SL fine incoming.... | Vital Football

SL fine incoming....

Spursex

Alert Team
#1
Premier League to announce fines in the millions for rebel clubs involved in Super League breakaway

The size of the fine is expected to be significant and all six clubs will express contrition on their part at the failed coup

By Sam Wallace, Chief Football Writer 8 June 2021 • 11:56pm

The Premier League will announce this week that it has reached agreement on a fine running into the millions for the six rebel clubs who conspired to join the European Super League - the breakaway that endured a short but unforgettable existence in April.
The size of the fine is expected to be significant and all six – Manchester City, Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Tottenham Hotspur and Arsenal – will express contrition on their part at the failed coup. In addition to apologising publicly in a statement to be released by the league, the clubs involved will admit that their participation was a mistake and pledge never to join an unsanctioned competition again.
The Premier League will also disclose the size of the figures that have been agreed with the rebel six clubs. The Premier League has drafted new regulations which will impose huge sanctions on any club attempting to join a breakaway in the future. Instead of a disciplinary process, the clubs and league have agreed on a compensation process which has seen them arrive at appropriate damages payments for their decision to join the breakaway, that lasted two days - between April 18 and April 20 – before collapsing.
Nine of the 12 rebel clubs, including the six from England, have already reached agreement with Uefa on the fines – around £7 million each. All nine have contributed to a combined payment of €15 million [£13million] towards what Uefa called a “gesture of goodwill” to benefit children, youth and grassroots football. In addition it has fined them five per cent of their annual Uefa prize revenue.
The six clubs have broken rule L9 that requires shareholders to gain written approval from the Premier League to join any new competition. It was agreed by the 14 other Premier League shareholders that the fines had to be significant, in order for them to have an effect on the league’s six wealthiest clubs and to make clear the seriousness with which the others and the executive regard the offences.
There are still three clubs – Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus – who remain in defiance of Uefa and are now formally under investigation from Uefa.
 
#3
This will be interesting. I can't imagine after the UEFA and FIFA actions were overturned that the clubs will take this lying down. If the clubs do sign a non-compete agreement with the PL from all of this the PL will become a backwater in 10 years.

Someone will start a new league with completely new teams and take all the best players.

The PL and English football in general will fade.
 

Spursex

Alert Team
#4
This will be interesting. I can't imagine after the UEFA and FIFA actions were overturned that the clubs will take this lying down. If the clubs do sign a non-compete agreement with the PL from all of this the PL will become a backwater in 10 years.

Someone will start a new league with completely new teams and take all the best players.

The PL and English football, in general, will fade.
Believe it or not, The clubs in the PL have ALL bent over and accepted it.
 
#8
Premier League clubs have agreed in principle to an Owners’ Charter in a bid to prevent any future plans to form a new European Super League breakaway project.
The Premier League held its Annual General Meeting on Thursday in the wake of the ‘Big Six’ - Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham - agreeing to pay a combined £22million for their involvement in the failed Super League proposals.
The ‘Big Six’ will each be fined £25m and face a 30-point deduction if they attempt another breakaway competition.

“At the Premier League’s Annual General Meeting today, shareholders discussed a range of matters and recommitted to build on the collective of all 20 clubs to benefit the wider game.

“Following yesterday’s agreement between the Premier League, The FA and the six clubs involved in the proposals to form a European Super League, shareholders today approved rules to further protect the League against any future competition breakaways. Clubs in breach of the new rules will be subject to significant sanctions.
“Clubs also agreed to the principle of an Owners’ Charter, which will reaffirm the values and expectations placed on clubs and their owners.
“These additional rules and regulations are being put in place to ensure the principles of the Premier League and open competition are protected and provide certainty and stability for our clubs and their fans.”
 

meee93

Vital Champions League
#12
So I was right. UEFA and FIFA are monopolies. No one will stand in their favour and further, they don't have the best reputations.

And even furthermore, the only good monopoly is one I own.
Is the entire point of a governing body not to be a monopoly? If it wasn't then it wouldn't have the authority to actually be effective. It's more than fair to criticise how they operate but I don't see how removing their powers will improve football in the future other than just fragment it into pieces. Of course UEFA and FIFA still need a complete top to bottom overhaul.
 
#13
Is the entire point of a governing body not to be a monopoly? If it wasn't then it wouldn't have the authority to actually be effective. It's more than fair to criticise how they operate but I don't see how removing their powers will improve football in the future other than just fragment it into pieces. Of course UEFA and FIFA still need a complete top to bottom overhaul.
FIFA and UEFA (to me) are no more than football's Program Management Office (PMO). A good PMO orchestrates a lot but doesn't have any true voting rights per se. Infantino and Cefferin should be serving their stakeholders and driving policy, governance and implementing changes.

Cefferin shouldn't be dictating to his stakeholders that the UEFA competitions are changing without their consensus. Cefferin shouldn't be agreeing on TV deals with broadcasting companies and then deciding with his team the allocations.

It's subtle, but FIFA and UEFA need to re-establish who they are the PMO for. They need to remove all of their own voting rights and start serving their true stakeholders. If they don't, I have a feeling it will end in tears eventually.
 
#14
Is the entire point of a governing body not to be a monopoly? If it wasn't then it wouldn't have the authority to actually be effective. It's more than fair to criticise how they operate but I don't see how removing their powers will improve football in the future other than just fragment it into pieces. Of course UEFA and FIFA still need a complete top to bottom overhaul.

FIFA and UEFA (to me) are no more than football's Program Management Office (PMO). A good PMO orchestrates a lot but doesn't have any true voting rights per se. Infantino and Cefferin should be serving their stakeholders and driving policy, governance and implementing changes.

Cefferin shouldn't be dictating to his stakeholders that the UEFA competitions are changing without their consensus. Cefferin shouldn't be agreeing on TV deals with broadcasting companies and then deciding with his team the allocations.

It's subtle, but FIFA and UEFA need to re-establish who they are the PMO for. They need to remove all of their own voting rights and start serving their true stakeholders. If they don't, I have a feeling it will end in tears eventually.

It is already too late. The American model will add significant monetary value to the clubs' franchise values. The owners have figured this out. What has happened with this ruling is a clear ruling against anti-competitive practices by governing bodies. National governments are not allowed to get away with it within the EU. There isn't any way in hell the EC is going to let this happen with other entities within their confines.

The PL teams are in significant danger of being left behind. However, I don't believe any legislation was passed in the UK to prevent the PL teams from joining the SL. It would be unconstitutional anyway. The FA's paper agreement with the teams that they would pay significant penalties if this were to occur again isn't any different than Levy having a player sign a new contract to increase the player's sell on price.

The SL is coming. There is nothing that can or will, eventually, be done about it.
 
#15
It is already too late. The American model will add significant monetary value to the clubs' franchise values. The owners have figured this out. What has happened with this ruling is a clear ruling against anti-competitive practices by governing bodies. National governments are not allowed to get away with it within the EU. There isn't any way in hell the EC is going to let this happen with other entities within their confines.

The PL teams are in significant danger of being left behind. However, I don't believe any legislation was passed in the UK to prevent the PL teams from joining the SL. It would be unconstitutional anyway. The FA's paper agreement with the teams that they would pay significant penalties if this were to occur again isn't any different than Levy having a player sign a new contract to increase the player's sell on price.

The SL is coming. There is nothing that can or will, eventually, be done about it.
You have to dig back a bit, but the EU had already granted UEFA a special interest body and thus largely excluded from all the anti-competitive and anti-monopoly rules in Europe. This cannot easily be unwound, it's now part of EU law., and would need an act of parliament (the EU one) to be changed. That's not going to happen.

I've never agreed with it and railed against it years ago, but I would still bet heavily that the ECJ will side with UEFA.

There are deep state politics involved here - RM and Barca have been lobbying all the Spanish politicians and the lawmakers to get this ruling from a Spanish court, so you have to take this ruling with a pinch of salt, it really doesn't mean anything - all it does is open the way for the three clubs to take their argument to the ultimate European court. (Thank God we are not bound by it anymore).

As I said before, I know intimately how these steps work and my money would still be on UEFA being the confirmed final arbiter and winner of this bun fight. The behind the scenes lobbying will has already started by UEFA.

What will and could make a difference is the SL willingness to reinstate a promotion/relegation type ladder and show it can provide much bigger sums to ALL clubs at every level (or it will simply be one type of monopoly replacing another) - the problem with that is that in the first instance the whole SL was going to be funded by a 4 billion dollar loan, so in effect laying more debt on top of more debt; not a smart or effective way to begin. The US bank who was going to lead that syndicated loan has already indicated they wouldn't do it again (doesn't mean others wouldn't though).

So for now, I believe it will be a straightforward win for UEFA should it come to court, I say 'should' as the three clubs involved are now all in serious financial difficulties and this court case could easily drag on for years and cost a couple of hundred million Euro's.

I wouldn't at this stage get too excited about another change of direction, it could bring about change to the CL and Europa, (i.e. some enlargement) but suspect that's as good as it will get.
 
Last edited:
#16
You have to dig back a bit, but the EU had already granted UEFA a special interest body and thus largely excluded from all the anti-competitive and anti-monopoly rules in Europe. This cannot easily be wound, it's no part of EU law.

I've never agreed with it and railed against it years ago, but I would still bet heavily that the ECJ will side with UEFA.

There are deep state politics involved here - RM and Barca have been lobbying all the Spanish politicians and the lawmakers to get this ruling from a Spanish court, so you have to take this ruling with a pinch of salt, it really doesn't mean anything - all it does is open the way for the three clubs to take their argument to the ultimate European court. (Thank God we are not bound by it anymore).

As I said before, I know intimately how these steps work and my money would still be on UEFA being the confirmed final arbiter and winner of this bun fight. The behind the scenes lobbying will has already started by UEFA.

What will and could make a difference is the SL willingness to reinstate a promotion/relegation type ladder and show it can provide much bigger sums to ALL clubs at every level (or it will simply be one type of monopoly replacing another) - the problem with that is that in the first instance the whole SL was going to be funded by a 4 billion dollar loan, so in effect laying more debt on top of more debt; not a smart or effective way to begin. The US bank who was going to lead that syndicated loan has already indicated they wouldn't do it again (doesn't mean others wouldn't though).

So for now, I believe it will be a straightforward win for UEFA should it come to court, I say 'should' as the three clubs involved are now all in serious financial difficulties and this court case could easily drag on for years and cost a couple of hundred million Euro's.

I wouldn't at this stage get too excited about another change of direction, it could bring about change to the CL and Europa, (i.e. some enlargement) but suspect that's as good as it will get.

Money won't be an obstacle. The only lever available to UEFA/FIFA will be player eligibility for the WC. That won't fly with many nations if their best players are playing in the SL.

It's a matter of when.

UEFA's special status will come under threat anyway. The EC is on a anti-competitive witch hunt. The UEFA situation undermines that effort.
 
#17
Money won't be an obstacle. The only lever available to UEFA/FIFA will be player eligibility for the WC. That won't fly with many nations if their best players are playing in the SL.

It's a matter of when.

UEFA's special status will come under threat anyway. The EC is on a anti-competitive witch hunt. The UEFA situation undermines that effort.
Where will the money come from - what business do you know will easily invest $4 billion in a sports venture that can be challenged in law for a decade?!
Tough to see that being easily backed again.

Not even the city banks are willing to touch this one at the moment.

The EC has a special status / special interest status it uses and has done for European football. It's done it already.

As for players, if FIFA backs UEFA (as it currently does) then I think it would be a full-on stalemate.

Guess we will see soon enough.
 
#18
Where will the money come from - what business do you know will easily invest $4 billion in a sports venture that can be challenged in law for a decade?!
Tough to see that being easily backed again.

Not even the city banks are willing to touch this one at the moment.

The EC has a special status / special interest status it uses and has done for European football. It's done it already.

As for players, if FIFA backs UEFA (as it currently does) then I think it would be a full-on stalemate.

Guess we will see soon enough.

No one will touch it for two-three years, at least publicly. The smell of money won't go away.
 
#19
Seems I was pretty accurate in how they'd treat all this:


Uefa rejects Spanish court order to drop Super League punishments

Martyn Ziegler, Chief Sports Reporter
Monday August 02 2021, The Times
Asia
Champions League
Premier League
Football

Uefa committee member Javier Tebas described the court’s decision as “a joke”
PABLO CUADRA/GETTY


Uefa has rejected the demands of a Madrid court to revoke its action against the 12 founding members of the European Super League and is confident of seeing off the legal challenge at the European Court of Justice.
The judge in Madrid made an order on Friday stating that Uefa must publish on its website that it will drop all financial and sporting penalties. He also ordered Uefa to tell the Premier League and Italy’s FA to drop all action taken against the English and Italian clubs involved.
A source close to the European governing body has told The Times there is no intention of carrying out the order and that its actions will be fully justified by the European court.



Uefa is also unconcerned about reports that the ESL is now planning to revamp the breakaway competition so that it is not a closed tournament.

“The Super League idea is dead,” said another source. “The fans killed it and there is not going to be a resurrection.”

In May, nine of the 12 ESL founder clubs, including England’s ‘Big Six’, agreed a deal with Uefa under which they agreed to contribute 15 million euro (£13 million) to youth and grassroots football, and to forfeit 5 per cent of Uefa competition revenue for one season.
The Premier League’s ‘Big Six’ agreed last month to make a combined goodwill payment of just over £22 million to support grassroots and community projects, and that if any one of those clubs attempted such a move again they would be docked 30 points and fined £25 million.
Both Uefa and the Premier League agreed those settlements with the rebel clubs rather than imposed sanctions.
The Italian FA had said they would ban Italian sides who participate in any future Super League from competing in the country’s top division, Serie A.



Javier Tebas, the president of La Liga and a Uefa executive committee member, dismissed the Madrid judge’s decision as “a joke” despite Barcelona, Real Madrid and Juventus insisting they will push ahead with plans for an ESL.
“It’s the same judge as always, so he was always going to rule in a similar fashion,” said Tebas. “There’s a lot of jokes going on in that court.”
The Madrid court statement warns any breach of its injunction could lead to fines or criminal charges, however its jurisdiction over Uefa is also in doubt given that it is based in Switzerland which is not part of the European Union.
Last month the ECJ rejected a request from the ESL for an expedited decision in the case, a development which appeared to significantly derail the Super League project.