Potential break away European super football league

Gassage

ToneControl said:

how much legal power do FIFA and EUFA have? 
How much could bans comply with employment law? Surely employment law would stop bans?

Enough to stave off world allegations of corruption amongst their staff and to allow them criminal collusion on the world political stage over a so called competitive award process for a World Cup.

Quite a lot.

crunchman

ToneControl said:

scrumhalf said:

All those who talk of bans, fines and demotions should read about the litigation that followed the banning of England cricketers after they signed for Kerry Packer.

The national FAs cannot just do as they please. And if there's enough money to give the clubs a golden hello of a bazillion quid there will be enough money for some weighty lawsuits.

I still think that this is a power play for a revised Champions League, coupled with a slimming down of the Prem to 18 clubs and then 16.

That's an interesting comparison

World Series Cricket - Wikipedia

Justice Slade in his judgment said that professional cricketers need to make a living and the ICC should not stand in their way just because its own interests might be damaged. He said the ICC might have stretched the concept of loyalty too far. Players could not be criticized for entering the contracts in secrecy as the main authorities would deny the players the opportunity to enjoy the advantages offered by WSC.

The decision was a blow to the cricket authorities and, adding insult to injury, they had to pay court costs. English County cricket teams were pleased as their players who had signed to play for Packer were still eligible to play for them.

Like I said above when it was brought up previously, that's a different situation because it's individual players who have signed the contracts.  You can't stop them from earning a living.

Clubs are not individuals.  They don't have employment rights in the same way as individuals.

They have every right to set up their own competition, but they can't expect the rest of football to stand around and do nothing about having all their chances of success removed.  The 86 teams that make up the rest of the Premier League and the Football League will have every right to take action to protect themselves.  The obvious action is to boot them out of the Premier League.  If they lose that income stream, they will be worse off than they are now.

If it does go ahead, I don't think you could stop players on their existing contracts playing international football, but ban anyone who signs a new contract with any of these teams.  Players become household names and legends at World Cups, not by playing Real Madrid for the 28th time.  Some of them might choose short term money over long term earning potential with a cushy TV job and advertising crisps, but it would give them something to think about.

Heartfeltdawn

crunchman said:

Talking of cricket, maybe Boris can step in and do something about the Hundred while he's in this kind of mood.

I don't think Boris has a mode you can engage called "Killing It With A Spade". 

ToneControl

UnclePsychosis said:

guitars4you said:

UnclePsychosis said:

crunchman said:

The problem is that most of the money will be from elsewhere in the world.  Fans in this country don't care much about the Champions League but it is a big money spinner around the world.  The 6 English clubs involved in this probably think they will make more money from that than they will lose locally.

Spot on. For everyone other than a few hundred thousand British people the Premier League "is"  Liverpool/Man Utd/Chelsea/Man City/Arsenal. The other clubs don't matter globally. 

But in many ways that is crap

Chelsea don't even have the 3rd best ground in London - wasn't that long ago that Chelsea were not even the 3rd best team in London let alone an elite in Europe

20 years ago Man City struggled to beat Gillingham 

And what a joy for football that only a few years ago Leicester won the PL

The point is that the current system might have its fault - But dreams can and do happen as teams can come and go - It is a joy that the likes of Bournemouth can join the PL, even if it is only for a few seasons - Sure, Man U is a global success both on/off the pitch, but it is more enjoyable for the good of the game that the minnows can take them on from time to time and even win 

Man City + Arsenal's previous success in Europe is barely better than that of Newcastle, or Leeds, let alone Villa and Forest - So yes today they have money but hardly a  powerhouse of Europe - IMO they have no right to protect themselves from a bad day at the office and no relegation 

30 years ago we all watched the PL and as I mentioned above First year of the PL and the top 6 were Man Utd, Villa, Norwich, Blackburn, QPR and Liverpool 

It is the fact that it is a closed shop that is so wrong 

You're talking like a fan with a prior attachment to your team, rather than an accountant. 

Twenty years ago insane money hadn't reached football. What Forest and Villa did in the 70s and 80s is irrelevant to football in 2021---What gives City the right to protect themselves is money, not history. They've bought their way to the top and now intend to pull the ladder up. 

To paraphrase a thing I saw elsewhere that I agree with - I watch US sports. I am more likely to watch if there's a 'big game'. I don't really care if there is relegation or not. There are hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people across the globe who have exactly the same relationship with European football. These people don't even notice that Bournemouth or Catania or Mallorca are spending a year in the top flight. They will however notice that Liverpool are playing Barcelona and tune in accordingly. 

None of this makes any sense to us as fans. You have to view it through the lens of money. It's 100% about money and nothing to do with history, supporters, or any of that romantic stuff. 

yep
"supporters" should have got more involved with owning their clubs
e.g. I said way back that the fans could have bought Man united instead of the Glaziers 
too many fans want someone else to finance and run "their" clubs, but stand back and watch business investors buy them
Maybe the FA / UEFA/ FIFA should have done something about ownership rules way back instead of being surprised at the logical outcome of letting billionaire businessmen buy up football "clubs"

jellyroll

I’ve been a Man City fan for 50 years but this will probably be the end of the line for me. 

I understand the commercial benefits of the global audience, etc. But it just won’t be my club anymore. I’m sure that’s a calculation that been done by the owners...lose say half your local fan base in exchange for massively enhanced global audiences. 

ToneControl

crunchman said:

ToneControl said:

scrumhalf said:

All those who talk of bans, fines and demotions should read about the litigation that followed the banning of England cricketers after they signed for Kerry Packer.

The national FAs cannot just do as they please. And if there's enough money to give the clubs a golden hello of a bazillion quid there will be enough money for some weighty lawsuits.

I still think that this is a power play for a revised Champions League, coupled with a slimming down of the Prem to 18 clubs and then 16.

That's an interesting comparison

World Series Cricket - Wikipedia

Justice Slade in his judgment said that professional cricketers need to make a living and the ICC should not stand in their way just because its own interests might be damaged. He said the ICC might have stretched the concept of loyalty too far. Players could not be criticized for entering the contracts in secrecy as the main authorities would deny the players the opportunity to enjoy the advantages offered by WSC.

The decision was a blow to the cricket authorities and, adding insult to injury, they had to pay court costs. English County cricket teams were pleased as their players who had signed to play for Packer were still eligible to play for them.

Like I said above when it was brought up previously, that's a different situation because it's individual players who have signed the contracts.  You can't stop them from earning a living.

Clubs are not individuals.  They don't have employment rights in the same way as individuals.

They have every right to set up their own competition, but they can't expect the rest of football to stand around and do nothing about having all their chances of success removed.  The 86 teams that make up the rest of the Premier League and the Football League will have every right to take action to protect themselves.  The obvious action is to boot them out of the Premier League.  If they lose that income stream, they will be worse off than they are now.

If it does go ahead, I don't think you could stop players on their existing contracts playing international football, but ban anyone who signs a new contract with any of these teams.  Players become household names and legends at World Cups, not by playing Real Madrid for the 28th time.  Some of them might choose short term money over long term earning potential with a cushy TV job and advertising crisps, but it would give them something to think about.

looks like a legal minefield to me

stopping a company from doing its normal business would also be something that could be challenged in law surely?

crunchman

ToneControl said:

crunchman said:

ToneControl said:

scrumhalf said:

All those who talk of bans, fines and demotions should read about the litigation that followed the banning of England cricketers after they signed for Kerry Packer.

The national FAs cannot just do as they please. And if there's enough money to give the clubs a golden hello of a bazillion quid there will be enough money for some weighty lawsuits.

I still think that this is a power play for a revised Champions League, coupled with a slimming down of the Prem to 18 clubs and then 16.

That's an interesting comparison

World Series Cricket - Wikipedia

Justice Slade in his judgment said that professional cricketers need to make a living and the ICC should not stand in their way just because its own interests might be damaged. He said the ICC might have stretched the concept of loyalty too far. Players could not be criticized for entering the contracts in secrecy as the main authorities would deny the players the opportunity to enjoy the advantages offered by WSC.

The decision was a blow to the cricket authorities and, adding insult to injury, they had to pay court costs. English County cricket teams were pleased as their players who had signed to play for Packer were still eligible to play for them.

Like I said above when it was brought up previously, that's a different situation because it's individual players who have signed the contracts.  You can't stop them from earning a living.

Clubs are not individuals.  They don't have employment rights in the same way as individuals.

They have every right to set up their own competition, but they can't expect the rest of football to stand around and do nothing about having all their chances of success removed.  The 86 teams that make up the rest of the Premier League and the Football League will have every right to take action to protect themselves.  The obvious action is to boot them out of the Premier League.  If they lose that income stream, they will be worse off than they are now.

If it does go ahead, I don't think you could stop players on their existing contracts playing international football, but ban anyone who signs a new contract with any of these teams.  Players become household names and legends at World Cups, not by playing Real Madrid for the 28th time.  Some of them might choose short term money over long term earning potential with a cushy TV job and advertising crisps, but it would give them something to think about.

looks like a legal minefield to me

stopping a company from doing its normal business would also be something that could be challenged in law surely?

But this is clearly anti-competitive to other clubs.  That's not right legally either.

Either way, it's not a valid comparison to Packer as that was individual players signing the contracts, not teams.

Heartfeltdawn

ToneControl said:

looks like a legal minefield to me

stopping a company from doing its normal business would also be something that could be challenged in law surely?

The companies themselves are ceasing their own 'normal business' activities by starting up a closed-shop league that is there to wipe the 'normal business' Champions league off the map. 


There is also the matter of the clubs declaring that games will be midweek. That means every other competition fixture will have to be formed around those dates, thus putting the new "abnomal business" at the top of the pile and pushing the clubs "normal business" further down the line. 

So I'd like to see the clubs complain that they were being prevented from conducting their normal business when it is their own decision to shit on their normal business. 

ICBM

Heartfeltdawn said:

There is also the matter of the clubs declaring that games will be midweek. That means every other competition fixture will have to be formed around those dates, thus putting the new "abnomal business" at the top of the pile and pushing the clubs "normal business" further down the line. 

No... the rest of the football world should just ignore them as if they don't exist. Kick them out of the Premier League as well as all international competition, and make it a one-way street for anyone who chooses to be involved. If they want to do their own thing then it's their decision, but they have to pick one or the other.

Heartfeltdawn

ICBM said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

There is also the matter of the clubs declaring that games will be midweek. That means every other competition fixture will have to be formed around those dates, thus putting the new "abnomal business" at the top of the pile and pushing the clubs "normal business" further down the line. 

No... the rest of the football world should just ignore them as if they don't exist. Kick them out of the Premier League as well as all international competition, and make it a one-way street for anyone who chooses to be involved. If they want to do their own thing then it's their decision, but they have to pick one or the other.

I agree. I was on about the position of the clubs themselves. Those SL dates will be the primary dates in their mind, everything else can go and hang, so the argument that they are being prevented from conducting their normal business by the authorities simply doesn't stand up. 

scrumhalf

The wider implications of this need more consideration.

If the six clubs are booted out of the Prem and you are a senior bod at Sky or BT or any of the overseas broadcasters who have paid handsomely for rights to broadcast Prem games do you think they won't rush to check their agreements to see if there is a way to get some money back for a product that is significantly different from the one they paid for?

And will the next round of renewals not be for significantly less? And when Super League 2 comes along in a couple of years won't it be for even less?

There are way too many implications and ramifications that could take years to resolve in the courts, and that's in nobody's interest. Especially with FIFA and UEFA being such morally sound institutions. 

I still believe that this is a play to reduce the Prem and use the vacant dates for more European games. It seems to be the simplest iutcome. 

crunchman

scrumhalf said:

The wider implications of this need more consideration.

If the six clubs are booted out of the Prem and you are a senior bod at Sky or BT or any of the overseas broadcasters who have paid handsomely for rights to broadcast Prem games do you think they won't rush to check their agreements to see if there is a way to get some money back for a product that is significantly different from the one they paid for?

And will the next round of renewals not be for significantly less? And when Super League 2 comes along in a couple of years won't it be for even less?

There are way too many implications and ramifications that could take years to resolve in the courts, and that's in nobody's interest. Especially with FIFA and UEFA being such morally sound institutions. 

I still believe that this is a play to reduce the Prem and use the vacant dates for more European games. It seems to be the simplest iutcome. 

The next round will probably be less anyway.  Viewing figures are down.

You can take your own view of why viewing figures are down.

The clown in charge of Real is saying young people are "no longer interested in football" because of "a lot of poor quality games".

It's more because it's been locked away behind a paywall for a generation, and kids haven't grown up watching it.  When you add the other options for kids now - like YouTube and gaming - that's why it's declining.

He's right that the quality of the entertainment has fallen, but that's not because Man Utd aren't playing Real every other week.  It's because of the nature of the games these days.  They are full of diving, and they have pretty much outlawed tackling.  The City Ground used to roar when Stuart Pearce went in for a crunching tackle.  Taking that out of the game has neutered it.  One of the main reasons I don't watch anymore is because I want to throw something at the TV when players get booked for a tackle where they get the ball first.

It's also not competitive any more.  You will never get another Forest, Villa, Hamburg, or Porto winning the European Cup / Champions League. If they want to get more interest, they need more teams that are able to compete, not fewer.

musteatbrain

I’ve just noticed from reading an article on sky news that they won’t even fairly allocate the new revenue for their new league.

“the 15 founders will share 32.5% of all revenue, with a further 32.5% split between the 15 and five clubs that will qualify to join them in the competition each season.

The remaining 35% will be shared on merit, dependent on where clubs finish in the league and knockout stages, and for commercial rights.”

So those that do get in don’t even get a fair playing field.

RaymondLin

musteatbrain said:

I’ve just noticed from reading an article on sky news that they won’t even fairly allocate the new revenue for their new league.

“the 15 founders will share 32.5% of all revenue, with a further 32.5% split between the 15 and five clubs that will qualify to join them in the competition each season.

The remaining 35% will be shared on merit, dependent on where clubs finish in the league and knockout stages, and for commercial rights.”

So those that do get in don’t even get a fair playing field.

And whose to say they are not going to make the first 32.5% larger down the line?

It will be an unregulated, self governing league which might as well have 12 players on each side with 9 subs allowed. 

jpfamps

mikeyrob73 said:

fuck the ESL , closed shop. watching the so called “ big “ teams ( how the fuck have Spurs managed to get in there? ) play each other week on week on week just diluted the whole thing 

It's based solely on current revenue. Spurs, believe it or not, are in the top 10 of the Deloitte Football Money League.

UnclePsychosis

I have to say, having thought about it a bit more I have less than zero sympathy for the likes of the Premier League, UEFA, Sky, and the FA on any of this. Fuck them. 

Those of us who support small clubs have sat and watched as the Champions League became more and more closed off, watched as the likes of Ajax, Red Star Belgrade, Prague, Celtic, etc slowly got squeezed out. Then we watched as the same few clubs trousered tens (hundreds?) of millions year after year after year, utterly distorting domestic football and all cheered on from the sidelines by the likes of Sky and the Premier League. We watched as the same fourteen clubs made the last sixteen year after year after year. The likes of Boris Johnson and Alan Shearer and Liverpool supporters associations had fuck all to say when England ended up with five places in the so-called "champions" league, at the expense of genuine champions from countries with a rich history of footballing heritage. They were happy to lap it all up because Eng-er-lund Eng-er-lund Eng-er-lund were doing quite nicely out of the whole thing. 

So if these elite clubs have decided that a virtual closed shop wasn't quite good enough and they want a literal closed shop - well for starters, as a fan of a small club how would I tell the difference and secondly, there's an element of you reap what you sow here. Watching the people who stole competition from us diddy clubs getting it stolen from them means bugger all to me! 

Brize

^^ Quite right - this is just a continuation of what's gone before and the likes of Sky and Uefa are reaping what they've sown.

Brize

jpfamps said:

mikeyrob73 said:

fuck the ESL , closed shop. watching the so called “ big “ teams ( how the fuck have Spurs managed to get in there? ) play each other week on week on week just diluted the whole thing 

It's based solely on current revenue. Spurs, believe it or not, are in the top 10 of the Deloitte Football Money League.

Yep, and above Arsenal and Juve to boot.

guitars4you

crunchman said:

The clown in charge of Real is saying young people are "no longer interested in football" because of "a lot of poor quality games".

He also said and I quote - Perez said that the top teams were losing money and that big-name matches would help increase their revenue.

Give a gambler £10 a week and he'll need £15 - Give him £100 and he'll need £150 - They should have more than enough ability and funds to run their business within the their income - They've chosen not to for whatever reason for so long - What will Perez do in 10/20 years time when they need even more money

And just think, when the Yanks get their claws into the whole commercial aspect of this

a) Spurs will be playing Arsenal in Florida sometimes - Maybe 2 matches on the same pitch that day/evening - No away fans as such for any policing issues
b) 4 x 1/4's to a game not 2 x 1/2's - more commercial breaks so more income
c) bigger goals - some hate a good 0-0 draw
d) pre match extravaganza with Diana Ross trying to kick the ball in the net from 2 yards out 

Then watch out for a Facebook, Amazon or Disney sports channel, via subscription, to watch matches

Heartfeltdawn

UnclePsychosis said:

I have to say, having thought about it a bit more I have less than zero sympathy for the likes of the Premier League, UEFA, Sky, and the FA on any of this. Fuck them. 

Those of us who support small clubs have sat and watched as the Champions League became more and more closed off, watched as the likes of Ajax, Red Star Belgrade, Prague, Celtic, etc slowly got squeezed out. Then we watched as the same few clubs trousered tens (hundreds?) of millions year after year after year, utterly distorting domestic football and all cheered on from the sidelines by the likes of Sky and the Premier League. We watched as the same fourteen clubs made the last sixteen year after year after year. The likes of Boris Johnson and Alan Shearer and Liverpool supporters associations had fuck all to say when England ended up with five places in the so-called "champions" league, at the expense of genuine champions from countries with a rich history of footballing heritage. They were happy to lap it all up because Eng-er-lund Eng-er-lund Eng-er-lund were doing quite nicely out of the whole thing. 

So if these elite clubs have decided that a virtual closed shop wasn't quite good enough and they want a literal closed shop - well for starters, as a fan of a small club how would I tell the difference and secondly, there's an element of you reap what you sow here. Watching the people who stole competition from us diddy clubs getting it stolen from them means bugger all to me! 

Yep, quite true. There is a sense that some greedy people are getting pissed because some people are even more greedy and there is a lack of sympathy. Those people you mention do have to face up to their approach before. 

That still doesn't remove the fact that the Super League has the potential to fuck football across Europe. be angry at the established arses but the looming arses are far far worse.