'%20x='0'%20y='0'%20height='100%25'%20width='100%25'%20%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20xlink%3Ahref=''%3E%3C/image%3E%3C/svg%3E)
As an Arsenal fan and a supporter of one of the supposed "ringfenced" members of it
I do not support this new "leak" for the Super League.
All of the ring-fenced clubs are global forces in their own rights. They have big grounds, many fans, high revenues, recent success, and world-class players in many positions.
However, it's apparent that the only reason for this revelation is money.
Some decry the contemporary state of football, vis a vis the monetary facets of it.
I believe on balance, it's better than "old school" football, especially in the 1970s and 80s. Yes, there was less money involved, and it was more rooted soul, community, and passion.
However, football now is available on TV or online on a near 24/7 basis and was hardly shown much on TV in the 1980s. Moreover, racism has declined in grounds (in England at the least, though there are more stringent efforts to curb this in other countries compared to past eras), and women feel more comfortable to attend games. There is far less societal stigma over women enjoying, playing, and liking football, compared to past eras.
Stadia also are in better shape and have superior facilities providing a nicer experience for fans. And more money has signalled a greater scope in seeing players from around the world and has arguably expanded football's reach.
Contemporary football is not perfect, but on balance, the progress since the 1980s has been positive.
This Super League though, in my view at the least, would be a step too far. It would kill football as we know it. If it is indeed a "closed shop" with "invitees" then this is undesirable in many ways. The movers and shakers behind this are not accounting for:
- Who defines what an elite club is?
- Domestic leagues
- The current existence of the Champions League as the "super league" of Europe
- Fan logistics
- Richer getting even richer
Football's glory, in part, is rooted in progression, advancement, and anything happening. Leicester City, Montpellier, Deportivo La Coruna, etc. are teams in England, France, and Spain respectively that are not traditionally amongst the largest in their countries. But they all have won the Premier League, Ligue 1, and La Liga within the past twenty years. Could this happen again?
One also cannot ignore the grassroots of the game, or even non-league set-ups? Would they be extinguished? This would have a major effect on the game and make it essentially unrecognisable. That said, talk of some kind of Super League has been on the agenda for some time, and this is no surprise. However, the make-up and constitution of this supposed grouping are concerning, to state the least.
Football being money driven is a fact of life that many, whilst not liking it nor approving, have come to accept grudgingly. Though this alleged Super League is a step towards a monetary-driven footballing dystopia, which many may not approve of, welcome, nor renounce.
THE ELITE CLUBS
There is little dispute that the supposed "protected" clubs in this league are all global brands.
But then are some clubs, based on history, tradition, success, or branding, being excluded?
Ajax has more Champions Leagues titles than Arsenal and Chelsea, yet despite its grand name is not a member by virtue of being in the Netherlands. And the Eredivisie, with all due respect to it, is not amongst the world's best leagues.
What about Marseille? PSG is bigger in branding terms, but Marseille still stands as the first and only French club to win the European Cup.
It's perhaps wrong to say that the "permanent members" are arbitrary. On many metrics, they are the leading clubs in the world.
But it certainly is a case of the clubs with the biggest media reach, financial power, and social media presence, that are allegedly forming a cartel.
In economic terminology, this is essentially an oligopoly or is a classic cartel, in that specific bodies are cornering the market. This is naturally bad for all concerned, and it will only ensure some will prosper at the expense of others.
DOMESTIC LEAGUES
Without the very biggest clubs, what would happen to the other sides in the leagues?
What would the English Premier League be without Man United, Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea, or Liverpool? Would Spurs then win the league often? Or Everton? What about West Ham?
Moreover, there would be long-standing rivalries that would cease. No more North London derbies. No Merseyside derbies, as Everton are not a permanent member. Man United would still play Liverpool, who are their biggest rivals, but it would get much of English footballing culture.
It could also make the domestic leagues lack competitiveness and excitement since winning the league would mean little if the big sides get the biggest slices of revenues. If, say, Sevilla won a gutted LaLiga, would they then get into the Champions League? Would this still exist? Would they even get much monetary rewards, since surely the TV revenues would be small in this context?
It could greatly lessen the spectacle and appeal of many leagues in Europe.
THE CHAMPIONS LEAGUE
The Champions League is in some means a "super league" since the best teams in every league feature in it. But then with a new Super League, the Champions league would be diminished.
Part of the appeal, especially in recent times, has been the successes of Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern, etc. With these clubs in the new alleged league, then we'd see no triumphs of Ronaldo, Messi, et al.
Yes, there are many other teams in the competition. But as a competition between the best, it would be gutted if the very best won't participate in it.
UEFA naturally won't like this and would fight tooth and nail to protect their prime asset. The Euros, whilst lucrative, are only held once every four years. The Champions League as an annual competition brings in far more sponsorship revenues, and this surely would be diverted to the Super League over the Champions League.
FAN LOGISTICS
If the competition is only between these teams, and they will thus leave their national leagues, then how would fans travel for games?
Real Madrid vs.Barca, or Man United vs. Liverpool, already are trips many fans of these stated clubs are used to. Man United vs. Bayern, given their respective long tenure in European competition, is another regularity. But then every other week, for away games?
To travel within a country often can be expensive. But between countries would heighten expenses greatly.
Visa issues will also be a factor, and especially for English fans given Brexit and a possible change in free access to the EU. Policing is also another issue, as there would need to be more international co-operation on hooligan travel.
Clubs could readily absorb this - they already have chartered/hired planes, trains, and coaches. They also can afford first-class accomodation, tailored to training and their dietary and fitness needs. Fans are different though, and their needs are being ignored here.
It remains to be seen if the cost of fan travel will be subsidised or not.
RICH GETTING RICHER
The essential point here, seemingly, is greed.
And it would mean that clubs are getting richer over the others, and at the expense of the others.
All organisations wish to expand revenues. But then the drive of the super clubs to control revenues, or have the lion's share, would have a detriment to the game at large.
The fact that these clubs have been chosen is not a coincidence.
They have the highest revenues in the world, according to the Deloitte 2018 Money League. And they most likely will dominate the 2019 Money League, when released. All of the clubs listed as permanent members either won leagues (City/Barca), finished high in their domestic leagues (Man U), won domestic trophies (Chelsea), or reached the latter stages of European competitions (Arsenal/Liverpool), or won major European trophies (Real Madrid).
They also command much of the commercial and sponsorship revenues of clubs in the world, and thus it's understandable how they wish to gain a larger footing.
Another factor is that many of these clubs are owned by large sporting conglomerates, or operate for the benefits of their members. As a socio of Real Madrid, having a larger dividend from this competition is tempting.
To FSG of Liverpool, or KSE of Arsenal, or the Glazers of Manchester United, or the Qatar Group of Man City, why wouldn't they want to participate? I'm sure Abramovich of Chelsea would want to also, and the Qatar Group would benefit doubly via PSG's "ringfenced" position.
Will this league happen? I believe it will, though maybe not in the form that has been "leaked". Maybe UEFA and FIFA, in the interest of the global game, will seek to compromise or allow a "super" Champions League featuring these clubs. Possibly they may get these clubs to ensure the grassroots of football are protected, to try and even the playing field.
What's certain is that this has been on the agenda for a while, and given the financial rewards available, it's unlikely that this prospect will dissolve soon.
