ECJ’s Super League judgement explained: UEFA, clubs, more

On Thursday, the European Court of Justice finally delivered its judgment in the case between the last European Super League clubs (Barcelona and Real Madrid) and UEFA and FIFA.

The Super League and its backers, A22 Sports, had argued that UEFA's ban on the potential competition, initially launched in April 2021, and its potential sanctions for participating clubs constituted an illegal monopoly under European football law. competition. Super League clubs argued that football governing bodies were abusing their dominant position as regulators and organizers of competitions by preventing clubs from forming their own tournaments outside the current framework of European football (Champions League, League Europa and Europa Conference League). The ECJ's judgment is binding and final.

The stakes were very high. A victory for UEFA and FIFA would quash any real attempt by clubs – many of which are private companies – to organize their own competitions and administer them as they see fit, without approval from governing bodies. A Super League victory would potentially open the door for clubs – not governing bodies – to decide who they want to play against, when they want to play and how to split the revenue.

– Stream on ESPN+: LaLiga, Bundesliga and more (US)

Now for the thing you want to know: who won? Well, the judgment fell somewhere in between, and it's complicated. Both sides claim victory to some extent. Let's try to make sense of it.

What do you mean, is it complicated? This statement seems clear to me: “FIFA and UEFA rules regarding the prior approval of club football competitions, such as the Super League, are contrary to EU law.”

Except that this does not come from the judgment, but from the press release from the European Court. If you read the judgment itself, it's a little different. Paragraph 144, for example, states that it is “legitimate” for any new tournament or competition to be subject to “common rules”. And these are “rules such as those put in place by FIFA and UEFA”. Lawyers, huh?

UEFA pointed out that what the judgment actually says is that there was effectively no adequate framework in 2021 (when clubs attempted to launch the Super League) and that the regulations they have introduced in 2022 “must be strengthened” to comply with Thursday’s judgment. and that they would do just that.

OK, so if UEFA sets new rules to comply with European law, they will be free at home? Would this mean UEFA could still approve new competitions?

It's not clear. To comply with this ruling, UEFA must have reasonable approval criteria that do not unduly penalize those wishing to organize new tournaments. So it's a question of knowing what these rules are.

If the court's decision essentially opens the door for clubs to do their own work, it is now a big loss for UEFA. But if they maintain significant control similar to what they currently have, then that's a win. The key takeaway here is that this fight for control won't take place in courtrooms amid legal mumbo jumbo – it's more about hearts and minds (and wallets too, of course).

How so?

Other Super League clubs and A-22 Sports, the company that represents them, cannot force anyone to join them. They have to persuade them that it would be a good idea, and I'm not sure that's easy.

It is no coincidence that at the UEFA press conference on Thursday after the ruling there was not only President Aleksander Ceferin, but rather a large number of stakeholders. There were representatives from the European Club Association (ECA, which brings together 220 of Europe's biggest clubs), the European Leagues (which includes 37 national leagues), FIFPRO (the umbrella organization for players' unions) and from La Liga president Javier Tebas.

The aim was to present a united front against the Super League, showing the world that those involved in the game are against it. And a number of clubs that were part of the original Super League have made statements distancing themselves from the Super League, including Manchester City, Manchester United, Tottenham, Chelsea, Atletico Madrid and Inter. Not forgetting Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund, Paris Saint-Germain (who refused to join in 2021) and many others.

What could change their minds?

This will take more than the A22 proposal presented on Thursday. Clubs should be confident that it would be in their best interests to do so and, more importantly, that their fans feel the same way, because ultimately they are their customers.

What about the rules put in place by some leagues, such as the Premier League, prohibiting clubs from joining unsanctioned leagues?

People make a big deal out of it. To begin with, according to the rules developed by UEFA, it may not be an unsanctioned league as we said above. Plus, it's the Premier League: the 20 clubs decide. If enough of them want to change the rules, they can.

The problem might be different if English football had an independent regulator, but we are not there yet and in any case, even with an independent regulator, if there is enough genuine popular will, it can obtain approval. But that's the thing: you saw the reaction, especially in England, last time. It's going to be extremely difficult to change people's minds. Especially since, given their enormous TV contract compared to clubs in other championships, Premier League teams have the least to gain.

So nothing is going to happen and today's decision is not important?

No, it's very important. The ECJ reaffirmed that UEFA, as a governing body, is both an organizer and regulator of competitions and also a commercial enterprise. As such, he has certain obligations to avoid abusing his de facto monopoly power – such as having reasonable criteria for clubs who, instead of participating in UEFA competitions, might wish to organize their own tournaments. It's new.

But I think Thursday's impact will be more subtle and, in some ways, signal a further shift in the balance of power in favor of the clubs.

play

Laurens predicts Super League format will take place under UEFA banner

Julien Laurens expects something very similar to the proposed Super League format to happen in conjunction with UEFA in a few years' time.

What do you mean?

Every few years, UEFA must negotiate with the ECA the format of its competitions, how revenue will be distributed, etc. The “Swiss model” which will come into force in 2024-2025, for example, is the result of such a negotiation. This resulted in more games, a different format, and a different revenue distribution.

Clubs could negotiate before, but their influence was limited. They could threaten to withdraw, but there was no ECJ-approved framework for doing so. They now have a real exit route if they don't get what they want, and UEFA can't stop them if they meet the criteria. We could therefore imagine that the next round of negotiations will favor the clubs, and that they will benefit from a competition even more adapted to their needs.

What needs? I mean, the ECA includes over 200 clubs, from Manchester United to Qarabag in Azerbaijan. They might just have different priorities, right?

Indeed. And, of these two, who do you think has the most influence? The one who has more fans, more visibility, more sponsors and who brings in more TV money: Manchester United.

If things go well, it will be the big clubs with the most followers in the major leagues that will generate the most money. And because they now have a path to doing what they want – no matter how tricky and fraught with uncertainty – they will be more likely to get what they want.

Hell, who knows? In a few years, if enough clubs want it and believe their fans want it, we might even end up with a European competition format that looks a lot like the A-22 proposal… but next time it might have the UEFA seal of approval.