The European Super League remains “an ongoing existential threat to the foundations and future of European football,” Uefa warned, as an aggressive court lawsuit originally filed by all 12 breakaway clubs continues to challenge its structure.

Although nine of the original 12 clubs, including the six from the Premier League, quickly stated that they would challenge themselves after the defamation on the 18th. The 12 clubs, including Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Tottenham, have filed suits in a Madrid court for months on the day they announced their widely derided plan for a breakaway competition with themselves as permanent members secret discussions and planning.

The clubs’ lawsuit primarily attacks the position of Uefa as the governing body and regulator of European football as well as the organizer of the Champions League, as it is a monopoly and anti-competitive, which unjustifiably prevents clubs from holding their own competitions. Fan groups, football associations, Uefa, Fifa and politicians across Europe condemned the split as a selfish endeavor by wealthy clubs looking for a closed circle to make even more money, and the six Premier League clubs announced their withdrawal within two days.

quick start Guide

How do I sign up for breaking sports news notifications?

Demonstrate

  • Download the Guardian app from the iOS App Store on iPhones or from the Google Play Store on Android smartphones by searching for “The Guardian”.
  • If you already have the Guardian app, make sure you are using the latest version.
  • In the Guardian app, tap the yellow button in the lower right corner, then go to Settings (the gear icon), then Notifications.
  • Turn on sports notifications.

Thanks for your feedback.

However, the legal proceedings they have started continue and while Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus are the only clubs actively supporting each other, the Super League company that brought the case has not been disbanded. All 12 clubs remain shareholders and the demerger agreement they signed is still in force. City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs declined to answer questions from the Guardian about their intentions, but multiple sources said these four clubs are ready to try to dissolve the company or hold a board meeting to end legal action.

This has led to suspicions that despite their public statements, Liverpool and United are still privately supporting the split. However, both clubs strongly deny this, suggesting that they are following different legal advises warning against taking action that could be viewed as a disregard of Madrid court orders preventing Uefa from filing for the company’s liquidation.

The threat against Uefa is escalating, although the Super League project is generally considered to have failed. On Tuesday, Uefa had to answer to a ruling by the Madrid court last week that Uefa violated previous orders not to take action against the Super League or its clubs during the proceedings. She accused Uefa of “acting outside the rule of law, actively promoting anti-competitive practices”, instituting disciplinary proceedings against Real Madrid, Juventus and Barcelona and arranging settlements with the other clubs. The court threatened with fines and even filed a complaint with the Madrid Public Prosecutor for “judicial disobedience”.

Barcelona, ​​Real Madrid and Juventus Turin are actively supporting the legal process. Composite: EPA / AFP / Getty Images

Uefa declined to comment but is expected to argue that it complied with the court, suspended disciplinary proceedings and included the three clubs in this season’s Champions League. The Madrid judge has referred competition aspects of the clubs’ action to the European Court of Justice and there is great frustration around football that Uefa is still fighting a case brought by some self-elected clubs, including the six Premier League clubs , was submitted despite her withdrawal from the breakaway group.

In a guide recently issued to all European football associations and viewed by the Guardian, Uefa warned: “The persistent pursuit of this ESL [European Super League] The project and the resulting legal proceedings represent an ongoing existential threat to the foundations and the future of European football and the European sports model. “

In order to relentlessly defend the decades-long organization of European football by FAs, Uefa and Fifa, with promotion and relegation, agreed rules and a certain redistribution of revenue, the Uefa note says: “The choice is between solidarity and selfish forbearance. ” The Super League is “motivated purely out of greed and a means to prevent competition”.

It also warns against assuming that the court case will be easily dismissed: “Inaction, complacency and / or overconfidence with regard to the state and judicial rejection of this ESL project would be dangerously naive and could lead to the dissolution of the European model of sport through aggressive commercial ones Interests.”

Liverpool denied any suggestion that their US owners sympathize with the runaway, citing changes to the club’s bylaws that will give the confidence of Spirit of Shankly supporters a decisive voice when the club is considering joining a new competition.

The Fiver: Sign up and receive our daily soccer email.

A Liverpool spokesman said: “Our involvement in the proposed ESL plans has been suspended. We are absolutely determined to obey this and there should be no ambiguity to suggest otherwise. We act according to the best legal advice and approach to end our engagement appropriately. “

Manchester United said in a statement: “Our previously announced position has not changed – we will not be competing in the European Super League. The process of dissolving the European Super League is influenced by ongoing legal disputes in Spain. We are not involved in this legal dispute and therefore it would be inappropriate to comment on it. “

The Guardian adds to the perception that these clubs created an unlikely mess and understands that the Super League company still owes money to some of the people who worked for it up until its failed launch. The explanation is that the company has not held a board meeting since April, so payment of its debts has not been approved.