Individual games in the group stage can be entertaining. The problem is that, on average, the results are the same, which means that collectively, the group stages are hollow.
What's wrong with the current format of the Champions League?
- Thread starter The Corinthian
- Start date
One problem is seeding. The big clubs complain about not playing each other enough so I say no seeding for the group stage. That way a group could end up being:
City, Real, Bayern, PSG - or mix and match as you choose.
Furthermore, it would also allow for a real underdog or two to get through to the knockout round which would create interest as well.
City, Real, Bayern, PSG - or mix and match as you choose.
Furthermore, it would also allow for a real underdog or two to get through to the knockout round which would create interest as well.
Absolutely! Do you remember the season Dundalk made the league stage? They finished bottom but it sure was fun. We shouldn’t neglect that just because we’re arrogant to think that only big clubs count
I disagree we see lots of differences every year. Sure the mega clubs almost always qualify, but we often get enough drama.
Even this year I was surprised how well some of the smaller teams did. It is far from dead. Pure knockout with 64 teams or more would not be bad either though.
The suggested Swiss model sounds as bad as the superleague I think.
Keep it full two leg knockout with a losers bracket.
CL - Charity League
Indeed. A lot of folk missing the point that the 25 years of continued preferential treatment received by the big leagues is partly why there is a lack of variety and competitiveness in the Champions League. To resolve a lack of variety you don't continue to find new ways to close the door behind you. To resolve the lack of competitiveness you don't continue to hog the majority of the resources amongst a handful of clubs. It's really simple.
There are lots of ways to make it more interesting. We could start with better distribution of the £3bn in annual TV revenue. Real Madrid get about 500 times what each of the champions of about 20 European countries receive. If competition is the lifeblood the sport, you don't pump just about all your resources into the hand of clubs making more money than everyone else from other funding streams. It's easily changed - Real Madrid can still get the most money to reflect their success, and other champions can share in more of the collective wealth. End result is much more competitiveness, more interesting group stages and more chance of Ajax or Atalanta making surprise runs into the knockout stages.
Spot on. "Who wants to watch Madrid vs Molde" is just a bs statement. It's as if people think football is only for 12-15 clubs who have more money. Like you said, these European nights will be the highlight for many clubs and players.
I've attended enough matches to realize what the CL is about.
Instead of making baseless assumptions, you should probably think about it first.
The CL is about the best clubs in each country getting the chance to test themselves against each other. Which often means small clubs coming up against behemoths. That’s part of the beauty of it. The idea that only the biggest clubs, from the wealthiest leagues, matter is abhorrent.
I don't think our views are that far apart. You can hold both the opinions that "fundamentally that I want variety in the football I watch", but also believe that "the best teams should compete against each other with greater regularity", and not be contradicting yourself.
The last two European champions are Liverpool and Bayern Munich. They've played two competitive matches of football against each other in the last 20 years; just three matches in the last 40 years! The two best sides in the world currently are probably City and Bayern. They haven't played for six seasons! So many great sides of recent times are just passing each other like ships in the night. Barcelona and Bayern have played two matches in six seasons! The current Champions League is engineered to protect the largest clubs in a commercial sense, by keeping them apart as much as possible until the last 16, and even the quarter finals, to the detriment of having the most competitive tournament that the schedule will allow. Winning the Champions League is a great achievement, arguably the pinnacle of club football, but most champions still don't really prove themselves, as they would in a round-robin league format.
Just to note: above I have given examples of specific teams, but the names don't matter. In 20 years time we could have a set of slightly different top teams and them still leaving it to complete chance whether they meet or not in competitive football. The point is that we have all this European football and we leave it to complete chance, to the fine margins that a low-scoring game like football is built on, whether the best sides in any given era will actually compete against each other in pursuit of glory.
The Champions League structure made sense in the 90s until really the mid-2000s when there was wider pool of top sides and the champions of many of the second tier leagues were able to be more competitive, but not now. We have had one team, just one, from outside the Top 5 leagues make the CL final since Ajax in 1996. But we can go further still, since Porto won it 2004 beating Monaco, every single final, including the upcoming one in 2021, will have been contested by clubs proposed to be the founding 15 in the Super League (note: now is a good time to point and laugh at Manchester City who are the only one of these sides to actually reach the final yet in this period).
So we have a situation where the Super League teams have a stranglehold on the Champions League final anyway, but we still have a format that doesn't necessarily ensure that the best teams, proven by their results (and even XG!) domestically and continentally over a multi-year period, actually directly play each other to give us a proven champion.
Personally, I like UEFA's reforms, but don't actually feel they go far enough. I'd go further and greatly increase the number of teams in the CL. As well as increasing the number of berths for the top performing associations, I'd have more places guaranteed for national champions of leagues further down the association coefficient ranking. Currently 11 are guaranteed a spot and a further 4 can qualify. I'd guarantee at least 20 and let furthers qualify. The beauty of a Swiss-based system (or similar) is that it can be scaled easily and the format does the heavy lifting of sifting teams after the initial couple of rounds to get teams playing against others with similar records. This will give you a diverse set of matches early on, followed by stronger-performing sides facing each other and weaker-performing sides facing each other. If the Croatia champions are strong one year, then they will win matches and be paired against other winning teams. If the Hungarian champions are out of the depth against the stronger sides, they will lose early and be matched against other losing sides. There's no need to seed sides (unless you want to do an Accelerated Swiss), as you don't have to protect your commercial draws from being eliminated after a game or two.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if the tentative plan is to get the Swiss system through the door, allow the format to demonstrate its merits, before merging European competitions together.
Trust me, I know exactly what you mean. My best experience as a child watching football was when in 1999 my local team, Zimbru Chisinau, got the third qualifying round in CL and played PSV Eindhoven. Seeing RVN live at a mere 20-30 metres away felt surreal. So, yes, if you are a fan of one of those teams, that is amazing. However, for the neutral, this hardly adds value to the competition. Say, you are a United fan, what would you rather watch, Barca-Juve or Bayern - Zimbru?
Clubs want a stable income, look at pool this season 1 injury to a key player and their income will be massively impacted next season. I can understand where the clubs are coming from. Like I posted elsewhere imagine a future City, Chelsea and Newcastle all funded by billionaires and regularly taking the top 3 slots, then everyone else is fighting it out for 4th and if they don't get there they fall further behind.
I've no idea what the answer, I much preferred the European Cup format, as the best club from every league competed against each other and it seemed that all trophies were more highly valued by fans, as nowadays it's the CL and PL and that's all that matters. But that's the effect of big money.
I've no idea what the answer, I much preferred the European Cup format, as the best club from every league competed against each other and it seemed that all trophies were more highly valued by fans, as nowadays it's the CL and PL and that's all that matters. But that's the effect of big money.
I would rather watch Barca-Juve, which will happen at the business end of the competition anyway. While we wait to get to that point I would oppose any plans that would deny the Zimbru fans moments like you describe. I just don’t think we need to fix the “problem” of not every match being box office. Football is bigger than televised content. At least it should be.
I find it desperately boring. It's the same games, the same teams, the same players, the same fecking music, all the time. Football is pretty dull right now - the league remains interesting enough, although over the next 10-15 years or so I reckon we'll end up with a solid mainstay of 15 teams plus a few yoyo teams.. It'll be pretty much as closed as any euro league proposal.
The Champions League should be binned and replaced with a proper champions-only cup, but ultimately the game needs artificially enforced and regulated completion, like a wage cap and severe squad limits.
The Champions League should be binned and replaced with a proper champions-only cup, but ultimately the game needs artificially enforced and regulated completion, like a wage cap and severe squad limits.
I understand that and agree. But, the discussion was to have more matches like this, and I don't know how you can achieve this without increasing the number of games (which is already getting ridiculous for big teams). Perhaps having a direct elimination style similar to the FA Cup could help, but I don't think UEFA would agree to it.
The semi-final between Chelsea vs. Real Madrid is their first match up since 1998. Last season LB Leipzig made the semi-finals for the first time. No matter what the format is - the best teams with the best players are generally going to be more likely to feature at the tail end of the competition.
The champions league has had some amazing comebacks and results. Utd overturning a 2-0 home defeat with the final kick of the game in Paris. Barcelona overturning a 4-0 defeat with the last kick of the game. Spurs reaching their first ever final with the final kick of the game. Bale scoring an bicycle kick in the final. Anyone who thinks the CL is 'desperately boring' is just moaning for the sake of it or conflating it with their general attitude towards football as a whole. I agree that there is a fundamental problem with how clubs are run and the concentration of talent with bloated wage bills but I fail to see how the structure of a European club tournament is to blame for that.
IMO the current CL works ok. Qualification rounds give tiny clubs a taste of the glamour while keeping the number of games just about manageable.
The reason why the CL became as prestigious as it has is because of the greater number of big teams. It may be unromantic to say it but it IS more sort after now vs 40 years ago when you would face the likes of Malmö regularly in the last 4.
Do we want lose the spectre of small clubs having a shot and upsetting the apple cart?
No. But it’s disingenuous to pretend we wouldn’t prefer that in small doses and would much rather see the titanic battles that we’ve grown accustomed to post early 90s revamp
It’s great seeing smaller clubs in CL but stick the champions of Greece and the champions of Switzerland on TV and all those extolling the virtues of such a match will be watching third place in Spain vs second place from Italy on the other side.
People need to be honest about what they want and not virtue signal something their viewing habits expose as nonsense
Do we want lose the spectre of small clubs having a shot and upsetting the apple cart?
No. But it’s disingenuous to pretend we wouldn’t prefer that in small doses and would much rather see the titanic battles that we’ve grown accustomed to post early 90s revamp
It’s great seeing smaller clubs in CL but stick the champions of Greece and the champions of Switzerland on TV and all those extolling the virtues of such a match will be watching third place in Spain vs second place from Italy on the other side.
People need to be honest about what they want and not virtue signal something their viewing habits expose as nonsense
I don't really get the dislike for the group games. They're excellent opportunities for the general 'unfashionable' clubs. Look at Istanbul Basaksehir as an example.
They were only formed 30 years ago, and won their league title last season. They got to play the likes of Man Utd, PSG, and Red Bull Leipzig. They have a home victory over Man Utd! Imagine being a player in that team over the last two years, you'd be on cloud 9.
Who knows, with the additional CL income, the club can invest in better players, infrastructure, coaches, and slowly become CL regulars. Maybe in 5-8 years down the line, they're contesting KO rounds. This is why the current format works to a degree.
They were only formed 30 years ago, and won their league title last season. They got to play the likes of Man Utd, PSG, and Red Bull Leipzig. They have a home victory over Man Utd! Imagine being a player in that team over the last two years, you'd be on cloud 9.
Who knows, with the additional CL income, the club can invest in better players, infrastructure, coaches, and slowly become CL regulars. Maybe in 5-8 years down the line, they're contesting KO rounds. This is why the current format works to a degree.
Agree with that, it is dull across the CL and the top European leagues. It's how you get from the current setup to a new organisation that is difficult.
I wouldn't be surprised if football generally experience a financial crisis over the next year or so that could be the catalyst for some big changes.
My main issue with the CL is that it's rigged for big teams to win it. When was the last time a minnow won it?
Real Madrid and the likes get a free pass to the semi's most often than not and then they play a couple of hard games. You've got tiny teams from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe 'making up the numbers' and being whipping boys in the competition's group phase. On top of that the leagues aren't weighted correctly for entry places.
The PL should get about 6 spots on the CL. Teams like Leicester are way better than the most of the teams seeded 4th in the groups.
To improve the league there should be two extra groups added on the one's that are already there and group the teams by wage expenditure. You wanna spend £3m a week on wages? Guess what, there's your group. Only then will we see a fair competition where teams of equal ability and size play each other until the knock out stages, where literally anything can happen over two legs.
Real Madrid and the likes get a free pass to the semi's most often than not and then they play a couple of hard games. You've got tiny teams from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe 'making up the numbers' and being whipping boys in the competition's group phase. On top of that the leagues aren't weighted correctly for entry places.
The PL should get about 6 spots on the CL. Teams like Leicester are way better than the most of the teams seeded 4th in the groups.
To improve the league there should be two extra groups added on the one's that are already there and group the teams by wage expenditure. You wanna spend £3m a week on wages? Guess what, there's your group. Only then will we see a fair competition where teams of equal ability and size play each other until the knock out stages, where literally anything can happen over two legs.
Ok, so the same amount of these games and not more as it was suggested.
Yes. I don’t think more games are a good idea. The new CL structure seems like a terrible idea to me.
I'm afraid it remains the best way of separating the cream from the milk.
I understand that argument but isn't there an argument that the 4th biggest team in England is better than the champions of a tiny european country and we want more of the best teams competing? Surely, we want the best version of the tournament?
This is the crux of it for me.
There's a romance in having the champions of each nation involved, but as soon as you get past the champions of England, Germany, Italy, Spain, and more recently France, there's a noticeable drop off in quality.
"more champions" 
in other words just change the name of the competition and you'd be fine ?
in other words just change the name of the competition and you'd be fine ?The best version of the tournament was the justification these pricks were using for the ESL. You're just arguing for a slightly different version.
And the 4th place sides are only better because the resources are skewed. Share the wealth around and the champions of those smaller European countries will become better over time.
Pogue, you are a smart guy, but this comment doesn’t stand up. Do some research and you will probably be very surprised at how infrequently the best sides can and have faced each other. I posted earlier about how little Bayern alone have faced the other best teams of the last several years.
We have to be reasonable and see from other clubs POV.
Clubs like everton, Southampton, even spurs and arsenal needs to be in CL. And teams like bratislava, genk, european minnows needs something to play for. It's not only about the traditional powerhouse.
The UEFA and the CL and EL is the main driving forces for teams in europe. Their existence allows for a fundamental structure in football. Like it or hate it the UEFA standardized lots of individual FA.
Two wrongs doesnt make rights but one wrongs doesnt make the other bad. Just because some high rangking officer decided to sell the hosting rights to the highest bidder doesnt mean the idea of a main governing body for hundreds of clubs wrong.
Just like our rationale that our bad owner doesnt act on our behalf and such It's them and not united.
Clubs like everton, Southampton, even spurs and arsenal needs to be in CL. And teams like bratislava, genk, european minnows needs something to play for. It's not only about the traditional powerhouse.
The UEFA and the CL and EL is the main driving forces for teams in europe. Their existence allows for a fundamental structure in football. Like it or hate it the UEFA standardized lots of individual FA.
Two wrongs doesnt make rights but one wrongs doesnt make the other bad. Just because some high rangking officer decided to sell the hosting rights to the highest bidder doesnt mean the idea of a main governing body for hundreds of clubs wrong.
Just like our rationale that our bad owner doesnt act on our behalf and such It's them and not united.
We dont always win our match against minnow though. We lost quite a lot to make it not boring and not guaranteed.
We got kicked out because we cant beat fecking baseksahir btw.
I saw that. And it did give me pause for thought. But I disagree. It’s the relative infrequency of these match-ups that keep the CL interesting. Otherwise it would be same old, same old, year after year after year.
This is exactly it. Champions league should minimum feature all champions. Maybe top 2 if only champions will mean not enough teams.
I do feel a lot of this debate comes down to certain basic premises. To how you view football as a whole.
If you feel that football is 100% pure show business, that it fully belongs to the entertainment industry then it makes sense to ask questions about what Zimbru Chisinau or Molde add to that. If, however, you fundamentally view it as a sport, then the question is preposterous: they are there to compete in a sport, of course. In that case, revenue streams aren't the most important consideration all the time.
Whenever these debates roll around, there's a disconnect, a depressing one: an increasingly large chunk of football fans take it for granted that the aim should be to maximise income, that the end goal of football is to make as much money as possible. Hence the proclamations that the neutrals don't care about the Romanian champions vs the Estonian champions. Of course they don't but why on Earth should sport cater to these mythical neutrals all the fecking time?
Football is kind of fecked. For me, I would welcome broader changes to football.
- Caps on transfer fees
- A percentage of all transfer fees distributed to the relevant players nations top league teams
- Hard caps on agent fees
- Caps on players and managers salaries
- 50+1 rule or similar implemented in all UEFA nations over time. Limit the power of private investors.
- FFP remade into a better and tougher version
- All nations league winners should be guaranteed a spot in CL. It IS the fecking CHAMPIONS league.
- less group matches, more cup matches in the CL
- Drop VAR
- Lower the limit of foreign players in a squad in each league
- Drop the conference League, make all cup winners obligatory in the Europa League, less group games, more cup games.
- Caps on transfer fees
- A percentage of all transfer fees distributed to the relevant players nations top league teams
- Hard caps on agent fees
- Caps on players and managers salaries
- 50+1 rule or similar implemented in all UEFA nations over time. Limit the power of private investors.
- FFP remade into a better and tougher version
- All nations league winners should be guaranteed a spot in CL. It IS the fecking CHAMPIONS league.
- less group matches, more cup matches in the CL
- Drop VAR
- Lower the limit of foreign players in a squad in each league
- Drop the conference League, make all cup winners obligatory in the Europa League, less group games, more cup games.
You really think there's an audience for a Champions League with the teams from the major and second tier European leagues pounding this lot? I don't think people realise there are another ten national champions for each of the champions of England, Spain, Italy, Germany and France.
People are hypocritical, because all of these national champions enter the Champions League each and every year - and then virtually nobody without any connection to the sides bothers to watch until the more glamorous sides show up.
That's not going to be the case though is it. Maybe Ajax or somebody would have the fanbase to match Tottenham or Arsenal or whoever. But the large English sides already have huge fanbases and as such the resources even without CL money. Maybe Sparta Prague or something could build themselves up but the population of Prague is like 1.4m. London is nearly 10m so even if Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, West Ham etc split most of that they still have a bigger catchment area of local fans to draw on than the smaller European cities.
There is something romantic about the old European matchups don't get me wrong but at the same time, it seems silly to have teams with millions of fans excluded because they compete in a tough domestic league (the most popular in the world) in order to include smaller clubs who don't have the resources to really compete.
Istanbul and Moscow have bigger populations than London but Turkey and Russia don't have more qualifiers.
The "elite" countries have large fan bases because the game has been rigged in their favour. There's no reason Spurs should have a bigger fan base than Slavia Prague if all things were equal. Their onfield achievements haven't earned anything of the sort.
As you say, we already have advantages in terms of resources so why should we be handed more.
We shouldn't use the inequality that went before to justify keeping it going.