Changes in CL format

[FigmentOfYerImagination]

So Real are a bit like United, loved or hated, never ignored, that’s why they are one of (probably the) biggest clubs.

No, illegal financial government support is. They would have been declared bankrupt in the Netherlands as several clubs were over less than €200K debts.

Half a billion debt?

Having more supporters generally leads to bigger profit, simple market economics.

And nobody is disputing that. What is disputed is why there would have to be a system that rather than mitigates the advantage of wealth, or at most mildly rewards winning, increases this problem tenfold by increasing the wealth of the wealthy at the cost of the less wealthy.

Just a quick reminder: Football doesn’t exist for the benefit of UEFA official wallets, nor does it exist for just a narrow margin of fans. Whether you have 10 or 12 or 500 fans doesn't mean you should be rewarded more to have a better chance at winning.

Let’s clear one thing first, there’s been so many views in this thread, are you against the proposal? Are you against the CL in its existing format? or are you advocating a return to the European Cup days?

Europa Cup I, II, III was more fun and fair for supporters across Europe. It was clearer and more accessible for both fans around Europe as it was for possible for clubs to reach the final stages as cup fighters.

The current CL system is corrupt, barely manageable, creating a huge gap by benefitting too few clubs, upsets domestic and national competitions and is unfair to clubs participating in the Europa League even.

The system proposed is ten times worse as it brings competitiveness for smaller teams during the competition down. Less competition is more boredom.



So what would I propose? It's not like I've got a complete worked out plan (I'm paid to design other things atm), but I'll entertain you a bit and brainfart.


First we need to identify the standards we would like to see met:

- Fair distribution of money: reward without distorting competitions too much
- Easy access to the competition regardless of geography or competition
- Limited dependency on previous national performance
- Cup for national league winners
- Cup for national cup winners (cup finalist if winner won national league)
- Cup for national league sub-top
- Season long entertainment for fans
- Season long international experience gathering opportunity for players
- Season long income gathering for clubs and domestic leagues (not the officials)

So we've got two things to design here: a competition setup and a money distribution setup.

Let's start with the competition setup.


Champions League v.3.0
I wouldn’t mind a Champions League consisting of either just the champions of the last season, just straight knock-out tournament.

I don’t like the introduction of poules as this benefits stronger teams, undoing damage taken in individual matches. It should always be a pure knock-out series to optimise the chances of an underdog winning and rewarding offensive play over calculating play. This makes every match a final and then you don’t get these “oh we already placed for the next round” matches you get every year in the CL which can result in various forms of competition fraud. See Zagreb 1-7 Lyon for reference or teams putting in their B-team, resulting in a loss or draw which enables an undeserving team to go through to the next round.

There are 54 UEFA associated leagues, Liechtenstein not included (only has a cup). The goal is to have 64 teams in a knock-out round.

So the leagues give us 54 teams. We need 10 more (or 22 with worse status). I would add the winning team of the previous year (or their league's runner up if they already qualified) -> 55. Then the winning team of the cup winners cup of last season (56), the sub-top cup champion of last season (57). That leaves 7 teams we need. These extra spots could be awarded to the leagues who made it into the semi-finals (8 teams total - cup winner = 7). That brings us to 64 teams. There would be entries by runner ups, but these would be rewards for teams and leagues who performed well last season, without endangering participation for other teams.


To keep teams busy all season, for the losing teams of each round, I could see a minor group stage type league in order to create a ranking. This would keep these teams and their fans busy all season. (First round gives you 32 losers, second round 16, third round 8, fourth round 4 and finally a final for third place).

UEFA CUP II v.2.0
Cup winners cup just like the old UEFA Cup II. If not national cup winner, then the other national cup finalist participates. Liechtenstein can send in their winner here. As last year's winner participates in the Champions League, we're at 54 again. Leagues who got to the semi-finals the year before fill up the remaining places, with the leagues of the finalists being provided an additional spot (8+2=10 +54 = 64 total). When a team is in the Champions League, then the first who is next in line for a Euro tourney in the domestic league is allowed in.

Again, could do the little round by round losers ranking leagues.

Europa League v.2.0
For the sub-top teams it might be more interesting to have a big group stage for the first half of the season, before going into knock-outs and round by round stages based on their ranking in the group (say 8 groups of 8, first two to the knock-outs, 3rd and 4th to their own group stage, 5th and 6th to their own group stage and 7th and 8th to their own group stage).

This way they'd have some bigger matches early in the season and then later on matches more on their own level both for practice, entertainment and extra income without tiring them too much. Either way their fans would have some European matches to look forward to all season.


As far as finances from television rights are concerned, I would say per match 30-50% to the teams in that match, 60%-40% to their league to be distributed among other teams or invested in amateur leagues as those FA's see fit. The remaining 10%ish profits to be distributed according to league size (as in members in amateur divisions). UEFA itself would get sufficient money to cover the costs of organising and promote tournaments, but not much more.

I think you'd find the domestic audience probably have more interests in watching a team (except their own) from their country fail. Why would any United fan want City, Liverpool succeed? Same goes for Spanish fans, would Real fans be rooting for Barcelona now?

You will find that Feyenoord and PSV fans have been rooting for Ajax the last few years in Europe. Not just because of the respect for the unexpected results, not just because it is in their own interest and survival that at least someone keeps a position in the Dutch in the top tier international leagues, not just because you support your fellow countrymen and national pride, not just because people support the underdogs, but also because they hate the system and benefactors of the current system far more than they hate their domestic rival.

It has been very comforting to see the widespread support and solidarity in the Netherlands to the point most fans don’t mind the KNVB shifting the competition schedule to favour Ajax’ international bid at all. In thw ‘90s and early ‘00s this would have been an outrageous privilige scandal.

Now it is a matter of national survival...

The reason I would speculate you cannot imagine this, is - as said, I’m presuming here - probably because your teams are likely to earn sufficient points to get your teams into the same positions next year. You are in a relatively safe position. Them losing isn’t a threat to your very chances of playing the cup next year. Them winning is a threat to your bragging rights domestically, since you fear they would do better than you if you get thrown out a bit earlier, or if they are a good team, to your chances of winning. But mostly the bragging rights, right?

You don’t know what it is like to face oblivion, because officials at the top of league management like the money your country generates enough to ensure that income is protected and your chances of participation are high.

Why can you not step away from your own perspective and frame of reference? Is it really that hard to imagine that to many fans, sports isn’t there to make other people money, but to entertain them, preferably in an accessible and relateable way?

So what are you advocating for? Uefa give the San Marino FA as much as they do the Italian FA to ensure fair distribution? At the moment those who succeed get more money, there's nothing stopping the Lithuanian champions from making it to the final (except their ability as a team).

Actually there is, they get multiple extra barriers that the number four does not. Worse, not all of those who don’t make it to the poule stages get to play Europa League in an advanced stage - if at all - instead. Which I may remind you is how you got to beat Ajax to and in the Europa League final, with less matches played. Why the no.3 of the CL group stages gets to play Europa League in the later rounds...

Anyway. A San Marino team could simply participate as anyone else. Why not? They do so in the nation leagues with their national team as well. You could still apply a ranking system for beneficial seeding in a lottery (perhaps per club rather than domestic league), but you wouldn’t need to make them play more matches to win per se.

The only nation who didn’t get to send their champion in the CL was Liechtenstein, since it only did cup football and had no actual league competition.

The proposal does include a promotion and relegation system, there's no guaranteed spot.

As above, there ARE ways to get into the competition!

On paper. But, there are far more spots from certain competitions and the alotted remaining few spots are to be fought to the death over by dozens of countries. Meaning most of them cannot get in.

Just try to see it like this: someone takes a whole roasted chicken for themselves and a few buddies and throw four chicken wings to the floor for 30 dogs to contend over and then have the nerve to say ”you’ve had a chance to be fed, what’s your problem?”.

 

[Cal?]

No, illegal financial government support is. They would have been declared bankrupt in the Netherlands as several clubs were over less than €200K debts.

Half a billion debt?

Do you doubt that Real Madrid have assets more than 1 or even 2 billion?

There's nothing wrong with any business having manageable debt. If that's against the law in the Netherlands, it's your country that should be changing in laws, not forcing others to follow suit.

And nobody is disputing that. What is disputed is why there would have to be a system that rather than mitigates the advantage of wealth, or at most mildly rewards winning, increases this problem tenfold by increasing the wealth of the wealthy at the cost of the less wealthy.

Just a quick reminder: Football doesn’t exist for the benefit of UEFA official wallets, nor does it exist for just a narrow margin of fans. Whether you have 10 or 12 or 500 fans doesn't mean you should be rewarded more to have a better chance at winning.

It's called market forces, the issue here is that there's more demand to see the mega clubs in action. TV companies pay so much for CL rights because the likes of Real are on TV very often, if it were to revert back to the old EC system, TV companies will pay much less and hence the whole of European football will receive less money.

Europa Cup I, II, III was more fun and fair for supporters across Europe. It was clearer and more accessible for both fans around Europe as it was for possible for clubs to reach the final stages as cup fighters.

The current CL system is corrupt, barely manageable, creating a huge gap by benefitting too few clubs, upsets domestic and national competitions and is unfair to clubs participating in the Europa League even.

The system proposed is ten times worse as it brings competitiveness for smaller teams during the competition down. Less competition is more boredom.

No it wasn't, market forces drove the expansion of the CL, not the clubs themselves. If it was more "fun", then TV companies will offer more money for the old EC format.

So what would I propose? It's not like I've got a complete worked out plan (I'm paid to design other things atm), but I'll entertain you a bit and brainfart.


First we need to identify the standards we would like to see met:

- Fair distribution of money: reward without distorting competitions too much
- Easy access to the competition regardless of geography or competition
- Limited dependency on previous national performance
- Cup for national league winners
- Cup for national cup winners (cup finalist if winner won national league)
- Cup for national league sub-top
- Season long entertainment for fans
- Season long international experience gathering opportunity for players
- Season long income gathering for clubs and domestic leagues (not the officials)

So we've got two things to design here: a competition setup and a money distribution setup.

Let's start with the competition setup.


Champions League v.3.0
I wouldn’t mind a Champions League consisting of either just the champions of the last season, just straight knock-out tournament.

I don’t like the introduction of poules as this benefits stronger teams, undoing damage taken in individual matches. It should always be a pure knock-out series to optimise the chances of an underdog winning and rewarding offensive play over calculating play. This makes every match a final and then you don’t get these “oh we already placed for the next round” matches you get every year in the CL which can result in various forms of competition fraud. See Zagreb 1-7 Lyon for reference or teams putting in their B-team, resulting in a loss or draw which enables an undeserving team to go through to the next round.

There are 54 UEFA associated leagues, Liechtenstein not included (only has a cup). The goal is to have 64 teams in a knock-out round.

So the leagues give us 54 teams. We need 10 more (or 22 with worse status). I would add the winning team of the previous year (or their league's runner up if they already qualified) -> 55. Then the winning team of the cup winners cup of last season (56), the sub-top cup champion of last season (57). That leaves 7 teams we need. These extra spots could be awarded to the leagues who made it into the semi-finals (8 teams total - cup winner = 7). That brings us to 64 teams. There would be entries by runner ups, but these would be rewards for teams and leagues who performed well last season, without endangering participation for other teams.


To keep teams busy all season, for the losing teams of each round, I could see a minor group stage type league in order to create a ranking. This would keep these teams and their fans busy all season. (First round gives you 32 losers, second round 16, third round 8, fourth round 4 and finally a final for third place).

UEFA CUP II v.2.0
Cup winners cup just like the old UEFA Cup II. If not national cup winner, then the other national cup finalist participates. Liechtenstein can send in their winner here. As last year's winner participates in the Champions League, we're at 54 again. Leagues who got to the semi-finals the year before fill up the remaining places, with the leagues of the finalists being provided an additional spot (8+2=10 +54 = 64 total). When a team is in the Champions League, then the first who is next in line for a Euro tourney in the domestic league is allowed in.

Again, could do the little round by round losers ranking leagues.

Europa League v.2.0
For the sub-top teams it might be more interesting to have a big group stage for the first half of the season, before going into knock-outs and round by round stages based on their ranking in the group (say 8 groups of 8, first two to the knock-outs, 3rd and 4th to their own group stage, 5th and 6th to their own group stage and 7th and 8th to their own group stage).

This way they'd have some bigger matches early in the season and then later on matches more on their own level both for practice, entertainment and extra income without tiring them too much. Either way their fans would have some European matches to look forward to all season.

As far as finances from television rights are concerned, I would say per match 30-50% to the teams in that match, 60%-40% to their league to be distributed among other teams or invested in amateur leagues as those FA's see fit. The remaining 10%ish profits to be distributed according to league size (as in members in amateur divisions). UEFA itself would get sufficient money to cover the costs of organising and promote tournaments, but not much more.

I understand why you'd advocate that as you're from the Netherlands, but the point is what you're proposing is ultimately very unfair based on population. Why should 80m German citizens only have 1 representative in the CL, whilst 30k San Marino or Gilbralta citizens get the same? Whilst I understand the current distribution of places isn't based on population, but it's actually pretty much aligned. Uefa has even capped the number of CL teams per league to maximize places available for lower ranked nations.

You will find that Feyenoord and PSV fans have been rooting for Ajax the last few years in Europe. Not just because of the respect for the unexpected results, not just because it is in their own interest and survival that at least someone keeps a position in the Dutch in the top tier international leagues, not just because you support your fellow countrymen and national pride, not just because people support the underdogs, but also because they hate the system and benefactors of the current system far more than they hate their domestic rival.

It has been very comforting to see the widespread support and solidarity in the Netherlands to the point most fans don’t mind the KNVB shifting the competition schedule to favour Ajax’ international bid at all. In thw ‘90s and early ‘00s this would have been an outrageous privilige scandal.

Now it is a matter of national survival...

The reason I would speculate you cannot imagine this, is - as said, I’m presuming here - probably because your teams are likely to earn sufficient points to get your teams into the same positions next year. You are in a relatively safe position. Them losing isn’t a threat to your very chances of playing the cup next year. Them winning is a threat to your bragging rights domestically, since you fear they would do better than you if you get thrown out a bit earlier, or if they are a good team, to your chances of winning. But mostly the bragging rights, right?

You don’t know what it is like to face oblivion, because officials at the top of league management like the money your country generates enough to ensure that income is protected and your chances of participation are high.

Why can you not step away from your own perspective and frame of reference? Is it really that hard to imagine that to many fans, sports isn’t there to make other people money, but to entertain them, preferably in an accessible and relateable way?

Pot, kettle, etc etc.

Why can't you see why English/Spanish/German fans won't cheer for rivals?

Actually there is, they get multiple extra barriers that the number four does not. Worse, not all of those who don’t make it to the poule stages get to play Europa League in an advanced stage - if at all - instead. Which I may remind you is how you got to beat Ajax to and in the Europa League final, with less matches played. Why the no.3 of the CL group stages gets to play Europa League in the later rounds...

Anyway. A San Marino team could simply participate as anyone else. Why not? They do so in the nation leagues with their national team as well. You could still apply a ranking system for beneficial seeding in a lottery (perhaps per club rather than domestic league), but you wouldn’t need to make them play more matches to win per se.

The only nation who didn’t get to send their champion in the CL was Liechtenstein, since it only did cup football and had no actual league competition.

I actually agree that CL 3rd placed teams shouldn't drop into the EL, something we can agree on.

Seeding exists in all sorts of sports contests, there's a reason why Djokovic & Nadal don't have to play qualifiers to get into the grand slams. It's pretty much the same logic in the CL with top teams in higher-ranked leagues straight into the group stage.

On paper. But, there are far more spots from certain competitions and the alotted remaining few spots are to be fought to the death over by dozens of countries. Meaning most of them cannot get in.

Just try to see it like this: someone takes a whole roasted chicken for themselves and a few buddies and throw four chicken wings to the floor for 30 dogs to contend over and then have the nerve to say ”you’ve had a chance to be fed, what’s your problem?”.

If Uefa can somehow come up with a fair way of doing Uefa coefficient, I'm very much in support of every team for themselves.

 

[maniak]

When someone says "I like my team more than I like football" I don't see the point in continuing to argue.

All I know is that year after year I get a lot more joy watching my local team in the the second division than watching big CL matches. If this goes ahead I'll probably save some money because I'll stop paying for cable sports altogether.

 

[andyox]

Do you doubt that Real Madrid have assets more than 1 or even 2 billion?

There's nothing wrong with any business having manageable debt. If that's against the law in the Netherlands, it's your country that should be changing in laws, not forcing others to follow suit.

But City fans could use quotes like this to justify our owner's equity investment in the club. Wouldn't that be perfectly legitimate for any business too, outside of football/sport?

I don't agree by the way. My arguments have always been: 1) the competitive nature/balance of football has been slowly destroyed since the early 1990s; 2) a healthy model for football shouldn't be to align it with standard market capitalism. But if you buy into 2), do you have a right to be upset when a new business enters the market?

 

[adexkola]

When someone says "I like my team more than I like football" I don't see the point in continuing to argue.

All I know is that year after year I get a lot more joy watching my local team in the the second division than watching big CL matches. If this goes ahead I'll probably save some money because I'll stop paying for cable sports altogether.

This.

 

[Cal?]

But City fans could use quotes like this to justify our owner's equity investment in the club. Wouldn't that be perfectly legitimate for any business too, outside of football/sport?

I don't agree by the way. My arguments have always been: 1) the competitive nature/balance of football has been slowly destroyed since the early 1990s; 2) a healthy model for football shouldn't be to align it with standard market capitalism. But if you buy into 2), do you have a right to be upset when a new business enters the market?

Has anyone ever claimed what City have done is illegal?

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean we can't be upset about it.

 

[Tapori]

This.

Agreed

 

[Le Red]

Sadly arrogance leads bigger countries to think they're automatically entitled to a bigger share of the pie to the point the rest can't even get to fight over the crumbs, because they're not allowed to participate. In the real world, this is called corruption. In the minds of people like yourself, it's "only logical that superior competitions get superior representation and superior parts of the pie to ensure we not just stay, but become even more superior".

You started making a very good point and I was genuinely interested in your argument. Then you start with this holier-than-thou moral high ground BS.
Can people even debate these days without turning the most pedestrian of discussions into a maniqueist Jedi Sith saber duel?

 

[FigmentOfYerImagination]

Do you doubt that Real Madrid have assets more than 1 or even 2 billion?

There's nothing wrong with any business having manageable debt. If that's against the law in the Netherlands, it's your country that should be changing in laws, not forcing others to follow suit.

Not sure if you noticed how Madrid avoided bankrupcy some years ago, as they had been overspending by a lot and did not have those assets to liquidate. Instead, they sought a government bail-out and got it, big time.

They sold their training field for half a billion and then bought it for €1 to and from the municipality of Madrid.

Illegal government support. In the normal world, such a club would have been bankrupted or under stringent budget rules, quite likely punished by their FA and UEFA. Also, any government employees who agreed to such a deal sued for abuse of public funds. Not Madrid though.

It's called market forces, the issue here is that there's more demand to see the mega clubs in action. TV companies pay so much for CL rights because the likes of Real are on TV very often, if it were to revert back to the old EC system, TV companies will pay much less and hence the whole of European football will receive less money.

So why is paying less a bad thing? The public and commercial tv-channels would waste less (public) money on bids, leaving more money to invest in quality programming. So that's good for consumers. Do note that the quality of football would remain the same, the distribution of talented players would just be less concentrated, which would give rise to more competition and less ludicrous contracts. It would be a very good thing if that were to tone down. But do try to make a case for continuous inflation escalation of player prices.

People get to see their clubs without having to pay big bucks for a decoder? Good for the consumers.


Market forces are one thing, but we're talking about a monopoly here. There are no competing leagues. If you want to see football, there's only one source. so no, there are no regular market forces at play here that would drive a price down through competition. If there's no competition, then it must be regulated and preferably a no-profit.

"Mega-clubs" are only a thing because of the monopoly. Madrid wasn't bigger than Ajax. Barça used to be pretty meh before Cruijff got there in the 90's. I'm starting to think you're too young to have known any different though.

No it wasn't, market forces drove the expansion of the CL, not the clubs themselves. If it was more "fun", then TV companies will offer more money for the old EC format.

That's not how the price went up though. UEFA realised they had a monopoly, while the TV-era brought into existence commercial broadcasters, which started to participate in bidding. Before most the time there was more power with the bidder, who were the only party bidding. Then UEFA started squeezing the broadcasters dry and officials taking bribes from big clubs and leagues to adjust policy as it became more corrupt and lucrative (see also how the FIFA viewing rights were sold by a company in Switzerland to enrich certain official's private accounts, like Blatter's).

The amount of 'fun' to be had, had nothing to do with it. At this point, our public broadcasters refuse to even bid on the CL, because viewer ratings are dropping, while prices go up even further, while income from advertising goes down.

I understand why you'd advocate that as you're from the Netherlands, but the point is what you're proposing is ultimately very unfair based on population. Why should 80m German citizens only have 1 representative in the CL, whilst 30k San Marino or Gilbralta citizens get the same? Whilst I understand the current distribution of places isn't based on population, but it's actually pretty much aligned. Uefa has even capped the number of CL teams per league to maximize places available for lower ranked nations.

It isn’t like Germany gets five national teams to participate in the European or World Cup either.

By your reasoning, only a population center like London is entitled to positions in the Premier League and the rest of the country, including Man Utd, would have to vie over two positions in the PL. I don’t think you would enjoy that London based fans would be assigned spots on the basis that London is a bigger city.

Population already provides a player pool to draw from advantage and a monetary advantage.

You should realise that there'd be ample places in the various competitions for those big populations (there'd be three big cups in this proposition) and that with the setup proposed succesful teams would create more spaces for the next year (but not permanent). Teams supported by big populations would always retain a financial advantage from merchandising, there's no need for the extravagant tv revenues to go solely to them, or receive priviliged treatment when they already have the advantage.

And as said, the financial distribution would differ based on league members (thus population). So yeah, it'd be fair. You can always add some sort of limit on the smallest leagues, it's not like Vatican-city would require even one slot.

But the fact that one has more fans domestically doesn’t mean these fans are more important and have more right to a chance of winning. It is just more economically attractive. The goal however should be fair competition. I really cannot accept rigging a competition in favpur of teams who already have an advantage. Certainly not on the basis of ethnicity and demographics as you suggest. In your view, only the same group of fans get rewarded for their support every year. That is not fair. Being from a small country should not preclude you or make it harder for you than it already is. That doesn’t mean that San Marino would get equal positions, you can still say “your league has only 8 teams, you can at most bring 50% of a League, so you can have up to four”.

But and this is the part you try to ignore: This is not a free market where a company can target just any audience with their product, as one is restricted to the league they are “born into”. One cannot relocate a Lithuanian club to Spain to compete better, one has to make due with the local resources available and therefore in the interest of fair competition you have to design more egalitarian rules than you would have in a free market.

Pot, kettle, etc etc.

Why can't you see why English/Spanish/German fans won't cheer for rivals?

Why can't you see I just said why they have the luxury to do that where you are because of four guaranteed CL positions, but they would under other conditions where their last position in Europe would be at stake?

I actually agree that CL 3rd placed teams shouldn't drop into the EL, something we can agree on.

EXTRA EXTRA STOP THE PRESSES!

Seeding exists in all sorts of sports contests, there's a reason why Djokovic & Nadal don't have to play qualifiers to get into the grand slams. It's pretty much the same logic in the CL with top teams in higher-ranked leagues straight into the group stage.

Yes, but seeding rules can be designed in many ways and I disagree with the current rules as they're inappropriately appropriating power for specific leagues, as those leagues had more influence to design the rules to suit themselves.

If Uefa can somehow come up with a fair way of doing Uefa coefficient, I'm very much in support of every team for themselves.

The current ranking system is reasonable for a national league ranking, it's the rewards that are off and the problem is that for some leagues, their champion only get two matches in pre-rounds to gather any points at all, whereas others are guaranteed 6 potential extra heavy weighing point scoring matches.

You started making a very good point and I was genuinely interested in your argument. Then you start with this holier-than-thou moral high ground BS.
Can people even debate these days without turning the most pedestrian of discussions into a maniqueist Jedi Sith saber duel?

It is what it is, sadly it is no bullshit: some people see a larger population and declare they got more rights.