WE’RE growing the pie. It’s the basis of supply-side economics and tax cuts to the wealthy. It is also at the heart of Uefa’s Champions League reforms that will take effect for the three-year cycle which begins with the 2018-19 season.

The top four leagues as ranked by Uefa’s coefficient table – currently Spain, Germany, England and Italy – will each be guaranteed four spots in the Champions League group stage, meaning half the competition will come from just four countries. Put another way, we are going from 11 guaranteed places and four play-off places, to 16 guaranteed. And, no, despite what you might think, the big-league boys don’t always sail through the play-offs: both Villarreal and Roma fell in the final qualifying round last week.

But the changes are as much about maximising revenues as they are helping the top four leagues avoid the stress of earning a spot in the play-offs. These four countries don’t just have the four best leagues according to Uefa rankings, they also boast the biggest and most lucrative TV markets. And both broadcasters and commercial sponsors hate one thing above all else: uncertainty. They like to know exactly what they are buying and this way they know they will get a minimum of 24 prime-time games in the group stage involving teams from their country. And that’s worth considerably more than the possibility that a Roma might make way for a Rostov or a Man City get replaced by a Maribor.

This will increase revenue overall, which means there will be more money to go around. For everyone, say Uefa. Indeed, they have overhauled the system further. Right now, 60 per cent of total net revenue (£1.1 billion in 2016-17) is awarded in prize money and 40 per cent handed out via the “market pool” whereby clubs get paid based on the size of their country’s Champions League TV deal. It’s the reason why, Arsenal would get far more for winning the competition than, say, Copenhagen or Basel, since Denmark and Switzerland have far less lucrative broadcast contracts.

From 2018, the “market pool” will amount to only 15 per cent. The rest will be split according to merit: partly on performance, partly on a weighted coefficient that will take into account historical results and partly divided into equal shares.

Details on the “weighted coefficient” which will take into account “historical results” weren’t released, largely because, Uefa say, they have yet to work out the nitty-gritty. Yet it doesn’t take a genius to work out that, again, the big four leagues have had better results and their teams are likely to rank higher. And that, equally, if clubs from the big leagues continue to get free passes into the Champions League, they will continue to rack up better results than smaller ones.

Even if you do accept that revenue will go up and more money will flow into the competition, there are two obvious points to make. The first is that the gap between the big leagues and the middle and lower tier will only continue to increase. Not only are the clubs from the top four more likely to earn disproportionately more of the added revenue, guaranteed Champions League places means more exposure for their own sponsors which, in turn, translates into extra cash. And that only adds to the polarisation.

What is more, the cadre of mid-tier clubs who do manage to qualify regularly – like Porto, Dynamo Kiev, Paris St-Germain – will rake in far more money, further extending their competitive advantage in their domestic leagues. In fact, it ends up penalising mid-tier leagues who don’t have a single dominant club, like Belgium, Holland or – if Rangers get back to where they were – Scotland.

The other is that we have taken another decisive step away from what the old European Cup was – a tournament for champions played primarily for sporting reasons – to a purely commercial example of sports entertainment centred around box office names, whose main driver is revenue.

We have obviously been moving in that direction for some time, but this is the single most decisive step. It’s not a coincidence that, in addition to the other changes announced on Friday in Monaco, Uefa have said they will enter into a 50/50 partnership with the European Club Association (ECA) and set up a new comp-any to run the Champions League. In short, the big clubs will also be part-owners of the competition in which they compete. From there, the step to a closed European Super League is short, indeed.

Multiple Uefa sources, speaking privately, say that while this deal may not be perfect, given the circumstances, it’s not a bad compromise. They say negotiations with clubs, which had been on going for six months, turned so acrimonious that several big names threatened to boycott the 2017-18 Champions League altogether if they did not get their way. And “their way” – in addition to guaranteed slots – meant introducing revenue-friendly measures like scheduling fixtures on weekends (which are far more attractive to broadcasters, especially global ones), having “wild cards” for big teams who fail to qualify in a particular season (like Manchester United or Milan) and playing matches in neutral venues outside Europe, like Asia or North America.

Uefa were able to push back on all of those. The price they paid for it is the concessions they made on Friday.

Whether they can, in fact, grow the pie enough to keep everyone happy is debatable. Without a salary cap, whenever new money comes into football, it tends to flow towards players, agents and transfer fees. Everybody spends more, but the very rich spend a lot more, while the middle class spend moderately more.

All that happens is that hierarchies remain intact. The rich stay rich. The others watch them on television.

But at least we won’t have to worry about a European Super League.

At least until 2021, when this deal expires and when, presumably, the clubs will once again hold Uefa’s feet to the fire.