On Thursday, the European Court of Justice finally issued its judgement in the case pitting the remaining European Super League clubs (Barcelona and Real Madrid) against UEFA and FIFA.

The Super League and its backers, A22 Sports, had argued that UEFA's prohibition of the would-be competition, originally launched in April 2021, and its prospective punishments for participating clubs was an illegal monopoly under European competition law. The Super League clubs argued that the game's governing bodies were abusing their dominant position as regulators and competition organizers in stopping clubs from forming their own tournaments outside of the current framework of European football (the Champions League, Europa League and Europa Conference League). The ECJ's judgement is binding and can't be appealed.

The stakes were very high. A win for UEFA and FIFA would quash any real attempt for clubs -- many of which are private companies -- to organise their own competitions and administer them as they see fit, without governing body approval. A win for the Super League would open the door, potentially, to clubs -- not governing bodies -- deciding who they wanted to play against, when they wanted to play and how to divide the revenue.

- Stream on ESPN+: LaLiga, Bundesliga & more (U.S.)

Now to the thing you want to know: Who won? Well, the judgement fell somewhere in the middle, and it's complicated. Both sides are claiming victory to some degree. Let's attempt to make some sense of it.

What do you mean it's complicated? This statement seems clear to me: 'FIFA and UEFA rules on prior approval of interclub football competitions, such as the Super League, are contrary to EU law.'

Except that's not from the judgement -- it's from the European court's press release. If you read through the judgement itself, it's a bit different. Paragraph 144, for example, reads it's "legitimate" that any new tournaments or competitions be subject to "common rules." And these are "rules such as those put in place by FIFA and UEFA." Lawyers, eh?

UEFA made the point that what the judgement is actually saying is there was effectively no adequate framework back in 2021 (when the clubs tried to launch the Super League) and that the regulations they introduced in 2022 "require strengthening" to be compliant with Thursday's judgement and that they would do just that.

OK, so if UEFA make new rules to comply with European law, they're home free? Would that mean UEFA still get to approve any new competitions?

It's not clear-cut. To comply with the judgement, UEFA need to have criteria for approval that are reasonable and don't unduly penalize those who want to make new tournaments. So, it comes down to what those rules are.

If the court's ruling basically opens the doors for clubs to do their own thing, then today is a big loss for UEFA. But if they maintain significant control akin to what they have now, then it's a win. The key thing to remember here is that this struggle for control won't be played out in courtrooms amid legal gobbledygook -- it's more about hearts and minds (and wallets, too, of course).

How so?

The remaining Super League clubs and A-22 Sports, the company that represents them, can't compel anyone to join them. They have to persuade them that it would be a good idea, and I'm not sure that's going to be straight-forward.

It's not a coincidence that when UEFA held their news conference on Thursday after the judgement, it wasn't just president Aleksander Ceferin up there but rather a slew of stakeholders. There were people representing the European Club Association (ECA, which includes 220 of Europe's leading clubs), the European Leagues (which includes 37 domestic leagues), FIFPRO (the umbrella organisation of player unions) and LaLiga president Javier Tebas.

The aim was to present a united front against the Super League, showing the world that the game's stakeholders are against it. And a number of clubs who were part of the original Super League made statements distancing themselves from the Super League, including Manchester City, Manchester United, Tottenham, Chelsea, Atletico Madrid and Inter. Plus, the likes of Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund, Paris Saint-Germain (who refused to join in 2021) and a bunch of others.

What might change their minds?

It's going to take more than the proposal A22 put out there Thursday. Clubs would need to be convinced it would be in their best interests to do so and, more importantly, that their fans feel the same way, because ultimately those are their customers.

What about the rules that certain leagues, like the Premier League, put in place barring clubs from joining unapproved leagues?

Folks are making too big a deal out of that. For a start, depending on what rules UEFA come up with, it might not be an unapproved league like we said above. Plus, it's the Premier League: The 20 clubs decide. If enough of them want to change the rules, they can.

It could be a different issue if English football gets an independent regulator, but we're not there yet and in any case, even with an independent regulator, if there's enough genuine popular will, it can get approval. But that's the thing: You saw the reaction, especially in England, last time. It's going to be extremely difficult to change people's minds. Especially since, given their huge TV contract relative to clubs in other leagues, Premier League teams have the least to gain.

So, nothing's going to happen and today's ruling isn't important?

No, it's very important. The ECJ reaffirmed that UEFA, as a governing body, is at once a competition organiser and regulator and also a commercial venture. As such, it has certain obligations to avoid abusing its de facto monopoly power -- like having reasonable criteria for clubs that, instead of playing in UEFA competitions, might want to organise their own tournaments. That's new.

But I think Thursday's impact will be more subtle and, in some ways, will signal a further shift in the balance of power toward clubs.

What do you mean?

Every few years, UEFA has to negotiate with the ECA on the format of its competitions, how the revenue will be distributed and so on. The "Swiss Model" that comes into force in 2024-25, for example, is a result of such a negotiation. It yielded more games, a different format and different revenue distribution.

The clubs could negotiate before, but they only had so much leverage. They could threaten to walk away, but there was no ECJ-approved framework for them to do that. Now they have a genuine pathway to break off if they don't get what they want, and UEFA can't stop them if they meet the criteria. So you'd imagine the next round of negotiations will favour the clubs, and they'll get a competition even more tailored to their needs.

What needs? I mean, the ECA includes more than 200 clubs, from Manchester United to Qarabag in Azerbaijan. They may well have different priorities, right?

Indeed. And, out of those two, who do you think has more clout? The one with more fans, more visibility, more sponsors and that brings more TV money to the table: Manchester United.

If push comes to shove, it's going to be about the big clubs with the big followings in the big leagues who generate the big money. And because they now have a path to do their own thing -- however tricky and fraught with uncertainty -- they'll be more likely to get their way.

Heck, who knows? In a few years' time, if enough clubs want this and believe their fans want it, we might even end up with a format for European competition that looks a lot like the A-22 proposal ... only next time, it could have the UEFA seal of approval.