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

[The Corinthian]

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?

I hear one of the drivers for the change in CL (according to UEFA) was the 'dead rubber' games in the group stages, which is just nonsense. Only this season, us, PSG, RB Leipzig, Real Madrid, Inter, Gladbach, and Shakhtar still had something to play for going into GW 5 and 6. Every few years, there's a story of a club going further than expected. Lyon and RB Leipzig last year, Ajax when they were seconds away from getting into the CL final a few seasons ago. Every year you get a story of an unfashionable club dumping out a 'big team' in the CL. Lyon and Porto have dumped Juve out, we exited the competition due to Sevilla in 2016, Ajax got rid of Real Madrid.

If the other driver is for more match ups between the 'big team of Europe', then why would you want this year in year out? Part of the reason these Champion League nights are held in such high esteem is that every so often you get games between the best of the best before the final and it means so much more defeating them on the way to the final. Think of us vs PSG in 2019, Liverpool vs Barca the same year. Even PSG vs Bayern this year was an excellent two legged tie. These matches are memorable because we don't play them each year. That's what makes it special.

Lastly, a few people have mentioned the lack of competition in the CL, and I get that. Generally, from the last 8 onwards, you get the same teams. From the 00/01 season to 09/10, we had 8 different winners (which is great). From the 10/11 season to 19/20, we only had 5 (not so great). But the other side of that is, clubs that haven't competed in the Champions League before are now competing (Leicester), and traditional clubs are bowing out (AC Milan, Arsenal, us to a certain extent), meaning we're at the start of (I believe) a wider change of other clubs coming to the table. Leicester are a great example, they finished 5th last year, and looks odds on to finish 3rd this year, meaning they'll be in another CL campaign. Who knows, maybe they'll be breaking that big 6 barrier in the CL and competing in the top 4 / CL year in year out.

So, my question is, what is actually wrong with the current format of the Champions League? Does anyone have a problem with it how it currently is?

 

[BFernandes]

Nothing is wrong with the format.

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

 

[The Corinthian]

Nothing is wrong with the format.

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

That doesn't make sense though - why are UEFA changing the format to include more games?

 

[diarm]

I don't like that the league winners of some European countries have to spend their entire off season trying to qualify for it, while the sides finishing 4th in other leagues get straight in.

That ship sailed long ago though.

 

[FahadiHossein]

It is just the rich clubs feel that UEFA has not done enough to make things even more lucrative, and the Americans have plans to sell the ESL to Disney+ and Amazon with a lot more money than what UEFA is giving them.
And they think Real Madrid vs Red Star Belgrade is a waste of time, but they want Real Madrid vs Arsenal, but what have Arsenal, Spurs and Milan done to deserve to play against the big boys every year when they haven't done well domestically?

 

[Schmeichel's Cartwheel]

money ruined football. Teams who win their leagues have to go through qualifying rounds while teams who finish 4th 30 points behind the champions walk straight in.

It should be the champions league. Only champions get in. And yes, i realise under those rules we would have never won in 99, but I honestly think it should just be the champions who get in. Would never happen anyway. It’s just money-ball now.

 

[Berbaclass]

That doesn't make sense though - why are UEFA changing the format to include more games?

More clubs equal more dilution of the money I’d guess.

The ESL want a bigger slice.

 

[Hughes35]

I actually really like the current CL format.

Only change I would make would be a 5th team in each group which is the winner of some "Lesser" leagues.

Other than that I really like it. I even like the away goals rule.

 

[stefan92]

That doesn't make sense though - why are UEFA changing the format to include more games?

More games mean more money. That's about it.

 

[VorZakone]

money ruined football. Teams who win their leagues have to go through qualifying rounds while teams who finish 4th 30 points behind the champions walk straight in.

It should be the champions league. Only champions get in. And yes, i realise under those rules we would have never won in 99, but I honestly think it should just be the champions who get in. Would never happen anyway. It’s just money-ball now.

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

 

[Sarni]

It prioritizes big league clubs who have now gained so much power that it allowed them to break away with the whole ESL. It would not have happened with the 90s with power distributed between 30-40 different European clubs rather than 8-10. Automatic qualification for top 4 in all big leagues, seeding system that favors them and making it virtually impossible for smaller league representatives to get a piece of the pie have ruined competitiveness.

 

[peridigm]

That doesn't make sense though - why are UEFA changing the format to include more games?

It’s not obvious? More money. Don’t forget, UEFA are money grabbing cnuts too.

 

[Paul_Scholes18]

I like the current format. I think what could be argued about is letting only top 3 in from big leagues or only top 2.

Also possibly extending it to 64 teams merging it with Europa league. Problem is some groups would be too easy or too many teams from the big leagues.

I think the current system is as good as it gets minor details about how many teams get the chance to qualify from smaller leagues.

 

[Norman Brownbutter]

Id like to see more "champions" in it, and less 4th place teams. For example, the winner of the Scottish primership still has to go through qualifying for the group stage. Shit as the SPL may be, its called the "Champions" league for a reason.

Apart from that, nothing.

 

[Schmeichel's Cartwheel]

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

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.

 

[LilyWhiteSpur]

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

Personally it should be the top 2 teams in each qualifying UEFA league, that's how I would want it to be, and a revamped UEFA cup.

 

[Gary_Walsh_Nou_Camp_Hell]

Too many teams that have no business being in the competition- Uefa got too greedy trying to always increase revenue at the expense of quality.

 

[The Corinthian]

More clubs equal more dilution of the money I’d guess.

The ESL want a bigger slice.

More games mean more money. That's about it.

It’s not obvious? More money. Don’t forget, UEFA are money grabbing cnuts too.

I get that, but wasn't this new format made, in some aspects, to appease the big clubs? Why would they want to play more games in an already packed schedule?

 

[redshaw]

Nothing massively wrong but if often generates repetitive ties like Chelsea vs PSG and other teams rarely or ever face each other and the global fans would probably like to see more big fixtures.

Qualification in England is becoming a problem, the PL success and additional oil clubs means there's six clubs that need entry. Four entrants was fine a for a decade or more but now it needs to be looked at. The big English clubs don't want to be in and out each year and top players put huge importance on it and hands advantage to other countries where it's more settled.

 

[Chipper]

I find it a bit too predictable at times. Now the ESL is seemingly being founded because they want it even more safe and predictable for the founder clubs with their guaranteed participation and income so any reforms I'd suggest would be going in the complete opposite direction.

 

[Smores]

It’s not obvious? More money. Don’t forget, UEFA are money grabbing cnuts too.

Where do you think that money goes exactly?

 

[groovyalbert]

To all those people saying the UCL should just be for champions... really? Look at some of the match ups/progressions to the final that Liverpool had in the 80s.

No way was that a better competition.

That said, we've definitely gone too far the other way now. There was nothing wrong with the format of the competition over the last 10 or so years.

 

[peridigm]

I get that, but wasn't this new format made, in some aspects, to appease the big clubs? Why would they want to play more games in an already packed schedule?

The money grabbing cnuts at the top don’t give two shits about how many games the players and managers have to show up to. As long as it’s more money in their pockets. They’d have us playing 7 days per week if it was physically possibly.

 

[Oranges038]

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.

 

[Chairman Steve]

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?

 

[Theo88]

I don't like that the league winners of some European countries have to spend their entire off season trying to qualify for it, while the sides finishing 4th in other leagues get straight in.

That ship sailed long ago though.

That can go both ways.

It's called champions league but it isn't a league for champions. That was most likely uefa realising that Arsenal or City or Inter or any team from a major league has to compete against super teams every year and its almost bloody impossible to get through to group stage. At the same time a team from Greece or Switzerland that can't really compete would be represented. Having the 4th team getting through was most likely done to increase competitiveness and make the whole thing more attractive (and cuddle those teams to some extent with money pools and incentives)

Is it the right decision? Probably but one could argue if those 3rd of 4th teams were to be represented in europa league then that competition gets automatically upgraded.

Uefa might be a corrupted toxic organisation but they've been actively trying to make the competition more attractive to TV deals and sponsorship. They're no angels here

 

[altodevil]

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

 

[Pagh Wraith]

Was thinking the same thing. Why does it need a reform? What is actually wrong with it? It's my favourite competition to watch and has all the "super" we need. The best teams in club football compete in it and so-called smaller teams still regularly make it past the group stages. A European Super League would never ever reach the prestige the Champions League has regardless of the money they pump in and we would not see the quality on display in the CL knockout stages. As horrible as the ESL idea is, I sure as hell don't want a competition for domestic league champions only either.

 

[Cassidy]

That doesn't make sense though - why are UEFA changing the format to include more games?

Cos money

 

[Hugh Jass]

I think the problem that led to this Super League is that some clubs with huge revenue dont get in. Of the top 20 clubs in terms of revenue, seven of them are english, but only four can make it to the CL. That makes the three clubs who miss out angry.

UEFA was seeking to rectify this by increasing the number of clubs.

Not sure what will happen now though.

 

[Skorenzy]

UEFA are responsible for the entire European football pyramid.
The "Super League" is beholden to 12 of the richest clubs in the world.

It's not hard to figure out what the main motivations are.


For SL participants the equation is simple: a selection of the most marketable clubs in the world + no relegation/qualification for the founders = larger and steadier cash flow.
In the current UCL format they might not qualify or get knocked out early by a minnow, can't be having that.

 

[bosnian_red]

The problem is that Madrid, Barca and Juve have been horribly managed for years. They spend a disgusting amount of their revenue on wages and thought that they'd be fine, and they could just buy their success however they wanted. Covid hits their pockets and their poor financial model gets exposed, so instead of changing their model to be sustainable (would include selling off a lot of big players, restructuring wages to an appropriate level), they want to create a new competition where they guarantee an income that sustains them and they can implement a salary cap from the off to ensure they never go over budget again.

United and Liverpool don't need this, but the American owners will just see the earning potential. United in particular will be annoyed at how much they have to constantly invest in the club in order to maximize the revenue. They think that by being a global brand they should just exist and make the money and have a right to be in. It's hurt them how we've constantly missed out on the CL since Sir Alex retired, so they want to join the ESL to get a steady, guaranteed big income where they don't have to invest. They are fully on board with the full americanization of football and you can bet your ass they are licking their lips at the thought of globalization.

Arsenal, Spurs, Inter and Milan genuinely don't matter as much to this but they all have the same opinions or struggles. Chelsea and Man City are very obviously in on FOMO. Their owners never cared for profits, why would they care now? They're in to stroke their egos as they thought this was the way forward and the new elite competition. Bayern, Dortmund and PSG refusing will give them a second thought and they'll be the first to back out, for sure. And then it'll all crumble.

 

[led_scholes]

The current format is a comprise between true champions and other strong teams. I actually prefer it this way, rather than having only 8 champions. I find it more entertaining and more inclusive. It is far from perfect indeed but i find it much better than the proposed arrogant-elitistic ESL. A radical change that I know that big teams would hate it, is to make the top 2 go straight into the group and the other top teams playing in playoffs. For example the third PL team to play against the fourth Italian, spanish team.

 

[Sarni]

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

Just champions is nonsense at this point because you'd end up having literally 4-5 interesting games all season but getting to 2+1 (meaning two auto qualifiers and 1 team having to qualify) would be cool. And then have qualification where top leagues have to face each other, like it used to be not so long ago, so essentially you'd have 2.5 teams from top leagues on average.

I know 1 or 2 teams would miss out on CL but they'd drop to Europa League which would also immediately become way more prestigious than it is currently as it would include tons of top teams.

And bring back Cup Winners Cup. That one was super cool.

 

[golden_blunder]

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.

 

[Dante]

Some people want to see the mega clubs play each other on a regular basis.

Others want the big games to be rare events so that they mean more when they happen.

There's also the perspective that when European teams from smaller leagues play the big teams, this helps their development and spreads the wealth.

Point 1 is why the ESL is happening. Points 2 and 3 are what the current CL format provides. I like the latter.

 

[Lastwolf]

So, my question is, what is actually wrong with the current format of the Champions League? Does anyone have a problem with it how it currently is?

The problem with the competitions is that few care once their team is knocked out and no-one gives a shit about the group games.

Baring the odd dramatic upset 90% of the time the top clubs get to the knockout stage. Like this year in all the group stages maybe 2 clubs that should have got past the group stages got knocked out this year. The primary one being United, RB Leipzig deserved to go through, but they aren't a draw and were elimated the next round anyway, a Liverpool/ United game would have drawn more eyes, for that 1 extra game, so in the big teams eyes everyone else but RB Leipzig lost.

In 2024, they want to expand the group stage to 36 teams and add 2 more group stage games, which is the least good part.

Double elmination is the way to go.

Top 2 teams go through as normal, bottom two go to the lower bracket.

It increases the number of games at the knockout stage and retains the "top" teams for longer, even the minnows get that 1 off shot of still progressing despite getting slapped 6 times in the groups.

Winners bracket remains the same best of 2, loser bracket is best of 1 at a neutral venue. It maximises your top team vs top team games, whilst reducing the risk of "shock" results messing with revenue, Clubs can earn by having their stadium in use for the neutral games. I've watched it happen where the underdog team keeps winning in the lower bracket, the hype for the neutral gets real.

 

[SadlerMUFC]

The biggest problem with the current Champions League is obviously that United, Chelsea, City, Arsenal, Tottenham, Liverpool, Athletico, Real Madrid, Barca, Juve, Inter and Milan don't automatically qualify every year. Obviosuly these clubs are bigger and better than everyone else and should take up 12 of the 32 slots each and every year. Not only that, but they should also be guaranteed a bigger piece of the pie when it comes to revenue sharing as they are obviously entitled to it...

 

[Big Ben Foster]

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.

 

[Revan]

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 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.