Bernd Reichart, chief executive of A22, the organizer behind the Super League project, appeared in media interviews on a Thursday when the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled there was a prevailing attitude of abuse by UEFA and FIFA. Reichart took to television programs, websites, and radio to trumpet the growth and benefits of the Super League for participating clubs.
His stance suggests immediate gains for clubs in UEFA and FIFA competitions, implying that governance might shift away from current constraints. Reichart argued that clubs would no longer face the same unilateral demands, pressing for negotiation rather than compliance. Yet his push for the league has left some statements open to scrutiny, as they sometimes read as vague or even exaggerated. The following review compiles seven key arguments he put forward and examines them in light of broader football economics and competition structures.
seven arguments
1-Reichart claimed that matches could be watched for free through a platform called Unify, financed entirely by advertising. He suggested that all Super League games would be accessible at no cost to fans and that investors view this as a favorable moment for football. If free viewing becomes the standard, questions arise about who pays for the television rights outlined in the founding contracts, which are projected to total around 4 billion dollars in revenue for the clubs. A portion of that revenue, estimated at 8 percent or 400 million, would flow into a solidarity fund, but the model still hinges on how broadcast rights are monetized over time.
2-Reichart projected annual advertising revenue exceeding 3,000 million. In evaluating such figures, it is helpful to compare with other major sports leagues. For example, the NBA reported sponsorship revenue around 1.66 billion in a recent season, a figure that underscores how ambitious projections can be, and invites scrutiny about market size, audience reach, and sponsorship dynamics in European football compared with North American leagues.
3-He argued that there would be a level of mediocrity protection that could push smaller or mid-tier teams into lower categories if they overperform. The claim suggested a concern that a strong season might not guarantee similar placement, raising questions about competitive incentives and the implications for clubs that achieve surprising success. The example of Unión Berlin came up, challenging the idea that smaller clubs would naturally thrive within a ladder system that rewards consistent excellence.
4-Reichart asserted that clubs would gain freedom from threats or sanctions by UEFA and would be free to decide their own future. This statement invites critical examination of the framework, since the contract terms reportedly include penalties and constraints, specifically laid out in sections designed to govern relationship dynamics and member commitments. In other words, the notion of complete freedom is nuanced by the legal and political realities of any closed or semi-closed competition structure.
5-Another assertion claimed that the Super League would deliver a fairer competition for modest clubs, arguing that top teams would no longer dominate the draw. The historical record shows that teams can rise through the ranks in diverse ways, but the path to top competition often depends on resource allocation, performance consistency, and strategic decisions. The example of Leicester City, which won international attention after a remarkable season, illustrates how traditional seeding and grouping rules can still influence outcomes even outside the very top tier. The claim raised questions about what a new league format might mean for promotion, relegation, and group placement for clubs with varying historical success.
6-Reichart noted that some clubs had told him they were ready to participate only tentatively. He indicated that a small group of major clubs had expressed interest while many others had distanced themselves. He referenced Napoli through its leadership and other clubs that reportedly explored alternative models for their national leagues, suggesting a broader strategic debate about league structure, closed tiers, and the balance between elite clubs and wider participation in domestic leagues.
7-The final argument presented was provocative: if a prominent figure such as Jon Rahm changed his mind and joined a different league project, why wouldn’t a similar shift occur within football clubs? The point was framed as a question about the durability of alliances and the impact of external threats on loyalty. In this context, the statement read as a provocative what-if scenario rather than an established forecast, highlighting how rhetoric can shape perception during a debate about a major structural change in the sport.
Taken together, these seven points frame a narrative in which the Super League positions itself as a bold alternative to the status quo while inviting rigorous examination of financial viability, competitive integrity, and governance. The debate touches on how broadcasting, sponsorship, competitive ladders, and club autonomy intersect with the broader economics of European football and the interests of fans across North America and Canada who follow the sport with deep attention.