European Super League - plans announced

I was initially wary of this concept when it was first flouted but considering how awful the planned new CL changes look, and also the hypocrisy of Neville and co. for not kicking up a similar stink about the Saudis buying Newcastle, now I'm more receptive to the idea. Not sure at this stage whether the idea is still a goer, or is it more of a case of using the threat of it as a power play.

It's back on..

European Super League set to be revived to halt English dominance

Top flight ‘outgunning all continental leagues’

If one of the core reasons is that the English clubs are becoming too powerful (who are the European Champions?) then what is in it for the English clubs to join? Money, yeah, but they are giving up prestige and power to share it with the other European clubs.

Given the negative reaction in England the last time, the better approach would be to stay out for the first few years and then join if/when it starts to take off. No way the other clubs would stop the English clubs from joining

That is a very good point. What are Sky going to do in relation to broadcast rights? They can't simply sit by and watch the Superleague take a chunk out of the EPL pot. Would they look to get rights from the start, thereby effectively screwing the EPL? Or do they stand with the EPL hoping that the SL doesn't work and/or the English clubs don't get involved?

Barca must be behind this!! To stop their looming bankruptcy.

And perhaps Juve too. Talk they are struggling badly too financially.

The thing is the majority of players still want to play in Spain and will pick Madrid or Barca over an English club 9 times out of 10.

The Spanish club still pay crazy wages.

The english clubs would be fools to sign up to the ESL again, all it does is remove the financial advantage the EPL has and makes Barca, Madrid top dogs again.

Is that true?

I know they went buck mad, but find it hard to believe that stat.

Sure Madrid spent £80m sterling on Tchouameni alone. Surely the other 77 clubs must have spent another 80mill between them?

Ah right , net spend.

And sure Barca spent a lot too, didn't they, or where they all frees?

Guess what reared its ugly head again today.

They will still work towards the ultimate goal.

Those extra clubs they graciously added would be stupid to accept.

They wouldn't long be getting shafted. Will probably have a tiered system where D1 can't get kicked out so it will only be lower teams getting replaced.

This will happen at some point.

They are just laying the foundations.

This is just going to accelerate the process.

Anyone interested in looking for a better deal (and that doesn't necessarily mean the bigger teams) can enter into discussions on their own.

I can see UEFA/FIFA trying to enforce some kind of exclusivity agreement, i.e. to play in their tournaments, you have to agree to only play in competitions organised by FIFA, UEFA or national FAs and it'll fall flat on its face.

This is a big win for Super League proponents. They still have to win over the public but plenty of clubs will be happy to take the money while spinning some fanciful justification for their fans.

I was just thinking. Some contracts already have release clauses in them.

What's to stop UEFA issuing a directive saying that any player that signs a contract with a UEFA affiliated club has to have in their contract a clause that if the player is being sold to a club participating in a rival non-UEFA affiliated competition, a release clause fee of €500m has to be paid (the distribution of the fee to be split between UEFA for prize money, the club, and the clubs domestic league)?

From my understanding of the ruling, they can't prevent a rival league/association, but they can protect their own.

But that situation already exists via release clauses and transfer fees,

Nobody would be stopping the player from moving to a Super League club within the terms of their current contract so long as the appropriate compensation, whether it's a transfer fee or release clause, is met. After all, that's the way it currently is in soccer.

All UEFA would be doing is setting a minimum transfer fee/release clause, albeit very expensive, from which it's affiliated clubs are to work from in releasing that player to a non-UEFA competition. UEFA would simply be working within the current framework of current soccer contract practices.

I'm not sure that it does.

I think the ruling today was merely saying that EUFA and FIFA can't act to prevent an alternative option. It didn't mention anything about existing contract law in football. And seeing as transfer fees and release clauses exist, there's no reason why another one can't be inputted as part of standard transfer policy.

You're probably right, there's probably some part of EU contract law that prevents it.

But it's a question at the very least that UEFA should be asking if it's possible. I just think with term contracts, transfer fees and release clauses already in place, it might actually be possible, because while it may be self-protecting, technically speaking it's not preventing an alternative association or league doing anything for themselves (which is what today's ruling was about), sourcing players and paying transfer fees/release clauses, it would only be UEFA laying down a rule for it's own member clubs.

1. The leagues who have not got a pot to piss in are supporting it.

2. There is already too much soccer being played already.

3. Free TV ? How would that work.From oil countries ? Look at them. 600 spectators at matches.

I still don't see what is in this for the EPL clubs. They are already massively ahead of their French, German etc leagues in terms of TV money. This seems to give those clubs a massive lifeline to level the playing field with the likes of Liverpool and others in the EPL

"Strict financial rules to ensure a level playing field"? Why would clubs agree to this when they have the most spending power in their own leagues? Would this not handicap them domestically?