There are still a plethora of questions swirling around presently in relation to the now failed European Super League plot, including what happens next and will those involved face any punishment.
The initial proposals put forward by Liverpool and 11 of Europe's biggest clubs on Sunday night for a 20-team competition to sit alongside the Champions League and domestic commitments were met with a fierce backlash from football authorities, the football community and football fans.
In what initially appeared on the surface to be a crass display of brinkmanship to get UEFA to cave in to the demands of the biggest clubs when renegotiating Champions League reform from 2024, such was the manner of the stance from a newly formed SLCo (Super League Company) that it already sparked the threat of litigation should UEFA try to ban the clubs involved from taking part in their usual competitions.
The potential to follow a closed-shop, NFL-style model and own the ability to negotiate the rights to their TV and commercial deals was huge carrot to the clubs involved, many of whom have been severely impacted by the coronavirus pandemic and needing a heavy influx of cash from somewhere soon, something that the doomed Super League plans, that were backed by a £4bn grant from the US banking giant JP Morgan, promised.
On Tuesday night, just 48 hours after their grand plan was revealed to the world, the house of cards had fallen and there was nothing left but the wreckage of a opportunistic power play.
For Fenway Sports Group and the rest of the owners of the clubs in question, they embarked upon a journey that could do irreversible damage to their reputations with supporters, although tempted by a potentially lucrative global market that they would be better positioned to exploit with such a move it is likely that they weighed up such ramifications.
But there would have been plenty of other issues for them to address, if they had managed to take the plan forward beyond merely antagonising UEFA and bending them into submission and alienating their fan bases.
What happens to player contracts was one such question.
The proposals would have required new contracts to be drawn up for players and staff, and players would have been able to get back to the negotiating table sooner than they would have been under normal circumstances.
But what would the legal standpoint behind such a move in relation to player contracts?
"The proposals also raised interesting questions about the employment relationship between the breakaway clubs and their players," explained David Parsons, employment lawyer at London legal firm Mishcon de Reya.
"Can a player be forced to remain under contract with their club, where doing so would cause that player to forfeit their ability to represent their country in international competitions? Quite possibly not – the law of constructive dismissal allows an employee to walk away from their contract of employment where their employer has seriously breached their duty of trust and confidence.
"Of course, sacrificing a lucrative playing contract in what will probably be the biggest club competition in the world would be a big step for any player, but those who genuinely value their international careers may have no choice. The clubs have presumably factored this risk – i.e. losing their biggest players (for no transfer fee) – into their thinking.
"Playing contracts would have needed to be renegotiated. Most players at the clubs in question will have bonuses linked to performance in the domestic leagues and competitions. Agents would have looked on with interest."
UEFA swiftly reaffirmed their stance that players who take part in the Super League wouldn't be able to compete for their national side in FIFA or UEFA competitions. A chess move of their own.
But given how powerful the players involved at some of the clubs were, and how important they are to their national sides, it would have created a quandary for football associations. And, first and foremost, would it have even legal to impose such sanctions?
The European Court has already ruled in favour of athletes in a similar case back in December in relation to speed skating, where it was ruled that the International Skating Union could not prevent speed skaters from participating in new and lucrative competitions. That ruling would have emboldened the clubs involved, and the players, that any such threats wouldn't have been able to be seen through.
Simon Leaf, head of sport at Mischon de Reya said: "Players and their agents would have been keeping a keen eye on things.
"Recent case law from the world of ice-skating offered them hope against potential exclusion from international competitions - and we'd have expected that the big name athletes would have taken whatever steps are necessary to ensure they are able to compete at the highest level internationally."
