• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

European Super League - Dead on arrival

Jordinho said:
Clubs need a license in order to enter UEFA/FIFA approved competitions. If the ESL can be considered a tournament of friendlies and it doesn't interfere with your official matches, it shouldn't be a problem. Finding room for said tournament within the FIFA calender without pulling out of one or more cup competitions seems pretty much impossible and that's where UEFA might be able to revoke licenses and effectively ban clubs.

LEGAL CRITERIA

Article 43 - Declaration in respect of participation in UEFA club competitions

1 The licence applicant must submit a legally valid declaration confirming the following:

a) It recognises as legally binding the statutes, regulations, directives and decisions of FIFA, UEFA, the UEFA member association and, if any, the national league as well as the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne as provided in the relevant articles of the UEFA Statutes;
b) At national level it will play in competitions recognised and endorsed by the UEFA member association (e.g. national championship, national cup);
c) At international level it will participate in competitions recognised by UEFA or FIFA (to avoid any doubt, this provision does not relate to friendly matches);
d) It will promptly inform the licensor about any significant change, event or condition of major economic importance;
e) It will abide by and observe the club licensing regulations of the licensor;
f) It will abide by and observe the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations;
g) Its reporting perimeter is defined in accordance with Article 46bis;
h) It will be accountable for any consequences of an entity included in the reporting perimeter not abiding by and observing items e) and f) above;
i) All submitted documents are complete and correct;
j) It authorises the competent national club licensing administration and national club licensing bodies, the UEFA administration and the UEFA Organs for the Administration of Justice to examine any relevant document and seek information from any relevant public authority or private body in accordance with national law;
k) It acknowledges that UEFA reserves the right to execute compliance audits at national level in accordance with Article 71.
Click to expand...

That's fair .. but

- Making a rule does not make it legally binding
- Specifically B & C could be interpreted as UEFA telling clubs who/how they can do business (very sketchy area)

In normal circumstances, it might be able to fly or at least not be seen as blatant protectionism that would require court action, but ..

- My view is the very nature of UEFA's response (extremely retaliatory, punishment for something never actually done, clearly sending a message to others) shows they intend to use in the worse way you can interpret it.

We will see, my bet is UEFA will regret this one ..
 
An angle that I found quite interesting that has barely been discussed is that if the ESL had gone ahead then the players could potentially have just walked away from their contracts. As the player contract is for control of the players FIFA registration. If the club's had been removed from FIFA registered tournaments than there would be nothing holding the players to their clubs.

Of course that only comes into play if the ESL had not been recognised by FIFA and if the players had been willing to walk away from their contracts.

Interesting nonetheless.
 
Bishop said:
An angle that I found quite interesting that has barely been discussed is that if the ESL had gone ahead then the players could potentially have just walked away from their contracts. As the player contract is for control of the players FIFA registration. If the club's had been removed from FIFA registered tournaments than there would be nothing holding the players to their clubs.

Of course that only comes into play if the ESL had not been recognised by FIFA and if the players had been willing to walk away from their contracts.

Interesting nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Premier league is FIFA registered so surely wouldn’t have been an issue
 
Raziel said:
Clubs are a registered business, some even on public exchange, so absolutely business rules apply.

The issue with challenging the ESL is it didn't entail
- Any clubs leaving their domestic leagues
- Nor did it mean that domestic cups or Europa/CL go away

It's simply "another" competition, the ESL could argue that as a result (data would back it up), those 15/20 clubs at worse would be fighting for 2 trophies, and then the other clubs in leagues have 4 other trophies that in the past they typically didn't win to go after and help build their own brands

So to your point, how is it "illegal" to form another competition, how does that differ from summer tournament (e.g. "battle for London" that doesn't include at least 3 other London sides). The business of business is to make money, hard to see how a court could rule that clubs can't look for additional revenue streams (despite popular misconception, it is not the duty of bigger clubs to ensure the success of the pyramid)

The big problem I see for UEFA is their blatantly retaliatory actions, fines for clubs that never actually played in an ESL (thought crime?), threatening of staff (players) and even worse, what could be seen as conspiring with local leagues (FA/FIFA threats) and media (pundits on Sky/BT calling for protests). They clearly overstepped any reasonable measure of appropriate response.
Click to expand...

Did I say it was “illegal” to form another competition, I don’t think so. As you say not every game is under an association.

My point was, governing bodies would normally assert their integrity. If a member club is undermining fair competition within their league, why shouldn’t they impose sanction or temp bans when the club is still tied to the offending vehicle?

By your logic any effort by governing bodies to impose financial fair play for example, would be anticompetitive. The governing body will also push back that the ESL is highly anticompetitive and a cartel. They could not sanction one of their members skewing fair competition, as it would have implications for their leagues performances. The PL could say they are simply upholding fair competition against a cartel.

Both side have fair points.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
SpurMeUp said:
Did I say it was “illegal” to form another competition, I don’t think so. As you say not every game is under an association.

My point was, governing bodies would normally assert their integrity. If a member club is undermining fair competition within their league, why shouldn’t they impose sanction or temp bans when the club is still tied to the offending vehicle?

By your logic any effort by governing bodies to impose financial fair play for example, would be anticompetitive. The governing body will also push back that the ESL is highly anticompetitive and a cartel. They could not sanction one of their members skewing fair competition, as it would have implications for their leagues performances. The PL could say they are simply upholding fair competition against a cartel.

Both side have fair points.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...

I don't see much of UEFA's side at all

- UEFA has issued fines post clubs agreeing not to participate in ESL (something that never happened)
- FFP is based on curbing uncompetitive behavior (money dumping) and fiscal management (to address number of clubs in fiscal problems)z, and yes it could be considered anti-competitive as it does favor the incumbent clubs (e.g. Chelsea who did it prior to rule implementation)

I don't see how the ESL is anti-competitive, again
- The leagues, domestic cups and Europa/CL still exist and are all fiscally attractive competitions
- There is no legal obligation to make a sporting competition open (especially in light of the fact as I already mentioned, there will be a minimum of 5 other competitions available to any other club in a top league)
- Creating a money making competition is not a cartel

My stance remains, UEFA could have gotten away with their rules and making the clubs quit, the decision to overstep those boundaries re fines/public threats (and yes those are legally applicable) against club and players and leveraging their relationship with leagues is the big problem ..
 
Raziel said:
I don't see much of UEFA's side at all

- UEFA has issued fines post clubs agreeing not to participate in ESL (something that never happened)
- FFP is based on curbing uncompetitive behavior (money dumping) and fiscal management (to address number of clubs in fiscal problems)z, and yes it could be considered anti-competitive as it does favor the incumbent clubs (e.g. Chelsea who did it prior to rule implementation)

I don't see how the ESL is anti-competitive, again
- The leagues, domestic cups and Europa/CL still exist and are all fiscally attractive competitions
- There is no legal obligation to make a sporting competition open (especially in light of the fact as I already mentioned, there will be a minimum of 5 other competitions available to any other club in a top league)
- Creating a money making competition is not a cartel

My stance remains, UEFA could have gotten away with their rules and making the clubs quit, the decision to overstep those boundaries re fines/public threats (and yes those are legally applicable) against club and players and leveraging their relationship with leagues is the big problem ..
Click to expand...

The european courts do not treat football as a normal business. They already threw out a case against ffp (striani). The european council has also stated that "mutualisation" is important in football, when discussing the shared tv rights in spain. Also that goals of solidarity are intrinsic to footballs nature.

I wouldn't be too sure that the ecj or the european council will be that sympathetic to the esl. But we'll find out.
 
How can the EU allow a monopoly like FIFA to continue? The ESL can be designed for mutualisation across the EU and globally too. I don't see anything wrong with having fifa continue to push the universality of the sport while the ESL focus on the super exclusive tier.
 
metalgear said:
How can the EU allow a monopoly like FIFA to continue? The ESL can be designed for mutualisation across the EU and globally too. I don't see anything wrong with having fifa continue to push the universality of the sport while the ESL focus on the super exclusive tier.
Click to expand...

Football needs a governing body. Yes fifa have done a terrible job is corrupt beyond belief and needs total reform. But who else will do it?
 
Lilbaz said:
Football needs a governing body. Yes fifa have done a terrible job is corrupt beyond belief and needs total reform. But who else will do it?
Click to expand...

Why do you need one?

- Common set of rules already exist
- FA's could meet to propose changes regionally then internationally

FIFA's (or it's replacement) only real value is in game development and internationals, something that a real non-profit (not one with billions in the bank) could do with a much lighter touch.
 
Raziel said:
Why do you need one?

- Common set of rules already exist
- FA's could meet to propose changes regionally then internationally

FIFA's (or it's replacement) only real value is in game development and internationals, something that a real non-profit (not one with billions in the bank) could do with a much lighter touch.
Click to expand...
Jobs for the boys
 
imagine if esl had happened and JM sacked. we'd get the champions league equivalent and probably a top 10 coach for next season. and we don't have to worry about kane or son leaving.
 
Raziel said:
Why do you need one?

- Common set of rules already exist
- FA's could meet to propose changes regionally then internationally

FIFA's (or it's replacement) only real value is in game development and internationals, something that a real non-profit (not one with billions in the bank) could do with a much lighter touch.
Click to expand...

Who refs the games? Who negotiates tournaments, tv rights, sponsorship deals, punishments? What if a country decides that it wants to change how the game is played? We could have different rules in different countries. What happens if a country decides to start doping their players? There's a lot that fifa do do. That needs to be done by someone. You could have it like boxing with a football version of the wbc, wba, ibf, wbo... all making up their own rules with their own competitions. They'd all be just as corrupt as fifa. Why should england, brazil, germany qualify? Games against smaller teams bring in less revenue. Lets start the esl of internationals! No thanks.

What we need to do is a total reform of fifa. Not getting rid of it.

Billions in the bank is because the world cup is every 4 years. The money is spent over 4 years.
 
Lilbaz said:
Who refs the games? Who negotiates tournaments, tv rights, sponsorship deals, punishments? What if a country decides that it wants to change how the game is played? We could have different rules in different countries. What happens if a country decides to start doping their players? There's a lot that fifa do do. That needs to be done by someone. You could have it like boxing with a football version of the wbc, wba, ibf, wbo... all making up their own rules with their own competitions. They'd all be just as corrupt as fifa. Why should england, brazil, germany qualify? Games against smaller teams bring in less revenue. Lets start the esl of internationals! No thanks.

What we need to do is a total reform of fifa. Not getting rid of it.

Billions in the bank is because the world cup is every 4 years. The money is spent over 4 years.
Click to expand...

You could make a single board based on association participation to do most of those things.

Literally nothing could be more corrupt that FIFA, sometimes you have to let things die, trying to fix an org based on voting blocks and power players and lobbying for stuff is recipe for failure.

I could look it up, but my understanding is FIFA's balance sheet is always (not just in-between tournaments) way too cash rich for a non-profit, to tune of said billions.
 
Raziel said:
You want a prediction? = it will happen, it's just time

Casuals matter more than local fans, and those casuals want "brands", they want to see Barca play United even if the only player they can name is Messi.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I completely disagree with that. Do you think any South Koreans will come to watch us when Son is no longer with the club? We’ve seen how much having no fans inside the grounds has hurt all teams financially this year and last season.

Also, given how quickly the backlash made the owners of the “big 6” (should be big 4 tbh as ourselves and Arsenal don’t compete for the top trophies) clubs embarrassingly climb down just days later then why do you think the reaction will be any different in in 5 or 10 years time?
 
Raziel said:
You could make a single board based on association participation to do most of those things.

non-figuratively nothing could be more corrupt that FIFA, sometimes you have to let things die, trying to fix an org based on voting blocks and power players and lobbying for stuff is recipe for failure.

I could look it up, but my understanding is FIFA's balance sheet is always (not just in-between tournaments) way too cash rich for a non-profit, to tune of said billions.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to defend fifa. Yes they are corrupt, yes the voting is corrupt. Just saying you need someone in that role, even if it is as you say a single board.
 
Jurgen the German said:
Sorry but I completely disagree with that. Do you think any South Koreans will come to watch us when Son is no longer with the club? We’ve seen how much having no fans inside the grounds has hurt all teams financially this year and last season.

Also, given how quickly the backlash made the owners of the “big 6” (should be big 4 tbh as ourselves and Arsenal don’t compete for the top trophies) clubs embarrassingly climb down just days later then why do you think the reaction will be any different in in 5 or 10 years time?
Click to expand...

you really think fan power made that happen? man I want some of that delusion

Big companies make unpopular decisions all the time, they expect bad PR, they ride it out, the fact they didn't give it a week (imo) has nothing to do with fans

Said it before, the 6 number from PL was specifically to bypass any threat of expulsion from the PL (75%, 15 votes required), my personal theory is some combination of
- City/Chelsea "purposely?" being last in/first out (ESL was a threat to them, not help) left the others exposed
- Threat of expulsion plus fines in this economic environment not worth the risk
- In light of the above, the bad PR becomes unacceptable.

What will be different in 5 years
- Clubs will likely be in a much healthier position financially to ride out any short term impact
- The EU court ruling may go in favor of ESL or at least limit "retribution" actions by UEFA/Leagues
- Overseas viewership will continue to go up

It is a matter of time, keep thinking local ticket buyers are the primary market and they care about you ..
 
Raziel said:
you really think fan power made that happen? man I want some of that delusion

Big companies make unpopular decisions all the time, they expect bad PR, they ride it out, the fact they didn't give it a week (imo) has nothing to do with fans

Said it before, the 6 number from PL was specifically to bypass any threat of expulsion from the PL (75%, 15 votes required), my personal theory is some combination of
- City/Chelsea "purposely?" being last in/first out (ESL was a threat to them, not help) left the others exposed
- Threat of expulsion plus fines in this economic environment not worth the risk
- In light of the above, the bad PR becomes unacceptable.

What will be different in 5 years
- Clubs will likely be in a much healthier position financially to ride out any short term impact
- The EU court ruling may go in favor of ESL or at least limit "retribution" actions by UEFA/Leagues
- Overseas viewership will continue to go up

It is a matter of time, keep thinking local ticket buyers are the primary market and they care about you ..
Click to expand...

Casual support is only temporary. Local support will outlast it and is passed down to younger generations.

Ive been hearing that a super league is inevitable for 25 years and it hasn’t happened yet. Within a week of its announcement it collapsed like a house of cards.

Why did the clubs feel the need to apologise to fans if they don’t care about them?

I can’t reconcile being so passionate about spurs and football in general and in the same breath being so ambivalent about a league that is the complete opposite of competition and to be more loyal to ownership than the actual club itself and being so dismissive of local support.

Be interested to see your reaction if the ESL comes for fruition and Leicester or Villa take our place and we have to make do with a watered down CL/EL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back