Big Six facing fight over Uefa shake-up plan
Top-flight ‘also-rans’ resist Champions League changes Opponents fear that their battle is doomed to failure
The Premier League’s 14 clubs outside the so-called “Big Six” say that they will oppose major alterations to the Champions League which would see the competition expand to 36 clubs after 2024, although they fear they are waging a losing battle.
At a shareholders’ call for the 20 clubs the new proposals were laid out in detail yesterday with all agreeing, after discussion, that they would lobby Uefa for changes on key points including scheduling, wild-card places based on historic performance and the sheer number of games.
However, with the threat of a breakaway European super league increasingly hanging over the clubs, outside the aegis of Uefa, the 14 clubs have little hope of meaningful change.
The three main points discussed were: The future of the League Cup under threat because of “calendar pressure” from the increased first round of the new Champions League, which would grow from six group-stage games to 10 leaguestyle fixtures.
The inclusion of wild-card places for four of the 36 clubs, two of them based purely on Uefa coefficient ratings – a metric measuring European competition performance over the past five years.
The sheer number of extra games that would be played and proposals that they would take place in every month of the season, removing the Premier League’s exclusivity for part of the year.
The 20 clubs agreed that they would go back to Uefa to ask for “adjustments” on these points, but with Aleksander Ceferin, the Uefa president, under pressure to deliver a model that brings greater revenue to the biggest clubs and defeats the threat of a super league, the chances of success are slim.
The 36-club “Swiss model” is the preferred compromise option. The League Cup is under serious threat, with talks likely to take place with the English Football League over the future of the 61-year-old competition that is an important part of the EFL’S broadcast deals.
The proposals for the new Champions League also saw the first stage
extending beyond Christmas and games every month of the season, which the Premier League opposes.
Elsewhere, there was a stinging attack on the proposals by the Bundesliga chief executive Christian Seifert, who did not explicitly name Barcelona and Real Madrid, but said the “brutal truth” was “a few of these so-called super clubs I would say are poorly managed cash-burning machines”. “They will burn this money like they burned it the last 10 years,” the German told the FT Business of Football Summit, referring to a boom in broadcast rights sales in the past decade. “If I was an investor I would really question if they were the right partner.”
In a separate interview, Simon Green, the head of BT Sport, which paid £1.2 billion for the British domestic rights to Uefa competitions from 2021 to 2024, questioned whether the changes were necessary. He said: “A European super league would be appealing to broadcasters, but it wouldn’t be worth as much as the existing leagues and Champions League. It would be undoing the value that already exists and reinventing something that is worth less. It wouldn’t be as appealing to consumers.”
There was scepticism among Premier League clubs when they were talked through the proposals as to the fairness of them and the likelihood that an expanded Champions League would result in a movement of broadcast revenue value away from the Premier League. The clubs have asked for Uefa to look at the proposals again, but the consensus is that this fragile compromise is the one which will hold, and the clubs outside the big six will have little chance of stopping it.
The highest-ranked English clubs by Uefa coefficient are Manchester City, Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham. They are all in favour of these proposals, under which two of the four coefficient Champions League wildcard places would go to clubs who qualify for either the Europa League or the new Europa Conference League that starts next season.
Under that proposal all clubs across Europe who make it into the automatic qualifying places for the two lesser Uefa competitions in their domestic leagues would be ranked according to their Uefa coefficient. The two highest ranked would get an “access boost” to the Champions League. This is regarded in many circles as an unofficial safety net for big clubs who have a bad season.
Another wild-card place would go to the highest coefficient ranked domestic champions in Europe who do not have an automatic Champions League qualifying place. This is regarded privately as a compromise solution to get Ajax into the competition without them having to go through qualifying.
A fourth wild card would go to the fifth highest ranked national league by coefficient – either France’s Ligue 1 or Portugal’s Primeira Liga – who would get an extra automatic Champions League place.
Uefa has indicated that there would be a move to greater solidarity payments for clubs outside the elite should, as expected, broadcast revenue increase.
Gerard Pique clinging to a Kylian Mbappe’s shirt at the Nou Camp has become symbolic of a changing of the guard among the European elite. Off the pitch, however, the grip of the historic powers appears stronger than ever.
European football’s biggest clubs are fighting for more power and wealth at the expense of the rest – the latest chapter of which played out on the Premier League shareholders’ call yesterday, when new proposals for Uefa
European club competitions post-2024 were discussed.
There is an uncertain future for the League Cup, and the proposed scheduling of an expanded 36-team Champions League that encroaches on every month of the Premier League’s match-day calendar.
But the reality is that the league is hopelessly divided between its biggest names, led by Liverpool and Manchester United, who back the new European expansion – and the rest who fear its impact on the Premier League’s broadcast rights. There is no groundswell of support among fans for this expansion, or from broadcasters, as BT Sport for one have made clear. The only ones who want it are those who own the biggest clubs and their contention is quite clear: if this offends you, look at the alternative.
That was presented in May 2019, by the European Clubs’ Association, led by Juventus chairman Andrea Agnelli, who wanted a 32-team competition in which 24 of the places were guaranteed, where the jeopardy of non-qualification was removed, income streams protected in perpetuity and club values would, consequently, increase steeply.
That ‘alternative’ is the justification for this latest compromise.
The proposed “Swiss model” Champions League buys off just about every part of European football’s powerbases, which is expeditious for its big club backers and necessary for the Uefa president, Aleksander Ceferin. He wants something he can take back to the smaller federations that elected him, and his contention will be that this is better than the worst-case scenario – Uefa losing its most lucrative competition to a breakaway financed by American investment banks and signalling the end of football’s global consensus.
Of the 36 clubs who will make up the first stage of the new Champions League, four will have got there by virtue of wild cards, based on the Uefa coefficient – calculated on performance over the previous five years. Two of those places will be the infamous “access boost” gifting a place to the two highest coefficient ranked clubs who have qualified either for the Europa League or the new Europa Conference League.
This is the safety net for big clubs who have a bad domestic season. Manchester United’s disastrous seventh place finish in 2013-14 would, under these rules, have seen them boosted in this way.
By way of example, the lowest of the big six Premier League ranked clubs by coefficient is Tottenham Hotspur, 15th on Uefa’s list with 82 points. Leicester City are in 49th position on 31. It is clear for whom the safety net exists, and it is not Leicester.
European club football is expanding. More competitions, more money, more games. But the resources to pay for the rights to these expanded competitions have to come from somewhere and the deepest fear of the Premier League clubs outside the so-called elite is that it will be sliced from their collective revenues.
That value will be transferred to the new European competition where the likes of Real Madrid and Barcelona, swimming in debts of more than €1 billion accumulated by their failed club boards, are looking at new territories to plunder. If they can seize the revenue advantage the Premier League commands, then they have their fresh blood.
The Premier League functions as the world’s most popular sports league because it offers jeopardy through its equitable revenue sharing. This is where the value of the league lies. This is what differentiates it from the inevitability of the destiny of the Serie A, La Liga or Bundesliga titles most years.
If a greater proportion of the wealth is transferred to the elite through an expanded European competition, then the prospect of those exciting results and the unique flavour of the league will be diminished – and, quite possibly, lost.
All the while, the rich get richer. European clubs with no interest in the competitiveness of their own leagues are saved from their own mistakes by greater Champions League revenue streams. As for notable former English champions like Leicester City, Everton, Aston Villa, Leeds United and Wolverhampton Wanderers, the odds are loaded against them qualifying for a Champions League slanted to reward its regulars – both financially and in terms of who can count on a wild card qualification in a bad year.
Of course, unlike Spurs, Arsenal or Manchester City, Villa have actually won the European Cup. Villa also have two of the wealthiest owners in the Premier League, but the financial fair play rules at domestic and European level limit how much they can invest in their club’s success. Next year Villa will mark four decades since their great night in Rotterdam. If there is a regret it will be that they won the European Cup at the wrong time.
Had they done so in the last ten years, they might be making up the rules themselves now.
Despite Fulham chalking up two historic achievements this week, they may come to rue their inability to make it a hat-trick.
After their maiden league victory at Goodison Park, they equalled a club record of six top-flight away games unbeaten. Yet extending their 70-year wait for a win at Turf Moor means they stay eight points behind relegation rivals Burnley.
The gap Fulham narrowed, instead, is to Newcastle, which they reduced by four points in four days.
Manager Scott Parker now has his former club in his sights. “That is our aim,” he said. “But draws make it hard to catch them. You can say we have only won three all year, but we are very hard to beat.”
Fulham risk paying a heavy price for being the Premier League’s draw specialists. For three minutes, they were on course to record consecutive away wins at this level for the first time since 2013, but then Ashley Barnes equalised. “We got our noses in front and are just a bit disappointed we didn’t hold on to the lead for a bit longer,” Parker said.
Fulham had led with a goal that combined the sublime with a hint of the ridiculous. Burnley had posed more of the threat from set-pieces until Ademola Lookman whipped in a low corner. Joachim Andersen met it with an inventive, back-heeled flick. But what followed was more farcical. The ball hit Ola Aina in the chest and rebounded towards goal, where Robbie Brady sliced his attempted clearance into the net.
Burnley were swift to respond. “A couple of mistakes cost us the goal,” lamented Parker, after Jay Rodriguez fooled Tosin Adarabioyo with a dummy before bending in a wonderful low cross. Barnes’s first touch was altogether poorer, but it deceived goalkeeper Alphonse Areola enough to create space for a simple finish.
“Fantastic play from Jay,” said Burnley manager Sean Dyche. “He gave all the stuff you need from a centre forward.”
It was Rodriguez who brought the best save of the game from Areola, who Burnley had targeted in the first half, noticing his vulnerability to crosses. The goalkeeper was left clawing at thin air when Kevin Long headed Dwight Mcneil’s corner over the bar. Burnley’s clearest chance came in open play, however, when James Tarkowski delivered a brilliant cross, but neither Barnes nor Rodriguez, sliding in, could apply the finishing touch.
Already with five players out, Burnley then lost Johann Berg Gudmundsson and then his replacement Brady. “The challenge with injuries has been unbelievable. I have never seen anything like that,” added Dyche. Brady’s forgettable night included a booking, a missed chance and his role in Fulham’s goal.
Fulham could have made it a night to remember, had they won, as Parker picked seven loan players and three of them had chances to claim maximum points. Josh Maja had a shot held by Nick Pope, Ruben
Loftus-cheek headed wastefully wide, before Lookman curled an effort past the far post.
“Back end of the game, there were some big chances for us,” said Parker. “Those key moments, you hope one goes in.”
Fulham must now look to Saturday’s game against Sheffield United to take them closer to safety. “If we take seven points this week, it will be massive,” Parker said. “The gap was 10 points, it is six now. Things are going in the right direction.”
Burnley (4-4-2) Pope 6; Lowton 6, Long 6, Tarkowski 7, Taylor 6; Gudmundsson 5 (Brady 40, 4 (Brownhill 64)), Westwood 6, Cork 6, Mcneil 6; Rodriguez 7, Barnes 6. Subs Peacock-farrell (g), Norris (g), Bardsley, Dunne, Benson, Driscoll-glennon, Mumbongo. Booked Brady. Fulham (4-2-3-1) Areola 6; Tete 6 (Robinson 78), Adarabioyo 6, Andersen 7, Aina 6; Reed 7, Lemina 6 (Zambo Anguissa 61); Loftus-cheek 6, Decordova-reid 5 (Cavaleiro 67), Lookman 7; Maja 6. Subs Rodak (g), Hector, Odoi, Ream, Onomah, Kongolo. Loftus-cheek.
Jonathan Moss (West Yorkshire).