European Super League.

[DiegoDiego]

No it doesn't. There is no clear and objective path for qualification outlined - it is strongly implied to be invitational.

"to qualify [...] based on achievements in the prior season".

I'm not seeing the implication.

[Detournement]

28 minutes ago, NorthernLights said:

Really wouldn't be a surprise to find out that Man Utd and Liverpool are the driving forces behind this and making a complete car crash of it given what happened barely 6 months ago - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/10/11/world-exclusive-man-utd-liverpool-driving-project-big-picture/

It looks like it's a combination of Florentino Perez and Angelli doing the political stuff and the Glazers on the financial side acting as front men for JP Morgan. Obviously Kroenke and FSG are lined up right behind JPM.

 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

From the Financial Times

Leaked plans for the European Super League show an unprecedented effort to cap spiralling player wages and share wealth between football’s richest clubs. 

The measures, which range from revenue-sharing arrangements to strict spending limits, have been confirmed by the Financial Times and closely resemble the structure of top US sports leagues.

A dozen top clubs including England’s Manchester United, Spain’s Real Madrid and Italy’s AC Milan, have signed up to join the breakaway contest that threatens to shatter the existing power structures in the world’s most-watched sport.  

Despite uproar among fans, European politicians and football pundits, the Super League clubs are pushing ahead with a project they believe will raise upwards of €4bn a season from global broadcasting and sponsorship rights. That figure is roughly double that of the Champions League, the continent’s top club contest, which the Super League is designed to supersede.

According to those familiar with the plans, the 15 “founding clubs” of the Super League would share 32.5 per cent of these commercial revenues. A further 32.5 per cent would be distributed between all 20 participating teams, including the five sides invited to play in the competition each year. Twenty per cent of revenues would be allocated on “merit” or be dependent on performance in the competition. The final 15 per cent would be shared based on broadcast audience size.

A person directly involved in the deal said the distribution model ensured the competition winner would receive just 1.5 times more than the bottom side. By comparison, that ratio in Spain’s La Liga is closer to 3.5 times. However, clubs will be also allowed to retain all revenues from gate receipts and club sponsorship deals. 

The model is closer in design to North American sports leagues such as the National Basketball Association and National Football League, in which franchises strike joint commercial agreements, and use collective bargaining agreements with players and other measures to level the playing field. 

Those competitions are “closed”, meaning that teams are guaranteed their place every year, ensuring reliable revenues and steady profits for owners. 

But the Super League structure represents a fundamental break with how European football has been governed for years, with its “pyramid” structure that ensures any team, through on-pitch success, can reach for the top prizes.

Many of the Super League’s main architects, such as Manchester United, Liverpool and AC Milan have US owners, while the €3.25bn launch cost is financed by a debt deal underwritten by US investment bank JPMorgan Chase. 

Yet the driving force behind the project is Florentino Pérez, Real Madrid’s president who has been named chair of the Super League. He has pointed to the financial crisis at top clubs, many of which have suffered steep revenue shortfalls due to the pandemic and are heavily indebted, saying in a Spanish TV interview that they “are ruined”.

Another common feature of US franchises is strict spending limits. Super League clubs have committed to using only 55 per cent of their revenues on “sport spending”, such as player salaries, transfer and agent fees, according to people familiar with the terms. European clubs typically spend 70 to 80 per cent of their income on footballers’ wages alone.

Super League clubs have also signed up to a “tax equalisation” clause so that “income tax on salaries shall be normalised and calculated at a rate of 45 per cent”, according to people with direct knowledge of the contracts. This would ensure clubs in Spain, where footballers pay a higher top rate of tax than in Italy or England, are not at a competitive disadvantage when the spending limits are assessed. 

The documents add that Super League clubs must have “positive trailing earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation and net profit”. This is intended to break with the past dynamic, where many clubs, particularly those with rich owners, have racked up huge losses to acquire the best players in the pursuit of silverware.

The Super League declined to comment on the numbers, but said its model was based on higher “solidarity” payments to smaller teams and an effort to create a “sustainable model for the whole of the football pyramid”.

[craigkillie]

1 minute ago, DiegoDiego said:

"to qualify [...] based on achievements in the prior season".

I'm not seeing the implication.

It suggests there's not a planned qualifying tournament, which means that whichever route they choose to based their "achievements in the prior season" on will necessarily be selective and exclusionary. Unless you think that every single domestic league champion in Europe can magically be compared against each other meritocratically through their system, I don't see how it can be anything other than invitational.

[ahemps]

2 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

From the Financial Times

Leaked plans for the European Super League show an unprecedented effort to cap spiralling player wages and share wealth between football’s richest clubs. 

The measures, which range from revenue-sharing arrangements to strict spending limits, have been confirmed by the Financial Times and closely resemble the structure of top US sports leagues.

A dozen top clubs including England’s Manchester United, Spain’s Real Madrid and Italy’s AC Milan, have signed up to join the breakaway contest that threatens to shatter the existing power structures in the world’s most-watched sport.  

Despite uproar among fans, European politicians and football pundits, the Super League clubs are pushing ahead with a project they believe will raise upwards of €4bn a season from global broadcasting and sponsorship rights. That figure is roughly double that of the Champions League, the continent’s top club contest, which the Super League is designed to supersede.

According to those familiar with the plans, the 15 “founding clubs” of the Super League would share 32.5 per cent of these commercial revenues. A further 32.5 per cent would be distributed between all 20 participating teams, including the five sides invited to play in the competition each year. Twenty per cent of revenues would be allocated on “merit” or be dependent on performance in the competition. The final 15 per cent would be shared based on broadcast audience size.

A person directly involved in the deal said the distribution model ensured the competition winner would receive just 1.5 times more than the bottom side. By comparison, that ratio in Spain’s La Liga is closer to 3.5 times. However, clubs will be also allowed to retain all revenues from gate receipts and club sponsorship deals. 

The model is closer in design to North American sports leagues such as the National Basketball Association and National Football League, in which franchises strike joint commercial agreements, and use collective bargaining agreements with players and other measures to level the playing field. 

Those competitions are “closed”, meaning that teams are guaranteed their place every year, ensuring reliable revenues and steady profits for owners. 

But the Super League structure represents a fundamental break with how European football has been governed for years, with its “pyramid” structure that ensures any team, through on-pitch success, can reach for the top prizes.

Many of the Super League’s main architects, such as Manchester United, Liverpool and AC Milan have US owners, while the €3.25bn launch cost is financed by a debt deal underwritten by US investment bank JPMorgan Chase. 

Yet the driving force behind the project is Florentino Pérez, Real Madrid’s president who has been named chair of the Super League. He has pointed to the financial crisis at top clubs, many of which have suffered steep revenue shortfalls due to the pandemic and are heavily indebted, saying in a Spanish TV interview that they “are ruined”.

Another common feature of US franchises is strict spending limits. Super League clubs have committed to using only 55 per cent of their revenues on “sport spending”, such as player salaries, transfer and agent fees, according to people familiar with the terms. European clubs typically spend 70 to 80 per cent of their income on footballers’ wages alone.

Super League clubs have also signed up to a “tax equalisation” clause so that “income tax on salaries shall be normalised and calculated at a rate of 45 per cent”, according to people with direct knowledge of the contracts. This would ensure clubs in Spain, where footballers pay a higher top rate of tax than in Italy or England, are not at a competitive disadvantage when the spending limits are assessed. 

The documents add that Super League clubs must have “positive trailing earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation and net profit”. This is intended to break with the past dynamic, where many clubs, particularly those with rich owners, have racked up huge losses to acquire the best players in the pursuit of silverware.

The Super League declined to comment on the numbers, but said its model was based on higher “solidarity” payments to smaller teams and an effort to create a “sustainable model for the whole of the football pyramid”.

The motives behind this are abhorrent but to be fair a lot of this sounds good and if it was already in place in the domestic leagues and UEFA football we wouldn't have created the monsters we have just now.

[sparky88]

1 hour ago, Michael W said:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/56812151.amp

Some more from Florentino Perez there. Some particular highlights:  

"If we continue with the Champions League there is less and less interest and then it's over" 

Now, why might that be? Can't be due to it being the same teams over and over again, can it? 

"When you don't have any income other than from television, you have to find a solution to make more attractive matches that fans all over the world can watch with all of the big clubs,"

Presumably like those attractive Champions League matches everyone is losing interest in. 

"If young people don't watch an entire game it is because it is not interesting enough, or we will have to shorten the games."

Many of the worst games I've seen are between England's "big six". Utter borefests where teams are terrified of losing. The latter part is unhinged - essentially the "model" for all these new fans are morons that spend their day on Twitter shitposting the Messi/Ronaldo GOAT debate. Or Americans, who call the sport the wrong name and have the attention span of a goldfish. 

 

Who'd have thought when that wee boy ate that bat soup in Wuhan, that it would lead to massive financial mismanagement by Real Madrid for the last 20 years.

[PB1994]

18 minutes ago, ahemps said:

If they 5 happen to be Bayern, PSG then the likes of Ajax, Roma or Seville, how long until these sides eventually just join in full time?

I think PSG and Bayern want in but Bayern especially can't go for it due to fan ownership. This would be a way they could say they didn't push for it but need to be in it or they will be left behind.

If PSG and Bayern wanted to be in it then they would have been when it was first announced. No way will they be coming out in the media rejecting the whole idea to only go and join through one of the invitation, sorry qualification, spots.

Sevilla have also come out and said they have no intention of joining.

Edited April 20, 2021 by PB1994

[Ross.]

39 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

Maybe there will be a new elite needing pandered to.

Maybe, but in telling this lot to f*ck off, you no longer need to pander. You tell others to put up or f*ck off also, because all the previous pandering led to that anyway.

35 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

With two competing European Leagues the bigger  names that opt to stay on the UEFA side of the fence would have more leverage given that they've got somewhere else they could go

The bigger names that remain within UEFA will likely be better off within UEFA. Prize money/TV money will drop for the English, Italian and Spanish sides but the rest of Europe won't be affected. It will however mean that far more clubs in England, Italy and Spain are more likely to win leagues and cups, which should increase general interest domestically, which in turn, over the longer term, drive up cash coming in. What would be worth looking at is the distribution model and putting additional controls on how clubs spend it to avoid unsustainable debts arising, which is what has led to the recent developments.

[AgainstAllOdds]

Would love to be a fly on the wall for this meeting. 

Good on Henderson for taking the initiative, hopefully it pays off and we'll can this shocking idea once and for all.

[ICTChris]

It's probably been said already but the split in the English clubs appears to be between those massively in debt and those who aren't.

[Ross.]

6 minutes ago, PB1994 said:

If PSG and Bayern wanted to be in it then they would have been when it was first announced. No way will they be coming out in the media rejecting the whole idea to only go and join through one of the invitation, sorry qualification, spots.

Sevilla have also come out and said they have no intention of joining.

I reckon PSG will go for it after the World Cup. The owners won't be wanting to f**k about with FIFA right now. The Germans I don't see going near it. The football culture there is still hugely fan orientated and the clubs mostly seem to follow a more community minded ethos in terms of approach, investment and development. RB Leipzig are the only ones I would imagine may change their minds, though it would be easy enough for Red Bull to suggest one of their other teams for a position in that league and focus more resources away from Germany if it came to it. I doubt many Austrians would miss Salzburg nowadays, or, more likely, they could get New York on board to really try and tap into the US market.

[Ross.]

1 minute ago, ICTChris said:

It's probably been said already but the split in the English clubs appears to be between those massively in debt and those who aren't.

It's almost as if having billions of debt during a global pandemic that is significantly harming your turnover makes you do really desperate things.

[RossBFaeDundee]

Well that's it settled now, big Dick has spoken.

 

[sparky88]

5 minutes ago, AgainstAllOdds said:

Would love to be a fly on the wall for this meeting. 

Good on Henderson for taking the initiative, hopefully it pays off and we'll can this shocking idea once and for all.

I can just imagine Joel Glazer saying 'We are going to have to call the whole thing off, Premier League captains think the ESL is a bad idea'. 

[Jacksgranda]

4 minutes ago, RossBFaeDundee said:

Well that's it settled now, big Dick has spoken.

 

"Is it a song youse are waantin'?"

[The Real Saints]

Pep is the first ‘big six’ manager to nail it in his statement. That’s the type of backbone required right now. This whole thing will fall apart imminently, no doubt.

[eez-eh]

1 hour ago, Brummie Clyde said:

Would assume it's Man City (could be Chelsea).

You’d probably be right. The “ITK” journos saying they were the two most reluctant. “Only joined for fear of being left behind” was the quote - not that it makes it any better of course.

Hopefully the authorities have the baws to still punish any that drop out.

[Ross.]

6 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

You’d probably be right. The “ITK” journos saying they were the two most reluctant. “Only joined for fear of being left behind” was the quote - not that it makes it any better of course.

Hopefully the authorities have the baws to still punish any that drop out.

Makes sense in both cases, as they are the least indebted of the English sides who have gone for it.

[Hedgecutter]

21 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

It's probably been said already but the split in the English clubs appears to be between those massively in debt and those who aren't.

This has 'man who built his house on sand' written all over it.   Can't help but see it ending up as a car crash after a few seasons when interest eventually wanes. 

The likes of Spurs and arguably Arsenal probably won't have a sniff at the top spot and will largely be playing what are effectively glorified friendlies for nothing other than TV revenue, which won't mean much if the teams above them get just as much if not more.  Granted that ESL would see them play in Europe every year, but an ESL/EPL season for them would almost certainly  lack the excitement of situations where they have to win to be playing European football next season.   Football's shite when there's nothing at risk and all it'll be for them is some borefest like Palace v Southampton just now (both being realistically safe for EPL next season with pretty much no chance of making Europe).   That's the sort of game I don't bother with on MOTD, and that's cooncil TV.

Edited April 20, 2021 by Hedgecutter

[Binos]

12 minutes ago, The Real Saints said:

Pep is the first ‘big six’ manager to nail it in his statement. That’s the type of backbone required right now. This whole thing will fall apart imminently, no doubt.

Peps divers have already ruined the sport anyway