Does The Greek Super League Presidency System Work?
Does The Greek Super League Presidency System Work?
Every major league in world football has a council, board, or members associations comprising club representatives, who govern the league democratically. The Greek Super League is no exception, with all 14 club members allowed to vote on all matters, with a majority vote deciding whether a motion is passed.
The caveat for some is that, unlike other top domestic leagues, the president of the Super League is an individual chosen from one of the member clubs, rather than someone who is impartial and has no association or previous association with a single club. But does this work for the Greek top flight or could a different system prove more effective?
Who Has Been President?
Starting with the current president, OFI vice president and CEO, Minas Lysandrou, was voted in for a second term as president by a majority. He succeeded Olympiakos owner and president Evangelos Marinakis who had stepped down as president after a 12-month tenure in the role. Lysandrou had previously been in office between 2019 to 2022.
From the rebranding of the Alpha Ethniki to the Greek Super League, every elected president has had a high-level affiliation with one of the clubs that are members of the first division. Now there are pros and cons to this system.
The Pros and Cons of the System
An argument for the current system would be that all league members could have the opportunity to have one of their representatives as a president of the Super League. This could in turn mean better representation of the needs of the smaller clubs while giving a more balanced view on decision-making.
However, the argument for having a president of the Super League who is impartial and does not represent a singular club is that there would be someone who could manage the members and make decisions without as much risk of favouritism or bias to a singular club. There would be less concern about egos getting in the way of decision-making and the betterment of the league and all of its members, rather than just doing what is best for the bigger clubs and leaving the smaller ones out in the cold.
Other Leadership Structures
Starting with Europe's top five leagues:
The Premier League club's representatives have a stake in the league with every club getting one vote. Motions are passed with a 14-vote majority, meaning the rich six of Manchester City, Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal, Manchester United and Chelsea can only pass new rules or regulations with the rest of the 20 clubs having a say.
The Premier League board of directors is comprised of a Chairperson, three Non-Executive Directors, and the Chief Executive. All of the board of directors are independent of any club and are there to recommend, propose and implement the Premier League rules, give effect to any policy resolved by clubs, resolve any disputes and prosecute breaches of the rules when they occur.
LaLiga, Serie A and the Bundesliga work in much the same way, with the biggest difference to the Premier League being that the respective football associations do control the leagues. Clubs can vote on proposals with the president and a board of directors who are in charge of the league. The president and board act as an independent voice without any ties to any clubs.
Even when looking at other major UEFA-affiliated leagues, such as Eredivisie, Liga Portugal and Belgian Pro League all have presidents who are not current owners or presidents of any of the teams in their respective leagues.
The slight exception to the rule is Ligue 1. While none of the presidents from the turn of the millennium onwards were in charge of football clubs in the league, there were a few that had, either before, or after they were elected. The current president of Ligue de Football Professionnel, Vincent Labrune, was president of Marseille between 2011 and 2016, before his election. His predecessor, Nathalie Boy de La Tour was president from 2016 to 2020, before joining RC Lens's board of directors in 2021.
Is Change Needed?
A question that could be asked about many aspects of Greek football. The presidents/leaders of other leagues in Europe are business people or politicians, just like the people put in charge of the Greek Super League.
However, there is always a feeling in Greece, that the person in charge having a present affiliation with a club in the league jeopardises the credibility of the position, as they may propose laws that benefit the few and punish the many.
A Super League president's best interest could come into question if they are rumoured to have a bias for or against certain Super League members. Maybe that is why a president needs to be elected that is completely impartial, with no strings attached.
A lack of affiliation to a team could help an impartial league president properly mediate the Super League, not only as a competition but also as a business that is in dire need of investment financially and emotionally as well as leading to attacting better players to compete in Greece. However Greek football, as we have seen in the past is resistant to change sadly, even if that change could be exactly what is needed to move the sport forward. This is what the league, the players, employees and especially the fans deserve.
@SteveKountourou
Hellas Football
Another great article, Steve. Well done, lad.
ReplyDeleteThe current structure is indeed flawed and is in need of a change. To have this recycling of presidents with "skin in the game" is an automatic no-no in my opinion. Someone with no ties to any club would be best going forward.
The overall product can be better but the league continues its self-destruction tendencies which greatly hold back the league from ever rising above and beyond itself.
The league, in my opinion, is a sleeping mid-range giant and can offer much more but mechanically (internally), it is too flawed at this moment to take the necessary steps forward.
It is a shame and I wish that things were different.