In "light of the news that a Spanish court has suspended the players' strike," allowing the current season to finish, "the football goes ahead," according to Sid Lowe of ESPN. It "may well be that the challenge has effectively been killed off for good," with the Spanish Football League (LFP) "emerging as the winner and stronger than ever before." But there are still "issues to work through, the conflict may not be over, and the damage may be lasting." Or it "could be that we're heading into a new era in which the balance of power has decisively shifted towards the league" and LFP President Javier Tebas, with the consequences of that "yet to be seen." The judge did not "actually rule that the strike called" by the Spanish Footballers' Association (AFE) was illegal. And it is worth posing a "broader question here: while everyone celebrates the football going ahead, should we celebrate a union being denied its right to strike?" What the judge did was "suspend the strike, pending a full hearing on June 17 (after the season has ended)." But it does not "definitively mean" that, legally, the LFP has been found to be right. The LFP has deposited €5M ($5.7M) ready as compensation "should the players' union ultimately win the case." A new law passed in Spain on April 30 "means that TV rights will now be sold collectively." But it is "much more than that." And this is where it "gets complicated." The decree can "almost be seen as a new constitution for Spanish football." It could "also be seen as an attempt at shifting the balance of power and laying down new rules for the future." The decree "tips the balance of power towards the league and diminishes the power" of the Spanish Football Federation (RFEF), which is "fundamentally what has caused the confrontation." More accurately, "it brought existing conflicts even more clearly to the surface."
ALL IN FAVOR: In the last few days "before the strike was called off, the league tried to portray the players' union strike and the federation's backing as being a stand against a collective deal, but that's simply not true." Everyone is in favor of a collective deal and "the passing of a law to enshrine and regulate that." What they were not in favor of was this "particular law, the way it came about and its implications." When they saw that the final text "confirmed some of their fears, they reacted." Any projection of new income "depends on the size of any (now collective) deal the league is capable of achieving, and the devil is in the details." If the overall amount is less than the sum of the current individualized deals, the criteria will not be applied. If the overall amount is more than the sum of the current individualized deals "but the application of the new criteria results in any team receiving less than they currently do, it will not be applied either." Instead, it will be "adjusted to ensure that teams remain at that current level." Although they are not mentioned by name, "the only teams that would be protected by that measure are Real Madrid and Barcelona."
'NO POLITICAL INTERFERENCE': What does FIFA think "about all this?" This is an issue that "still lingers and is potentially a very significant threat." The RFEF complained of "continual interference" from government; one of the issues that FIFA insists upon is "no political interference in football." It "should not come to this" but RFEF President Ángel María Villar has used "the threat of action from FIFA -- including the possibility of withdrawing Spain from FIFA -- as a means of pressure." The AFE has "at least succeeded in being heard" when raising its concerns. But the AFE has been seen by many as "having lost this battle and that may damage the position" of AFE President Luis Rubiales. This appears to have been a "huge victory for Tebas, one that may have realigned football forever, restructuring the game." The decree has "gone through now and power has shifted." And "what about the fans?" This season "the league, players' union and federation have all threatened strikes." That only leaves "the one group of people who would have been most justified in pulling out in protest: the fans." Still, "at least they can see their teams play this weekend." And as far as the "authorities are concerned -- those who treat supporters with a devastating disrespect -- they should be grateful for that" (ESPN, 5/16).
