Considering their combined economic might and footballing prowess, the G14 group of leading European football clubs have tended to keep a pretty low profile since the body was formed in 1998.
It's a closed, members-only alliance whose constituents decide where and when other football clubs may join the incumbent great and good at their lofty table, an attitude which fosters a sense of smug collectivism among members and antipathy from those left on the outside.
Over the next couple of months, we can expect those positions to widen as this exclusive body funds a ' stalking horse' in a legal dispute which appears likely to result in its members developing a fresh revenue stream from Fifa.
G14 members have agreed to support a relatively obscure Belgian football club in a court case against Fifa scheduled to be heard next year, the outcome of which could have enormous repercussions for football.
The case has arisen following an incident which occurred last season when a Moroccan midfielder, Abdelmajid Oulmers, was withdrawn by Belgian club Charleroi from Morocco's squad to face Burkina Faso in a friendly, ostensibly to protect him from injury. Almost inevitably, a row ensued and Charleroi were ordered by Fifa to release the player. Just as inevitably, Oulmers sustained an ankle injury which kept him out of action for seven months and, according to Charleroi, cost them a place in the Champions League.
According to papers lodged with the town's Commercial Court, Charleroi are suing Fifa for approximately £880,000.
Some legal experts believe the case could go to the European Court and, should Charleroi win, Fifa's policy on players being released for international matches would be thrown into disarray. But where do G14 fit in?
The organisation is funding Charleroi's case as it wants Fifa to provide insurance cover and compensation for players who are injured while on international duty.
Although the hearing will not take place for at least another seven weeks, accusations are already flying. G14's lawyers have accused Fifa of "abusing their dominant market position", while Fifa president Sepp Blatter has asked the Belgian FA to try and persuade Charleroi to drop their challenge, counterattacking in the Belgian courts, querying the rights of a club to mount a legal challenge against Fifa.
Fifa refuses to recognise or negotiate with the G14 while the lobbyists argue that Fifa's refusal to contribute towards players' salaries - even though clubs lose money when they suffer injuries in international matches - is illegal.
"As it is G14's wish to seek a once and for all clarification if these regulations are legal, it is sensible for us to join this case," said G14 chief executive Thomas Kurth.
Ignore the magnanimity for a second: G14 clubs are also conscious that next year's World Cup will generate more than £1.5 billion in revenues. According to their lawyer, Jean Louis Dupont, the man who represented Marc Bosman in another landmark court case, "Fifa are getting the most important ingredients - the footballers - for free [but] in the case of an injury, they [the clubs who release players] don't get any compensation."
There are a handful of football associations who do pay clubs for their players to be released for national duty. For instance, German clubs receive £4,200 per player from the German FA, but smaller, poorer federations, cannot afford to.
The G14 line is that they do not want to receive money each time a player is released for international duty ( although they do want players to be insured) but they are interested in securing a percentage of income from what they describe as 'large competitions'. In other words, the World Cup and the European Championships.
It seems strange that this issue, which could radically alter the balance of power within football, has received little coverage in the UK. If the G14-backed court case succeeds in Belgium early in 2006, Fifa will effectively be unable to make commercial decisions which affect the operation of tournaments like the World Cup without referring to them to the football clubs first.
But a backlash could ensue: some lawyers have already suggested that central contracts for international players, such as those offered in rugby and cricket, could become the norm with players being 'loaned' back to their notional clubs when no international football was being played.
Is there a case for clubs being paid for the loan of their players for international duty? At the very least, it seems that the Charleroi case will result in international associations being compelled to provide insurance cover, but diverting money from Fifa towards the game's richest clubs - the issue central to the Belgian case - does not have widespread support among football's supporters.
Then again, they're merely the paying public, the spectators, the television company's subscribers, the buyers of club merchandise - what would they know?