European club chiefs have insisted they remain opposed to a breakaway Super League amid efforts to revive the project.
The proposal to establish a lucrative competition, in which 15 of the continent’s biggest names would be permanent members, was shot down in April last year amid an angry response from fans of the Premier League teams who had signed up as the British Government, UEFA and FIFA came out against it.
A22, the company behind the scheme, last month sought to reposition the plan, but the European Club Association’s view remains unchanged.
ECA along with the recognised European football community made clear its views on breakaway leagues in 2021. Nothing has changed in 2022. ECA continues to promote the interests of all clubs playing in Europe, not the few. #WeAreECA https://t.co/qceJ9cPhdu
— ECA (@ECAEurope) November 6, 2022
In a statement on its official Twitter account, the ECA said: “ECA, along with the recognised European football community, made clear its views on breakaway leagues in 2021.
“Nothing has changed in 2022. ECA continues to promote the interests of all clubs playing in Europe, not the few.”
LaLiga bosses last week denounced the latest development, claiming it would “destroy the national leagues”.
Real Madrid president Florentino Perez and Barcelona counterpart Joan Laporta were prime movers in the initial Super League project, which also included Manchester City, Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham, Atletico Madrid, AC Milan, Inter Milan and Juventus.
The proposal collapsed within days as clubs withdrew following a furious backlash, with governing body UEFA initially looking to impose punishments.
UEFA are currently awaiting an update from the European Court of Justice, which has been asked to rule on whether they and FIFA abused a dominant position under EU competition law by blocking the formation of the Super League and in seeking to sanction the clubs involved.
The Advocate General’s opinion on the matter is due to be published on December 15. That opinion is non-binding, but in many previous cases, the court judges’ final ruling has closely mirrored it, so it could provide a strong indication of the final outcome, which is expected next year.