European Super Greedy League

Twelve of Europe's top soccer clubs made headlines last night when they announced that they were forming the "Super League," a new competition featuring only the biggest, richest, most well-known clubs that would effectively render the Champions League meaningless.  It only involved teams from England, Spain and Italy, with three of the 15 spots for "founding members" left vacant (presumably for Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund and either Leipzig or PSG).

The reaction was swift and, predictably, not good.  UEFA responded by saying that those teams would be banned from the Champions League, while FIFA said their players could be barred from participating with their national teams in the Euros and World Cup.  The Premier League hasn't signed on, either, and the remaining 14 Premier League teams are brainstorming ways to take action.  It's also notable that all of the German clubs are out.  In fact, they're committed to the Champions League and have no interest in breaking away from UEFA.

All of these responses pretty much called out the Super League for exactly what it is.  A money and power grab by the teams that are already the richest and most influential in Europe.  They don't like that they don't have control of the Champions League, so their solution is doing their own thing separate from UEFA.  It's very similar by all of the (so far unsuccessful) attempts by the Power 5 conferences to split with the NCAA.

Naturally, those not involved in the Super League didn't mince words.  La Liga called it a "selfish, egotistical proposal designed to further enrich the already super rich."  They're not wrong!  Sevilla, perhaps the most prominent Spanish team not included, shared the sentiments of the German clubs with their "complete rejection of a tournament based exclusively on economic parameters."  Porto and Ajax are among the other notable European clubs that are completely opposed to the idea.

Perhaps most significantly, so are the fans.  The fans have also had choice words for the billionaire owners, calling the Super League the "ultimate betrayal" and "cynical greed."  Fans are particularly unhappy that this was all done behind their backs, which is seen as further proof that the owners don't actually care about them.  The owners are acting in their own self-interest while ignoring what their supporters want and their own history.

This is 100 percent a case of the rich trying to get richer.  The President of Real Madrid (who also happens to be the President of the Super League) basically said as much in an interview with Spanish TV.  His argument was that they'll bring in more money by playing each other every week instead of the smaller clubs from smaller nations they face in the Champions League group stage.  What he conveniently didn't mention is that they wouldn't have to share any of it.

He didn't do himself any favors with that interview, either.  He blamed the pandemic and the resulting lost revenue as proof that they needed to do something about "this very bad situation that football is in."  He added, "We don't want the big clubs to be richer and the small teams to be more poor."  Except that's exactly what'll happen if the Super League actually comes to be.

Frankly, it's extremely arrogant.  The big clubs know exactly what they're doing.  It's no coincidence that they made their announcement the day before UEFA announced long-awaited changes to the Champions League.  Those changes will obviously be moot without the top English, Spanish and Italian teams in the competition.  And no one will even be talking about the Champions League when the Super League is still dominating the news cycle!

It's true that the bigger clubs bring in more money, and their argument that they deserve a bigger slice of the pie isn't completely unfounded.  But their "solution" doesn't fix any of the problems they claim to be concerned about.  In fact, it would make them worse.  Although, they don't actually care since they'd all get much richer.

UEFA makes most of its money from the Champions League.  It then distributes that money to the national associations, who run the domestic leagues.  More importantly, they also use those funds for, among other things, grassroots programs that grow the game, while giving the clubs their share, too.

Now imagine a Champions League that doesn't include any of the biggest clubs in England, Spain or Italy!  (It's also hard to imagine the Super League succeeding without the German teams, so for argument's sake, let's have them and PSG join the Super League as well.)  Who would want to watch that?  Which means significantly less revenue for UEFA.  Which means significantly less money for them to distribute.  No worry for the Super League clubs, though, since they'd have their own independent revenue stream!

What struck me the most about the Super League was the idea that it'll be a 20-team competition, but the 15 founding clubs would be "permanent" members, with some sort of qualifying system for the other five spots each year.  So, even though they claim it's not, the Super League isn't merit-based.  It's a closed system more similar to American sports.  But isn't that their main complaint about MLS?  That there's no promotion and relegation?

That's perhaps the biggest criticism they've received from the clubs that wouldn't have that protected status.  They see it as incredibly elitist.  Beyond that, though, they're offended by the idea of teams having automatic berths without having to do anything.  It's the complete opposite of how every other competition works, where you have to earn your place through your results.

I have a feeling they knew this would be the reaction.  Which is why I don't think this is a completely done deal.  They've said they want to start the Super League "as soon as possible," but they need to get a lot of people on board first.  Starting with their own fans.  Because otherwise, the Super League is bound to fail.  And possibly take all of European soccer down with it.