A look at the (ongoing) communication failures behind the European Super League's botched roll-out.

“I know one question people have is: ‘Is this legit, is this real, is this actually happening or is this a play?’”

This question came from James McNicholas, writer for The Athletic, on Arseblog’s Arsecast Extra Podcast, in light of the announcement Sunday that 12 of the world’s biggest soccer clubs were breaking away from current European competitions to launch their own “Super League,” exclusively closed to them and five guest teams of their choosing.

Announced via press release, the league has drawn swift condemnation from fans of both the teams involved and of the wider sport, with the tenor ranging from confusion to disgust to betrayal at what is seen as an effort by wealthy clubs to pull up the ladder behind them.

Regardless of the direction this goes, the European Super League has, in one day, committed a hatful of communication errors that will, at best, further alienate them from their audiences, and at worst, threaten their existing revenue and damage their credibility to do anything about it, beyond repair. From lacking complete information to picking the wrong spokespeople to patronizing their target audience, the ESL has seemingly decided to launch their new venture on their weak foot.

MAY 17 UPDATE: As you may have heard, the Super League folded as quickly as it started. The fall-out for those involved, however, continues (and the lessons below still stand).

Per McNicholas’ question above, if your dedicated journalists have to publicly ask, “Is this real?”, you may need to go back to the drawing board on your communications.

The statement itself, which is currently the only information that exists for reference, is scant on details and objectively confusing. Twelve clubs signed onto the initial announcement, and leaned heavily on passive voice to state:

“It is anticipated that a further three clubs will join ahead of the inaugural season, which is intended to commence as soon as practicable.”

These initial 15 teams will be joined by five qualifying teams, says The Super League home page, though the terms for qualification aren’t stated. This all gives the air of an unfinished product.

Announcing the start of a league, 40% of which doesn’t exist yet, isn’t much of an announcement.

The league can’t expect their audiences to buy in when they can’t present an airtight case, in the audience’s interest, to do so. Skipping over the details is even more egregious when embarking on a project so foundational to the target audience’s interest in the product.

Further, even casual fans understand there’s an elephant in the room: There are already existing regulatory organizations for the sport, FIFA and UEFA, that run world competition. However, the statement only acknowledges this obstacle with:

Going forward, the Founding Clubs look forward to holding discussions with UEFA and FIFA to work together in partnership to deliver the best outcomes for the new League and for football as a whole.

With so much of the league’s status incomplete, it does truly beg the question: Is this real?

Without acknowledging some of the basic realities, the Super League is forcing audiences to ask why this is happening. And if they don’t find the answer sufficient, fans will start to piece one together themselves.

The day following the Super League announcement, Sky Sports asked Jurgen Klopp his thoughts on his club’s decision to join. The highly-respected Liverpool manager had stated his opposition to such a move in the past.

“I heard for the first time about it yesterday, all when trying to prepare for a game. So far, we got some information, but not a lot. To be honest, most of the [information we know], you can read in newspapers.
It’s a tough one…People are not happy with it, I can understand that. But I can’t [say a lot more], because we were not involved in any processes, not the players, not me, we didn’t know about it.”

Both the Super League and Liverpool put Klopp in the impossible position to speak on it without any information. Not getting stakeholder buy-in isn’t just bad for ensuring a solid product, but it projects carelessness among those behind the league.

Instead, in their statement, the Super League chose three club owners, Florentino Perez (president, Real Madrid), Andrea Agnelli (chairman, Juventus) and Joel Glazer (co-chairman, Manchester United) for quotes on what the creation of the league means for the sport.

Owners, in general, are not great spokepeople for their clubs, as their financial and power disparity with fans is often alienating. Glazer, in particular, is a figure so detested by his own fanbase that he required police escort to leave his stadium’s grounds when his family took over the team in 2005. And since then, he’s made no attempt at closing the rift. Of this Super League episode, Manchester United’s hometown Manchester Evening News was sure to add:

“Joel Glazer has not bothered to communicate with United supporters since his introductory interview with MUTV following his family's toxic takeover in 2005.”

Fans aren’t stupid: they recognize a credible spokesperson, and he ain’t it. Choosing untrustworthy spokespeople undermines the message, and again, asks audience to fill in the blanks.

This choice in spokespeople also betrays a further disconnect between speaker and audience. In the sports world, barring Rob Lowe, fans don’t pledge allegiance to the league: Yankees fans don’t want to hear from the Red Sox owners. Messaging like this needs to be tailored to the recipient, not blasted out on the terms of the speaker.

“They want to tell you that it’s a competition of the game’s most historic clubs…but essentially what it is, is a snapshot in time of who is wealthiest right now in the game.”

Andrew Gundling, Caught Offsides Podcast

Simply by virtue of how they executed their communication, the Super League left the door open for critics and reinforced the “money grubbing” narrative. As such, they’ve revealed a fundamental disconnect with their audiences, and one that will cost them reputation, and ironically, money.

By not getting stakeholder buy-in, by using spokespeople riddled with baggage, by putting out unclear and unsound messaging and by fundamentally not understanding their target audiences, the Super League has allowed its product’s reputation to be shaped by everyone but themselves. Critics will always fill in the blanks, and in this case, the Super League’s clean sheet isn’t a good thing.

⁓⁓⁓

Note 1: For further related reading, I’ve written in the past about how particularly in sports, reputation is money, and poor communication is bad business. (Ironically, using Arsenal’s credibility gap and citing Real Madrid’s Florentino Perez in discussing how identity drives revenue. So I take it they haven’t read it yet.)

Note 2: This didn’t fit into paragraphs above, but further speaks to the lack of planning. From an SEO perspective, the first page of results from the search terms “Super League” show the following: an existing eSports league with the domain SuperLeague.com, the top-level of English rugby’s Wikipedia page, Super League Greece, and six news site’s stories about why the European Super League is causing such a ruckus. Not ideal.

Kyle Bagin is a strategic communications professional, with roughly ten years’ experience building successful communications campaigns by using research and insights to see the bigger picture, solve problems and change behavior.

Currently the associate director of digital media at the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy and a recent graduate of Georgetown University's public relations & corporate communications master’s program, he can be reached through the Contact page.