The European Super League Megathread

Barça president Joan Laporta to TV3: “The #SuperLeague project is still there. We're open to having a dialogue with UEFA. There has to be an attractive competition based on sporting merits too. I think there will be an agreement...”. #FCB

— Fabrizio Romano (@FabrizioRomano) April 22, 2021

Enjoy, this will not end.

The worst thing out of this is how UEFA came to be painted as angels. Scumbag organization who used the media and fans to get what they wanted. Disgusting and repulsive.

Hope Barca and Juve hold out with Perez. They'll make this thing happen, come hell or high water

halamadrid2 wrote:Hope Barca and Juve hold out with Perez. They'll make this thing happen, come hell or high water

More likely to be about the penalization fees

I’m sure the clubs who have officially left feel like if every club leaves and the league officially disband then they won’t have to pay the breakaway fee

Everyone is waiting for UEFA’s intervention to see if they can officially outlaw the league, making is impossible to probably relieve the clubs who have left from dealing with the dispute around payment

I can’t imagine it putting any pressure on UEFA when there are only 3 clubs left

UEFA president Aleksander Čeferin gave himself a £400,000 pay-rise during the pandemic. And since his election as president, he has upped his salary every single year except one.

He now earns around £1.9m-a-year, compared to £1.5m the previous year.

(Source: @voz_populi) pic.twitter.com/AL6Arx1Wo6

— Transfer News Live (@DeadlineDayLive) April 22, 2021

OFFICIAL: Barcelona have confirmed that they will REMAIN in the Super League despite 9 of the 12 clubs withdrawing from the breakaway competition. (Source: @FCBarcelona) pic.twitter.com/sMBrBmYRfG

— Transfer News Live (@DeadlineDayLive) April 22, 2021

S wrote:

UEFA president Aleksander Čeferin gave himself a £400,000 pay-rise during the pandemic. And since his election as president, he has upped his salary every single year except one.

He now earns around £1.9m-a-year, compared to £1.5m the previous year.

(Source: @voz_populi) pic.twitter.com/AL6Arx1Wo6

— Transfer News Live (@DeadlineDayLive) April 22, 2021

Still less than Pirlo

Hapless_Hans wrote:

S wrote:

UEFA president Aleksander Čeferin gave himself a £400,000 pay-rise during the pandemic. And since his election as president, he has upped his salary every single year except one.

He now earns around £1.9m-a-year, compared to £1.5m the previous year.

(Source: @voz_populi) pic.twitter.com/AL6Arx1Wo6

— Transfer News Live (@DeadlineDayLive) April 22, 2021

Still less than Pirlo

Correction. Pirlo is on €1.8M a year and we're talking euros

Perez is the only one who has balls to speak the truth. F the Uefa

I know this post will not be well received, but I want to present a different perspective on this subject.
As Perez said they didn’t do a good job of explaining what they meant by the super league. The first aspect to explain is that in today’s age, football is in the entertainment business. Most of the revenues are driven by these top 15 teams (I’m including Bayern and PSG in this group). Why? It is because they have the best players (and in most cases coaches) and the fans pay to see them play or buy their shirts etc. No one, other than parents and locals are tuning in to watch Schake of Burnley or Bologna or Huesca. The same thing is true with the world cup. Other than locals, fans are mostly interested in seeing the country teams with the best players. i.e., 12 to 15 teams. In other words, fans through their expenditures are wanting to see the best against the best. Being in the entertainment business these businessmen that own or represent these teams are seeking to capitalize on that interest by having more games of best against best. It’s not unlike UEFA with its Nation league or even the expansion of time, games, countries for Euro Cup and World Cup.

This Super league wasn’t to stop national leagues, it was to replace the Champions League. Those that say it would destroy the national leagues are ignoring what is the situation today. These 15 teams, with the odd rare exception dominate these leagues and their entry into the CL is all but guaranteed. Furthermore, the CL final rounds are almost an exclusive club of these 15 teams. So, what’s the difference. IMO, the only differences are
1.They are doing it without UEFA
2.They need to expand the number of teams to give some smaller teams an opportunity
3.They are allowing some teams (e.g., Milan, Arsenal) that don’t currently qualify into the club.

I believe the latter two can be negotiated in future revisions and more than likely (since I believe it was done in the first place as a power play (badly done) out of frustration with UEFA. Keep in mind they have been talking about this for almost 10 years now. I firmly believe this is not over with. It will either be better done and explained next time around or UEFA will modify its proposal to something similar.

Florentino Trump-ers not going to let it go, as one would expect.

@Bill.  What you're ignoring is the revenue from European competition both in terms of bonuses and increased branding (more merch sales).  If you're closing off the competition to all but 5 other clubs, you've created a financial chasm between the so-called traditional clubs and any other club who wants to rise up.

It's unacceptable.

Elitism, greed and straight lying at its worse.  No meritocracy. The opposite of what sport is supposed to be. In short, Donald Trump.

Anyone comparing this abortion the a US league such as the NBA has no idea how the franchise system works here. Salary caps, full revenue share, geographic representation in all parts of the country (Oklahoma City, Cleveland, Portland, Milwaukee, etc.). Absolutely nothing elitist about the franchise system in the US. The difference between clubs has to do with management and preferred living location, not money.

This Super league wasn’t to stop national leagues, it was to replace the Champions League. Those that say it would destroy the national leagues are ignoring what is the situation today. These 15 teams, with the odd rare exception dominate these leagues and their entry into the CL is all but guaranteed. Furthermore, the CL final rounds are almost an exclusive club of these 15 teams. So, what’s the difference. IMO, the only differences are
1.They are doing it without UEFA
2.They need to expand the number of teams to give some smaller teams an opportunity
3.They are allowing some teams (e.g., Milan, Arsenal) that don’t currently qualify into the club.

See, I acknowledge and agree this is a major problem. However, I'm unclear how a closed Super League solves it. As as I see it, it would only exacerbate the problem by widening the wealth gap even more.

For example, let's say the Super League opened up and allowed a club like Sevilla to qualify. Sevilla would strengthen their team with their new riches, but the clubs they're trying to catch - Barca, Madrid and Atleti - have access to the same riches and will also strengthen. In the end, the gap between the teams wouldn't be closed, but Sevilla would be even stronger than Villareal, Real Sociedad and Real Betis. At which point, would La Liga be better off as a competition? I wouldn't say so. The proposed solution only consolidates power among those select clubs already dominating.

Even if we consider a stronger Sevilla brings in a more lucrative TV deal (because now La Liga has four super teams instead of three) that the rest of the league benefits from, and that Sevilla's greater spending power sees more clubs receiving bigger transfer fees, you're still going to have a quality gap.

In reality, the only way a team like Sevilla wins La Liga and challenges for the Champions League is if Barca, Madrid and Atleti decline. And the way only those clubs decline is if they're unable to strengthen their teams with the very best players. As broken as the current system is, we've actually reached a point where Barca and Madrid can no longer buy the very best players as easily as they used to. This Super League changes that. It's the biggest reason for its existence.

The Franchise wrote:Perez going out Tony Montana style at the end of scarface.

This fossil needs to be forced out of football, someway, somehow.

There are people everywhere to disagree with, you can disagree on so many different issues and to varying degrees. But it is so very rare that you find someone who gets it completely, 100% wrong.

I dont know what is worse. Is it that he pretends this is about the good of football? Or is it worse that he sits there complaining and crying about money lost and not affording Mbappe, after the type of decisions clubs like Madrid have made?

100% on point

S wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:

S wrote:

UEFA president Aleksander Čeferin gave himself a £400,000 pay-rise during the pandemic. And since his election as president, he has upped his salary every single year except one.

He now earns around £1.9m-a-year, compared to £1.5m the previous year.

(Source: @voz_populi) pic.twitter.com/AL6Arx1Wo6

— Transfer News Live (@DeadlineDayLive) April 22, 2021

Still less than Pirlo

Correction. Pirlo is on €1.8M a year and we're talking euros

Net, though

Almost double that of the UEFA president

| Aleksander Čeferin has raised his salary YEAR AFTER YEAR since he was elected to the position in 2016. Since then, €6.7 million has been pocketed.@voz_populi

— Madrid Xtra. (@MadridXtra) April 22, 2021

Honestly I though he'd make more money

No wonder he's going to be corrupt, if every 15-18th squad spot player in a big club owns more than the federation president

I cannot speak about the rest, but i know Perez and Agnelli are obsessed with the exodus of young football fans, a casual who buys derivates is THE true football fan in their minds. They matter more than the passionates who follow no matter what. Agnelli thinks games are long and boring, Juve fans who watch a match against Crotone are weirdos, he implied it many times before.

You can tell those billionnaires completely disconnected from reality. Their only hobby is accumulation of wealth. Ultimate proof is when Perez insulted turkish clubs, that they are not included because money comes from what is interesting and supposedly nobody pays attention to their games. Is he not aware the local support of Fener, Galata, Besiktas ? 80M population. Or he is aware but not marketable enough, so not the kind of football worth saving. Disgrace

As a note, he can't unilaterally raise his own salary. The board of UEFA needs to approve the annual budget, which includes everyone's salaries.

It's no different than Flo Trump implementing election rules, with the help of Madrid's board of directors, making it impossible for anyone to ever run against him.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

S wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:


Still less than Pirlo

Correction. Pirlo is on €1.8M a year and we're talking euros

Net, though

Almost double that of the UEFA president

Yeah, but Pirlo does way more for small clubs than Ceferin

S wrote:

| Aleksander Čeferin has raised his salary YEAR AFTER YEAR since he was elected to the position in 2016. Since then, €6.7 million has been pocketed.@voz_populi

— Madrid Xtra. (@MadridXtra) April 22, 2021

Is this supposed to be surprising? Sounds like generic, run-of-the-mill CEO things.

It is. Although taking a raise during a pandemic when every club that you oversee has lost money is interesting

Clearly though, it’s posturing from Real fans who have to make Florentino look like a hero

It’s like when Jake Paul boxes another Jake Paul. There are only losers in this ring

sportsczy wrote:Florentino Trump-ers not going to let it go, as one would expect.

@Bill.  What you're ignoring is the revenue from European competition both in terms of bonuses and increased branding (more merch sales).  If you're closing off the competition to all but 5 other clubs, you've created a financial chasm between the so-called traditional clubs and any other club who wants to rise up.

It's unacceptable.

Elitism, greed and straight lying at its worse.  No meritocracy.  The opposite of what sport is supposed to be.  In short, Donald Trump.

Anyone comparing this abortion the a US league such as the NBA has no idea how the franchise system works here.  Salary caps, full revenue share, geographic representation in all parts of the country (Oklahoma City, Cleveland, Portland, Milwaukee, etc.).  Absolutely nothing elitist about the franchise system in the US.  The difference between clubs has to do with management and preferred living location, not money.

I’m not ignoring the revenues! The only difference between this proposal and the UEFA proposal is the extra revenue goes to the clubs and not into the pockets of corrupt UEFA officials pockets. Take a look at where the increased revenue went from Nations Cup or increased Euro Cup or increased World cup?

I also don’t believe the final proposal whether it be a super league or a UEFA proposal will be limited to the select group plus only 5 others. There will be negotiations.

I do agree it sounds excessive, but it is after all an opening position. The final numbers are subject to negotiations.

I do believe there are a whole set of items up for negotiations whether it be this Super Cup or the Revised UEFA proposal.

Your statements about US leagues are not accurate. All of those leagues began with rich owners having full control of closed groups. The owners pocketed huge profits and only after players formed unions did the conditions you are referencing happen. And while franchising has extended teams to smaller cities, it has come with a huge price tag and often blackmail to city / state officials to build stadiums or arenas.

To be honest, there are a lot of things wrong with the entertainment business and yes the root cause is money. The issue you have is people will pay for the entertainment. However, I still say this power play is not all that different than what exists today or will with the UEFA proposal.

The US sports leagues are about rich owners being able to buy a franchise literally in any city in the US because there's full revenue sharing amongst all franchises and a common salary cap. So the valuation for a franchise is mostly derived by league revenue and popularity.

Also, a fixed minimum % of the revenue MUST be spent on player salaries.

So you could literally have a team in Oklahoma City, population 600k in the middle of nowhere, have a very successful franchise that can pay the exact same amount to players as a team in Los Angeles or New York.

There's also a draft structure.  So the worse teams get to pick the best new incoming players every year.  The players cannot choose their teams when they enter the league.  You have to earn "free agent" status before you can choose where you want to play, and that takes years.

Another very important point is that every league in the US is comprised of all the professional teams that existed at the time.  The different leagues merged many decades ago.  They are also all looking to expand to as many cities as possible as soon as its remotely financially possible, not decrease the teams.  If they could have a franchise in every single city in the US, they would. It's just a completely different mindset.

This is NOTHING like a US sports franchise system.  The Super League is about having your cake and eating it too.

Those leagues were not like that initially. ALL of them were closed elite groups. The owners would pocket the revenues that really started to escalate with introduction of TV. The players were paid peanuts in comparison, formed unions and that resulted in the changes you are raving about. Perhaps you’re too young to know these things but their beginnings was exactly like what was proposed with this Super League!

Like when?   In the 80s???  What the heck are you comparing man.

All the leagues have a commissioner representing all the owners and a player's union that negotiate 5-year all-encompassing agreements. That's the cornerstone whereby players and owners work together in the US.

Hell no, most were started in 20s or 30s.

The revenue sharing, franchising, etc is not that old. The unions started in the 60s or 70s and it took years before the changes you rave about came into existence.

futbol_bill wrote:Hell no, most were started in 20s or 30s.

Not the revenue sharing + players unions.  The common revenues started in the early 90s for the NFL and similar in other leagues.  The player drafts became a thing in the 70s.  

Are you saying that this is ok because it was a similar model to the US sports system in the 20s?  And that's fine because the environment back then is comparable to today?? Come on man. Apples and oranges to the extreme.