When asked about Spanish professional football issues and debates within the Government for a long time, the answer is the same: “We are fed up.” New elements of friction arise from time to time, and the last one is about Sports Law, The reform project that has been announced for years and will finally come to light in the coming months. Maybe in December, but now it’s not wise to set a date as everything is in decline.
The fact is that the complex procedure for updating the text, in effect since 1990, met 39 of the 42 LaLiga clubs ahead and reached a certain political consensus (much less total) when the hardest thing to do seemed to be done. Confirmation of Congress and Senate. “Not one more inconsistency, it’s huge and we’re very serious,” they say from one of the clubs, who are all in line with the exception of Barcelona, Madrid and Athletic. The trio form the usual opposition to LaLiga president Javier Tebas. A recent (great) example is CVC.
inconsistencies
There are several focus areas of discussion about the articles currently being processed, awaiting the presenting report and any changes that may occur before the final vote in the two legislatures. The main point of the infighting has to do with the elimination of a paragraph protecting Spanish clubs from a hypothetical Superliga..
Until a few weeks ago, the project had summed up, concisely and realistically, that the RFEF and LaLiga could refuse to license clubs participating in competitions outside the traditional football hierarchy. Like the Super League, of course. However, an accepted change between PSOE and PP deleted this reference. They have no doubt that Florentino Pérez is behind this maneuver in LaLiga.
This change at the end of September, along with the lack of a shield (in Tebas and clubs’ opinion) of the joint marketing of television rights, is now regulated by the Royal Decree Act, which is a rule lower than a law, angered. Madrid, Barça and non-Athletic clubs.
The response of these clubs was to request a meeting with the Minister of Culture and Sports, Miquel Iceta. Cite their willingness to declare a lockout (i.e. a ‘strike’ that cripples competition) to various media outlets if their demands are not met. It caused deep disturbances in the Government, as El Periódico de España of the Prensa Ibérica group learned.
“It is unacceptable for you to go to a meeting with a minister who is pressuring the media to stop the competition if he doesn’t do what you want.”The Executive draws attention to the meeting held yesterday at the Ministry of Culture, which did not make any publicity because they saw it as “one more” than many meetings related to the sports world in recent months.
broad representation
Minister Iceta, Secretary General of the Ministry Víctor Francos and Minister of State for Sport and CSD President José Manuel Franco attended this meeting on behalf of the Government. Neither of them made a statement when they left.
The clubs, on the other hand, made a show of strength with Tebas and 10 presidents and managers of the other three clubs.Anyone who forms part of the LaLiga Delegation Commission. The instruction they all receive is to remain silent about what is being said in the Ministry, waiting for Iceta to make a move.
“They listened to us, they would try to solve problems and if we had to make other decisions we would, but Let’s not start the house from the roof, let’s start by talking and solving problemsSevilla president José Castro is one of three people to make statements representing the rest, along with senior leaders of Eibar (Amaia Gorostiza) and Levante (Quico Catalán).
In any case, they decided to stop the competition immediately. “The situation would have to be even more extreme for that. This scenario will be sensitive for the Government, but above all for clubs, and even after this two-year pandemic has dwindled revenue. But if needed…‘, they know privately from someone other than the clubs consulted.
They remember from the government that Congress and the Senate decide the content of laws, not the ministry. They take on mediator roles, but understand that there is a window and another. And they warn: “In no scenario can a broad political consensus be waived because of the demands of third parties”.