Bernd Reichart, CEO of A22 Sport, the promotion company of the European Super League, recently gave an interview to El País to explain the recent rulings of the European Super League, UEFA and the European Court of Justice.
What was the moment when you learned of the verdict?
First of all, I am very happy and congratulated from all sides. It's the same with the clubs, they've been waiting. They said, "Wow, we didn't expect that to be so clear. It says 'abuse of monopoly', 'illegal', which is a bit surprising to all of us. ”
Do you do the same?
So do we. We don't have that optimism. And when a 200 or 300-page ruling comes out, there is always a feeling that there will be some areas that are not clearly defined, or that there will be some gray areas. But it's very clear. This is the first reaction, shared with the club. We look forward to everything being able to change, and this is truly a new era.
But a number of clubs have issued statements saying they are still standing with UEFA
Some clubs informed us and said: "In this case, we need to make a statement. You'll see that the word 'Super League' doesn't appear, we're talking about the old model, or we're expressing it very openly. "We understand that obviously after 70 years of monopoly, some clubs need time to clear their minds and realise that the threats and sanctions against UEFA have lost their legal basis.
Is this different from 2021?
I wasn't here at the time, but just a judge in Madrid had to protect the club from destruction. UEFA deprived them of their prospects and income in Europe, and that speaks volumes. If you don't believe it, look at the documentary on AppleTV, where Chairman Florentino said directly: "I didn't even see the proposal, I started fighting." ”
After learning of the ruling, Cheferin said: "We will not try to stop them, not even before
I think of Cerezo, what he said the other day on Radio Zero. (Atletico president Cerezo said at the time he didn't want to risk UEFA sanctions against them). Maybe it's part of the arrogance and arrogance that UEFA has shown us.
What will be done now?
Trying to organize and build the best competition, constantly collecting opinions, any club can propose, can say 'I like this, but I have doubts......' we want to continue this conversation. We will try to achieve this in the new year.
According to Article 142 of the judgment, UEFA retains the ability to authorize matches within its system. What are your thoughts on the licensing criteria they adopted for this in 2022?
It's hilarious. But the monopoly has been broken, the opportunity for free competition has appeared in the market, it has been declared that there is not even a single procedure to enter the market, and those that were later invented by people are also illegal.
If you want to start a match, will you apply for authorization from UEFA?
This project will always follow the procedure. We are subject to EU law. We are not a Swiss private organization trying to evade the jurisdiction of European law. Tell me where I need to tick and we will strictly adhere to it.
On the day of the verdict you say that football is free, but you are reluctant to mention any of the clubs involved in the project. Why?
Announcing which clubs are interested and which have been interested in the past will only lead to the division of football and it will be more difficult to unite football, and that is our goal.
Does not mentioning a name detract from your credibility?
In much of Europe, projects led by two of the world's largest clubs are easily recognisable.
But when you meet with clubs, they ask which other clubs are interested.
Yes, I allow myself to be a little more open. I also know that there will be exchanges and comparisons between clubs. It makes sense. What is not reasonable is Article 51 of the UEFA Statutes: "No association".
If Girona are not league champions, but second, third or fourth, they still have a chance to qualify for the existing Champions League under the existing league system. And in your proposal, they will only qualify for the third tier of the league after winning the league. For some small clubs and their fans, how do you explain to them that the second place cannot play in the top European competition?
The clubs themselves can explain this to the fans, they have developed this format and for a reason. If this proposal does not convince the club, it will not be implemented. But after my sober analysis, I am convinced that there are two aspects. The first is the sporting results: why can Girona get into the Champions League, but not Austria or Belgium? This is the so-called disparity, is it fair? The second belief is my personal opinion and will discuss with anyone that there are many clubs who cannot take advantage of the opportunity to enter the Champions League and go home after the group stage, they are a pity because they did not adjust their squad to the competitive nature of the Champions League and then swing in the domestic league. We have many examples of this, and I know that my German friends have had this situation in the past. I want to discuss football. Finally we can do that.
Why do you think the Super League proposal is better?
First of all, you have the opportunity to play throughout the season, from the first round to the last, not to go home early after a few games. No, you have 14 games, and you can even be bolder and invest in your roster to accommodate the double matches you're not Xi used to. Then you have two chances to reconfirm your position in Europe. Now Girona must win the Champions League to gain a foothold in Europe. You can be a Champions League finalist and be good for nothing for the next year? We can adjust the sporting performance and openness, and the final decision is in the hands of the club.
You plan to generate at least €5 billion per year through a new free streaming platform called Unify. What is this number based on?
This is based on the great power of the best football games, there are no inconsequential games. This is the only football that has been followed and followed on all continents. However, many European customers are not satisfied with the existing service because the subscription cost is too high, it is very cumbersome to access, and two or three different subscriptions are required. And outside Europe, the value was ruined by piracy, this is said by Tevas. We want to invite an unprecedented community of fans to connect with their clubs, to be recognized by the club, and to be able to interact with the club, which is of great value to advertisers and to clubs as well.
Why 5 billion, not 7 billion or 3 billion?
I can't explain our model in detail right now. From my 20 years of experience working in commercial television, I know that there are also free football matches supported by ads: this is nothing new. At its core, there is a huge reach in a fragmented media market. A handful of events that offer broad coverage are more valuable than ever. You can look at TV shows in the U.S. and how to sell fewer and fewer ad slots.
You say there is financial support for three years
Guaranteed.
Is it used to build the Unify platform?
No, for two purposes. We need investors to launch this technology. We understand that this is a novel technology and we have to prove that it can work and bring the expected benefits to the club. Therefore, for the first three years of the next three cycles, we guarantee a minimum return for the club, and in the future 100% of the net income generated by Unify will be distributed to the club.
What type of investors are they?
European and American investors.
There are still pending lawsuits in the Madrid courts that could be extended for several years. Doesn't the passage of time hurt you, or does it matter to you that it doesn't matter if you start in two or five years?
If you say you feel the urgency to start right away, I'd take that as a good sign. Hopefully we can get started soon.