The court decided and we already know that football has the doors open to organize competitions outside the mandate of UEFA, which has abused power from a monopoly position. As there is no other possible interpretation, Florentino Pérez took a minute to spread a triumphant declaration that proclaimed a new time, one that frees football from the yoke of UEFA. Joan Laporta then appeared – in this matter, the hierarchy is clear – and he launched a more vibrant speech than that of the president of Real Madrid, but with less interest in going down in history as the leader of the revolution. In matters of leadership, Florentino Pérez is only obsessed with Santiago Bernabéu and the verdict that history issues. Florentino Pérez is right: the decision of the European Court of Justice marks the possibility of a radical change in the future of football. It is the logical consequence of the famous Bosman ruling, which 28 years ago transformed an extremely popular game into a full-fledged industry, with all the characteristics of the most greedy businesses: greed, globalism, careerism and inequality. In short, neoliberalism to the fifth power that, from Bosman to this point, explains the massive presence of actors who had never been interested in football: North American capital, Arab petrodollars and, until the beginning of the Ukrainian war, Russian money.
An hour after the triumphant statements of the two presidents, their competition model was presented, with three categories (Star, Gold and Blue) that sounded like credit jargon and laminated football, which is what these people have in their heads. There was no reference to the financing system and that deficit in the presentation explains the current weakness of the project, rejected by all the clubs that were fellow travelers in the 2021 uprising. On that occasion, the columns of the empire trembled. A dozen big clubs – six English, three Spanish and three Italian – conspired to dynamit the old football regime and create, outside of UEFA, an exclusive and closed competition, in the North American way of understanding professional sport. That operation, which had the JP Morgan bank as financier, placed UEFA in a critical situation, but it faced the power of the street.
The technocracy of football understands the fan as a simple consumer, with nothing to say, and nothing to decide. The fan exists to squeeze it out. It is a vision of football that forgets and despises its atavistic part: the tribal, primary, emotional feeling that presides over it. In some places, the fan still feels indispensable and resists being considered a useless and manipulable object.
The first Super League project, which Florentino Pérez truly dreamed of, was not defeated by UEFA with its threats, nor by governments, nor by media pressure, which to tell the truth was non-existent in Italy and Spain. If the 12 uprising clubs had remained united, the chances of victory would have been very high, but the reaction of the English fans ended the unity of the project.
English fans took up arms against their clubs and in two days put down the revolution. One by one, the leaders of the six rebels – Manchester United, Liverpool, Manchester City, Arsenal, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham – were forced to renege on the plan and, in all cases, apologize to their fans for their inability to understand the community factor of football. Even JP Morgan recognized its mistake.
Without the English teams, the model now advocated by Florentino Pérez and Joan Laporta is worthless. They have all rejected the plan and remain where their fans want them. It means a mortal blow for the new Super League, to which not even its old allies attend. However, the door is already open and ambitions are unleashed. Those who have bought the best golf league probably think that they can also buy a soccer Super League.
