Analysis: Will Super League controversy bring paradigm shift in football governance?

By sportswriter Xiao Yazhuo

PARIS, Dec. 27 (Xinhua) -- The European Union's top court's recent judgment on the breakaway Super League has thrust this contentious initiative back into the spotlight.

The European Court of Justice ruled that UEFA and FIFA, the governing bodies of European and world football respectively, have violated EU law by exercising veto power over club competitions like the Super League and cannot impose penalties on clubs involved in organizing such events.

The decision has sent shockwaves through the football world, with Real Madrid and Barcelona, the driving forces behind the Super League, welcoming the court's decision.

Florentino Perez, president of Real Madrid, hailed it as "a victory for football and its fans", seeing it as a golden opportunity to enhance European club football. However, the verdict has met with widespread resistance from international sports organizations, football associations, major leagues, clubs and fan groups.

The Super League's initial attempt in 2021 to break away from UEFA's structure collapsed within days amid widespread condemnation. Despite the recent court ruling seemingly giving the green light on legal grounds, the overwhelming opposition makes the actual establishment of the event highly questionable.

WHAT IS THE SUPER LEAGUE?

The idea of a top-tier competition independent of UEFA has been brewing since the late 20th century. In 1998, Italy-based Media Partners approached major European clubs with a proposal for a league comprising 36 clubs and a cup tournament involving 96 clubs, aiming to secure greater benefits under this new structure than the existing system.

Feeling threatened, UEFA took swift action. It warned member associations that any club deviating from the current system would face a ban from all international competitions, hinting at penalties for the associations themselves. Additionally, UEFA tempted clubs with promises of reforming the existing competition structure to increase all clubs' revenue, leading to the overhaul of UEFA's flagship events.

In April 2021, 12 clubs from the Premier League, La Liga and Serie A, namely Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Tottenham, Arsenal, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Atletico Madrid, Juventus, AC Milan and Inter Milan, announced their intention to break away from their existing competitions to form the Super League.

However, the plan was widely denounced upon announcement. To football governing bodies, it was a direct challenge to their authority; to non-elite clubs, it was seen as contemptuous and indifferent; to their fans, they were accused of greed; even European government officials publicly criticized the Super League, emphasizing their support for UEFA.

Within just two days, the Premier League teams led the retreat and issued apologies. This was soon followed by Atletico Madrid, AC Milan, Inter Milan and eventually, Juventus, leaving Real Madrid and Barcelona as the only clubs steadfastly holding on.

Why do major clubs repeatedly risk sanctions to establish alternative events and stand up to UEFA? At the heart of it is a long-standing disagreement over how to "enlarge the pie" and "divide the pie."

Major clubs believe that there is still significant commercial potential in European football, and UEFA is partly to blame for not fully capitalizing on it. Additionally, they feel shortchanged in revenue distribution, given that their participation is what drives the Champions League's popularity.

Right after the ECJ's judgment last week, A22 Sports Company - which is promoting the Super League - unveiled a new framework featuring 64 clubs across three tiers with promotion and relegation, no permanent members, and with all matches streamed for free. This revised plan, seemingly an improvement in many aspects over the 2021 proposal, still finds few takers.

WIDESPREAD CRITICISM AGAINST THE SUPER LEAGUE

The revival of the Super League hinges on sufficient club support, which currently seems overwhelmingly against it.

In the hours following the ECJ's announcement, numerous clubs including Man City, Man United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund, Paris Saint-Germain, Roma and Inter Milan, along with major European leagues like the Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A and Ligue 1, publicly opposed the Super League.

Bayern Munich and Paris Saint-Germain, who never joined the original Super League initiative, stand firmly against it. PSG's official statement used the term "forever refuse".

Bayern legend Karl-Heinz Rummenigge stated: "In Germany, no one will join the Super League... Never drag us along."

Italian Football Federation president Gabriele Gravina added: "Any club persisting in participating in the Super League will be expelled from the Italian football system."

As for the Premier League, with its high commercial value, its clubs are showing little enthusiasm for the Super League. After the 2021 fiasco, the Premier League imposed penalties on the six clubs involved, warning of a 30-point deduction and fines for similar future behavior. Moreover, the Premier League's profitable operations in recent years, especially the significant growth in broadcasting rights revenue, have reduced the clubs' eagerness to risk joining the Super League.

Thus, even though the ECJ ruling appears to favor the Super League, the real issue is the lack of clubs willing to venture into these "murky waters".

A22 Company's envisioned Super League involves 64 clubs, but the reality might be far from achieving such numbers.

PARADIGM SHIFT IN EUROPEAN FOOTBALL GOVERNANCE?

"The Court observes that the organization of the football competitions between clubs and the exploitation of the media rights are, quite evidently, economic activities. They must therefore comply with the rules and respect the freedoms of movement," the ECJ said in its ruling.

"The Court holds that, where an undertaking in a dominant position has the power to determine the conditions in which potentially competing undertakings may access the market, that power must, given the risk of conflict of interest to which it gives rise, be subject to criteria which are suitable for ensuring that they are transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate. However, the powers of FIFA and UEFA are not subject to any such criteria. FIFA and UEFA are, therefore, abusing a dominant position," it added.

It is evident that the ECJ is essentially calling for reform in the current system of organizations like UEFA and FIFA in managing their sports.

The ruling also emphasized that although UEFA and FIFA "abused their dominant position", this does not necessarily mean that competitions like the Super League must be approved.

UEFA's official stance seems to respond to the ECJ's decision. "This ruling does not imply recognition or confirmation of the so-called 'Super League', but rather points out deficiencies in UEFA's competition framework, and they were already resolved in June 2022. UEFA is confident in the robustness of its new rules, particularly as they comply with all relevant European laws and regulations," read a UEFA statement.

France's Sports Minister Amelie Oudea-Castera publicly opposed the Super League and announced that sports ministers from EU countries would meet on January 10 to discuss the future sports model in Europe.

How will this controversy conclude? An outright fallout is unlikely; a more probable scenario involves all parties negotiating a mutually acceptable compromise.

Despite the public criticism from various clubs, Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp's statement might represent the true sentiments of many - "I agree 100 percent with that statement [from Liverpool]. But I am delighted that we finally get a bit of an understanding that FIFA and UEFA and other bodies cannot just do what they want... I like that they get a bit of a shake." ■