So, this morning we wake up to the potential a brave new world in which the 6 largest clubs by revenue in England join six of their equivalents in Spain and Italy in the potential formation of the European Super League – a rival format to the Champions League. Most of the reactions have been predictably ire-filled. It does look very much as if the aforementioned clubs are attempting to engage in a game of “Pull-the-ladder-up, Jack”. And as a result, it would be very easy for me to join in with the cacophony of angry reactions: no relegation, at least for the founders; contempt or at least lack of sympathy for those left behind; potentially massive disruption to the status quo in European football. I get it. But I just want to consider the changes in the light of what I would hold to be the bigger picture.
Let’s start with a little analysis of that current state, starting from the 1992/93 season when, as we know, Sky invented football.
In the 28 seasons since then, the Premier League has been won by 7 clubs. However, within this, on 25 occasions it has been won by just 4 clubs. Each of those is in the ESP group. The Spanish league has been won by 5 clubs, with 25 of those being split between the clubs in the ESL group. Serie A has been won by 5 clubs, with 25 of those being won by the 3 Italian clubs included in the ESL. Hmm. I’m on the point of spotting a pattern….
Of the other European leagues which might be expected to provide entrants, 3 more have histories of 3 clubs winning, you’ve guessed it 25 titles – Germany Portugal and Holland. Only a single major European league has had more than 6 winners in that time – France. It could easily be argued that this kind of relative stasis is already hard coded into league football across Europe.
And what of the Champions League itself, for which the proposed competition is the rival? Well, in the same 28 seasons, 25 titles (I’m not making this up) have been won by representatives of 4 leagues. Only the Germans have, as yet, chosen to stay out of the ESL fray. Of the remaining 21 winners, all of them come from the clubs included in the ESL. So essentially, we have the same clubs qualifying and winning. For the rest, and that is all competitors, it is largely an exercise in revenue optimization with little or no chance of success. The last club out of this group (or Bayern) was Porto and that was nearly 20 years ago.
It is clear that there is no level playing field as things stand. Rather there is a heavily tilted one. UEFA themselves have done nothing to prevent this situation. FFP was implemented, and perhaps even conceived, so shoddily as to enable any vaguely savvy CFO to drive a coach and horses through it. Hardly the action of a governing body with its prime or indeed any concern about fairness, I would posit.
And what of the regulators of football? The Premier League showed no compunction in casting adrift the clubs not included in the new tournament at the inception of Sky’s invention of football, although ultimately it was forced to offer parachute payments and a certain amount of trickledown to lower clubs and the football pyramid. Of course, we haven’t seen any substantive details on the new offering, but it would only be good politics for the constituents to agree to this once the initial fire has been drawn. And they have had no qualms about timing games so that away fans either can’t get there or can’t get home by reasonable means of public transport. So, all in all, not perhaps the altruistic benign governors they would like to present themselves as.
UEFA we have already touched on. Although I would like to ask how much concern for fans a governing body arranging for a European final to be played in a city which is as much a part of Europe as a fish is a vegetable and which has no serviceable land or air connectivity to enable fans to attend really has?
For FIFA to opine is for me, the icing on the cake. An organisation which conspires to arrange for a World Cup to be played in winter, in a desert, in a state with as much care for human rights as your average dictatorship. Not so much the view from the moral high ground as from the primordial swamp.
These organisations can restrict players and clubs from playing in their sanctioned competitions. Though I would doubt that legally this would hold water during the lifetime of existing domestic tournaments as the new competition doesn’t impact them, from the little we can currently see. It remains to be seen how their none-too opaque threats over UEFA and FIFA tournaments play out.
And then we have the bleatings from Sky, obviously concealed behind the public face of its de facto brand ambassadors such as Roy Keane and Gary Neville. For these gentlemen to try to present themselves as somehow the guardians of the way football was, is and always should be run is pushing it somewhat for me. Where was their concern at the ever-rising cost of entry to the ground, or of a shirt, or of the Sky subscription with the concomitant impact on the real fans, those whose families have been steeped in the game and the local club for years? They were happy to take the personal benefits presented by the Sky money and its assault on the hugely imperfect status quo, but somehow this must now be fixed in aspic for eternity. As the great Pete Townshend wrote and the inimitable Daltrey sang – Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. I can’t help thinking that Sky’s primary concern is defending its own platform’s market share. It has essentially been created off the back of football and although it has clearly been moving away from relying on football and indeed sport towards a strategy of direct competition with mainstream terrestrial broadcasters across the range of output, that transition is far from complete.
Lastly, and most definitely least, we have the half-arsed interventions from politicians. PM Johnson has uttered some fairly mealy-mouthed condemnation about the potential changes. I honestly cannot imagine this man has ever been to a football match outside of in a political capacity nor that he has any genuine interest either way. The PM has to say what is expected, especially ahead of elections.
The Leader of the Opposition, apparently an Arsenal fan although as per the PM above, this might well just be a convenient way of hanging his cashmere donkey jacket in a suitably visible place for the proles to see, said this: “This proposal risks shutting the door on fans for good, reducing them to mere spectators and consumers”. Sorry, what else have we been for the last 30 years and arguably ever? This is surely the apogee of the politician’s vacuous comment.
Much of the output from the commentariat has really been playing to their own vested interests. The public wave of anger, amid the current trend for encouraging the childlike belief that nuance doesn’t exist and therefore almost any discussion should be framed within an entirely binary horizon, is thus conditioned to react accordingly. Light blue touchpaper and retire.
I’m happy to give things a little time to play out, understand what is genuinely being sought and see the degree to which compromises develop, as they most likely will.
Notwithstanding the owner’s craven plans, celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the 1970-71 Double when football was a spectator sport rather than a billionaire’s plaything.
