Chelsea fans protested outside Stamford Bridge against their club’s involvement in the European Super League
Plans for a European Super League caused an earthquake across the football world when they were announced in April 2021.
The six Premier League sides that signed up for the project – Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Tottenham and Arsenal – quickly withdrew their support after a backlash from fans, football bodies and even the government.
However, the plans have not been completely scrapped as Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus are still pushing the idea of the Super League.
On Thursday there is a significant update in the saga.
A 50-page report is being released by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on behalf of 69-year-old Greek Athanasios Rantos, the advocate-general of a case investigating whether world football’s governing body Fifa and European counterpart Uefa have abused their dominant position by B the ban on participation in alternative competitions.
After the Super League plans were announced, nine of the clubs were involved fined by Uefa. But the lawsuit against the remaining three – Real, Barca and Juve – was dropped after that court case.
The report constitutes Ranto’s written opinion on the case and is non-binding, but could influence the final decision. A grand chamber of 15 judges will make the final judgment next spring.
Should Rantos lean heavily in one direction or the other, it counts as a win. His words will be scrutinized by both sides of the debate.
It could be the beginning of club football that changes forever.
Why is this happening now?
This is not a legal argument about the merits of a European Super League.
In this case, the ECJ is answering a series of questions put to it by the Spanish courts when the ESL proposals were launched.
These proposals led to an immediate threat of sanctions against the clubs involved and the players signed with them by Uefa and Fifa.
A22 Sports Management Group, which is behind the plans, argues Uefa and Fifa’s response was unfair. She believes clubs should be free to talk to whomever they want about the idea of setting up new external competitions without the threat of penalties.
But Uefa feel justified in taking a stand to preserve the health of the wider game, which they say has been jeopardized by the 12 clubs involved whose motivation, it has been argued, was self-interest and greed.
There have been protests from football fans and players in England against the idea of the European Super League
The case for a Super League
A key proposal of the original Super League plan was no promotion or relegation.
A22 points to other examples of “closed” competitions in world sport, such as: rugby union’s Six Nations, and says its updated Super League proposals now include access for other teams.
However, A22 presented no new plans at a meeting at Uefa last month when it said it had been “ambushed” by representatives of the European Clubs’ Association who had been invited to express their displeasure.
According to A22, the main objectives of a Super League are to allow clubs to take control of their own destiny, have proper corporate governance and enforce financial fair play rules.
It is not clear whether English clubs will be legally allowed to join the ESL given the commitment they have given not engage in further discussion after the collapse of the first plan.
But that is not A22’s argument. Your argument is directed exclusively against the monopoly position of the governing bodies as pan-national organizers of competitions.
What is Uefa’s attitude?
Uefa says A22 are trying to ‘blast’ the European sporting model.
It believes changes to the format of the ESL would not change the core issue of a small number of clubs benefiting financially at the expense of the wider game.
Uefa also believes that public opinion is with them. 23 countries submitted evidence to the ECJ in support of their position. Some spoke to the ECJ for the first time. Uefa considers A22’s case to be irregular.
Overall, she is confident in her position.
What’s happening now?
The case is listed on Thursday at 09:30 in Luxembourg (08:30 GMT).
A three-page statement detailing Rantos’ key observations is expected to be released within the hour, with a full statement expected shortly thereafter.
Neither side will be notified of the results before they are published, and most importantly there will be no opportunity to address issues raised within them. The submission period has long since expired and will not be reopened.
Thursday’s report is crucial for those wondering if a European Super League remains a realistic possibility.
Comments are closed.