The Cry for Help in a Broken System
It has been written a lot about the proposed European Super League over the last week. What should have changed football forever, ultimately collapsed within 48 hours. And there are many reasons for that which have been discussed extensively - whether it’s about the Mickey Mouse PR strategy or the strong voice of the fans.
However, just because the project failed now, doesn’t mean it’s never going to come up again. On the contrary, the underlying problems of these clubs have built up over years. They are the result of an unsustainable system and they are not just going to evaporate.
Why there are good reasons for a Super League
If we take a step back, there are actually comprehensible reasons for the European Super League - at least from some of the 12 clubs’ points of view. And these reasons go beyond sheer greed for more money.
In fact, some of these clubs desperately need money. They are simply not financially sustainable managed and operate with huge losses. In 2019/2020, the 12 clubs lost a combined €1.4 billion before player sales. And that was for a season where only the last 3 months were impacted by COVID. When it comes to total debt, this sum increases to €8.5 billion. These numbers might give a feeling why Florentino Perez says that the pandemic has accelerated his plans.
When talking about the clubs’ financial difficulties, it does make sense to view the clubs’ incentives separately. Despite their losses, the Premier League clubs still have massive TV deals and wealthy owners. There situation is not good, but there’s no urgent necessity to act. However, at least the American owners, are keen on growing their “asset”. They want to maximize revenues, eliminate risk and thereby raise the values of their clubs.
For the Spanish and Italian clubs, things look a little different. They don’t have the financial backing the Premier League clubs do, but they have similar debts. In The Athletic, former Real Madrid president, Ramón Calderón, is quoted:
“For him (Perez), it (Super League) is absolutely necessary. We (Madrid) need to invest a huge amount of money and we have not got it. We have a loan but, as everyone knows, this kind of work on a stadium always triple from the initial price.”
While Barcelona’s finances have been discussed extensively, Milan’s and Juve’s financial situation is not bright either. So, is it really a surprise that Barca, Real, Juve, and Milan are the clubs that still stand with the Super League?!
What all of these clubs agree on is that the current football ecosystem doesn’t work. These clubs are part of an unsustainable race to the top. This race has caused costs to rise more than revenues. It’s like a reinforcing feedback loop that triggers a vicious cycle. Consequently, the proposed cap of 55% of revenues permitted to be spent on salaries and transfers doesn’t come as a surprise either. It’s a desperate try to balance and regulate a broken system.
The financial juggernaut that is the Premier League has inflated salaries around Europe. It has placed Real Madrid, Barcelona and the rest at a disadvantage in the transfer market. It has forced them to build up mountains of debt, leaving teams that believe themselves to be in soccer’s front rank facing a second-class future. — Rory Smith
Perez’s & Agnelli’s alleged arguments
When explaining the reasons behind the Super League, both, Agnelli and Perez tried everything they could to put a fine point on the idea. That the Super League is needed to save football and that the whole system benefits are arguably the most laughable.
Most of what they said was so ridiculous that it undermined the few points that actually have some truth. Here’s what Agnelli said about the fans:
“A third of the world’s football fans follow at least two clubs and it’s often the case that these are among the founders of the Super League. Ten per cent of them are fascinated by the world’s best players, not the clubs. And the most alarming stat of all: 40 per cent of people from 15 to 24 don’t have any interest in football.”
Especially the declining interest of the younger generations in live sports is undeniable. Many studies prove this. It’s an important challenge. Agnelli and Perez just sold it badly, proposing that shortening the games is going to be the solution. Consequently, no one took anything they said seriously.
Another argument Perez & Co. made is that they have the most fans and, thus, they generate the bulk of the revenue. In other words, they don’t want to give so much money to smaller clubs who only benefit from the big clubs’ attractiveness. In a capitalistic world, there’s a point to be made here. They are the most powerful clubs. They get the most attention. They create the most revenue. But does that mean, they should get all the money? In their eyes, it does. They view football purely from a business perspective. But that’s not what the football pyramid is all about.
The problem is that football has developed in a way that underlines and fosters their view. For years, these owners always seemed to get what they wanted. The system allowed it.
What did the 12 clubs achieve - if anything?
They certainly achieved a (not repairable?) damage of reputation. However, they also achieved that no one criticizes the UCL reform - at least not to the extent that it should be criticized. What is actually a terrible reform that heavily favors the big clubs is almost celebrated now.
It’s almost like the Decoy effect, in which there are two options: current UCL format or UCL reform. The vast majority was clearly against the new format. By adding a third option, the reform still doesn’t become more attractive than keeping the current format. But: Compared to the third option (Super League), the UCL reform, suddenly, doesn’t seem that bad anymore. It increases relatively in attractiveness. So, what we’re seeing is celebrating Chelsea fans while we should actually be discussing the pitfalls of the new format.
A new age of player empowerment?
One thing the Super League did certainly not intend to achieve is that players realize their leverage. While fans have long raised their voice, very few players spoke up - up to this point. Ander Herrera was one of the first players who publicly shared his feelings. Many others followed within the next days. And even after the Super League was canceled, Ilkay Gündogan, for example, complained about the new UCL format. So did Pep Guardiola already in January.
These statements alone won’t change anything. Especially not after the decisions are made. But if players can organize themselves, their say can increase massively. In his podcast Gab and Juls Show, Gabriel Marcotti appealed to the players to stand together and make themselves heard. To see what players can achieve when they act as a unit is shown by the NBA. Not long ago, players made a clear statement against racism by refusing to play. While these cases are not comparable for obvious reasons, they still show that players can express their opinion and leverage their influence.
What’s next?
The Super League appears to be dead for the foreseeable future. But: The problems remain unsolved. And there is no doubt that it’s only a matter of time until discussions come up again.
Again, it won’t only be about greed and minimizing the risk. These clubs have financial problems and they won’t just evaporate. It’s like a profitability case in which you have two levers: cut the costs or increase the revenue. Cutting the costs seems like the easiest way out. But these clubs and these executives are proud. While it’s unlikely that most of them will spend huge sums on the transfer market, they won’t accept saving measures at the cost of sporting success. That’s especially true as there are still clubs who can spend big money, such as Man City or Chelsea. No one will accept the risk of being left behind.
If cutting costs is not a long-term solution, we’re back at the revenue-lever. Maybe, the proposed club world cup can make them happy in the short term. However, in one way or the other, they will try to find new sources of revenue or increase their share in existing ones. As long as the system doesn’t change, these clubs won’t either.
A question worth asking is how this plan would have played out with a better strategy. Or put differently: What would have to happen for this idea to work out? If it’s approval by the UEFA, what would have to happen for that? What if they have a better strategy in place next time? What if, on another day at another time, Bayern and Paris would have said yes?
Fixing a broken system
The bottom line of this story is twofold. On the one hand, the whole football world stood together to prevent the Super League from happening. It has shown that these clubs can’t simply do what they want. I think there are a lot of positives to conclude from that. Also, the fact that the players raised their voices is a good sign.
On the other hand, however, I don’t believe that this Super League-thing is over by any chance. There’s so much that is wrong and unsustainable about the football system. People won’t change their behavior if the system stays the same. Perez & Co. are still convinced of their idea and they won’t give up so easily. They have problems. They will try it again. The question is when and how. And most importantly: How can this be prevented?