Subscribe to Miguel Delaney’s Reading the Game newsletter, delivered directly to your email for no cost.
Subscribe to Miguel Delaney’s weekly newsletter for free.
Among the numerous statements in the European Court of Justice decision and the subsequent announcement about the European Super League, the crucial question remains: can the project proceed?
The situation remains complex and Uefa, along with other sports governing bodies, still holds the upper hand. The Super League must still follow Uefa’s authorization regulations and procedures, but these rules need to be more transparent.
As a consequence, Uefa was required to revise and modernize their regulations regarding the pre-approval of new competitions, ensuring they align with European Union legislation. Uefa received criticism for the procedure used to create their laws, rather than the content itself. The current rules, which are currently being updated, were deemed problematic. However, this does not necessarily imply that having such rules was incorrect.
It is ironic that the regulations in question were already dealt with in June 2022. However, the court could only make a decision based on the information presented at the time, which was already outdated. The rules simply require further attention.
The statement stated that Uefa is confident in the strength of its recently implemented regulations and ensures that they adhere to all applicable European laws and regulations.
It is quite ironic that the individuals involved in the Super League were aware of its development before its official launch in April 2021. One notable example is former Juventus president Andrea Agnelli, who sits on the Uefa Executive Committee. However, they never showed any interest or asked about it. According to a notable European executive who was not involved in the situation, there is a lack of cohesive thinking among those on both sides.
The solidarity within European football remains intact, at least for the present and possibly for the foreseeable future.
This decision has ultimately safeguarded the authority of Uefa and Fifa. They are still able to arrange their own tournaments without being obligated to disband.
This could be the main focus of the situation. The Super League was very sure that the court would rule in their favor and allow them to break away. It was believed to have a greater than 99% possibility. However, this did not occur.
UEFA retains its regulatory monopoly.
The court’s decision suggested that Uefa was justified in penalizing the Super League, but also clarified that this does not necessarily mean the project must be approved. However, the court was not tasked with making a ruling on this matter.
The most crucial section of the verdict is 144. Although written in formal legal language, it essentially acknowledges the validity of safeguarding sporting integrity.
“The unique qualities of professional football events justify the implementation of universal regulations to ensure consistency and coordination among these competitions within a unified schedule. This also serves to promote fair and equitable sporting events and enforce adherence to these regulations through the approval of governing bodies such as Fifa and Uefa for participation of clubs and players.”
Similar to the previous paragraph, this current narrative appears to be never-ending. It is not fully concluded yet. The Super League’s effort to quickly claim a triumph and revive their plan with further specifics was proof of this.
There are also cracks in this issue. The Super League has gained more backers by addressing valid concerns about the imbalanced distribution of power in the current Champions League. The majority of wealth is concentrated in a handful of wealthy areas in Western Europe. In order to have a shot at success on a continental level, clubs must be located in a major city within a large country, and even that is being challenged by the dominance of the Premier League. It is tempting for those outside of this system to disrupt it, even though it would be unwise to give all control of European football to the largest clubs.
This highlights underlying issues with the management of football, as the current presidential structure of Uefa and Fifa is not suitable for the modern game. If the European Union is concerned with safeguarding sports, they should address this as their next priority. This system has primarily benefited larger clubs.
It was also noteworthy that the ruling discussed the distribution of prize money for the Champions League, which may result in a more equal distribution of wealth to teams beyond the top tier. Additionally, a separate ruling deemed Uefa’s regulations on homegrown players to be illegal. This implies that players from the same national federation cannot be considered as academy products. Although the legal implications are yet to be resolved, it is probable that clubs will need to focus on developing more academy players.
Florentino Perez of Real Madrid may seek legal action in the Spanish courts regarding Uefa’s licensing regulations. These regulations, along with other factors, are influencing the future of the game and it is possible that it will look different in ten years.
Currently, the structure remains intact.
Source: independent.co.uk
