I was sent a copy of the so-called Super League document earlier today and have spent the afternoon doing some number crunching on it.

A few key takeaways

(1/)

The plan would guarantee massive income to a 15 club elite and cement financial gaps not only between those competing in the Super league and those not, but within it.

(2/)
The plan envisages one off payments of up to €350 million to the fifteen founder members, but only six clubs would receive the full amount with five of the initial members receiving just €100 or €112.5 million.

(3/)
The 15 breakaway clubs have generously deigned to allow 5 merit based qualifiers each season. But the system is totally skewed against them. They have no say in running the Super League and are entirely excluded from a commercial pot worth 15% of income

(4/)
Moreover, there is an 'equal' share of revenue that is not equal at all. The qualifiers are excluded from half of this pot of money (worth around €1.85 BILLION)

(5/)
At the same time, the organisers have shown their contempt for rewarding sporting success. You get given a ton of money for playing (about €180m for the group stage), but prize money is quite small - worth perhaps €30m extra for winning it. Which is small change, really (6/)
If you win the Champions League, by contrast, you earn about €120million - or 300% more than just making the group stage

(7/)
At the same time, if, say Leicester or Everton, were to qualify and actually win it - despite everything being skewed against them - they would earn around half the amount Barca or Real would be guaranteed JUST FOR COMPETING IN THE GROUP STAGE (8/)
Essentially this has been devised by a cabal of greedy, stupid and desperate individuals who care nothing about football,competitiveness or the sustainability of the game. It will kill domestic football and create a boring spectacle skewed in favour of a Super League 'big 6' (9/)
FIFA are completely correct in offering every sanction going, and I hope that at the next Premier League board meeting or ECA gathering the people behind this are treated with the same contempt as they were for the equally risible 'Project Big Picture' (10/10)

More from Sport

You May Also Like

A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.