Jump to content

Talk:European Super League/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Protection

This page needs protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanormanny (talk • contribs) 23:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments by politicians

Should there be a section on reactions made by politicians, like Boris Johnson and Macron? Alextheconservative (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Probably more appropriate in the other article, as this one is the more controversial one, as it sits on a rugby league claim, where as the other page is merely looking to be merged with this one.Fleets (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to include them. It shows opposition to it from outside football. But maybe not its own section, just included in reaction will be fine. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for better phrasing in the first sentence.

Currently, the first sentence is The Super League (legal name: European Super League Company, S.L.), also referred to as the European Super League. I propose that it be changed to something like The Super League, legally known as(called?) European Super League Company, S.L. and also referred to as the European Super League or The Super League, also referred to as the European Super League and legally known as European Super League Company, S.L., since I don't think I've ever seen a first sentence with the legal name in parentheses. Let me know what you think. Davidxu160801 (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to this, though the same format is used at the Premier League and English Football League articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

"2021–22 European Super League" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2021–22 European Super League. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 19#2021–22 European Super League until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dr Salvus 19:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Questioning the page move

Are you all sure moving this page to "European Super League Company, S.L." is a good idea? WP:TITLE says we should have a recognizable and concise title. I believe that "The Super League" would be much more recognizable as a title for people searching for information on the league, and is definitely much more concise than the current one.

If we don't have good arguments for keeping the current title, we should move the article back to "The Super League". --Dial (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


Agreed with this, actually saw the earlier version of the page and was frantically looking for it believing it to be deleted. This is a confusing name that helps nobody, vote to revert DGT15 (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we just have to be careful to avoid confusion with the Super League which is a rugby league competition. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The Super League is the rugby league competition, there really are no ifs or buts about it. A page about a proposed competition should not override the longstanding, already existing, common name, primary topic, etc.Fleets (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
How about Super League (association football) or The Super League (association football)? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I would say there could be questions about a Super League association football page move, as there are various association football comps that have the Super League as part of their league name, and I could reasonably expect to find existing association football leagues with the Super League in the name, rather than a potential one that supplants the pre-existing.Fleets (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
European Super League (Association Football) or European Super League (Founded 2021) or something among those lines would work best I think. Super League might be the rugby league but we know users are going to be coming here looking for information about this proposal and it could be confusing and hard to reach for them.DGT15 (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I also feel European Super League is the most appropriate title for this page. ShaneJAnderson (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the title should remain as “The Super League”, and if any confusion arises between this competition and the rugby one, title should redirect to the association football Super League. Football is the most popular sport worldwide by a wide margin, and people from all around the world read the English Wikipedia, therefore, The Super League search term should redirect here. Gonzaloges (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to have "association football" in the title, if the whole point is that they are breaking away the associations (UEFA/FIFA) --Moedk (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Split Reaction and create separate article

The Super League has caused widespread condemnation around sports world. Including social media outlets, in-person protesting and teams/leagues condemning the proposed league all together. I suggest there be an article regarding the “Criticism of European Super League” or “European Super League controversies” considering most headlines regarding the Super League is the heavy criticism and condemnation of the league itself. CanadianOntarian (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It should be split and moved away from a rugby league competition with a focus on the common name of the European Super League, with everything focusing out from there for the planned/proposed football league.Fleets (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree with this motion however I am proposing a separate page be created with the topics of the “criticism and controversies of the super league (soccer)” CanadianOntarian (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely no "soccer" @CanadianOntarian:! This isn't America. Association football please if you are going to do that. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
especially with it being a european league in which every team involved uses footballMuur (talk) 06:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, this was my fault for referring to the sport incorrectly I was tired last night. We should split the article’s reaction to the European Super League as it is generating strong criticism and controversy from other football teams CanadianOntarian (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

A reminder with all the news coming out every second

Until any official announcement comes from one of the involved parties, the teams that are currently written should stay. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nice Stories and Eagles517: please see the above. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Reaper7: your accusations of bias are unfounded and ridiculous. As you say yourself, "we must report the facts - not feelings." Tell me where there's an official, first-party statement regarding it? Ridiculous. Dat GuyTalkContribs 19:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Breakoff article

I suggest we make a separate article for the reception of the super league. It's a lot on one article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a WP:SPLIT is really needed due to length, it's not THAT long, but arguably it is a notable proponent in its own right. It would have to be heavily NPOV though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to wait another day to see if it gets any longer. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Article isn't that big. Most of the content will be culled if / when it either goes ahead, or collapses. If it collapses this article will pretty much just be the response to it. If it goes ahead, the response will be largely moot. Creating multiple article to deal with a single news cycle is bad encyclopedia'ing. Koncorde (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021 by an IP

In the team withdrawals section, add Manchester United, Atlético Madrid, and Barcelona. 50.196.175.13 (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done: None of those sources suggest this to be true. If there are sources that say this, please post them. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

All England Clubs withdraw

All four other clubs have given statements announcing withdrawal from ESL. Citation needed, and Team Withdrawal needs updating as soon as possible. GUtt01 (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say there will be a need to restructure this article somewhat in the coming days, focused on the proposals designs and plans, the backlash from the news, and the resultant decision by clubs to withdraw and how it impacted views on the sport. GUtt01 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Agree. Not only have the clubs withdrawn, many have apologised. The new opening should be something like: 'The Super League was a failed attempt to form a breakaway league championed by Florentino Pérez and structured by JP Morgan etc etc..' This whole 'is a planned..' is nonsense. This is over. Reaper7 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
If it collapses, it gets redirected back to the other ESL article with broader context. Our propensity to write these articles like we're journalists really needs to stop. Koncorde (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Reception

This section is more than half of the article's length. Can we split the article and create something like Criticism of the European Super League?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The only thing notable about the ESL currently is the criticism. They haven't kicked a ball, or played any games, have only half the teams left etc. Koncorde (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

NPOV review

Hi, after going through this article and cleaning up blatant grammar mistakes, I noticed that maybe the article isn't as neutral as it should be. Therefore, I am wondering whether an NPOV review should be carried out by experienced editors to see whether biased comments are being made in the article. MBihun (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. The first six sections are filled with neutral facts, and the reception section is overwhelmingly negative because, well, finding a proponent for it that isn't an op-ed from a beat reporter is like finding a needle in a haystack. Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
*Agreed*. This article is heavily biased. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I Disagree because to be honest nobody expect Perez has really defended the league in the media. Nice Stories (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't mean that the league should be portrayed in a negative light - it should have completely impartial views, explaining the different points of view. MBihun (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
The Reception section is about half the article text, and it's almost entirely negative. That's way too much focus on it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
That's because its sole significance is the reaction. There isn't any positive coverage in any news media for us to pretend there is anything remotely neutral. It's either puff pieces and client journalism on behalf of Perez and the ESL or its vitriolic condemnation from everyone else. Koncorde (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Well what if we put it in it's separate article titled reactions to the Super League announcement or something? Nice Stories (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This could work, @Nice Stories. Could you, or a more experienced editor advise whether this is a good idea? MBihun (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Well I think it's a good idea since it will trim some of the fat off the article. Nice Stories (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately not. What will trim the fat is whatever the outcome of this news cycle is. We have created an article and bloated it based on the outrage machine that is the media. We don't need to know each league or club or organisers response, nor their names, nor quotes. The article is victim of WP:RECENTISM, and every football aficionado wanting their opinion reflected. Koncorde (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
References mentioned

Vice-Chairman

Why are Henry, Kroenke and Glazer still listed as Vice-chairman? Surely they left when their clubs withdrew? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

A proposed plan would obviously include mention of people who were involved in it, even if it was abandoned by them and their connections. GUtt01 (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

In November 2018, Football Leaks claimed that there had been undercover talks about the creation of a new continental club competition, the European Super League, which would begin play in 2021. [1]

According to the leaks, on the night of Oct. 22, Real Madrid received an email with the subject line: "Draft of an Agreement of the 16." It was addressed to club president Florentino Pérez. The message was from Madrid-based Key Capital Partners, which advises corporations working on huge projects.

A document was attached to the email -- the draft of a 13-page "binding term sheet" of 11 European top clubs for the establishment of a Super League. If everything proceeded in accordance with the "binding term sheet," the Champions League would cease to exist as of 2021. Instead, the continent's 11 most important clubs would break away from UEFA and found a new elite class called the "European Super League." The 11 "founders" would not be at risk of relegation and would be guaranteed membership for 20 years. Another five clubs will be included as "initial guests," so that the new league would consist of 16 teams.

The 11 founding clubs, according to the document, would register a company in Spain to market, organize and execute the European Super League under its full control. The competition would have two phases: a group round and a knockout round. A second league under the European Super League would possibly also be established.

From this second group, the best teams at the end of the season could play a series of matches in an effort to win promotion to the Super League, but only against clubs that are "initial guests." [2] Estadodanacao (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Nothing done You haven't said what you wanted done. Govvy (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/46078651
  2. ^ https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/football-documents-show-secret-plans-for-elite-league-of-top-clubs-a-1236447.html
The article provided does somewhat draw a line between the current proposal and the document Der Spiegel apparently saw. Which is interesting, but we really can't use it unless someone makes that connection (other that would be OR). The broader "plans for a European Super League" article however could carry it as a seperate reference so long as we didn't infer a link without that link being alluded to. Koncorde (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Basically the Football Leaks revelations show the background of this Superleague created in 2021. Key Capital Partners in charge (that company mention in the 2018), and their banker Anas Laghari as Superleague secretary general. All this information should be added to the Background section.

https://www.elconfidencial.com/deportes/futbol/2021-04-19/borja-prado-florentino-perez-independizarse-champions_3039640/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-9490363/European-Super-League-secretary-Anas-Laghari-claims-project-renew-football.html

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. How? Which specific sentences? If you think it needs to be included, you need to tell us how it should be done (using the proposed "add [exact wikitext]" format), as per the instructions, otherwise, it remains a vague request for "some unspecified change". Also note, the Daily Fail(and other tabloids, generally, due to their sensationalist nature) is not an appropriate source - stick to stuff like the Beebs or Spiegel or other such publications. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal - Maintain article rather than merge or move it to other articles

I would like to propose this article be kept as something significantly notable and important as a prominent event in sporting history, due to the nature of what occurred: what was proposed by its founders; how it came into existence (when it began, etc); reaction to the news of its unveiling and the subsequent efforts to halt it; the eventual decision, influencing factors, that led to the clubs withdrawing from this; and both the resulting impact of the proposal on football and other effects it brought in. GUtt01 (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is suggesting a merge? This is clearly a notable topic in of itself. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I would merge it. 90% of the content here is dead and blatant WP:RECENTISM. Koncorde (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Then you should propose the merge or even the deletion if the summary in the Proposals article is sufficient. The news hasn't even died down completely yet. Wanchan2020 (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
What's the rush? If people want to waste their time on this let them have at it. News is news. This is an encyclopaedia. Currently most of the sections are referring to a thing that never happened, things that didn't happen, stuff people threatened to do, and discussions about what could happen if any of the things happened. It's a minefield. Compare to Foundation of the Premier League which did actually take place and UEFA Europa Conference League which is going to take place. Any further fallout is going to be BLP related (so better for their articles) or club related (so probably worth mentioning in the relevant club, history and season articles of those clubs involved). Koncorde (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
No rush. Also no point in discussing this without a real merge/delete proposal. Wanchan2020 (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Atlético Madrid and Internazionale

Hi, Currently at The Super League#Withdrawals and Super League response it states "Less than an hour following this, both Atlético Madrid and Internazionale officially announced their respective withdrawals from the Super League" however unless I've misread something somewhere there is no team called "Internazionale" ? –Davey2010Talk 13:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorted. Jimthree60 (talk) 13:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah many thanks Jimthree60 much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Internazionale is the Italian name for Inter Milan and tends to crop up in sources for time to time. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Breakaway edits

Pinging GUtt01. You seemed to have broken a lot of edits (esp the ones I made) in your revamp. For example, some refs were lost, some paragraphs overridden, and so on... I see some minor copy-edits being lost too. Are you able to fix those? Thanks. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I can do so, but it can be just as easy for you to also try fixing them as well. GUtt01 (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@GUtt01: I did whichever ones I could spot on first reading of some sections. Likely, you have more context since your edit also removed content, it isn't clear if I should add those back in my edits. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@GUtt01: how about we move "Legal issues" to Background section below Concept? What your opinion? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Abolished?

Why is it noted in the info box as abolished? Seems somewhat premature to note that I would of thought. Govvy (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it shouldn't be marked as abolished yet. But, per Agnelli it seems deaaaaaaad.[1] Koncorde (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 Not done ref: https://archive.is/9luyp Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Agnelli blaming the collapse of the Super league on Brexit

One of the more bizarre and panicked statements of the fiasco from one of its key men.https://www.politico.eu/article/juventus-chief-blames-brexit-for-super-league-collapse/ https://news.sky.com/story/number-10-rejects-juventus-chairs-claim-boris-johnson-saw-european-super-league-as-attack-to-brexit-12282644 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/04/21/boris-johnson-forced-collapse-european-super-league-due-brexit2 Reaper7 (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done This has been noted in the article under the Collapse section. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Potential members citations

Hi, i am new over here and I havent yet gotten the time to look over the entire spectrum of wiki editing. that said I mainly only edit the citations. One the topic "potential members" there's an uncited tag on the claim "Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund and Paris Saint-Germain were not initial members of the Super League in its announcement, but much speculation has existed that the Super League wants them be added to the League. According to a document published by Der Spiegel, Bayern and Dortmund will be given 30 days, and PSG 14 days, to sign up to the Super League...." Although it says der spegel i haven't had much success finding their document. What I found is several other English and American media releasing similar or even identical statements citing Der spegel.These include forbes at [1]. So I figured out maybe the reason is that it is in german. I found out the german version (which was not available on the google search) over here at [2] but at least it gives the English translation 

LostCitrationHunter (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
From what I know, per WP:RS, secondary reliable sources (Forbes, in your example) reporting on stories run by primary reliable sources (Der Spiegel, in your ex) is preferred for a citation, except when quoting the primary source directly. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

fix the cite error in #Reception. 76.103.46.252 (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and ran the page through the citation bot, which I am fairly certain fixed the issue, alongside a couple of other issues in the whole article. Feel free to reopen if necessary. Deauthorized. (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Change to uefa Jam20210 (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 19 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to European Super League. This was...a topic that clearly engendered strong feelings, which then turned around in a matter of days to a flash-in-the-pan, and where extensive debate existed and exists over the necessity of a stand-alone article. Mergers are outside the scope of RM. Inside the scope of RM, it took a fair amount of discussion for a consensus to form, but late in the discussion (and mostly after the league gained serious enough opposition to clearly not happen) a consensus to move to European Super League formed amongst both present and new participants. This is a very populated RM getting a much higher than average level of attention, and both numbers and strength of argument work out to a consensus in that direction here, notwithstanding the question of whether this will exist as a stand-alone article in a year and what it will be called if it does. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vaticidalprophet 08:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


The Super League → ? – Should be a WP:COMMONNAME (either "The Super League" or "European Super League") with disambiguation (with some or all of "association football", "Europe/European" and "founded 2021"). Wanchan2020 (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Rugby League does not run an association football competition, so it can't be "The Super League" with an association football disambiguation. What is it; it is a proposed European "Super League" of European association football clubs, legally founded in 2021, but not in existence. I would try and find a wording around what it is, against what is already in existence, and not just rugby league, but also association football and other wikipedia pages on similar proposed association football leagues. Legal name gives something solid to stand on for now.Fleets (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
You can disambiguate even if the article names aren't an exact match. You just need ambiguity/possible confusion. The rugby league can be referred to as "the Super League", as per your reasoning for moving the page from "The Super League". Taking in your points, I'll also suggest "Super League" (no "The") with disambiguation. Wanchan2020 (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support this proposal, was just coming here to suggest something similar myself. This competition is clearly known as "European Super League", and is the primary topic compared to an article about proposals for the league (as this league is the fulfilment of that). Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Yes, a move discussion is fine, but the previous move did not follow our naming policies. So I have restored the page to the original title it was created under until an outcome here is reached. The article European Super League (association football) was more about the concept and history of discussions regarding the formation of a Super League, so I think "The Super League" entity itself needed its own article. S.A. Julio (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The Super League already exists; it is a rugby league competition. This discussion is over the move, or potential move of a disambiguator page.Fleets (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
This page was moved to an obscure title, so I had contested the move and restored the original title the page was created at. This discussion should run its course, and moved if necessary thereafter. Prior to this article, "The Super League" only redirected to Netball Superleague (a competition that apparently never had actually used that name) so it is not as though this article is stealing traffic from the rugby league competition. S.A. Julio (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
In case my above comment wasn't clear, I support moving this article to European Super League (association football) (as many sports have European Super Leagues). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. S.A. Julio (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Should also discuss whether this article is the primary topic if we go with "European Super League". i.e., European Super League → European Super League (disambiguation). Might depend on whether this league goes ahead. If it doesn't, it would possibly be merged into the Proposals article. Wanchan2020 (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
This article was moved from its original title to "European Super League Company, S.L.", but subsequently just the talk page was moved to another different title, causing the RMCD bot to not post the requested move notice on the article after this discussion had been opened. Unaware of this discussion, I contested the original move thinking it did not reflect the WP:COMMONNAME.
Regarding the other article, it was created in June 2009, and details the history of various proposed/failed concepts for a so-called "European Super League" since the 1990s. Given "The Super League" was just founded, it did not seem to make sense for both topics to be covered in a singular article. S.A. Julio (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
It might yet fail again... we are committing a bit of WP:CRYSTAL here to assume this will go ahead beyond the formation of the company. Koncorde (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Whether or not the project fails beyond this point, it is clearly still a notable subject with significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Founding clubs, the format and financial backing has been announced, and there has been an extremely strong reaction from football governing bodies. None of the past proposals went beyond a suggested concept/threat. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The point is we're talking about moving articles, disambiguating etc because of something that may not yet happen because instead of using the article we had and breaking it out, we created a new one to fork content from back to the other article. Koncorde (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Without going all Highlander, there can only be one. Can this one be moved back to the rugby league competition, and whatever wording on the association football version of the European Super League is pretty separate from this.Fleets (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The title "The Super League" did not redirect to the rugby league competition prior to your changes today. The discussion will be over in a week, then the article can be moved based on the consensus. S.A. Julio (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Call it the European Super League Erzan (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment at present this doesn't exist as a competition. It is a company with signatories, and a proposed outline. It might not even happen yet. This is a complete fuck-up of page moves and I am really confused as to the BOLD moves and moves upon moves being undertaken. Koncorde (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
This article was moved once, and then reverted. There haven't been "moves upon moves". Whether or not this "exists" as a competition yet has no significance regarding notability. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I am literally looking at the logs, your comment above, and other comments here, and talk page moves etc. And the point is, at the moment this is a "mooted" competition, there is no guarantee it has any long term notability if it even happens. What is notable is the discussion of and reaction to A.N.Other mooted ESL, and a company. Koncorde (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait It's been a big 24 hours, but still only 24 hours. I think it's worth waiting a couple weeks to see how coverage develops, rather than moving now and then having another discsusion to potentially move back two weeks down the line. Domeditrix (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support name change to "European Super League" as that is what it is most commonly being referred to as by the media. Mn1548 (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly needs differentiation between the rugby league competition of the same name. "The" gives no differentiation between the sports. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Move to European Super League regardless of development of the football league in coming weeks in order to disambiguate this planned football league with a professional rugby competition, which also sometimes be called "Super League" (without The but often with "the" in lowercase letter). 36.77.95.2 (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait; Oppose for now With the current turbulence, I feel like any moves right now seem premature. No one knows how long this concept/proposed competition will even last for, and if it will even survive to its first match. After all the legal shenanigans and threats finish between all the soccer/football entities, should there be a move if this Super League survives. Otherwise, if it does not survive, it will just be like a footnote in history and the title can be whatever as it would not be that prominent of an article. I think the current title is sufficient as "The Super League" is the branding currently used as seen on the official site and logo. -boldblazer (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Can anyone please tell me which is supposed to be the primary article on this subject? There is a mass of duplication of content. Is it this one or Proposals for a European Super League in association football?--Egghead06 (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not now - I agree with some people above that the situation is way too chaotic and unpredictable to make any decision that isn't arbitrary. With all the legal action threatened by UEFA/FIFA and the protests from clubs/fans this league could either be dead within a few weeks or it could survive and be on its way to become the most popular sports competition in the world in a few months. If it is the former, then I agree that it should be moved to something else avoid confusion, but if it's the latter, then it'll most likely supersede other competitions of the same name in notability and should keep this name per WP:QUALIFIER. Since we don't know which one will it be, I oppose for now, leave it until we have at least some reliable clarity on where it will be going and revisit this then. (P.S. I also oppose suggestions of renaming it to the "European Super League" as that name is largely used casually and not in most RS I've seen. If this is to be renamed in the future, I think a parenthesis disambiguation like The Super League (association football) should be used instead.) -- GN-z11 ☎ ★ 06:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    Why should this page should be confused with another Super League already established and how can this be arbirtrary? there are probably hundreds of sources that call it the European Super League or ESL. Erzan (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Erzan: it's arbitrary because we have no idea which way this league will go, so choosing whether or not to move it now will basically have to be a random guess on our part. As I've said, if it fails, the best option would be for it to retain its official name and be disambiguated with a parenthesized word or phrase; if it succeeds, the best option would likely be to keep it as it is now, and perhaps move other competitions that seriously conflict with it (that's a discussion for later times). We don't know what will happen, simple as that. There are obviously many sources that refer to it as the "European Super League". There are also many sources that refer to the Premier League as the "English Premier League" to differentiate it from other competitions using that name. But, to almost all intents and purposes, the phrase "Premier League" itself is used to refer to the English competition rather than others, and in the same way the "Super League" will most likely be used to refer to this European competition rather than others (if it succeeds). Already, at this very early stage, many multi-sport news sources such as ESPN[3] and NBC Sports[4] aren't paying attention to the ambiguity of the phrase. -- GN-z11 ☎ ★ 08:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
So here are the facts.
  1. Most sources in sport and wider media references this as European Super League.
  2. The company is called the European Super League.
  3. There is already a wikipedia page on a Super League.
The objective evidence is on renaming this page the European Super League. Erzan (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
"A few months" is a long time. And it will take much longer to "become the most popular sports competition". It can be moved again should that happen. You also need the name "The Super League" to be much more popular and for most people not to mistake the name to be just "Super League" (where "The" is seen as just marketing, like "The new iPad"). Wanchan2020 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, I forgot. The consensus seems to be in favour of moving it to European Super League, which now seems good to me after I reviewed some more football sources. I don't believe this discussion is worth continuing given what happened yesterday, will take an insane turn of events for this league to keep its relevancy. -- GN-z11 ☎ ★ 04:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Agree per Amakuru. The Proposals article will need a rewrite to reflect the actual attempt was made etc and but much of this content is flash in a pan mix of reaction and commentary rather than encyclopedic information so is likely not fit for merging, so we will need to be judicious in our editing. Koncorde (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
"Consigned to a foot-note" is your prediction. What's wrong with waiting until that happens and then truncating the article and moving/merging it? Wanchan2020 (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
What's wrong with that, is WP:RECENTISM, and the long-term significance criterion at WP:PTOPIC. We're assigning undue weight to something that, even as we see it today, is not significant in the long-term. If the league were going ahead, or if it ends up making a come-back, then it would be an absolute certain primary topic. But given that it's at the moment not going ahead, there's no reason why it should take precedence over any other European super league proposal that's been made over the past 20 years.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The "long-term significance" criterion is relative. How significant were the previous ones? The proposals article has nothing but ideas, predictions and rumours but I accept that could be misleading. Wanchan2020 (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
As for the long-term aspect, in 20 years, should someone look at breakaway leagues in any sport—why they happen, what was the response, why they fail and why no one should try this again—this 2021 attempt would be a worthy case study. The previous ones would offer up little information. Wanchan2020 (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Name change is absolutely necessary in one form or another; there were previous plans for a super league which failed, rugby has a super league, and you simply can't call this article "The Super League" without qualifying it. I would change it to "European Super League proposal (2021)" to distinguish it from other super league competitions and the previous proposal. Dane|Geld 10:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Something like what you say, or 2021 European Super League proposal would work fine. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chelsea quit Super League - Roman Abramovich himself took the decision

Breaking, Telegraph.[6] Again, to those blocking edits, I am sorry, but we must report the facts - not feelings. Reaper7 (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/manuelveth/2021/04/19/super-league-bayern-munich-and-borussia-dortmund-reject-new-league-and-back-uefa/?sh=7e62ddfe6c2c
  2. ^ https://www.spiegel.de/sport/super-league-bayern-muenchen-und-borussia-dortmund-sollen-gruendungsmitglieder-werden-a-3492f301-7f3d-4bc6-8860-6205858e2eb5
  3. ^ https://www.espn.com/soccer/real-madrid/story/4364933/real-madrids-perez-says-uefa-wont-kick-super-league-teams-out-of-champions-league
  4. ^ https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2021/04/19/super-league-plan-premier-league-statement-latest/
  5. ^ https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/56823501
  6. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/04/20/chelsea-pulling-european-super-league-following-backlash/

 Done this is covered in the article. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Merseyside Reds

Re: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1019664250?diffmode=source

@The C of E: Leeds calling Liverpool names, Wolves changing their twitter handle to claim the 2018/19 League, other players or club social media handles sharing memes don't seem encyclopaedic to me. Per WP:JOURNAL and WP: NOTEVERYTHING, I favour removing such barbs and jibes that don't add much.

The article is already heavily slanted towards reactions from the UK with barely any content from Italy and Spain; and on top of that, adding reactions from social media handles just tips it for me as not only unnecessary but excessive.

Thoughts? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

If there are any similar issues to this in those countries, please do include them. But this one was reported in several sources so it is worthwhile including, especially since it is telling to the private views of the club's employees on the situation away from the "official" club response. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
It isn't worthy of encyclopedic importance. Wikipedia isn't news or for news worthy things, to be fair. And Leeds twitter trolling doesn't deserve any special merit per WP:DUE. If were letting trolling take over the narrative, the content would be left to a rubble. I am strongly for removing such content. We should involve other editors to see what they think? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The Leeds one is worthy of inclusion as it was the subject of multiple articles, e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. The Wolves one has seen good coverage also, with [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] all seeming good to me, and these were just the first results I found from a Google search. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, but how many of those references qualify as "perennial sources" and / or live up to Wikipedia's WP:RS and WP:V scrutiny? Most of the current wiki-page is supported by reports from national (Sky, The Guardian) and global news agencies (ESPN, The Athletic, Goal). I'm not convinced that the overwhelming UK-centric troll / rhetoric (especially from fringe outlets) warrants space in what is already a pretty verbose and repetitive article. See also: the previously quoted Wikipedia policies. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure about givemesport.com, besoccer.com, sportbible.com and perhaps HITC but the rest are all RS AFAIAC (I even gave you a ref to ESPN). And if you take issue with the lack of coverage of the response from other nations, feel free to include that. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. Such jibes simply are not encyclopedic and reek of WP:RECENTISM. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 11:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
It is encyclopaedic if it is covered by multiple reliable sources. It's not as if we're creating a biography on Leeds' twitter admin, it is a single sentence on an event that was the subject of multiple national and regional level articles and had passing mentions in plenty of others. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
No, covered by News outlets doesn't necessarily make it encyclopaedic: WP:NOTNEWS. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I think this might be a case of WP:STICK respectfully, it seems consensus is against you. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Consensus? There's just three of us here. I've cited policies that I think are violated by the content in the page and I stand by those, as you'd expect :) Pinging other editors to see what they think. @S.A. Julio:, @Nice Stories:, @MariaLeonice:, @ItsKesha:, @Dialh:, @GUtt01:, @Koncorde: Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Reactions to the ESL is fine to include into the article, as long as we don't go too far in turning this into a discussion page, not an encyclopaedic article. In addition, we should include reactions from fans of football in other countries as well, to be more open; being too focused on England is not too wise in my opinion. GUtt01 (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment I wouldn't be completely against using the reactions of a clubs' Twitter account, as long it's contextualised within the prose and given less prominence i.e. "Several clubs used social media to react with humour, including etc and etc and etc". I know Leeds, Real Betis, Southampton, and Wolverhampton all have examples, so it's not a completely insignificant number of teams that did it. Make it the last portion of a club reaction section, make sure the sources are fine, and try and make it less England-centric as GUtt01 says above. ItsKesha (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment it's cruft. Every dog with a dick wants their club to have said something witty or funny, or finds it funny another club has said something humorous in the game of Twitter. 1. We don't need to quote each of them in full, or part, or reference each club by name, 2. Their individual views are just part of a broader morass of feuding clickbait. 3. Opinions are like arseholes, but it doesn't mean we need to refer to each one. 4. 90% of the content related to reactions is functionally irrelevant. It could be summarised in a paragraph. Article needs some judicious editing to even begin bringing it back into the realms of not being a massive shitpost. Koncorde (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment I agree with the Murtaza.aliakbar's reasoning, I think we should steer clear of the more humorous reactions until and unless they somehow become notable enough to include. --Dial (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment I also think that they don't need to be included. Who wants to read about Wolves trying to wind up others by changing their twitter account? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment - I agree with the above. Don't include those things.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Support inclusion Anything is fair game if it has been covered by multiple reliable sources. SK2242 (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The argument about RECENTISM is pretty funny on an article about something that is itself less than a month old. The arguments here are that Twitter is somehow not a suitable place for news to be commenting on, but it is 2021, and they do that. If reliable sources talk about it, so do we. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. @Microwave Anarchist:, @The C of E:, and other editors:

I believe it has been amply demonstrated that witty quips and jibes by social media accounts and other fan forums, covered by fringe News outlets or not (who aren't immune from engaging in click bait) are not encyclopedic per WP:NOTNEWS and WP: NOTEVERYTHING.

I'm going to remove the content in the light of comments here since I haven't heard any counter points against them at all. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, please don't. I don't really see how you can think that is the consensus from the discussion above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Murtaza.aliakbar: I would have said that it is contrary to the loose concensus above that the decent coverage of it by sources means that we should be including it. As Lee Vilenski says, the arguments here are that Twitter is somehow not a suitable place for news to be commenting on, but it is 2021, and they do that, which sums up my view on the matter quite well. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Twitter is a suitable place for all kinds of discussion you see, but then is trolling (regardless of where it occurs) encyclopedic? That is, would it matter 10 years down the line for Leeds to have called Liverpool "Merseyside Reds"? I don't think that's the case at all. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
We aren't citing Wikipedia. We are citing something that multiple RS commented on. It's irrelevant that it happened on twitter. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
We are not an indiscriminate collection of shit people say on the internet. This is an encyclopedia.
And yes, this entire article is a symptom of RECENTISM. Koncorde (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Gazprom and Saudi money

The article goes: "Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich allegedly withdrew in light of his relations with Russia, which through Gazprom is a major sponsor of the UEFA Champions League. Manchester City allegedly pulled out because Saudi Arabia, which does not have a positive human rights image internationally, was thought to be a major financier for the league; JP Morgan dismissed that claim"

Sound like a bunch of unsubstantiated rumours to me, especially since it is unlikely the Chelsea owner and Man City board found both those facts after they signed up for the league. I mean, Gazprom has been one of the chief sponsors of the Champions League for a long time; and JP Morgan had been working on the Super League for two years prior to the announcement. In light of that, I think this paragraph needs to go, per WP:FRINGE. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

removed https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=European_Super_League&diff=1021074250&oldid=1021068212 Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Manchester United Chairman Ed Woodward resigns due to fan backlash

Breaking.[1] Reaper7 (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/04/20/ed-woodward-resigns-executive-vice-chairman-manchester-united/
 Done noted in the Consequences section. Woodward allegedly resigned due to differences with the Glazers. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Manchester City quit the Super League. Need to be removed from various sections of the article including maps

Breaking.[1] I understand many editors in love with the idea of the Super League may try to block this edit, but we must persevere beyond their desires. Reaper7 (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this 100% official that City have formally withdrawn, or is it likely to happen? Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
BBC - beloved of wiki, has said 'withdrawn.' They have left. Chelsea in the air. Reaper7 (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/56823501
 Done Noted in the article, but removing Man City from maps and anywhere else (when they were associated as one of the founding clubs) is a bit drastic. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Super_League/Archive_1&oldid=1155206568"