Internationally today, there is outrage about the announcement that 12 of Europe‘s richest (not the best, necessarily, especially not this year) soccer clubs are going to form a “Super League” comprised of 15 “permanent“ members and 5 others that rotate in and out, according to some yet to be decided system. The universal view is, the rich clubs make much more than the lower clubs in their national leagues and they could all make much more money in a league of elites. The idea is, the consumer demand to watch Manchester United play Real Madrid, and similar titan vs. titan matches, will be much greater than to watch Manchester United play (say) West Bromwich Albion or Crystal Palace. The rich clubs think their marquee status as the biggest and best clubs in Europe is carrying the smaller clubs and that its in their financial interest to form a smaller, more elite League.
The opposing view, universally, claim that the Super League would drain resources from them and eventually stave them out. One respected source said this would be a massive transfer of wealth from the poorer clubs to the richest clubs.
All of these dire economic predictions would, of course, have to wait for consumer/market reaction to see if they come true. But theoretically, it all makes sense. The elite rich would get richer and the smaller clubs in smaller markets that have benefitted from squaring off against AC Milan and Liverpool would suffer.
As a lifelong Chelsea supporter, all of this depressed me, even though Chelsea is one of the rich, break away clubs. As a lifelong American college football and basketball fan, I got to thinking “haven’t we heard for several years now that the P5 conferences want to break away and form their own NCAA-like, elite, organization?” And I started to think about the obvious parallels to the European Super League idea. I began to contemplate how that move would sure make UK richer but it would fundamentally change American college athletics. For every “big winner,” there would be a lot of big losers. It’s maybe a little depressing to contemplate, but with all the money available, at some point don’t the P5 conferences give in to the temptation to keep more of it for themselves?
The opposing view, universally, claim that the Super League would drain resources from them and eventually stave them out. One respected source said this would be a massive transfer of wealth from the poorer clubs to the richest clubs.
All of these dire economic predictions would, of course, have to wait for consumer/market reaction to see if they come true. But theoretically, it all makes sense. The elite rich would get richer and the smaller clubs in smaller markets that have benefitted from squaring off against AC Milan and Liverpool would suffer.
As a lifelong Chelsea supporter, all of this depressed me, even though Chelsea is one of the rich, break away clubs. As a lifelong American college football and basketball fan, I got to thinking “haven’t we heard for several years now that the P5 conferences want to break away and form their own NCAA-like, elite, organization?” And I started to think about the obvious parallels to the European Super League idea. I began to contemplate how that move would sure make UK richer but it would fundamentally change American college athletics. For every “big winner,” there would be a lot of big losers. It’s maybe a little depressing to contemplate, but with all the money available, at some point don’t the P5 conferences give in to the temptation to keep more of it for themselves?
