KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum Bye Bye Premier League (New European Super League)

See you later Premier league.

And hello European super league.


At least we won't have premier league cart horses injuring our players as a bonus.

From The Athletic

European Super League explained: the contracts, plots and threats that shook football to its core

Adam Crafton and more

Other contributors: Matt Slater, James Horncastle and Dan Sheldon

European football is at war after the continent absorbed the staggering news that the sport’s most famous football clubs are prepared to break away from UEFA competitions and establish a new European Super League.

The Premier League’s self-styled “Big Six” clubs have all agreed in principle to support proposals backed by Italian clubs Juventus, AC Milan and Inter Milan, in addition to the foremost Spanish sides Real Madrid, Barcelona and Atletico Madrid. England is the country with the most sign-ups so far, as Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal and Tottenham have conspired with their European counterparts and are committed to the plan.

Late on Sunday evening, the “Super League” published a statement. The release read: “Twelve of Europe’s leading football clubs have today come together to announce they have agreed to establish a new mid-week competition, the Super League, governed by its Founding Clubs.” Juventus chairman Andrea Agnelli, Manchester United’s co-chairman Joel Glazer and Real Madrid chairman Florentino Perez subsequently released statements supporting the launch.

The clubs have hired InHouse Communications as a British public affairs agency to promote the launch. Katie Perrior, the chair of InHouse, was formerly head of communications for Theresa May during her period as prime minister, while she also worked on Boris Johnson’s 2008 Mayoral campaign.

The twelve clubs outlined an ambition to bring three more clubs on board, and these are thought to be Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund and Paris Saint-Germain. However, as of Sunday evening, those three clubs had not been convinced by the proposal.

The idea is to have fifteen founding members who will compete every season in the competition, irrespective of their performance in their domestic league, while five places among the 20 will be made available to other teams to qualify. The clubs did not, as of Sunday night, have a settled plan for how those five places would be awarded.

The tournament, which would start in August, would feature two groups of ten, playing home and away fixtures, with the top three automatically qualifying for the quarter-finals. Those who who finish fourth and fifth then compete for the remaining quarter-final places, before a two-legged knockout format is employed for the final eight, ahead of a single fixture final at a neutral venue. To be clear, the clubs committed to the Super League do not intend to compete in UEFA competitions such as the Champions League if the plan comes to fruition.

Additionally, the founding clubs said in a joint statement that “as soon as practicable after the start of the men’s competition, a correspondent women’s league will also be launched”. No further details were supplied on the impact of the women’s game and Liverpool’s women’s team, who would, presumably, be parachuted into a women’s equivalent Super League are currently in the second tier of English football. Lyon, the winners of the women’s Champions League in the past five seasons, are not among the founding clubs.

Today, UEFA had been scheduled to sign off a revamped format for its flagship competition, the Champions League, which would be due to come into effect from 2024. This new format would eliminate the 32-team group stage and instead have a 36-team “Swiss model” league, where each club play 10 matches: five at home, five away. The fixtures would be based on seedings and teams will be ranked from one to 36. The top eight would advance automatically to a 16-team knockout round, and the next 16 teams go into a play-off round to decide those final eight slots.

A meeting of UEFA’s executive committee had been expected to rubber stamp the new format at the end of March but talks were postponed after the European Club Association, the organisation that represents Europe’s leading clubs, failed to agree a unified position.

It was originally believed that the sticking point had not been a collision over the format changes. Rather, Europe’s leading clubs wanted a far more substantial level of control over how the Champions League’s broadcast and commercial deals are secured and marketed. Yet UEFA’s hopes of sealing the deal are in tatters following revelations that 12 European clubs have made a commitment to break away into a Super League.

Late on Sunday evening, sources close to the Super League revealed that the clubs are also now opposed to the “Swiss model” format, as they consider the plan to represent quantity over quality. Sources close to several clubs say their research shows that younger supporters want to see more games between the world’s most famous clubs and players and the clubs are responding to the trends.

The founding clubs will receive €3.5 billion, shared between the 15 clubs upon joining, and this would be targeted at offsetting the losses sustained during the global pandemic and to support infrastructure investment plans. The clubs also argued that this would not constitute a selfish pursuit, as they have pledged €10 billion in solidarity to the European football pyramid over 23 years, which they claim is substantially higher than the current offering under UEFA.

Sources said that the paperwork distributed between clubs are “agreements of principles” and “memorandums of understanding” at this stage, rather than contractually binding. They are, however, significant statements of intent. Owing to the pandemic, much of the groundwork in recent months has been through secret WhatsApp groups and Zoom calls between the billionaires who run major European clubs.

The New York Times reported that projections shared between the clubs early this year suggested each club could earn $400 million each for taking part, which would be four times as much as the winner of last season’s Champions League. The project is sufficiently advanced that the clubs have held discussions with the American investment bank JP Morgan, which would underwrite the league by debt financing and set it against future broadcast revenue. Coincidentally, JP Morgan has a longstanding relationship with the Glazer family, the owners of Manchester United and they are former employers of executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward.

It is unclear, at this stage, who would be the main broadcast partner of the tournament after DAZN distanced themselves on Sunday following reports linking the network to the competition. There were suggestions from sources on Sunday evening that one of the global tech streaming giants could yet emerge as a partner.

The response has been explosive. Almost immediately, the breakaway plan appeared fraught with peril. The Athletic revealed on Sunday lunchtime that PSG are, for now, significantly opposed to the plans, while German clubs Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund are also yet to sign up. In the circles of football politics, the knives were out on Sunday, with various sources alleging that Juventus chairman Andrea Agnelli and Manchester United’s executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward have lost the trust of their counterparts across Europe. On Sunday night, Agnelli quit his roles with both UEFA and the European Club Association.

UEFA joined forces with the English Football Association, the Premier League, the Royal Spanish Football Federation, La Liga, the Italian Football Federation and Serie A to condemn the breakaway movement. They pledged sporting sanctions and legal action against clubs who press on with the plans. This could include a ban from competing in domestic league and forbidding the founding club’s players from competing in UEFA tournaments for their national teams.

The Premier League wrote to all 20 Premier League clubs on Sunday and chief executive Richard Masters urged the “Big Six” to “walk away immediately before irreparable damage is done” and he also reiterated that signing up to a new European competition would require Premier League approval.

The Premier League insists this will not be granted. Privately, many rival Premier League clubs and clubs across Europe suspect this may be extreme posturing from the founding clubs but sources close to the Super League insisted the dozen clubs are committed to the plan. Other well-placed sources suggested the Super League model may be the starting point of a negotiation for more UEFA concessions or a more inclusive Super League, rather than the final version.

Elsewhere, The Athletic can reveal that major broadcasters are prepared to enact legal action against clubs who break away or devalue national competitions, as the broadcasters believe the product they’ve invested in would be fundamentally different without the involvement of leading sides.

Manchester United icon Gary Neville, in his capacity as a pundit on Sky, called the plans “an absolute scandal.” Sir Alex Ferguson, the former United manager and a member of the club’s football board, added his voice to the opposition. He described it as “a move away from 70 years of European club football.” It is the first time he has spoken out on a sensitive club matter since retiring as manager of United in 2013. British prime minister Boris Johnson tweeted: “Plans for a European Super League would be very damaging for football and we support football authorities in taking action. They would strike at the heart of the domestic game, and will concern fans across the country.”

Here The Athletic explains the details of a staggering development, what those in the game are saying — and what comes next.

Why do Europe’s leading clubs want to break away?

They want it for the same reason the major clubs in England wanted to break away from the Football League and the major clubs in Europe forced UEFA to swap the European Cup’s quarter-finals for two groups of four: money.

And if you agree with those who believe the European Super League is a crime against sport, the ability, motive and opportunity today are similar to those that existed in 1992, when the Premier League was created and the European Cup stopped being a straightforward knockout competition.

Football’s richest clubs can, in theory, form their own competition, attract broadcast and/or streaming partners, bring in sponsors and still play to packed stadiums, because they are the most popular clubs, with the best players and the biggest brands. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to fully exploit those assets? Why should they let less attractive brands dilute their value?

These were the same arguments England’s top teams made 30 years ago. With interest rates now near zero, there should be no problem persuading a bank or private equity firm to put up the guarantees they need to compensate for lost UEFA income until they can secure a new, game-changing relationship with whichever internet giant or media conglomerate is willing to take a punt on this competition being a bigger watch than the Champions League.

In regard to motive, the cynical view is to say it is the same as the scorpion’s when he stung the frog who was ferrying him across the river: it is in their nature. No matter how much money you offer them, how easy you make it for them to qualify to tournaments or how many games you let them play before they are knocked out, they will always want more. But that impulse has sharpened over the last year or so, when the pandemic has cost these clubs billions of dollars, euros and pounds in lost revenue. They now have an itch and a grudge. Throw in some jealousy about the amount of money North American sports franchises – in their closed leagues – are swapping hands for these days and the motivation could become irresistible.

But, as every investor knows, one man’s crisis is another’s opportunity. The virus has weakened everyone but because the Deloitte Money League gang were stronger when it first hit, the damage is relative. When the Champions League and Premier League were created, football had spent a decade dealing with disasters and hooliganism. Back then, the game’s obvious problems created the perfect conditions for change. The landscape looks just momentous now.

Why has it got to this point now?

The big clubs have been playing the European Super League card twice a decade for half a century and it has nearly always resulted in UEFA granting them more of what they want. The sensible money is still on that being the outcome this time but the rich know they might never have a hand this strong again.

Despite the popular cries to just “let them go”, UEFA knows that will hurt everyone else, too. For example, some of Europe’s smaller footballing nations are kept afloat by the money the governing body earns from its most lucrative annual competition. Even the Premier League, the game’s richest domestic league, understands that size really does matter when it comes to TV contracts, so you cannot just wave your biggest draws off and expect the world to continue like before.

The elite know this, so they will push for that little bit more. They have got the changes to the competition format they wanted and they have even carved out two extra invites for anyone in their peer group who suffers the indignity of not qualifying via performances at home the previous season. But now they want to run the competition, too.

During the 2018-19 season, the live match audience for Champions League football dropped from an average of two billion during the previous three-year cycle to 1.3 billion in the last campaign. In a single year under the current operators, therefore, the Champions League experienced a traditional television audience fall of 35 per cent. The Europa League also experienced a 17 per cent drop.

The elite clubs want to sell the broadcast rights, do the sponsorship deals and shape the next iteration of the competition’s development. And they do not want to share.

Who is driving the concept?

As far back as 2009, Real Madrid president Florentino Perez had his eyes set on establishing a new European competition. He said then: “We have to agree to a new European Super League which guarantees that the best always play the best — something that does not happen in the Champions League.”

This is at the heart of the plan. One former Manchester United board member, who worked with the Glazer family, tells The Athletic: “When the Glazers came in, they had the realisation that football at the highest level is a European game and to maximise the value of the asset, it must be maximised on the European stage.

“This, therefore, means more games against high calibre European opponents. It was clear from the conversations that the value, the growth and the future was to be found in more games such as Liverpool v Barcelona, which is sexier than Watford v Burnley, which will eventually run its course. This can’t be unexpected from American owners, to attempt to move the English football model to the American sports model. They would argue we do need to tip a wink to where the value is being created.”

The biggest drivers of the current Super League proposals are, according to multiple sources, Real Madrid, Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal. The clubs’ statement said that Perez would be the chairman of the league, while Manchester United’s Joel Glazer and Agnelli, the Juventus chairman would be vice-presidents. It was reported that Liverpool’s John W Henry, and Arsenal’s Stan Kroenke would also have vice-chairman roles.

Support elsewhere has come from Tottenham, who despite winning two significant trophies since 1991, are seen to be commercially appealing. The club’s impressive new stadium, combined with their exposure through an Amazon Prime documentary, a celebrity manager in Jose Mourinho and positive performance in the Champions League in recent years, has secured a place among the elite.

Several sources suggested a club such as Tottenham would be keen to sign up to the Super League as any breakaway would likely see the value of a club instantly rise. This is because elite level European football would be guaranteed as part of Super League membership and this, therefore, would enable the owners to sell the club at a higher price. Tottenham insist the club is not for sale.

Manchester City and Chelsea were later subscribers to the plan and City’s positioning is particularly ironic as the club have long complained that the majority of “super clubs” in Europe have conspired to limit the club’s spending and squeeze them out of the established elite. The possible participation of Chelsea and City has been described by sources as more out of a desire not to be left behind, than a fervent desire to lead the charge.

In Spain, Barcelona’s debt is in excess of €1 billion while Real Madrid’s own debt is in excess of €900 million. In a Covid world that has decimated growth and revenue streams, the windfall of the Super League has an obvious pull.

The Italian trio of clubs are later on the trail and sources in Italy explained on Sunday that their position has been informed by the struggles experienced by the Serie A in negotiating their latest domestic television deal. After much wrangling, Serie A signed with DAZN, the sport streaming service owned by billionaire Leonard Blavatnik. However, the €2.5 billion deal, worth €840 million per season to broadcast the majority of games between 2021 and 2024, represented a drop on previous TV deals.

However, the stance of Juventus chairman Agnelli has stunned European football this weekend. Until his explosive resignation on Sunday night, Agnelli was a member of UEFA’s Executive Committee and he was the chairman of the European Club Association (ECA). The ECA is a body made of 246 clubs but these range from HJK Helsinki to Barcelona. As chairman of the ECA, it was his responsibility to defend the interests of member clubs. As such, it is remarkable that Agnelli appears to have sided with a breakaway set that threatens the future of established European competitions such as the Champions League, Europa League, as well as the UEFA Conference League, which had been due to begin next season.

Manchester United’s Woodward is also on the ECA board, along with Arsenal’s Vinai Venkatesham and AC Milan’s Ivan Gazidis. All are expected to resign or be removed for the perceived treachery. Gazidis was formerly the CEO of Arsenal and on Sunday, several sources suggested that Arsenal’s former Head of Football Raul Sanllehi had been involved as an intermediary between discussions. He did not comment when approached.

On Sunday evening, the ECA held an emergency meeting but representatives of Super League clubs did not join the call. Ajax’s Edwin Van Der Sar hosted the meeting and they were joined by PSG and Bayern Munich. UEFA had publicly thanked the French and German clubs earlier in the day for resisting the temptation to join the rebels.

Within the ECA, there is fury at Agnelli and Woodward’s perceived betrayal and many clubs feel let down after the ECA decided only on Friday to support the UEFA proposals at Monday’s meeting. Indeed, on a call with investors in October, Woodward had dismissed suggestions United may be part of a breakaway group and insisted the club were dedicated to working with UEFA on reforms to European club competitions.

Agnelli, in particular, has been the subject of scorn this weekend. Agnelli has long been seen as a close ally of Ceferin, to the extent that the latter is the godfather of Agnelli’s daughter. Yet this weekend, multiple sources claim Ceferin has been unable to get hold of his friend. One source says: “Ceferin thought Agnelli would stand with him on the breakaway proposal and yesterday he just could not get hold of him, for all his trying.”

A second contact at a leading European club added: “This whole battle now is Ceferin v Agnelli: they are having the most public arm wrestle imaginable.”

Others have been utterly scathing of Agnelli’s approach and some club executives described the Italian as a “snake” for the manner in which he has appeared to double-cross UEFA and the ECA while joining the breakaway. Only last month, he had publicly described the Swiss-style reforms as “beautiful”.

In January, however, he had triggered concern at UEFA after hosting Madrid’s president Perez at La Continassa, the lavish 18th century building that Juventus recently renovated into their new headquarters. The two men spent three hours together and in hindsight, it feels like a seminal moment. This, after all, is Perez’s long-standing vision merging with the highly US-driven ambition of developing a fixed place in elite competitions for American-owned Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United.

On Sunday, reports emerged in Italy that DAZN, which owns the domestic Italian television rights, could become the broadcast partner of the new Super League but the company distanced itself from the story. The Athletic understands that Sky Sports has not been involved with Super League plotting. An extended segment of coverage both at half-time and full-time of Manchester United’s 3-1 victory over Burnley, in which pundits Neville, Roy Keane and Micah Richards delivered a scathing assessment of the plan, would appear to reaffirm that the broadcaster has little to gain from the development of a Super League.

In addition, several major broadcasters across the world are preparing to take legal action against clubs who take steps to devalue the domestic leagues. If, for example, a broadcaster has signed a five-year contract to cover the Premier League, it has done so under the impression that access to European competition will be a compelling narrative strand of the season. As such, any measures that would reduce the jeopardy and fundamentally alter the nature of the domestic leagues, would subsequently see clubs face demands for rebates.

“Broadcasters will take legal action,” insists a well-placed source. “They demanded rebates simply for fans not being in the stadium, so if the product is different, the rebates will be huge. It’s as though you’ve bought the rights to the Premier League and you have ended up with the Championship instead.”

Why have Bayern Munich and Paris Saint-Germain not joined the breakaway?

On the surface, a European Super League would appear to appeal to Bayern or PSG. Both have enjoyed sustained dominance of their domestic leagues and require greater exposure internationally to continue developing the brand of their respective clubs. In addition, the latest German domestic broadcast deal was five per cent down on the previous while a catastrophic television rights’ situation in France has left clubs staring at a £30-45m black hole this summer. As such, both clubs could, in theory, use the cash on offer in a Super League.

Yet on Sunday, it emerged quickly that last season’s Champions League finalists have concerns. Bayern have been more reserved but PSG insist they have no desire or interest in the plan as things stand and there was bewilderment that the English, Spanish and Italian clubs were prepared to go public with their plans while still failing to convince several of Europe’s most famous clubs to join the Super League. PSG’s concerns are multiple. While it is true they were approached by Real Madrid and Manchester United, several sources cited their discomfort over the idea of limiting access to the elite competitions to a closed shop of clubs. One senior source at PSG warned that European football “cannot only be for the super-rich.”

PSG are also worried that the initial novelty of a Super League may wear off after a couple of seasons while sources also said the involvement of breakthrough clubs such as Atalanta or Leicester City must be protected if football’s competitive spirit is to be maintained. On a more personal level, PSG’s President, Nasser al-Khelaifi, is a member of the UEFA board and also the ECA. Sources close to the PSG President insisted on Sunday he would be reluctant to publicly knife Ceferin in the manner that Agnelli has been accused of doing by some of his peers.

Al-Khelaifi also heads up beIN Media Group, the Qatari television networks that has the rights to broadcast UEFA’s Champions League. This tournament would of course be grossly devalued should a Super League emerge independently of UEFA. “Nasser has his critics,” explains one friend of the President, “But he is a very loyal person. He is not a two-faced [oops]. He is friends with Ceferin and has been on the UEFA board for a long time. If you are Nasser’s friend, he looks out for you. So, yes, there is a personal loyalty to Ceferin but also integrity to his job on the board of UEFA.”

Both PSG and Bayern are conscious of the impact on their own domestic leagues and that public opinion is firmly against a breakaway movement. One source in the United States, who has worked with both clubs, said the opposition is also rooted in a fear the Super League would not be as successful as its advocates propose. “It’s like Brexit Day,” says one critic. “The bus says ‘Look at the £350m, it will be amazing’ but it turns it is a big lie and economically, you are out of your own domestic league and you are screwed.”

The calculation from the twelve clubs who have signed up is, if they break away from UEFA, then PSG, Bayern and Dortmund will have no choice but to eventually join them as they will be left to play in a diluted competition. Yet this would now be a substantial and controversial U-turn. In France, for example, the office of President Emmanuel Macron has praised the resistance shown by French clubs in repelling the advances of the Super League.

Yet now the twelve clubs have gone public, we will discover the extent of the resistance.

What happens to the Premier League?

The Premier League has, by now, become accustomed to the posturing of the self-styled Big Six sides. For several years, the six leading clubs have held their own talks, sometimes even scurrying into a huddle among themselves during Premier League meetings. Tensions surfaced last year over Manchester United and Liverpool’s Project Big Picture document but this latest development is the most severe threat to the hegemony of the Premier League as the dominant domestic league in world football.

The Premier League’s extraordinary broadcast deals have grown due to the competitive nature of the league, which currently sees Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham all residing outside of the Champions League places.

As such, it is easy to understand why under-performing clubs want a guarantee of qualification to an elite European tournament. However, clubs outside of the Big Six, particularly upwardly mobile outfits such as Leeds, West Ham, Aston Villa, Leicester and Everton, have ambitions of breaking into the top four and securing elite European football.

The Super League plan would render domestic performance as irrelevant. As such, even if Arsenal finish 10th this season, they would join the Super League if it were to begin in August whereas Leeds could, theoretically, finish second next season but not enter the Super League. The rules on qualification for the five spare places in the Super League remain a mystery.

In a letter sent out to Premier League clubs, Masters warned that Premier League rules forbid clubs from entering competitions without the prior permission of the Premier League board. Masters warned he could not envisage a situation by which this permission would be granted. On Sunday, Premier League officials were struggling to make sustained contact with representatives of the Big Six. One source close to Masters said: “This will either make him or it will break him. This isn’t his fault. But it’s become his problem. And it will be hard for him to fix.”

In a remarkable intervention on Sunday evening, Ferguson, the most successful manager in Premier League history, told Reuters: “Talk of a Super League is a move away from 70 years of European club football. Both as a player for a provincial team Dunfermline in the 1960s and as a manager at Aberdeen winning the European Cup Winners’ Cup, for a small provincial club in Scotland it was like climbing Mount Everest. Everton are spending £500 million to build a new stadium with the ambition to play in Champions League. Fans all over love the competition as it is. In my time at United, we played in four Champions League finals and they were always the most special of nights. I’m not sure Manchester United are involved in this, as I am not part of the decision making process.”

Sources close to the situation said that Ferguson’s comments did not overly trouble the decision-makers or disturb the desire of the top brass among the founding clubs on Sunday evening.

It was Ferguson’s first public intervention on a live issue affecting United since his retirement as manager in 2013. Everton manager Carlo Ancelotti has previously condemned plans for a Super League. He told The Athletic: “For me, the Super League cannot happen. We have the Champions League. It’s enough, right? The Champions League pits the best against the best already. But the future of football must value national (domestic) competitions more.”

What happens next?

Well, UEFA’s aspirations of securing its competition reforms today appear to be in ruins. UEFA had been working around the clock during the weekend to lean on clubs and get them back on side. Ceferin, a source said, is “not a panicky guy”, before adding: “This has shaken UEFA to the core.”

There will be enormous blowback. The Tottenham Hotspur Supporters’ Trust issued a statement on Sunday night in which it accused the club’s board of being “prepared to risk the Club’s reputation and its future in the opportunistic pursuit of greed” and that the club risked being expelled from English league football and its players banned from international competition, “And yet the current owners — mere custodians of a 139-year-old institution — are prepared to risk it all for avarice and self-aggrandisement. We demand the Board immediately disassociates itself from the breakaway league.”

The criticism is likely to follow from the media, to former players and likely current managers and players too. There will, inevitably, be a great deal of threats.

UEFA issued a joint statement with the Premier League, La Liga and Serie A in which in confirmed that “the clubs concerned will be banned from playing in any other competition at domestic, European or world level, and their players could be denied the opportunity to represent their national teams.”

FIFA reacted later and with less condemnation but did say that it “can only express its disapproval to a “closed European breakaway league” outside of the international football structures.”

One source close to the situation concluded: “This is existential for UEFA. They are obsolete and they lose everything if this passes. Internally, there is still a feeling UEFA will make a deal just about good enough to get over the line. But only because that is what always happened before. If they don’t strike a deal, it is heading for one place — the courts.”

I am sickened by Liverpool backing shameless breakaway — fans will not tolerate it

Jamie Carragher

All I have heard from Liverpool this year is how much they have missed their fans.

Funny how the voices on the Kop matter only when it is most convenient.

The more I read about the European super league proposals, the more it seems Liverpool’s owners must like empty stadiums because all they have done is raise the likelihood of another mass walkout.

Liverpool’s game with Leeds on Monday night could not be better timed to expose the insanity of the closed-shop idea.

It is a game with potentially massive ramifications for Champions League qualification, full of jeopardy, and hence drama.

Millions will tune in for that reason, emotions running high whatever the result. The same anxious excitement will accompany all of Liverpool’s remaining seven games, which is why the broadcasters pay millions for them.

That is the beauty of league football – where every action and point matters. That is why, as a former Liverpool player, it sickens me that my club’s reputation is being damaged by the arrogance of an ownership group that wants to remove such peril, creating a culture where we no longer need to fight to earn our success. That is the antithesis of everything I understand football – especially in my city – to stand for.

To be tainted by association with the European super league is bad enough, but Liverpool’s apparent leading role in threatening football’s competitive ideals – the very ideals which allowed the club to emerge from England’s second division to become six-time European champions – is a betrayal of a heritage they are seeking to cash in on.

Manchester United’s shameless capitalism does not surprise me. United fans will agree that from day one, the Glazers have never hidden the fact they bought the club for the cash. They summed up their contempt for United fans when introducing a system forcing season-ticket holders to pay additional fees for cup matches.

But John W Henry is more cunning, courting fans’ groups in his early years and presenting himself as keen to engage, yet consistently failing to grasp the culture of the Kop. I was among the paying season-ticket holders who walked out in disgust when Liverpool tried to charge £77 for match tickets in 2016, and only last summer the club were forced to backtrack on their attempts to claim taxpayer funds for furloughed staff.

Arsenal, Manchester City, Chelsea and Spurs will also get rightly hammered for this. Those four always seem happy hiding behind Liverpool and United when the flak is flying.

Whenever these radical schemes emerge, it is an opportunity for everyone to pile in, accusing the so-called “elite” of self-interest. True as that is, the moralistic intervention of Uefa, the Football Association, national leagues and whatever government minister is after a few votes is laughable.

“It’s all about money. It’s all about greed,” they say. Wow. These organisations would jump on any passing gravy train if they thought it would make them richer.

Football, at every level of the professional game, is about money. The notion of English football being a meritocracy at the summit has been a myth since the Premier League formed, with only Blackburn Rovers (bankrolled by Jack Walker) and Leicester City shocking the world. Only seven clubs have won the Premier League in 29 years.

The actions of Liverpool and United, especially, are grounded on a grievance that for too long they have been denied the chance to make more of what they could earn, blocked from using their global popularity to maximise all revenue opportunities.

But that can never justify efforts to destabilise the system without the backing of those they most need – the fans.

Football executives always make the mistake of believing they are the most influential force in football. They swiftly realise that without the supporters, they are weak and powerless.

Official Liverpool FC Statement:

Liverpool Football Club can confirm that we have joined Europe's leading clubs in agreeing to form a new competition, the European Super League.

A joint statement released by all 12 founding clubs can be found below, with further information being made available in due course.

We are committed to working with all stakeholders, particularly supporters, as plans for the competition develop.

Twelve of Europe’s leading football clubs have today come together to announce they have agreed to establish a new mid-week competition, the Super League, governed by its Founding Clubs.

AC Milan, Arsenal FC, Atlético de Madrid, Chelsea FC, FC Barcelona, FC Internazionale Milano, Juventus FC, Liverpool FC, Manchester City, Manchester United, Real Madrid CF and Tottenham Hotspur have all joined as Founding Clubs. It is anticipated that a further three clubs will join ahead of the inaugural season, which is intended to commence as soon as practicable.

Going forward, the Founding Clubs look forward to holding discussions with UEFA and FIFA to work together in partnership to deliver the best outcomes for the new League and for football as a whole.

The formation of the Super League comes at a time when the global pandemic has accelerated the instability in the existing European football economic model. Further, for a number of years, the Founding Clubs have had the objective of improving the quality and intensity of existing European competitions throughout each season, and of creating a format for top clubs and players to compete on a regular basis.

The pandemic has shown that a strategic vision and a sustainable commercial approach are required to enhance value and support for the benefit of the entire European football pyramid. In recent months extensive dialogue has taken place with football stakeholders regarding the future format of European competitions. The Founding Clubs believe the solutions proposed following these talks do not solve fundamental issues, including the need to provide higher-quality matches and additional financial resources for the overall football pyramid.

Competition Format

20 participating clubs with 15 Founding Clubs and a qualifying mechanism for a further five teams to qualify annually based on achievements in the prior season.
Midweek fixtures with all participating clubs continuing to compete in their respective national leagues, preserving the traditional domestic match calendar which remains at the heart of the club game.
An August start with clubs participating in two groups of ten, playing home and away fixtures, with the top three in each group automatically qualifying for the quarter finals. Teams finishing fourth and fifth will then compete in a two-legged play-off for the remaining quarter-final positions. A two-leg knockout format will be used to reach the final at the end of May, which will be staged as a single fixture at a neutral venue.
As soon as practicable after the start of the men’s competition, a corresponding women’s league will also be launched, helping to advance and develop the women’s game.

The new annual tournament will provide significantly greater economic growth and support for European football via a long-term commitment to uncapped solidarity payments which will grow in line with league revenues. These solidarity payments will be substantially higher than those generated by the current European competition and are expected to be in excess of €10 billion during the course of the initial commitment period of the Clubs. In addition, the competition will be built on a sustainable financial foundation with all Founding Clubs signing up to a spending framework. In exchange for their commitment, Founding Clubs will receive an amount of €3.5 billion solely to support their infrastructure investment plans and to offset the impact of the COVID pandemic.

Florentino Pérez, President Real Madrid CF and the first Chairman of the Super League said:

“We will help football at every level and take it to its rightful place in the world. Football is the only global sport in the world with more than four billion fans and our responsibility as big clubs is to respond to their desires.”

Backing the new European league, Andrea Agnelli, Chairman of Juventus and Vice-Chairman of the Super League said:

“Our 12 Founder clubs represent billions of fans across the globe and 99 European trophies. We have come together at this critical moment, enabling European competition to be transformed, putting the game we love on a sustainable footing for the long-term future, substantially increasing solidarity, and giving fans and amateur players a regular flow of headline fixtures that will feed their passion for the game while providing them with engaging role models.”

Joel Glazer, Co-Chairman of Manchester United and Vice-Chairman of the Super League said:

“By bringing together the world’s greatest clubs and players to play each other throughout the season, the Super League will open a new chapter for European football, ensuring world-class competition and facilities, and increased financial support for the wider football pyramid.”

European Super League: 'I'm disappointed and disgusted' - Danny Murphy

As a boy, I watched Liverpool winning the league title and European Cup and dreamed of doing the same myself.

When I became a Liverpool player, I wanted to win the things those teams had done, to show I was as good as they were.

That history, that tradition - all of those things that have grown since Liverpool Football Club formed in 1892 - would disappear if they joined this proposed breakaway European Super League and were banned from the Premier League.

Everything that makes Liverpool the institution it is would be lost. If they leave domestic competition for this, what happens to the decades-long rivalry with Manchester United over who has won the most titles?

Do the things that mattered when I put on that red shirt suddenly not matter any more? Where do they go?

I am retired now, but it will be the same for current Liverpool players, and all those at the other English clubs involved - United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester City and Tottenham.

They have been dreaming of winning the titles and trophies they grew up with, that they are competing for right now, because they mean so much.

They won't wake up tomorrow and think 'well all I want to do is win a stagnated European Super League'.

The plans, which were officially announced on Sunday night, sound soulless.

It is beyond belief, actually, that they can think they can put this idea forward with the thought it will just be brought in smoothly and have everyone accept it.

That is just a complete lack of understanding about our game, our traditions, what we love about football and what is in our hearts when we watch it and play the game.

We've already seen strong opposition from leagues and federations who would be affected, and fans as well. Next, I think we will see a backlash from managers and players too.

When I look at the proposals, and also the consequences if you are part of them, then from a players' point of view, I just don't see the appeal at all.

Part of the joy of being a player is the rewards you get for your success on the pitch - you earn it, individually and collectively. This way, you don't get any of that. You would just get a closed shop every season, playing the same clubs every time.

It sounds sterile and boring. Players don't want that, they want to be tested. If there are no incentives, there will be no intensity. What is left for you to play for?

You're also being told you can no longer play for your country if you are part of this. Again, that's what you dream of doing as a kid, so I just don't see many footballers agreeing to that, which actually gives me hope that this whole idea will quickly fall apart.

When news of the breakaway plans came through on Sunday, my reaction was the same as I'd expect from most people who love football - disappointment and disgust at the greed that is behind the idea.

The intention here has nothing to do with the love of football or progressing the game, it is just about money.

By signing up for this, you are changing everything. If the big six go down this road and leave the Premier League, it dismantles the whole pyramid which makes English football brilliant, and has been the bedrock of our game for generations.

That's what has shocked me. Not the idea itself, because it has been talked about for years, but that there are actually people within the hierarchies at the big clubs who aren't intelligent enough to understand how damaging this could be.

I'm open-minded enough to look at any ideas for football's future and consider the pros and cons of any changes, but I simply don't see any positives here.

As well as being guaranteed involvement every season, the clubs involved must think they will be able to sell the broadcast rights for these big games and get more money than they do now out of the Champions League and domestic competitions.

But I think they are naive, because I don't think there is an appetite to see the same fixtures every season, whoever is involved.

Some of the clubs involved who have got owners from the United States might like that model, which works in sports over there. That doesn't matter, though, because it doesn't work for English football.

Fans don't want to see that, they want excitement. They want to see their team respond to disappointment, and fight to reach the next level, and get the rewards that follow that success.

So to make it a closed shop, with no ins and outs unless the member clubs decide it, goes against the whole nature of football. It's not beneficial, and it's not sustainable.

If these plans go through, they will have huge repercussions for football in this country and beyond, but my hope is that they are dealt with properly, and in unison, by everyone who does have the game's best interests at heart.

I just hope this is not allowed to escalate, because the more I think about it, the more nonsensical it gets.

From a user called @james_corbett on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/james_corbett/status/1352652214272217088

Evertonian, author, founder @decoubertin
. Roving correspondent for http://offthepitch.com. Debut novel, The Outsiders, published by Lightning Books in May.

---

I was sent a copy of the so-called Super League document earlier today and have spent the afternoon doing some number crunching on it.

A few key takeaways

The plan would guarantee massive income to a 15 club elite and cement financial gaps not only between those competing in the Super league and those not, but within it.

The plan envisages one off payments of up to €350 million to the fifteen founder members, but only six clubs would receive the full amount with five of the initial members receiving just €100 or €112.5 million.

The 15 breakaway clubs have generously deigned to allow 5 merit based qualifiers each season. But the system is totally skewed against them. They have no say in running the Super League and are entirely excluded from a commercial pot worth 15% of income

Moreover, there is an 'equal' share of revenue that is not equal at all. The qualifiers are excluded from half of this pot of money (worth around €1.85 BILLION)

At the same time, the organisers have shown their contempt for rewarding sporting success. You get given a ton of money for playing (about €180m for the group stage), but prize money is quite small - worth perhaps €30m extra for winning it. Which is small change, really

If you win the Champions League, by contrast, you earn about €120million - or 300% more than just making the group stage

At the same time, if, say Leicester or Everton, were to qualify and actually win it - despite everything being skewed against them - they would earn around half the amount Barca or Real would be guaranteed JUST FOR COMPETING IN THE GROUP STAGE

Essentially this has been devised by a cabal of greedy, stupid and desperate individuals who care nothing about football,competitiveness or the sustainability of the game. It will kill domestic football and create a boring spectacle skewed in favour of a Super League 'big 6'

FIFA are completely correct in offering every sanction going, and I hope that at the next Premier League board meeting or ECA gathering the people behind this are treated with the same contempt as they were for the equally risible 'Project Big Picture'

A lot of hysteria because a few fat cats want to get fatter and other fat cats (uefa, fifa, premier league) are up they will not get fatter as well.

Lets be honest aside from Man Utd, Man City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs. How many other premier league teams have consistently played in the CL for more than 1 season?

zero, so why are they getting butt hurt about the CL teams deciding to play in a close shop league?

its not as if West Ham. palace, wolves made millions from CL football.

As for kicking the 6 teams out of the prem, will the lucrative TV deals be available for the Prem if the highest match will be Everton vs Leeds.


I'm surprised Everton were not offered a place as the Euro league will have the Manchester, London, Milan, RM/AM derbies but the Merseyside derby will die a death.

No matter how money hungry FIFA or UEFA are - they have never presided over closed-shop tournaments where elite clubs play with no system of meritocracy. In the history of football, whether it's the premier league, the Champion's league, the World Cup, any domestic cup tournament, each team gets there on merit. Every professional city team, no matter how lowly, has a chance to rise through the ranks and earn a spot in the top leagues and tournaments. This is a 120 year tradition around most of the world - but this SuperLeague will destroy all that. The fans will suffer, the lower league teams will fold, and tournaments without merit will quickly become sterile and meaningless. I can't believe I have to explain this to people.

It beggar's belief how excruciatingly poor your logic is. West Ham are about to earn a CL spot for the first time in their history - but will be excluded from the superleague in favour of Spurs and Arsenal, who are 7th and 9th respectively. Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest have won more European cups than half the teams 'elected' for the superleage. There is no defence - this is a mockery of sporting competition - and you are delusional in your response (as usual!).

I'm not defending anything, I just find it ironic when one group of fat cats get upset about other fat cats wanting to be greedier.

The so called ethics of the Premier league and groups against this league are 2 faced as well.

Where were they hiding when Bury went under, Bolton went bankrupt etc etc Not a single Premier league owner gave 2 figs.

Laughable now.