The Super League and its impact on Everton

If the top clubs have guaranteed entry to TSL, the only thing they have to compete for in the Premier League is the title. If that's decided or seen to be even a two-horse race well before the season is over, teams from TSL with no chance will simply field weaker squads and concentrate on TSL. And even if you put regulations in place to address that, they're still not going to be arsed.

It feels as though the Premier League as we know it is finished if this abomination goes ahead which, it seems to me, leaves the remaining 14 with little option than to force their hand, call their bluff and kick them out.

Frankly it would be like putting Manchester City's first team into the US National Womens' Soccer League.

I just hope 'The 14' get together and offer a suitably salutory threat (say "We refuse to play against these teams from now on if they do not immediately and permanently withdraw from this and any similar proposal, now and at any time in the future, furthermore, we demand that all matches played against them this season are considered void".

I know it wouldn't help our league position since we've only been any good against second raters like the RS but it would be worth it.

the gap between us and the 6 deserters would be greater if we let them stay in the league as they would have two tv deal finances each year whereas if they are expelled they just have the income from TSL

All relative nations should expel the teams that are breaking away. WE need to make them pariahs so that they have no connection to any other club in world football. It would then be a exhibition league that is meaningless to anyone other than an american. It will soon lose its popularity then. If we allow those clubs to stay in their national leagues football will really die

The Greedy 6 owners are toxic to the game of football, a cancer that has to be surgically removed. If all the other clubs including us have to take a financial hit, so be it, it will be worth it.

Unless that threat of expulsion is real and backed by the law makers the Greedy 6 will walk all over the governing bodies. It seems only the legislature can now save the game of football as we know it.

Also, I'm a firm believer in sometimes just doing "what is right" no matter the consequences. Yes, "what is right" is an elastic dynamic and can mean many things to many people.

In today's world in particular, it seems society loves this elasticity. This "moveable goalpost" world where nefarious entities bend and shape rules to fit their rules and their pocketbooks.

I'd argue this situation is one where the EPL just has to do what is right.

Throw them out. Don't look back.

This is a game of poker. The Euro Super League has a stack of a million, and they're sitting on a playable hand, but have shoved all-in. The EPL has 250K in their stack, they're on pocket Jacks and they are afraid to call due to the "value" of what they have being retained, yet playing bitch to the big boys if they cave.

Shove all in. Whatever happens, happens. Shove all in with zero regrets, defend your position, and do it confidently no matter the outcome.

Why?

Because someone has to do the right thing and stand up for a sporting institution that is engrained in the English culture.

The game will flourish as it is competitive. Not meaningless friendlies. Games that mean something where a goal line clearance can be the difference between going up or down.

If no one watches, or at least not nearly in the numbers the advertisers project, that would do the trick, too.

Mike can help more. But basically you play every team equal times home and away. There's always some form of revenue sharing. Here we have salary caps - that won't happen there I can't imagine.

At season's end there's playoffs, and we crown a champ.

Next season wash, rinse, repeat. Simple.

No promotion and relegation. Lots of commercials. ;0)

We live with that all the time here. There's absolutely ownership groups and ownership individuals who ride a league's gravy train without ever trying to win a title. Why? There's zero threat of being relegated.

When I first started following soccer, ProRel was a completely foreign concept and I thought it was unbelievably harsh.

Years later, I see it as wonderful. It keeps teams from becoming complacent at the expense of their fans.

Here in America, ownership is the key to winning. If they want to win, you have a go. If they aren't bothered and field "competitive" teams who look to the eye to compete, but in reality never have a chance, you can keep your wages low and the league's profits will keep you happy forever.

The fact Spurs are in the ESL is laughable, but they are. Can you see Daniel Levy - who never met a dollar he didn't like - taking advantage of a closed shop league and riding that gravy train as far as he can and for as much as he can? Bet your house I could see him doing that.

We're the World Champions of everything.

My personal favorite "ugly American" T-shirt:

The United States of America
Undefeated in World Wars

It hideous, but it's funny as hell.

Apart from that l hope that the players are denied the chance to represent their county. That way the likes of Foden, Kane etc have a choice between playing for a super league team or playing for both the national team along with either Bayern/PSG... or Everton, West Ham or Leicester.

The clubs have to be punished immediately and kicked out of next years European competitions.

Or maybe a huge 20 grand fine and a slap on the wrist, similar to what happens for rasict chanting.

Its coming though. Money talks. And kopites are gobshites.

Mr Cooper would have also done well to point out that ultimately Kerry Packer and World Series cricket won. Packer ended up with a lucrative broadcasting deal in the subsequent peace that brought him knows how many tens of millions. The players got paid more money; the boards had to find more adequate and sustainable sources of revenue to pay players more money.
The legacy of Packer was devaluing a game for the benefit of a few TV spivs, and the lucky few players gifted enough to be at the pinnacle of a sport they originally played as children for fun.

Mr Cooper claims comparing the two situations of the ESL with the Packer cricket circus would be a false equivalence. On the contrary, I don't think you would find many better parallels. It's an elementary lesson on how a game can be hijacked, held to ransom and then finally changed beyond recognition on the whims of a powerful minority - or exactly the situation football finds itself at this moment.

As always, a crisis presents opportunities. The hundreds of clubs left behind in England will need leadership. Everton have been the pioneers of football for over 140 years, we should come to the fore now, revolutionise the structure of our organisations and leagues, make it fairer, create funding all the way down from the top clubs to junior football. Demonstrate that football clubs are not just about 90 minutes of kicking a ball every 4 or 5 days, but an institution at the heart of their communities. Be involved in health, education and social care. We are so far down this road already we have a head start, we could be at the heart of a social revolution, in stark comparison to the pigs with their snouts in the trough who have shamelessly exposed themselves over the past 24 hours.

Seize the moment, Blues.

That's why they should be told to go now imo, because if they stay, there's a good chance they will drain the standard of their respective domestic league's, whilst making the new league more exciting, by saving their better players for this more prestigious “to begin with” competition, and I personally don't think they should be given this chance.

As there is money involved in this, I imagine they will come to a compromise, but the compromise will be in their favour, with them playing a handful of Premier League matches to pick up the trophy each season, and putting out second teams to stay in the cups. TBH it won't be that much different from how things are now. The main difference will be that it will all be there in black and white and the rules will be crystal clear. It'll be the end for some clubs, but I doubt they'll be overly concerned.

Something else I was pondering; If fans boycotted games without giving up their season ticket it may have an impact but only after a few seasons by which time a lot would probably lose heart. The clubs could then sell those seats through corporate means on a game by game basis. Yes the atmosphere would not be the same but the stadium would start to fill again.

How much of a draw is the passion when viewed on TV for the audience around the world?

If we cant say what our future revenue will be to pay it off then its off.

Hats off to Liverpool they killed us in the 80s with Heysel and now they've done it again in 2021.

You are right about the quality of football at times too although the effort and speed of the game here is very addictive.

Despite what I am questioning about empty vs full stadiums I know how much I am missing the game. Really struggling to like the current format without fans. I have never been a good armchair supporter though, just want to get back inside GP.

I hope the SEC investigates those who shorted Man U shares in the past week. Those close to the announcement must have known full well that there was absolutely zero chance that the ESL would be allowed to go ahead. US speculators would have bought seeing a business model they could identify with. Consequently Man U shares rose by +10% on the opening bell this morning.

There will then have to be a decision from the FA and premier league with consultation with the remaining clubs and any new clubs with regard to sky's commercial interest in the premier league and tv rights, coverage of games and payment to clubs for coverage of their games and final league finishing position payment.

Once the teams leave the premier league, it has to be made clear, that there is no way back.

If there's anyone I've overlooked, please bring it to my attention. If it is Wayne Daniel however then please accept me agreeing to disagree.

I'm genuinely glad Everton have got no part in these current plans though, because have your cake and eat it, has never really been our style!!

Rather, it is Derek's claim that 'you couldn't find many better parallels' is the erroneous one.

You David accurately describe how the media mogul Packer, having been rebuffed by the Australian Cricket Board to acquire the broadcasting rights for international cricket in Oz for his Channel 9 (they preferred it remained with the country's national broadcaster), set about recruiting the world's best players to perform WSC exclusive to his TV channel.

Those players were receptive to Packer's overtures because most were mere chattels to the clubs and national teams they represented. They were poorly rewarded, yet expected to travel the globe at the whim of their administrators. Outside of the cricket season, many had to find alternative work to sustain their families as they received no salary from cricket.

A poorer 'comparison' of today's super rich football club owners, their millionaire player squads and the bumper media contracts they enjoy, to the poorly rewarded cricketers of the 1970s, is harder to find.

The ESL is primarily being driven by club owners, having inflated their wage bill way, WAY beyond their means, now seeking ways for someone else to pick up the tab and rewarding their disasterous financial governance.

It is NOT about the players. The fans. The club itself. This is not innovative or protective, 'for the good of the game'. It is out-and-out avarice for the shareholders and owners.

What resulted from Packer's WSC impacted positively and hugely on cricket. Initiatiatives that to this day the game and all those involved in it continue to benefit immensely from.

From that time, we now have coloured kit rather than all-whites; floodlit day-night cricket (short form and test cricket); the white ball (easier for sighting); the evolution to the hugely popular and lucrative T20 game from longer 40-50-55-60 over games; national central contracts for the best players to ensure their financial stability; freedom of movement for ALL players to play for multiple teams across different continents in the multiple national leagues that are played year-round; great in-game entertainment for the live spectator; vastly improved TV coverage of the game rather than the single camera from one end view. Cricket also has an excellent TV review system.

With this has also come an astonishing evolution to the game of cricket, with unheard of and barely believable shot play, bowling and fielding.

Don't fret it David. You're right and Derek Moore is totally off-beam on this one.

I have always thought of us as being a class act when it comes to ethics and moral values. As you say having our cake and eating it simply is not Everton's style. Wouldn't have it any other way mate

'Seize the moment, Blues.'

With you all the way on the points you make, Peter.

Ironically, the much-maligned EiTC that quite a number gripe about positions Everton at the very polar opposite of all the clubs lined up to join the ESL.

Whilst at the start of the pandemic the likes of the 'elite', the 'bours, Spurs and Arsenal, couldn't dump low wage earners quick enough, Everton came out early to guarantee ALL such staff would be retained and paid in full. I believe our high-earning players at the club accepted part of their salary would go towards this.

Throughout the year of the pandemic Everton has behaved in an exemplary manner within in its community. This was highlighted by Cllr. Hansen (an avowed Red) at LCC's planning meeting that gave the seal of approval on BMD. He spoke glowingly of Everton's work in the community.

You list some of those initiatives Peter and how, as a club, we have a head start and make a demonstrably stark contrast to 'the pigs with their snouts in the trough'.

Given the fall out from the events of the last 24 hours, we have a wonderful USP (unique selling point) to attract new supporters and sponsors for who ethics and a social conscience DO count.

I for one don't take such a despondent view as Paul the Esk offers in his latest post because of this.

Jay wrote "Those players were receptive to Packer's overtures because most were mere chattels to the clubs and national teams they represented."
This is as absurd revisionism as you'd like to read on any subject. The use of the word chattel is a typical Jay Woodism, a word he may feels he understands but using entirely out of context rather demonstrably proves he doesn't.
Jay makes it sound like the players were serfs or some sort of modern day slave. The truth is although the rewards for playing at the top level are nowhere near as lucrative as they are today, there were guys making a full time living playing cricket in the sixties and seventies. Rather like football. The simple truth is, during the sixties and seventies, the reverence grown men were given for playing a "childs" game such as football, cricket or rugby league was much less than it is today and the players received less money both on the average and at the top level.

And whether Jay likes it or not, withdrawing ones services from a sanctioned competition to participate in a better remunerated but unsanctioned competition is in essence exactly what the Packer cricket players did and exactly what these twelve clubs are proposing to do with the European Super League. You will not get a much better parallel; this is reflected by the amount of commentators and pundits who have made this identical comparison on the European Super League.

I could get further into the gist of Jays post and point out that better bowling, fielding and batting has nowt to do with Kerry Packet, that an excellent replay system owes more to the nature of cricket itself than the Packer revolution, that cricket faces a governance and finance crisis across the sport brought about originating from Packer, that Kolpak players exist and indeed there is a restricted market by many countries on player movement, that cricket in it's core western territories has now disappeared behind a paywall entirely and is threatening participation at the grassroots level

I could go about all of those things but I won't because there's little point. Jay obviously knows as much about World Series cricket history topic as I do about the Brazilian covid situation, and is about as qualified to comment. Sorry Jay, I know you've been dying to snipe away but I really only opine on what I know a lot about - a habit that it wouldn't do you any harm to develop in my view either.

From a sporting and moral point of view I would be quite happy if the remaining 14 threatened the 6 with expulsion for X amount of years and uefa created new competitions without them in it.

From a financial position the premier league, Sky TV and sponsorship needs those clubs, certainly 2 of them anyhow.

There will be further negotiations and compromise reached where the big 6 get more revenue and carry on in the league creating a larger gap between them and everyone else. Sky will buy into it and feed the fans the greatest game scenario each week.

In a few years time the 6 will be in an even stronger position and either govern the league or leave it completely for the newly formed world league.

The 14 clubs need to get their act together and come up with an alternative solution that provides for all of the pyramid. In reality the 14 have only been making the numbers up for the duration of the premier league with only Leicester upsetting them. This is a time for them to show real leadership.

Oh and personally I don't want anything to do with Celtic or Rangers playing in English football. The fans will treat every away match like a crusade and set the game back years.

I think the only thing for the 14 to do is tell the six that they must declare by no later than 31 May that they will have no part in the ESL, else they will not be permitted to play in the 21/22 Premier League Season.

We cannot have a situation where clubs are allowed to have a manifestly unfair advantage of income from the EPL, ESL, and likely the Champions League also. It would be crazy. Threaten to kick them out or you might as well resign yourself to becoming unwitting participants in Championship 2.0, or worse.

I fell sincerely sorry for the genuine, decent majority of the fans of the shitty six. It seems they will be "legacy fans" of these greedy clubs joining what will become nothing more than a soulless exhibition league.

My second concern is the supporters of the six clubs. They have come out in unity with the rest of the football community and we are talking of throwing their clubs out of the league. You can't just switch to support a different team, it is one of those freaks of nature, you are stuck with the first team you saw. So for those two reasons, I am all for doing all we can to retain the six - but of course it has to be said we need to give them time to come to their senses.

And I have to say, you are a funny fellah, Derek Moore. A pity it's not intentional.

To reply on the subject on which you claim such authority on…

@ 37 you made the following claim:

‘Comparing the two situations of the ESL with the Packer cricket circus [is not] a false equivalence. On the contrary, I don't think you would find many better parallels.'

I will (once again) demonstrate why that claim is built on a false premise and how I consider you are mistakenly comparing a blancmange to a praying mantis.

Difference #1. As already pointed out, World Series Cricket was borne out of Kerry Packer being refused viewing rights of international cricket in Australia. A consequence of this was his creation of WSC to view on his Channel 9. One man then, a media mogul, taking on the game's administrators in Australia.

The ESL is (we can now say WAS) a cartel of 12 long established clubs (with others obviously sounded out) run by mega-rich owners. Nothing like-for-like AT ALL in the very different ‘players' driving each initiative.

Difference #2. Packer was not interested in the least in getting involved in or changing the structure of state/county or national cricket. The ESL initiative would most certainly have radically impacted on football's pyramid.

Difference #3. Packer's motivation was to attract viewers and sponsors to his TV channel. As other TV subscription channels have learnt, a cost-effective way to achieve this was to offer live sport.

The ESL's motivation was to fabricate an elite league from which its members would vacuum up greater revenues from primarily broadcasting deals (although, as was slowly being discovered, less than a third of the total revenues as the corporate suits intended taking the bulk of the monies).

Difference #4. As the WSC's brief 2 seasons indicate, Packer never intended it to challenge or permanently replace the existing cricket infrastructure. The ESL's plans most certainly would have tore asunder the existing infrastructure in European football with the intention of establishing a permanent ‘super league', a closed shop in which the core member clubs would remain in perpetuity.

Difference #5. Packer recruited 66 of the leading cricketers of the age to form 3 squads: Australia, West Indies and the Rest of the World. The players themselves freely and willingly signed up to WSC.

The ESL clearly did not canvass its managers, its players or least of all its ‘legacy fans' on the viability of what they proposed. On the contrary, some of the ‘Dirty Dozen's' own managers and players expressed deep disquiet at the proposals.

Difference #6. The vast majority of certainly the Australian cricketers Packer recruited were at best semi-professional. Many doubled up with a day job. Pretty much every footballer at the ESL ‘Dirty Dozen' is already a millionaire in his own right. A poorer 'comparison' of today's super rich football club owners, their millionaire player squads and the bumper media contracts they enjoy, to the poorly rewarded cricketers of the 1970s, is harder to find.

Difference #7. What resulted from Packer's WSC impacted positively and hugely on cricket. Initiatives that to this day the game and all those involved in it continue to benefit immensely from. The ESL threatened to totally sabotage the long-standing and historical fabric of professional football.

I could go on. For someone given to such self-aggrandizement and bigging yourself up as THE authority on your given Mastermind subject, Kerry Packer and the WSC, you appear remarkably ill-informed Derek.

You take issue with my use of the word ‘chattels' with regard to the players Packer recruited to the WSC (Aussie skipper Greg Chappell used the synonym ‘vessels' instead), claiming that ‘although the rewards for playing at the top level were nowhere near as lucrative as they are today, there were guys making a full time living playing cricket in the sixties and seventies.'

Says a bloke, blagging it on the internet. If you don't mind, I'll put greater stock in the words of the players who signed up to and played in the WSC. Let's start with Aussie Kerry O'Keefe:

‘The inequity between how much money players were making for cricket boards and how much they received from them was crucial. I don't want to bang on about ‘We played for nothing', but it was born out of that. WSC traded on the insecurity of cricketers at the time, given that we'd never signed contracts and lot of us lived (financially) game to game. There was a vulnerability there.'

Aussie paceman Max Walker said the rebellion was due to the cricketing authorities' refusal to give ground on players' pay, or have any say on issues such as scheduling at home or abroad.

Walker recalls he had to take unpaid leave from his role as a public-service architect to go on his two tours of England, in 1975 and 1977, but was strictly forbidden from seeking any endorsements to help lessen the impact of forgoing a full-time wage. For being away from home and family for a two-and-a-half-month tour in 1975 he received the equivalent of £1,000.

Aussie skipper Greg Chappell explained the players' mood at that time. ‘It wasn't just about money. It was about respect. There was an attitude from the administration that players were vessels that they could do whatever they like with. We didn't appreciate that and thought we had more to offer. We'd been on a tour of England in '72 where we crisscrossed the country, back and forth, over a six-month period with no regard to player fitness or wellbeing.

‘The fact that 54 players were approached and only one pulled out indicates that players around the world were unhappy. It was already known by the players - and it came out in the resulting court case [an attempt by cricket's administators to serve WSC cricketers with a blanket ban from the game, in London]- that there was a cartel between the different international boards in which they agreed ‘You don't play your players any more, we won't be under any pressure to pay our players any more'.

Those 3 cricketers Derek, who were at the coal face of WSC, rather makes a nonsense of your wafty, unsubstantiated claims, that ‘the players got paid more money [My note: rightly so. Something more commiserate with what their talents and sacrifices merited]; the boards had to find more adequate and sustainable sources of revenue to pay players more money. [My note: the money was always there. The tight wads of the international boards were in cohorts to reward the players who generated the monies as little as possible].

To close, we have this beaut from you: ‘The legacy of Packer was devaluing a game for the benefit of a few TV spivs, and the lucky few players gifted enough to be at the pinnacle of a sport they originally played as children for fun.'

No point in listing again the many benefits that permanently changed cricket for the better as a result of WSC as it will only be met by further vague denial by you.

The fast moving events of today give us another difference that, as David Cooper has already pointed out, further makes a mockery of your ‘comparison'. WSC endured for two years. The ESL didn't last two days and folded without a ball ever being kicked in anger.

I know from previous chats there are a number of devout cricket followers on TW. For anyone interested, there is a good drama-doc on the subject worth seeking out called Howzat! Kerry Packer's War, produced and aired on his own Channel 9 in Oz.

I repeat, comparing the ESL initiative to Kerry Packer's WSC of 45 years ago as you and others attempt Derek is a lazy fallacy which doesn't stand up to inspection.

Our exclusion from the Greedy 6 is a worrying development but unsurprising. Where it leaves us is very uncertain. It's another excellent article, Paul, so thanks for pulling it together.

But it's piqued my interest in where this leaves the likes of Man Utd, Liverpool and others without multi-billionaire backing. We worry about our finances and rightly so. But just how dire is their future?

It seems to me that Man City, Chelsea and PSG might be about to start a period of dominance, simply because no other clubs (possibly except Bayern and Leipzig because they are so well run in different ways) will be able to keep up. If that's true then the prestige and associated tv / advertising / merchandise money will be harder to come by for the likes of Man Utd and Liverpool.