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

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.