The European Super League

[Outer Sparta]

Wondered what it would take to drag me out of my little region hole and back forum side. I've been mulling this over for the last 24 hours and each new detail seems specifically designed to twist the knife just that little bit more.

What we have here, folks, is greed incarnate. Avarice unfettered, rampant, unadulterated desire for more of what you already have far too much of. It's also been coming for a long time. Each new alteration to the European Cup has been a step down this road, and people only care now because the slowly boiling frogs have been pulled from the pot and thrown into a deep fat flash fryer.

People still defend Fenway Sports Group, despite the contempt they've shown for the average working class fan over their tenure at Liverpool. The ticket pricing debacle, the trademarking scandal, the furlough, Project Restart. Honestly just the furlough should have forever tanked their reputation but put it altogether and it's just a group of men who want everything because then they control everything. It's grubby and petty.

The Glazers have the gall to compare their power grab, their disgusting immoral ladder-dropping to the great Matt Busby's attempts to unite European football into a meritocracy. That would stings me so United fans must be fucking livid.

Andrea Agnelli is a spiteful moron who was given the football club to run because he was considered too dumb to take over something more important in the family empire, and I think he knows this. He's not ignorant like the Glazers; nor does he have FSG's attempts to moralise. He knows football, he knew the way the fans would react, and he didn't care. The head of UEFA is godfather to his child, a close personal friend, and Agnelli burned him unannounced in the pursuit of even more money.

The most laughable aspect is that it has been announced that the clubs will take their European Cup/Champions League gongs with them, so Real Madrid will start with 13 Super League titles, Liverpool with 6, and the mighty Nottingham Forest will have won twice, despite the chances of them ever participating in the competition being similar to me shacking up with Brie Larson on the moon. It speaks of a deep insecurity, an inability to process the fact that you are not the centre of the universe and that which money and fame should revolve.

But the thing that burns the most, the thing which makes my skin crawl is the tag "legacy fan". Men and women who have been going to the terraces since they were terraces, taking along their children, grandchildren, possibly even great-grandchildren along to share in an unbroken line of mutual love and respect between fan and club, that unique symbiosis of the sporting world, swept aside for some teenager thousands of miles away who shitposts on Twitter about Cristiano Ronaldo because they don't like football, they like individualism writ large and by God will the Super League clubs bend over to give it to them.

Liverpool played tonight and for the first time in ages I don't care. Even during the depths of my depression I still cared enough to watch and have a small celebration when we scored. But in a little over 24 hours they have broken me, and I don't think it can be repaired until the vultures are gone and the clubs swept clean of their disease.

UEFA, FIFA, and the ESL are shitting on the devoted fans by calling them "legacy fans." Instead, they'll cater to "fans of the future" who largely buy merchandise of top players yet don't know who those actual players are and just bandwagon all the top clubs to consistency be part of a winning side.

[CoraSpia]

So that video is calling these the clubs that 'are breaking away.' How happening is this?

[DesAnges]

So that video is calling these the clubs that 'are breaking away.' How happening is this?

Very.

Although UEFA have gone running to a Swiss bank to try and stump up the cash to keep these twats around to maybe it'll not go through after all and we'll just be stuck with an ever more rigged system that no one will have the energy to fight.

[The Nihilistic view]

Wondered what it would take to drag me out of my little region hole and back forum side. I've been mulling this over for the last 24 hours and each new detail seems specifically designed to twist the knife just that little bit more.

What we have here, folks, is greed incarnate. Avarice unfettered, rampant, unadulterated desire for more of what you already have far too much of. It's also been coming for a long time. Each new alteration to the European Cup has been a step down this road, and people only care now because the slowly boiling frogs have been pulled from the pot and thrown into a deep fat flash fryer.

People still defend Fenway Sports Group, despite the contempt they've shown for the average working class fan over their tenure at Liverpool. The ticket pricing debacle, the trademarking scandal, the furlough, Project Restart. Honestly just the furlough should have forever tanked their reputation but put it altogether and it's just a group of men who want everything because then they control everything. It's grubby and petty.

The Glazers have the gall to compare their power grab, their disgusting immoral ladder-dropping to the great Matt Busby's attempts to unite European football into a meritocracy. That would stings me so United fans must be fucking livid.

Andrea Agnelli is a spiteful moron who was given the football club to run because he was considered too dumb to take over something more important in the family empire, and I think he knows this. He's not ignorant like the Glazers; nor does he have FSG's attempts to moralise. He knows football, he knew the way the fans would react, and he didn't care. The head of UEFA is godfather to his child, a close personal friend, and Agnelli burned him unannounced in the pursuit of even more money.

The most laughable aspect is that it has been announced that the clubs will take their European Cup/Champions League gongs with them, so Real Madrid will start with 13 Super League titles, Liverpool with 6, and the mighty Nottingham Forest will have won twice, despite the chances of them ever participating in the competition being similar to me shacking up with Brie Larson on the moon. It speaks of a deep insecurity, an inability to process the fact that you are not the centre of the universe and that which money and fame should revolve.

But the thing that burns the most, the thing which makes my skin crawl is the tag "legacy fan". Men and women who have been going to the terraces since they were terraces, taking along their children, grandchildren, possibly even great-grandchildren along to share in an unbroken line of mutual love and respect between fan and club, that unique symbiosis of the sporting world, swept aside for some teenager thousands of miles away who shitposts on Twitter about Cristiano Ronaldo because they don't like football, they like individualism writ large and by God will the Super League clubs bend over to give it to them.

Liverpool played tonight and for the first time in ages I don't care. Even during the depths of my depression I still cared enough to watch and have a small celebration when we scored. But in a little over 24 hours they have broken me, and I don't think it can be repaired until the vultures are gone and the clubs swept clean of their disease.

I was over being livid in 2009 as a united fan. That's the last year I have a shirt from incidentally. People vote with their economic decisions and all fans have enabled the current state of football because they refuse to stop paying subscriptions or buying overpriced crap. If all fans stopped doing this for a couple of years the whole thing would come tumbling down but they can't and so really I think most fans are getting what they deserve at this point.

My fellow fans still turn up to watch United, they still buy the crap and they still watch ridiculously priced subscriptions. So really if they have been unwilling to make the sacrifice for a bit to defeat what has been going on then jokes on them really.

How much does one really care if one doesn't already boycott elements of football that are already far past what should be acceptable.

[The Archregimancy]

On the substance of the issue, one of the advantages of supporting teams that don't stand a chance of ever getting remotely near a European Super League, are currently out of their respective country's top flights, and have both had to be rescued by fans' trusts in recent years during to catastrophic mismanagement (Portsmouth in England and Dunfermline Athletic in Scotland) is a slight sense of perspective.

Is this reprehensible? Yes. Is it motivated by greed? Absolutely. Does it run counter to the competitive traditions of the sport? Of course. This is a move designed to build a closed shop where financially viable properties are permanently protected from the consequences of management incompetence; ie, they always qualify for the most lucrative competition no matter how poorly they do in their domestic competition; see the current English table, with Leicester and West Ham both sitting in the Champions League qualification spots, to see why this might appeal to the English Big Six. Meanwhile - and this hasn't been getting as much coverage as it should - it protects Real Madrid and Barcelona from the potential consequences of Catalan nationalism; even if Catalonia does become independent, they still get a revenue-raising Classico or two every year, and Barcelona don't have to worry about finding themselves in a domestic league that consists of beating Espanyol four times a season (the Derbi Barceloní is one of the most one-sided major derbies in football).

But why are we complaining now? I would ask how many of you who support top-flight clubs and are currently wringing your hands in despair stopped supporting your teams in 1992 when the Premiership was set up; except that most of you were probably born after 1992.

The game has been distorted by money for a very long time now. Compare a list of English league champions in the 34 years leading up to Everton's 1987 title with the 34 years since. In those first 34 years you have at least ten teams outside the Big Six winning the title, many of them more than once (three titles for Wolves!). In the 34 years since, only Leeds, Blackburn, and Leicester have broken the oligarchy, and only once each - and Leicester are the only team outside the Big Six to have won a title since 1995; though it's also worth pointing out that Liverpool have only won the title once since the formation of the Premiership, and Spurs haven't won the title since 1961 - Ipswich have won the title more recently. And speaking of Ipswich, that 1962 title came immediately after their promotion to the top flight for the very first time, something unimaginable today. Scotland is worse of course, with no team other than Rangers or Celtic winning the title since Aberdeen in 1985, breaking the record duopoly previous set when the two Glasgow giants won every title between Third Lanark winning the league in 1905 and Motherwell breaking the stranglehold in 1932. The next 53 years were a comparative golden period in Scottish football with 9 different teams winning the title (even if Rangers and Celtic still dominated).

So while I can understand why fans, governments, and governing bodies are so upset, why get upset now? Most of us (and to some extent I'll include myself here; did I stop supporting Portsmouth when they reached the Premiership for a while on the back of being owned by a family of dodgy Russian-Israeli arms dealers?) have been acting like the proverbial frog slowly boiling to death in a pan of water because we never noticed that the water was heating up until it was far too late (even if frogs don't actually behave that way). So protest if you must, but also ask yourself why you didn't protest much earlier. And as to governments opposing this new league... well, they could have acted a lot earlier; the UK government's gasps of outrage do strike me as desperate bandwagon-jumping (not to mention a certain level of relief that this is going to distract from the current lobbying scandal).

That said, this step is manifestly worse than any of the earlier steps , so perhaps this really is the point where everyone notices the water's started boiling; the question is if there's still enough time for the frogs to jump out of the saucepan. If the various governments and governing bodies are really dead set on stopping this, then they do have some options. Municipal governments can restrict access to facilities (including stadiums) that they own. The UK government could restrict visas to foreign players, which (and this really does come under unintended consequences of Brexit) now includes players from the rest of Europe; so the Big Six may find themselves restricted to signing British players. Players will also likely have some power over the process since many contracts may need to be renegotiated (though Marcus Rashford may need to delegate the negotiations since he's so busy running the country). The FIFA and UEFA threat to ban Super League players from international competition, and national governing body threats to expel teams from national leagues and associations are more predictable; it's clear that the Super League teams have been lawyering up for this very possibility. But there is a little-known precedent... from 1949 to 1954 the Colombian League disassociated itself from its national federation, and - awash with cash - started to sign any number of then-famous players, including Alfredo di Stefano, Héctor Rial, England international Neil Franklin, and, erm, Lithuanian goalkeeper Vytautas Krisciunas (alright, some of the exiles were just desperate for the money). This period is known in Colombia as 'El Dorado', but all of the players in the Colombian top flight were banned from all FIFA-sanctioned tournaments until a peace treaty was negotiated in '54. So it has been done before, even if the footballing world was very different in the 1950s than today.

Several people in the thread have expressed scepticism over whether FIFA are really opposed to the new league. I suspect that they are, largely because it A) undermines their overall control of the game and B) it undermines their attempts to grow the FIFA-controlled FIFA Club World Cup. Any deal with the Super League would have to be negotiated either alongside UEFA or over the strong objections of UEFA, and it's difficult to see how that would work. That's not necessarily a defence of FIFA, only a note that they'll naturally oppose anything that undermines their control of the game or their ability to control the money flowing from the game; the new league potentially does both. The big clue is the refusal of Qatar-owned PSG to join the new league; perhaps they're playing a waiting game, but it seems that, at least for now, next year's World Cup means more to both Qatar (and FIFA) than the European Super League; PSG's ownership seem to be acting accordingly.

As to why no German team has joined the new league, that's simple. Under Bundesliga 50+1 ownership rules (explained in more detail here), private investors can only even own 49% of a club, and fans always have a majority controlling voting share. The UK government is suddenly exploring introducing this model for the professional English leagues; which is nice, but you do have to wonder why now rather than, say any time between 1992 and now?


Of course there's always the possibility that this is just a negotiating tactic designed to extract as many concessions as possible from UEFA and domestic leagues; that's possible, but I suspect that if things go badly, the Super League clubs might just go ahead with the threat.


Oh, and look to Ajax to jump over if the Super League does go ahead. Ajax corporate management are being extremely cagey about 'studying this development', and the Super League has registered a .nl internet address - but not equivalents for Portugal, Belgium, or other similar-sized European nations.

[Shofercia]

Putting all the pressure on the players sounds like a very unfair strategy.

Players matter. But, more to the point, world cups matter. Lionel Messi, for example, you've got to think that he feels the sentiment is that he needs to win something senior with Argentina to not be thought of as... well, perhaps not as a "what could've been" but certainly something between that and a "disappointment". I imagine the pressure of the world cup weighs just as heavily on anyone who plays for England but that's less because they are (or have been) part of a national team with a decent crack at doing so and more because the English press are rabid.

What the fuck? Leo Messi is one of the greatest soccer players and he doesn't need a World Cup to prove it. Messi was recognized as the best player of the 2014 World Cup, leading his team to the finals, only to be stymied by a killer performance by Germany. Excluding their group game against Ghana where Germany fucked around, the Germans allowed just 2 goals in the entire World Cup.

Messi scored in each of Argentina's group games, each of which was won by one goal. In the semi-finals Messi's penalty kick won the game for Argentina. In 2018 Messi helped Argentina escape the group stage, and the team proceeded to lose by a single goal to the eventual winner - France. In 2010 Argentina lost to Germany, who finished third, in the knockout round. He also has six Ballon d'Ors and six Golden Boots. And yet, because he was stymied by a team that allows 2 goals during the World Cup when not fucking around in a single game, he won't be the great? Da fuck?

Apparently, Schalke 04 are suspected to join the ESL. Currently dead last in the Bundesliga and 10 points behind 19th-placed Köln.

Germanonion

FIFA/UEFA are the ones complaining about the Super League being a "rival" Champions League, that's why I'm proposing that they eliminate the overlap by changing the Champions League format back to an actual tournament of champions and letting them play for bragging rights, meanwhile the Super League would serve as the cash cow that brings in all the money.

Ceferin and his cronies want a UEFA Super League, they just hate that they're not the ones doing it.

Also true

Ooooh, here is a thought. City don't own their stadium, Manchester City Council do. I wonder if Andy Burnham can fuck them up with that?

A very interesting idea...

[The Nihilistic view]

Ooooh, here is a thought. City don't own their stadium, Manchester City Council do. I wonder if Andy Burnham can fuck them up with that?

A very interesting idea...

The lease is for 250 years I think so maybe in 2253 they might be able to look at doing something.

[Fartsniffage]

A very interesting idea...

The lease is for 250 years I think so maybe in 2253 they might be able to look at doing something.

Not so much. They signed a 10 year deal in July 2011.

[The Nihilistic view]

The lease is for 250 years I think so maybe in 2253 they might be able to look at doing something.

Not so much. They signed a 10 year deal in July 2011.

I think that's the dodgy FFP busting deal between City and Etihad over naming rights etc.

[Fartsniffage]

Not so much. They signed a 10 year deal in July 2011.

I think that's the dodgy FFP busting deal between City and Etihad over naming rights etc.

It was linked, yes. Prior to that the deals were for 5 years at a time with the council getting half the ticket sales over the old Maine Road capacity of 36,000. In 2011 they gave them a 10 year deal so Etihad would pay them the sponsorship cash and get 10 years of naming rights for the stadium and the council would get a flat fee of £3 million per year for the stadium.

The council never wanted a long term deal because City might start making more money, which they did, and the council would want more money for the stadium. A 250 year deal is just insane.

[Forsher]

Clearly several people in this thread need to educate themselves about how people talk about Messi. And also learn the difference between "I think" and "people will".

[CoraSpia]

I think that's the dodgy FFP busting deal between City and Etihad over naming rights etc.

It was linked, yes. Prior to that the deals were for 5 years at a time with the council getting half the ticket sales over the old Maine Road capacity of 36,000. In 2011 they gave them a 10 year deal so Etihad would pay them the sponsorship cash and get 10 years of naming rights for the stadium and the council would get a flat fee of £3 million per year for the stadium.

The council never wanted a long term deal because City might start making more money, which they did, and the council would want more money for the stadium. A 250 year deal is just insane.

That's not even the best one. Do some digging into the utter mess surrounding the ownership both of Stamford Bridge and Chelsea's naming rights.

[Diarcesia]

One more thing to oppose the ESL: think of the poor programmers!

[Shofercia]

Seriously the cheak of people in FIFA and UEFA along with other groups that have been full of corruption and abuses and are directly responsible for the current situation where fans are already being milked for every penny is just unbelievable. Nobody should let themselves be taken in and support these parasites on the game.

Nobody should support them in trying to prevent a super league, all they are doing is trying to protect their own monopoly explotation racket.

The game was fucked long ago, just let the two bunches of twats fight among themselves. It can't get any worse but perhaps it might get a little better.

I do find it hilarious how UEFA is accusing the dirty dozen of greed, while trying to fuck with the Champions League.

You're right, it has always been about money. The question of how fast this money-related dependence and hunger advanced is the real problem. I would say that starting with Betis's record-breaking transfer for Denilson the entire process catalyzed greatly. Florentino made it worse and at this point, 2009, we already had an idea of just how messy things were going to be with the Abu Dhabi takeover of Man City. Then Qatar came, Real broke the $100m limit and all hell broke lose. But in all truth, football and money have always been there side-by-side, but ten years ago it didn't seemed as much of an issue as it does now with the market being more inflated than Hungary in the 50s and owners acting for their own good rather than the fans.

Everything UEFA does is in it's own intrests. They have already begun the road to a super league, the new proposals for the champions league would give extra spaces based on coefficients. They will make incremental steps over 15 or 20 years and what we end up with won't be much different from the super league proposal.

The only proposal that would truly be about the fans is for ownership of clubs to be transfered to the fans and if money was redistributed to lower levels on a far wider scale than currently happens. Until that happens anybody claiming to be for the fans is actually just using fans to keep their own pockets lined.

The 50%+1 rule should be implemented for all domestic clubs, irrespective of the sport. And for those who say it cannot work, I only have three words: "Green Bay Packers"

Gotta love how hypocritical UEFA are in trying to call others corrupt. It's just UEFA, the FAs, broadcasters, FIFA, and the big teams all accusing each other of what they are exactly doing.

Wondered what it would take to drag me out of my little region hole and back forum side. I've been mulling this over for the last 24 hours and each new detail seems specifically designed to twist the knife just that little bit more.

What we have here, folks, is greed incarnate. Avarice unfettered, rampant, unadulterated desire for more of what you already have far too much of. It's also been coming for a long time. Each new alteration to the European Cup has been a step down this road, and people only care now because the slowly boiling frogs have been pulled from the pot and thrown into a deep fat flash fryer.

People still defend Fenway Sports Group, despite the contempt they've shown for the average working class fan over their tenure at Liverpool. The ticket pricing debacle, the trademarking scandal, the furlough, Project Restart. Honestly just the furlough should have forever tanked their reputation but put it altogether and it's just a group of men who want everything because then they control everything. It's grubby and petty.

The Glazers have the gall to compare their power grab, their disgusting immoral ladder-dropping to the great Matt Busby's attempts to unite European football into a meritocracy. That would stings me so United fans must be fucking livid.

Andrea Agnelli is a spiteful moron who was given the football club to run because he was considered too dumb to take over something more important in the family empire, and I think he knows this. He's not ignorant like the Glazers; nor does he have FSG's attempts to moralise. He knows football, he knew the way the fans would react, and he didn't care. The head of UEFA is godfather to his child, a close personal friend, and Agnelli burned him unannounced in the pursuit of even more money.

The most laughable aspect is that it has been announced that the clubs will take their European Cup/Champions League gongs with them, so Real Madrid will start with 13 Super League titles, Liverpool with 6, and the mighty Nottingham Forest will have won twice, despite the chances of them ever participating in the competition being similar to me shacking up with Brie Larson on the moon. It speaks of a deep insecurity, an inability to process the fact that you are not the centre of the universe and that which money and fame should revolve.

But the thing that burns the most, the thing which makes my skin crawl is the tag "legacy fan". Men and women who have been going to the terraces since they were terraces, taking along their children, grandchildren, possibly even great-grandchildren along to share in an unbroken line of mutual love and respect between fan and club, that unique symbiosis of the sporting world, swept aside for some teenager thousands of miles away who shitposts on Twitter about Cristiano Ronaldo because they don't like football, they like individualism writ large and by God will the Super League clubs bend over to give it to them.

Liverpool played tonight and for the first time in ages I don't care. Even during the depths of my depression I still cared enough to watch and have a small celebration when we scored. But in a little over 24 hours they have broken me, and I don't think it can be repaired until the vultures are gone and the clubs swept clean of their disease.

Legacy Fan - when you care so little about your fandom, that you make internal marketing terminology - external. I'm sorry, genuinely I am, for your loss.

[Shofercia]

A very interesting idea...

The lease is for 250 years I think so maybe in 2253 they might be able to look at doing something.

Yeah, but as a responsible owner, shouldn't a city have random inspections?

On the substance of the issue, one of the advantages of supporting teams that don't stand a chance of ever getting remotely near a European Super League, are currently out of their respective country's top flights, and have both had to be rescued by fans' trusts in recent years during to catastrophic mismanagement (Portsmouth in England and Dunfermline Athletic in Scotland) is a slight sense of perspective.

Is this reprehensible? Yes. Is it motivated by greed? Absolutely. Does it run counter to the competitive traditions of the sport? Of course. This is a move designed to build a closed shop where financially viable properties are permanently protected from the consequences of management incompetence; ie, they always qualify for the most lucrative competition no matter how poorly they do in their domestic competition; see the current English table, with Leicester and West Ham both sitting in the Champions League qualification spots, to see why this might appeal to the English Big Six. Meanwhile - and this hasn't been getting as much coverage as it should - it protects Real Madrid and Barcelona from the potential consequences of Catalan nationalism; even if Catalonia does become independent, they still get a revenue-raising Classico or two every year, and Barcelona don't have to worry about finding themselves in a domestic league that consists of beating Espanyol four times a season (the Derbi Barceloní is one of the most one-sided major derbies in football).

But why are we complaining now? I would ask how many of you who support top-flight clubs and are currently wringing your hands in despair stopped supporting your teams in 1992 when the Premiership was set up; except that most of you were probably born after 1992.

The game has been distorted by money for a very long time now. Compare a list of English league champions in the 34 years leading up to Everton's 1987 title with the 34 years since. In those first 34 years you have at least ten teams outside the Big Six winning the title, many of them more than once (three titles for Wolves!). In the 34 years since, only Leeds, Blackburn, and Leicester have broken the oligarchy, and only once each - and Leicester are the only team outside the Big Six to have won a title since 1995; though it's also worth pointing out that Liverpool have only won the title once since the formation of the Premiership, and Spurs haven't won the title since 1961 - Ipswich have won the title more recently. And speaking of Ipswich, that 1962 title came immediately after their promotion to the top flight for the very first time, something unimaginable today. Scotland is worse of course, with no team other than Rangers or Celtic winning the title since Aberdeen in 1985, breaking the record duopoly previous set when the two Glasgow giants won every title between Third Lanark winning the league in 1905 and Motherwell breaking the stranglehold in 1932. The next 53 years were a comparative golden period in Scottish football with 9 different teams winning the title (even if Rangers and Celtic still dominated).

So while I can understand why fans, governments, and governing bodies are so upset, why get upset now? Most of us (and to some extent I'll include myself here; did I stop supporting Portsmouth when they reached the Premiership for a while on the back of being owned by a family of dodgy Russian-Israeli arms dealers?) have been acting like the proverbial frog slowly boiling to death in a pan of water because we never noticed that the water was heating up until it was far too late (even if frogs don't actually behave that way). So protest if you must, but also ask yourself why you didn't protest much earlier. And as to governments opposing this new league... well, they could have acted a lot earlier; the UK government's gasps of outrage do strike me as desperate bandwagon-jumping (not to mention a certain level of relief that this is going to distract from the current lobbying scandal).

That said, this step is manifestly worse than any of the earlier steps , so perhaps this really is the point where everyone notices the water's started boiling; the question is if there's still enough time for the frogs to jump out of the saucepan. If the various governments and governing bodies are really dead set on stopping this, then they do have some options. Municipal governments can restrict access to facilities (including stadiums) that they own. The UK government could restrict visas to foreign players, which (and this really does come under unintended consequences of Brexit) now includes players from the rest of Europe; so the Big Six may find themselves restricted to signing British players. Players will also likely have some power over the process since many contracts may need to be renegotiated (though Marcus Rashford may need to delegate the negotiations since he's so busy running the country). The FIFA and UEFA threat to ban Super League players from international competition, and national governing body threats to expel teams from national leagues and associations are more predictable; it's clear that the Super League teams have been lawyering up for this very possibility. But there is a little-known precedent... from 1949 to 1954 the Colombian League disassociated itself from its national federation, and - awash with cash - started to sign any number of then-famous players, including Alfredo di Stefano, Héctor Rial, England international Neil Franklin, and, erm, Lithuanian goalkeeper Vytautas Krisciunas (alright, some of the exiles were just desperate for the money). This period is known in Colombia as 'El Dorado', but all of the players in the Colombian top flight were banned from all FIFA-sanctioned tournaments until a peace treaty was negotiated in '54. So it has been done before, even if the footballing world was very different in the 1950s than today.

Several people in the thread have expressed scepticism over whether FIFA are really opposed to the new league. I suspect that they are, largely because it A) undermines their overall control of the game and B) it undermines their attempts to grow the FIFA-controlled FIFA Club World Cup. Any deal with the Super League would have to be negotiated either alongside UEFA or over the strong objections of UEFA, and it's difficult to see how that would work. That's not necessarily a defence of FIFA, only a note that they'll naturally oppose anything that undermines their control of the game or their ability to control the money flowing from the game; the new league potentially does both. The big clue is the refusal of Qatar-owned PSG to join the new league; perhaps they're playing a waiting game, but it seems that, at least for now, next year's World Cup means more to both Qatar (and FIFA) than the European Super League; PSG's ownership seem to be acting accordingly.

As to why no German team has joined the new league, that's simple. Under Bundesliga 50+1 ownership rules (explained in more detail here), private investors can only even own 49% of a club, and fans always have a majority controlling voting share. The UK government is suddenly exploring introducing this model for the professional English leagues; which is nice, but you do have to wonder why now rather than, say any time between 1992 and now?


Of course there's always the possibility that this is just a negotiating tactic designed to extract as many concessions as possible from UEFA and domestic leagues; that's possible, but I suspect that if things go badly, the Super League clubs might just go ahead with the threat.


Oh, and look to Ajax to jump over if the Super League does go ahead. Ajax corporate management are being extremely cagey about 'studying this development', and the Super League has registered a .nl internet address - but not equivalents for Portugal, Belgium, or other similar-sized European nations.

That's an amazing explanation, and I've added a part of it to the OP. Essentially you're right, the 50%+1 rule should've been passed in 1992 or shortly after.

[The Nihilistic view]

I think that's the dodgy FFP busting deal between City and Etihad over naming rights etc.

It was linked, yes. Prior to that the deals were for 5 years at a time with the council getting half the ticket sales over the old Maine Road capacity of 36,000. In 2011 they gave them a 10 year deal so Etihad would pay them the sponsorship cash and get 10 years of naming rights for the stadium and the council would get a flat fee of £3 million per year for the stadium.

The council never wanted a long term deal because City might start making more money, which they did, and the council would want more money for the stadium. A 250 year deal is just insane.

I just double checked on companies House because liabilities like that will normally be mentioned. It's 250 years, it's mentioned in their finacial accounts 2020. You could pay something like £3-9 to get a copy of the lease agreement to be absolutely sure from the Land registry but I'm not spending money on the Internet lol.

Every 5 years I believe there is a review on the exact rent but that's pretty standard commercial practice. You'll have a headline lease length with smaller periods at which rent reviews can occur.

City gave Maine Road to the council in return as well so I'd have expected a very long lease deal.

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

You want full accounts dated 5th June 2020 and then it's mentioned on page 29 of the accounts.

[Fartsniffage]

It was linked, yes. Prior to that the deals were for 5 years at a time with the council getting half the ticket sales over the old Maine Road capacity of 36,000. In 2011 they gave them a 10 year deal so Etihad would pay them the sponsorship cash and get 10 years of naming rights for the stadium and the council would get a flat fee of £3 million per year for the stadium.

The council never wanted a long term deal because City might start making more money, which they did, and the council would want more money for the stadium. A 250 year deal is just insane.

I just double checked on companies House because liabilities like that will normally be mentioned. It's 250 years, it's mentioned in their finacial accounts 2020. You could pay something like £3-9 to get a copy of the lease agreement to be absolutely sure from the Land registry but I'm not spending money on the Internet lol.

Every 5 years I believe there is a review on the exact rent but that's pretty standard commercial practice. You'll have a headline lease length with smaller periods at which rent reviews can occur.

City gave Maine Road to the council in return as well so I'd have expected a very long lease deal.

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history

You want full accounts dated 5th June 2020 and then it's mentioned on page 29 of the accounts.

You are right and I am dumb.

Oh well, just have to get Andy Burnham to deny policing for the events that are games at both Manchester stadiums. Sorry Mr Chairman, the police are just too busy that day. It sucks you won't be able to have your game of foot the ball.

[Shofercia]

Clearly several people in this thread need to educate themselves about how people talk about Messi. And also learn the difference between "I think" and "people will".

Players matter. But, more to the point, world cups matter. Lionel Messi, for example, you've got to think that he feels the sentiment is that he needs to win something senior with Argentina to not be thought of as... well, perhaps not as a "what could've been" but certainly something between that and a "disappointment". I imagine the pressure of the world cup weighs just as heavily on anyone who plays for England but that's less because they are (or have been) part of a national team with a decent crack at doing so and more because the English press are rabid.

What the fuck? Leo Messi is one of the greatest soccer players and he doesn't need a World Cup to prove it. Messi was recognized as the best player of the 2014 World Cup, leading his team to the finals, only to be stymied by a killer performance by Germany. Excluding their group game against Ghana where Germany fucked around, the Germans allowed just 2 goals in the entire World Cup.

Messi scored in each of Argentina's group games, each of which was won by one goal. In the semi-finals Messi's penalty kick won the game for Argentina. In 2018 Messi helped Argentina escape the group stage, and the team proceeded to lose by a single goal to the eventual winner - France. In 2010 Argentina lost to Germany, who finished third, in the knockout round. He also has six Ballon d'Ors and six Golden Boots. And yet, because he was stymied by a team that allows 2 goals during the World Cup when not fucking around in a single game, he won't be the great? Da fuck?

[The Nihilistic view]

The lease is for 250 years I think so maybe in 2253 they might be able to look at doing something.

Yeah, but as a responsible owner, shouldn't a city have random inspections?

On the substance of the issue, one of the advantages of supporting teams that don't stand a chance of ever getting remotely near a European Super League, are currently out of their respective country's top flights, and have both had to be rescued by fans' trusts in recent years during to catastrophic mismanagement (Portsmouth in England and Dunfermline Athletic in Scotland) is a slight sense of perspective.

Is this reprehensible? Yes. Is it motivated by greed? Absolutely. Does it run counter to the competitive traditions of the sport? Of course. This is a move designed to build a closed shop where financially viable properties are permanently protected from the consequences of management incompetence; ie, they always qualify for the most lucrative competition no matter how poorly they do in their domestic competition; see the current English table, with Leicester and West Ham both sitting in the Champions League qualification spots, to see why this might appeal to the English Big Six. Meanwhile - and this hasn't been getting as much coverage as it should - it protects Real Madrid and Barcelona from the potential consequences of Catalan nationalism; even if Catalonia does become independent, they still get a revenue-raising Classico or two every year, and Barcelona don't have to worry about finding themselves in a domestic league that consists of beating Espanyol four times a season (the Derbi Barceloní is one of the most one-sided major derbies in football).

But why are we complaining now? I would ask how many of you who support top-flight clubs and are currently wringing your hands in despair stopped supporting your teams in 1992 when the Premiership was set up; except that most of you were probably born after 1992.

The game has been distorted by money for a very long time now. Compare a list of English league champions in the 34 years leading up to Everton's 1987 title with the 34 years since. In those first 34 years you have at least ten teams outside the Big Six winning the title, many of them more than once (three titles for Wolves!). In the 34 years since, only Leeds, Blackburn, and Leicester have broken the oligarchy, and only once each - and Leicester are the only team outside the Big Six to have won a title since 1995; though it's also worth pointing out that Liverpool have only won the title once since the formation of the Premiership, and Spurs haven't won the title since 1961 - Ipswich have won the title more recently. And speaking of Ipswich, that 1962 title came immediately after their promotion to the top flight for the very first time, something unimaginable today. Scotland is worse of course, with no team other than Rangers or Celtic winning the title since Aberdeen in 1985, breaking the record duopoly previous set when the two Glasgow giants won every title between Third Lanark winning the league in 1905 and Motherwell breaking the stranglehold in 1932. The next 53 years were a comparative golden period in Scottish football with 9 different teams winning the title (even if Rangers and Celtic still dominated).

So while I can understand why fans, governments, and governing bodies are so upset, why get upset now? Most of us (and to some extent I'll include myself here; did I stop supporting Portsmouth when they reached the Premiership for a while on the back of being owned by a family of dodgy Russian-Israeli arms dealers?) have been acting like the proverbial frog slowly boiling to death in a pan of water because we never noticed that the water was heating up until it was far too late (even if frogs don't actually behave that way). So protest if you must, but also ask yourself why you didn't protest much earlier. And as to governments opposing this new league... well, they could have acted a lot earlier; the UK government's gasps of outrage do strike me as desperate bandwagon-jumping (not to mention a certain level of relief that this is going to distract from the current lobbying scandal).

That said, this step is manifestly worse than any of the earlier steps , so perhaps this really is the point where everyone notices the water's started boiling; the question is if there's still enough time for the frogs to jump out of the saucepan. If the various governments and governing bodies are really dead set on stopping this, then they do have some options. Municipal governments can restrict access to facilities (including stadiums) that they own. The UK government could restrict visas to foreign players, which (and this really does come under unintended consequences of Brexit) now includes players from the rest of Europe; so the Big Six may find themselves restricted to signing British players. Players will also likely have some power over the process since many contracts may need to be renegotiated (though Marcus Rashford may need to delegate the negotiations since he's so busy running the country). The FIFA and UEFA threat to ban Super League players from international competition, and national governing body threats to expel teams from national leagues and associations are more predictable; it's clear that the Super League teams have been lawyering up for this very possibility. But there is a little-known precedent... from 1949 to 1954 the Colombian League disassociated itself from its national federation, and - awash with cash - started to sign any number of then-famous players, including Alfredo di Stefano, Héctor Rial, England international Neil Franklin, and, erm, Lithuanian goalkeeper Vytautas Krisciunas (alright, some of the exiles were just desperate for the money). This period is known in Colombia as 'El Dorado', but all of the players in the Colombian top flight were banned from all FIFA-sanctioned tournaments until a peace treaty was negotiated in '54. So it has been done before, even if the footballing world was very different in the 1950s than today.

Several people in the thread have expressed scepticism over whether FIFA are really opposed to the new league. I suspect that they are, largely because it A) undermines their overall control of the game and B) it undermines their attempts to grow the FIFA-controlled FIFA Club World Cup. Any deal with the Super League would have to be negotiated either alongside UEFA or over the strong objections of UEFA, and it's difficult to see how that would work. That's not necessarily a defence of FIFA, only a note that they'll naturally oppose anything that undermines their control of the game or their ability to control the money flowing from the game; the new league potentially does both. The big clue is the refusal of Qatar-owned PSG to join the new league; perhaps they're playing a waiting game, but it seems that, at least for now, next year's World Cup means more to both Qatar (and FIFA) than the European Super League; PSG's ownership seem to be acting accordingly.

As to why no German team has joined the new league, that's simple. Under Bundesliga 50+1 ownership rules (explained in more detail here), private investors can only even own 49% of a club, and fans always have a majority controlling voting share. The UK government is suddenly exploring introducing this model for the professional English leagues; which is nice, but you do have to wonder why now rather than, say any time between 1992 and now?


Of course there's always the possibility that this is just a negotiating tactic designed to extract as many concessions as possible from UEFA and domestic leagues; that's possible, but I suspect that if things go badly, the Super League clubs might just go ahead with the threat.


Oh, and look to Ajax to jump over if the Super League does go ahead. Ajax corporate management are being extremely cagey about 'studying this development', and the Super League has registered a .nl internet address - but not equivalents for Portugal, Belgium, or other similar-sized European nations.

That's an amazing explanation, and I've added a part of it to the OP. Essentially you're right, the 50%+1 rule should've been passed in 1992 or shortly after.

That's just commercial lease deals. Plus you got a white elephant owned by the council because they decided to spunk money up the wall on a single sporting event for dumb reasons and they need to get shot of it.

I'd expect the lease deal to be very favorable to City security wise as they are basically stopping the council from having an empty venue which would be a cost sink for years to come. Also not only that they are covering the maintenance costs, paying a bit of rent and giving you their old run down ground to redevelop. So in return for this the lease will give them absolute security that they can't be kicked out for a long long time.

[Fartsniffage]

Yeah, but as a responsible owner, shouldn't a city have random inspections?

That's an amazing explanation, and I've added a part of it to the OP. Essentially you're right, the 50%+1 rule should've been passed in 1992 or shortly after.

That's just commercial lease deals. Plus you got a white elephant owned by the council because they decided to spunk money up the wall on a single sporting event for dumb reasons and they need to get shot of it.

I'd expect the lease deal to be very favorable to City security wise as they are basically stopping the council from having an empty venue which would be a cost sink for years to come. Also not only that they are covering the maintenance costs, paying a bit of rent and giving you their old run down ground to redevelop. So in return for this the lease will give them absolute security that they can't be kicked out for a long long time.

It didn't cost the council anything. It was funded by the Lottery.

[The Nihilistic view]

That's just commercial lease deals. Plus you got a white elephant owned by the council because they decided to spunk money up the wall on a single sporting event for dumb reasons and they need to get shot of it.

I'd expect the lease deal to be very favorable to City security wise as they are basically stopping the council from having an empty venue which would be a cost sink for years to come. Also not only that they are covering the maintenance costs, paying a bit of rent and giving you their old run down ground to redevelop. So in return for this the lease will give them absolute security that they can't be kicked out for a long long time.

It didn't cost the council anything. It was funded by the Lottery.

I think the council paid 25%, a good 20 or 30 million.

[The Nihilistic view]

The most important question really is who would they get as a tenant if they kicked City out?

And if it was about making the super league work I bet United would let City play super league games at Old Trafford.

[Fartsniffage]

The most important question really is who would they get as a tenant if they kicked City out?

And if it was about making the super league work I bet United would let City play super league games at Old Trafford.

Just.Fucking.Screams.

[Bombadil]

Clearly several people in this thread need to educate themselves about how people talk about Messi. And also learn the difference between "I think" and "people will".

What the fuck? Leo Messi is one of the greatest soccer players and he doesn't need a World Cup to prove it. Messi was recognized as the best player of the 2014 World Cup, leading his team to the finals, only to be stymied by a killer performance by Germany. Excluding their group game against Ghana where Germany fucked around, the Germans allowed just 2 goals in the entire World Cup.

Messi scored in each of Argentina's group games, each of which was won by one goal. In the semi-finals Messi's penalty kick won the game for Argentina. In 2018 Messi helped Argentina escape the group stage, and the team proceeded to lose by a single goal to the eventual winner - France. In 2010 Argentina lost to Germany, who finished third, in the knockout round. He also has six Ballon d'Ors and six Golden Boots. And yet, because he was stymied by a team that allows 2 goals during the World Cup when not fucking around in a single game, he won't be the great? Da fuck?

Regardless of opinion, the conversation is there.. Maradona is credited with practically single-handedly taking Argentina to winning the World Cup - 'credited' whether that's entirely true or not, Argentina had good players - that's why many say he's the greatest of all time, where some argue Pele.

Winning the World Cup matters, and the fact Messi hasn't, rightly or wrongly, is a mark in some people's minds over his career. The debate over Messi or Ronaldo is often around the fact that Ronaldo wins, he's won a number of CLs, he took Portugal to winning the European Cup, whereas Messi is a better technical player but not a winner in competitions.

So these things do matter.

There are great great players who never really make their name because of circumstance, take a look at the showreel of Dragan 'Piksi' Stojkovic, but the World Cup is a circumstance.

[Vashty]

at least City and United have their great new stadiums

just my luck that Everton are about to build a new stadium and basically might get shafted out of using it

Regardless of opinion, the conversation is there.. Maradona is credited with practically single-handedly taking Argentina to winning the World Cup - 'credited' whether that's entirely true or not, Argentina had good players - that's why many say he's the greatest of all time, where some argue Pele.

Winning the World Cup matters, and the fact Messi hasn't, rightly or wrongly, is a mark in some people's minds over his career. The debate over Messi or Ronaldo is often around the fact that Ronaldo wins, he's won a number of CLs, he took Portugal to winning the European Cup, whereas Messi is a better technical player but not a winner in competitions.

So these things do matter.

There are great great players who never really make their name because of circumstance, take a look at the showreel of Dragan 'Piksi' Stojkovic, but the World Cup is a circumstance.

Stoijkovic was good. Imagine a unified Yugoslav team these days.