A soccer fueled standoff is taking place across the Atlantic with billions of dollars in revenue, and national team implications hanging in the balance. Twelve of Europe’s top soccer clubs (AC Milan, Arsenal, Atletico Madrid, Chelsea, Barcelona, Inter Milan, Juventus, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, Real Madrid & Tottenham) unveiled plans this week to form a new European “Super League” which has drawn both praise and criticism alike from some of soccer’s biggest stars.
UEFA (the governing body of soccer in Europe) was quick to denounce the plans, and even went so far as to threaten to revoke players eligibility to take part in international competition. The organization’s president, Aleksander Ceferin, referred to the owners of the clubs attempting to form the new league as “snakes” whose plans were a “disgraceful self-serving proposal… that are fuelled purely by greed above all else.”
In a rebuttal, Real Madrid president Florentino Perez, who is acting as the chairman of the Super League, downplayed UEFA’s threat to ban players. “It’s not going to happen. We won’t get into the legal aspects of it, but it won’t happen. It’s impossible.”
While plans for the super league initially called for 15 founding members, only 12 have confirmed their participation. German giants Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund, alongside Paris Saint-Germain appear reluctant to formally endorse the new league’s creation.
In the wake of the announcement, there have been several resignations and threats of boycott from the soccer ranks, with current and former stars like David Beckman weighing in on the matter. “The game we love is in danger” Beckham wrote in a recent Instagram post.
Unlike North American sports leagues where once you’re in, you’re in, the entire European soccer structure is based on a series of promotions and relegations. In the new Super League format, the founding members (aka the largest and most wealthy clubs on the continent) would be immune to relegation, with 5 “open” spots available each year for other teams to play in to the super league based on their on field success.
In a classic case of the rich getting richer, the new league would bring with it not only some of the biggest soccer stars on the planet, but also the most lucrative broadcasting and sponsorship deals in the sport. It’s difficult to accurately put this move in a North American context, as sports are much more regional in popularity stateside of the ocean. Soccer is THE dominant sport in Europe and has no rivals in popularity. It would be akin to the original 6 hockey franchises, the Yankees/Dodgers/Red Sox/Cardinals/Cubs, every Super Bowl winning team, and the Lakers/Celtics/Bulls/Knicks/Heat/Mavs/76ers banding together to start their own super league. Meanwhile, the Olympic committee would be simultaneously threatening to ban all those players from international competition. Roll all that up into one and you begin to get a feel for just how seismic a shift this proposal could end up being if clubs go through with it.
Both sides have already begun lawyering up in anticipation of a long legal dispute. Yet seemingly forgotten in all these elaborate plans for soccer domination appears to be the fans themselves. You know, the ones who actually buy the tickets, merchandise, and TV packages that keep these soccer behemoths afloat. We’ve already seen protests pop up around the continent in the wake of the announcements, with the slogan “fans before finances” becoming a popular slogan amongst demonstrators.
Prior to the Leeds vs. Liverpool match there was a sizeable demonstration outside the stadium urging the club to decommit from the super league proposal. Similar protests are also planned at Stamford Bridge before Chelsea’s next match as well, with more gatherings likely still to come.
If you were to break down the super league concept into a simple pros and cons list, it would read something like this:
-Pro: Top clubs play each other every week
-Pro: This would be in addition to their regular schedules (if UEFA were to permit it)
-Pro: It would be an absolute license to print money
-Con: It only benefits the richest of the rich clubs
-Con: There’s no clear “selection” procedure for the non-founding member clubs, meaning it will likely come down to what matchups will generate the most buzz as opposed to which clubs should be added based on merit
-Con: It becomes a slippery slope. Once owners see the windfall of money the super league will produce it’s only a matter of time until we see other breakaway leagues begin to pop up, and soon the entire promotion/relegation system in Europe crumbles.
It’s a debate that’s been around since the concept of economics was created. What duty do the wealthiest in society have to the rest of us? Is revenue sharing really a good thing, or should clubs be free to market themselves as stand alone brands? No single article will solve this debate, however the upcoming weeks on the European soccer scene will be interesting for reasons that extend far beyond sports.
In a year where the wealthiest 1% of the population saw their fortunes increase exponentially while millions around the country lost their jobs, their savings, even their homes, the timing of the proposed super league is tone deaf at best. Yet, rather than being locked into another Champions League deal, the founding clubs decided to roll the dice and bet on themselves, public opinion be damned. Now the real question is, can it work? Or will the mounting legal challenges, as well as pressure from fan bases be enough to sway owners?
-Kyle Skinner
Twitter: @dynessports