Between social pressure and political arrangements, why City withdrew so quickly from the Super League

The last on board and the first out. Among the followers and fans of Manchester City, this is how we define the role played by the English club in the aborted Super League project. A way of reassuring themselves, of telling themselves that their club did not really want it and with relief disassociated themselves from it, setting an example for others.

The reality is less advantageous than that, and if Florentino Perez, frustrated like a child who was refused a toy at Christmas, adds a little more when he says that City
“Was never really interested”, there is a lot of truth to this. City were probably the club that had the least to gain in this history, and they are indeed the first of the “dirty dozen” to have officially announced their withdrawal on April 20 at 9:19 pm to be exact.

A decision taken before the anger of Guardiola and the supporters

Retreat very quickly followed by the other five English clubs, then by most of the instigators of this great idea, who surrendered – provisionally let us remember – one by one. The club owned by the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, at first glance, gave in to popular pressure and that exerted by its coach Pep Guardiola, who had firmly opposed the project in the afternoon. “Sport is not sport when there is no relationship between effort and reward. It is not sport if success is guaranteed or if losing has no importance, “thundered at a press conference the head of the Citizens’ project since 2016.

Except that the decision actually has little to do with this stance, or that of Kevin Parker, one of the spokespersons for the official Sky Blues fan group. “I have a bitter taste in my mouth. A friend sent me a message this morning saying “I feel like I have lost a loved one”. That’s what it is, he wrote on behalf of all the fans in a vibrant plea. I always thought our owners were a little different, that they really had a soul and did things for the right reasons. “

And no, two days later the Times told how British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, through a well-established intermediary in the Gulf, made it clear to club owners that UK-Abu Dhabi relations would be much more fruitful if the Super League never saw the light of day.

A theory validated by Stuart Brennan, an experienced journalist from Manchester Evening News and one of the best informed of the Kingdom on the club: “The decision had already been taken before Pep spoke, he assured
during a chat with supporters, this Tuesday. He had spoken to the leaders before going to the press conference and the leaders had given him their blessing to express his opinion. “

“Their agenda has nothing to do with the daily life of the fans”

We won’t take too many risks in writing that the Abu Dhabi United Group, the holding company controlled by Sheikh Mansour who heads the City Football Group, is not really known for its philanthropic activities. Admittedly, the local establishment counts, as evidenced by the construction of a CFA or a college in Manchester, but the Emirate sees much wider.

“It is not for the supporters that they have withdrawn, confirms Raphaël Le Magoariec, researcher specializing in geopolitics of the Gulf. Abu Dhabi is in a logic of developing a network on a global scale, and their agenda has nothing to do with the daily life of the fans. In any case, contrary to the designs of Real Madrid or Juventus, membership in the Super League was in no way linked to economic benefits. The oil reserves are more than enough to fill the coffers.

“Money, for the Gulf countries, does not come into play,” continues the researcher. Abu Dhabi saw it only as an opportunity to be added to a large-scale project, which would interest a large audience around the world. But there was no question of opposing European politicians. “

Another important element in this dossier is relations between Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia. At the end of last week, the German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung ensured that the money to finance the Super League did not come directly from the JP Morgan bank but from Riyadh. And that the withdrawal of City was linked to it, Abu Dhabi not wishing, for a question of image, to be associated with its neighbor, criticized for its retrograde vision of women’s rights or its responsibility in the Jamal Khashoggi affair.

Better with UEFA?

“The Emirate of Abu Dhabi pursues the same authoritarian policy on its territory, but likes to cultivate its discretion”, explains Raphaël Le Magoariec. The argument therefore seems secondary in the decision of the Citizens leaders, according to the researcher. “The source of the funds has not changed anything,” he believes. It is really political and social pressure. And maybe, too, the opportunity to show UEFA that the club can side with its side.

Relations between the European body and Manchester City have been very tense for years on the question of financial fair play, until the climax of last February, when UEFA pronounced City’s exclusion from the Champions League. for two years. The CAS had finally cleared the club, but the animosity between the two entities remains strong. Will this episode change anything? In Manchester, the words of Aleksander Ceferin, who praised the “great intelligence” and “courage” of this rapid defection, did not go unnoticed.