It's common in politics for constitutions to entrench certain 'rules of the game'. Making amendment more difficult, for instance by requiring a supermajority rather than a mere majority, is supposed to make things more stable and predictable. This isn't confined to political constitutions though. Similar things are true in football governance as well.
In the English Premier League, rule changes require a supermajority of 14 out of 20 clubs. (I'm not clear, from the article, how abstentions are handled. Would a 13-to-4 vote be enough?) Recent changes on Associated Party Transactions, for example, were approved by a vote of 16-to-4.
The Scottish Premier League is - or at least was (the source cited here is from 2012) - even more biased against change. Certain major changes require(d) support from 11 of the 12 clubs. That article reports on a proposal to change this to 75% (9 of 12), which failed.
I just saw an article on the BBC about German lower leagues. There were plans to replace the five current regional divisions with four. There was a recent vote on this, but change required not only an overall majority but also a majority in each of the five regions.
While the overall majority was reached (50.9%) only three of the regions (West, North, and Northeast) back the change. The Southwest voted for an alternative option and Bavaria for 'further talks'. Thus, the change was defeated - for now at least - despite majority support.
