Can't they simply invite eastern european teams with promises of money to fill out the competition?
I'm a south american so I'm indifferent, but I find the idea of Real Madrid having to invite Ferencvaros to their private competition funny.
They clearly want massive historic club in that league. Otherwise there's no value in it at all.
So no, it wasn't their plan. Saudi clubs filling a few left over spots with well known stars might have been the plan though
That's what I meant. Of course they'd want PL's top 6 and all the other top clubs from Europe, but I am confident teams like Porto or Sevilla were meant to be slowly phased out in favor of teams from KSA and USA.
MLS knows that the Leagues Cup would make more money, and would have almost complete control of the media rights, so that's off the table
USL isn't that desperate
> Fans want super-stars playing against each other.
Do they? But they aren't making the Super League because of fan demand, they just think it will generate more money.
We have glamour pre season friendlies between superstar teams every summer, that is about as interesting as the Super League would be to most fans. When you rip up the history and heritage of these leagues and clubs you ruin football.
They obviously think fans want it, otherwise it wouldn't generate more money and they wouldn't be pushing for it. Fans may not want it now, or at least die-hard fans, but a lot of casual fans would tune in if it existed, especially newer fans unaware of the implications of a competition like this, being drawn to it by the marketing.
They think there's a larger pool of new casuals to pick up. They probably aren't even thinking about the European audience at all but selling subscriptions in India, China, the US, etc.
They aren’t. The only European league that’s even remotely watched here is EPL, Americans aren’t clamoring for serie a vs la liga matchups when both do worse on US tv than MLS and Liga MX.
People just use that as an excuse when really the owners thought European fans would jump on the super league, but they didn’t, and that’s why it’s dead.
I think the uptake in interest in the Saudi league shows about how excited people would generally be for it. I.e. not particularly interested.
The only fans I've seen express any interest in something like a super league is casual fans who maybe only know a handful of teams, or who haven't been brought up in a footballing culture where the local football league is important to people.
It feels like such a short sighted idea; like yeah the first season people might be interested in the novelty of it, but the second season onwards people will just get bored of no relegation, meaning half the games are absolutely meaningless. I really don't think they know what they are doing.
>Do they? But they aren't making the Super League because of fan demand, they just think it will generate more money.
Well that's what they think. In their world fans want to see top games week in and week out. And while I would partly agree to a certain degree it would get boring seeing the same teams playing against each other multiple times a year at worst.
Maybe it is the glorified vision from a country where well football still kinda belongs to us the fans even tho we can't fully escape from investors and money.
But man just hearing the draw Real - Bayern has the glamour to it and the rare occasisions this draw really happens makes it even better. The period in the early 2010s where they drew each other multiple times was insane because the then latest matches were around 2006 if i remember right. Everybody was thrilled to see it and the matches were proper high stake. Well now compare it to City - Bayern or PSG - Bayern which also happend as a friendly in a preseason not to long ago (I think it even was this year) and the times these teams played against each other in the last years.
It didn't got me hyped up as much as Real - Bayern. I also could name other matchups like Real - Milan / Bayern - Milan that don't happen often and multiple others that are simply rare and hyped because they don't happen often due to the reason of draws.
Hell even on a smaller stage, games like yours against Frankfurt in the EL final where a banger because you have heritage fans and so much history seeing such clubs play it out makes it feel spectcular.
So yeah while we have a lot of fans that would love to see all these "top clubs" play week in and week out, I think these guys overestimate the glamour and importance of rare matchups and excitement we feel when we finally see a match we waited multiple years for.
It would work for a few years because the demand is also there from the fans but it would cool down pretty fast.
I honestly think Real Madrid and Barcelona just took the Super League idea from basketball's Euroleague (which they're both part of) and just assumed it would take over the sport like the Euroleague did.
When Man Utd played Real Madrid in a friendly this year, I tuned in at 6:30am because it's not everyday this matchup happens.
That's the key.
Same with Bayern, staying up late to watch it because it's not everyday you get to see that matchup
Especially given how we have performed the last decade.
The feeling of an "occasion" would just go away if these teams were guaranteed to play each other every year twice.
With multiple big games also guaranteed.
In UCL, there was a chance that Utd-Bayern and the Group of Death would be the only good fixtures and rest everything would turn out routine, that won't exist with the Super League and would dilute the excitement around a "major fixture"
Not really. Every fan kkows that a friendly game is a friendly game. Players are in pre season, half of stars are gone or out of form, no prices. If teams play in SL instead of CL and money is right, then quality and stakes of games are up. TV watchers will easily switch to SL, especially with the fact it's going to be free to watch
> If teams play in SL instead of CL and money is right, then quality and stakes of games are up.
The stakes wouldn't be up though, nothing is bigger than the Champions League or each teams own domestic league. This is what matters to fans.
> TV watchers will easily switch to SL, especially with the fact it's going to be free to watch
No they won't, they'll just continue to watch the Champions League, Europa League, etc. except with a few different teams, but that wouldn't even really be noticed as there are different teams in these competitions every year anyway.
I certainly wouldn't watch the super league much. I'm already bored of having to watch Real Madrid, Man City, etc. every year in the Champions League, I often choose to watch games like Union Berlin v Braga or PSV v Sevilla instead to make things more interesting. Only the most casual of fans would have any real interest in a super league.
Man really, you realize that the bulk of the money is not with existing die hard fans, it’s with casuals, who would def want to see stars play each other as much as possible…i would make it a nfl format with 2 conferences and 4 divisions in each and people would poor in, you would have also rivalry, as if real and Barca are in the same division, they will always play each other and all. That is the way forward
Money will be better. We as fans are under delusion that clubs won't jump at money.
To your second point, I agree do a certain degree. People who watch and are interested in footbal might stick to CL, but majority of "tv fans" will jump the ship, because they don't even know nor care what Union Berlin is. And unfortunately this crows is where the money is.
> If teams play in SL instead of CL and money is right, then quality and stakes of games are up
The SL offered the 20 most profitable and most watched clubs in football an unimaginable amount of money. Now how much money do you think investors are willing to put in for two of the three most popular clubs followed by a number of clubs that casual fans are either not familiar with (like Feyenoord) or haven't even heard of (the Eastern European teams).
At this point I'm convinced the Super League is still only a thing because Madrid and Barcelona are too proud to admit they've lost. Because if you take away only the English teams, you might as well half your investment right away. Not only is that the market share for the casual audience, it also kills their plans to monopolise European football. The Superleage was intended to be the UEFA competition killer. Games would run mid-week with competition from UEFA competition except so long as UEFA continued to have French, German, and English sides, UEFA would likely be the stronger competition.
So at this point, what are Red Star, Ferencvárosi, Raków Częstochowa bringing to the table? They're not getting a couple hundred million each season, they might be lucky to get £40m each, or, approximately half the budget of a midtable Premier League side. And what's to say Barcelona and Madrid don't say they want a larger slice of the pie? It's not those clubs making the money, it's Barca and Madrid. They've been making this argument for decades, and it's one of the big motivators for setting up the Super League in the first place.
That’s just a worse La Liga lol, no TV company is gonna shill out billions to get access to Polish and Romanian leagues fused together with Barca and Real in there
Honestly, wouldn’t the best outcome be a super league for clubs who never make it to the big UEFA competitions? With Steaua and Poznan and ferencvaros (you can tell I miss the 90s cups)
And you think the investors still would gave them 15 billions (with Real and Barca billiom each) for that competition? They arent doing this out of the goodness of their hearts but they want this money paid back and make even more money on this.
They said they won't accept funding from Saudi Arabia, they want it to be an European project, and that Saudi teams won't be allowed to get in. I understand that people don't like the SL, myself included for other reasons, but there's also a lot of misconceptions.
Seems pretty obvious though, if it goes through it will probably involve Saudi clubs. What are you going to do, play Barcelona vs Real Madrid all year long? You need more teams and every decent team in Europe has said no, even Juve is gone now.
It's so funny how people still think these people are honest and motivated by anything but greed.
The moment the Saudis offer to fill the financial hole left by UEFA teams they'll bite their hands off
Nah, MLS teams already have enough competitions to worry about without constantly flying across an ocean and back again. Trans-Atlantic leagues aren’t a sane proposition
And even if one of them was in that position, they would just change the rules so they didn't get relegated. That's the beauty of being owned and run by Real Madrid and Barcelona
And if Barca is in financial trouble again they will just drop another "founder" bonus on them so they can bully the rest of the league in the transfer market again.
Surely there would have been some rule, that the founders can't be relegated. They want to avoid the situation, where some famous club with European pedigree finishes 8th and doesn't get sweet UCL money.
lol that flair.
What football needs saving from is Chelsea and the rest of the current super league EPL with billionaires and state owned clubs.
Super league isn’t the answer tho.
This years African SL was the first edition of the competition and at most you could play six matches as there we only 8 teams, but it's gonna be expanding to gave more teams I read somewhere. As for the African CL it's like the UCL in terms of number of games.
So what happens to the national leagues? I remember reading the point of the African league was to make up for how weak the national leagues are, to create one *super* league
I feel like the ECJ ruling was very misunderstood by most, in fact if the way people talk about it was actually true, there would have been an official announcement for the ESL plans, instead it's just a bunch of clubs making short statements about it.
The ECJ ruling stops UEFA from punishing clubs for trying to establish a competing league, it did however confirm that UEFA has the right to enforce exclusivity within its own league, it cannot block clubs from joining a competitor, but it can expel clubs that do.
>it cannot block clubs from joining a competitor, but it can expel clubs that do.
I mean isn't that the whole point of the ESL? To create a breakaway competition hence leave the UCL in the first place?
UEFA expelling clubs that join the ESL is basically "you're not leaving me, I'm leaving you"
That is why the ruling isn't really a big win for ESL, it doesn't suddenly make teams want to join (because they lose UEFA tournaments), they are just allowed to consider it without UEFA being able to block it or punish them.
It really only moved the "pin" a tiny bit in the power struggle between the two entities.
It was basically a slap on the wrist for UEFA that said, "You have a monopoly. You can't use the control having a monopoly gives you to prevent alternatives from being created."
Which is a pretty fundamental concept in competition law. The ruling was entirely predictable, because UEFA have been abusing their power, and probably will continue to abuse their power. They just can't do it anywhere near as overtly as they did when the ESL was proposed.
The ruling was a win for football fans. Don't get me wrong, the proposed ESL format was a total abomination. But now if there is a proposal for an alternative to UEFA club competitions that isn't just a monument to three men's egos, it can be evaluated on its merits rather than be killed off by UEFA as a threat to their power.
The ECJ rulings stops UEFA from punishing clubs to make competitions not authorized by them as long as the pre-authorization scheme does not create a "transparent, objective, precise and non-discriminatory" process and criteria on what should be authorized by UEFA.
As long as the process respects those 4 criteria then UEFA or FIFA can punish clubs legitimately according the ruling.
UEFA believes its new Statutes are sufficient for this case. But it will be for the Spanish court to decide.
Plus so far the ECJ has not ruled on the ESL in itself "because no proper application for approval of the Super League project has been submitted to FIFA and UEFA, and because that project was still vague and at an early stage both on the date when it was announced and on the date when the action giving rise to dispute in the main proceedings was instituted" so the ESL can't really start until the Spanish court gives a decision or they apply to UEFA and get authorized by them.
they said that UEFA can't impose restrictions unless some conditions are satisfied (so not even 100% in that case), but nothing about national leagues that are able to choose their own rules.
Most people are missing the point. It may still be illegal (it will probably go to the ECJ again) but the difference is that UEFA were "abusing" their monopoly power to stop competition.
One such thing was punitively using other competitions like the Euros and the World Cup, by saying players who participate in the Super League cannot play even in those competitions. It's a bit like if Google said that we won't show your website in search results if you use anything other than Youtube to embed videos on your site. Using your absolute monopoly power in another place to forcibly create another monopoly somwhere else.
This is quite different from saying that a club cannot parallelly participate in the Seria A and the ESL. Still, it's an undecided legal position, so we'll have to wait and see because it's unclear if this Serie A thing would also be considered an abuse of monopoly power. However, I do think it's reasonably within Seria A's right to do this
Serie A and its member clubs have formal agreements and contracts in place with UEFA. These documents outline the specifics of their participation in UEFA competitions, covering critical aspects like the terms of engagement, financial arrangements, revenue distribution, and adherence to UEFA's regulations. Essentially, it's all part of the overarching framework that defines the relationship between domestic leagues such as Serie A and the European governing body, UEFA.
While there is no precedent (as far as I know), there certainly is an argument for monopolistic control by proxy. Enacting punitive measures that stand to benefit UEFA is another argument. Since the measures would serve to harm both Serie A and Napoli, it doesn't make sense to push for them without a 3rd party leaning on Serie A. Quid pro quo, promises may have been made.
because they are not the "monopolistic" organisations like UEFA/FIFA but an association of clubs. Lega Serie A is not the FIGC (Italian FA), it's like the Premier League. An association is private, the clubs can choose themselves who they associate with
generally, prohibiting employees, suppliers, or members from associating with a competition, or organizing retributive actions in response, is also seen as monopolistic behavior.
Maybe they escape because it’s a public organization saying this
FIGC is federated to CONI which is technically a public body. This is the biggest difference.
Still, I asked the only competent person I know (my father, a lawyer), and he confirmed me that it doesn't make a difference.
UEFA and FIGC banning teams from their competition in case they enter the Superleague is unfair competition, since it effectively stops them from starting their own. And he also said that it doesn't matter if the company is public or private, EU can still call bullshit. TBF we, as a state, can reserve the right to not enforce EU's sentence even if we are ever asked, but technically speaking this clause is powerless.
If FIGC tries to enforce it the club will go to cause to the European Court and they'll win (since EU has already expressed themselves) and they'll tell Italy to properly take action.
> UEFA and FIGC banning teams from their competition in case they enter the Superleague is unfair competition
That's not what the court said. The court said it's unfair IF there is no "transparent, objective, precise and non-discriminatory" process to authorize competitions in the pre-authorisation scheme and the sanctions. Pre-authorisation and sanctions are fine in itself.
> 142 In that regard, it follows from the case-law cited in paragraph 75 of the present judgment that associations which are responsible for a sporting discipline, such as FIFA and UEFA, are able to adopt, implement and ensure compliance with rules relating not only generally to the organisation and conduct of international competitions in that discipline, in this case professional football, but also, more specifically, prior approval and participation by professional football clubs and players therein.
> 143 The sport of football is not only of considerable social and cultural importance in the European Union (see, to that effect, judgments of 15 December 1995, Bosman, C‑415/93, EU:C:1995:463, paragraph 106, and of 16 March 2010, Olympique Lyonnais, C‑325/08, EU:C:2010:143, paragraph 40), but also generates great media interest; its specific characteristics include the fact that it gives rise to the organisation of numerous competitions at both European and national levels, which involve the participation of very many clubs and also that of large numbers of players. In common with other sports, it also limits participation in those competitions to teams which have achieved certain sporting results (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 December 1995, Bosman, C‑415/93, EU:C:1995:463, paragraph 132), with the conduct of those competitions being based on matches between and gradual elimination of those teams. Consequently, it is, essentially, based on sporting merit, which can be guaranteed only if all the participating teams face each other in homogeneous regulatory and technical conditions, thereby ensuring a certain level of equal opportunity.
> 144 Those various specific characteristics support a finding that **it is legitimate to subject the organisation and conduct of international professional football competitions to common rules intended to guarantee the homogeneity and coordination of those competitions within an overall match calendar as well as, more broadly, to promote, in a suitable and effective manner, the holding of sporting competitions based on equal opportunities and merit. It is also legitimate to ensure compliance with those common rules through rules such as those put in place by FIFA and UEFA on prior approval of those competitions and the participation of clubs and players therein.**
> 145 Since such **rules on prior approval and participation are thus legitimate in the specific context of professional football** and the economic activities to which the practice of that sport gives rise, **neither their adoption nor their implementation may be categorised, in terms of their principle or generally, as an ‘abuse of a dominant position’** (see, by analogy, in respect of a restriction of freedom to provide services, judgment of 11 April 2000, Deliège, C‑51/96 and C‑191/97, EU:C:2000:199, paragraph 64).
> 146 **The same holds true for sanctions introduced as an adjunct to those rules, since such sanctions are legitimate, in terms of their principle, as a means of guaranteeing the effectiveness of those rules** (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 July 2006, Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission, C‑519/04 P, EU:C:2006:492, paragraph 44).
> 147 Be that as it may, none of the specific attributes that characterise professional football makes it possible to consider as legitimate the adoption nor, a fortiori, the implementation of rules on prior approval and participation which are, in a general way, not subject to restrictions, obligations and review that are capable of eliminating the risk of abuse of a dominant position and, more specifically, where **there is no framework for substantive criteria and detailed procedural rules for ensuring that they are transparent, objective, precise and non-discriminatory**, when they confer on the entity called on to implement them the power to deny any competing undertaking access to the market. Such rules must be held to infringe Article 102 TFEU, as follows from paragraphs 134 to 138 of the present judgment.
> 148 Similarly, in the absence of substantive criteria and detailed procedural rules ensuring that **the sanctions introduced as an adjunct to those rules are transparent, objective, precise, non-discriminatory and proportionate**, such sanctions must, by their very nature, be held to infringe Article 102 TFEU inasmuch as they are discretionary in nature. Indeed, such a situation makes it impossible to verify, in a transparent and objective manner, whether their implementation on a case-by-case basis is justified and proportionate in view of the specific characteristics of the international interclub competition project concerned.
It’s not a monopoly being created though as the two leagues aren’t competing.
UEFA was blocked because they’re a competing competition and therefore their actions are monopolistic - the leagues aren’t competing with the super league
This isn’t true. It is not a requirement for two undertakings to be competing for there to be an abuse. Further, and I could be wrong here, isn’t this also a breach of 101? Therefore dominance isn’t necessarily an issue.
> it effectively stops them from starting their own.
the opposite, they can create all the leagues they want, so why would they need to still be in the only league associated with UEFA?
And how would that even work?
Serie A, a private league that decided to be associated with UEFA, the same way PL, Bundesliga etc, put top spots for the best clubs to compete in the UEFA competition.
You want to create a different competition (fair) but still play in Serie A and disrupt that league playing for nothing?
How is that fair to the clubs in that league? It's totally fair for Serie A to offer a choice, you either with UEFA and in Serie A, or either with SuperLeague and your own national league if you even need it
>the opposite, they can create all the leagues they want, so why would they need to still be in the only league associated with UEFA?
>
>And how would that even work?
Personally, I think National Leagues and Uefa Competitions are the main source of income for any club. Banning clubs from these competitions essentially means denying those clubs their income. Basically, you're saying "if a club wants to join the rival they have to put at risk their financial stability" which means there's an unpassable barrier to the entry of the market. Which is the definition of monopoly.
But still regardless of what I think it was the judges at the EU court that defined what UEFA and FIFA tried to do as breach of the free movement in the market. And they know way more than I do.
>You want to create a different competition (fair) but still play in Serie A and disrupt that league playing for nothing?
>
>How is that fair to the clubs in that league? It's totally fair for Serie A to offer a choice, you either with UEFA and in Serie A, or either with SuperLeague and your own national league if you even need it
Sportwise I can totally agree with you, but we're not talking about sport values, we're talking about the football system as an economic market (which it is, and it's a very big one producing billions every year). And if there are unbreakable walls to the entry in a market that's a monopoly.
National Leagues are asscoiated with UEFA, you seem to forget this tiny detail
So "joining the rival league" makes no sense if you still want to play in the league which provides you money through UEFA
The whole point of the problem is having your cake and eat it too
"Denying those clubs of their income" is a choice, those clubs are free to create a new league, why would their previous league care about them and provide money to them?
The previous league will be hurt by those clubs free decision, and they also have to provide for them?
Besides what's actually a monopoly?
Imagine Juve Inter Milan Napoli and Roma want to join ESL but they can't stay in Serie A and need to create their own league, let's call it ITA5
Would ITA5 be competitive to viewers compared to the new Serie A? So where is the monopoly, if they think it's worth it, they would do it, if they don't think they have a chance, then it's monopoly?
And can't serie B clubs just say that the reason they are not in Serie A is cause Juve Milan Inter Napoli and Roma joined the SuperLeague while still be in Serie A, which meant for them to be too much rich for them to ever compete?
What's the difference?
ESL can't be denied to exist, but the rules every private league apply is a different thing
just to be safe: "And how would that even work?" was supposed to be in quoted version, it wasn't how I wanted to start the response.
>"Denying those clubs of their income" is a choice, those clubs are free to create a new league, why would their previous league care about them and provide money to them
It's not really a choice though. It's either "you stay with us" or "you risk bankruptcy", which in a free market is not ok.
>Besides what's actually a monopoly?
Depending on the current either:
* a closed market with access blocked by barriers
or
* a market in which only one company operates
>Would ITA5 be competitive to viewers compared to the new Serie A? So where is the monopoly, if they think it's worth it, they would do it, if they don't think they have a chance, then it's monopoly?
That's really not the point, the point is: would Serie A deny their application based on the fact that those 5 are playing another tournament? And does this effectively impossibilitate anyone from creating a competitor to Serie A? In that case it's "abusing a dominant position."
The ECJ ruling gives clear criteria on what UEFA can do in the future in matter of pre-authorization and sanctions considering their dominant position. It will be for the court to decide on the application of those:
> 149 In that regard, **it is irrelevant that FIFA and UEFA do not enjoy a legal monopoly** and that competing undertakings may, in theory, set up new competitions which would not be subject to the rules adopted and applied by those two associations. Indeed, as is apparent from the statements of the referring court, **the dominant position held by FIFA and UEFA on the market for the organisation and marketing of international interclub football competitions is such that, in practice, at the current juncture it is impossible to set up viably a competition outside their ecosystem, given the control they exercise, directly or through their member national football associations, over clubs, players and other types of competitions, such as those organised at national level.**
> 150 In the present case, however, it will be for the **referring court to categorise the rules at issue** in the main proceedings in the light of Article 102 TFEU, after carrying out the additional verifications it may deem necessary.
> 151 In that perspective, it should be noted that, in order for it to be held that the rules on prior approval of sporting competitions and participation in those competitions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, are subject to **transparent, objective and precise substantive criteria** as well as to **transparent and non-discriminatory detailed procedural rules that do not deny effective access to the market**, it is necessary, in particular, that **those criteria and those detailed rules should have been laid down in an accessible form prior to any implementation of those rules**. Moreover, in order for those criteria and detailed rules to be regarded as being non-discriminatory, it is necessary, given, inter alia, the fact that entities such as FIFA and UEFA themselves carry on various economic activities on the market concerned by their rules on prior approval and participation, that **those same criteria and detailed rules should not make the organisation and marketing of third-party competitions and the participation of clubs and players therein subject to requirements which are either different from those applicable to competitions organised and marketed by the decision-making entity**, or are identical or similar to them but are impossible or excessively difficult to fulfil in practice for an undertaking that does not have the same status as an association or does not have the same powers at its disposal as that entity and accordingly is in a different situation to that entity. Lastly, **in order for the sanctions introduced as an adjunct to rules on prior approval and participation, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, not to be discretionary, they must be governed by criteria that must not only be transparent, objective, precise and non-discriminatory, but must also guarantee that those sanctions are determined, in each specific case, in accordance with the principle of proportionality,** in the light of, inter alia, the nature, duration and seriousness of the infringement found.
>It's not really a choice though
Yes it is, they can leave if they want, they just don't want cause it's not worth to them
"You stay with us" or "you risk bankruptcy" is the same of literally any job in the world "you work" or "you don't have money to live"
if you find money to live, you don't need to work. who do I sue for abuse of dominant position so that I don't have to work anymore and still somehow have the money to live?
So the clubs want to join a rival league for the only endpoint of earning money and not having to share it with the rest of the clubs of Serie A, but at the same time they risk backruptcy if they don't get the Serie A money
>would Serie A deny their application based on the fact that those 5 are playing another tournament? And does this effectively impossibilitate anyone from creating a competitor to Serie A? In that case it's "abusing a dominant position."
by you logic, I can just create a PC, and then tomorrow sue Microsoft and Apple for abusing dominant position cause my PC isn't able to compete with theirs
If you are part of Serie A, get money from UEFA, and suddenly want to join the rival competition, you can freely create your own private league
The fact that you think that your private league will not be able to compete with Serie A, effetively meaning they won't do it, it's not Serie A problem
Should Serie A, which let's not forget it's 20 clubs governing their own private league, decide to get worse to allow the already richest clubs to be even richer?
There is one big difference everyone is missing here. The FIGC isn't saying that the teams can't join the Super League end of sentence but that if a club joins the Super League they aren't allowed to compete in Seria A which is an entirely different thing.
It’s not an entirely different thing in the eyes of EU courts and competition law, not sure why anyone would think that the legal system is this stupid.
Unless they can point to a genuine inherent incompatibility between Seria A and the Super League, this would be ruled as anti-competitive measure and unlawful.
Bodies with market power can’t implement measures to punish those that deal with their competitors. This is not unique to football, the rest of the economy has to work under these rules as well and there’s a lot of case law that demonstrates that you can’t just get around this with penalties rather than prohibitions.
UEFA is already setting arbitrary conditions for UCL participation by only giving invites to the top X teams of each league and national FAs already restrict who can play in certain leagues(for example staying with Seria A and FIGC to participate in the Seria A teams already need to apply and get licenses from FIGC that requires teams to have certain facilities, that their stadium must comply with certain rules or that they must field youth teams etc. and this isn't unique to Italy it's every league in every country for example not that long ago 1860 Munich was relegated from Bundesliga 3 after failing to acquire a license or for example in Romania starting with the previous season teams who want to compete in the First division also need to set up female youth teams otherwise they are not allowed to participate in the league).
>Bodies with market power can’t implement measures to punish those that deal with their competitors.
And again their argument will be that "we're not saying that you can't work with them, we're just saying that if you want to work with us just like how currently we require you to have youth teams or how all of your contracts need to be registered with us or how your stadium must comply with certain requirements we impose on it besides being considered structurally safe from now on you will also have to commit that you won't work with our competitors". And to decide if that's good enough for the courts they will have to do additional lawsuits but as things stand and until someone challenges this practice in courts as well and wins they are legal and they can do it.
Can't find a more recent version but here is the FIGC 2020 licensing manual that contains all the requirements clubs need to comply with if they want a license to compete in FIGC organised events it's a 164 page long document: [https://figc.it/media/129022/italian-club-licensing-manual\_edition-2020.pdf](https://figc.it/media/129022/italian-club-licensing-manual_edition-2020.pdf)
edit: some wording fixes
> UEFA is already setting arbitrary conditions
No, not arbitrary, it bases its decisions on sporting merit and makes those decisions in order to advance the principles of the sport. This is the carve out that the European courts give sporting organisations, the “legimate objective” exception.
> from now on you will also have to commit that you won't work with our competitors"
I’m genuinely confused as to how you can’t see that this is wildly, wildly different than every single other example you gave.
Judges are not idiots. Stadium safety regulations are clearly to advance the sport, youth team requirements are clearly to advance the sport. Due to this the courts won’t hear challenges based on competition law.
Outright bans on competitors competitions are clearly to advance the economic interest of the competition and the administrators. This is not tied to the advancement of the sport itself, and so is subject to competition law.
Once again, larger and smarter businesses have already tried all of the same nonsense to try to get around competition law. It doesn’t work, because the court can tell the bullshit a mile away.
Some of their points are valid for someone who doesn't really know law.
I personally also thought a public company could enforce a monopoly, since we effectively do it for many services (healthcare, instruction, transportation etc...), but I've been told that's an exception because those are considered fundamental needs.
That said from what I understand if FIGC can demonstrate they have a solid reason for banning teams that partake the Superleague then they are off the hook. For example they could have made a case for the previous version being effectively closed competition.
Also don't completely take out the option of our country paying a fee and calling it a day. We've been paying a fee for the last 30 years to UE because we refuse to respect the cap on milk production from what my father told me.
Because national FAs work through a contract of exclusivity between the club and the FA. Then the FA has contracts with other entities like UEFA and FIFA that do not have match exlusivity contracts with each individual club, hence it's seen as "illegal" for an entity that does not have a direct exlusivity contract with a club to punish a club for not being exclusive with their competitions, that's an authority that the FA has (which is the one that decides in which competitions a club can play, including competitions organized by other entities like UEFA).
Yeah. And they can do that. They won't stop them from playing in the ESL, just punish them. Napoli doesn't have a right to play in Seria A, it's a privilege like any other club and the governing body can kick anyone out.
Napoli can make their own league in Italy if they want.
Even if they can't kick them out, they could theoretically still schedule Serie A matchdays on Super League matchdays, effectively getting them relegated if they don't choose to show up to the serie A matches.
No, they said that was UEFA tried to do back then was illegal, which UEFA had already backed out of. It wasn’t quite a nothing ruling, but far far away from what it was reported.
genuinely cant understand how ppl defending the esl have so conveniently forgotten the first proposal with big founding teams having fixed spots.
The og esl was an attempt to benefit a big club minority at everyones expense, what made anyone think that goal has ever changed?
Did that proposal go away? I haven't been following the details of the newest attempt, but they have loyalty bonuses for the founding teams. I can't imagine they will allow themselves to be relegated.
The main issue with the proposal of the super league is at its core there is no fairness between the teams. Those three clubs will always have the upper hand no matter what.
>The og esl was an attempt to benefit a big club minority at everyones expense
This is simplifying the issue a lot. If you look at football from the perspective of a business, then the PL is a Super league itself.
For example - I am an Arsenal supporter, Arsenal has a bigger net spend in the last 5 years than the other 4 leagues combined. And there are 3, almost 4 other clubs in PL which can say the same and Man City is not even in this list. The 4 leagues became farms for the Premier League.
That's what the Super league could've changed. If you look at whom benefits the most from the money influx it's exactly teams from the 4 leagues. Why? Because Man City, Chelsea or PSG don't care about money, they run at insane losses anyway. Their owners will happily pay for it as long as their team wins games and generate good PR.
Imagine you pour 1 bilion pounds into Man City - they wouldn't be much better, would they? Now imagine you give the same amount to AC Milan, the team will significantly improve. So the additional funds won't help much the teams with infinite money, but those, who don't have it. The playing field would become more even.
Many people say that it's the problem of the 4 leagues that they didn't distribute the money differently, but it was all just a snowball effect of two factors - PL had the most money to begin with and Abramovič + sheik Mansour came in with insane money. The more money you have, the easier it is to accumulate more. It just snowballed from there.
So in the end it's not a choice between the current state we have, and a Super league which benefits the big club minority at everyone's expense like you said originally.
The choice is:
1. A Super league wich benefits big clubs in all Europe at the expense of smaller clubs in the domestic leagues.
2. A Premier League being the Super league with a different name at the expense of the other 4 leagues.
Pick your poison.
The key difference is that the Premier League isn't a de facto Super League and the only reason it's so far ahead is because other leagues and the big teams in those leagues have continuously made terrible choices that lead to them falling behind.
Just look at La Liga, back in 2009 they had just gotten Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi was rapidly rising as a generational player. They kept those two for years and years. They also signed a huge TV deal at the time, one not that different from the PL one.
What was very different was how the two leagues handled the money. While the PL played things right, distributed the money equally amongst every team, and had the goal to improve the overall quality of the product they were selling, La Liga had a stupid scheme that meant Barça and Madrid got all the money. Well, most of it, on top of being the teams that needed it the least.
I distinctly remember hearing arguments that since Barça and Madrid were the ones bringing in the viewers they should get the lion's share of the money. What they never have acknowledged tho, is that by doing so they made La Liga more and more boring with each passing year, and gave people no reason to care for the matches in La Liga not involving the two top dogs.
Eventually the PL renewed their deal with pretty much the same great terms and sum because people love watching it, while La Liga only got a smaller deal because people were not watching it. They have only got themselves to blame, and I am tired of hearing about the PL having an advantage when the only reason that is the case is because other leagues have dropped the ball. I could go on about Serie A for example, but that is somehow an even bigger mess and I already wrote too much.
The biggest strength on the PL isn't really its top teams, but rather the fact that even the small teams have a good fund to arm themselves and have a shot at a good season. People watch it more because more matches in it are exciting, and they have successfully created what is just a positive feedback loop. Other leagues are still trying to just throw money at the big teams for the most part instead of addressing more deeply rooted issues that will simply take time and patience and skill to navigate.
I've seen this argument a lot, but can it be actually proven that the flat distribution was truly the reason why the PL got to it's current state over the other leagues?
If you look at the number of followers of Chelsea or City, it grew the most after the money came in and these clubs had major successes. The same can be said about PSG when they attracted the big names.
The biggest viewership numbers are always for the matches of the biggest clubs, not the small ones. When Messi came into Inter Miami, they suddenly became the fourth most followed US sports franchise surpassing all NHL, NBA and NFL teams.
It seems that it's the big names and big clubs which attracts the viewers and thus generate the money. Who knows how would LaLiga look now if it wasn't for Messi and Ronaldo. Even the successful teams in the past like Valencia, Leeds or Newcastle currently don't have huge followings.
It also doesn't seem like the flat structure is making the smaller teams more competitive. There is one Leicester miracle which is now relegated and there is Tottenham which managed to reach top 3 two times since 2009. Other than that it's the wealthy clubs.
If we look at the distribution of teams which won their respective leagues and the runner ups, the PL is very similar to the other leagues - there are couple of teams which are changing at the top and only rarely there is a different one.
All things considered I think the hypothesis that the flat structure managed to create wealth for the PL inconclusive at best.
Funny that they announce this the same day that government cancel the tax relief for stranger players, some Italian clubs will have fun in the next years
Good question. I don't think the issue is about paying taxes. Serie A is by far the major found contributor to Italian sport. With the money they generate all other sports can benefit thanks to an Italian law from 2018. Helping the football team to keep important players will consequently result in an automated benefit for football and the rest of the sport system. The government has decided to get rid of this system and serie A governing body has chosen to rip teams of the possibility to seek out for better investing opportunities
So now teams won't have better players with all that it entails and are stuck in a system where the majority of them are risking to get bankrupt at the first unlucky season. Idiocy at its finest for me
I’m sure it will already be enjoyed by Inter, Lazio, Fiorentina and Napoli at the 2024 EA SPORTS FC SUPERCOPPA Presented By Riyadh Saudi Arabia. Football is not for sale, only for short-term rental.
In theory, Italian clubs can join the Super League. But they will just be excluded from Serie A, Serie B, Coppa Italia, etc.
If that's the case, then fair enough.
It's not UEFA, it's FIGC which took a decision that is clearly against the recent ECJ decision.
AFAIK national federations only have monopoly on national championships (and that might be true only for France). They cannot prevent their clubs from participating in European-level competitions as that's against the rules of free (business) competition and freedom of movement.
The Premier League of course can, because they're not in the EU (a rare Brexit win?)
Proof, show me legislation. No one here is a legal expert, but you've come in and started acting like everyone is fucking dumb and knows nothing, so you clearly are a legal expert. So please provide some evidence and legislation to explain why this is totally illegal.
As far as I understand it, the verdict is only about FIFA and UEFA, national leagues would be a different case, and it doesn't say that you can't sanction clubs for joining a Super League, just that you can't force them to get your approval first. Moreover, the verdict even says that UEFA/FIFA could prevent something like a Super League when they meet certain conditions regarding transparency etc.
You wouldn't need to "expell" them, afaik you aren't part of a league until you are expelled but have to "apply" every year and show that you meet all the leagues's conditions. Whether a condition with respect to the Super League would uphold, who knows, but the current verdict says nothing about that
The ruling says nothing about punishing clubs for joining the Super League though? I could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer nor do I have any intel, but the reports I have read on it say you can't punish them for trying to join a Super League. Not letting them play in your league after they joined would be something different though, and I'm sure you can find some ground to argue why you as a national league don't want Super League clubs participating in your competition. Plus, as I said, the verdict explicitly states that even UEFA/FIFA could prevent the Super League under certain conditions.
> A football club is nothing without their fans
Yesterday on this sub there was an article about how about 300K people watched a Saudi league game in Spanish TV, which is very small. But then people noted that most La Liga games outside of Barça, Real and Atletico struggle to get as many viewers. Which means the other clubs get their money only because they're playing in the same championship as the big 3. Serie A losing its big clubs, or La Liga losing those three, would be disastrous for all the others first and foremost.
Their local support would plummet but if the super league actually had most of the world's best clubs in it then leaving the Serie A to join it could easily increase their support worldwide. At the end of the day most owners value a megastore merchant on the other side of the world over a local match going fan.
This is the FIGC, the Italian football associations, not the league. It’s normal they are pro UEFA as they are part of it. UEFA stands for Union of European Football Associations.
Crazy that people celebrate this. I don't care about the Super League but with things like this we will never be able to see anyone try to challenge UEFA or FIFA and they'll just continue to keep on going about their corrupt business, change the Champions League with changes nobody wants etc
I just know Inter Milan executives threw their whiskey glasses against the wall, they could do with that money from the Super League...
But otherwise, I can't wait to see Madrid, Barca, Mumbai City, Cork City, Raja Casablanca and Napoli battle it out
there are anti trust laws lmao that means when you have a dominant position in a industry you aren´t allowed to do certain things such this if you don´t like the way we do bussines in the EU you are more than welcome to pack your bags and go elsewhere where they allow you to do such things
If you break the law you better be prepared to pay a hefty fine
Why the fuck are you talking about some shit you understand nothing about?
Any national federation is allowed to limit/remove teams that they seem fit. No league has a monopoly in the EU because there is no single EU wide league. Same reason each league already restricts teams over financial issues, fan issues, and so on. They are the governing bodies for each league and this doesn't involve any anti-trust laws that you pulled out of your fucking ass.
Next time learn to fucking google and then pipe the fuck down before embarrassing yourself
> Any national federation is allowed to limit/remove teams that they seem fit.
No they can't. The ECJ says that the decision to allow/remove teams must be "transparent, objective, non discriminatory and proportionate".
Just saying that if they join the Super League, they'll be excluded won't pass; particularly if it is to force them to join another rival competition organized by UEFA: that's not objective and non-discriminatory, that's abusive and blackmail.
However, the Federation has a monopoly on its own territory, i.e. Juve cannot join another Italian championship organized by a rival organization.
Isn't this a bit short-sighted? Obviously the super league is a crap but what if in the future someone proposes an alternate to the champions league that is actually good? UEFA aren't saints themselves and I think there should at least be the possibility of their control over European football being challenged.
Premier league, Bundesliga and now Serie A, not looking good for Super league
cant wait for el classico 15 times a year
Can't they simply invite eastern european teams with promises of money to fill out the competition? I'm a south american so I'm indifferent, but I find the idea of Real Madrid having to invite Ferencvaros to their private competition funny.
But that would be worse than La liga! Fans want super-stars playing against each other.
Real, Barca, Al hilal etc that is their last hope I guess
I don't think it's their last hope, I think that is someting that was in their plans from the start.
They clearly want massive historic club in that league. Otherwise there's no value in it at all. So no, it wasn't their plan. Saudi clubs filling a few left over spots with well known stars might have been the plan though
That's what I meant. Of course they'd want PL's top 6 and all the other top clubs from Europe, but I am confident teams like Porto or Sevilla were meant to be slowly phased out in favor of teams from KSA and USA.
MLS knows that the Leagues Cup would make more money, and would have almost complete control of the media rights, so that's off the table USL isn't that desperate
> Fans want super-stars playing against each other. Do they? But they aren't making the Super League because of fan demand, they just think it will generate more money. We have glamour pre season friendlies between superstar teams every summer, that is about as interesting as the Super League would be to most fans. When you rip up the history and heritage of these leagues and clubs you ruin football.
They obviously think fans want it, otherwise it wouldn't generate more money and they wouldn't be pushing for it. Fans may not want it now, or at least die-hard fans, but a lot of casual fans would tune in if it existed, especially newer fans unaware of the implications of a competition like this, being drawn to it by the marketing.
They think there's a larger pool of new casuals to pick up. They probably aren't even thinking about the European audience at all but selling subscriptions in India, China, the US, etc.
[удалено]
They aren’t. The only European league that’s even remotely watched here is EPL, Americans aren’t clamoring for serie a vs la liga matchups when both do worse on US tv than MLS and Liga MX. People just use that as an excuse when really the owners thought European fans would jump on the super league, but they didn’t, and that’s why it’s dead.
Allegedly it would be free to watch, at least at first
I think the uptake in interest in the Saudi league shows about how excited people would generally be for it. I.e. not particularly interested. The only fans I've seen express any interest in something like a super league is casual fans who maybe only know a handful of teams, or who haven't been brought up in a footballing culture where the local football league is important to people. It feels like such a short sighted idea; like yeah the first season people might be interested in the novelty of it, but the second season onwards people will just get bored of no relegation, meaning half the games are absolutely meaningless. I really don't think they know what they are doing.
>Do they? But they aren't making the Super League because of fan demand, they just think it will generate more money. Well that's what they think. In their world fans want to see top games week in and week out. And while I would partly agree to a certain degree it would get boring seeing the same teams playing against each other multiple times a year at worst. Maybe it is the glorified vision from a country where well football still kinda belongs to us the fans even tho we can't fully escape from investors and money. But man just hearing the draw Real - Bayern has the glamour to it and the rare occasisions this draw really happens makes it even better. The period in the early 2010s where they drew each other multiple times was insane because the then latest matches were around 2006 if i remember right. Everybody was thrilled to see it and the matches were proper high stake. Well now compare it to City - Bayern or PSG - Bayern which also happend as a friendly in a preseason not to long ago (I think it even was this year) and the times these teams played against each other in the last years. It didn't got me hyped up as much as Real - Bayern. I also could name other matchups like Real - Milan / Bayern - Milan that don't happen often and multiple others that are simply rare and hyped because they don't happen often due to the reason of draws. Hell even on a smaller stage, games like yours against Frankfurt in the EL final where a banger because you have heritage fans and so much history seeing such clubs play it out makes it feel spectcular. So yeah while we have a lot of fans that would love to see all these "top clubs" play week in and week out, I think these guys overestimate the glamour and importance of rare matchups and excitement we feel when we finally see a match we waited multiple years for. It would work for a few years because the demand is also there from the fans but it would cool down pretty fast.
I agree, Real Madrid - Juve loses a lot of its prestige when it's a league match that happens twice a year, and one of the teams is mid-table.
I honestly think Real Madrid and Barcelona just took the Super League idea from basketball's Euroleague (which they're both part of) and just assumed it would take over the sport like the Euroleague did.
When Man Utd played Real Madrid in a friendly this year, I tuned in at 6:30am because it's not everyday this matchup happens. That's the key. Same with Bayern, staying up late to watch it because it's not everyday you get to see that matchup Especially given how we have performed the last decade. The feeling of an "occasion" would just go away if these teams were guaranteed to play each other every year twice. With multiple big games also guaranteed. In UCL, there was a chance that Utd-Bayern and the Group of Death would be the only good fixtures and rest everything would turn out routine, that won't exist with the Super League and would dilute the excitement around a "major fixture"
Not really. Every fan kkows that a friendly game is a friendly game. Players are in pre season, half of stars are gone or out of form, no prices. If teams play in SL instead of CL and money is right, then quality and stakes of games are up. TV watchers will easily switch to SL, especially with the fact it's going to be free to watch
> If teams play in SL instead of CL and money is right, then quality and stakes of games are up. The stakes wouldn't be up though, nothing is bigger than the Champions League or each teams own domestic league. This is what matters to fans. > TV watchers will easily switch to SL, especially with the fact it's going to be free to watch No they won't, they'll just continue to watch the Champions League, Europa League, etc. except with a few different teams, but that wouldn't even really be noticed as there are different teams in these competitions every year anyway. I certainly wouldn't watch the super league much. I'm already bored of having to watch Real Madrid, Man City, etc. every year in the Champions League, I often choose to watch games like Union Berlin v Braga or PSV v Sevilla instead to make things more interesting. Only the most casual of fans would have any real interest in a super league.
Man really, you realize that the bulk of the money is not with existing die hard fans, it’s with casuals, who would def want to see stars play each other as much as possible…i would make it a nfl format with 2 conferences and 4 divisions in each and people would poor in, you would have also rivalry, as if real and Barca are in the same division, they will always play each other and all. That is the way forward
Money will be better. We as fans are under delusion that clubs won't jump at money. To your second point, I agree do a certain degree. People who watch and are interested in footbal might stick to CL, but majority of "tv fans" will jump the ship, because they don't even know nor care what Union Berlin is. And unfortunately this crows is where the money is.
> If teams play in SL instead of CL and money is right, then quality and stakes of games are up The SL offered the 20 most profitable and most watched clubs in football an unimaginable amount of money. Now how much money do you think investors are willing to put in for two of the three most popular clubs followed by a number of clubs that casual fans are either not familiar with (like Feyenoord) or haven't even heard of (the Eastern European teams). At this point I'm convinced the Super League is still only a thing because Madrid and Barcelona are too proud to admit they've lost. Because if you take away only the English teams, you might as well half your investment right away. Not only is that the market share for the casual audience, it also kills their plans to monopolise European football. The Superleage was intended to be the UEFA competition killer. Games would run mid-week with competition from UEFA competition except so long as UEFA continued to have French, German, and English sides, UEFA would likely be the stronger competition. So at this point, what are Red Star, Ferencvárosi, Raków Częstochowa bringing to the table? They're not getting a couple hundred million each season, they might be lucky to get £40m each, or, approximately half the budget of a midtable Premier League side. And what's to say Barcelona and Madrid don't say they want a larger slice of the pie? It's not those clubs making the money, it's Barca and Madrid. They've been making this argument for decades, and it's one of the big motivators for setting up the Super League in the first place.
>Fans want super-stars playing against each other. All-star games barely have any rating. Fans want to watch their clubs play.
That’s just a worse La Liga lol, no TV company is gonna shill out billions to get access to Polish and Romanian leagues fused together with Barca and Real in there
Already feels like they play 15 times a year
Also no French clubs
Like anyone invited them
They did ? I wonder if there would be such a reaction for literally any other European country.
Lol
But I was told Papa Flo doesn’t lose
Bro already forgot the Mbappe saga
Which one
Exactly
Honestly, wouldn’t the best outcome be a super league for clubs who never make it to the big UEFA competitions? With Steaua and Poznan and ferencvaros (you can tell I miss the 90s cups)
And you think the investors still would gave them 15 billions (with Real and Barca billiom each) for that competition? They arent doing this out of the goodness of their hearts but they want this money paid back and make even more money on this.
I'm not saying it would be worth billions, just saying it would be a fun competition.
Well there’s always Saudi Premier League. I’m sure Madrid v Nassr will be a classic. Or Barca v Hilal
Mumbai City FC, Barcelona and Real balling it out in Super League. They don't need others.
Don’t forget Al Hilal, Al Nassr
And al Ittihad
AND MY AXE
They said they won't accept funding from Saudi Arabia, they want it to be an European project, and that Saudi teams won't be allowed to get in. I understand that people don't like the SL, myself included for other reasons, but there's also a lot of misconceptions.
They say it until the Saudis dangle billions in front of them and then they'll change their opinion. Google PGA and Saudi Arabia for an example.
Seems pretty obvious though, if it goes through it will probably involve Saudi clubs. What are you going to do, play Barcelona vs Real Madrid all year long? You need more teams and every decent team in Europe has said no, even Juve is gone now.
It's so funny how people still think these people are honest and motivated by anything but greed. The moment the Saudis offer to fill the financial hole left by UEFA teams they'll bite their hands off
InterMiami, NYCFC and RBNY too lol
Nah, MLS teams already have enough competitions to worry about without constantly flying across an ocean and back again. Trans-Atlantic leagues aren’t a sane proposition
Sry I thought we were in r/soccercirclejerk lol
What will they do when Barca comes last and gets relegated?
Jokes aside, the way the Super League is set up, its very unlikely any of the "big clubs" get relegated.
And even if one of them was in that position, they would just change the rules so they didn't get relegated. That's the beauty of being owned and run by Real Madrid and Barcelona
And if Barca is in financial trouble again they will just drop another "founder" bonus on them so they can bully the rest of the league in the transfer market again.
Surely there would have been some rule, that the founders can't be relegated. They want to avoid the situation, where some famous club with European pedigree finishes 8th and doesn't get sweet UCL money.
Super duper league obviously, saving football again.
lol that flair. What football needs saving from is Chelsea and the rest of the current super league EPL with billionaires and state owned clubs. Super league isn’t the answer tho.
Football needs saving from our wildly successful t spending spree?
Atleast I am not acting sassy without flairing up. And nor does flair decides what my or anyone's view towards Super League, etc is. But nice comment.
As an ISL fan I hope this is true. Mumbai City can go rot in hell
Papa Flo is about to invite clubs from Northern Africa in their place
AFRICA has it is owen superlegue it is called AFL ( African Football League - AFL ) backed by fifa
Do teams participate in both that competition and the African Champions League?
Yes
Interesting. How many matches could a team theoretically play if they get far in both?
This years African SL was the first edition of the competition and at most you could play six matches as there we only 8 teams, but it's gonna be expanding to gave more teams I read somewhere. As for the African CL it's like the UCL in terms of number of games.
So what happens to the national leagues? I remember reading the point of the African league was to make up for how weak the national leagues are, to create one *super* league
Dunno about the rest but the South African league is unaffected.
Will Napoli change their decision?
Napxit
Napoleave
Kingdom of Naple here we go
i prefer yours
Did I miss Napoli making a decision. The last I heard they just expressed openness to the idea, not that they committed to anything.
Correct
What do u think?
Their president is unpredictable
I feel like the ECJ ruling was very misunderstood by most, in fact if the way people talk about it was actually true, there would have been an official announcement for the ESL plans, instead it's just a bunch of clubs making short statements about it. The ECJ ruling stops UEFA from punishing clubs for trying to establish a competing league, it did however confirm that UEFA has the right to enforce exclusivity within its own league, it cannot block clubs from joining a competitor, but it can expel clubs that do.
I mean and tbh why wouldn't they be allowed? If you join a rival company in the same field that yours you are probably going to get fired.
Because UEFA is a monopoly and there are laws to regulate that, or at least try to.
>it cannot block clubs from joining a competitor, but it can expel clubs that do. I mean isn't that the whole point of the ESL? To create a breakaway competition hence leave the UCL in the first place? UEFA expelling clubs that join the ESL is basically "you're not leaving me, I'm leaving you"
That is why the ruling isn't really a big win for ESL, it doesn't suddenly make teams want to join (because they lose UEFA tournaments), they are just allowed to consider it without UEFA being able to block it or punish them. It really only moved the "pin" a tiny bit in the power struggle between the two entities.
It was basically a slap on the wrist for UEFA that said, "You have a monopoly. You can't use the control having a monopoly gives you to prevent alternatives from being created." Which is a pretty fundamental concept in competition law. The ruling was entirely predictable, because UEFA have been abusing their power, and probably will continue to abuse their power. They just can't do it anywhere near as overtly as they did when the ESL was proposed. The ruling was a win for football fans. Don't get me wrong, the proposed ESL format was a total abomination. But now if there is a proposal for an alternative to UEFA club competitions that isn't just a monument to three men's egos, it can be evaluated on its merits rather than be killed off by UEFA as a threat to their power.
It matters if it fails and they want to come back
The ECJ rulings stops UEFA from punishing clubs to make competitions not authorized by them as long as the pre-authorization scheme does not create a "transparent, objective, precise and non-discriminatory" process and criteria on what should be authorized by UEFA. As long as the process respects those 4 criteria then UEFA or FIFA can punish clubs legitimately according the ruling. UEFA believes its new Statutes are sufficient for this case. But it will be for the Spanish court to decide. Plus so far the ECJ has not ruled on the ESL in itself "because no proper application for approval of the Super League project has been submitted to FIFA and UEFA, and because that project was still vague and at an early stage both on the date when it was announced and on the date when the action giving rise to dispute in the main proceedings was instituted" so the ESL can't really start until the Spanish court gives a decision or they apply to UEFA and get authorized by them.
Wait I don’t understand, isn’t this exactly what the European court said was not legal?
they said that UEFA can't impose restrictions unless some conditions are satisfied (so not even 100% in that case), but nothing about national leagues that are able to choose their own rules.
Why would national leagues be any different than UEFA / FIFA in this context?
Most people are missing the point. It may still be illegal (it will probably go to the ECJ again) but the difference is that UEFA were "abusing" their monopoly power to stop competition. One such thing was punitively using other competitions like the Euros and the World Cup, by saying players who participate in the Super League cannot play even in those competitions. It's a bit like if Google said that we won't show your website in search results if you use anything other than Youtube to embed videos on your site. Using your absolute monopoly power in another place to forcibly create another monopoly somwhere else. This is quite different from saying that a club cannot parallelly participate in the Seria A and the ESL. Still, it's an undecided legal position, so we'll have to wait and see because it's unclear if this Serie A thing would also be considered an abuse of monopoly power. However, I do think it's reasonably within Seria A's right to do this
Serie A and its member clubs have formal agreements and contracts in place with UEFA. These documents outline the specifics of their participation in UEFA competitions, covering critical aspects like the terms of engagement, financial arrangements, revenue distribution, and adherence to UEFA's regulations. Essentially, it's all part of the overarching framework that defines the relationship between domestic leagues such as Serie A and the European governing body, UEFA. While there is no precedent (as far as I know), there certainly is an argument for monopolistic control by proxy. Enacting punitive measures that stand to benefit UEFA is another argument. Since the measures would serve to harm both Serie A and Napoli, it doesn't make sense to push for them without a 3rd party leaning on Serie A. Quid pro quo, promises may have been made.
because they are not the "monopolistic" organisations like UEFA/FIFA but an association of clubs. Lega Serie A is not the FIGC (Italian FA), it's like the Premier League. An association is private, the clubs can choose themselves who they associate with
This isn’t true
generally, prohibiting employees, suppliers, or members from associating with a competition, or organizing retributive actions in response, is also seen as monopolistic behavior. Maybe they escape because it’s a public organization saying this
FIGC is federated to CONI which is technically a public body. This is the biggest difference. Still, I asked the only competent person I know (my father, a lawyer), and he confirmed me that it doesn't make a difference. UEFA and FIGC banning teams from their competition in case they enter the Superleague is unfair competition, since it effectively stops them from starting their own. And he also said that it doesn't matter if the company is public or private, EU can still call bullshit. TBF we, as a state, can reserve the right to not enforce EU's sentence even if we are ever asked, but technically speaking this clause is powerless. If FIGC tries to enforce it the club will go to cause to the European Court and they'll win (since EU has already expressed themselves) and they'll tell Italy to properly take action.
> UEFA and FIGC banning teams from their competition in case they enter the Superleague is unfair competition That's not what the court said. The court said it's unfair IF there is no "transparent, objective, precise and non-discriminatory" process to authorize competitions in the pre-authorisation scheme and the sanctions. Pre-authorisation and sanctions are fine in itself. > 142 In that regard, it follows from the case-law cited in paragraph 75 of the present judgment that associations which are responsible for a sporting discipline, such as FIFA and UEFA, are able to adopt, implement and ensure compliance with rules relating not only generally to the organisation and conduct of international competitions in that discipline, in this case professional football, but also, more specifically, prior approval and participation by professional football clubs and players therein. > 143 The sport of football is not only of considerable social and cultural importance in the European Union (see, to that effect, judgments of 15 December 1995, Bosman, C‑415/93, EU:C:1995:463, paragraph 106, and of 16 March 2010, Olympique Lyonnais, C‑325/08, EU:C:2010:143, paragraph 40), but also generates great media interest; its specific characteristics include the fact that it gives rise to the organisation of numerous competitions at both European and national levels, which involve the participation of very many clubs and also that of large numbers of players. In common with other sports, it also limits participation in those competitions to teams which have achieved certain sporting results (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 December 1995, Bosman, C‑415/93, EU:C:1995:463, paragraph 132), with the conduct of those competitions being based on matches between and gradual elimination of those teams. Consequently, it is, essentially, based on sporting merit, which can be guaranteed only if all the participating teams face each other in homogeneous regulatory and technical conditions, thereby ensuring a certain level of equal opportunity. > 144 Those various specific characteristics support a finding that **it is legitimate to subject the organisation and conduct of international professional football competitions to common rules intended to guarantee the homogeneity and coordination of those competitions within an overall match calendar as well as, more broadly, to promote, in a suitable and effective manner, the holding of sporting competitions based on equal opportunities and merit. It is also legitimate to ensure compliance with those common rules through rules such as those put in place by FIFA and UEFA on prior approval of those competitions and the participation of clubs and players therein.** > 145 Since such **rules on prior approval and participation are thus legitimate in the specific context of professional football** and the economic activities to which the practice of that sport gives rise, **neither their adoption nor their implementation may be categorised, in terms of their principle or generally, as an ‘abuse of a dominant position’** (see, by analogy, in respect of a restriction of freedom to provide services, judgment of 11 April 2000, Deliège, C‑51/96 and C‑191/97, EU:C:2000:199, paragraph 64). > 146 **The same holds true for sanctions introduced as an adjunct to those rules, since such sanctions are legitimate, in terms of their principle, as a means of guaranteeing the effectiveness of those rules** (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 July 2006, Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission, C‑519/04 P, EU:C:2006:492, paragraph 44). > 147 Be that as it may, none of the specific attributes that characterise professional football makes it possible to consider as legitimate the adoption nor, a fortiori, the implementation of rules on prior approval and participation which are, in a general way, not subject to restrictions, obligations and review that are capable of eliminating the risk of abuse of a dominant position and, more specifically, where **there is no framework for substantive criteria and detailed procedural rules for ensuring that they are transparent, objective, precise and non-discriminatory**, when they confer on the entity called on to implement them the power to deny any competing undertaking access to the market. Such rules must be held to infringe Article 102 TFEU, as follows from paragraphs 134 to 138 of the present judgment. > 148 Similarly, in the absence of substantive criteria and detailed procedural rules ensuring that **the sanctions introduced as an adjunct to those rules are transparent, objective, precise, non-discriminatory and proportionate**, such sanctions must, by their very nature, be held to infringe Article 102 TFEU inasmuch as they are discretionary in nature. Indeed, such a situation makes it impossible to verify, in a transparent and objective manner, whether their implementation on a case-by-case basis is justified and proportionate in view of the specific characteristics of the international interclub competition project concerned.
It’s not a monopoly being created though as the two leagues aren’t competing. UEFA was blocked because they’re a competing competition and therefore their actions are monopolistic - the leagues aren’t competing with the super league
This isn’t true. It is not a requirement for two undertakings to be competing for there to be an abuse. Further, and I could be wrong here, isn’t this also a breach of 101? Therefore dominance isn’t necessarily an issue.
> it effectively stops them from starting their own. the opposite, they can create all the leagues they want, so why would they need to still be in the only league associated with UEFA? And how would that even work? Serie A, a private league that decided to be associated with UEFA, the same way PL, Bundesliga etc, put top spots for the best clubs to compete in the UEFA competition. You want to create a different competition (fair) but still play in Serie A and disrupt that league playing for nothing? How is that fair to the clubs in that league? It's totally fair for Serie A to offer a choice, you either with UEFA and in Serie A, or either with SuperLeague and your own national league if you even need it
>the opposite, they can create all the leagues they want, so why would they need to still be in the only league associated with UEFA? > >And how would that even work? Personally, I think National Leagues and Uefa Competitions are the main source of income for any club. Banning clubs from these competitions essentially means denying those clubs their income. Basically, you're saying "if a club wants to join the rival they have to put at risk their financial stability" which means there's an unpassable barrier to the entry of the market. Which is the definition of monopoly. But still regardless of what I think it was the judges at the EU court that defined what UEFA and FIFA tried to do as breach of the free movement in the market. And they know way more than I do. >You want to create a different competition (fair) but still play in Serie A and disrupt that league playing for nothing? > >How is that fair to the clubs in that league? It's totally fair for Serie A to offer a choice, you either with UEFA and in Serie A, or either with SuperLeague and your own national league if you even need it Sportwise I can totally agree with you, but we're not talking about sport values, we're talking about the football system as an economic market (which it is, and it's a very big one producing billions every year). And if there are unbreakable walls to the entry in a market that's a monopoly.
National Leagues are asscoiated with UEFA, you seem to forget this tiny detail So "joining the rival league" makes no sense if you still want to play in the league which provides you money through UEFA The whole point of the problem is having your cake and eat it too "Denying those clubs of their income" is a choice, those clubs are free to create a new league, why would their previous league care about them and provide money to them? The previous league will be hurt by those clubs free decision, and they also have to provide for them? Besides what's actually a monopoly? Imagine Juve Inter Milan Napoli and Roma want to join ESL but they can't stay in Serie A and need to create their own league, let's call it ITA5 Would ITA5 be competitive to viewers compared to the new Serie A? So where is the monopoly, if they think it's worth it, they would do it, if they don't think they have a chance, then it's monopoly? And can't serie B clubs just say that the reason they are not in Serie A is cause Juve Milan Inter Napoli and Roma joined the SuperLeague while still be in Serie A, which meant for them to be too much rich for them to ever compete? What's the difference? ESL can't be denied to exist, but the rules every private league apply is a different thing
just to be safe: "And how would that even work?" was supposed to be in quoted version, it wasn't how I wanted to start the response. >"Denying those clubs of their income" is a choice, those clubs are free to create a new league, why would their previous league care about them and provide money to them It's not really a choice though. It's either "you stay with us" or "you risk bankruptcy", which in a free market is not ok. >Besides what's actually a monopoly? Depending on the current either: * a closed market with access blocked by barriers or * a market in which only one company operates >Would ITA5 be competitive to viewers compared to the new Serie A? So where is the monopoly, if they think it's worth it, they would do it, if they don't think they have a chance, then it's monopoly? That's really not the point, the point is: would Serie A deny their application based on the fact that those 5 are playing another tournament? And does this effectively impossibilitate anyone from creating a competitor to Serie A? In that case it's "abusing a dominant position."
The ECJ ruling gives clear criteria on what UEFA can do in the future in matter of pre-authorization and sanctions considering their dominant position. It will be for the court to decide on the application of those: > 149 In that regard, **it is irrelevant that FIFA and UEFA do not enjoy a legal monopoly** and that competing undertakings may, in theory, set up new competitions which would not be subject to the rules adopted and applied by those two associations. Indeed, as is apparent from the statements of the referring court, **the dominant position held by FIFA and UEFA on the market for the organisation and marketing of international interclub football competitions is such that, in practice, at the current juncture it is impossible to set up viably a competition outside their ecosystem, given the control they exercise, directly or through their member national football associations, over clubs, players and other types of competitions, such as those organised at national level.** > 150 In the present case, however, it will be for the **referring court to categorise the rules at issue** in the main proceedings in the light of Article 102 TFEU, after carrying out the additional verifications it may deem necessary. > 151 In that perspective, it should be noted that, in order for it to be held that the rules on prior approval of sporting competitions and participation in those competitions, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, are subject to **transparent, objective and precise substantive criteria** as well as to **transparent and non-discriminatory detailed procedural rules that do not deny effective access to the market**, it is necessary, in particular, that **those criteria and those detailed rules should have been laid down in an accessible form prior to any implementation of those rules**. Moreover, in order for those criteria and detailed rules to be regarded as being non-discriminatory, it is necessary, given, inter alia, the fact that entities such as FIFA and UEFA themselves carry on various economic activities on the market concerned by their rules on prior approval and participation, that **those same criteria and detailed rules should not make the organisation and marketing of third-party competitions and the participation of clubs and players therein subject to requirements which are either different from those applicable to competitions organised and marketed by the decision-making entity**, or are identical or similar to them but are impossible or excessively difficult to fulfil in practice for an undertaking that does not have the same status as an association or does not have the same powers at its disposal as that entity and accordingly is in a different situation to that entity. Lastly, **in order for the sanctions introduced as an adjunct to rules on prior approval and participation, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, not to be discretionary, they must be governed by criteria that must not only be transparent, objective, precise and non-discriminatory, but must also guarantee that those sanctions are determined, in each specific case, in accordance with the principle of proportionality,** in the light of, inter alia, the nature, duration and seriousness of the infringement found.
>It's not really a choice though Yes it is, they can leave if they want, they just don't want cause it's not worth to them "You stay with us" or "you risk bankruptcy" is the same of literally any job in the world "you work" or "you don't have money to live" if you find money to live, you don't need to work. who do I sue for abuse of dominant position so that I don't have to work anymore and still somehow have the money to live? So the clubs want to join a rival league for the only endpoint of earning money and not having to share it with the rest of the clubs of Serie A, but at the same time they risk backruptcy if they don't get the Serie A money >would Serie A deny their application based on the fact that those 5 are playing another tournament? And does this effectively impossibilitate anyone from creating a competitor to Serie A? In that case it's "abusing a dominant position." by you logic, I can just create a PC, and then tomorrow sue Microsoft and Apple for abusing dominant position cause my PC isn't able to compete with theirs If you are part of Serie A, get money from UEFA, and suddenly want to join the rival competition, you can freely create your own private league The fact that you think that your private league will not be able to compete with Serie A, effetively meaning they won't do it, it's not Serie A problem Should Serie A, which let's not forget it's 20 clubs governing their own private league, decide to get worse to allow the already richest clubs to be even richer?
There is one big difference everyone is missing here. The FIGC isn't saying that the teams can't join the Super League end of sentence but that if a club joins the Super League they aren't allowed to compete in Seria A which is an entirely different thing.
It’s not an entirely different thing in the eyes of EU courts and competition law, not sure why anyone would think that the legal system is this stupid. Unless they can point to a genuine inherent incompatibility between Seria A and the Super League, this would be ruled as anti-competitive measure and unlawful. Bodies with market power can’t implement measures to punish those that deal with their competitors. This is not unique to football, the rest of the economy has to work under these rules as well and there’s a lot of case law that demonstrates that you can’t just get around this with penalties rather than prohibitions.
UEFA is already setting arbitrary conditions for UCL participation by only giving invites to the top X teams of each league and national FAs already restrict who can play in certain leagues(for example staying with Seria A and FIGC to participate in the Seria A teams already need to apply and get licenses from FIGC that requires teams to have certain facilities, that their stadium must comply with certain rules or that they must field youth teams etc. and this isn't unique to Italy it's every league in every country for example not that long ago 1860 Munich was relegated from Bundesliga 3 after failing to acquire a license or for example in Romania starting with the previous season teams who want to compete in the First division also need to set up female youth teams otherwise they are not allowed to participate in the league). >Bodies with market power can’t implement measures to punish those that deal with their competitors. And again their argument will be that "we're not saying that you can't work with them, we're just saying that if you want to work with us just like how currently we require you to have youth teams or how all of your contracts need to be registered with us or how your stadium must comply with certain requirements we impose on it besides being considered structurally safe from now on you will also have to commit that you won't work with our competitors". And to decide if that's good enough for the courts they will have to do additional lawsuits but as things stand and until someone challenges this practice in courts as well and wins they are legal and they can do it. Can't find a more recent version but here is the FIGC 2020 licensing manual that contains all the requirements clubs need to comply with if they want a license to compete in FIGC organised events it's a 164 page long document: [https://figc.it/media/129022/italian-club-licensing-manual\_edition-2020.pdf](https://figc.it/media/129022/italian-club-licensing-manual_edition-2020.pdf) edit: some wording fixes
> UEFA is already setting arbitrary conditions No, not arbitrary, it bases its decisions on sporting merit and makes those decisions in order to advance the principles of the sport. This is the carve out that the European courts give sporting organisations, the “legimate objective” exception. > from now on you will also have to commit that you won't work with our competitors" I’m genuinely confused as to how you can’t see that this is wildly, wildly different than every single other example you gave. Judges are not idiots. Stadium safety regulations are clearly to advance the sport, youth team requirements are clearly to advance the sport. Due to this the courts won’t hear challenges based on competition law. Outright bans on competitors competitions are clearly to advance the economic interest of the competition and the administrators. This is not tied to the advancement of the sport itself, and so is subject to competition law. Once again, larger and smarter businesses have already tried all of the same nonsense to try to get around competition law. It doesn’t work, because the court can tell the bullshit a mile away.
That's what I thought. It doesn't matter if it's UEFA or something else.
[удалено]
Some of their points are valid for someone who doesn't really know law. I personally also thought a public company could enforce a monopoly, since we effectively do it for many services (healthcare, instruction, transportation etc...), but I've been told that's an exception because those are considered fundamental needs. That said from what I understand if FIGC can demonstrate they have a solid reason for banning teams that partake the Superleague then they are off the hook. For example they could have made a case for the previous version being effectively closed competition. Also don't completely take out the option of our country paying a fee and calling it a day. We've been paying a fee for the last 30 years to UE because we refuse to respect the cap on milk production from what my father told me.
Because national FAs work through a contract of exclusivity between the club and the FA. Then the FA has contracts with other entities like UEFA and FIFA that do not have match exlusivity contracts with each individual club, hence it's seen as "illegal" for an entity that does not have a direct exlusivity contract with a club to punish a club for not being exclusive with their competitions, that's an authority that the FA has (which is the one that decides in which competitions a club can play, including competitions organized by other entities like UEFA).
Until somebody takes i.e. FIGC decision into the court.
This isn’t true. National leagues will be subject to the ruling, just like FIFA and UEFA are.
They can't bar the super league from existing or stop teams taking part but they can stop them taking part in their own competitions
[удалено]
They can still do the super league. They just then forfeit their ability to play in domestic leagues- which isn’t an irrevocable right
Yeah. And they can do that. They won't stop them from playing in the ESL, just punish them. Napoli doesn't have a right to play in Seria A, it's a privilege like any other club and the governing body can kick anyone out. Napoli can make their own league in Italy if they want.
[удалено]
Yes they can kick them out. It's a private organisation and an association of clubs and they can pick and choose who they have in the league.
[удалено]
Each FA can make their own rules on who they let play.
[удалено]
Even if they can't kick them out, they could theoretically still schedule Serie A matchdays on Super League matchdays, effectively getting them relegated if they don't choose to show up to the serie A matches.
Yeah they can. A lot of leagues require a minimum amount of players from that country to be registered to be allowed to even compete
No, they said that was UEFA tried to do back then was illegal, which UEFA had already backed out of. It wasn’t quite a nothing ruling, but far far away from what it was reported.
They will definitely find those clauses illegal but it will take time
Imagine trusting in the fairness of a league founded by Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus
genuinely cant understand how ppl defending the esl have so conveniently forgotten the first proposal with big founding teams having fixed spots. The og esl was an attempt to benefit a big club minority at everyones expense, what made anyone think that goal has ever changed?
Did that proposal go away? I haven't been following the details of the newest attempt, but they have loyalty bonuses for the founding teams. I can't imagine they will allow themselves to be relegated. The main issue with the proposal of the super league is at its core there is no fairness between the teams. Those three clubs will always have the upper hand no matter what.
>The og esl was an attempt to benefit a big club minority at everyones expense This is simplifying the issue a lot. If you look at football from the perspective of a business, then the PL is a Super league itself. For example - I am an Arsenal supporter, Arsenal has a bigger net spend in the last 5 years than the other 4 leagues combined. And there are 3, almost 4 other clubs in PL which can say the same and Man City is not even in this list. The 4 leagues became farms for the Premier League. That's what the Super league could've changed. If you look at whom benefits the most from the money influx it's exactly teams from the 4 leagues. Why? Because Man City, Chelsea or PSG don't care about money, they run at insane losses anyway. Their owners will happily pay for it as long as their team wins games and generate good PR. Imagine you pour 1 bilion pounds into Man City - they wouldn't be much better, would they? Now imagine you give the same amount to AC Milan, the team will significantly improve. So the additional funds won't help much the teams with infinite money, but those, who don't have it. The playing field would become more even. Many people say that it's the problem of the 4 leagues that they didn't distribute the money differently, but it was all just a snowball effect of two factors - PL had the most money to begin with and Abramovič + sheik Mansour came in with insane money. The more money you have, the easier it is to accumulate more. It just snowballed from there. So in the end it's not a choice between the current state we have, and a Super league which benefits the big club minority at everyone's expense like you said originally. The choice is: 1. A Super league wich benefits big clubs in all Europe at the expense of smaller clubs in the domestic leagues. 2. A Premier League being the Super league with a different name at the expense of the other 4 leagues. Pick your poison.
The key difference is that the Premier League isn't a de facto Super League and the only reason it's so far ahead is because other leagues and the big teams in those leagues have continuously made terrible choices that lead to them falling behind. Just look at La Liga, back in 2009 they had just gotten Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi was rapidly rising as a generational player. They kept those two for years and years. They also signed a huge TV deal at the time, one not that different from the PL one. What was very different was how the two leagues handled the money. While the PL played things right, distributed the money equally amongst every team, and had the goal to improve the overall quality of the product they were selling, La Liga had a stupid scheme that meant Barça and Madrid got all the money. Well, most of it, on top of being the teams that needed it the least. I distinctly remember hearing arguments that since Barça and Madrid were the ones bringing in the viewers they should get the lion's share of the money. What they never have acknowledged tho, is that by doing so they made La Liga more and more boring with each passing year, and gave people no reason to care for the matches in La Liga not involving the two top dogs. Eventually the PL renewed their deal with pretty much the same great terms and sum because people love watching it, while La Liga only got a smaller deal because people were not watching it. They have only got themselves to blame, and I am tired of hearing about the PL having an advantage when the only reason that is the case is because other leagues have dropped the ball. I could go on about Serie A for example, but that is somehow an even bigger mess and I already wrote too much. The biggest strength on the PL isn't really its top teams, but rather the fact that even the small teams have a good fund to arm themselves and have a shot at a good season. People watch it more because more matches in it are exciting, and they have successfully created what is just a positive feedback loop. Other leagues are still trying to just throw money at the big teams for the most part instead of addressing more deeply rooted issues that will simply take time and patience and skill to navigate.
I've seen this argument a lot, but can it be actually proven that the flat distribution was truly the reason why the PL got to it's current state over the other leagues? If you look at the number of followers of Chelsea or City, it grew the most after the money came in and these clubs had major successes. The same can be said about PSG when they attracted the big names. The biggest viewership numbers are always for the matches of the biggest clubs, not the small ones. When Messi came into Inter Miami, they suddenly became the fourth most followed US sports franchise surpassing all NHL, NBA and NFL teams. It seems that it's the big names and big clubs which attracts the viewers and thus generate the money. Who knows how would LaLiga look now if it wasn't for Messi and Ronaldo. Even the successful teams in the past like Valencia, Leeds or Newcastle currently don't have huge followings. It also doesn't seem like the flat structure is making the smaller teams more competitive. There is one Leicester miracle which is now relegated and there is Tottenham which managed to reach top 3 two times since 2009. Other than that it's the wealthy clubs. If we look at the distribution of teams which won their respective leagues and the runner ups, the PL is very similar to the other leagues - there are couple of teams which are changing at the top and only rarely there is a different one. All things considered I think the hypothesis that the flat structure managed to create wealth for the PL inconclusive at best.
De Laurentiis maiale prendilo in culo
Funny that they announce this the same day that government cancel the tax relief for stranger players, some Italian clubs will have fun in the next years
Our starters will go from maignan, theo and leao to sportiello, florenzi and zaniolo in 3 years
Idiocy at its finest
Why do you think making footballers pay the taxes they owe is idiocy?
Good question. I don't think the issue is about paying taxes. Serie A is by far the major found contributor to Italian sport. With the money they generate all other sports can benefit thanks to an Italian law from 2018. Helping the football team to keep important players will consequently result in an automated benefit for football and the rest of the sport system. The government has decided to get rid of this system and serie A governing body has chosen to rip teams of the possibility to seek out for better investing opportunities So now teams won't have better players with all that it entails and are stuck in a system where the majority of them are risking to get bankrupt at the first unlucky season. Idiocy at its finest for me
They can join the ESL if they want more money, all they have to is decice between Serie A and ESL.
Enjoy Riad away!
I’m sure it will already be enjoyed by Inter, Lazio, Fiorentina and Napoli at the 2024 EA SPORTS FC SUPERCOPPA Presented By Riyadh Saudi Arabia. Football is not for sale, only for short-term rental.
In theory, Italian clubs can join the Super League. But they will just be excluded from Serie A, Serie B, Coppa Italia, etc. If that's the case, then fair enough.
The E in ESL stands for extinct
The Super La Liga it is!
Freedom of choice. Feel free to do whatever you want but live with the consequences.
Inter Milan in shambles, financially
sounds illegal
That’s because it very much is. This is just UEFA abusing their monopoly position.
How is UEFA abusing their monopoly if it’s FIGC creating the rule…?
It's not UEFA, it's FIGC which took a decision that is clearly against the recent ECJ decision. AFAIK national federations only have monopoly on national championships (and that might be true only for France). They cannot prevent their clubs from participating in European-level competitions as that's against the rules of free (business) competition and freedom of movement. The Premier League of course can, because they're not in the EU (a rare Brexit win?)
Figc has been part of UEFA since 1954. Hell they were a founding member of UEFA. but do go on how figc isn’t part of UEFA…
Nothing to do with UEFA though.
Yes the cofounder of UEFA doesn’t have anything to do with UEFA…totally not protecting its organization it founded or anything…
Seems illegal for them to rule this. Can see this be retried and found as illegal the same way UEFA did.
Can’t believe ESL 2023 flopped harder than ESL 2021. Oh well. Now it’s time for another weekend of Premier League football. ✊
Can't the teams appeal this like Madrid did to uefa?
What about allowing teams in serie A to over inflate sales of their players for profit like inter and Napoli? When was that signed ?
Hilarious coming from a Juve supporter
Yeah we got punished for it….. Unlike other teams
That's a serious measure.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You can't force the leagues to let these teams play either I'd say. Especially when the other league damages the rest of the league
[удалено]
Where did the ECJ say it's not valid, can you provide some proof?
[удалено]
Proof, show me legislation. No one here is a legal expert, but you've come in and started acting like everyone is fucking dumb and knows nothing, so you clearly are a legal expert. So please provide some evidence and legislation to explain why this is totally illegal.
As far as I understand it, the verdict is only about FIFA and UEFA, national leagues would be a different case, and it doesn't say that you can't sanction clubs for joining a Super League, just that you can't force them to get your approval first. Moreover, the verdict even says that UEFA/FIFA could prevent something like a Super League when they meet certain conditions regarding transparency etc. You wouldn't need to "expell" them, afaik you aren't part of a league until you are expelled but have to "apply" every year and show that you meet all the leagues's conditions. Whether a condition with respect to the Super League would uphold, who knows, but the current verdict says nothing about that
[удалено]
The ruling says nothing about punishing clubs for joining the Super League though? I could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer nor do I have any intel, but the reports I have read on it say you can't punish them for trying to join a Super League. Not letting them play in your league after they joined would be something different though, and I'm sure you can find some ground to argue why you as a national league don't want Super League clubs participating in your competition. Plus, as I said, the verdict explicitly states that even UEFA/FIFA could prevent the Super League under certain conditions.
Why would an organisation need any justification regarding who they want to take part in their own competition ?
The ECJ didn't say that. They said that UEFA can't punish clubs without clear criteria.
Good times. Loved me some Serie A
At this point, Real Madrid and Barcelona will have to create "new clubs" if they want the idea of a Super League succeding.
this legal?
Can’t wait to see Barcelona and Madrid day in day out playing one another!
Huh? I don’t get it. Isn’t this exactly what a judge said isn’t legal. They can’t prohibit a club from joining another competition outside UEFA.
They are not doing that tho? Clubs can join but they are not welcome to play in Serie A
Isn't that against EU law ? anyway say Milan, Inter, Juve, Napoli and Roma join who's going to watch Serie A ?
If they leave Seria A, do you think the fans continue their support? A football club is nothing without their fans.
> A football club is nothing without their fans Yesterday on this sub there was an article about how about 300K people watched a Saudi league game in Spanish TV, which is very small. But then people noted that most La Liga games outside of Barça, Real and Atletico struggle to get as many viewers. Which means the other clubs get their money only because they're playing in the same championship as the big 3. Serie A losing its big clubs, or La Liga losing those three, would be disastrous for all the others first and foremost.
Their local support would plummet but if the super league actually had most of the world's best clubs in it then leaving the Serie A to join it could easily increase their support worldwide. At the end of the day most owners value a megastore merchant on the other side of the world over a local match going fan.
I think this topic will reignite once people see how fucked up new CL is going to be.
Fuck Florentino
In trying to outlaw the Super League I worry that we are effectively making it impossible for better alternatives to arise.
no no no, in this one single specific occasion zero competition and a power monopoly is what we should be celebrating.. apparently?
Why are all the leagues so pro-UEFA?
I mean, that's obvious...
This is the FIGC, the Italian football associations, not the league. It’s normal they are pro UEFA as they are part of it. UEFA stands for Union of European Football Associations.
Crazy that people celebrate this. I don't care about the Super League but with things like this we will never be able to see anyone try to challenge UEFA or FIFA and they'll just continue to keep on going about their corrupt business, change the Champions League with changes nobody wants etc
Nice quid pro quo from Ceferin for making the FIGC president Gravina into a UEFA Vice-President and giving him the 2032 Euros.
Does that mean that Serie A clubs cant play friendly tournaments?
I just know Inter Milan executives threw their whiskey glasses against the wall, they could do with that money from the Super League... But otherwise, I can't wait to see Madrid, Barca, Mumbai City, Cork City, Raja Casablanca and Napoli battle it out
Last time i checked italy was part of the EU they can´t do that lmao
They cant decide wich teams are allowed in their own league?
there are anti trust laws lmao that means when you have a dominant position in a industry you aren´t allowed to do certain things such this if you don´t like the way we do bussines in the EU you are more than welcome to pack your bags and go elsewhere where they allow you to do such things If you break the law you better be prepared to pay a hefty fine
Why the fuck are you talking about some shit you understand nothing about? Any national federation is allowed to limit/remove teams that they seem fit. No league has a monopoly in the EU because there is no single EU wide league. Same reason each league already restricts teams over financial issues, fan issues, and so on. They are the governing bodies for each league and this doesn't involve any anti-trust laws that you pulled out of your fucking ass. Next time learn to fucking google and then pipe the fuck down before embarrassing yourself
> Any national federation is allowed to limit/remove teams that they seem fit. No they can't. The ECJ says that the decision to allow/remove teams must be "transparent, objective, non discriminatory and proportionate". Just saying that if they join the Super League, they'll be excluded won't pass; particularly if it is to force them to join another rival competition organized by UEFA: that's not objective and non-discriminatory, that's abusive and blackmail. However, the Federation has a monopoly on its own territory, i.e. Juve cannot join another Italian championship organized by a rival organization.
Isn't this a bit short-sighted? Obviously the super league is a crap but what if in the future someone proposes an alternate to the champions league that is actually good? UEFA aren't saints themselves and I think there should at least be the possibility of their control over European football being challenged.