More stories

  • in

    Relevent Wins Champions League Rights in U.S.

    UEFA awarded its global broadcasting rights to a longtime partner, but granted Relevent, owned by the Miami Dolphins owner Stephen M. Ross, the same deal for the United States.One after another, the executives from some of the world’s biggest sports agencies filed into a basement auditorium at the headquarters of European soccer’s governing body. On their way in, they passed replicas of some of the biggest trophies in the sport, a pointed reminder of why they had traveled to UEFA’s offices on the banks of Lake Geneva to offer large sums of money to some of soccer’s most powerful officials.On offer that week in November? A rare chance, the first in 20 years, to bid for the rights to one of the most valuable properties in sports: the Champions League.For two days, groups armed with slides and projectors pitched a group that included not only UEFA’s leadership but also representatives of Europe’s top clubs, who, for the first time, were allowed to participate in the process. After three rounds of bidding, UEFA and the European Club Association, its partner in the venture, picked the winners.The global rights went to the Europeans’ longtime partner, TEAM Marketing, which now controls the rights for a three-year cycle from 2024 to 2027, the first in an expanded Champions League that will include more matches.The Champions League Is Changing. Here’s How It Will Work.After more than a generation in its current form, the Champions League is remaking itself, and about to become an actual league for the first time.The bigger surprise came in what they will not control: the lucrative rights to the United States. Those were won by Relevent Sports Group, the marketing company backed by the Miami Dolphins owner Stephen M. Ross. Relevent prevailed after it said it could guarantee at least $250 million for the rights in the United States, about $100 million more than UEFA’s competitions currently deliver there.Relevent and rivals like Endeavor-owned IMG, Octagon and Infront Sports & Media also bid for the global rights, which are estimated to be worth as much as $5 billion per season. TEAM, according to people familiar with the bidding process, was selected because it agreed to lower its commission on selling the rights and because it has a dedicated staff on hand to begin sales immediately.An official announcement of the new rights agreements will be made next week, after a meeting of UEFA’s board. The European Club Association’s board was informed of the selections at a meeting in Munich on Wednesday.UEFA, Relevent and TEAM all declined to comment on the deals, which came as part of an unexpected bit of collaboration between European officials and some of the continent’s biggest clubs only months after some of those same teams attempted to form a breakaway Super League.After two decades of frustration, and with clubs growing increasingly concerned that money was being left on the table, the club association finally pushed UEFA to take the rights to market. In the past, the Champions League agreement had consistently rolled over into a new one with TEAM, a company that has historically had just one client: UEFA.Nasser al-Khelaifi, the chairman of the E.C.A. and the president of the French club Paris St.-Germain, and the E.C.A.’s chief executive, Charlie Marshall, joined a UEFA contingent led by UEFA’s president, Aleksander Ceferin, to hear the pitches late last year.A final decision on the winners was made after a meeting Jan. 25 of their new joint venture company, UCC S.A. That company will grow in importance in the coming months: A new management team set to be installed that could reduce the need for intermediaries like TEAM and Relevent, and give clubs an even greater say over the commercial operations of competitions that produce billions of dollars in television and sponsorship revenue every season.For Relevent, the deal is the latest chapter in its efforts to pivot toward a new strategy geared around selling premium soccer rights after a decade in which its highest-profile asset was the loss-making International Champions Cup, an annual off-season tournament that matched top European clubs in exhibition games in North America, Europe and Asia. But it also comes amid a significant bit of price escalation for soccer rights in the United States; the Premier League recently agreed to a six-year deal with NBC worth almost $2 billion.In 2018, Relevent signed a 15-year collaboration with Spain’s top league, an agreement that essentially turned the company into La Liga’s commercial operation for North America in exchange for a guarantee that it could generate business worth a minimum of $2 billion during the term of the contract. Three years later, Relevent brokered an eight-year, $1.4 billion rights agreement with ESPN for La Liga games, then got $600 million more from broadcasters in Mexico and Central America.Now, its relationships with European soccer may only deepen. Relevent has been courting UEFA to add its name to its off-season tournament business, which has lost about $100 million since it was established in 2012.With the Champions League deals in place, UEFA and the club association are likely to enter into a protracted period of wrangling over how the income from the rights sales will be distributed, with the largest teams likely to demand a greater share than they are currently receiving. More

  • in

    UEFA Plans $7 Billion Pandemic Relief Fund for Soccer Clubs

    European soccer’s governing body will give cash-strapped teams access to their future earnings from club competitions like the Champions League.As European soccer clubs continue to count the costs of a global pandemic that has led teams large and small into financial distress, European soccer’s governing body is preparing to establish a relief fund of as much as $7 billion to help struggling teams manage their growing debts.The plan, according to several officials briefed on the negotiations, would be for the governing body, UEFA, to secure financial relief for cash-strapped teams who play in major European club competitions. The repayments would be tied to the teams’ future payouts from their participation in those tournaments run by UEFA; for the teams involved in the latter stages of the Champions League, Europe’s premier club competition, those paydays can be worth up to 100 million euros a year (almost $120 million).UEFA has for months been in talks with banks and private equity firms about creating the fund. According to the officials, the first relief payments would be made available to clubs that qualify for Europe’s three annual club competitions: the Champions League, the Europa League and the new Europa Conference League.For many European teams, the financial relief is desperately needed. Billions of dollars in revenue has been wiped off team balance sheets since the coronavirus first started to impact the soccer industry in early 2020. Clubs in dozens of countries were forced to play games without spectators for months, and some had to pay rebates to broadcast partners and sponsors. All but a handful of teams have endured significant pain.A.C. Milan players during a Europa League match in an empty arena in December.Vincenzo Pinto/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesBarcelona, for instance, was unable to retain the services of its most famous player, Lionel Messi, amid ballooning debts of more than $1.5 billion, and its president said last week that the club was expecting this year’s losses to approach $570 million, a record figure for a soccer club. While many of Barcelona’s financial problems are self-inflicted, the result of years of poor management, red ink has spilled across balance sheets across Europe. The Premier League, soccer’s richest domestic competition, suffered its first drop in revenue since it was first established in 1992.UEFA had been in talks with Centricus, a London-based investment firm that had also been involved in talks with FIFA about financing its enlarged Club World Cup, but it has more recently focused on striking a deal with a group of lenders that includes Citigroup and UniCredit, according to the people with knowledge of the talks. They declined to be identified because discussions with the clubs are continuing, and because no deal has been reached.UEFA declined to comment on the talks or the relief fund. But it has discussed the proposal with the European Club Association, the umbrella body representing about 200 top division European teams.UEFA has asked the E.C.A. to survey its members to understand their financial needs. The most pressing concern is related to tens of millions of dollars in player trading debt. Those obligations, accumulated over several years as teams bought and sold players to one another, are a vital source of revenue to small- and medium-sized clubs. Any default on them risks creating a contagion effect, though, given how interlinked club debts have become.The player trading market — worth $7 billion before the pandemic — has now slowed considerably, with more sellers than buyers and clubs struggling to offload players they can no longer afford. The chief executive of one of Italy’s biggest clubs said the market for middle-tier players — those worth between $5 and $30 million, trades that lubricate the market in the good times — are now few and far between. Instead, teams have become increasingly reliant on loans and free transfers to unload contracts and salaries they can no longer afford.UEFA’s president, Aleksander Ceferin. His organization is planning to roll out new cost-control rules that could include spending caps and a luxury tax for clubs that breach them.Antonio Bronic/ReutersAccording to one of the people familiar with the talks, UEFA’s participation in the relief fund is critical, since it will allow the banks to secure their investment against the future income of its competitions, rather than the balance sheets of individual teams. That arrangement would reduce the risk for the lenders while also ensuring lower than usual rates of interest for clubs. To determine the amounts clubs are eligible to receive, UEFA will create a rating profile for teams based on their likely income from the Champions League, the Europa League and the Conference League, a new third-tier competition that is being launched this season.UEFA’s initiative comes months after a failed effort by a group of 12 leading teams — citing the need for greater financial stability as well as a greater share of soccer’s wealth — to form a breakaway superleague.UEFA is only the latest soccer body to seek outside investment in an effort to mitigate the ongoing effects of the pandemic. Spain’s professional league announced earlier this month that it had struck a deal to sell almost 11 percent of broadcast and commercial income for 50 years to a private equity fund in return for a $3 billion investment. Italy’s league has been negotiating a similar arrangement.UEFA hopes the financing will allow teams to restructure their debts at lower interest rates. At the same time, it is planning to revamp the financial regulations governing the teams in its competitions.The current decade-old arrangement known as financial fair play has run its course, according to UEFA’s president, Aleksander Ceferin, and clubs are now bracing for a new set of cost-control rules. One likely option is a combination of a cap on spending linked to revenues and a luxury tax, similar to one imposed by Major League Baseball on teams that elect to spend far more than their rivals.The move is an effort to inject greater clarity into a process that has often left UEFA unable to enforce its rules on the continent’s biggest-spending teams. Under the new system, UEFA leaders argue, teams will know exactly how much they will have to pay if they overspend. The system, though, is unlikely to have any meaningful impact on growing competitive imbalance between clubs that can spend freely on talent and those that cannot keep up. More

  • in

    Euro 2020 Final Will Stay in London

    An agreement to resolve a dispute about foreign visitors includes the news that a crowd of about 60,000 will be allowed for the final at Wembley Stadium next month.The deciding games of this summer’s European soccer championship are staying in London after tournament organizers and the British government reached an agreement, ending speculation that England’s pandemic travel restrictions would prompt the relocation of the semifinals and finals from Wembley Stadium.The decision, announced on Tuesday, hours before England’s final group-stage game against the Czech Republic at Wembley, came after days of intense talks between European soccer’s governing body, UEFA, which runs the tournament, and local authorities about exemptions to Britain’s pandemic travel rules. UEFA had sought changes that would allow thousands of overseas supporters — and as many as 2,500 V.I.P.s — to attend the semifinals and final in London.A statement to announce the agreement did not outline what exemptions had been granted. It did, however, state the capacity for the three games had been increased to 75 percent of Wembley’s capacity, a figure of more than 60,000. That means the Euro 2020 final will represent the biggest attendance at a sporting event in Britain since the start of the pandemic.🏟️ The UK government has announced that more than 60,000 fans will be permitted at the #EURO2020 semi-finals and final at Wembley Stadium, increasing attendance to 75% of capacity for each game.Full story: ⬇️— UEFA (@UEFA) June 22, 2021
    “The last 18 months have taught us — both on and off the pitch — how integral fans are to the fabric of the game,” UEFA’s president, Aleksander Ceferin, said in the statement. He was planning to hold more talks with British government officials later on Tuesday, when he attended England’s game at Wembley.Officials briefed on the statement said there was broad agreement to meet UEFA’s requirement for 2,500 invited guests — including commercial and broadcast partners and soccer dignitaries — to attend the games at Wembley. However, a demand to allow thousands of fans to travel to London for the game from the nations represented in the final games is unlikely to be met.According to those involved in the negotiations, a dispensation could be made for at most 2,000 supporters from the participating nations, a largely symbolic number that could limit the potential criticism for lifting restrictions for a similar number of V.I.P.s.The crisis over the Wembley matches arose amid a surge in infection rates in Britain that has forced the government to back away from plans to lift the final restriction on social distancing that had been planned for this week. The spike, linked to a new and aggressive variant of the virus, had already dashed hopes that the final could be played in front of a capacity crowd of 90,000 at Wembley.The stadium — one of 11 being used across Europe — is currently allowing only 22,500 fans for the three group-stage games. That number will increase to 40,000 for the second of two rounds of 16 matches, but capacity for Italy’s match with Austria on Saturday will remain capped at 22,500.“As we continue to make progress on our road map out of lockdown, keeping the public safe remains our top priority,” said Oliver Dowden, the British lawmaker responsible for sports.The ongoing concerns about the spread of the virus were highlighted by the news that several members of the Scotland and England teams who played a game at Wembley last week were now in isolation. Scotland’s national team announced on Monday that its young midfielder Billy Gilmour would self isolate after a positive coronavirus test, and England said on Tuesday that two of its players, Ben Chilwell and Mason Mount, who had contact with Gilmour would enter isolation as well.The decision ruled both England players out of the match against the Czechs, which England won, 1-0.Scotland, without Gilmour in its midfield, was eliminated after a 3-1 defeat against Croatia in Glasgow. More

  • in

    UEFA Could Move Euro 2020 Final From Wembley

    Tournament organizers and the British government are holding talks about easing pandemic restrictions before the final at London’s Wembley Stadium on July 11.The deciding games of the monthlong European soccer championship have for years been planned for London, where Wembley Stadium is set to host both semifinals and the final of the quadrennial event next month.Only weeks before the Euro 2020 final, though, organizers and the British government are discussing exemptions to pandemic travel restrictions that would allow thousands of overseas supporters — and as many as 2,500 V.I.P.s — to attend the games in London.If an agreement, or a compromise, cannot be reached, UEFA, the governing body for European soccer that runs the championship, has not ruled out moving the final to another country.“There is always a contingency plan but we are confident that the final week will be held in London,” UEFA said in a statement.Prime Minister Boris Johnson confirmed Friday that his government was open to modifying its rules provided any changes “keep the country safe from Covid.”“We’ll be talking to UEFA about what they want and see if we can make some sensible accommodations,” Johnson said. “But the priority obviously has to be public health.”UEFA secured some exemptions to rules on travel and quarantines for visiting foreign nationals before the tournament, and both it and the British government had thought the coronavirus infection rates that had prompted the restrictions would have fallen by the time the tournament’s deciding games were to be played at Wembley in early July. Instead, case numbers are surging in England, largely because of a new and aggressive variant of the virus, and that led Johnson to postpone lifting the final restrictions on social distancing that had been planned for June 21.That delay already means that any hopes of playing in front of capacity crowds at Wembley have been dashed; it has already been announced that the 90,000-seat stadium instead will operate at only half its capacity for the two semifinals and final. The stadium — one of 11 being used across Europe — is allowing only 22,500 fans for three group-stage games being played there.Johnson held private talks this week about the matter with his UEFA counterpart, Aleksander Ceferin, according to a person with knowledge of the discussions. Privately, officials on both sides expressed confidence that a compromise can be found to keep the game in Britain, though news media reports have said that Budapest, the only host stadium operating at full capacity during the Euros, is being considered as a fallback option.The current talks about looser rules are not the first wrangle this year between UEFA and the British authorities, though, over exemptions for a soccer event. In May, the soccer body and the British government failed to come to an agreement that would have allowed this season’s Champions League final, a game featuring two English teams — Manchester City and Chelsea — to be relocated to London from Istanbul. After trying and failing to reach a deal, UEFA took the final to Porto, Portugal.There is a considerable amount at stake for both sides. For UEFA, London has become a popular and lucrative host for major finals. For the British government, which has recently waded into soccer debates in an effort to boost its popularity and credibility, keeping the games and preserving a valuable relationship with UEFA is seen as vital as Britain tries to forge a new identity after its acrimonious departure from the European Union.UEFA’s president, Aleksandar Ceferin, at a match in Munich this week.Pool photo by Alexander HassensteinBut Britain is also counting on UEFA’s support for a joint bid with Ireland to stage the 2030 World Cup. Without UEFA’s backing, that effort would be doomed. Johnson mentioned the World Cup bid on a phone call with Ceferin, according to a person on the call.UEFA’s proposed solutions to the impasse on visitors have included fans entering the country “using a strict testing and bubble concept,” its statement said. Guests would be asked to restrict their movements to approved transportation and game venues, and to leave Britain within 24 hours.“We understand the pressures that the government face and hope to be able to reach a satisfactory conclusion of our discussions on the matter,” the UEFA statement said.The pandemic era has taught European soccer’s governing body how to become nimble, and how to relocate high-profile games on short notice. For the past two years, UEFA has shifted its marquee club championship, the Champions League final, because of pandemic-related complications in the original host city.But anxiety has grown among UEFA officials since a fast-spreading variant of the virus cast doubt on the anticipated “unlocking” of Britain by June 21. Johnson confirmed a four-week delay to the plans last week, signaling to UEFA that it needed to secure new exemptions from its hosts or seek an alternative site.Privately, UEFA officials believe they are unlikely to get clearance for the thousands of foreign supporters that they are seeking, but they are optimistic that as many as 2,500 dignitaries, including executives from sponsors and broadcasters that provide much of the tournament’s $2 billion in revenue, will be cleared to come. Waivers have already been provided for about 1,000 guests, but allowing more V.I.P.s — but not access for fans — is politically risky for both UEFA and Britain.In his call with UEFA’s leaders, Johnson reminded the officials that London’s diverse population meant that any team that reached the final could count on vocal, locally based support.For UEFA, having crowds at the stadiums is as much a symbolic imperative as it is a commercial one. Much of this season’s soccer was played against the backdrop of empty seats and closed arenas, and Euro 2020, as far as the organizers were concerned, had to be seen as a sign of a return to old times. Cities that could not guarantee that fans would be allowed to attend matches were dropped and replaced. The games they lost were relocated to cities with less stringent rules.Games have now been played at all 11 venues, and attendances have ranged from as few as 10,000 to a nearly full house of 55,662 in Budapest for Hungary’s game against Portugal. More

  • in

    How Euro 2020 Was Saved

    Pulling off a tournament with games in 11 countries was always going to be difficult. Then the pandemic struck, and the job got even harder.If Aleksander Ceferin has any say on the matter, there will never be another European soccer championship like the one that starts this week. And that decision has nothing to do with the coronavirus.Ceferin, the president of European soccer’s governing body, quickly listed the headaches that came with organizing this summer’s championship. Matches in 11 countries, originally 13, meant finding 11 cities and 11 stadiums capable of hosting them. It meant creating teams to run each site and arranging for dozens of hotels to house everyone who would go. But it also meant navigating legal jurisdictions and linguistic boundaries, tax laws and big politics as well as soccer politics, currency values and visa rules.And that was before the coronavirus made it all exponentially harder.“I would not do it again,” Ceferin said in a phone interview late last month.For the first time in its 61-year history, the European Championship, which begins on Friday with a game between Italy and Turkey in Rome, is being played on a continentwide basis. It will feature big players and small crowds, and host cities as far apart as Seville, Spain, near the southwest tip of the Iberian Peninsula, and Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, nestled on the Caspian Sea. The latter is closer to Tehran and Baghdad than it is to any of the other 10 tournament sites.It will play out using a schedule that had to be fixed enough to ensure several countries would play the bulk of their games on home soil, yet flexible enough that it could change as coronavirus outbreaks and travel restrictions demanded. It meant coming to terms with what Britain’s departure from the European Union amounted to in practice, sometimes before even Britain was sure, and finding solutions after two cities were stripped of their games in April.And it meant that whatever happens over the next month — however many goals are scored, however many thrilling matches are played — that there is certain to be only one overriding sensation for organizers when the final whistle blows on July 11: relief.“It’s very complicated,” Ceferin said in a world-class understatement, “and now it’s even more complicated.”And none of it, he is quick to point out, was his idea. The idea of a pan-continental European championship was the brainchild of Michel Platini, Ceferin’s predecessor as president of UEFA. Platini had proposed the idea of a Europe-wide celebration in 2012, after Turkey, the only bidder for the soccer event, refused to rule out also seeking the hosting rights for the Olympics that would be held in the same summer in 2020.Anatoly Maltsev/EPA, via ShutterstockCrowds, still a rare sight at soccer matches in many countries, were a nonnegotiable requirement for host cities.Joe Klamar/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“It’s very complicated,” the UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin said, “and now it’s even more complicated.”Alessandra Tarantino/Associated PressNo country, UEFA felt, could pull off the Olympics and the European Championship — a soccer tournament second only to the World Cup in viewership and prominence — in close succession. Spreading the Euros around, Platini decided, could spread the joy of the event, but also serve as a valuable hedge in case Turkey had to choose between the games and the Games.By 2015, though, Platini was gone, one of the soccer officials ousted in a corruption scandal. But his concept lived on. When Ceferin was elevated to the UEFA presidency in 2016, he decided to forge ahead with the multinational concept, which by that stage had announced several host cities.While there were some hiccups — Brussels was forced out in 2017 after it could not guarantee a promised stadium would be ready — organizers believed they had pulled off what they once thought to be a Sisyphean task. By March 2020, almost everything that needed to be in place was in place, and the buzz around the tournament was beginning to grow. Some sponsors had activated their promotions, and Euro 2020 collectibles, cards and sticker albums were in stores.And then the pandemic brought the world to a halt.“Everybody was a little bit lost for a while,” Martin Kallen, the UEFA director responsible for the tournament, said of the feeling when it became clear the tournament would not be played as planned. “‘How are we going to do this? How are we going to go forward?’ Not only football, it was everywhere in society. We didn’t know what will happen next week.”Cancellation, according to Ceferin, would have been a devastating financial blow, imperiling the future of some of the federations that rely on stipends from European soccer’s governing body for their existence.“If you postpone, you can negotiate, and the loss is smaller,” Ceferin said. “But if you say, ‘We will not play at all,’ this is a big, big financial impact.”After a couple of weeks of assessing their options — which included raising and then dismissing the possibility of staging the entire tournament in Russia or England — and discussions involving a dizzying array of partners, from politicians to stadium owners, sponsors and broadcasters, the hard work to save the multinational mosaic started again.The first few calls were easy. Rescheduling the tournament for the same dates a year later solved the scheduling concerns, and since the merchandise with the Euro 2020 branding had been shipped, the tournament’s name would stay, too.By the fall of 2020, in fact, it had been decided to stick as close to the original plan as possible, with one important guarantee: Even amid the pandemic, each host city would have to make provisions to allow fans to attend the matches.The requirement seemed onerous and led to some tense exchanges between UEFA and national and regional governments. The decision, officials said, was partly made out of financial necessity — UEFA’s financial projections for the tournament have been revised downward by at least 300 million euros ($366 million) — but organizers also felt the return of fans, even in reduced capacities, was symbolically important.“We want to come back to normality in life, and we want to come back to normality in football stadiums,” Kallen said. Crowds at a big event like the Euros, UEFA had decided, would send that signal.Karim Benzema and France, one of the tournament favorites, warmed up with a win over Wales.Franck Fife/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesWith the virus raging, though, and several countries struggling with their vaccination programs, the demand for in-person crowds threatened the hosting ability of as many as four cities.In the end, only two cities lost out. Dublin, where politicians had always said it would be impossible to play with fans, was the first to go. It was the easiest, too; Ireland had not qualified for the tournament, and UEFA considered it unlikely many fans would attend the games in Ireland given restrictions on travel. Bilbao, in Spain, was a different matter.The largest city of the Basque region, where separatist feelings remain high, Bilbao was always a strange choice for UEFA. Spain’s national team has not played in the region since 1967, and it appeared to have made the list only because the since-ousted head of Spanish soccer had pushed its candidacy. Many of the city’s soccer-loving public had eventually come around to the idea of hosting other teams, though, and local officials welcomed the chance to take a turn in the international spotlight.When the games were pulled after UEFA felt the conditions required for fans to attend could never be met, furious local officials publicly assailed the decision and vowed to extract damages. Ceferin expressed sympathy and suggested both cities might host future events, but within weeks he and organizers had a new fire to put out.On the morning of the Champions League final in May, members of UEFA’s hierarchy held an emergency meeting at their hotel in Portugal after learning that new rules in Scotland could force an entire team into quarantine if even a single player tested positive there.A decision was quickly taken to scrap team bases in the country for the Czech Republic and Croatia. (Scotland had already announced that it would train in England.) But two days later, Scotland revealed that one of its players had tested positive. He and six teammates were left home from a friendly at the Netherlands, but their absence highlighted another change instituted this year in deference to the pandemic: Teams have been allowed to travel with 26 players instead of the usual 23.UEFA’s leadership will minimize its travel by splitting into two teams for the tournament. Ceferin will lead one group, and his top deputy, Theodore Theodoridis, will lead the other.UefaThe challenges might not be over, either. There is anxiety about a quarterfinal match set for Munich on July 2, since one of the participants will be traveling from England, which is subject to new, harsher travel rules. (The game could still be moved.)“We always have to have a plan, B, C or D,” said Kallen, noting that UEFA was now experienced in adapting to unforeseen circumstances after moving the Champions League on late notice two years in a row.Even UEFA’s leaders have had to recalibrate their travel plans: They will split into two traveling parties in order to visit all 11 host cities, with one headed by Ceferin and the other by his top deputy, Theodore Theodoridis. Their itineraries have been meticulously planned through June 21, a key date the British prime minister, Boris Johnson, has earmarked to “unlock” England from most of the remaining pandemic-related restrictions on social contact.Ceferin said that he had plans to speak with senior British politicians, including Johnson, before the tournament, and that he still hoped to receive the backing of the British government for a full stadium for the final at Wembley Stadium in London in July.“I think it’s possible,” Ceferin said. “Why not?”The signage is up at Wembley Stadium in London, where the Euro 2020 final (fingers crossed) will be played on July 11.Carl Recine/Action Images, via Reuters More

  • in

    The Super League Thought It Had a Silent Partner: FIFA

    Publicly, soccer’s global governing body criticized a breakaway European Super League. Privately, it had held talks for months with the founders about endorsing the competition.Tucked away in the pages and pages of financial and legal jargon that constitute the founding contract of the Super League, the failed project that last month briefly threatened the century-old structures and economics of European soccer, were references to one “essential” requirement.The condition was deemed so important that organizers agreed that the breakaway plan could not succeed without satisfying it and yet was so secret that it was given a code name even in contracts shared among the founders.Those documents, copies of which were reviewed by The New York Times, refer to the need for the Super League founders to strike an agreement with an entity obliquely labeled W01 but easily identifiable as FIFA, soccer’s global governing body. That agreement, the documents said, was “an essential condition for the implementation of the SL project.”Publicly, FIFA and its president, Gianni Infantino, have joined other soccer leaders, fans and politicians in slamming the short-lived Super League project, which would have allowed a small group of elite European teams — a group that included Spain’s Real Madrid, Italy’s Juventus and the English powerhouses Manchester United and Liverpool, among others — to accumulate an ever larger share of the sport’s wealth.But privately, according to interviews with more than a half-dozen soccer executives, including one Super League club owner, Infantino was aware of the plan and knew some of his closest lieutenants had for months — until at least late January — been engaged in talks about lending FIFA’s backing to the breakaway league.The Super League was perhaps the most humbling failure in modern soccer history. Announced by 12 of the world’s richest clubs late on a Sunday night in April, it was abandoned less than 48 hours later amid a hailstorm of protest from fans, leagues, teams and politicians. Its founding teams have since apologized — some of them multiple times — for taking part in it, and a few could still face significant financial and sporting consequences.But the behind-the-scenes discussions that led to a week of public drama have laid bare simmering tensions between FIFA and European soccer’s governing body, UEFA, over control of billions of dollars in annual revenue; exposed a series of frayed relationships among some of the sport’s top leaders that may be beyond repair; and raised new questions about the role played by FIFA and Infantino in the project that shook soccer’s foundations.FIFA declined to respond to specific questions related to the involvement of Infantino or his aides in the planning of the Super League. Instead it pointed to its previous statements and its commitment to processes in which “all key football stakeholders were consulted.”The Super League’s discussions with FIFA began in 2019. They were led by a group known as A22, a consortium of advisers headed by the Spain-based financiers Anas Laghari and John Hahn and charged with putting together the Super League project. A22 officials held meetings with some of Infantino’s closest aides, including FIFA’s deputy secretary general, Mattias Grafstrom.In at least one of those meetings, the breakaway group proposed that, in exchange for FIFA’s endorsement of its project, the Super League would agree to the participation of as many as a dozen of its marquee teams in an annual FIFA-backed World Cup for clubs. The teams also agreed to waive payments they would have earned by taking part, a potential windfall for FIFA of as much as $1 billion each year. After their initial meetings, the advisers reported back that they had found a receptive audience.The Super League’s driving force: Florentino Pérez, Real Madrid’s president.Gabriel Bouys/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesObtaining FIFA’s support was not merely a hedge; the organization’s consent was required to prevent the project from being mired in costly and lengthy litigation and to preclude any punishments for the players who took part.But it was also an insurance policy for the players. In a previous superleague discussion in 2018, FIFA had issued dark warnings that players could be banned from their national teams — and thus the World Cup — for appearing in an unsanctioned league.By the middle of last year, the advisers from A22 were telling clubs that “FIFA was on board,” according to a Super League club owner. Others interviewed, including several with direct knowledge of the meetings who spoke anonymously because they would face legal action for publicly disclosing information subject to secrecy rules, said FIFA was at least open to the idea of the new league. But they said the organization and its leaders remained noncommittal — at least officially — until more details about the structure of the project were in place.Confident they could obtain the support they needed, the organizers discussed various concepts for their new league before landing on the one they presented to the world when they broke cover on April 18. The Super League, as it would be known, would have 15 permanent members but would allow access to five additional teams from Europe each season.A22 had been working on iterations of a superleague for as long as three years. Laghari, an executive at the advisory firm Key Capital Partners who has known the Real Madrid president, Florentino Pérez, since he was a child, was to be the league’s first secretary general. Pérez had long been the driving force behind a superleague, but now, as he had come to grow confident he had FIFA on board, the stars started to align for him and his friend.In Infantino, Pérez and Laghari had found an energetic president eager to remake the soccer business. Infantino often spoke about being open to new ventures and proposals — he has championed the expansion of both the World Cup and FIFA’s Club World Cup in recent years — as he sought to assert FIFA’s dominance over the club game in a manner unlike any of his predecessors. Pérez and Laghari also found kindred spirits in the men who controlled most of Europe’s top clubs. Most were drawn to a project that promised to open a spigot of new revenue while ensuring that costs would be controlled, leading to enormous profits and access to elite competition in perpetuity.Aleksander Ceferin, left, and Infantino in 2018. They have clashed repeatedly over control of club soccer, particularly in Europe.Alexander Hassenstein/Getty ImagesYet even as they received assurances from the A22 advisers about FIFA’s involvement, some skeptical club owners did their own due diligence by reaching out directly to senior FIFA officials. And the word they got back, according to a team executive with direct knowledge of at least one of those conversations, was the same they were hearing from Madrid: If the plan was put together in a certain way, FIFA would not oppose it.Those talks gave the clubs and JPMorgan, the American investment bank that had agreed to finance the project, a level of comfort about its viability. Their confidence wavered, though, when leaks about a potential superleague emerged in news reports in January, accompanied by whispers of FIFA’s involvement in the talks.Alarmed by the reports, European soccer’s top official, Aleksander Ceferin, the UEFA president, held an urgent meeting with Infantino at UEFA’s headquarters in Nyon, Switzerland in which he asked Infantino directly if he was involved in the plan. Infantino said he was not, but he initially demurred when asked to commit to a statement condemning the proposals. Amid intense pressure and growing requests for comment, though, he backed down.On Jan. 21, a statement was issued in the name of FIFA and soccer’s six regional confederations. It said a “closed” European league would not be recognized by FIFA or the confederations and reiterated the threat of a World Cup ban for any participant.The statement shocked the organizers of the Super League, as their talks with FIFA until that stage had been positive. But according to people involved in the planning, they also sensed a signal in its wording: FIFA said it would not recognize a closed competition, but the Super League was now planning to supplement its roster of 15 permanent members with five qualifiers every season.The A22 advisers, according to the club owner, insisted that loophole meant all was not lost. “They reported that FIFA was still open to something,” he said.The founders’ plan was to tie the Super League to FIFA’s Club World Cup, the owner said. That way the clubs would commit as many as 12 of the biggest teams in Europe to Infantino’s ambitious global competition in exchange for FIFA’s blessing of their new league. To sweeten the deal, they considered waiving $1 billion in potential payouts to allow FIFA to keep the money as a so-called solidarity payment that could be spent on soccer development projects around the world.It is unknown if any more talks took place between FIFA and the Super League clubs in the weeks before the clubs broke cover and announced their project. But FIFA was the last of the major soccer governing bodies to issue an official statement on the proposed league after the clubs went public, and it only did so after UEFA, top leagues and politicians had made clear their opposition.Arriving as Ceferin was calling the leaders of the breakaway league “snakes and liars,” FIFA’s statement was far more measured. Any talk of excluding players from the World Cup was quietly dropped, and FIFA instead offered nuanced, conciliatory language. FIFA said it stood “firm in favour of solidarity in football and an equitable redistribution model which can help develop football as a sport, particularly at global level.”It also reiterated that it could only “express its disapproval to a ‘closed European breakaway league’ outside of the international football structures.”For those engaged in the breakaway, the words — as they had in January — were vague enough to suggest that there was still hope for their project, that FIFA might still be open to providing its backing.Within 48 hours, though, their hopes were dashed. Opposition to the plan had by then reached a fever pitch. Fans in Britain — where six of the 12 founding members were based — were protesting in the streets, and politicians had threatened to enact laws to block the league.Fans of Chelsea and the five other Premier League clubs that had signed up for the Super League forced their teams to reconsider and withdraw.Matt Dunham/Associated PressInfantino, just as he had in January, once again came under pressure from Ceferin to distance himself from the plans. He did so in a speech to UEFA’s congress on April 20 in which he effectively walked away from the Super League project.“We can only strongly disapprove the creation of the Super League,” Infantino said. “A Super League which is a closed shop. A breakaway from the current institutions, from the leagues, from the associations, from UEFA and from FIFA. There is a lot to throw away for the short-term financial gain of some. They need to reflect, and they need to assume responsibility.”Hours later, realizing that the “essential” requirement their contract had called for would not be forthcoming, the first clubs started to walk away. By nightfall, all six English clubs had announced they were out. By midnight, three other founders had followed.Today only three teams — Pérez’s Real Madrid, Juventus and Barcelona — remain as holdouts, refusing to sign a letter of apology demanded by UEFA as a condition of their reintegration into European soccer. If they do not sign, all three face significant penalties, including a potential ban from the Champions League.Infantino, meanwhile, faces pressures of his own, not to mention accusations of betrayal. The head of the Spanish league, Javier Tebas, openly called him one of the masterminds behind the breakaway league and said he had told Infantino as much when the men met briefly at the UEFA Congress.“It’s he who is behind the Super League, and I already told him in person,” Tebas said this month. “I’ve said it before and I will say it again: Behind all of this is FIFA President Gianni Infantino.” More

  • in

    How Europe's Super League Fell Apart

    LONDON — For 48 hours, soccer stood on the brink. Fans took to the streets. Players broke into open revolt. Chaos stalked the game’s corridors of power, unleashing a shock wave that resonated around the world, from Manchester to Manila, Barcelona to Beijing, and Liverpool to Los Angeles.That internationalism is what has turned European soccer, over the last 30 years, into a global obsession. The elite teams of western Europe are stocked with stars drawn from Africa, South America and all points in between. They draw fans not just from England, Italy and Spain, but China, India and Australia in numbers large enough to tempt broadcasters across the planet to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for the rights to show their games.But while soccer is now the biggest business in sports, it remains, at heart, an intensely local affair. Teams rooted in neighborhoods and based in small towns compete in domestic leagues that have existed for more than a century, competitions in which the great and the good share the field — and at least some of the finances — with the minor and the makeweight.An uneasy truce between the two faces of the world’s game had held for decades. And then, on Sunday night, it cracked, as an unlikely alliance of American hedge funds, Russian oligarchs, European industrial tycoons and Gulf royals sought to seize control of the revenues of the world’s most popular sport by creating a closed European superleague.How that plan came together and then spectacularly collapsed is a story of egos and intrigue, avarice and ambition, secret meetings and private lunches, international finance and internecine strife. It lasted just two frantic, feverish days, but that was more than enough time to shake the world.The SecretLast Thursday, Javier Tebas and Joan Laporta were supposed to be having a cordial, celebratory lunch. A few days earlier, Laporta had been elected to a second term as president of F.C. Barcelona. Tebas, the outspoken, unashamedly bellicose executive in charge of Spain’s national league, wanted to be among the first to congratulate him on his victory.It did not turn out that way. Laporta revealed to Tebas that Barcelona was almost certainly joining a dozen or so of Europe’s most famous, most successful teams in a breakaway competition, one that would effectively unmoor its members from the game’s traditional structures and, crucially, its multibillion-dollar economy.The threat was nothing new. There has long been a perception, at least among soccer’s rich and powerful teams, that since they have the most fans, they generate the bulk of the sport’s revenue. It follows, then, that they should be treated to a greater slice of its income. Like clockwork, every few years they would float a plan to group the best teams together in a single competition. And, like clockwork, the grand plan would fail to materialize, the big clubs bought off by promises of more power and more money if only they would agree to stay.But Tebas felt this new effort was more serious, more real. Laporta told him that a half-dozen teams had already committed. Several more had been told that they had until the end of the weekend to decide.Tebas raised the alarm. He called officials in leagues across Europe. He called executives of powerful clubs. And he reached out to Aleksander Ceferin, the president of European soccer’s governing body, the organization that Tebas knew had the most to lose.Aleksander Ceferin, the president of European soccer’s governing body, excoriated the executives leading the Super League as “snakes” and “liars.”Richard Juilliart/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesCeferin, a lean, plain-spoken 53-year-old lawyer from Slovenia, was baffled. Only a few weeks earlier, his close friend and ally Andrea Agnelli, the president of the Italian league champion Juventus, the scion of one of Europe’s great industrial families and the leader of the association representing European soccer clubs, had assured him that whispers about a new round of breakaway talks were only “a rumor.”Just a day earlier, in fact, Agnelli and his organization had recommitted to a suite of reforms to the Champions League, European soccer’s crown jewel and its biggest moneymaker. Everything was set to be approved on Monday.Still, the drumbeat of rumors continued, and Ceferin felt he needed to be sure. So as he slid into the front seat of his Audi Q8 on Saturday to start the eight-hour drive from his home in Ljubljana to his office in Switzerland, he decided to get to the bottom of things. He placed a call to Agnelli. His friend did not pick up.Ceferin — the godfather to Agnelli’s youngest child — texted the Italian’s wife and asked if she might get the Juventus president to call him urgently. He was three hours into his journey when his cellphone rang. Breezily, Agnelli reassured Ceferin, again, that everything was fine.Ceferin suggested they issue a joint communiqué that would put the issue to rest. Agnelli agreed. Ceferin drafted a statement from the car and sent it to Agnelli. An hour later, Agnelli asked for time to send back an amended version. Hours passed. The men traded more calls. Eventually, the Italian told Ceferin he needed another 30 minutes.And then Agnelli turned off his phone.The RevoltThe reason that the threat of a superleague had carried so much menace for so long is that much of soccer’s vast economy rests on a fragile bond.Both domestic championships — like England’s Premier League and Spain’s La Liga — and Pan-continental tournaments like the Champions League to some extent rely on the presence of the elite clubs to attract fans and, through them, broadcasters and sponsors. Without them, the revenue streams that filter down to and sustain smaller teams might collapse.For decades, the system rested on appeasing the rich teams just enough to encourage them to retain their loyalty to the collective. All of a sudden, that trust was fraying.As he arrived in Switzerland, Ceferin fielded two more calls that made clear how real the threat to European soccer’s future had become. Two teams, one English and one Spanish, informed him that they had been pressed to sign up for the breakaway league. They had decided to accept, but wanted to remain on good terms with European soccer’s governing body.Ceferin’s response was polite, but blunt. If they allied with the rebels, they should prepare for an all-out attack.With his inner circle, Ceferin got to work. They broke the news to some board members of the European Club Association, the umbrella group of about 250 European teams. Its president, Agnelli, and senior executives like Manchester United’s Ed Woodward had misled them about supporting the Champions League reform plan, they said.They told the clubs that, even though the breakaway clubs intended to remain in their own domestic leagues, too, the plan would see the value of those competitions’ broadcast deals collapse. Sponsorships would evaporate. It would decimate the rest of soccer’s finances. “They were outraged, they couldn’t believe it,” Ceferin said in an interview on Wednesday. “Even mafia organizations have some sort of code.”By lunchtime on Sunday, the roster of the insurgents was known. Ceferin started referring to them as the Dirty Dozen. As well as Barcelona, Real Madrid and Atlético Madrid had signed up from Spain. There were six from England: Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham. In Italy, Juventus had been joined by A.C. Milan and Inter Milan.New graffiti in Italy featured an image of Andrea Agnelli. It was titled “Il Golpe Fallito,” the failed coup.Filippo Monteforte/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesNot all of them were equal partners. Executives at Manchester City and Chelsea, for example, had only learned on Friday that the plan was in motion. They had been told that they had no more than a day or so to decide whether they were in or out. Either way, they were warned, the train was leaving the station.City quickly succumbed, but others proved more resistant. Bayern Munich and Paris St.-Germain, the dominant forces in Germany and France, had both been approached. They had declined the offer, preferring to stay — at least for the moment — aligned with the rest of Europe.They supplied some of the intelligence that allowed UEFA and national leagues in Spain, Italy and England to plan their counterattack. When the group learned that an official statement revealing the creation of the new competition, called the Super League, would be made late Sunday, they made plans to issue their own — disavowing the project.But before they could, the news leaked. The public outcry, particularly in Britain, was immediate. Fans hung banners outside their teams’ stadiums, and lawmakers took to the airwaves to denounce the rebels for their greed and disrespect toward soccer’s traditions.Gary Neville, a former Manchester United captain, unleashed a several-minute tirade against his former team and Liverpool, English soccer’s two most popular teams. The screed went viral, and it was soon being shared by opponents of the project via the messaging application WhatsApp.This was precisely what some of those involved with the project had feared. There had been doubts that the plan was ready to go live; insiders worried that it might not survive a fierce initial backlash. “This is not the time to do it,” an executive involved in the project warned. The executive suggested holding off until summer.By then, it was hoped, the clubs might have found a frontman for the breakaway. Florentino Pérez, the president of Real Madrid, had been the driving force behind much of it; it was, to some extent, his brainchild. But his peers were aware that he would struggle to convince an English audience, in particular.The Manchester United co-chairman Joel Glazer, whose family also owns the Super Bowl champion Tampa Bay Buccaneers; Chelsea’s Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich; and Arsenal’s Stan Kroenke, who controls nearly a dozen professional teams, almost never speak publicly. Manchester City’s owner, Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al-Nahyan, a member of the royal family of Abu Dhabi, doesn’t speak to reporters at all. And others considered for the role — like Liverpool’s majority owner, John W. Henry — were unwilling to accept it.There were also concerns that the rebels’ communications strategy — marshaled by Katie Perrior, a political operative close to Boris Johnson, the British prime minister — was too focused on winning governmental, rather than popular, support. There had been no effort to consult, involve or win over fans, players or coaches. An outcry might destroy everything before the lobbying effort could begin in earnest.Those concerns were not heeded. Agnelli, theoretically a voice for all of Europe’s clubs in his governance roles and a close friend of Ceferin, was feeling the strain of being, in effect, a double agent. He had protected the rebels’ secret for weeks, shading the truth — or worse — in talks with friends and allies. On Monday morning, though, he would have to sit on the dais with the rest of the UEFA board as it voted to approve changes to a Champions League that would be under mortal threat from the Super League.He knew the league was happening. With the signatures of Chelsea, Manchester City and Atlético Madrid in hand, the founding members were set. The financing, delivered by the Spanish advisory firm Key Capital Partners and backed by the American bank JPMorgan Chase, would mean billions in new riches. Agnelli simply needed the news out.Glazer, one of Manchester United’s co-chairmen, agreed. He was adamant it was time to press the button.And so, despite all the doubts, the clubs showed their hand just after 11 on Sunday night in London. An official announcement, published simultaneously on the 12 teams’ websites, revealed that they had all signed up to what they called the Super League. But by then, the narrative that the project was driven by the greed of a few wealthy clubs and their leaders had taken shape.“It was dead in the water by 11:10,” the executive involved in the plan said. “Everyone had climbed their hill and would not be able to come down.”Florentino Pérez, the president of Real Madrid.Rodrigo Jimenez/EPA, via ShutterstockUncivil WarBy first light the next day, the battle lines had been drawn. And it was quickly clear that the breakaway 12 had next to no support.But rather than mount a public defense, sending out a phalanx of officials to make a case that the league was good for soccer’s entire pyramid, arguing that it would shower millions on the teams and leagues left behind, the Super League’s first act was to deliver a letter to Europe’s governing body, UEFA, and soccer’s global leadership at FIFA.The league, the letter informed the governing bodies, had already filed motions in several European countries to prevent anyone from blocking the project.Ceferin, meanwhile, was back to working the phones to rally opposition. He sought the support of Gianni Infantino, the FIFA president, even though the men rarely saw eye to eye. He also had a lengthy call with Oliver Dowden, the lawmaker responsible for sport and culture in Britain. Dowden said the British government would do everything in its power to stop the breakaway clubs from “stealing” the game.Soon Johnson, the British prime minister, was being interviewed on television, staking out a position against the plan in a savvy play for public support. His French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, issued a statement condemning the plan. Prince William posted a tweet expressing his “concerns” about the Super League.By the time he appeared in public on Monday, Ceferin had led a UEFA executive committee meeting where Agnelli was notable by his absence. Agnelli had resigned his board post — and his role as head of the European clubs group — minutes after the Super League’s late-night announcement. With his seat empty, the remaining members voted through changes to the Champions League, and then got back to work in their effort to crush the new league that was threatening it.Ceferin, stern-faced, then excoriated the breakaway group in his first comments to reporters. He reserved specific vitriol for Manchester United’s Woodward, who he felt had misled him, and for Agnelli. Ceferin called the men “snakes” and “liars,” and described how they had led him to believe he had their full support for the Champions League revisions.“Agnelli is the biggest disappointment of all,” Ceferin said. “I have never seen a person who would lie so many times and so persistently as he did.”By then, the acrimony was spreading across the European soccer landscape. The Premier League held a meeting without its six rebel teams, and the remaining 14 clubs discussed what punitive measures to take against those who had signed up for the Super League. Daniel Levy, the chairman of Tottenham, one of the rebel clubs, asked Paul Barber, the chief executive of Brighton, to share a message of regret at the meeting. He did, but few seemed interested in Levy’s sentiment.In Italy, a hastily arranged meeting was even more febrile. Owners and executives of the teams in Serie A, the country’s top league, turned on officials from Juventus, Inter and Milan. Tensions were already soaring; cash-poor teams, their budgets devastated by the coronavirus pandemic, had been arguing with their richer rivals over television contracts and whether to accept investment from a consortium of private equity companies.Now Agnelli, who had quickly become a lightning rod for the Super League, was called a traitor by the chairman of Juventus’s crosstown rival, Torino. Agnelli, in a typically pugnacious manner, was said to have retorted with an expletive, saying he did not care if Juventus remained in Serie A.“It’s a betrayal,” the Torino president, Urbano Cairo, told reporters. “It’s what a Judas does.”English teams, notably Liverpool and Chelsea, had other reasons to be concerned. Their fans were already gathering outside the stadiums from which they had been barred by the pandemic, hanging banners denouncing the Super League on walls and entry gates.Late in the afternoon, hundreds of angry supporters surrounded Liverpool’s team bus as it made its way to Leeds United’s Elland Road stadium for a game. Inside the stadium, the Leeds players wore T-shirts expressing solidarity with soccer’s current system during warm-ups. When Leeds scored a late goal to secure a 1-1 tie, its official Twitter account mocked the visitors.Leeds United players warmed up Monday in shirts bearing a slogan opposing the proposed European Super League. Other clubs left out of the plan soon did the same.Lee Smith/Agence France-Presse, via Pool/Afp Via Getty ImagesPlayers, too, were starting to make their views known. Manchester United’s squad had demanded a meeting with Woodward to express not only their fury at being forced to find out about the plan through the news media, but their disapproval of the idea itself. Several other high-profile stars, playing for teams not involved in the breakaway, had posted messages disavowing the plan on social media.On Monday evening, after his team’s game with Leeds, Liverpool’s most senior player, James Milner, revealed that he and his teammates had not been consulted about the club’s involvement in the plan. “I don’t like it, and I hope it doesn’t happen,” he said.Inside the clubs, unease was mounting. The plan had been kept secret even from high-level executives — “It was an ownership thing,” said one executive at one of the teams involved — and there had been little warning of what was to come. At some clubs, an all-staff email flashed around just before the statement was released.At others, high-profile figures were left to read about it on social media. Paolo Maldini, a legendary former player and now an executive at A.C. Milan, had heard nothing until it was announced. Michael Edwards, Liverpool’s sporting director, was blindsided. Some started to worry about the safety of their families as the outrage spread.A wall in Barcelona. Outrage among fans was not limited to England.Nacho Doce/ReutersIn Switzerland, Ceferin was in his hotel room, drafting and redrafting a speech he was to make the next day at UEFA’s annual meeting. He had already started to field calls from Super League clubs, mainly from England, concerned about the growing backlash and the possible consequences they — and their players — could face by signing up for an unsanctioned tournament.In January, FIFA had warned clubs and players that anyone taking part in a breakaway league risked banishment from events like the World Cup. Earlier Monday, Ceferin had repeated the threat, but now his tone was softening.“I had a feeling they wanted to repair this mistake and they didn’t know how to do it,” Ceferin said. So he changed his speech. Now, it offered an olive branch to those teams he knew were searching for one.He inched closer to winning them back when Pérez, the Real Madrid president, made what was in hindsight the disastrous — if brave — decision to defend the Super League plan on a flashy, late-night television show.Largely unchallenged by the hosts, he pledged that the league was an altruistic venture even as it funneled ever more billions to a handful of rich teams, and to lambast the Champions League reforms that Agnelli, now the Super League’s vice chairman, only weeks earlier had described as “beautiful.”In the headquarters of the other Super League clubs, executives held their heads in their hands. Still, though, they remained mute, unwilling to go public to defend a plan that Pérez claimed had been designed expressly to “save football.”The CollapseAs Ceferin prepared to deliver his keynote address on Tuesday morning in Montreux, reports began to emerge that several teams — Chelsea and Manchester City among them — were considering dropping out. Television networks and sponsors had come out against the breakaway plan, and the British government was threatening official action to block it.Any doubts among the teams hardened as FIFA’s Infantino dispelled growing speculation that he secretly harbored hopes the project would succeed.“Either you are in, or you are out,” FIFA’s president, Gianni Infantino, warned the breakaway teams.Richard Juilliart/UEFA, via Associated Press“If some elect to go their own way, then they must live with the consequences of their choice, they are responsible for their choice,” Infantino said, raising again the possibility that the renegade clubs and their players could face excommunication. “Concretely this means, either you are in, or you are out.”Then it was Ceferin’s turn. He talked about greed and selfishness, but also about soccer’s importance in the fabric of European culture, and in the lives of the millions who follow the game across the Continent. He then made his direct pitch to the English clubs, the one he had written into his draft hours earlier.“Gentlemen, you made a huge mistake,” he told them, staring directly into the cameras. “Some will say it is greed, others disdain, arrogance, flippancy or complete ignorance of England’s football culture. It does not matter.“What does matter is that there is still time to change your mind. Everyone makes mistakes.”Within hours, the project’s demise started to snowball. In a meeting with the Premier League chief executive Richard Masters and fan groups from all six English teams, Johnson said he was considering detonating “a legislative bomb” to halt the putsch. More and more players came out against the idea. Marcus Rashford, Manchester United’s homegrown striker, posted an image on Twitter that read: “Football Is Nothing Without Fans.” Liverpool’s entire squad released a simultaneous message disavowing the project.The team captain, Jordan Henderson, had convened a meeting of his counterparts at every Premier League team to discuss a concerted response. Manchester City’s respected coach, Pep Guardiola, declared his opposition to the mere idea of a closed league of superclubs, saying that “it is not sport if you cannot lose.” It was a turn of events that the rebel clubs had not foreseen.As evening drew near, hundreds of fans gathered outside Stamford Bridge, Chelsea’s home stadium, to protest the plan before the team’s game with Brighton. They blocked streets, and surrounded the bus carrying the players when it arrived. Petr Cech, a club legend, went out to try to speak to the protesters. Inside, team officials leaked the news that Chelsea was exploring ways to exit its Super League contract.But it was Manchester City that was the first to break ranks officially, releasing a short statement saying it was pulling out.Manchester City, the Premier League leader, was the first founding member to back out.Jon Super/Associated PressThe Super League executives were stunned, unsure of what was happening. That night, Arsenal and its North London rival Tottenham announced their departures within minutes of each other. Manchester United confirmed that Woodward — its top executive and one of the main architects of the Super League — would leave the club at the end of the year. Then came a statement from the club that it was withdrawing, too. Almost immediately, Liverpool confirmed it was out.The Super League, having lost half its members, and its entire foothold in England, was finished. Inter Milan dropped out a few hours later, and then, as the clock ticked to the 48-hour mark since its grand announcement, the Super League released an unsigned statement acknowledging that the plan was no longer viable.By then, Ceferin was back in Slovenia, having completed the eight-hour return trip from Montreux. He stayed up until about 2 a.m., digesting the news. He released a statement welcoming back the English teams into the European fold. He started to respond to the thousands of messages that had swamped his phone over the previous two days.Then he closed his laptop, and helped himself to a double whiskey. More

  • in

    Battle Over Super League Begins With Letters, Threats and Banners

    The founding members of a league that would reshape soccer have warned the sport’s leaders that they will fight any effort to block their plans.LONDON — The superclubs have called in the lawyers. The president of European soccer has responded, calling the teams’ leaders “snakes and liars.” And the fans want no part of any of it.The pitched battle to pursue, or prevent, a breakaway European soccer superleague started to take shape on Monday, hours after the stunning announcement late Sunday night by 12 of the sport’s richest and most popular teams that they were forming one.The plan threatens to redraw the European soccer economy, from rich clubs in the Premier League to tiny ones in every corner of the continent, and funnel billions of dollars toward a handful of wealthy elite teams. It would represent one of the biggest wealth transfers in sports history, imperil the future of marquee events like the Champions League and threaten the existence of the domestic leagues and the smaller clubs that were left behind.By first light on Monday, the fight was on. In a letter written by the breakaway teams, they warned soccer’s authorities that they had taken legal action to prevent any efforts to block their project.A few hours later, Aleksander Ceferin, the president of European soccer’s governing body, UEFA, used his first public appearance to denounce the group behind the plan and vowed to take stern action if it did not reverse course. He raised the possibility of barring players on the participating teams from events like the World Cup and other tournaments, and threatened to banish the rebel clubs from their domestic leagues. Sunday’s announcement, he said, amounted to “spitting in football fans’ faces.”By then the outrage was spreading. In Germany, Bayern Munich and Borussia Dortmund — clubs seen as potential joiners of the breakaway league — distanced themselves from the plan. In France, Paris St.-Germain midfielder Ander Herrera lamented “the rich stealing what the people created.” In Spain, La Liga has convened a meeting of its clubs but will hold it without the three teams — Real Madrid, Barcelona and Atlético Madrid — who have agreed to join the Super League.And in England, coaches and players revealed they had not been consulted on the move, fan groups united in their opposition to the proposal, and, in Liverpool, supporters demanded the club remove their banners from the team’s stadium before its next home game on Saturday.“We feel we can no longer give our support to a club which puts financial greed above integrity of the game,” one of the groups said on Twitter.Aleksander Ceferin, the president of European soccer’s governing body, threatened to punish the clubs leading a breakaway league, then offered them an olive branch.Richard Juilliart/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAs they went public on Sunday with their plans for the European Super League, though, the proposal’s backers simultaneously wrote to the president of FIFA, world soccer’s governing body, and to UEFA’s Ceferin saying that they would like to work with the organizations but that they had also taken measures to protect their interests.The group includes a dozen top teams from England, Spain and Italy, such as Manchester United, Liverpool, Real Madrid and Juventus, and its six-page missive made clear its intent to proceed, and to overcome any opposition.Rumors of the creation of the breakaway competition, which hopes to add three more permanent founding members to what will be an annual 20-team league, prompted FIFA in January to bow to pressure from UEFA and issue a statement that threatened severe repercussions against players and clubs involved in any unsanctioned tournament. FIFA issued a statement of “disapproval” of the breakaway plan on Sunday, but notably did not repeat the threat of expelling those who took part.Faced with that threat, though, the company created to control the new Super League said in its letter sent on Sunday that motions had been filed in multiple courts to prevent any moves to jeopardize the project, which, its organizers said, has $4 billion of financing in place.The company has “taken appropriate action to challenge the legality of the restrictions to the formation of the competition before such relevant courts and European authorities as may be necessary to safeguard its future,” said the letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The New York Times.At Arsenal, some fans vented their anger at the owner Stan Kroenke.Tolga Akmen/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe superleague the clubs have agreed to form — an alliance of top teams closer in concept to closed leagues like the N.F.L. and the N.B.A. than to soccer’s current model — would bring about the most significant restructuring of elite European soccer since the creation of the European Cup (now the Champions League) in the 1950s.Yet even as it detailed its pre-emptive legal actions, the six-page letter invited soccer’s leaders to hold “urgent” talks to find a common path forward for a project that the group says will benefit soccer even beyond the narrow group that will enjoy unparalleled riches. Under the plan announced Sunday, the 15 founding members of the Super League would share an initial pool of 3.5 billion euros, about $4.2 billion.That equates to some $400 million each, more than four times what the winner of the Champions League took home in 2020. In the letter, the founders of the Super League said they did not wish to replace the Champions League, but instead wanted to create a tournament that would run alongside it.The damage to the prestige and value of the Champions League, though, would be immediate and run into the billions of dollars, turning what has for decades been club soccer’s elite competition into a secondary event, one that is unlikely to retain anything close to its current commercial appeal.In a concurrent effort to make the event more valuable, UEFA on Monday ratified the biggest changes to the Champions League since 1992. And then Ceferin held a news conference in which he took direct aim at the rival league.Having digested the letter’s content, Ceferin said, he was in no mood to acquiesce to demands for an urgent meeting. Instead, he issued pointed rebukes to several of the men leading the effort, and singled out Andrea Agnelli, the chairman of the Italian champion Juventus.Agnelli, who resigned from his role on UEFA’s executive committee after the announcement of the breakaway, had spoken to Ceferin as recently as Saturday. At the time, Ceferin said, Agnelli had told the UEFA president he fully supported changes to the Champions League and dismissed talk of a breakaway as “just rumors.”“Agnelli is the biggest disappointment of all,” said Ceferin, who worked as a criminal lawyer before moving into soccer. “I’ve never seen a person who would lie so many times and so persistently as he did.”Ed Woodward, the vice chairman of Manchester United, gave his support for UEFA’s Champions League restructuring as recently as Thursday, Ceferin added. He said UEFA was considering seeking damages from the 12 clubs that formed the breakaway group, and even from some of their top officials.Still, he enters the next stage of the fight for control of European soccer with the support of some top club executives. Nasser al-Khelaifi, the chairman of the French champion Paris St.-Germain, was among the officials who voted to approve the changes to the Champions League, and he has resisted efforts to lure P.S.G., a club stocked with some of the world’s best players, to the new league.Teams in Germany, including last season’s Champions League winner, Bayern Munich, and its biggest domestic rival, Borussia Dortmund, also have declined to join the new venture. In another boost for UEFA, Bayern’s chairman, Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, was chosen to replace Agnelli on UEFA’s board.The substantial changes to the Champions League may now be consigned to irrelevance, though, if the breakaway clubs manage to get their way and take to the field in a competition that they said they hoped to begin as soon as this summer. Their urgency stems from their financing; the investment bank JPMorgan Chase has provided four billion euros in debt financing to start the league, but it is contingent on the group’s securing a broadcast contract.Manchester City and Liverpool are among the six Premier League clubs that have signed on to the new Super League.Pool photo by Jon SuperIn the letter, the group said that its urgency stemmed from the huge losses piling up as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. The sight of games played in cavernous but empty stadiums has become the norm, and restrictions on public gatherings mean that hundreds of millions of dollars are being lost in gate receipts in every league in Europe, while broadcasters have also clawed back vast sums from leagues and competition organizers.The biggest European clubs have long been frustrated with sharing the wealth created by tournaments in which they are the biggest draw, and talks about a new league began well before the pandemic. Documents that leaked in 2019 showed that the president of Real Madrid, Florentino Pérez, an architect of the current plan, had sought to create an earlier iteration of a competition involving the biggest teams.The role FIFA will play in the fight over the Super League is intriguing, too. Its president, Gianni Infantino, has talked in recent years of creating new competitions to increase interest in soccer around the globe. As part of that push, he has given his backing to a 20-team superleague in Africa.FIFA issued a statement late Sunday in which it reiterated that it would not support a closed breakaway competition. The Super League’s founders, though, insisted that their event is not completely closed, since they plan to provide access every season to five teams outside the 15 founding members.Ceferin said he expected Infantino to dispel any doubts about his position on Tuesday when he addresses UEFA’s annual meeting.For now, UEFA and other groups opposed to the new competition are huddling to discuss their legal options, and engaging in talks with governments across Europe as well as with the European Union. Ceferin praised some of the politicians who have publicly condemned the Super League plan, including Britain’s prime minister, Boris Johnson, and France’s president, Emmanuel Macron.Yet he also offered an olive branch to the rebel clubs.He told them it was not too late to come back from the brink. While relationships have been damaged, he said, he vowed to act professionally for the benefit of European soccer. While he felt betrayed by the “greediness, selfishness and narcissism” of some of those involved, he would not — with the possible exception of Agnelli — make things personal. Ceferin is the godfather to Agnelli’s youngest child. More