Matt Scott
European clubs will break away from Fifa and Uefa and create their own super league unless the world governing body urgently addresses their growing concerns over international fixtures and finances. It would be the most radical development in the history of football since the first World Cup in 1930, ripping up the established world order of the game and seizing power from Sepp Blatter, Fifa's president.
The Guardian can reveal the background to Karl-Heinz Rummenigge's comments on Tuesday about a "revolution" for football: a European super league that would see the clubs seize control of their own affairs from the regulators. The European game is currently ordered through a memorandum of understanding between clubs and Uefa that was signed three and a half years ago. It runs until 2014, and when it expires the top European clubs will no longer be legally bound to play in Uefa's Champions League or, crucially, to release their players for international friendlies or tournaments, including the World Cup.
In a reflection of their belief that Fifa lacks legitimacy – especially in the wake of the damaging bribery allegations currently surrounding the organisation – the clubs will not shrink from breaking away if they do not receive sufficient guarantees.
A board member of the European Club Association of which Bayern Munich's Rummenigge is president told the Guardian on Wednesday: "The fact that Bayern Munich, who have always been close to the institutions, are being so vocal and loud about the situation is a clear sign we're very close to breaking point. We have a memorandum of understanding with Uefa that expires in 2014. After that time we can no longer be forced to respect Fifa statutes or Uefa regulations. And we won't be obliged to compete in their competitions."
When asked what that would mean for clubs' finances if they were to withdraw from the Champions League, which generates tens of millions of pounds a year for his organisation's richest and most influential members, the ECA board member responded: "Don't be naive. Don't think there would be no alternative competition."
Although the ECA has a broad constituency, representing 197 European clubs, it is the interests of nine in particular that will drive this agenda. They are Real Madrid, Milan, Liverpool, Internazionale, Manchester United, Barcelona, Arsenal, Chelsea and Rummenigge's Bayern. When the Guardian contacted the four English clubs for their views on the matter, all declined to comment. However, a director at one of the clubs said: "[Financially] there is a lot of unfulfilled potential in football as it stands."
The English experience of the past 20 years, since a breakaway group of the leading clubs withdrew from the Football League to form the Premier League (albeit under the auspices of the Football Association), has been exceptionally lucrative for the game domestically and the hawks within the ECA are pushing for a replica at European level.
The news will not come as a surprise at Uefa where in some quarters there is a long-held view that the clubs will seek to go their own way. This has arisen from a number of points of conflict with the world football authorities. As revealed by the Guardian last month there is considerable disquiet about perceived moves to expand the international calendar, forcing clubs to release their expensively remunerated players to national associations without any payback. Fifa denies there have been any discussions about the subject but the ECA source claimed that the matter will be ratified at a Fifa executive-committee meeting in the autumn. As is consistent with relations between Fifa and the clubs, the decision will have been taken without any formal negotiations with the clubs about how the additional fixtures would be accommodated.
There is a further grievance, this time with Uefa about insurance. The ECA alleges Uefa has pulled back from its commitment to provide insurance for players who are called up for international duty. "Uefa said we would have our insurance after their presidential elections [in March]," the source said. "Now the elections have taken place and we're still waiting for talks." A spokesman for Uefa did not respond to the Guardian's call.
Yet despite the details of the enduring dispute between the clubs and Fifa and Uefa, there is an overriding financial motive. "When you have every club losing money every year and the only winners the players and Fifa," the source said, "how can that be allowed to go on?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/27/european-clubs-breakaway-fifa-uefaMatt Scott
Who are the teams involved?It is the biggest brands in football that are driving this agenda. Between them Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, Internazionale, Milan, Manchester United, Liverpool and Barcelona have won 36 European Cup and Champions League titles, almost two-thirds of those played. Where these clubs play money will undoubtedly follow.
Added to this are Arsenal and Chelsea who, despite never having won Europe's elite trophy, boast international fanbases that would assist in driving the revenues of a competition. There would also be invitations to the other big names from across Europe: Juventus, Roma, Ajax, Porto, Marseille and a few others — Manchester City perhaps?
Why do they want to do it?The short answer is: money. And lots of it. A new breed of football owner has emerged who does not see the proprietorship of their sporting assets as a benevolent activity. Men such as Silvio Berlusconi have used football club ownership to push a popular political agenda, or Roman Abramovich to raise his profile overseas with a trophy asset. Both have been content to sustain huge losses in support of their clubs. But the US owners who began entering the football market with the 2005 Glazer takeover of Manchester United are used to generating cash from their sports franchises. They consider it insane that almost every entity at the top of the world's most popular sport haemorrhages cash.
How could they make a breakaway actually happen?Legally they would be entitled to break away from football's existing structures in 2014 when the current accord between the clubs and Uefa, which in the Champions League runs the club game's most lucrative competition, elapses.
Eyeballs follow Lionel Messi, Wayne Rooney and Fernando Torres wherever they go. And with fan interest come the dollars of sponsors and broadcasters – as Fifa has found with the explosion of its revenues over the past decade and a half.
In 1997 Fifa's entire annual revenue was $22.5m; by 2009, at the same stage in a World Cup cycle because it was also one year before a tournament took place, Fifa had generated $1bn from their events. With that amount of money to share between them the clubs could make anything happen.
How would a breakaway work?To maximise revenues and to provide security of income for those clubs involved, access to the tournament is likely to be restricted. Although a closed league would probably not play well with European fans used to promotion and relegation, a simple play-off system for a single place may be the kind of sop that clubs aim to get away with.
Similarly to the existing Uefa Champions League, it would probably be a midweek tournament. Already Real Madrid and Barcelona operate B teams in lower leagues – top clubs would hope to employ such second strings in their national-league commitments. Domestic competitors may not like the elite breaking away but are unlikely to tell them they cannot play in traditional competitions since their incomes are tied to those of the big guns.
What about international football and the World Cup?Arguably the biggest gripe among clubs is the international fixture calendar. The early‑August friendly date has angered the game's employers since they must release their players at exactly the time they want to be organising friendly matches of their own: lucrative pre-season tours overseas.
If 20 teams are to participate in a fixed tournament, as well as the introduction of an end-of-season knockout competition along the lines of US sports' play-offs, there will be no room for the top players to commit to biennial international tournaments. This, clearly, would be the most politically sensitive area of the elite clubs' plans but its impact may be softened by the clubs pooling their players in a separate tournament played in international shirts – but without Fifa involvement.
Why is it different this time?Clubs have indeed been down this route before, when the combative Florentino Pérez of Real Madrid was chairman of the G14 movement. A strategy document developed in 2007 by the G14's then general manager, Thomas Kurth, talked of "a detachment of the top professional level from all remaining levels underneath, if this was agreed upon by the clubs".
The threat petered out after Uefa pledged to distribute a bigger share of Champions League income to the clubs. But they regretted not taking on Fifa at the time and, in the world governing body's moment of weakness, the clubs are sensing their opportunity anew. The arrival of US owners, Uefa's dirigiste financial fair play rules and the lack of profitability for clubs are combining to create a critical mass.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/27/uefa-champions-league-european-revolt?intcmp=239
