It has been framed as the decision that could define European football for decades. Early on Thursday morning, the European Court of Justice will deliver its recommendations in the challenge made by the three remaining Super League clubs against UEFA.
Should Athanasios Rantos, the ECJ’s advocate general, rule in favour of the European Super League Company - effectively Barcelona, Real Madrid and Juventus - the resurrection of a closed-shop continental competition will not just step closer to reality but threaten to obliterate the game’s hierarchical structure.
But if UEFA, who have had the backing of many European governments, find the court is in their favour then the governing body will be emboldened to push ahead with their own plans to reshape the club game. Rantos’ ruling will be wrapped up in the sort of dry language that makes the eyes of those who are not legally-minded glaze over. Yet its impact will be significant.
“The issue they are considering is fairly dry in terms of the law, relating to Article 102 of the EU regulations with regards to competition law,” Stephen Taylor Heath, the head of sports law at JMW Solicitors, told Mirror Football. “Effectively it says a party cannot abuse a dominant position without objective justification.”
Super League backers have argued that UEFA and its associates have effectively acted as a “cartel” within the current structure. And while it increases the likelihood of an elitist competition eventually being established, a decision in their favour would open up another layer of complex questions.
“They may wish to benefit from the ruling by saying you can’t impose sanctions on the clubs that we want to join the Super League and should be free to join if they want to without being sanctioned by UEFA,” Taylor Heath says.
“If that’s the outcome, it’s not necessarily the end because where does it leave the domestic leagues who have taken issue with the Super League? Are you going to end up in a situation where out of the top four two want the Super League and two want the Champions League. Will the Premier League and La Liga demand the Champions League?”
A judgment in favour of the governing body, on the other hand, would effectively be check-mate for this proposed iteration of a Super League, forcing its backers to return to their drawing board. “If the ruling is UEFA have done nothing wrong then of course that vindicates their stance and that will probably be the end of the matter,” Taylor Heath adds.
Key figures in UEFA are confident that the ECJ will side with them based upon the evidence outlined in July’s hearing. The Luxembourg court has been deliberating since with the ruling scheduled for Courtroom 3 at 9:30am local time (8:30am GMT).
In an article published by the London School of Economics last week, academics Tsjalle van der Burg, Hanno Beck and Aloys Prinz stressed that the financial reality of a Super League would further detach the big clubs from their domestic rivals and the entire concept of a closed competition “suffers from several significant flaws.”
But A22, a consultancy group established to explore the possibility of creating a new Super League, argue the opposite and say that their proposals - precise details of which remain unclear - would “moderate” prices.
“Fan access to football, either live or remotely, is becoming prohibitively expensive,” A22 said. “In many countries the cost of TV subscriptions are rising at an unacceptable rate. To reverse this trend the objective should be to generate more fan interest, thereby helping to moderate subscription prices.”
Last month A22 were invited to a meeting with key figures at UEFA with both parties releasing critical statements after more than two hours of discussions. The former claimed they were “ambushed”, with UEFA saying in response that they were "currently checking the recording to see if they are talking about the same meeting."
The ECJ judgment will be referred back to the Madrid courts, who in the vast majority of cases will proceed with the ruling recommended by Rantos - unless the information released tomorrow is framed as merely guidance.
“If the referral was on the basis of seeking guidance, the ruling might be equivocal on the basis it effectively expresses an opinion,” Taylor Heath adds. “It’ll be up to the court to take that on but if the ruling is clearcut then the court won’t go against that.”
The ruling could have a knock-on impact in other sports, too. It could even be used as part of the ongoing LIV Golf dispute, where players who have jumped ship to the Saudi-backed series have been banned by the PGA Tour.
