European Super League | ECJ rule that UEFA and FIFA acted unlawfully in blocking Super League (p 29)

[bobbyowenquiff]

Who could do it better. As bad as they are does anyone really think a league run by the footballing euro royalty clubs would be better.

A new super-league would be a hell of a risk. That said I think the threat from a rival league may force UEFA to change the way it operates. UEFA can't continue to manage and control all the broadcasting rights, it can't be a commercial rival to clubs for sponsorhip deals, it can't continue to operate in a corrupt way, and can't continue to treat fans like shit. UEFA's role should be as a regulator and organiser without all the politics. Even a move in the direction of some of these goals would be welcome.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

It's all well and good all these clubs coming out in opposition against it, but what happens when Real Madrid, Barcelona, AC Milan, Juventus, Inter Milan, Napoli, Benfica, Porto, Sporting, Galatasaray, Besiktas, Fenerbache and probably no doubt someone like Marseille all break away?

There will be no Champions League to play in, it would be utterly pointless.

I think Perez knows he has enough support to go ahead with this and that eventually all the other clubs will have to join because they know they will have no real choice, and this suits the clubs that have opposed publcily.

They can eventually come out and say we were against it but look, this is where football is heading, we can't do anything about it. If we don't go we are going to get left behind.

The likes of Boehly, Henry, Glazers and even Mansour.. They are in this game for the money and to increase the value of their teams.

I think you get £100m just for being in the ESL, to get that from the CL you have to win it.

Napoli for example just by entering the ESL will get £100m minimum.

This is going to happen eventually.

If UEFA changes the way it organises broadcasting it could compete financially with any super-league. The clubs are being ripped off at the moment. Tyson fury can earn more in a few fights than City got for winning the CL. UEFA can't pretend that it is still 1992 and digital streaming doesn't exist. Money always talks.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

The ESL administrators lawyers are based in the same Madrid offices as Real / Florentino Perez. At the moment it’s a binary choice between Syphilis or Gonorrhoea. The new competition will be run by the old guard clubs for the old guard clubs.

The proposed ESL is too closely associated with the Real Madrid "Mafia" including crooks like Tebas. He is a totally divisive and toxic figure in Spain and it's hard to see any major clubs (or sponsors) trusting the new proposals whatever their merit.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

It would be just like their promise to screen all matches free of charge, imho. As soon as it has served its purpose, to convince hapless fans how wonderful it is, then it will, of course, be scrapped. UEFA and FIFA have some issues, of course, but they do a lot of good work funding grass roots football and the domestic federations. You really think Real Madrid and Barcelona will give a toss about the Scottish league, for example? Irish? Icelandic? They don't even care about their own domestic league. I wouldn't trust these people with an inch of anything, let alone, effectively, the future of football in Europe.

I think the quote implied that "some" matches would be free of charge. Any league would be totally unviable without broadcast income. The whole point of the breakaway is that the clubs would own and manage their own broadcasting and cut out the middle men at SKY, Bein etc etc. If they did that they could afford to let match-going fans in for nothing. But I wouldn't trust them any more than I trust the crooks at UEFA.

 

[City & Blue Brazil]

I think the quote implied that "some" matches would be free of charge. Any league would be totally unviable without broadcast income. The whole point of the breakaway is that the clubs would own and manage their own broadcasting and cut out the middle men at SKY, Bein etc etc. If they did that they could afford to let match-going fans in for nothing. But I wouldn't trust them any more than I trust the crooks at UEFA.

Let's face it, the clubs could let fans in for nothing now given what a small percentage of turnover is gate money, they could certainly afford twenty quid a game which would be fair and reasonable but they won't.

 

[Prophet of Doom]

The proposed ESL is too closely associated with the Real Madrid "Mafia" including crooks like Tebas. He is a totally divisive and toxic figure in Spain and it's hard to see any major clubs (or sponsors) trusting the new proposals whatever their merit.

Tebas is strongly opposing the ESL.

Still can’t get my head around why any club would be interested in a competition where two clubs trouser €1billion each before a ball is kicked yet somehow claim the competition will be much fairer than under UEFA ??

But no idea how this goes forward - English German and the top French club won’t have any part of it so there will probably end up 2 diluted competitions.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

It's all well and good all these clubs coming out in opposition against it, but what happens when Real Madrid, Barcelona, AC Milan, Juventus, Inter Milan, Napoli, Benfica, Porto, Sporting, Galatasaray, Besiktas, Fenerbache and probably no doubt someone like Marseille all break away?

There will be no Champions League to play in, it would be utterly pointless.

I think Perez knows he has enough support to go ahead with this and that eventually all the other clubs will have to join because they know they will have no real choice, and this suits the clubs that have opposed publcily.

They can eventually come out and say we were against it but look, this is where football is heading, we can't do anything about it. If we don't go we are going to get left behind.

The likes of Boehly, Henry, Glazers and even Mansour.. They are in this game for the money and to increase the value of their teams.

I think you get £100m just for being in the ESL, to get that from the CL you have to win it.

Napoli for example just by entering the ESL will get £100m minimum.

This is going to happen eventually.

CL would be utterly pointless? I really dont think so. Out of that illustrious list you have only RM have managed to get to a final in recent years. Its a very yesteryear list isnt it? I mean new clubs are winning it now and they are the attraction.

I too think it will happen. I also think it wont be whilst those 2 debt ridden spanish clubs are pulling the strings.

 

[117 M34]

I wouldn't be surprised to see the women's super league set up before the men's and that could then be used as a guinea pig to show how it would work to gain support.

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

Not a chance.

tlo much power with clubs.

 

[halfcenturyup]

A new super-league would be a hell of a risk. That said I think the threat from a rival league may force UEFA to change the way it operates. UEFA can't continue to manage and control all the broadcasting rights, it can't be a commercial rival to clubs for sponsorhip deals, it can't continue to operate in a corrupt way, and can't continue to treat fans like shit. UEFA's role should be as a regulator and organiser without all the politics. Even a move in the direction of some of these goals would be welcome.

Why do you think UEFA shouldn't be allowed to run its own tournaments, negotiate broadcasting deals for them and sponsor them with third parties? That isn't where the law is going at all afaik .......

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Why do you think UEFA shouldn't be allowed to run its own tournaments, negotiate broadcasting deals for them and sponsor them with third parties? That isn't where the law is going at all afaik .......

At present UEFA take a huge slice of the broadcasting and sponsor payments while the broadcasters take all the pay-per-view and advertising revenues. Streaming techhnology means that clubs can produce their own broadcasts and take the lot. The clubs own the content so should get the lions' share of the revenue. This is what the whole breakaway row is about. Last year's CL final apparently had 450 million viewers across the globe. Why should the clubs give away their content for peanuts? It is nothing to do with the law. It is globalisation (whether we like it or not). If UEFA wants to survive it will have to give up its monopoly.

 

[mrbelfry]

At present UEFA take a huge slice of the broadcasting and sponsor payments while the broadcasters take all the pay-per-view and advertising revenues. Streaming techhnology means that clubs can produce their own broadcasts and take the lot. The clubs own the content so should get the lions' share of the revenue. This is what the whole breakaway row is about. Last year's CL final apparently had 450 million viewers across the globe. Why should the clubs give away their content for peanuts? It is nothing to do with the law. It is globalisation (whether we like it or not). If UEFA wants to survive it will have to give up its monopoly.

Were those people watching City v Milan or the Champions League final? UEFA could argue the content is theirs and clubs attract fans and sponsorship from playing in their tournament.

Could City not organise a game against Milan next week and charge £15 to watch it? Would that be against UEFA rules? Would you spend £15 to watch it? I wouldn't

 

[Sleeping_Easy]

Were those people watching City v Milan or the Champions League final? UEFA could argue the content is theirs and clubs attract fans and sponsorship from playing in their tournament.

Could City not organise a game against Milan next week and charge £15 to watch it? Would that be against UEFA rules? Would you spend £15 to watch it? I wouldn't

You could also frame the argument in that are you watching it because it has UEFA slapped on it or are you watching it because its the best teams in europe competing against each other. If the best teams in europe created the champions league away from UEFA with all the current rules then it would still get the same viewership.

 

[halfcenturyup]

At present UEFA take a huge slice of the broadcasting and sponsor payments while the broadcasters take all the pay-per-view and advertising revenues. Streaming techhnology means that clubs can produce their own broadcasts and take the lot. The clubs own the content so should get the lions' share of the revenue. This is what the whole breakaway row is about. Last year's CL final apparently had 450 million viewers across the globe. Why should the clubs give away their content for peanuts? It is nothing to do with the law. It is globalisation (whether we like it or not). If UEFA wants to survive it will have to give up its monopoly.

UEFA doesn't have a monopoly. That was the whole point of the recent case. What it does have, as the governing body of the sport is a responsibility under the European Sports Model to support the football pyramid. And that is what it does. You think UEFA syphons off 50% of its broadcast and sponsorship revenue and does what with it exactly? Do you actually know how much UEFA spends on its own organisational structure, compared to how much it reinvests in the game by way of prize money, participation bonuses and solidarity payments to the domestic leagues?

I see nothing at all wrong with the current structure, taking into account the long-term future of the game across the continent.

On the contrary, your vision of the future where how many (four or five?) "global") clubs take all the broadcast revenues and sponsorship for themselves, in what will amount basically to glorified friendlies, isn't globalisation in my book, it's the death knell for organised football in Europe. You will no doubt say these clubs would be expected to plough some of their earnings back into grass roots football, so you are effectively saying some money should be siphoned off to protect the game? That is exactly what UEFA does.

I am not sure your boxing analogy works in football either. The sports are completely different.

I have my problems with FIFA and UEFA as well, but consolidating all the power in a few clubs isn't the way forward imho. It won't be supported by anyone, including the legal system, and, in my opinion, will never happen to football in Europe.

Then again, I could be completely wrong. It has been known :)

 

[mrbelfry]

You could also frame the argument in that are you watching it because it has UEFA slapped on it or are you watching it because its the best teams in europe competing against each other. If the best teams in europe created the champions league away from UEFA with all the current rules then it would still get the same viewership.

I'm not 100% sure I agree. How many of those preseason tournaments we take part in every year have the prestige of a Champions League final?

The prestige comes from all the parties involved agreeing it's prestigious. The history of the tournament etc plays into that. A different tournament even with the same teams in the same format would take ages to gain the same prestige. Even with the CWC we see how much of the prestige is perception - when Liverpool won it it was prestigious. When City win it then it's Soccer Aid

 

[Sleeping_Easy]

I'm not 100% sure I agree. How many of those preseason tournaments we take part in every year have the prestige of a Champions League final?

The prestige comes from all the parties involved agreeing it's prestigious. The history of the tournament etc plays into that. A different tournament even with the same teams in the same format would take ages to gain the same prestige. Even with the CWC we see how much of the prestige is perception - when Liverpool won it it was prestigious. When City win it then it's Soccer Aid

Thats because those tournaments are pre season frendlies. If the new tournament was in place of the champions league then the average TV viewer would tune in and thats what sponsors care about. Just look at when the european cup became the champions league. Rebranding of tournaments doesn't change the buy in from fans it just slaps a new label on it and continues as before.

 

[mrbelfry]

Thats because those tournaments are pre season frendlies. If the new tournament was in place of the champions league then the average TV viewer would tune in and thats what sponsors care about. Just look at when the european cup became the champions league. Rebranding of tournaments doesn't change the buy in from fans it just slaps a new label on it and continues as before.

It's not a rebrand you're suggesting though.

 

[law74]

Thats because those tournaments are pre season frendlies. If the new tournament was in place of the champions league then the average TV viewer would tune in and thats what sponsors care about. Just look at when the european cup became the champions league. Rebranding of tournaments doesn't change the buy in from fans it just slaps a new label on it and continues as before.

A breakaway competition will never have the same prestige as one held under the well regulated and established FIFA Umbrella.
The money UEFA obtain through the Champions League and other competitions is shared through the national associations throughout Europe (and Isreal) for the promotion of ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL.
This concept is to try and deny money going to grass roots football in Lithuania or Macedonia but instead going to wealthy club owners to increase dividends or clear debts from their overspending.

 

[JGL07]

The proposed ESL is too closely associated with the Real Madrid "Mafia" including crooks like Tebas. He is a totally divisive and toxic figure in Spain and it's hard to see any major clubs (or sponsors) trusting the new proposals whatever their merit.

Tebas is certainly not a supporter of the ESL, so the whole point makes no sense.

‘Only Jesus can perform miracles’ - European Super League CEO slammed over plans to broadcast matches free of charge by La Liga president Javier Tebas | Goal.com UK

Javier Tebas took a cheeky dig at European Super League CEO over plans to broadcast matches free of charge.

www.goal.com

Try not to post while 'confused'.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

At present UEFA take a huge slice of the broadcasting and sponsor payments while the broadcasters take all the pay-per-view and advertising revenues. Streaming techhnology means that clubs can produce their own broadcasts and take the lot. The clubs own the content so should get the lions' share of the revenue. This is what the whole breakaway row is about. Last year's CL final apparently had 450 million viewers across the globe. Why should the clubs give away their content for peanuts? It is nothing to do with the law. It is globalisation (whether we like it or not). If UEFA wants to survive it will have to give up its monopoly.

How much money does Uefa make from selling TV revenue for the CL? And how much do the clubs get from it?
And is this just UEFA or would all this be true with regards to the PL too?