The court case between European football's governing body and the three clubs that remain espoused to launching a European Super League has begun.
Legal representatives from UEFA will face off with those representing the interests of Barcelona, Real Madrid and Juventus at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg from today (Monday, July 11) in a case that is set to last until the end of the year.
The case centres around the battle between UEFA and the European Superleague Company, nominally Barcelona, Real Madrid and Juventus - with the latter claiming that both UEFA and FIFA have monopolised the organisation of elite football competitions and acted beyond their constitution by shutting down the plans for a new breakaway league, which crashed and burned in April of 2021.
READ MORE: Jurgen Klopp breaks silence on Jude Bellingham and outlines Liverpool midfield plan
Elite football was shaken to its foundations last year when 12 of European football's biggest clubs signed up to launch a new breakaway competition. Such was the backlash from fans, governing bodies and the wider football community, the idea was shelved for nine of those clubs.
Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham Hotspur, AC Milan, Inter Milan and Atletico Madrid all performed embarrassing U-turns less than 48 hours after being behind the stealth launch of the project, which was presented to the world late on a Sunday evening with the creation of a website and statement of their intentions.
Liverpool owners Fenway Sports Group came in for some serious heat over their part in the plot, with FSG principal John W. Henry making a rare appearance before camera in the hours during the crumbling of the plan to appeal for forgiveness from Reds fans and apologise for dragging the club into the proposal, something that he shouldered the blame for.
"I want to apologise to all the fans and supporters of Liverpool Football Club for the disruption I caused over the past 48 hours," Henry said in April of last year.
"It goes without saying but should be said that the project put forward was never going to stand without the support of the fans. No-one ever thought differently in England. Over these 48 hours you were very clear that it would not stand. We heard you. I heard you.
"And I want to apologise to Jürgen, to Billy (Hogan, CEO), to the players and to everyone who works so hard at LFC to make our fans proud. They have absolutely no responsibility for this disruption. They were the most disrupted and unfairly so. This is what hurts most. They love your club and work to make you proud every single day."
In the weeks and months that followed much dialogue was had between Liverpool's owners and the Reds' supporter group Spirit of Shankly, with the outcome being the creation of a Supporters' Board including a cross-section of Liverpool fan groups who will have to give their consent for any future plans in relation to joining a breakaway competition, as well as having to give consent for other matters that may affect club traditions, such as moving stadium or changing the club's crest and colours.
That agreement, set to be live in the coming weeks, will be written into the club's articles of association meaning that whoever the owners of the club may be the Board would retain the consent over any bids to create a new competition or engage in any of the aforementioned changes to club traditions.
Liverpool have, arguably, gone further than the other clubs in terms of trying to distance themselves from the ESL debacle, but for Barcelona, Real Madrid and Juventus they remain unwavering in their determination.
Without the support of the English clubs the three rebel clubs know that there is no chance of launching an ESL competition as they had planned, certainly not in the short to medium term. But what the three clubs want to do is to clear the road for the potential to launch it again in the future with a refined offering, and it is their challenging of what the describe as a UEFA 'monopoly' that they see key to this.
“[UEFA] acted as a cartel and misused its dominant position on the market for the organisation of international football club competitions in Europe and on the market for the commercialisation of the rights attached to these competitions,” the European Superleague Company claims in its filing.
Legal counsel for the ESL will attempt to demonstrate the what they see as a UEFA monopoly and will focus on the prevention of free competition within the European Union. UEFA's argument will centre on their belief that anyone can create alternative tournaments but will be unable to appear in their own competitions, most notably the Champions League.
"Of course it is still alive," Real Madrid president Florentino Perez said on El Chiringuito last month. "We believe that we have the right, within the European community, to organise competitions between us, with UEFA. We understand that UEFA is a monopoly and in this Europe of 27 [EU member states] a pillar is that of competition."
The driving force behind the Super League was for financial benefit, with the ability to control their own deal making when it came to commercial and media rights, as well as a 'welcome bonus' of up to £250m.
But the clubs swiftly lost money, with their individual £8m equity stakes worthless and Premier League clubs then committing to paying £3.5m each for their part in the plot.
And according to documents seen by business website Bloomberg, even more money was wasted by the 12 clubs, with around £3.5m paid out to two firms for legal advice in the build up to the launch of the plans earlier this year.
A UK-based law firm and a US law firm were paid the bulk of the fees, with Bloomberg also claiming that six PR agencies, two media companies and two credit rating agencies were also paid sums in the build up to the proposals, which suggested that the plans had been deep rooted for some time before being presented to the public.
"It needs to be appreciated that the case is wider in scope than just focussing on the ability of the governing bodies to impose sanctions on the clubs that were earmarked for participation had they pursued their involvement further," Stephen Taylor Heath, head of sports law at JMW Solicitors, told the Daily Mirror.
"The easiest argument for UEFA to succeed with is that they retain the right to determine the rules under which a club can participate in the event properties they control even if it means being unable to participate in a rival competition.
"UEFA cannot however have a constitution or a rule book that breaches applicable law. An obvious, extreme example would be rules as to participation that were deemed to be discriminatory.
"Rather it goes to some fundamental issues regarding governance of football that could have repercussions in other sports as well particularly where that governance amounts to a monopoly."
READ NEXT:
- Liverpool have quiet Nunez plan after Man City take bold step with Haaland
Liverpool could have Jude Bellingham transfer chance that is too good to overlook
Liverpool win Masters Cup after feisty final against Manchester United
Erling Haaland drops cryptic hint over future of Liverpool target Jude Bellingham
Liverpool have extra Jude Bellingham transfer incentive because of UEFA rule
