Talk:European Super League

Summarize
cc:

The article, as noted by others in this talk page, is too long and detailed. Reactions could be trimmed, responses from other clubs and officials (especially since they're all words and basically repeat the same sentiment) can be summarized, choice quotes / quips removed, "may do" / "will do" (will take legal action, will expel from competition) content is probably redundant now given things may "have been done" (no legal action was taken, no club was expelled). Only the subsequent responses of the super-league clubs and from legal bodies, governments, and the big-4 leagues probably deserve the detail they're afforded. Some relevant reading: WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:DETAIL. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Trying to do it: It is necessary to create an introduction that is as concise as possible, so that anyone consulting the article on Wikipedia can get an approximate idea of the content that will be developed later with all the details. Therefore, I move text to other headings, summarise or delete some sentences. As for the legal part, the process of creation, rejection, sanctions to the clubs and warnings from UEFA and FIFA, complaint to the Court of Justice of the European Union etc. is part of the process that is ongoing and topical. It is important the encyclopaedic style and not a reproduction of the most recent news on the subject.--Miskito89 (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree that the lead section could be more concise. Also, thanks for your efforts. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Tebas Statements
Tebas did not say that exactly, I am rewording his statements with the appropriate reference.

https://www.marca.com/futbol/2021/07/15/60efd8af22601dfc5e8b45d8.html

--Miskito89 (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Call to all editors personally involved with the article's subject
Greetings. The editing history of this article, as well as the texts edited-in, bring into relief a potentially significant involvement of editors who are either paid for their work or have a conflict of interest. This is a call to have everyone who belongs to these categories and has contributed so far to the article's text to reveal themselves in the interest of clarity, objectivity, and transparence, per WP:PAID, WP:PEW, and WP:COI. -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion : Has the ESL been "founded"?
Greetings, all. The infobox contains an entry for the date the ESL was ostensibly founded. However, the ESL, as a competition, has never taken place. It's still at a stage where proposals are being made, contracts are signed and/or annulled, etc. The corporation owning and promoting the ESL competition is quite alive and active. But the competition itself, the subject of the article, has never, or not yet, been launched. We should do away with the "founded" entry in the infobox. Opinions? -The Gnome (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it should be replaced with proposed date Mrinmoy17 (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Poorly organized
This article mentions a lot of dates. Would it make sense to have a heading titled chronology? I found the article to be a huge amount of paragraphs added randomly. 82.147.226.185 (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)