VERY FEW people can be happy about the clandestine discussions that may or may not have taken
place over the past year involving certain clubs to create a closed football league comprising
the wealthiest names across the top five nations. A “super league” is what they are calling
it, but effectively, it is a cartel of the “super rich”, a group driven by asset
gathering and entitlement.
That’s what this particular project amounts to, but in some ways, the time may be right
to introduce a better competitive balance to European football. This latest proposal,
or seed of an idea, is not the way to achieve that.
It’s an embarrassment for the clubs that have been named as leading the dialogue, why
else would the denials have started? “We know nothing about it,” is the message some
clubs are releasing, but smoke rarely billows out of a chimney unless there is a fire of
some sort.
At best, this looks like another attempt to squeeze more money out of governing bodies
and TV broadcasters.
Yet the concept of a Super League itself the main issue. Rather the introduction of a “closed
league”, an alien concept to developed and sophisticated football nations, would remove
one of the key elements of football as we have known it for over 100 years. Relegation
is painful, especially in this age of inflated TV deals. Any structure that is “closed”
will allow the big clubs to keep hold of their financial advantages.
But football is, if nothing else, a sport that thrives on the prospect of aspiration
and “what might happen”, why else would the English structure have 92 clubs, most
of which live for a time when they can achieve something remotely remarkable? Take away the
possibility of a team climbing the divisions, creating romantic stories like Wimbledon,
Northampton, Watford and Bournemouth, and you hit at the heart of the game’s reason
for being. Creating a closed shop – 20 years without relegation for the chosen few – is
selfish and self-serving. But it could be so different.
To a certain degree, we already have a European Super League: it is called the UEFA Champions
League. Just look at the final stages of each campaign and the same names appear with monotonous
regularity. There are few romantic stories in the Champions League, it is an elitist
competition that is compelling – but only when it reaches the final stages.
As the likes of Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Juventus and Paris Saint-German become
richer and richer, buying players from each other and sending transfer fees higher and
higher, the chasm in wealth becomes wider. These clubs are, simply, far too wealthy to
be challenged on a sustainable basis, a situation which is, by all accounts, accelerating. This
means that in Spain, France, Italy and Germany, the prospects for 90% of clubs is to be cast
in the role of a supporting act. While a visit from Real Madrid will bring valuable gate
receipts to a smaller club, it is just one game a year. So, the question is, can these
leagues expect to prosper long-term if they are already, in all but name, closed shops?
Structural changes, including a super league and cross-border regional leagues, could develop
more competitiveness to geographies that are dominated by this handful of elite clubs.
Take Real and Barca out of La Liga and what do you get? A more democratic league, for
sure, perhaps financially poorer, but if clubs felt they could have a real stab at the title
and perhaps gain promotion to the European Super League, would that not spark-off greater
interest and, as a consequence, attract lucrative TV money?
This idea, or any similar concept to recalibrate European football, would need to be the intellectual
property of UEFA, not a hedge fund or a group of US or Middle Eastern business people, from
whom it is suspected recent discussion of a European Super League have originated.
A UEFA-constructed Super League is the natural evolution for clubs accustomed to playing
against teams that have become their peers. PSG and Manchester City are not building enormously
expensive squads to win their domestic leagues, they are aiming for European domination. PSG
do not need to spend as much as they have to win Ligue 1. A Super League should be seen
as an extension of the promotion and relegation system. Hence, it would not be a threat, but
an additional element of success.
On no account should ideas formulated in dimly-lit bars, airport lounges and restaurants be allowed
to flourish, but it cannot be ignored, or the denials be a signal for the end of the
matter – the topic will resurface. This is a warning shot to UEFA and FIFA that the
world’s most powerful clubs can threaten to take away their drawing power and their
financial clout from mainland football. A European Super League isn’t an inherently
bad idea, but a closed-format European Super League formed by a break-away group of the
continent’s most powerful clubs is not in the best interests of the sport.