By David Owen
This moment had been coming for a long time.
It was in March 2018 that I wrote on this website that the prolonged spell of subdued revenue growth which was already in prospect “might lead to the big clubs becoming impatient and endeavouring to derive…growth in other ways”. Most immediately, I envisaged a renewed push by Premier League big boys for a greater share of international media rights income. I then added: “Such a scenario might also reinvigorate the spectre of that old chestnut, a breakaway league populated by the dozen or so European super clubs.”
Then coronavirus hit. Pre-tax losses run up by the 20 Premier League clubs, including the six England-based Super League founders, in 2019-20, the first season affected, are set to be within shooting-distance of £1 billion. That is equivalent to £1 million per club per week. That is not sustainable – and this is supposed to be the richest and most popular sport on earth.
Finally, on the other side of the coin, throw in that astonishingly lucrative new NFL media rights deal from a few weeks back and it seems almost inevitable that something like Sunday night’s Super League announcement should have happened.
Having said all that, nothing is yet set in stone. The holes in the Super League project, as currently outlined, are readily apparent. The most obvious is the absence of representatives from France and Germany, traditional engine of the post-war European project. Indeed, there is a profound geographical illogicality about a venture whose business model will depend on it being box office from Bogota to Beijing, yet whose Founding Clubs are clustered in just seven cities in three west European countries. The new edifice would have appeared much stronger with a broader geographic span and if all participants in the envisaged inaugural season had been named.
The likelihood now, with more cards thrown on the table than ever before in what has been an epic poker game stretching back a couple of decades, is that what will ensue is an intense, urgent period of discussion among heavy hitters about the future of the game.
Yes, a one-off shock – coronavirus – has exposed the present business model as unsustainable. But if the Premier League era has taught us anything it is that there is no guarantee that even a Super League would make its participants consistently profitable. It would reduce risk: the Founding Clubs would be assured a piece of club football’s juiciest pie year-in, year-out. But unless cost control is better, the only guarantee of profit is continually escalating revenues.
The political and public outcry will of course be enormous – it already is – and at a time when strong national government is seemingly back in fashion, it might be that formidable obstacles to a breakaway, or even a less radical restructuring, will be erected. One can be fairly sure, however, that Governments will not want to be backed into somehow subsidising a sport that is perceived as mega-rich.
Player reaction will probably be mixed. A breakaway might well have profound implications for the ability of all but the very best to make the sort of enviable living out of their skills that many have become accustomed to. But the rewards for the top playing and coaching talent would be huge, and it is frankly human nature for young footballers to aspire to the best for themselves and their families in what is a formidably unforgiving industry.
What about fans? Those with the most immediate influence over the course that events now take would appear to be those of the two Founding Clubs, Barcelona and Real Madrid, structured under the Spanish socio model. These days, locally-based supporters account for such a small proportion of the Big Clubs’ revenues that their protestations seem unlikely to cut much ice with owners who, in many cases, are themselves anything but local. If the Barcelona and Real socios came out in strident – and united – opposition, however, that would be a different kettle of fish.
One thing I keep hearing with which I disagree completely is that the closed nature of a breakaway league would in itself turn fans against it. Cricket’s IPL strikes me as a good precedent for arguing that this would not be the case – and the suits behind the new football project are not even having to go to the cost and trouble of building new team brands.
The position of Gianni Infantino’s FIFA in the coming power struggle will be fascinating to observe. Whereas a statement by UEFA and other directly affected bodies threatened that “as previously announced by FIFA and the six Confederations, 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”, the world governing body’s initial reaction was noticeably more emollient.
While expressing its “disapproval” to a “closed European breakaway league”, FIFA called on all parties involved to engage in “calm, constructive and balanced dialogue for the good of the game”. FIFA would “of course, do whatever is necessary to contribute to a harmonised way forward in the overall interests of football”. Of course.
It seems to me that whereas a new Super League poses a clear and mortal threat to the Champions League and affected national competitions, it could actually make the World Cup more valuable. This would be if it gave fans their only opportunity to witness and cheer on the sport’s superstars outside the rarefied environs of the new competition.
It could also, in a strange way, be the making of the Club World Cup, if this were to offer the best clubs from outside Europe a rare opportunity to measure forces against a breakaway posse of star-studded, uber-rich mega-teams.
To repeat, nothing is yet set in stone. But time will move a lot faster now.
Contact the writer of this story at moc.l1714932788labto1714932788ofdlr1714932788owedi1714932788sni@n1714932788ewo.d1714932788ivad1714932788