New Euro Super league to be announced Sunday

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,342
Looks like 11 clubs have signed up for a Super League that would undermine UEFA Champions League play. Premise would be for 20 teams to play, with 16 clubs every year and 4 making it based on league performance. so far these clubs have signed up
Liverpool
Manchester United
Manchester City
Chelsea
Arsenal
Tottenham
Real Madrid
Atlético Madrid
Inter Milan
AC Milan
Juventus

Some pushback from Bayern and Dortmund...not sure Barcelona and PSG...but original plan is to have 16 full time members, so not sure who is being targeted as 16. Premier League just issued a statement condemning the new league. UWFA was scheduled to announce pals for a "new" 32-team Champions League tomorrow.
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
2,546
The reports I read said Man City have not signed up (the only one of the English big six not to do so)
 

Titans Bastard

has sunil gulati in his sights
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2002
12,129
I'm still thinking that this is a negotiating ploy to finally force UEFA to grant these clubs permanent and official aristocracy status, granting them a place in the Champions League every season regardless of league results.
 

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,342
I read in a couple places all six PL teams...but the reporting is not really reporting as much as it is editorial/opinion hating on the idea.

View: https://twitter.com/AnfieldWatch/status/1383802100417658890?s=20


PL telling teams they'd have to quit the PL if they did this. Chicken/egg game here. these leagues are trash without big 20 teams, but fans would leave in drives if their clubs dropped their country leagues, especially in England.
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
2,546
I read in a couple places all six PL teams...but the reporting is not really reporting as much as it is editorial/opinion hating on the idea.

View: https://twitter.com/AnfieldWatch/status/1383802100417658890?s=20


PL telling teams they'd have to quit the PL if they did this. Chicken/egg game here. these leagues are trash without big 20 teams, but fans would leave in drives if their clubs dropped their country leagues, especially in England.
If I remember correctly, UEFA and FIFA are big supporters of domestic teams so it may be that players on breakaway teams wouldn’t be allowed to play for their national teams.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,925
There's a lot about a Euro Super League that would suck and I understand why fans in the respective countries hate it, but things have been trending this way for a long time and it's probably inevitable eventually.
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
2,546
“UEFA, the English Football Association and the Premier League, the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) and LaLiga, and the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) and Lega Serie A have learned that a few English, Spanish and Italian clubs may be planning to announce their creation of a closed, so-called Super League.

“If this were to happen, we wish to reiterate that we – UEFA, the English FA, RFEF, FIGC, the Premier League, LaLiga, Lega Serie A, but also FIFA and all our member associations - will remain united in our efforts to stop this cynical project, a project that is founded on the self-interest of a few clubs at a time when society needs solidarity more than ever.

“We will consider all measures available to us, at all levels, both judicial and sporting in order to prevent this happening. Football is based on open competitions and sporting merit; it cannot be any other way.

“As previously announced by FIFA and the six Federations, 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.

“We thank those clubs in other countries, especially the French and German clubs, who have refused to sign up to this. We call on all lovers of football, supporters and politicians, to join us in fighting against such a project if it were to be announced. This persistent self-interest of a few has been going on for too long. Enough is enough.”
 

67YAZ

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2000
3,404
It’s a leverage ploy for tomorrow’s meeting where the reformed UCL format is to be voted on. If this were a viable plan, it’d have 16 teams signed on to it and wouldn’t be “leaked” on a Sunday.
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
2,546
It’s a leverage ploy for tomorrow’s meeting where the reformed UCL format is to be voted on. If this were a viable plan, it’d have 16 teams signed on to it and wouldn’t be “leaked” on a Sunday.
I tend to agree, no way you can have it without Barca and Bayern signing on.
 

Tuff Ghost

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
476

Clears Cleaver

Lil' Bill
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
11,342
so the only clubs with realistic chance of winning CL not on list are Bayern and PSG. I think there is something specific to German clubs and their ability to do this? PSG should be no brainer, right? I mean if their league kicked them out would they even care? ;)
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,342
Chelmsford, MA
United, Arsenal, Spurs, and Liverpool need to spend less time worrying about rigging the rules so they can have their guaranteed precious CL money and more time just building competitive squads. They’ve spent so much energy since Chelsea really trying to lock in the status quo and found some likeminded faded stars in Italy to push this nonsense.

the proposed rules are all of the same nonsense giving extra money to clubs with “reputation” and tying spending to revenues so there isn’t any actual equality. I think I’m most offended that they’re threatening to ruin football and aren’t even implementing salary caps or anything that actually puts all the teams on the same competitive footing
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
2,546
Plus, Spurs don’t really have much of a reputation anyway, when did they last win anything?
 

Titans Bastard

has sunil gulati in his sights
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2002
12,129
The sooner this happens, and the sooner it blows up, the sooner we can start seriously looking at a sustainable long-term modern for European football.
What would that look like?

There have always been big clubs and small clubs, and historically that had to do with the population of the club's city, more or less. But now with the globalization of soccer, there are millions and millions of fans from around the world who all support the same ~12 clubs. It turbocharges the financial gap between big and small, and therefore creates the immense power that this small group of superclubs currently possesses.

Institutions like FIFA, UEFA, and the national FAs don't have enough power to institute significant revenue-sharing schemes, so it's a runaway freight train. The rich teams win, gain more international fans, gain more money, keep winning, and the cycle continues.

It seems like you'd have to convince fans around the world to spend more time supporting their local clubs, but good luck with that.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,342
Chelmsford, MA
It won’t blow up. The leagues will cave on participating because without these clubs their Tv deals are worthless and the entire pyramid goes under. How are fans going to support their local club when their local club no longer exists
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
2,546
I wonder if the clubs are over-estimating the interest here. I mean, Liverpool vs Barca is a great spectacle when they meet in the Champions League because it happens so rarely, would it garner the same excitement when it's happening multiple times a season?

Also, all these teams are used to winning and competing for trophies, but someone has to finish bottom of this thing each year.
 

Bozo Texino

still hates Dave Kerpen
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
7,715
Austin, Texas
Arsenal.

lol
I wonder if the clubs are over-estimating the interest here. I mean, Liverpool vs Barca is a great spectacle when they meet in the Champions League because it happens so rarely, would it garner the same excitement when it's happening multiple times a season?

Also, all these teams are used to winning and competing for trophies, but someone has to finish bottom of this thing each year.
I direct you to my first post in the thread.
 
What would that look like?
I wonder if the clubs are over-estimating the interest here. I mean, Liverpool vs Barca is a great spectacle when they meet in the Champions League because it happens so rarely, would it garner the same excitement when it's happening multiple times a season?
This is what I mean by it "blowing up" - I really don't think a closed system in which super teams are always facing super teams is perpetually going to be the massive money-spinner that the clubs involved seem to think it will be. It'll obviously be a huge deal for a while, but eventually I'm guessing revenues will start to dip precisely because the product will be over-saturated and start to feel sterile. And at that point, some sort of balance could potentially be restored as the big clubs look to a) look to find a better way of combining Super League and domestic action, and also b) open up the closed shop so that clubs in the domestic leagues can at least dream of joining the Super League.

For years, I've thought that the best model for the big clubs is an open-system Super League in which the biggest European clubs exit their domestic leagues but play in their domestic cups, and in which clubs can be promoted to the Super League from their domestic leagues (and vice versa), probably via some sort of playoff system. This would make the domestic leagues more competitive in addition to making a Super League feel more meaningful and relevant. Having relegation from the Super League will also make so many more matches in the Super League worth watching!
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
19,043
Philadelphia
One group of greedy billionaires fighting with another group of greedy billionaires (and some other rich guys that aren’t quite billionaires) over how the pie is divided. I'm not sure which is more gross, the first group angling for the Super League to hoard even more wealth or the second group making teary appeals to preserving the game when they've been just as complicit in greedily monetizing every single thing possible over the last 30 years. In some ways, I like the former better because at least they're honest about what things are all about. Better than pundits on Sky Sports of all places giving lectures about money and greed ruining the game.

The threat to kick these clubs out of domestic league competition is a completely empty one. Financial suicide and litigation up the wazoo.
 
Last edited:

67YAZ

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2000
3,404
Titans has the right of it. But I’ll push it further - the goal is to create the largest database of consumer information in the world. The business interest is to use the most popular sport in the world to surpass Facebook as the most valuable data generator and targeted advertising system on earth merged with the most valuable programming content on the planet. That’s what they see in a Super League.
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
7,039
Falmouth
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Edit:
Titans has the right of it. But I’ll push it further - the goal is to create the largest database of consumer information in the world. The business interest is to use the most popular sport in the world to surpass Facebook as the most valuable data generator and targeted advertising system on earth merged with the most valuable programming content on the planet. That’s what they see in a Super League.
I think you've probably got the right of this here- that's probably the true goal in the end.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
19,043
Philadelphia
United, Arsenal, Spurs, and Liverpool need to spend less time worrying about rigging the rules so they can have their guaranteed precious CL money and more time just building competitive squads. They’ve spent so much energy since Chelsea really trying to lock in the status quo and found some likeminded faded stars in Italy to push this nonsense.

the proposed rules are all of the same nonsense giving extra money to clubs with “reputation” and tying spending to revenues so there isn’t any actual equality. I think I’m most offended that they’re threatening to ruin football and aren’t even implementing salary caps or anything that actually puts all the teams on the same competitive footing
Pretty rich for a City supporter go around lecturing other clubs about what they should or should not do and snidely looking down your nose at them for trying to increase their revenues to better compete with clubs owned by states. I don't support the proposal but the Super League is probably the single best way that clubs like Arsenal, Spurs, and Liverpool could actually close the financial gap to a club like City.
 

67YAZ

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2000
3,404
Worse yet? The right wing political parties across Europe would whip up a ton of new votes if this were to happen.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,342
Chelmsford, MA
Pretty rich for a City supporter go around lecturing other clubs about what they should or should not do and snidely looking down your nose at them for trying to increase their revenues to better compete with clubs owned by states. I don't support the proposal but the Super League is probably the single best way that clubs like Arsenal, Spurs, and Liverpool could actually close the financial gap to a club like City.
City may be involved in this and will earn my wrath for that as well.

City were crap when the takeover happened. City had To build a squad while dealing with these same clubs making this same breakaway threat in order to put in anti competitive rules which pegged spending to revenues. This was supposed to insulate these same clubs from Citys threat as the only way to grow was to first grow revenue, blunting City’s advantage. You all love to go on and on about Citys nation state status but the Sheikh hasn’t put money into City in a long time. City absolutely have less risk because of the Sheikhs riches but those riches serve little functional purpose on a day to day basis. Every one of these clubs had a massive head start on City and every opportunity to grow their revenue as City did. They all were better positioned to grow their revenues exactly as City did. Instead they bitched and tried to get City thrown out of everything when they realized that City managed to play their game under their stupid rules. Now again they need to change the rules because they haven’t been able to crystallize the monopoly they wanted to enjoy.

This City fan feels very comfortable lecturing anyone and everyone because this City fan has been consistent since day 1 that everything being done was cynical and short sighted. City are not friends of the small clubs and I will claim no altruism on behalf of anyone in Citys motives. Everything that has been done to this point and everything that is being done here is pure greed on behalf of a group of clubs who aren’t willing to risk losing their status because they didn’t keep up in the economic environment they created.

I supported the Newcastle takeover and would not deny any of the other Prem teams the possibility to undergo the transformation City got to go through. I am well aware that the bottom could someday fall out at City and he end result would look a lot like it used to look. This is just the nature of it all. I’m pissed at City even contemplating this because after all the club has had to overcome to arrive in this moment it should know better than anyone how ridiculous it is to pull the drawbridge up after making it in the castle
 
Last edited:

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,954
Per Mark Ogden of ESPN there are 2 German a French team involved.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,925
This is what I mean by it "blowing up" - I really don't think a closed system in which super teams are always facing super teams is perpetually going to be the massive money-spinner that the clubs involved seem to think it will be. It'll obviously be a huge deal for a while, but eventually I'm guessing revenues will start to dip precisely because the product will be over-saturated and start to feel sterile. And at that point, some sort of balance could potentially be restored as the big clubs look to a) look to find a better way of combining Super League and domestic action, and also b) open up the closed shop so that clubs in the domestic leagues can at least dream of joining the Super League.

For years, I've thought that the best model for the big clubs is an open-system Super League in which the biggest European clubs exit their domestic leagues but play in their domestic cups, and in which clubs can be promoted to the Super League from their domestic leagues (and vice versa), probably via some sort of playoff system. This would make the domestic leagues more competitive in addition to making a Super League feel more meaningful and relevant. Having relegation from the Super League will also make so many more matches in the Super League worth watching!
People always make this over-saturation point and it never comes true. The same thing was said about Thursday night NFL games, for example, but even though the actual Thursday night product generally sucks it hasn't caused any loss of interest. The NFL is adding games to the season and expanding the playoffs, I highly doubt it's going to cause any loss of revenue.
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
7,039
Falmouth
my goodness the English football fans on twitter are literally losing their minds over this
They should be.

If this goes through there will be clubs- 100+ year old instutitions that have helped support and sustain communities, that go under, all because a bunch of billionaire capitalist assholes want to get even richer and have more power. It's disgusting.

I hope any self respecting local fan of those clubs goes the FC United of Manchester root.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,925
One group of greedy billionaires fighting with another group of greedy billionaires (and some other rich guys that aren’t quite billionaires) over how the pie is divided. I'm not sure which is more gross, the first group angling for the Super League to hoard even more wealth or the second group making teary appeals to preserving the game when they've been just as complicit in greedily monetizing every single thing possible over the last 30 years. In some ways, I like the former better because at least they're honest about what things are all about. Better than pundits on Sky Sports of all places giving lectures about money and greed ruining the game.

The threat to kick these clubs out of domestic league competition is a completely empty one. Financial suicide and litigation up the wazoo.
Pretty much this is how I feel. I'm cautiously in favor of a European Super League because a) outside of England, the domestic leagues in Europe have become largely pointless, b) I enjoy watching great teams play each other more than I enjoy watching them beat up on minnows, and c) I don't live in Europe and so have no longstanding emotional connection to the traditional system or care about domestic sovereignty.
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
7,039
Falmouth
Pretty much this is how I feel. I'm cautiously in favor of a European Super League because a) outside of England, the domestic leagues in Europe have become largely pointless, b) I enjoy watching great teams play each other more than I enjoy watching them beat up on minnows, and c) I don't live in Europe and so have no longstanding emotional connection to the traditional system or care about domestic sovereignty.
Regarding point a), pointless to whom?

Oh wait, I read point c)...at least you're honest.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,342
Chelmsford, MA
Ligue 1 and La Liga are both having legitimate title races. Even Serie A have been close and it’s probably not a coincidence this occurs when Juve look in danger of falling out of CL. The only league that is a joke is the Bundesliga where Bayern has convinced everyone that the way and the truth is for little clubs to stay little and for Bayern to suck up all their talent on a free
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
19,043
Philadelphia
City may be involved in this and will earn my wrath for that as well.

City were crap when the takeover happened. City had To build a squad while dealing with these same clubs making this same breakaway threat in order to put in anti competitive rules which pegged spending to revenues. This was supposed to insulate these same clubs from Citys threat as the only way to grow was to first grow revenue, blunting City’s advantage. You all love to go on and on about Citys nation state status but the Sheikh hasn’t put money into City in a long time. City absolutely have less risk because of the Sheikhs riches but those riches serve little functional purpose on a day to day basis. Every one of these clubs had a massive head start on City and every opportunity to grow their revenue as City did. They all were better positioned to grow their revenues exactly as City did. Instead they bitched and tried to get City thrown out of everything when they realized that City managed to play their game under their stupid rules. Now again they need to change the rules because they haven’t been able to crystallize the monopoly they wanted to enjoy.
How do you think a club with a tiny fan base generated a level of commercial revenue in a five year period such that by 2013 they had commercial revenues roughly on par with Manchester United, a club with not only the biggest fan base in the world but also which had been extremely aggressive at monetizing that popularity? Oh right, a club owned by the UAE happened to strike a bunch of massive commercial deals with entities like Etihad that were...owned by the UAE. All on the up and up and market value transactions I'm sure.

Most of these other clubs can't just wave a magic wand and get state-owned companies to strike sweetheart commercial deals with them when they need revenues to go up.
 

rguilmar

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
296
Ligue 1 and La Liga are both having legitimate title races. Even Serie A have been close and it’s probably not a coincidence this occurs when Juve look in danger of falling out of CL. The only league that is a joke is the Bundesliga where Bayern has convinced everyone that the way and the truth is for little clubs to stay little and for Bayern to suck up all their talent on a free
There is a decent chance PSG could miss UCL next year too (unless they win the whole thing of course). Assuming a Lyon win, PSG would only be 2 points clear of 4th. Top 2 in France are auto-qualifiers for the Champions League group stage, 3rd has to play in. Of course, they're also 1 point out of first place. To your point, Ligue 1 will possibly have four teams within three points with five games to go.

Overall this idea sucks, but it does feel more like posturing on both sides anyways.
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
7,039
Falmouth
How do you think a club with a tiny fan base generated a level of commercial revenue in a five year period such that by 2013 they had commercial revenues roughly on par with Manchester United, a club with not only the biggest fan base in the world but also which had been extremely aggressive at monetizing that popularity? Oh right, a club owned by the UAE happened to strike a bunch of massive commercial deals with entities like Etihad that were...owned by the UAE. All on the up and up and market value transactions I'm sure.

Most of these other clubs can't just wave a magic wand and get state-owned companies to strike sweetheart commercial deals with them when they need revenues to go up.
You think City had a tiny fanbase?
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,925
In Spain, Barcelona and Real Madrid have won every league title but one since 2004, have finished 1-2 12 out of 16 seasons, and neither have finished lower than 3rd, with Atletico winning 1 title and finishing second 3 times.

In France, PSG haven won the league 7 of the last 8 seasons, by an average margin of 14 points. The one year they didn't win, they promptly bought their closest rival's best player.
 
People always make this over-saturation point and it never comes true. The same thing was said about Thursday night NFL games, for example, but even though the actual Thursday night product generally sucks it hasn't caused any loss of interest. The NFL is adding games to the season and expanding the playoffs, I highly doubt it's going to cause any loss of revenue.
The Super League isn't over-saturation by creating even more football within the game's current structures (which is already an issue given how many leagues there are and how much football you can choose to watch on TV every single night from August to May) - it's over-saturation by creating an entirely new structure, and an entirely artificial one at that. The correct comparison to the NFL would be if the Patriots, Steelers, Cowboys, Giants, and a few other big-market teams decided they wanted to split off and form a league in which they each play each other twice every year in perpetuity. Would you as an NFL fan be excited because the most meaningful and best-supported teams in the league would now no longer have to face the Bengals and Jags and could instead hog more of the money for themselves? Would that sort of competition have any meaning to you? Would you be excited to have the best players all gravitate toward those top teams? Some fans probably would be excited by this, and the thought that we might see a higher quality of football at the top level than ever before. But would that be a good thing for professional football in America? And would those breakaway teams really benefit in the long run by disenfranchising football fans of the other teams?
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,925
The Super League isn't over-saturation by creating even more football within the game's current structures (which is already an issue given how many leagues there are and how much football you can choose to watch on TV every single night from August to May) - it's over-saturation by creating an entirely new structure, and an entirely artificial one at that. The correct comparison to the NFL would be if the Patriots, Steelers, Cowboys, Giants, and a few other big-market teams decided they wanted to split off and form a league in which they each play each other twice every year in perpetuity. Would you as an NFL fan be excited because the most meaningful and best-supported teams in the league would now no longer have to face the Bengals and Jags and could instead hog more of the money for themselves? Would that sort of competition have any meaning to you? Would you be excited to have the best players all gravitate toward those top teams? Some fans probably would be excited by this, and the thought that we might see a higher quality of football at the top level than ever before. But would that be a good thing for professional football in America? And would those breakaway teams really benefit in the long run by disenfranchising football fans of the other teams?
A big difference between the NFL and European soccer is that there's little correlation in the NFL between being the richest team and the best team. The Cowboys are probably the richest team and they've been mostly mediocre for decades. Same with the Giants. Meanwhile last year's two super bowl teams were two of the league's smaller markets in Kansas City and Tampa, and one of its historically most successful and popular teams is Green Bay, by far the smallest market in the league. And the NFL, of course, has revenue sharing and a salary cap and a draft to maintain competitive balance.

A lot of this has played out in college football with conference realignment and the creation of the playoff in the past couple of decades. It's been really rough on the old Big East, and the SWAC schools who got left out of the Big 12, and a bunch of others. Many of those affected programs have suffered, and a lot of traditional rivalries have been lost (Oklahoma-Nebraska, for example). But it has hardly diminished interest in college football generally. College football is bigger than ever.

I would love some kind of salary cap + revenue sharing system that created competitive balance in Europe. But that's never going to happen.
 

shaggydog2000

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
8,231
Looks like 11 clubs have signed up for a Super League that would undermine UEFA Champions League play. Premise would be for 20 teams to play, with 16 clubs every year and 4 making it based on league performance. so far these clubs have signed up
Liverpool
Manchester United
Manchester City
Chelsea
Arsenal
Tottenham
Real Madrid
Atlético Madrid
Inter Milan
AC Milan
Juventus

Some pushback from Bayern and Dortmund...not sure Barcelona and PSG...but original plan is to have 16 full time members, so not sure who is being targeted as 16. Premier League just issued a statement condemning the new league. UWFA was scheduled to announce pals for a "new" 32-team Champions League tomorrow.
The PSG Chairman is on the UEFA executive board, so he can't really openly align the club with this right now. But I'm sure they'll figure out the right time and place to get in on it.
 

rguilmar

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
296
In Spain, Barcelona and Real Madrid have won every league title but one since 2004, have finished 1-2 12 out of 16 seasons, and neither have finished lower than 3rd, with Atletico winning 1 title and finishing second 3 times.

In France, PSG haven won the league 7 of the last 8 seasons, by an average margin of 14 points. The one year they didn't win, they promptly bought their closest rival's best player.
Have you looked at the Ligue 1 table lately?
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
5,788
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
I think the timing of this indicates its strictly about gaining leverage in the CL meetings this week. They may get kicked out of the CL but there’s no way the the Premier League (or any domestic league) is going to expel them.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,925
They're not going to get kicked out of the CL either. Imagine if you were a broadcaster that bought the CL broadcast rights and then you found out UEFA had expelled the 15 most popular teams from the competition, who were setting up a rival tournament. it would take you about 30 seconds to file a massive lawsuit.