What's wrong with the current format of the Champions League?

[golden_blunder]

I have seen this argument, but never got. Why the champions of Ireland (whose name I don't know) should have the same chance as champions of England, Spain or Germany. Considering that teams in the second leagues of those countries will toy with the champions of Ireland (also, the vast difference in the population).

Also, why should we stop at the champions of Ireland? Should also the champions of Andorra, San Marino and Gibraltar be automatically qualified there? Would be so fun watching Real Madrid defeating 34-0 the champions of Faroe Islands.

Why not the champions of every full time league in every country?

the things some of those leagues could do, reinvest in their stadiums and better players.

why does everything have to be about the top clubs? The world revolves outside of them. We’ve all become arrogant in our time.

make it more like the old European cup used to be. Some people might wake up from their slumber

 

[Revan]

Why not the champions of every full time league in every country?

Because, why should the champions of Kosovo (the country where I come from) have the same right as champions of England, despite that the champions of Kosovo would struggle in League Two in England, let alone in EPL?

the things some of those leagues could do, reinvest in their stadiums and better players.

Sure. But why is this a problem for the main clubs and why should they agree on something like this? It is like saying, why England doesn't share their budget with other countries.

why does everything have to be about the top clubs?

Because they are the top clubs, the ones for which the majority of football fans in the world care about, and the ones that people want to see playing.

The world revolves outside of them.

But. It actually does. Not the real world, but the world of football, of course.

make it more like the old European cup used to be. Some people might wake up from their slumber

Well, now is the chance to do so with those clubs out. Let's see how many people would watch Budocnust Podgorica playing Sheriff Tiraspol and how many would watch United vs Real Madrid.

 

[Schneckerl]

The group stage is usually a bit dull. Other than that not much wrong with it.

 

[The Corinthian]

The groups are pretty boring and predictable though. The examples you listed are all exceptions. I'd either switch to all knockout ties (UEFA would never do this - fewer matches means less $$$) or get rid of the pots / seeding. You'd end up with some lopsided groups but they'd be more exciting.

The group stage is usually a bit dull. Other than that not much wrong with it.

In our last 4 CL campaigns, we've managed to get out the group twice (I'm assuming you guys are Man Utd fans).

Anyway, the group stages have traditionally been that way, but what's wrong with that? Every so often, you get upsets and a big team not making it to the KO round. You get a couple of 'Groups of Death', and some big teams dropping into the Europa League. Although the group stages may be dull (I don't think they are fwiw), it's still only 6 games. Generally, the Pot 1 and Pot 2 teams are top European teams and the Pot 3 teams can beat anyone of their day. Is it really that dull?

Also, look how excited we all are when it comes to the CL (and Europa) draws. Trying to avoid the big teams, and get a smaller team. All of that excitement and anticipation will be lost.

 

[Acole9]

Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with the current format, I'm not a fan of the new format proposed but if people think it's gone stale and come up with an interesting change to the format then that's cool.

 

[SinNombre]

In our last 4 CL campaigns, we've managed to get out the group twice (I'm assuming you guys are Man Utd fans).

Anyway, the group stages have traditionally been that way, but what's wrong with that? Every so often, you get upsets and a big team not making it to the KO round. You get a couple of 'Groups of Death', and some big teams dropping into the Europa League. Although the group stages may be dull (I don't think they are fwiw), it's still only 6 games. Generally, the Pot 1 and Pot 2 teams are top European teams and the Pot 3 teams can beat anyone of their day. Is it really that dull?

Also, look how excited we all are when it comes to the CL (and Europa) draws. Trying to avoid the big teams, and get a smaller team. All of that excitement and anticipation will be lost.

5/8 groups generally have dead rubbers.

Just because we got unlucky and ended up in a group with PSG and Leipzig (two of the 4 semifinalists from last year) doesn't mean the group format is good.

Europa is even worse. There was very little excitement even on the caf (which has a dedicated United fanbase) about the ties against Granada, Midtjylland etc.

It is also 100% the case that these ties are loss leaders for clubs like United. You pay way more to the players than you make from such a tie.


Let's not conflate concerns with the superleague and then glorify UEFA and its current competitions. UEFA is a corrupt organization and its current competitions suffer from being dated and from an era where player power and player wages were limited.

 

[The Corinthian]

5/8 groups generally have dead rubbers.

Just because we got unlucky and ended up in a group with PSG and Leipzig (two of the 4 semifinalists from last year) doesn't mean the group format is good.

Europa is even worse. There was very little excitement even on the caf (which has a dedicated United fanbase) about the ties against Granada, Midtjylland etc.

It is also 100% the case that these ties are loss leaders for clubs like United. You pay way more to the players than you make from such a tie.


Let's not conflate concerns with the superleague and then glorify UEFA and its current competitions. UEFA is a corrupt organization and its current competitions suffer from being dated and from an era where player power and player wages were limited.

Not sure I agree with you here.

The Champions League only really has dead rubbers in GW 5 and 6. And that's if a team wins its first 4 games.

Putting that to one side, you do get interesting match ups in the group stages as well. Juve vs Barca this year for example...twice! PSG vs Us, etc. In terms of games against less glamourous opposition, you're only looking at 2 games, generally the pot 4 teams. Is it really still hard to stomach two games a year against low opposition? (At a push, it could be 4 if you include Pot 3 teams).

People might not be as enamoured with Europa league ties, but I'm sure everyone here still watched our games vs Sociedad, AC Milan, Granada...and now that we're in the latter stages of the competition, everyone wants us to go on and win it.

Part and parcel of supporting your team is you support them in the glamour ties, as well as the not so glamour ties.

Teams such as United can absorb these losses, and the net benefit is if we are drawn to a non big club, it will increase revenue and interest for them. Everyone benefits.

I'm not glorifying UEFA. However, as a competition, in form and in substance, the CL is a pretty good competition. A few tweaks are needed, but the proposed ESL and the proposed new CL both look awful.

 

[SinNombre]

@Revan is making sense here.

Most of the big clubs would go bankrupt (except holier than thou Bayern) if the CL went back to a "Champions" only league.


The issue with this Super league proposal is that it is the other extreme.

Best way to fix the CL - reduce the number of teams and make it more meritocratic (UEFA's desire is to do the opposite on both).

One format which I haven't fully thought through would be 24 teams, in 4 groups of 6 so 10 fixtures in the group stages.

8 league winners from the top 8 leagues
8 quarterfinalists from the previous CL
4 semifinals from the previous Europa
Winner of previous Europa conference
3 (and spares from repeats) of the highest ranked coefficient teams not qualified.


For the 20/21 season, this would have meant
Real, Liverpool, Bayern, Juventus, PSG, Porto, Zenit, Brugge
City, Lyon, Leipzig, Atletico, Atalanta
United, Inter, Sevilla, Shaktar
Arsenal, Dortmund, Spurs, Chelsea, Roma, Napoli, Benfica

^ now that has no dead rubbers and every group is a "Group of Death"

 

[Dansk]

In my opinion, what's "wrong" with the CL is that there aren't enough games between Europe's best teams. If you're one of the highly seeded clubs, you can go from the first game of the competition to the final and face about three other big sides on average. Four would be the literal maximum, if you got such a nightmare draw that you faced a top team in every round of the knockout stage, or if it's one of those years where a club like Barcelona ends up on Pot 2 for whatever reason. Point being: in the course of crowning the champions of Europe, so few games are played between the top clubs.

Odds are that at least one or even two of the teams you meet in the four knockout rounds would be someone punching above their weight, like Porto or Leipzig. And if you go out in, say, the quarter finals, you can have a year where your club literally just doesn't play against any other big team in Europe despite getting more than halfway to the final in terms of number of matches played in the competition. And while it's statistically unlikely, a club could win the whole tournament without facing a team that has ever won it before or would currently be considered realistic candidates.

In the 2017-18 season, Liverpool's journey through the Champion's League pitted them against Sevilla, Spartak, Maribor, Porto, City, Roma and lastly Real Madrid in the final. A grand total of two legitimately "big" ties throughout the entire span of the tournament. While they didn't win it in the end, they could have been crowned champions of Europe after facing only two other teams that were realistic candidates for the trophy. They won only three of their six group games, two of which were against the team that finished with zero points. The next year, Liverpool won the trophy after once more getting nine points in six games in their group, having faced three big teams from start to finish (PSG, Bayern and Barcelona), with a final against Tottenham, the sixth biggest club in England. That's not to single out Liverpool specifically, it's just a good example of my point. It's not enough of a test, in my eyes. I want the champions of Europe to have proven that they actually are the team that should be considered if not the best then at least equal to the best.

Meeting so few of the top teams throughout an entire competition is fine in a domestic cup. We don't regard the winners of the FA Cup as the greatest team in England. If I'm to consider the CL winners to be the actual champions of Europe, I want them to face most if not all of the other teams that can feasibly compete for that honour. Certainly more than two, three or four. As I pointed out in another thread, Barcelona and Bayern are widely regarded as the two greatest teams of our generation, yet they've met a grand total of three times in the last decade: 2013, 2015 and 2020. I think that's a shame. While I wouldn't necessarily demand that they play every single year, I think it's fair to expect more than three encounters per decade between Europe's top clubs.

I don't want that to be accomplished the way the ESL wants to do it, with their ridiculous concept of "founding clubs" and the upheaval that they're causing in the football world; but I certainly can't deny that I've been hoping for something new and innovative to happen in European club football. I've never felt like the CL was enough on its own, and that's not just because we've barely been in it since SAF retired.

I want more football between the best teams and players, but I didn't want it to happen this way.

 

[Revan]

In my opinion, what's "wrong" with the CL is that there aren't enough games between Europe's best teams. If you're one of the highly seeded clubs, you can go from the first game of the competition to the final and face about three other big sides on average. Four would be the literal maximum, if you got such a nightmare draw that you faced a top team in every round of the knockout stage.

Odds are that at least one or even two of the teams you meet in the four knockout rounds would be someone punching above their weight, like Porto or Leipzig. And if you go out in, say, the quarter finals, you can have a year where your club literally just doesn't play against any other big team in Europe despite getting more than halfway to the final in terms of number of matches played in the competition.

In the 2017-18 season, Liverpool's journey through the Champion's League pitted them against Sevilla, Spartak, Maribor, Porto, City, Roma and finally Real Madrid in the final. A grand total of two legitimately "big" ties throughout the entire span of the tournament. While they didn't win it in the end, they could have been crowned champions of Europe after facing only two other teams that were realistic candidates for the trophy. That's not to single out Liverpool specifically, it's just a good example of my point. On average, a big team has to surpass three other big teams to win it. It's not enough for me.

That's fine in a domestic cup competition. We don't regard the winners of the FA Cup as the greatest team in England. If I'm to consider the CL winners to be the actual champions of Europe, I want them to face most if not all of the other teams that can feasibly compete for that honour. Certainly more than two, three or four. As I pointed out in another thread, Barcelona and Bayern are widely regarded as the two greatest teams of our generation, yet they've met a grand total of three times in the last decade: 2013, 2015 and 2020. I think that's a shame. While I wouldn't necessarily demand that they play every single year, I think it's fair to expect more than three encounters per decade between Europe's top clubs.

I don't want that to be accomplished the way the ESL wants to do it, with their ridiculous concept of "founding clubs" and the upheaval that they're causing in the football world; but I certainly can't deny that I've been hoping for something new and innovative to happen in European club football. I've never felt like the CL was enough on its own, and that's not just because we've barely been in it since SAF retired.

I want more football between the best teams and players, but I didn't want it to happen this way.

I very much agree with what you said.

I wanted a European Superleague for ages, but I would much prefer if it has a relegation system. If you suck, you're out of it. Try to win the Second European Superleage (or some other system put in place) to get back in.

Which is what UEFA should have done anyway, but instead they revamped the competition to have even more meaningless matches from 2024 on.

 

[alexthelion]

So you want a CL without 3 clubs from the PL, Serie A, Bundesliga and La Liga?

That's what the old EUFA league and Cup Winners Cup were for.

Much better than CL/Europa imo.

 

[VorZakone]

That's what the old EUFA league and Cup Winners Cup were for.

Much better than CL/Europa imo.

What's better about watching a competition without 1 of Real/Barca, without Man Utd, Chelsea etc?

 

[adexkola]

What's better about watching a competition without 1 of Real/Barca, without Man Utd, Chelsea etc?

There's nothing worse. If I want to watch Barcelona I can tune into La Liga.

There is nothing special about finishing top 4. That indicates nothing about your quality. Actually winning the top league in your country (or winning a domestic cup) says something.

Ideally you'd have one club per country in the CL, two clubs per country in the EL, and the CWC. Eliminate the group stages and make it an unseeded knockout in all competitions.

 

[VorZakone]

There's nothing worse. If I want to watch Barcelona I can tune into La Liga.

There is nothing special about finishing top 4. That indicates nothing about your quality. Actually winning the top league in your country (or winning a domestic cup) says something.

Ideally you'd have one club per country in the CL, two clubs per country in the EL, and the CWC. Eliminate the group stages and make it an unseeded knockout in all competitions.

So you have no problem with the champion of England, Spain, Italy, Germany destroying all these smaller clubs? Because that's what will happen.

I genuinely don't see why excluding 3 top clubs from those 4 countries is a good idea. You'd have only a couple of big games.

 

[NoLogo]

I would genuinely like to see only champions with no qualification, so the teams from countries like ireland get in for a chance of money.

I would love to see the old format again. One competition for the league champions, one for the cup winners, two leg knock-out from the start. But of course that's not going to deliver enough games per season and the owners of our clubs won't make enough money from it.

 

[adexkola]

So you have no problem with the champion of England, Spain, Italy, Germany destroying all these smaller clubs? Because that's what will happen.

I genuinely don't see why excluding 3 top clubs from those 4 countries is a good idea. You'd have only a couple of big games.

I've seen Bayern destroy Arsenal and Barcelona in the CL. I lived. Yes I'd rather see legitimate league champions getting "destroyed". Who knows, maybe the increased exposure and TV money may have their quality increase to the point where a tie between Bayern and FC Basel or Spartak or Salzburg isn't a foregone conclusion.

But I don't watch football just for big games, so what do I know?

Side note: I've actually enjoyed the Europa League in recent years. More variety compared to the same CL semifinalists every day.

 

[Still ill]

I would genuinely like to see only champions with no qualification, so the teams from countries like ireland get in for a chance of money.

I mean I used to love the European Cup and the romance of that notion to real supporters in those 'lesser' nations that by winning their national title, they're straight into the hat with the Madrids of this world. It's a different map of Europe these days, more countries, smaller and, lets be honest, shitter national champions. Too many mismatches, too many games that interest too few people. Even I, old romantic that I am, accept that those days are gone.

 

[VorZakone]

I've seen Bayern destroy Arsenal and Barcelona in the CL. I lived. Yes I'd rather see legitimate league champions getting "destroyed". Who knows, maybe the increased exposure and TV money may have their quality increase to the point where a tie between Bayern and FC Basel or Spartak or Salzburg isn't a foregone conclusion.

Perez talked about declining viewership among younger audiences didn't he? You exclude 12 (oh, the irony) clubs from the 4 best competitions and watch viewership plummet.

 

[adexkola]

Perez talked about declining viewership among younger audiences didn't he? You exclude 12 (oh, the irony) clubs from the 4 best competitions and watch viewership plummet.

This argument is how we have a Super League in the first place. Listening to a generation with tiktok inflicted ADHD. Maybe we shouldn't take those e-junkies into consideration when debating the ideal makeup of a sporting competition. Otherwise we'll start having stripper shows in the middle of the pitch at halftime...

 

[Acheron]

From what I heard on chiringuito their main concern how was the UCL was drawing less audience each year and their inability to draw the new generations to be interested in the competition.

The current format only gets exciting in the latter stages, like when the knock out stage begins, so they came to the conclusion they could exploit the interest it draws having the best teams play against each other, and taking into consideration the big clubs as they generate the most interest. It was also stated UEFA hasn't really payed attention to their concerts on changing the competition and that the new format their proposing it really isn't something that has the approval of the bigger clubs.

 

[Bobski]

Yeah

but I also want an even financial playing field where clubs like Ajax, Club Brugge & Monaco keep their players. I’m talking purely hypothetical. It can’t happen because because of the money the gap between the champions of England & the champions of Norway for example is too great.

Yes, where Dynamo Kiev, Spartak Moscow PSV(among others) are a real live threat, where Gothenberg can thrash Utd and retain their best players for longer than a minute.

Gone for good now and the allure of European competition has been irreparably damaged, Anyone remember Utd playing Red Star Belgrade in in 1991 in the Super Cup of the time. One of the flukiest wins in our history, they had an amazing team that would never have been allowed to develop now, would be sitting on the benches or stands of supposed better clubs at 19 never fulfilling their potential or building anything together.

A format change is not going to fix it.

ESL will go the NBA route and focus on pushing individuals over teams to draw the younger generation in. Only have to look at the Ronaldo v Messi debates to see how popular that can be.

 

[VorZakone]

This argument is how we have a Super League in the first place. Listening to a generation with tiktok inflicted ADHD. Maybe we shouldn't take those e-junkies into consideration when debating the ideal makeup of a sporting competition. Otherwise we'll start having stripper shows in the middle of the pitch at halftime...

Alright mate, it kinda baffles me but if you enjoy a CL without 12 top clubs from the 4 biggest competitions, then it is what it is. I can't possibly change your opinion.

Let's say we would have implemented that this season. We would have no City, Utd and Chelsea in the CL in that case.

 

[TheGame]

Nothing wrong with it, its fine. But clubs who are too shite to make the top 4 in the PL want to gain entry to it. Rather than earn the right, they want to break the rules. The other ESL clubs just want to make more money and don't give two fecks about the structure of the tournament.

 

[PieCrust]

The group stages are unremarkable. I like the home and away setup. Do home and away knockout ties from round 1. No meaningless group filler & no seedings.

Doesn't need to expand to any more teams. Current qualification for lower league clubs can stay, I think it works fine.

But I can still live with the current setup, it's not really that bad and is a good compromise to allowing basically any team from Europe to gain entry into the competition, if you're good enough. Expanding the amount of teams dilutes the field and adding more group stage matches is just a terrible idea and quite obviously is only being put forward to increase the TV money under the guise is opening up the competition to more teams.

 

[Hansa]

I've seen Bayern destroy Arsenal and Barcelona in the CL. I lived. Yes I'd rather see legitimate league champions getting "destroyed". Who knows, maybe the increased exposure and TV money may have their quality increase to the point where a tie between Bayern and FC Basel or Spartak or Salzburg isn't a foregone conclusion.

But I don't watch football just for big games, so what do I know?

Side note: I've actually enjoyed the Europa League in recent years. More variety compared to the same CL semifinalists every day.

While I'm not opposed to the Champions League as a format, I miss the level playing field we had before. I wrote in another thread about the first year of CL football, where the group stages had teams from Sweden, Belgium and Russia, but not England, Germany and Spain. Then the big nations began lobbying for a bit of preferential treatment, then a bit more, and then some. We have gone from a great diversity of teams and nations in the European competitions to watching more or less the same teams from a handful of nations every year. The head-start these teams and countries have been given by UEFA can't be caught unless they all go bankrupt - or jets off to a Super League. Don't think we'll ever see a Dynamo Kiev beating Barcelona 7-0 over two games again.

 

[golden_blunder]

I mean I used to love the European Cup and the romance of that notion to real supporters in those 'lesser' nations that by winning their national title, they're straight into the hat with the Madrids of this world. It's a different map of Europe these days, more countries, smaller and, lets be honest, shitter national champions. Too many mismatches, too many games that interest too few people. Even I, old romantic that I am, accept that those days are gone.

I do accept that to a point, but there must be some way for an Irish team to make the money rounds

 

[passing-wind]

Champions league is already too diluted adding more teams is making a mockery of the original intention of the cup.

But UEFA has a scientifically proven formula for football.

More games + TV = More Money

Personally I think the champions league should be an open draw knockout competition from the first round, one or two legs. No seedings to ensure the biggest teams are nearly always kept apart until the quarter finals.

I'd prefer to see Man Utd heading to Iceland to play Valur, Barcelona heading to Belfast to play Linfield or Bayern Munich playing Dundalk. Not pointless games in dead rubber groups where Qarabag play Shaktar with nothing riding on it but which one is less shit and gets into the Europa League.

I agree with this the group stages aspect of the UCL is what ruins some of the excitement in the competition. By the time all the good high intensity fixtures have been amassed it's already the semi final stages of remainder four teams.

If this super league can provide a good innovative solution for promotion / demotion, it's far more of an impactful change.

 

[hubbuh]

Make it all knockout so every game or 2-legged tie actually matters.

This. 64 teams, 2 legged ties, have at it. It would be fecking amazing.

EDIT. 64 teams would actually probably be way too many (unless they merged with Europa). Maybe just 32 teams?

 

[ThehatchetMan]

The biggest problem first and foremost is that it isn't a champions League and instead an exclusive league which is already bias as it is towards the larger historic European clubs, and the bigger leagues.

The seeding of the competition is basically setup to try and ensure the biggest clubs get as far as possible and don't meet eachother too early.

And I guess the ESL 12 don't like the fact that the completion still doesn't guarantee their inclusion every season or that they'll reach the latter stages. So they now want an ESL to get that guaranteed stream of income and participation. Basically a no risk scenario where their wealth isn't impacted by their performances.


And to be honest what winds me up quite a bit about this ESL outrage is that UEFA have been just as bias to the bigger clubs and leagues for years and nobody bats an eye lid.

You don't see your Stray Bucheraists or Red Star Belgrade's reaching European finals anymore. The wealth in football across Europe is already incredibly disproportionate, and this has been fueled over the last 30 years.

It's not even just in club competition either; the same goes for internationals. The whole seeding system for countries is incredibly bias and the points earned for participating in major tournaments is disproportionate compared to other matches. And those seeds are then used to draw out the qualifying groups for each tournament.
Is it any wonder that England for example qualify for most international tournaments? If Wales or Scotland were put in those groups instead of England they'd be qualifying for every tournament too. And through qualifying their seed will remain in the top pots and thus making it very difficult for this top countries to fail to qualify.

However after Italy and NL failing to qualify for a few tournaments UEFA had to rethink things again because some of the bigger nation's weren't qualifying as frequently as they used to.

So in comes the new UEFA Nations League after alot of smaller nations qualified for EURO 2016. So now if a top seeded Nations League club fails to get out of their Euro/WC qualifying group they've got a backdoor entry to give them another near enough guaranteed entry to the competion. Why? Because all the other teams in the top tier of Nations League will likely qualify. So for example:

England could lose every nations league qualifier and every world cup qualifier over 2 years. But because the other 11 top tier teams will likely qualify, England will end up playing the Tier A final playoff against a lesser nation from one of the other tiers to potentially qualify.

UEFA/FIFA/FA/Big Clubs have all been corrupt for years, especially over the last 30. And everyone just turns a blind eye anyway and lets them get on with it.

Most of the Man Utd fans on this board have probably never even been to watch their local team. You aren't supporters or fans of the club, you're simply customers because that's what football has become. And the vast majority of the people on this forum are part of the problem.

Even the media as well. They try to portray the Nation's League as this new competion to help smaller nations qualify for tournaments. It's all just a load of bs because if you do the mathematical equations you soon realise smaller nations had a better chance of qualifying with the old format. And that this new format significantly benefits the larger nations.
And then every English fan sings the praises of the nations league too and how it's great to have more competitive games.

If you want more competitive football competitions then get rid of seeding for major competitions. If you want to be the champion of a competition then you should be able to beat every team put in front of you, not have it seeded the whole way through to get the easiest route of progression.


And to go back to your original question. I've already mentioned alot of problems I see with major tournaments at present. But to answer for the ESL clubs, the issue is that it's not bias enough in their favour with the existing format. They want guaranteed entry and guaranteed profits with no risk.

Take away the seeding and you'll have a more exciting competion. Watching maybe Ajax v Chelsea in a qualifying round. Or maybe an underdog like Molde playing a champions League QF against Real Madrid after a favourable draw.

If you want football to be exciting then we need to make it real and natural and unpredictable where fans, players and clubs can all dream and have their big moments.

Not this corrupt money orientated predictable shambles which football has become and continues to be.

Even the premiership how boring is the big 6 who continue to hold up their positions within the top 7 most seasons. The whole system is built to try and keep the top clubs at the top. This recent proposal isn't much different to the corruption and bias we've all bought into for the last 30 years.

 

[hubbuh]

The group stages are unremarkable. I like the home and away setup. Do home and away knockout ties from round 1. No meaningless group filler & no seedings.

Doesn't need to expand to any more teams. Current qualification for lower league clubs can stay, I think it works fine.

But I can still live with the current setup, it's not really that bad and is a good compromise to allowing basically any team from Europe to gain entry into the competition, if you're good enough. Expanding the amount of teams dilutes the field and adding more group stage matches is just a terrible idea and quite obviously is only being put forward to increase the TV money under the guise is opening up the competition to more teams.

Completely agree. If they want bigger viewing numbers, this is surely the way to do it? Every game actually has something riding on it, and you are far more likely to see exciting games.

 

[Bobski]

While I'm not opposed to the Champions League as a format, I miss the level playing field we had before. I wrote in another thread about the first year of CL football, where the group stages had teams from Sweden, Belgium and Russia, but not England, Germany and Spain. Then the big nations began lobbying for a bit of preferential treatment, then a bit more, and then some. We have gone from a great diversity of teams and nations in the European competitions to watching more or less the same teams from a handful of nations every year. The head-start these teams and countries have been given by UEFA can't be caught unless they all go bankrupt - or jets off to a Super League. Don't think we'll ever see a Dynamo Kiev beating Barcelona 7-0 over two games again.

I think the younger fans don't realize just how much has been lost from the game because of the financial disparity in football.

 

[Mindhunter]

Nothing is wrong with the format.

It's just a case of the rich trying to get richer. Nothing more, nothing less.

Disagree. The way this is set up, rich sugar daddies can keep buying small clubs and basically spend their way to CL qualification every year leaving behind the clubs who aren’t able to do that who have a lot of history in the competition. These clubs aren’t willing to go out into the sunset without a fight. More so with the pandemic.

 

[Red_toad]

Sorry - another thread driven off the ESL and the CL changes.

But here's the thing - what's wrong with the current format of the Champions League?

From I believe a club owners perspective would be, I'd say you run a club to a budget and if it goes tits up and you don't qualify, then you're in the shite financially. They simply want a consistent budget they can work with. All the COVID issues have possibly forced this stance from them?
Before anyone has a go, I do not at all endorse their actions and I really hope they will agree and new CL format and walk away from the super league.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

I think there's a problem with the weighting they give to certain countries to get more of their teams in the competition, such as 4th place in England making it in. They could probably strip that away and go with top 3 of the countries they feel are qualified. More games and more clubs in it dilutes the value, just like expanding the World Cup dilutes its value as well. It's about elite competition so make it just that.

 

[rcoobc]

From the owners perspective:

- Not enough games against the big clubs (they're intentionally keep apart for the first 8 games). The NFL, for comparison, deliberately creates extra games where the biggest clubs meet


From the fans perspective:

- champions League nights no longer feel special. Group stage is boring. Latter rounds are exciting but predictable.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

From I believe a club owners perspective would be, I'd say you run a club to a budget and if it goes tits up and you don't qualify, then you're in the shite financially. They simply want a consistent budget they can work with. All the COVID issues have possibly forced this stance from them?
Before anyone has a go, I do not at all endorse their actions and I really hope they will agree and new CL format and walk away from the super league.

good analysis. It’s why PL clubs who get relegated get parachute payments for 3 years. You need to spend to be competitive on the CL, but the ramifications of spending and not getting in are enormous.

 

[2 man midfield]

Nothing at all, and I think the new proposed format is nonsense too. Like you said, right now you occasionally get teams going further than expected - which is great! All they have to do is navigate a tricky few fixtures and they’re in the knockouts.

How is that going to work out in a league format where they play every other team instead of just 1 or 2 of the big boys? They’ll be dead in the water.

 

[Hansa]

I think the younger fans don't realize just how much has been lost from the game because of the financial disparity in football.

Yeah, you can almost tell the age of a fan by the disdain they have for teams outside the top 15, not realizing that many of these teams were pretty damned good before the centralization of power and money in the game.

 

[U99ted]

To play devils advocate a bit, there’s an argument that the proposed Super League would be boring as feck because it’s the same teams every year.

A counter point to that would be look at the last 10 years of Champions League quarter finals and see how many times you see Bayern Munich, Barcelona and Real Madrid there. Is it not happening already that the same teams are playing each other every year?

Currently they have to earn the ability to play each other by finishing high enough in domestic leagues, winning group games and then top-16 ties. The Super League guarantees those games without them earning the right to play each other.

 

[Red_toad]

good analysis. It’s why PL clubs who get relegated get parachute payments for 3 years. You need to spend to be competitive on the CL, but the ramifications of spending and not getting in are enormous.

Plus when you look that we could soon have the Saudi's owning the Toon, then Spurs, United, Liverpool and Arsenal would (from an owner point of view) be crazy not to want to lock in 100% certain revenue. As would could well regularly see the top 3 slots all taken by the investor owners and everyone else fighting it out for 1 place.