Are the owners deciding that they can run the league without an independent body? No idea, but interested to see the comments posted here.

their countrys top leagues and form another league where they are exempt from relegation. And they also get a big incentive, several billions from foreign interests to do it.

The English Premier League will lose it's six best teams; Serie A in Italy will lose teams; so will La Liga in Spain and Ligue 1 in France.

Fans are already saying they will abandon loyalty to their life-time teams.

I was only halfway listening to some reporting on this and was beyond confused.

Banks should just retain deposits and do small loans. That's it.

Arsenal: Stan Kroenke (LA Rams, Denver Nuggets, Colorado Avalanche, Colorado Rapids)
Man Utd: Glazer family (Tampa Bay Buccaneers)
Man City: Sheikh Mansour (Deputy PM UAE, Abu Dhabi royal family)
Chelsea: Roman Abramovich (Russian oligarch; friend of Putin)
Spurs: 2 English businessmen
Liverpool: Fenway Sports Group (Boston Red Sox)
Real Madrid: supporter-owned
Barcelona: supporter-owned
Atletico Madrid: 2 Spanish and 1 Israeli businessmen
Inter Milan: Chinese holding company
AC Milan: Paul Singer's Elliott (hedge/vulture fund)
Juventus: Agnelli family (founders of Fiat, have stake in combined auto corporation Fiat, Chrysler, Citroen, Peugeot, Opel etc.)

So 1 of the English teams, 1 of the Italian, and all 3 of the Spanish have "traditional" ownership - a majority stake belonging to businessmen from the country, or supporter-controlled (with profits staying in the club). 4 have American ownership, and then there's 1 Russian oligarch, 1 Arab royal, and 1 Chinese company.

Foreign ownership isn't always bad - Leicester loved their Thai owner, who really seemed to care about football, and were devastated when he was killed in a helicopter crash a few years ago - his family still own the club. But there's a feeling that some, especially the Americans, see the clubs as just another asset - and are just looking to get more profit from them.

Having a permanent place in this league, if they manage to pull it off, would put these clubs at a permanent monetary advantage (thanks to global TV revenue), which would mean they could, if needed, spend more on players, limiting the teams that can bid for the best. This goes against the ethos of European football; the ability of clubs to rise, or fall, in national divisions or qualifying for European competitions is a big part of the idea.

European leagues have traditionally allowed movement between divisions. Failure causes relegation to a lower division, those teams to be replaced by those promoted from a lower division, and so on down several divisions. E.g. finish bottom of the 2d division, get relegated to the third. Win the 2d division, get promoted to the first. It's a meritocracy which is open to anybody, rewarding well-run clubs and punishing badly-run ones. Create a new team and start at the lowest division; no need to lure a team from elsewhere.

This disgusting superleague with permanent "franchises" is a closed system, meaning it's disconnected from all of the rest of the sport in order to guarantee return of investment with no chance of failure. No promotion/relegation forever.

It's the worst thing to happen to football in its entire history and that's not hyperbole.

It is an ex-parrot.

they made they're own playoffs, so they could sell TV deals direct. And those playoffs would run parallel to the NFL playoffs. They were tired of competing with the "smaller" teams that sometimes would win, instead of them, and wanted to guarantee themselves playoff money. That's basically what it was.


The richest teams (not the best teams) wanted to make more money and were tired of the system that promotes winning to get money, rather than guaranteed money. So they were going to make their own playoffs and bypass everybody else. These teams would be guaranteed to be in it, regardless if they had a good or bad season.