The latest in the Super League fallout sees three rebel clubs angry with UEFA amid threats of a ban. Gab Marcotti breaks down what is happening.
The Super League saga rumbles on. On Wednesday, ESPN reported that UEFA were prepared to begin disciplinary proceedings against clubs that did not formally withdraw from the Super League that could result in a maximum of a two-year ban from European competitions. On Friday evening, UEFA released a statement announcing “reintegration measures” for nine of the 12 clubs involved in the Super League (including Manchester United, Arsenal and Chelsea) who agreed to — among other things — formally abandon the project and commit to UEFA competitions such as the Champions League. The next morning, the three clubs excluded from that deal — Juventus, Barcelona and Real Madrid — issued their own joint statement in which they complained of “third-party pressures, threats and offences,” reiterated their reasons for launching the Super League in the first place, and insisted that court rulings already exist stopping UEFA and FIFA from taking any immediate disciplinary action against them. It’s a messy situation, so here’s a Q&A to unpack it. Q: Why did UEFA and the nine clubs agree to these measures? A: UEFA obviously wants the clubs playing in the Champions League because they generate a big chunk of revenue for the organization. And that’s important because UEFA redistributes more than 90% of the revenues to clubs, member associations and other stakeholders. It’s an elected body and if, for whatever reason, it can’t deliver those funds to its stakeholders, its leaders aren’t doing their jobs… and can get voted out. At the same time, UEFA couldn’t just welcome the clubs back as if nothing had happened, with the risk of finding itself in the same position in a year or two. It was important that it get a firm commitment, and this agreement includes a €100 million ($120m) fine if clubs “seek to play” in an “unauthorized competition” like a future super league. Plus, as a “gesture of goodwill,” the nine clubs will contribute €15m ($18.2m) in total for youth and grassroots projects and will be fined 5% of whatever they earn from UEFA club competitions for one season. It’s hard to say how much that will be, and it will vary from club to club because it depends on performance and size of market, but it could be anywhere from €1m to €8m. That should add up to perhaps €30m in total, which will also be redistributed. Q: OK, so on average it might end up costing each of the “rebel” clubs maybe around €3m to €4m each… that doesn’t sound like a lot. Is that why they took the deal? A: I think so. Right now, these clubs are hurting financially because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and there was little point in UEFA trying to squeeze them further. Even that €100m fine is more for show, because if they were to simply break away and quit, I’m not sure how legally enforceable it would be. But it matters to the clubs to be back in the fold, especially the six Premier League clubs, given how forceful their fans’ reaction was. Now they can move on. – Marcotti, Ogden: Super League fallout: UEFA, Champions League reform again? – Olley: Premier League after Super League collapse: Big Six facing legal issues? – Lowe: How Spain reacted to Barcelona, Real Madrid, Atletico split Q: As of Wednesday, you reported that only seven clubs — the six English ones, plus Atletico Madrid — had agreed the deal. What changed for the other two, Milan and Inter? Was it the threat of a ban from European competition? A: They felt — as the three holdouts still do — that they were on pretty solid ground legally. I just think the screws turned on them. One person I spoke to described it like those cop movies where they separate the suspects, stick them in different rooms and try to get them to confess and turn on their friends by telling them that the other suspects are about to testify against them.
