MADRID, 2 Dic. (EUROPA PRESS) –
Bernd Reichart, the CEO of A22 Sports Management -a company established to assist and sponsor the creation of the European Super League-, reiterated this Friday that this “is not an elitist project or for the rich”, since it will try to improve the current model “by pulling of the car of the entire ecosystem” of European football, at the same time that he asked UEFA to let them work and dialogue with the clubs “without coercion”.
“It is not true that it is an elitist project, for the rich. We are trying to improve a competition that drives the entire ecosystem. Many clubs doubt that the Champions League will take them into account, there are many big clubs that feel forgotten,” he said. Reichart at a meeting held in Madrid organized by A22 and the Clifford Chance law firm to explain his point of view on UEFA’s corporate governance.
The CEO of the company began his speech by describing the “beautiful, important and necessary” project of the Super League as “very Europeanist”. “European competition can give better results and pull the football car more effectively. To engage the new generations, European football must be able to give the best matches all year round. European football needs modern, effective governance and with the clubs managing their own future”, he argued.
Reichart valued the meeting with UEFA and other leaders of European leagues a few weeks ago, “a very tough debate, with which they wanted to debate.” “The most important thing is UEFA’s commitment not to threaten the clubs with which we are in dialogue with sanctions,” he stressed.
“They (UEFA) are now comfortable, they control an activity without competition, without spending and without the need to innovate. They live off the sweat and effort of the clubs that support the system, which they do not involve in deciding on their future. A22 and this proposal creates a problem for them that they do not have now. Free competition of ideas and solutions is necessary, whether they like it or not later… But we must be able to work freely,” he warned the European organization.
Reichart criticized UEFA for defending “even that they own football.” “There was a certain complacency: the system works and no contribution is needed outside the system. The clubs are the ones who provide the value and the show, they must be the ones who manage their own destiny. Some clubs perceive us as fresh air in a system pretty established. They realize that the initiative has evolved,” he said.
The manager also explained that the model, although it has not yet been defined, “will be one hundred percent meritocratic”, because “each team will have the right to dream and qualify”, without the existence of “fixed places”. “It would be cynical to release ideas and preferences that they think we have, we are listening to proposals and analyzes on the problems that we have explained today,” he commented in relation to the future format and the governance situation that currently exists with UEFA.
“I will ask that they let us work without coercion, fundamental reforms are necessary,” urged the entity chaired by Aleksander Ceferin, before recalling that the clubs in the leagues have already “emancipated themselves from their federations”, for which Reichart opted for a future coexistence “without war or blockade of competition” with the European organization.
The first big date for the future of the Super League will be when the General Advocate for the ‘Super League Case’ offers his non-binding report on the situation, before the court ruling, which will be “unappealable and binding”. “The Super League will adapt to the reality that exists after the ruling. We will abide by any decision. We will redefine the initiative to the extent necessary -if the ruling is negative-. I hope UEFA respects the decision the same”, Reichart wished.
At the event held at Clifford Chance, the managing partner of the law firm’s Commercial Area, Luis Alonso, clarified that the ‘Super League Case’ is not the only dispute that UEFA has in the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). “It is not judging any aspect of the Super League, it is not judging the Super League, it is judging the performance of UEFA and FIFA and whether the monopoly fits into the EU freedoms and principles of free competition,” he reported.
“No one disputes that it is a monopoly, they question whether it is recommendable for the world of soccer,” added Alonso. “UEFA and FIFA have all the roles in the competitive model, and they protect themselves with a sanctioning regime, they can exclude clubs from all competitions. They are dictated in Switzerland, they are appealed in the TAS and you can appeal in the Swiss federal courts. We are facing an obvious deterrent system, which dissuades you from looking for an alternative to the monopoly regime,” he explained.
From Clifford Chance, a law firm that defends and advises A22 and the Super League, it was stressed that UEFA “acts with a manifest position of dominance, without assuming any business risk or investment”, sustaining this system with its own rules (art. 49.1 and 51). “The conflict of interest is indisputable and insurmountable, with a competition procedure it is insufficient,” he added.
For this reason, they pointed out that the solution could be the “structural” separation of the functions of regulator and organizer of competitions, as already defined in previous cases, such as the FIA ??and Formula 1.
Faced with an “anti-competitive” attitude from UEFA with A22, the firm appealed to other competitions, such as the Six Nations rugby, a “closed model, without sporting merits and organized by a private company.” “The Super League has never been a closed project, but it has never been like that, as seen in the lawsuit papers in Madrid,” said Fernando Irurzun, managing partner of the Litigation Area at Clifford Chance.
Questioned if ‘anti-super league’ laws can be tested, Clifford Chance insisted that the European Parliament “cannot approve” these types of regulations. “It can only do measures to promote sport, not harmonization. It would be a law contrary to EU law,” they stressed. “It seems that there is a group of criminals assaulting private property,” they lamented.
