14 games each season per team.7 at home.
7 away.
It will be an open competition
Two phases: League and playoffs.https://x.com/fabrizioromano/status/1737791190324416839?s=46&t=XvGOrrWIyL-5CHVVL_0JYQ
Group stage was supposed to be gone from the Champions League but rumors are that those plans are going to be scrapped.
It seems like clubs planned on todays announcement with many big clubs not on board- Man U, Atlético Madrid, and Bayern Munich among them. Barca and Real Madrid are obviously in, and I assume Juve and other Serie A clubs will join them. Seems like clubs from smaller leagues like the Dutch and Portuguese leagues would want in. I am curious about how other teams in the Prem will react given the fan response last time around.
I am shocked that they apparently have not changed the name given the abject failure last time around. I imagine that they will want these Super League games played on weekends which was unpopular too (at least in Spain).
Whatever the case, this is about money with some of the richest wanting to get richer.
Edited to add that the announcement said that games will be midweek initially. Of course, the Qatar World Cup was initially going to be a summer tournament.
Last edited:
I could also announce a 64 team European league/tournament if I wanted but I also don't have 64 teams that want to play in it. They're throwing spaghetti at the wall right now, not much to do but wait and see if any of it sticks.
PR was never their strong suit …
That being said I just can’t see any of the Premier League clubs signing up for this.
edit: and even if they wanted to, the new government regulator would probably not allow it.
Last edited:
What'll save it was the fan backlash from last time, and the domestic regulators throwing their weight around. Maybe UEFA can't prohibit it and exact retribution on clubs and players, but domestic FAs and sports ministries can examine if it's in the best interests of the game and community.
There is probably a framework that gets you there, but I'm not sure it's all that different from the Champions League as it exists today - principally because the top clubs resigning and not playing in the domestic leagues would be viewed very dimly by all involved, and if you're playing a full Big 5 league schedule, you don't have room for another league competition. At least not with the same players.
Maybe if the Big 5 each contracted down to 16 or even 14 teams, with pro/rel to a similarly sized super league, you could do it. But that is just as unlikely imo, given who'd have to vote in favor at the league level.
There is probably a framework that gets you there, but I'm not sure it's all that different from the Champions League as it exists today - principally because the top clubs resigning and not playing in the domestic leagues would be viewed very dimly by all involved, and if you're playing a full Big 5 league schedule, you don't have room for another league competition. At least not with the same players.
Maybe if the Big 5 each contracted down to 16 or even 14 teams, with pro/rel to a similarly sized super league, you could do it. But that is just as unlikely imo, given who'd have to vote in favor at the league level.
Not advocating for it, but this is an opening for more Saudi money. PSG/Qatar’s leading position in UEFA gives this a geopolitical rivalry angle. And it could be the path to get the top Saudi clubs into regular matches with Madrid & Barca, moving to towards that vision of Saudi participation at the highest levels.
From the clubs perspective, what was attractive was the closed shop - ie guaranteed revenue plus the ability to sell their own broadcast rights - the ManUs and Liverpools and Real Madrids of the world have staggeringly huge fan bases - to which they could sell/stream their games and make a very, very large amount of money.
Both of those features are the bugs from the domestic clubs point of view. I don’t see anyway of reconciling them.
Both of those features are the bugs from the domestic clubs point of view. I don’t see anyway of reconciling them.
Yes. The crux of the ruling is anti - monopolist - which, as unobjectionable as that may be philosophically, leaves the door open for the footy tournament equivalent of LIV Golf.
There are some very rich clubs not taking the opportunity to get richer. What I see is 1) the heavily indebted wanting to get less so and 1A) the revenue security of getting to compete in the mega club competition year in year out without risking non qualification- or, even worse, finishing just out side the qualifying spots, spending gobs of cash on players to improve the squad, ending up with aFrankenstein squad of very expensive malcontents with diminished sell on value, and STILL not qualifying. You know who those clubs are.
Say what you will about Citys petroleum dollars, and the freedom to make mistakes it gives them-they’ve made Almost none. Their eye for talent and their skill at integrating players into the squad is otherworldly. We’ve been blessed in Boston to see generational or GOAT executives in Auerbach and Belichick keep this up at impossible to sustain levels over multiple generations of players. What Pep and his executives have done over a decade seems easy given their cash flow- but they spend the money on Grealish and Haaland, not Mudryk and Sancho.
City are interesting in that regard where while it can be easy to credit their success to having basically unlimited funds to buy the best players, we have seen plenty of teams spend ridiculous money and have no success at all. Pep obviously does a tremendous job at identifying the right players for his system and then they go out and get them. They also rotate out the squad and send players who still have good years in front of them out, despite not necessarily having a financial need to do so.
At the same time, they've had some guys who haven't worked out, but they have so much money it hasn't mattered. Kalvin Phillips, they spent 62 million Euros on Matheus Nunes this past season, and he's barely played. 57 million on Benjamin Mendy--these are moves that would cripple almost any other club but are barely on the radar screen for City.
Oh I agree with you. Barca and Juve see this as a get out of jail free card. I don’t know where Inter Milan stand but I’ve heard that they’ve had financial difficulties and might be in the same boat. Real Madrid is a different case though. I hate myself for saying this, but they’ve built they’re squad well. They have spending limit nearly seven times Barcelona’s according to La Liga’s FFP rules. They can choose to add Mbappe or not this off season (personally I think he’s a bad fit for their current squad). They’ve won five of the last ten Champions Leagues, most with Pep at City (who have the one). While they likely won’t win it this year, it’s more because they lost both starting CBs and their GK to torn ACLs. They currently can compete with anyone, both financially and on the field. There is a difference between having endless funds and building a club well, as Chelsea have proven over and over again recently. However more money for even a well run club like Madrid can help them remain competitive with City without needing to be near perfect (which they have been since the Eden Hazard transfer), and city have made some large blunders over the years that they could spend their way out of that most clubs couldn’t.
City are disciplined in some ways, they've had relatively few of the absolute bank-breaking transfers of the world (only one of the top 20 all time and two of the top 25) and more of an extended conveyor belt of £45mil - £65mil transfers, most of which hit. The real advantage that they have is that they can just do unlimited amounts of those kinds of transfer and also as you say the ones that do fail (your Philips, your Nunes, etc.) slow them down not at all whereas a transfer at that price level flopping hurts even most other EPL big six clubs, let alone other ones.
They seem to have shifted their approach in recent years toward more big deals - Gvardiol was the most expensive defender of all time, Grealish was the first £100m player signed by an English club, and while the Haaland transfer fee was low due to the release clause, there was also reportedly a 40m euro agent fee and something in the neighborhood of 40m annually in wages, making him arguably the most expensive player ever outside the Messi/Ronaldo/Neymar/Mbappe megastar quartet in terms of total financial commitment. They also offered at least £90m for Rice and I'm pretty sure they would have gone over £100m for Bellingham if he had chosen them.
I think Haaland was a no doubt for any time and City just had special advantages. I do wonder a bit whether if you reversed circumstances and you had Mudryk or Sancho instead of Grealish at City if you might not still end up with very different results. I can't find the quote I'm looking for right now, but at one point Bill Parcells was asked something to the effect of whether he was happy he picked Bledsoe over Mirer. Parcells response was who's to say that the results would be the same for Mirer/Bledsoe if Parcells had reversed the two situations and coaching.
Well, they had Sancho in their academy. Thought better to sell him to Dortmund then deal with him. Then they watch their rival pay a ton of money for him then have him fracture Man U. Top class stuff.
Madrid seem to have really wisely focused on paying for high potential young players and teenagers like Militao, Camavinga, Tchouameni, etc. in recent years and avoiding the back-breaking deals for veterans that fall of a cliff like Hazard. Bellingham was a top-dollar signing but also fits the mold of the former group. It also helps to have an amazing pipeline to the next great attacker coming out of Brazil (Vinicius, Rodrygo, soon to be Endrick).
The more I read up on this, the less important it seems. According to ESPN FC (I know, I know) there are laws on the books in England and Italy that prohibit clubs from playing in a domestic league and a league not sanctioned by UEFA. The UEFA rule that was deemed illegal was already changed back in 2022 and it’s unclear if the current policy also violates the law. But I’m not sure that even matters. The Super League collapsed so fast last time not because of laws or UEFA rules, but because the fans hated it. Club soccer is riddled with problems, but I don’t see how the Super League fixes any of them. Most fans would argue that a major problem is that Barcelona have too much money, not too little. I also think that most fans like the competitions as they are set up now anyways, again with the complaint that too few teams have too big of a piece of the pie.
In particular, none of the EPL teams are subject to EU law, and so even if some English teams wanted to join the Super League, with the Tories floundering so badly at the polls it would be an easy win for them to do something extremely popular and block them from joining, and then crow about how Brexit gave the UK sovereignty from EU decisions (since this might be the only win that Brexit produced).