I reckon I’ve fixed European football. Here’s how.

Last week, some businessmen that fancied a new yacht and thought that they could help themselves to the soul of the world's biggest sport to pay for it. The football world quite understandably erupted with rage for two days before declaring itself victor. 

The European Super League (ESL) was a PR disaster but the reality is that the problem won't go away. Fear not -  I think I've got the solution to the complicated, controversial and cherished crossword that is European football. Hear me out.

What is the European Super League?

The general premise of the ESL is for the biggest brands in European club football - and Tottenham - to create their own league. Big matches between the world's best every week. As interested as I am in watching West Brom beat Chelsea, I can't deny that Manchester United against Barcelona is a better sell for an increasingly global audience. So from the perspective of a punter in New York or New Delhi, the ESL sounds pretty appealing. The subsequent driving factor for the project is that clubs will make a lot more money each season - some reports say almost double that of the Premier League champions.

From what I can tell, there are three significant problems with this cunning plan.

Firstly, many football fans live close to their clubs and go to the games when there isn't a pandemic on. As has been said multiple times, the fans make sports what they are. For instance, I couldn't really enjoy the game between Aston Villa and Manchester City as much as the enthralling Australian Rugby game I watched this morning. Why? The atmosphere of a generator reminiscent of a supermarket dairy aisle is incomparable with the roar of a crowd in a caldron of joy. The ESL relies on fans travelling from country to country on a weekly basis to make the spectacle any good. In a time where many are struggling financially, few of the proper can afford to travel to Newcastle away, let alone Turin. 

Secondly, European sports are generally based on the principles of meritocracy. The proposed ESL would see the founding clubs protected from relegation and the remaining slots invitation only. That goes against more than a century of football's pyramid system in which anyone can dream of reaching the top. This notion is essential for our definition of sport and the fans, but also for the government, which deem meritocratic sport as crucial for keeping the public happy.

The final reservation surrounds the funding of smaller football clubs and the grassroots of the sport. Without the interest and money brought to football by the most prominent teams, smaller clubs wouldn't get the funding from the leagues to continue. This wouldn't just make the FA cup a lot shorter; it would erode the community feel that local football clubs can generate all aground Europe. Without sport, we would hardly feel identity, and that’s sad.

Let’s make the Champions League a league

The ESL, in its current format, is clearly unfit for purpose. But the reality is that the problem won't go away - clubs are owned by businesses that want to make money, and the money-making matches are the big team clashes. The football governing body UEFA know this too. Why else would they be trying to reform the champions leagues setup?

If you ask me, though, UEFA's proposed changes to the Champions League are not radical enough.

The Champions League should be a competition for the top two clubs from each European national top league. These top two teams wouldn't get involved in national league competitions but continue competing in national cup competitions such as the FA Cup. This means that the teams would have the time to play every team once. The Champions League finals would then see the top 16 clubs doing a knock-out stage to decide the champions.  

The top club from each nation would stay in the Champions League while the other, irrelevant of their league position, is relegated back to the Premier League (or equivalent top tier national league) with the top national league champions promoted.

To be clear, those in the Champions League would not play in the top national tier because otherwise, the fixtures would be impossible. The financial advantage of the Champions League competitors, as we see today, would also give them an edge over their opponents. So domestic competitions such as the FA Cup would be more competitive.

The Big Picture

Before you become trigger-happy with the keyboard, let's consider the significant concerns and adapt European football to the economic pressures that will continue to push for change.

The priority is the fans. I stand by the issue that fans may have in travelling to various parts of Europe to see their team play. It is undeniably an issue. However, it will only impact two clubs per nation, which will earn more from the Champions League. Surely some of those funds can go into subsidising away fans' ticket prices. Also, half of the games will be at home, hence, accessible to local fans. Sport is nothing without its supporters - there will be a solution to ensure fans remain number one be that through subsidies or other means.

My suggestion does meet the criteria of most of the complaining fans to whom I've spoken. Promotion and relegation maintain a connectedness between the top and bottom of each national pyramid - anyone can still make it to the top, and long may that continue. The relegation of the lowest-performing national team will also generate greater intra-nation competition, adding a new dimension to 'local rivalry'. 

Connectedness between the top and bottom means that the money made from 'big games' in the Champions League can be invested in the grassroots while engaging a more global audience. Doing so will tangibly achieving what the ESL said they would without the need for exclusivity. Uneven finances are probably the biggest issue in football. The Champions League already pays bonuses to more 'historic' clubs, irrelevant of their success. A similar story was the case in F1, with teams like Ferrari receiving loyalty bonuses. Last year, though, F1 tightened its belt and made the prize money distribution fairer. To save football from tripping over its trousers again, it should follow suit, with larger clubs making small sacrifices to help their rivals and the wider sport survive.

Most of the football world agree that changes are required. While the ESL was not the right way to go, the game needs to jump soon or risk being left behind. By no means are my ideas perfect - where there are winners, there are inevitably losers. Of course, the winners should be the fans, and I believe that these changes do exactly that.

Let me know what you think in the comments below.