UEFA Champions League Revamp

Wasn't it always an uphill task considering up to 3 or 4 rounds of qualifying before getting into the group stage?

Honestly though from a viewers perspective, just look at the amount of the 'lesser' teams this year :

Rostov
Ludogorets
Legia Warsaw
Dinamo Zagreb
Club Brugge
Copenhagen


I might have excluded a few more but these teams hardly ever get out of the groups when given the opportunity.

People who are saying this is in justifiable are the same people who will be moaning months later about the quality of the group stages and how shit the groups are. The overall quality of the competition is being improved and likewise the viewership. It all boils down to that.

Not so long ago this clown Hans was moaning about how shit the expanded Euro's are but now he conveniently comes to defend the 'smaller' teams trying to sound like some hero or something. Stfu with the hypocrisy. And don't tell me it's not the same.

S wrote:Honestly though from a viewers perspective, just look at the amount of the 'lesser' teams this year :

Rostov
Ludogorets
Legia Warsaw
Dinamo Zagreb
Club Brugge
Copenhagen


I might have excluded a few more but these teams hardly ever get out of the groups when given the opportunity.

People who are saying this is in justifiable are the same people who will be moaning months later about the quality of the group stages and how shit the groups are. The overall quality of the competition is being improved and likewise the viewership. It all boils down to that.

This is a Uefa competition. UEFA is the European football asociation, not the West European one.
These teams are teams viewers and fans from Russia, Bulgaria, Croatia etc can follow or root for.
Not sure what's the problem with that? If I want to see Juve vs Milan, I could watch Serie A.
These teams are always good for surprises, and increase the diversity of the competition.

Last season we had 5 Spanish clubs and it was annoying. In the future, this kind of sight will increase.

It's a pity UEFA will give more to the big teams and leagues, instead of giving underdog teams and nations a fair chance and seat at the table.

S wrote:Not so long ago this clown Hans was moaning about how shit the expanded Euro's are but now he conveniently comes to defend the 'smaller' teams trying to sound like some hero or something. Stfu with the hypocrisy. And don't tell me it's not the same.

It's not the same.

I've reached the end of my patience with you, Sugar. I'm done. I'll mess you up bad you little *bleep*

These teams qualified for cl ...I know teams who hardly ever qualifies when put in a qualifier system.

As if Roma and Fiorentina are going to improve the quality of group stage. The 3rd and 4th placed teams from Italy and many 4th placed teams from other leagues are proven EL teams as shown by their inability to even crack the qualifier.

Guess, more teams getting scrubs with historic names next season.

Those who fears meritocracy are those who are untalented, in this case serie Z

I'm sure now that you don't understand how the qualifying and coefficients work. Teams are split in the playoffs to make it easier for competitors of smaller leagues. You can like or not. But thats how it is.

Its the reason why you have Roma, Porto, Ajax, Monaco, Villareal, BMG, Manchester City, etc. on one bracket. While the other bracket has Be'er Sheva, Legia, Red Bull, Dundalk, Ludogorets, Plzen, etc.

If you were really up for pure sporting merit then you'd want the seeding system to be same across the board instead of separating the teams from bigger leagues to play with each other. And guess what the outcome would be then? more teams from big leagues would be in the group stage.

S wrote:Honestly though from a viewers perspective, just look at the amount of the 'lesser' teams this year :

Rostov
Ludogorets
Legia Warsaw
Dinamo Zagreb
Club Brugge
Copenhagen


I might have excluded a few more but these teams hardly ever get out of the groups when given the opportunity.

People who are saying this is in justifiable are the same people who will be moaning months later about the quality of the group stages and how shit the groups are. The overall quality of the competition is being improved and likewise the viewership. It all boils down to that.

Truth be told, the 'historical merit' teams aren't any more watchable. They're not in the CL because they're generally shit. Increased fan bases don't change that.

Adit wrote:Those who fears meritocracy are those who are untalented, in this case serie Z

The burro league's coefficient is similar to Serie A's. Therefore, the burro league is similarly situated.

Adit wrote:Those who fears meritocracy are those who are untalented, in this case serie Z

I do not fear meritocracy. I welcome it.

I do not support this revamp, even if it will probably end up benefiting my club down the road. I think it drives down the competitiveness that comes with having fewer CL spots, which drives down motivation and incentive for teams like Roma and Fiorentina to make the extra needed pushes to ensure they get in and stay in the CL. Just handing out a 4th automatic group spot takes away from that because now these clubs don't have to work anywhere near as hard.

So no I'm not in favor of this move. I prefer teams who earn there passage into the CL to represent their leagues. I feel for the fans of smaller clubs who are now disadvantaged by this.

Official: http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=2398899.html

Not sure why people are blaming Serie A for this, the real reason for this is that England is in danger of dropping to 4th and UEFA can't let that happen or miss out on tons of revenue. If it were for Serie A this would have happened years ago.

I didn't really have a problem with the "historical" coefficient boost until I read that one of the 4 criteria for payout will be the coefficient. That's some high grade bull shit. So historical teams get more money simply because of past success AND a higher likelihood of progressing and making more money off that as well?!

I was reasonably confident that Serie A would have overtaken the EPL this or next year but I did not believe the EPL should lose a place. This new format solves the problem. Thanks for posting the confirmation of the new format.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:I didn't really have a problem with the "historical" coefficient boost until I read that one of the 4 criteria for payout will be the coefficient. That's some high grade bull shit. So historical teams get more money simply because of past success AND a higher likelihood of progressing and making more money off that as well?!

It is only one of the pillars, and we don't know how much weight it will be given, i.e. the same, less or more than the others. Hopefully, it was a small negotiation concession to the historical clubs and will not represent a large part of the calculation.

My suggestion would be; if any team is given access to CL due to their past successes, they should, at the very least, appear in qualifying play-off.

It could help clubs like Ajax, Porto, Benfica, Red Star etc. Even a small amount more would be more beneficial to those kind of clubs who have far smaller budgets.

Europe always makes me laugh with their "regulations"...  UK, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany are the only exceptions.

All the other trade groups or governments pass such blatantly stupid or corrupt (often both) regulations, rules, laws, etc. that all you can do is laugh

And then when everything falls apart and they are overtaken and passed by a competing party, they cry as if there's an injustice to it

UEFA is lucky that it's a monopoly and doesn't face any threats because the stuff they pull is outrageous. This new CL format is the most elitist and anti-competition utter crap that I have ever seen.

Really dislike this revamp. Instead should give the #1 ranked League an extra CL spots as a rewarded. No reason why 2nd/3rd/4th league should have the same # of teams of the top league.

This would actually force Leagues to get better. No argument against it except for "Muh Historic team" and "Muh Money Grab"

Top 5 Leagues
1. 4+.5*
2. 4
3. 3+.5
4. 3
5. 2+.5

.5*= Starts in the last qualification round to get into Group Stages

People can criticise UEFA but the alternative is the big boys pull away and form a super league. TBH I'm happy with this. The group stages will draw more viewership = more sponsorship money, which is the whole reason for this. It's all about money at the end of the day whether people like it or not.

breva wrote:It could help clubs like Ajax, Porto, Benfica, Red Star etc. Even a small amount more would be more beneficial to those kind of clubs who have far smaller budgets.

At what cost? Take Ajax for example. We won't have enough money to compete with the big clubs and participating in the CL won't change that. It's great for us but the gap is several 100m without CL and it's several 100m with CL.

It would be a problem for the other dutch clubs however, because you can't give us the spot if you don't take it away from someone else. The dutch league currently has 1 team in the group stage and 1 qualification spot. Giving Ajax a locked place in the CL groups would mean the rest of the dutch league can only fight for a qualification spot.

What if the league falls down a bit further and loses the 2 spots in the CL? We are in the CL no matter what we do and even the champion of the league has to play EL? It would destroy the league because compared to the other dutch top clubs the CL money is huge and they couldn't even challenge us regardless of how they perform.

Of course it would be the same or even worse for some other leagues. Sure Ajax or Red Star would benefit from the rule. But imo it would only make them pretty much unchallangable in their own league while changing (next to) nothing internationally.

Well the rule has been made, so all we can do is see what happens.

Actually just my mistake. I thought you were still talking about a potential future CL spot based on historical merit.

But we'll get more money from Europe. Depending on how much they weigh past success it might be a lot more actually.

@Zigra

I just wonder why Ajax does comparatively bad when compared to, say, Basel. The Swiss league is probably very comparable to the Dutch league, but still it appears as if the Dutch top clubs give a worse account of themselves than the Swiss clubs. And mind you, Ajax has an exemplary academy, so they should be able to generate quite some income that way!

Average/bad coach and worse board. It's that simple really.