Talk:Proposals for a European Super League in association football

Untitled

This article merits deletion, no sources what so ever, pure fantasy and not at all encyclopedia-tic. British Baron (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:FUTURE

I am inclined to agree with British Baron. This seems to go against WP:FUTURE (part of what Wikipedia is not). In particular:

• Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.
• Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate.

The Super League is not decided; speculations are unlikely to be reliable sources.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason this article can't talk about the (past) history of super league proposals. There is quite a lot of reliable source coverage on the topic: see [1] --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just about all of the links that are actually about the football superleague proposal are not concrete plans in any way - just various people speculating about it. Can you post some actual sources that you would use that could be used for an article that wouldn't violate WP:FUTURE?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Weapons to be used in World War III is of interest to a lot of people, yet policy explicity excludes it. Can you post some actual links you would use?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The current proposal was made about 2 months ago and the news stories date all the way back to 1990 so I somehow doubt they are all speculation about the proposal.

The article should start something like: "The European Super League is an often proposed "super league" that would match up Europe's best football teams. The first such proposal was ... Later, it the idea was proposed by ... Most recently the league was proposed by Florentino Perez ..." Hopefully that give you a better idea of what I am saying the article can be made into.

There is no reason a notable proposal can't be covered on Wikipedia - FUTURE says future events are usually not notable, not that they can't ever be covered. In this case, the proposal is obviously of great interest to many people as it has been covered by reliable sources extensively. As long as the article makes it clear that the league doesn't actually exist (yet), there is nothing wrong with having an article on the subject. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirect/rename

There is already a European Super League in place. It has footy teams from Wales, England and France. Think this is a cut and dry case. Lando09 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There IS already a European Super League, per Wikipedia:Verifiability & Wikipedia:No original research to name but a few of the things that you would have to stick to on this community. I pretty sure that the rules are that you can't add something that could possibly happen over something that already exist, namely the premier first grade rugby league conpetition in the northern hemisphere. Lando09 (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading through that material it is all very pie in the sky stuff. Here on wikipedia I think you have to go with what already exists, namely the European Super League with Catalans Dragons, Celtic Crusaders, Bradford Bulls, Harlequins RL, Salford City Reds, Hull Kingston Rovers, Hull FC, Wigan Warriors, St Helens, Warrintgon Wolves, Wakefield Wildcats, Huddersfield Giants, Castleford Tigers and the Leeds Rhinos. Lando09 (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You are very much mistaken. The existence of one league established league with a similar name most certainly doesn't preclude an article about a proposed league in a different sport. Even if the name was identical, they could both have pages. Furthermore, articles about future projects and even failed projects are very much allowed on Wikipedia. Our inclusion requirements require two reliable sources that write about the subject - nothing more. As such your argument holds no weight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved, per your suggestion. Lando09 (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I most certainly didn't suggest such a move & have undone it. The correct question here is "what is the primary usage of the term 'European Super League'?" To answer that, take a look at [2] and note that the vast majority of these news articles are talking about the same concept as the article, and not an alias of Super League. If you still disagree, please take this to WP:Requested Moves. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No, strangely redirected. "Soccer" and rugby league are not the same game.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the page be moved to European Super League (Football), with European Super League as a disambiguation? It does seem a bit odd that something that is not even in existence actually takes precedence over something that does exist. It might also reduce opposition to the page existing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

yes, that works for me. Lando09 (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The otehr league is not normally referred to as "European Super League" and a hat note already serves the same purpose. The rugby league is normally known as "Super League", "Engage Super League", or rarely "Super League of Europe." None-the-less, I wouldn't object to a dab page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Done.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

May want a disambiguation thingy at the top as the Australians call the premier rugby league competition in the Northern Hemisphere the European Super League, and there national sport is rugby league, which they call football. Lando09 (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd do it myself but I don't know how. Lando09 (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No one would arrive at this page directly and not know what they were looking at - that is the whole point of sending European Super League to European Super League (disambiguation). There is no need for hat notes are already disambiguated pages.

See also Super League (disambiguation) for various other "super leagues" that aren't European in nature. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah makes sense, much obliged. Lando09 (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How do we address the unexplained issues in the tag, or how do we get rid of the tag?

This article has not technically been vandalized, but to me it feels that way, because it is fronted by a great big notice that in effect tells the reader 'This article is rubbish', a notice placed there by a user (hereinafter called the tagging editor) who makes no attempt to tell us in Talk what his objections actually mean, such as:

• what bits may be confusing or unclear to readers (the only thing in this article that is confusing and unclear to at least one reader (me) is this disfiguring tag)
• what additional context is needed,
• why an 'expert' is needed, whether such an 'expert' could be NPOV on this issue, and how such an 'expert' can be found
• how it fails notability guidelines (another editor, ThaddeusB, removed that request months ago with the explanation "notability established by 2+ reliable sources w/substantial coverage being present", but the tagging editor has simply restored it with no explanation)
• what is being given undue weight
• what significant viewpoints are being omitted.

The tagging editor had previously added a different shopping list of similar unexplained complaints in his tag, forcing other editors to spend time examining them and removing those that seemed demonstrably wrong (none are clearly right, partly because of the lack of explanation), only to find at least one of them restored without explanation..

My own instinct would be to remove the tags as unwarranted defacing of the article, using WP:IAR as justification if necessary, at least until such time as the tagging editor offers adequate explanations of his complaints in Talk. But I fear that would simply start a dsitressing and probably pointless BRD dispute where the odds usually tend to be stacked in favour of defenders of the status quo, or those who are most determined to win (meaning somebody with rather more stomach for this particular dispute than I currently have). Actually it might not involve such a dispute in the sense that the lack of explanations on this Talk page may indicate that the tagging editor has little stomach for a fight either, but I currently have so little stomach for a fight that I don't want to take that chance - I don't even want to fix the article except by removing this tag (partly because I don't see much else wrong with the article, partly becaause I'm not all that interested), let alone risk getting involved in a dispute.

Does anybody have any better ideas for fixing the problem (or alternatively more stomach for this particular dispute than I currently have)? Tlhslobus (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible merge

As far as proposed European football leagues go, I'm wondering if this page covers the same ground as Atlantic League (football), and whether it should be merged to that location (A. League seems better established as the working title of the proposed league by sources of these two pages but I could be wrong). It seems to me that it does and it should, but I'll check back. Musicandnintendo (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

In the mind of European Champion Clubs' Cup fathers, was not a European Cup but a European Super League. Due to the lack of proper transports and high economic costs, the project was changed to the ECC Cup. I will improve the article with this information, once I get the book back (Noites Europeias - Uma História das Competições Europeias de Clubes (1897-2013) [European Nights - A Story about European Club Competitions (1897-2013)], ISBN 9789892041162).Rpo.castro (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2021

79.43.119.40 (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

La Super Lega è un campionato calcistico europeo composto da 20 club, 12 fondatori partecipanti fissi (Manchester City, Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea, Tottenham, Arsenal, Real Madrid, Barcellona, Atletico Madrid, Milan, Inter, Juventus) e 8 ancora da definire, di cui almeno 5 scelti di anno in anno per meritocrazia, annunciata dai 12 fondatori il 19 Aprile 2021. Il campionato è composto da due gironi da dieci squadre. Ogni squadra affronterà le altre 19 in andata e ritorno. Le prime quattro di ciascun girone si affronteranno nei quarti di finale e nelle semifinali nel formato di doppio incontro andata e ritorno, e in una finale a scontro unico in campo neutro stabilito di anno in anno. Il presidente della Super Lega è Fiorentino Perez, presidente del Real Madrid. Il progetto prevede anche contributi di solidarietà al calcio europeo. Si stima che ogni club della Super Lega incasserà fino a 350 milioni a stagione. La banca statunitense JP Morgan Chase finanzia il progetto con 3,52 miliardi una tantum per risanare i bilanci dei club colpiti dalla crisi dovuta alla pandemia.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

"England's Prime Minister" needs changing to "British Prime Minister". England has no Prime Minister. The role is as head of the UK government. 51.9.42.104 (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Sennecaster (What now?) 00:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The First proposals are much earlier, and gave rise... to the Champions League!

I do not have the rights to edit the page.

Here's what I've found from a French newspaper with partially open archives:

"EUROPE IN SEARCH OF REVENUE" (source)

L'Humanité
Friday, April 19, 1991
Will the opening of the large European market on January 1, 1993 be accompanied by a reform of the European Champion Clubs' Cup? The Executive Committee of the European Football Union (UEFA) has been discussing this since yesterday and until today in London.

The project is not new because the search for maximum profit has long characterized the actions of European leaders and those of sport are no exception to this rule. UEFA has been planning for a long time to set up a championship for the top teams of continental soccer in order to better stabilize their finances, even if it means creating a two-tier soccer system with two large groups: on the one hand, the modest teams, which would be invited to the feast only until the quarter-finals, and on the other hand, the elite of the eight giants, which would see their revenues not only assured but multiplied.

The new UEFA president, the Swede Lennart Johansson, who succeeded the Frenchman Jacques Georges, seems to be ready to accelerate this mercantile process under the leadership of the UEFA President.

It is pretty clear that there was an intent, since the 1980s if we believe that source, to create a profitable competition for European clubs. While that attempt did not fully materialize in a US-style closed league, it did influence the evolution of the European cup system, towards a "super league" with a two-tier system.

Everything in the changes of formula points in that direction. Here's a recap:

• Up until 1990–91, only League Winners (that is, Champions) and the Title Holder, could vye for the European Champion Clubs' Cup, which was a double-legged single-elimination tournament.
• In 1991–92, a late 8-team group stage replaced quarterfinals and semifinals.
• In 1992–93, the UEFA Champions League was set up, with a centralized broadcasting regime, branding and prize allocation.
• In 1993–94, semifinals after the group stage were added.
• In 1994–95, the format was wholly revised, with a 16-team group stage in the Autumn, and knockout rounds in the Spring
• In 1997–98, the format was expanded to 24 teams, with entry allowed to 8 League runners-up (for the first time)
• In 1999–2000, the format was expanded to 32 teams and two successive group stages, with entry now possible to 15 League runners-up, 6 third-placed and 3 fourth-placed. The Cup Winners' Cup was no more, and the UEFA Cup became a consolation ticket for group stage losers. This was clearly the replacement of the old "League winners / Cup winners" divide, by a two-tier system (CL, then UEFA Cup) influenced by the "Super League" idea.
• In 2003–04, the second group stage was replaced by a double-legged Round of 16
• In 2009–10, the access list was wholly revised, 3 third-placed gaining direct entry and a "champions path" being created
• In 2015–16, Europa League title holders were given a berth in the group stage
• In 2018–19, 4 League third- and fourth-placed were given direct access to the group stage, squeezing to 6 the number of berths granted through the qualifying rounds

This desire of a Super league has been expressed by the lobbying group G-14 (1998) which became the European Club Association in 2008.

Now I don't want to add original research, I'm just pointing out that if we dig a little deeper in the archives, we'll probably find around the year 1990 or so, likeminded calls for a "Super League" or a "European championship", and similar criticism. Such archives would provide a reference to the widespread belief that a Super League has never been but a means of pressure in a back-and-forth dialectic between the biggest clubs and the rest.

Tabelleau (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of The Super League into Proposals for a European Super League in association football

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not merged. The majority of editors participating in the discussion argue against merging on the grounds that the 2021 Super League is independently notable and there are many more sources for it than other Super League proposals, meaning that it would distort this article to merge. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

---

This is 100% WP:OVERLAP, especially now that the idea failed to go beyond proposal status. --Loginnigol (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Vast majority of the content being added is minutiae about structure and organisation of a dead competition. Vast majority of historic content is just reaction to it being announced.

If this is kept as the "main article" it still needs a serious amount of editing to bring it back in line with an encyclopedic article. Koncorde (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - the plans for an actual super League, which was announced, and the clear reception to such a thing is clearly notable on its own. I don't think this warrants a merge to additional plans about such a league. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem being that as much as it was announced and we immediately launched into new article territory instead of following WP:BREAKING and WP:DELAY and then deciding if it should be forked. Because, y'know, football and people can't help themselves. There was a reception, nothing happened (per WP:LASTING) the longevity is questionable at best (per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED). The other article is, at present, redundant for what could be summarised in one or two paragraphs. Koncorde (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, this is one of the most cataclysmic event in football for many years. I think it has the potential to cause widespread changes for years. There is a strong possibility for fall out from this, and the huge media coverage and political involvement is quite extraordinary. To say this shouldn't have an article, but a minor sportsman should, is ridiculous. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Support if there would have been any games it would deserve it's own article, but this 48h pr stunt does not Norschweden (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Support. The Super League is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Regarding discussions above, a subject's standalone notability is not the sole determining factor of whether a subject requires its own article, or whether it would be best-placed as a part of a separate (but very strongly related) article. WP:MERGEREASON furnishes editors with four good reasons for a merger. These are not criteria that must all be met in order for a merger to be justified, but can help editors find an answer. Going throug these, it is clear to me that there is significant overlap in the content of The Super League and Proposals for a European Super League in association football, with much content duplicated. Furthermore, being able to place the latest attempt at a European Super League in context of other aborted attempts is fundamental to understanding how and why it came about. As it stands, neither article is overly long, so a merger need not be avoided on those grounds. Domeditrix (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support the current ESL plan isn't happening, and therefore is a proposal. As such, it should be trimmed down and merged into this article- no need for a separate article for something that existed for 2 days. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose This was a very serious move, very different from the rumors of the past decades. A society with limited responsability (S.L.) was created in Spain, and the clubs apparently signed binding contracts. They really left ECA for this, they chose Chairman and Vice Chairmen, they even laid down rules for partition of TV rights—it was no stunt or proposal, but actual and concrete stuff. WP:NOTABILITY is ascertained, related effects have already started to take place (WP:LASTING). --Foghe (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Foghe: We aren't obligated to split every article into its component parts, even if the constituent parts are individually notable. For example, the artwork for Abbey Road and The Dark Side of the Moon almost certainly meet the WP:GNGs, but content pertaining to such iconic record sleeves is contained within the articles relating to the albums. Why? Because not everything needs an article, because a separate article would certainly lead to duplication of content, and because putting things within a wider context (where possible) has benefits. These all apply to this situation. Why ought this article be different? Domeditrix (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. If we're just throwing WP info pages around as valid arguments, then WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:CONSPLIT over WP:OVERLAP. Notability doesn't hinge on whether it succeeded. Failures can be noteworthy too. I speculate the motivation behind moving, truncating and even deleting to be bias from editors who wish the subject to be erased from history or downplayed in history out of personal hatred. Wanchan2020 (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wanchan2020: WP:SIZESPLIT isn't remotely applicable in this case, neither page is long. Also, please assume good faith from editors, we're not evil schemers motivated my 'personal hatred' just because we disagree on a merge proposal. Domeditrix (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Retracting SIZESPLIT after considering the merged prose size. The assumption is either bad faith or low quality proposal. A claim of "100% WP:OVERLAP" needs an explanation as detailed as Domeditrix's. Wanchan2020 (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article is notable enough not to warrant a merge, on several grounds. These include the fact that the events that transpired after the proposal of the ESL was made on 18 April were quite prominent in sporting history, as much as football, because it fuelled widespread criticism and outright demands for changes to be made. In addition, it also has sparked debate about the current situation with the sport in terms of club ownership, fan and supporter-driven power, and the driving factors behind why the clubs tried to breakaway in the first place. GUtt01 (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, if that article were merged into this one this article would become severely imbalanced based on the quantity of sourcing available for both topics respectively. Perhaps this article should be the one being merged, not the other way round. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - it wasn't just a proposal, it was fully announced and everybody legally signed up with the intent of it actually happening, and it was only the backlash that caused everybody to quit. It wasn't just some suits in a room saying "maybe", it was a definite thing. ItsKesha (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments above " strongly disagree, this is one of the most cataclysmic event in football for many years. I think it has the potential to cause widespread changes for years. There is a strong possibility for fall out from this, and the huge media coverage and political involvement is quite extraordinary. To say this shouldn't have an article, but a minor sportsman should, is ridiculous." --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose They are different things. There have been many proposals for a European Super League in association football and I am sure there could be more to come in the future while this league is an actual one. I don't know how far would they go, but the league deserves an article by itself. 2001:8003:9008:1301:416B:64C4:9DD8:1137 (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Two different things. One is about the general proposals that have been around for a long time. The other is about a specific proposal that came out with intent to be implemented and got roundly panned. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose A specific proposal that has received significant coverage is different to the broader history of proposals for a breakaway league. Kb.au (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Pointless and counterproductive content-splitting. Zacwill (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The ESL actualised the proposals of a european super league for the first time, with the founding of a specific company to go along with it. Additionally, neither entry is a stub, and has enough material to be an entry in their own right. The articles should remain separate. A brief summary of previous events, which links back to Proposals for a European Super League may be a suitable compromise instead of merging the two pages. Techydipitty (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Without meaning to single you out specifically, @Techydipitty: (as this could have been expressed as a reply to a good number of votes here), but this is an example of the lunacy of not merging the articles. Undoubtedly, this article would be improved by adding context of previous efforts to create a European Super League of sorts. Likewise, it would be a glaring omission for this article not to contain any text on the 2021 Super League effort. So the result of not merging will inevitably be duplication on a vast scale, when we could just have a redirect to a section on this page. Domeditrix (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. While the 2021 Super League proposal remains unrealised, what quality does it have that makes it distinct from a 'mere' proposal? The fact that a company was formed an an announcement made feels fairly arbitrary compared to the more concrete distinction of whether a ball was ever kicked. I've also seen a number of votes mentioning that this article would become unbalanced, but I don't think this would necessarily be the case. I think, for example, pre-2021 proposals could be merged under one main heading, with the 2021 proposal (and the fallout) having its own main heading. Reactions to proposals would be its own section, containing statements in support of and against the idea generally, and then with subheadings for reactions to specific proposals (pre–2021 and 2021). Alas, I think this discussion is only going one way, but I thought it best to at least get my thoughts on the record before the discussion is closed. Domeditrix (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Domeditrix: I don't think there's any dispute that the fallout is almost the entire 2021 story. What if it ended right after the first kick of a ball? Apart from the scale of the blowback, the weight of the subject lies on the number of clubs that committed to the project and the size of those clubs. I also put forward that there's value in the two points of view: 1) the 2021 proposal as one of many in the analysis of a trend in club football and 2) the previous hollow proposals as the background section of the 2021 article. Wanchan2020 (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support - the two subjects are identical in scope.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• oppose - the proposal advanced far enough for it to warrant a separate articke. Mtaylor848 (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: if it's a subject about football and even I have heard a significant amount about it then you know that it's notable. This specific attempt at creating a Super League (which progressed quite far) is independently notable from the more broad topic of all general ideas of European leagues. It is possible (but doesn't seem right) that Proposals for a European Super League in association football is not notable, but European Super League should definitely have a dedicated article. — Bilorv (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: the current article is notable on its own. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Can we close this please? The consensus seems fairly overwhelmingly against a merge. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Given the strong backlash and coverage of the Super League I think it was worth keeping it as its own article.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.