The ESL, which was initially supported by 12 European clubs, including the Big Six in England, tried to create a closed shop for the wealthiest teams to lock in their current financial advantage for years to come.
The plans collapsed almost immediately due to a backlash from supporters. Since then, there has been widespread concern over the ‘anticompetitive’ elements in the Champions League reforms.
The Premier League was opposed to the coefficient places and those top-flight clubs that may have benefited have not pushed for it as the discussions have come to a head.
Crystal Palace chairman, Steve Parish, has been a constant critic. 'If you ask pretty much every football club outside of the gilded 20 that run the ECA, most people would tell you UEFA are the greatest enemy to domestic leagues that exists,’ he said in March.
'You've got a completely opaque ExCo [executive committee], people from individual clubs with far too much say, far too much pressure.
'You've got the ECA which is 20 clubs that decide everything and you've got a tournament in the new Champions League proposals that looks so much like the Super League you can't tell the difference. In fact, in some regards, they're worse.'
The powerful European Club Association, which turned out to be the incubator of the hated European Super League plan last year, has been a supporter of preferential access to the Champions League for the richest clubs, expansion of the competition and an increase in the number of group phase matches.
However, according to The Times, the ECA was forced to think again and considered alternative proposals at a meeting on Monday.
Despite the concessions made by UEFA, there is still discontent among supporters over the structure of European football. Currently, clubs with a record of past success earn more money from European competitions than those who reach the same stage, but have a lower ranking.
In addition, the huge wealth the competitions generate for those involved has a damaging impact on competition at a national level.