A tidal wave, which was expected to be devastating at the beginning of the week following the announcement of the creation of the Super League by 12 founding clubs (Real Madrid, FC Barcelona, Atletico Madrid, AC Milan, Inter Milan, Juventus, Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham), has finally dissipated, leaving behind some very deep wounds.
The aim of this semi-closed and dissident league is clearly lucrative. Its president, Florentino Perez, has not tried to hide it. “The big European clubs of England, Italy and Spain had to provide a solution to face the bad situation that football is experiencing,” he declared, adding that “the only way to make money when you no longer have ticket sales is to increase TV broadcasts with big matches between big teams.”
For its part, the Champions League in its new format is not intended to be fruitless and without profits. An idea ardently defended by the UEFA president, the Slovenian Aleksander Čeferin, on the occasion of the confirmation of the new format by the executive committee on Monday 19 April.
“This development of the format will allow all clubs in Europe to continue to dream of participating in the UEFA Champions League thanks to the results achieved on the pitch and it will provide sustainability, prosperity and long-term growth for everyone in European football, not just for a small group of clubs,” he said.
However, Čeferin’s words do not contain the whole truth. This new format, which will now bring together 36 clubs instead of 32 in a championship composed of 4 pots of 9 teams to set clashes over 10 matches with 5 different opponents before moving on to the eighth, aims above all to increase the number of matches from 96 to 180 matches per season, as many as those offered by the famous Super League.
Moreover, more matches mean more television rights and, above all, more money. An equation that is at the heart of the thinking of football decision-makers not only on the old continent, but also at the global level. This is evidenced by the FIFA Club World Cup, announced on March 15, 2019 by its president Gianni Infantino, which tends to expand the number of participating teams to 24 for revenues that can reach nearly 25 billion dollars.
Theoretically, the project of a “Super League” is not new. A first unsuccessful attempt, launched by Silvio Berlusconi at the height of his club AC Milan’s growth in the late 80s, nevertheless led to the reform of the European Champions Clubs’ Cup to give birth to the Champions League in 1992 as we know it today.
Like his successor at the helm of Real Madrid, Perez, Lorenzo Sanz, accompanied by a company specializing in TV rights, had tried in 1998 to revive the idea of a format with 36 teams, three groups and 18 founding clubs, but which only resulted in another minimal reform consisting of playing two group stages. An idea that was quickly abandoned in 2003.
This recent attempt with a purely financial aim, even aborted before its realization following the withdrawal of the Premier League clubs followed by Atletico Madrid and the two Milan clubs, forced the European body to review its model of the Champions League and especially to revalue it with an initial budget estimated at 4.5 billion euros and which could reach 7 billion.
This football earthquake has not only shaken the European sports scene, but also the politicians who rushed to the aid of UEFA and the national leagues, in contradiction with the principles so defended by the latter who campaign for respect for the neutrality of sport by refusing any form of political interference.
“Plans for a European Super League would be hugely damaging to football and we support the football authorities in their action. They would strike at the heart of domestic football and cause concern for fans across the country. The clubs concerned must answer to their fans and the wider football community before taking this further,” British Prime Minister Boris Johnson responded on Twitter, putting more pressure on the English clubs who ultimately gave up on the Super League.
The question is how the main stakeholders, the players, the coaches and the fans, will react? Most of them demonstrated to defend the right of all teams to hope to play in the Champions League, a competition based on merit and not an elitist league that hopes to enrich the big ones at the expense of the small ones.
This has not prevented some from expressing their dismay towards traditional authorities who in turn do not hesitate to seek more profit for their entities without worrying about the player and his physical and moral health.
“If they really cared about the players, they wouldn’t have made us travel so much during the pandemic. I didn’t like the threats at the time, it wasn’t nice to hear them as a player. I think if 12 clubs carried out this project, it’s because there is a need for change in football. I don’t know if it would have been the right project, but it’s normal to talk about a change to save football,” retorted Juventus’ Brazilian player Danilo.
Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola, meanwhile, openly criticised the new busy Champions League schedule, saying: “We play because people demand it. Players love to play, but sometimes they get injured. UEFA know that, but do they care? Absolutely not. It’s more games, more competitions. I can’t coach the players, I just manage the team.
“The Super League is no longer on the table. That’s good, very good. But that doesn’t mean the new Champions League is great… The only people who are never asked for anything are the coaches, the players and the fans,” said German coach Jurgen Klopp, sharing the same concern as his Catalan colleague.
Sure, the Super League has been more or less buried for now, but the shadow of a resurrection will always haunt European football and undoubtedly world football. If football is the opium of the people, what money has undone, money can remake!
2024-09-23 09:14:26