THE SUPER LEAGUE PROJECT: Redefining The Game’s Future

The Super League project caused major controversy in the football world when it first emerged around five years ago. The lack of support from clubs in Germany and France, along with strong backlash from fans—particularly in England and other countries involved—led many of the founding clubs to quickly withdraw from the project. As far as I know, only two of the original 12 founding clubs still stand behind it: Real Madrid and Barcelona.

Most people who closely follow football are already familiar with this process. Instead of retelling the story, I want to focus on three key questions:

1)What do these clubs need to do in order for the Super League to actually happen?

2)What should the other clubs do to prevent it from happening?

3)If left to proceed freely, would this project actually achieve its intended goals?

I will address the second and third questions in a follow-up article. This current piece will focus solely on the first question.

 

One of the main reasons this project faced such intense backlash from day one was the fact that it was largely conducted in secrecy, aside from a few media leaks. Although there were some rumors circulating a few months before the announcement, to my knowledge, no official statement was made by any executive. The strongest reaction to these rumors centered around the closed-league format—that certain clubs would have guaranteed spots regardless of performance. When the project was formally announced, around 80% of football fans were probably hearing about it for the first time, and this lack of transparency was one of the core issues. The entire initiative was carried out behind the backs of the fans.

In football, the real owners of any club are always its supporters. Even if individuals or investment funds technically own a club, without its fans there’s no way to generate revenue—or even enjoyment—from the game. Think back to the pandemic era: did anyone truly enjoy matches played behind closed doors? Didn’t some leagues go so far as to add artificial crowd sounds and digital fans to the broadcasts just to maintain a sense of normalcy? So how could the founding clubs move forward with a project of this magnitude without first preparing the ground and engaging their fans? That, to me, was their fundamental mistake: failing to consult with their core supporters and grossly underestimating the backlash.

Their second major mistake was viewing themselves as inherently privileged. Football isn’t just about the clubs that make it into an elite competition. It’s a deeply layered structure, and if those at the top of the pyramid begin to believe they are untouchable, they risk undermining the entire foundation. If the base of the pyramid were to walk away, would those at the top still have anything to stand on? I’ll explore this point more thoroughly when addressing the third question in my next article, so I’ll leave it there for now.

Let’s put the past aside and consider things from the clubs’ perspective. Suppose I were a part of this project—an internal consultant, so to speak—and they asked me what must be done to make the Super League a reality. Here’s what I would say.

This is my vision for the Super League project:

First and foremost, no club is given special privileges, but the interests of top clubs are still addressed. In fact, my system incorporates all clubs, not just a select few, into a broader, unified structure.

Currently, we have three major competition stages in European football: domestic leagues, domestic cups, and European competitions. I will address domestic cup reform in another article, so for now I’ll focus on the other two.

At present, the top divisions in England, Spain, and Italy consist of 20 teams. In Germany, France, and many other countries, it’s 18; in some, even 16. For this project to be realized, I propose that every top domestic league expands to 20 teams—a change that would not be too difficult, as second-division clubs would likely welcome the opportunity.

In leagues with 20 teams, clubs currently play 38 domestic matches. Add to that 8 European matches in the group stages, and you get 46 total matchweeks (though only some clubs continue into the knockout rounds, which increases their total further). My project maintains a similar total number of matchweeks, but rebalances them: reducing domestic league fixtures slightly while expanding international matchweeks—with all clubs participating in both phases.

Domestic League Phase – Inspired by the new UEFA format:

The domestic league phase will resemble the restructured format recently introduced in UEFA competitions (Champions League, Europa League, Conference League).

Each 20-team league will seed clubs into 4 pots based on their final standings from the previous season:

Pot 1: teams ranked 1st–5th

Pot 2: teams ranked 6th–10th

Pot 3: teams ranked 11th–15th

Pot 4: teams ranked 16th–17th, plus the 3 promoted clubs

Each team will be drawn to play 8 matches against teams from various pots, including their own. Four games will be at home, four away.

After these 8 matchweeks, the domestic league phase ends, and the European phase begins.

European Phase – Inclusive and Performance-Based

All 20 clubs from each country will proceed to the European phase, seeded based on their domestic league performance:

1st–4th → Tier 1

5th–8th → Tier 2

9th–12th → Tier 3

13th–16th → Tier 4

17th–20th → Tier 5

Each country will follow this same system.

Next, based on UEFA country coefficients, nations will be grouped into categories. Five countries will form a collective unit to create five European leagues, each composed of 20 clubs (4 from each country).

In this international league, each club will play home and away matches against all 19 other clubs in their group—38 matches total.

Matchweek Balance

You might think the domestic league feels too short with only 8 matches. However, remember: during the European phase, a team will face 3 clubs from its own country within the 20-team group—accounting for 6 additional “domestic” matchups, making it effectively 14 national league fixtures, albeit within a broader context.

Thus, without increasing the number of matchweeks, we implement a more inclusive, merit-based, and globally engaging system—balancing domestic identity with international competitiveness.

I will start explaining the subject with visuals for a better understanding of the system:

The table on the left is the table I created assuming that the league ended like this last season. That is why I divided the teams into 4 different pots as seen in the colors when starting this year. The team in each pot played 8 matches, including its own pot, as I explained above, and its league ended. I assumed that the league ranking on the right was formed at the end of the league.

Rank	Teams		Rank	Teams
1	Arsenal		1	Liverpool
2	Aston Villa		2	Arsenal
3	Bournemouth		3	Manchester City
4	Brentford		4	Newcastle United
5	Brighton		5	Chelsea
6	Chelsea		6	Nottingham Forest
7	Crystal Palace		7	Aston Villa
8	Everton		8	Bournemouth
9	Fulham		9	Brentford
10	Ipswich Town		10	Brighton
11	Leicester City		11	Fulham
12	Liverpool		12	Crystal Palace
13	Manchester City		13	Wolverhampton
14	Manchester United		14	Everton
15	Newcastle United		15	Manchester United
16	Nottingham Forest		16	Tottenham Hotspur
17	Southampton		17	West Ham United
18	Tottenham Hotspur		18	Ipswich Town
19	West Ham United		19	Leicester City
20	Wolverhampton		20	Southampton

This local league stage was applied in every league and the international stage is next. Let's imagine that 5 leagues formed with 4 teams from each league were formed as follows: 

Rank	League A		Rank	League B		Rank	League C
1	Liverpool		1	Chelsea		1	Brentford
2	Arsenal		2	Nottingham		2	Brighton
3	Manchester City		3	Aston Villa		3	Fulham
4	Newcastle United		4	Bournemouth		4	Crystal Palace
5	Barcelona		5	Villarreal		5	Osasuna
6	Real Madrid		6	Real Betis		6	Mallorca
7	Atletico Madrid		7	Celta Vigo		7	Sociedad
8	Athletic Club		8	Vallecano		8	Valencia
9	Napoli		9	Roma		9	Milan
10	Inter		10	Lazio		10	Como
11	Atalanta		11	Bologna		11	Torino
12	Juventus		12	Fiorentina		12	Udinese
13	Bayern Munich		13	Dortmund		13	Gladbach
14	Leverkusen		14	Leipzig		14	Stutgart
15	Freiburg		15	Mainz		15	Augsburg
16	Frankfurt		16	Werder Bremen		16	Wolfsburg
17	PSG		17	Lille		17	Brest
18	Marseille		18	Strassbourg		18	Auxerre
19	Monaco		19	Lyon		19	Rennes
20	Nice		20	Lens		20	Toulouse

Rank	League D		Rank	League E
1	Wolves		1	West Ham
2	Everton		2	Ipswich
3	Man United		3	Leicester
4	Tottenham		4	Southampton
5	Getafe		5	Alaves
6	Espanyol		6	Las Palmas
7	Girona		7	Leganes
8	Sevilla		8	Valladolid
9	Genoa		9	Lecce
10	Cagliari		10	Venezia
11	Verona		11	Empoli
12	Parma		12	Monza
13	Union		13	Holsten Kiel
14	St Pauli		14	Bochum
15	Hoffenheim		15	Cologne
16	Heidenheim		16	Hamburg
17	Reims		17	St Ettienne
18	Angers		18	Le Havre
19	Nantes		19	Lorient
20	Le Havre		20	Paris FC

In the proposed league structure, particularly within Class A, most of the clubs that traditionally desire to "compete with top teams throughout the season" will see this need largely fulfilled.

Of course, there will be some exceptions. Based on current league standings, teams like Milan, Dortmund, Manchester United, and Tottenham do not qualify for Class A. If these clubs wish to compete at the top international tier, they will need to perform better in the domestic phase. And while that may seem like a loss, it is only temporary—unlike the current system, where a bad season can have long-term consequences, such as missing out on Champions League football the following year. My model offers a more balanced and forgiving structure, where seasonal performance has direct but non-permanent consequences.

Moreover, this format allows clubs in the lower classes to represent their countries on the international stage as well. They will compete against clubs of similar strength, which will enhance match quality and overall spectator enjoyment.

Addressing Viewer Engagement Concerns

A reasonable concern may arise: Why would a fan follow another class if their team plays in a higher one?

Or more specifically: Who would watch Osasuna vs. Auxerre if Inter vs. PSG is on at the same time?

Here’s how I plan to address that:

Matchweeks are scheduled across five different days: Saturday, Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.

Each week, matches from each of the five classes (A through E) are assigned to a specific day. For example:

Class A → Saturday

Class B → Sunday

Class C → Tuesday

Class D → Wednesday

Class E → Thursday

The rotation will alternate weekly, ensuring fairness in exposure.

Especially on weekends, staggered kickoff times will help maximize viewership across multiple fixtures.

This ensures that each class gets the spotlight, and fans can follow full matchdays of their tier without distractions from higher-ranked teams playing simultaneously.

Rethinking the Country Coefficient Model

Let’s now address a structural issue tied closely to this project:

Is the current country coefficient system truly fair?

Does it actually reflect the strength of an entire footballing nation?

In my model, instead of having just 4–5 clubs represent a country in Europe, 20 clubs from each nation will compete and contribute to the country's international ranking. This creates a more inclusive and accurate picture of a nation's footballing depth and strength.

Fixing a Major Flaw in the Current European Format

There’s also a competitive inconsistency in the existing UEFA format.

Take, for example, Liverpool, who may top the new Champions League league phase, yet be eliminated by PSG in the round of 16 and fail to even reach the quarter-finals.

The same issue existed in the previous group-stage model:

A team could win a “group of death,” only to be knocked out in the round of 16 by a second-placed giant like Barcelona.

In contrast, my system involves every team playing every other team in their group, home and away.

The champion, therefore, emerges as a true winner, having consistently proven themselves over the course of the entire campaign.

A Major Obstacle – Smaller Nations' Big Clubs

Now, let’s acknowledge what I believe to be the biggest challenge to this system.

Clubs from nations outside the top 5 in the country coefficient rankings—such as Benfica, Club Brugge, Celtic, or Ajax—might be reluctant to join.

Why?

Because under my model, since their leagues are not in the top five, they won’t be matched against top-tier clubs like Real Madrid or Bayern Munich regularly. Instead, they’ll be grouped into one of the five mid-tier national leagues—for example, a league consisting of clubs from Portugal, Netherlands, Belgium, Czecia , and Turkey.

Even though these teams dominate their domestic leagues and often qualify for the Champions League under the current system, the new format might feel like a step back from an exposure standpoint.

Therefore, gaining support from these big-name clubs in smaller countries will be one of the most significant hurdles for the implementation of this project.

We rarely see clubs from the leagues I’ve previously mentioned—such as Ajax, Celtic, Club Brugge, or Benfica—reach even the quarter-finals of the Champions League or Europa League. The main reason is that the overall level of competition in their domestic leagues isn't high enough. However, this project gives those clubs a chance to turn that disadvantage into an advantage.

One of the key reasons these leagues struggle to rise in the UEFA coefficient rankings is that their clubs are consistently matched against teams from the top five leagues, where dominance is concentrated. But under this model, if top-tier clubs from the big five leagues face each other regularly, their win ratios will naturally decrease, making room for clubs from other leagues to close the gap.

Moreover, I propose that the country coefficient be based on a single season, not a rolling five-year average. This makes the system more dynamic and competitive—every club has to fight for their nation’s standing each year. In nearly every sport, all competitors start at the same line. But in football, clubs from the top five leagues begin the race several meters ahead. If these elite clubs truly believe in their strength, they should have no issue with starting from the same position as everyone else.

Elevating Domestic Standards

Top clubs must also recognize that to be truly elite, they need strong domestic competitors. Under this system, every domestic league will strive to improve—not only to maintain a top position but also to increase the international credibility of their league. That means investing in parity, development, and sustainability across the entire domestic structure.

This format will also eliminate the predictability and stagnation we currently see in many leagues. In most domestic leagues, the top three are obvious, one or two clubs are almost certainly relegated by week 20, and mid-table teams spend the last 10 rounds playing meaningless matches—neither fighting for European spots nor facing relegation threats.

While a similar dynamic could occur in the international phase of my model, the greater parity between teams and the fact that each match affects seeding and qualification for the following season ensures that every match remains meaningful.

What About Leagues Outside the Top 20?

A valid concern is what happens to clubs and leagues ranked outside the top 20. If the initial implementation only includes the top 20 associations, how do the rest develop? How do they remain connected to the global football structure?

This is a critical question, and while I don't offer a definitive solution here, I recognize the need for a parallel development strategy. These clubs must not be excluded, and pathways for progression, both sporting and financial, must be provided.

A Balanced Vision, Not a Breakaway

Let me be clear: I am completely opposed to the original Super League proposal as envisioned by the founding clubs—especially its closed and exclusive nature. However, their concerns must still be acknowledged and addressed. If ignored, we risk a dangerous fragmentation within the sport.

My proposal is not perfect. There may be flaws I have not yet considered. Perhaps readers of this text will spot deeper structural issues. But the goal was to create a more inclusive, forward-looking vision—a structure that balances the desires of top clubs while offering new opportunities to teams that have spent decades locked in repetitive domestic cycles.

For the first time, fans of those clubs will have the chance to follow their team across new countries and cities—to experience what it means to be part of a broader European football journey. It’s about giving meaning, exposure, and purpose to every level of competition.