Not enough big club fixtures and to many games against clubs from the middle of nowhere.
What's wrong with the current format of the Champions League?
- Thread starter The Corinthian
- Start date
The big cash people think the big clubs don't play each other enough.
For some reason they think us fans want to watch Man United play Man City or Barca play Madrid up to 10 times a season and that is apparently what we want.
Feck me.
For some reason they think us fans want to watch Man United play Man City or Barca play Madrid up to 10 times a season and that is apparently what we want.
Feck me.
This.
A much more entertaining competition would be just be the best teams from the big leagues battling it out as the format the super league envisioned.
You need merit based qualification though.
If you take the super league idea to replace the CL and have merit based qualification, it's a winner for me.
I agree with that, I think the super league is going wrong with the amounts of participants. Too many big clubs are being left out. They might not seem like huge markets but pump 300 million in Ajax and their pull would be huge. I think that's what Perez is missing.
I'd just rather have a straight knockout comp like it was in the European Cup. The Champion's League doesn't get truly exciting until the knockout stage anyway.
But that obviously doesn't make enough money for anyone.
When Madrid were facing Barca half a gazillion times a season cause of super cups nd the likes the interest in all those matches were huge. No way people are more interested in watching United vs some little know Romanian club over City vs United.
I stopped watching Spanish matches during that period. There was 0-0 game where you couldn't go more than 30 seconds without a foul or a dive followed by protesting players appealing for cards and handbags. I'm 42 years-old and to this day it was the worst football match I've watched in my life. Sky tried to tell me how wonderfully dramatic and passionate it was when it was complete turd.
Not really got a point here, just a memory of the time you refer to. I mean I was interested initially, that's why I tuned in. Shame it turned out the way it did.
It may not be as interesting to the worldwide audience, but its interesting to the Romanian people I'm sure, and its a nice to bring your multi million pound stars to some less known European club to generate some revenue for them.
You receive and you give back. The way of life.
Also if said little Romanian club are somehow about to knock United out of the CL, you can bet that people will be tuning in.
Needs to be more exclusive.
4 groups of 6 which guarantees at least two big home and away games for everyone. Top 2 from each go straight to QF.
No one drops to EL, if you’re out, you’re out of Europe for the year.
Less games of a higher quality would be amazing.
4 groups of 6 which guarantees at least two big home and away games for everyone. Top 2 from each go straight to QF.
No one drops to EL, if you’re out, you’re out of Europe for the year.
Less games of a higher quality would be amazing.
It was perfect when it was 16 teams around 1998-99, with United, Barca and Bayern all in the same group and then leading onto the quarter-finals.
They need to be make it more exclusive actually, not more inclusive. But a merit-based inclusion. Only top 2 teams from the top leagues. Bring it closer again to being the 'Champions' League.
But I'd take 32-team tournament over this new 36-team abomination.
They need to be make it more exclusive actually, not more inclusive. But a merit-based inclusion. Only top 2 teams from the top leagues. Bring it closer again to being the 'Champions' League.
But I'd take 32-team tournament over this new 36-team abomination.
Point 1 would defeat the whole point of it I feel. The beauty of United facing a Madrid or Barca is that this rarely happens, so when it does, it's a special occasion. If we play them every other week, it will lose all its meaning.
Anyway, it looks like this won't be happening anyway, so good for the fans.
Yeah, same.
It’s only now this ESL monstrosity is dying on its arse that I’m realising what a shit show the new CL is going to be. Dreadful stuff altogether.
Too few games, and especially too few big games
As i've said in another thread, the CL should take full center stage over the domestic leagues, with increased number of games, more teams, more competition, and more important games
Put simply, there really isn't a lot of interest in the group stage as it stands, and 13 games to win it are just too few. The added possibility of a club going on a run by playing malmoe, shakhtar donetsk, roma and wolfsburg doesn't help either
This new proposed format is a step in the right direction, but still not quite enough imo
As i've said in another thread, the CL should take full center stage over the domestic leagues, with increased number of games, more teams, more competition, and more important games
Put simply, there really isn't a lot of interest in the group stage as it stands, and 13 games to win it are just too few. The added possibility of a club going on a run by playing malmoe, shakhtar donetsk, roma and wolfsburg doesn't help either
This new proposed format is a step in the right direction, but still not quite enough imo
You play liverpool twice every season. Has it lost meaning?
I believe they need to get rid of the seeding. Especially the nonsense after the group stage where teams from the same country can’t face each other until the QF. It’s precisely why we see the same teams play each other every season.
I also think top 4 from the major country should not be guaranteed qualification.
I also think top 4 from the major country should not be guaranteed qualification.
Yep.... the league champions thing made sense when there was the Sowiet Union, Czechoslowakia, Yugoslavia.... instead plenty of mini-leagues have been set-up in countries with a lower population than the city of Berlin.
Also some leagues in the past like Poland, Romania, Netherlands, Portugal were much stronger.
Why not make the CL a smaller format so the group stages will be a bit less shit? And have the clubs who don't get in compete in the Europa League? And the Conference League as the 3rd tier?
Bin off the group stages and combine the EL and CL into one massive knockout competition. Share the revenue more equally across the participating clubs so they have the opportunity to grow and put up more of a fight against the big clubs, thus making games more entertaining in the long run.
I like that actually.
Actually think there's too many clubs.
I think the money should be distributed more fairly to the leagues, irrespective of CL qualification.
CL then becomes a competition about honours, not money.
More equal prize money would allow for more equal competition over time, very similar to the Premier League since its inception. It will take time for the direction to reverse but it will happen, the same way the PL has become more competitive for top 4 with LCFC, WHU and Everton.
But then again you might not care as you were one of those salivating over the turd that is the Super League.
I think the money should be distributed more fairly to the leagues, irrespective of CL qualification.
CL then becomes a competition about honours, not money.
The reason you don't know it is because the current CL structure has allowed the lop-sided distribution of rewards and consequent inequality.
More equal prize money would allow for more equal competition over time, very similar to the Premier League since its inception. It will take time for the direction to reverse but it will happen, the same way the PL has become more competitive for top 4 with LCFC, WHU and Everton.
But then again you might not care as you were one of those salivating over the turd that is the Super League.
Long term the money that clubs in smaller leagues get for getting straight into the CL for winning their league will theoretically improve their league, so clubs that are big now won't be seen as big and smaller clubs will be seen as bigger. The leagues all across Europe will improve, and it will be more fun for football fans than watching almost the same 16 clubs make the knockout rounds every year.
The Champions League in its current format is objectively a better, more competitive tournament with select non-champions in it than the old European Cup format was when it relied on champions from weaker footballing nations to pad out the numbers.
However, UEFA have two problems to balance. Firstly, they cannot disregard the champions of their member states, no matter how poor they may be. This means that the champions of San Marino, Andorra and the Faroe Islands have to be given some sort of entry to the competition, even if they don't make the actual tournament. Secondly, they rely on the regular participation of a select set of clubs for global interest, that unfortunately for them, come from a handful of leagues.
They've been attempting to balance this by giving the top four ranked nations (currently Spain, England, Germany and Italy) four guaranteed spots each in the group stage. That's half of the places taken up by teams from just four UEFA members. There's even room for over half of the teams to be from these four nations if the Europa League winner comes from one of them, but finishes outside of the top four in their league. There are another 51 members of UEFA fighting for the remaining 15-16 spaces (50 if you discount Liechtenstein).
Of those remaining spaces, another eight are automatically assigned. Two go to the fifth and sixth ranked nations, and one each to the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth ranked nations. That leaves you with 7-8 spaces for 40 other nations.
The problem with this is that it still doesn't solve the problem of the "select few" making the tournament each year. AC Milan haven't qualified in yonks, Inter had a good spell out of it too, United, Liverpool and Chelsea have been inconsistent and missed out in recent years, and now Barca and Real are skint, with their future qualification perhaps in danger. These clubs, along with Bayern and PSG, are your global draws, with a secondary reliance on City, Atletico and Dortmund (still not sure where Spurs and Arsenal come into things).
For me, if you want to fill half of the spots with teams from the top four nations, and teams from those nations want to play each other more often, just close them in to the same half of the draw right up until the final.
However, UEFA have two problems to balance. Firstly, they cannot disregard the champions of their member states, no matter how poor they may be. This means that the champions of San Marino, Andorra and the Faroe Islands have to be given some sort of entry to the competition, even if they don't make the actual tournament. Secondly, they rely on the regular participation of a select set of clubs for global interest, that unfortunately for them, come from a handful of leagues.
They've been attempting to balance this by giving the top four ranked nations (currently Spain, England, Germany and Italy) four guaranteed spots each in the group stage. That's half of the places taken up by teams from just four UEFA members. There's even room for over half of the teams to be from these four nations if the Europa League winner comes from one of them, but finishes outside of the top four in their league. There are another 51 members of UEFA fighting for the remaining 15-16 spaces (50 if you discount Liechtenstein).
Of those remaining spaces, another eight are automatically assigned. Two go to the fifth and sixth ranked nations, and one each to the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth ranked nations. That leaves you with 7-8 spaces for 40 other nations.
The problem with this is that it still doesn't solve the problem of the "select few" making the tournament each year. AC Milan haven't qualified in yonks, Inter had a good spell out of it too, United, Liverpool and Chelsea have been inconsistent and missed out in recent years, and now Barca and Real are skint, with their future qualification perhaps in danger. These clubs, along with Bayern and PSG, are your global draws, with a secondary reliance on City, Atletico and Dortmund (still not sure where Spurs and Arsenal come into things).
For me, if you want to fill half of the spots with teams from the top four nations, and teams from those nations want to play each other more often, just close them in to the same half of the draw right up until the final.
Its watered down, and made to easy for the majority of the big boys because of seedlings.
Less clubs no seedings meaning every game matters and there is jeopardy.
Top 2 qualify from the Spanish, italian, german, english leagues. Champions of the dutch/french/portugese leagues the other 5 places decided via qualification from champions of the other european leagues. Something along those lines anyway.
4 groups of 4 no seeding just draw them out and see what happens, round Robin top two qualify for quarters.
Cant imagine any of the clubs would actually go for it mind.
Less clubs no seedings meaning every game matters and there is jeopardy.
Top 2 qualify from the Spanish, italian, german, english leagues. Champions of the dutch/french/portugese leagues the other 5 places decided via qualification from champions of the other european leagues. Something along those lines anyway.
4 groups of 4 no seeding just draw them out and see what happens, round Robin top two qualify for quarters.
Cant imagine any of the clubs would actually go for it mind.
You think you would, but with today’s football landscape you really wouldn’t. The champions from the big leagues would batter the vast majority.
The second tier European competition would have more interest almost immediately because it would have the majority of the good teams.
We can categorically prove that there is no interest in this format of the CL by just looking at the interest in the early qualifying rounds of the champions route of the CL. Genuinely, how many of these matches do you watch a neutral? I’m guessing the average here is basically zero.
I don't understand this argument that you need United vs Liverpool every single time to make a match interesting. I can guarantee you that when Liverpool is losing to Aston Villa 7-2, we are all watching! Fans of United, Chelsea, City, Arsenal, Everton... all of them. We love those games when the opposition is losing and we will watch them in even greater numbers than a simple United vs Liverpool, I guarantee you that.
Is there a thread to discuss the changes approved by UEFA for the CL? I feel like it got lost in amongst the ESL stuff but needs to be discussed. From what I heard the changes sounded pretty bad.
The main problem with the current CL is there is too much filler. As an article I read earlier noted, the arguable four best teams in the world last season were Liverpool, City, PSG and Bayern, but there were only three matches before the four of them – and only one of those was in the Champions League. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the best teams need to have more regular match ups between them, both from a sporting and commercial perspective.
It’s too much left to chance that the objectively best teams actually will play each other. Football is a game where scoring is difficult, chance plays a a fair role, and therefore upsets happen regularly. The seeded groups followed by single-elimination knockout means many of the objectively better teams end up eliminated before playing each other. Cup football is exciting, but from a sporting perspective it is unreliable for allowing the cream to rise to the top.
If there is not space in the calendar for a full European league, then other formats need to be considered. Swiss formats are fantastic for generating fair, exciting and testing competition for large fields, and it is pleasing to see UEFA considering something other than group stages and single elimination knockouts. In the past, I think organisers were fearful that audiences would get onboard with more esoteric formats, but the rise of gaming and e-sports has shown that younger people do embrace more competitive formats like Swiss systems and double-elimination.
I think Swiss will be a real winner. The format dictates sides being appropriately matched up through each round, with a near-guarantee of truly meaningful games each week. The cream rises to the top in a Swiss system and the best performing sides will be playing each other. The dregs also fall to the bottoms and also are more likely to play each other. It is a real meritocracy. This will really suit the CL where we will still have an expected wide range in the playing ability of sides, given the financial advantages that sides from the big leagues have.
It’s too much left to chance that the objectively best teams actually will play each other. Football is a game where scoring is difficult, chance plays a a fair role, and therefore upsets happen regularly. The seeded groups followed by single-elimination knockout means many of the objectively better teams end up eliminated before playing each other. Cup football is exciting, but from a sporting perspective it is unreliable for allowing the cream to rise to the top.
If there is not space in the calendar for a full European league, then other formats need to be considered. Swiss formats are fantastic for generating fair, exciting and testing competition for large fields, and it is pleasing to see UEFA considering something other than group stages and single elimination knockouts. In the past, I think organisers were fearful that audiences would get onboard with more esoteric formats, but the rise of gaming and e-sports has shown that younger people do embrace more competitive formats like Swiss systems and double-elimination.
I think Swiss will be a real winner. The format dictates sides being appropriately matched up through each round, with a near-guarantee of truly meaningful games each week. The cream rises to the top in a Swiss system and the best performing sides will be playing each other. The dregs also fall to the bottoms and also are more likely to play each other. It is a real meritocracy. This will really suit the CL where we will still have an expected wide range in the playing ability of sides, given the financial advantages that sides from the big leagues have.
Last edited:
I always try snd watch my local teams in Europe
So what about your non-local teams? There are 54 national champions in the Champions League! That’s a whole lot of dross to get through just to get the strongest teams matched up.
You have to remember that the ESL came from owners and CEOs, not players and managers. Player workload is unlikely to be on their mind. From their perspective, you want two things: get guaranteed qualification, and play big matches that draw big audiences. In the current system, e.g. Chelsea may not qualify, and most groups contain at least two 'small' clubs. The ESL dealt with both. Further, in the CL, all revenue is (to some extent) shared between all participants. As the ESL limits participation to 20 clubs, there is more money for each one of them (assuming total revenue doesn't go down).
For me, though, the problem with the CL is that it's too big (ever more clubs!), and that it brings participants so much money, that there is an ever-widening gap between those in and those out. In short, I liked the pre-CL format better.
The top team in Belarus has a right to compete in the top European competition. These games are competitive to the fans of said lower teams. Most of these lesser teams get eliminated in the group stages anyway. Whose fault is it that the top clubs can’t navigate their way out of their group.
It’s not only elitist from the owner, fans are also hypocritical in this thinking. We wants lesser countries to give us their money and enrich ourselves but won’t let them play.
By doing so we further develop our national teams and watch them not be competitive at all.
It’s not only elitist from the owner, fans are also hypocritical in this thinking. We wants lesser countries to give us their money and enrich ourselves but won’t let them play.
By doing so we further develop our national teams and watch them not be competitive at all.
Not to mention that talent can come from anywhere. Look at Haaland, he's from a country we don't usually associate with great talent but he's undeniably one, now sure his father has resources to help his development, but you still need the infrastructures in your country to put him in the best conditions. These games that these 'lesser clubs' are participating in has a massive impact on their finances that helps them find and develop talent in their own part of the world from the TV rights of a competition like the Champion's League.
There is no perfect system, and I can see the problems with the current or next CL edition, but for now I haven't seen a better proposal with any traction and I think this system still has a lot of benefits for football as a whole.
So then the likes of Ajax, Porto, Celtic and Anderlecht can go feck themselves?
These things gets lost in constant self serving lies by big clubs to turn people against governing bodies through the media.
Guardiola said it perfectly yesterday, everyone is in it for themselves.
You are spot on btw.
I think there are too many rubbish fixtures in the group stage. Each year you have 1-2 tougher groups but the rest is just formality. We need fewer games and more high quality games during group stage. I also like the idea of one leg knock out stage instead of two just like last season. There is just more drama that way. But it's not gonna happen because they want more matches for money unfortunately.
It should be for ...champions only. Maybe winners of Europa league also as a prize but maybe not. Too many teams that you just dilute it. Our cups are not longer what they were as a consequence. As a supporter, I don't care about finances - it should be for champions only. That's probably the right thing. This way there are proper incentives to improve the team to qualify and if fortunate win it. Most owners are just happy to qualify to make money. But the national leagues are more an issue. Madrid and Barcelona have a big advantage over English clubs so it's not just Europe that needs looking at.
But so many teams who aren't even champions almost makes the idea a farce. It's not worthy to be called the champions league when it's based on a lie. So less teams...NOT more.
But so many teams who aren't even champions almost makes the idea a farce. It's not worthy to be called the champions league when it's based on a lie. So less teams...NOT more.
Last edited:
Since the announcement of the Super League I think it has been clear for many that it was a battle for power by two greedy factions. At least I hope this serves as a catalyst to revisit some structural problems and do something about the how the gap between the top clubs and the smaller ones is getting bigger and out of hand, I mean they already did something similar when they decided to make the World Cup in in Qatar.
It will never lose its meaning because they are local rivals. Can't be said of Real or Barca.
I fundamentally disagree with your first paragraph and few other things I've highlighted. I'm not saying I think you're an idiot, just that we have opposing views on this. We do not need more matches between the best teams.(this will be a long and rambling post apologies).
The reason I believe that is because the scarcity of these matches is what makes football enjoyable. The fact that the matches between the best teams occur at the pinnacle of the game (CL quarter/semi/finals) make watching the other games worth it. If Bayern and PSG play each other more regularly then winning those games for Bayern fans becomes less valuable, losing those games for PSG becomes less crushing and whatever result for the neutral becomes less compelling. Why tune in and watch Bayern/PSG this week if you can tune in next week and the week after and watch the same thing?
Similarly, having a certain level of disparity between teams in a league or cup competition creates excitement. Variables create excitement. If peak level Barca 2009 played peak level Sacchi Milan every week then it would become a neverending slog fest.
Bielsa's Leeds United are a fantastic example of my point. Leeds are widely regarded as one of the most compelling teams to watch in world football at the moment. Not because they have unlimited funds. Not because they are hugely successful. Not because they have the greatest players. Not because they have the biggest fan base. Not because they have the most money. Not because they have the richest history. It is because they play compelling football.
I also despise the term "dead rubbers". Yes, some games mean more than others. Yes, some teams are more interesting to watch than others. That doesn't mean that less interesting games shouldn't be played though. Just because I, and the majority, would rather watch a super tense final CL group game between United and Leipzig than Ferencvaros v Dynamo Kyiv that doesn't mean that the latter game has no value. The fact that Ferencvaros could qualify at the start of the group means that final game which "means nothing" between them is necessary. Also, that game almost certainly does hold value to Ferencvaros fans who have waited years for their club to play in this competition.
The view that people are not interested in smaller teams is also nonsense. I am a united fan and have been all my life, regardless of that Leicester City winning the league is one of my fondest memories. I am sure that for people who love French football Montpellier winning the league was also a fantastic moment in sport. Likewise, Stuttgart in Germany. Greece at the Euros in 2004, Denmark...
Yes of course more people are interested in watching the latter stages of the CL than the group stages, but that is what a competition/tournament is. Just because some teams don't win as much as others doesn't mean that they aren't interesting in a sporting sense. Agnelli going after Atalanta is full on insanity. Atalanta earned their right to play at the top table by playing great football. I would rather watch Atalanta play week in week out than Juve. Likewise, as a neutral, Leeds are more interesting to watch than United. I obviously watch United because I care deeply whether they win or lose.
My opinion is fundamentally that I want variety in the football I watch. I want to play Burnley on a Sunday and have a physical and tactically tight game and then play Roma on a Thursday and have an open and attacking game. Both have value and I want to watch both pretty much equally.
Are we talking about the same Roma here?
The post was going so well as well
