Michel Platini said today that UEFA is considering scrapping the Europa League with a view to a possible 64-team Champions League. The driving force behind the structure of competition at the European club level for the last 20 years has been bargaining between the big clubs, hwo wonder if they couldn’t do better going it alone, and UEFA, which in this context really represents the smaller countries.
The logic of a breakaway, as it was for the English Premier League, is to control broadcast revenues. But unlike the EPL it is also about the structure of competition. The top European clubs seldom play each other if they are in different countries, but given the attractiveness of watching, say, Messi line up against Philipp Lahm, or Ronaldo trying to break down an Italian defence, there are potentially large financial returns to finding a way to make it happen.
A 64 team Champions League could be interesting depending on how it was done. The obvious thing to do is just double the size of the groups in the first stage to eight teams, so that every team would get 14 group games instead of 6. However, if the groups were seeded, then it could end up just as boring as the current group stages which (barring some honourable exceptions) pitch minnows against whales with predictable results.
However, to borrow from the Americans, one approach would be to have each team play the members of their group only once (with home advantage decided by lottery) and then play the remaining 7 games against other teams with the closest UEFA coefficient, as a way to allow the big teams to play each other more often. This would have the added bonus of giving a small advantage to some of the weaker teams and so making the groups more competitive.
Interesting proposal for how the 64-team Champions League could work.
I’m totally against killing the legacy of the Europa League (considering the UEFA and Cup Winner’s Cup were left in the dust the way they were). I’d rather the Europa League be properly promoted and I think its not as difficult as it sounds. If you look here http://notbottomline.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/the-big-brothers-little-sister-what-uefa-needs-to-do-with-the-europa-league/ you may be in agreement.
Interesting article- but I don’t think it deals with reality. The Champions League generates five times the broadcast income that the Europa League with less than two thirds the number of games (group stage plus knockout consists of 421 games in the Europa League and only 269 in the Champions League). The difference here is not the prominence given by the football regulators, it’s the willingness of broadcasters to pay, which reflects what most people want to watch. Financial incentives might have a small effect, but probably not much- the FA introduced prize money for the FA Cup a few years ago, but that didn’t make much difference. The root problem is that Europe has a small number of elite clubs (maybe 30?) and a large number of “small” clubs- they might have a very strong local following, but outside of their locality nobody is interested. Given that the elite clubs can generate more income they are also able to monopolise the talent, so that games between small clubs and elite clubs are often one-sided. UEFA and the national associations want to preserve a system in which all teams are treated equally in the midst of huge inequality. This leads to hypocrisy and fudge. I think there are two coherent ways out of this – one is the socialist approach- tax the rich clubs and share the resources equally; the other is an “American” approach, which sees the big clubs gradually migrate toward a completely separate competition- the Champions League has already taken us a long way down that route.
Either structure could work except for one almost inevitable thing: the bigger clubs will want a bigger share of the bigger revenue. This will allow the very top clubs to dominate the competition (and their own domestic leagues) even further. The second tier of clubs will also derive greater revenue which will cause them to dominate their domestic leagues even more, but which will be insufficient to allow them to compete at the very top European level.
In my view the crux is not the competition between the Europa League and Champions League, rather it is the competition between the Premiership and the Champions League. If the worldwide rights for the EPL continue to accelerate at their recent rate then the revenue generated will put all the Premiership clubs outwith the reach of almost every other team in Europe. This could lead to further concentration of the top players there which could render any European-wide competition redundant as the EPL could become the de facto World League. A re-structuring of the Champions League may pre-empt that, but either way it will lead to a greater concentration of resourcing within an ever-reducing number of clubs. This will reduce still further the opportunity for smaller clubs to be rewarded for sporting excellence with the opportunity of being able to genuinely compete at the very top level.
Unless the revenue is to be distributed purely based on sporting merit (an ever more unlikely dream) then the game will continue to drift into ever more predictable routine based on global commercialism rather than any sporting merit or the genuine support of fans which have been the basis for footballing success in past generations.
I agree with much of what you say, but I don’t think “sporting merit” solves the problem. Financial Fair Play’s attempt to limit the impact of sugar daddies will not stop big teams like Arsenal and Manchester United, Barcelona and Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and Dortmund from dominating the competition. If you truly want a level playing field you have to distribute resources equally , regardless of sporting merit. This means either “true socialism” – every club is given an equal share, or “American socialism”- every club gets an equal share, but only a very small number of clubs are allowed to play.
If the number of groups really stays as is now and the same number of teams continue to progress to the second round, this could be interesting even if they stay seeded. If three leagues with the highest coefficients really end up giving seven clubs to the competition (and presuming that those right below them would have similar number of places) we might end up with a system in which most groups would have clubs from Spain, England, Germany and Italy. While it wouldn’t offer us regular games between let’s say Bayern, Barcelona, Chelsea and Juventus in the group stages, it could be more interesting than it is now. The competition for the knockout rounds would probably be quite interesting, although, each group would probably have at least one clear outsider.
As a concept it looks like a cross between Superleague and a current format. Probably all big clubs would constantly be there, with the addition of a certain number of smaller clubs. At first glance, it might be better than the current format.
But I think you also put your finger on a major problem- there’s no point having a system which simply replicates domestic rivalries which are supplied in the national leagues. Any design needs to focus on getting the big teams in different countries to play each other.
If the current limit of only one team from a country per group stays, there would be no replication of domestic rivalries. The problem would still be that top eight seeded teams (presumably eight best teams, although that is not necessary true) would not play each other. But even with that we would have decent number of top teams playing each other in the group stage.
So borrowing from the Americans again, one solution would be to maintain the country limit but then operate a schedule in which you played 4 teams from your own group and three teams from another group, based on UEFA coefficients (and excluding same country games). This way, for example, you might get, say, Barca, Chelsea, Dortmund, Lazio, Zenit, Olympiacos, PSV, Lech Poznan in one group, and Barca would play Chelsea, Dortmund, Lazio and Zenit and then Bayern, Manchester United, AC Milan from the other groups (this also has the effect of giving the smaller teams a better chance of making it to the knock-out stage). I think the problem is that it still doesn’t give Barca the chance to play enoough of the top teams- they want to play Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Bayern, Dortmund, Inter and AC every season.
That, or a some combination of it (playing two games with other three highest seeded teams from the group and only one against the four lower seeded, at their turf, while playing four more games against teams from your coefficient level for example) would be ideal, I agree. The original point I tried to make was that, even without that, we might end up with more interesting competition for knockout stage than it is now.
I take that point but I was not intending to suggest a socialist model but rather that football reward success on the field not give reward based on where or who the club is. Many leagues base prize money from the league on a club’s final league placing and there is no reason why Champions League money could not be dealt with in a similar way.
It is inevitable that big clubs of some sort will continue to dominate, as has always been the case to an extent, but the current trend of polarising prize money is reducing the number of clubs able to compete for the top prizes. It is also immunising the biggest clubs against sporting failure. For example, Manchester United were one of the very top earners from UEFA last year despite poor results in UEFA competitions. In other words, even when smaller teams outperform the big boys the gap is still widening because of the weighting given to certain leagues. Thus there is not a realistic prospect of a club like Ajax or Porto being able to build themselves up to properly compete any more because the reward they receive will be significantly less than that received a team from the biggest leagues even if they manage to match or better their results.
The changes proposed are a form of appeasement to the biggest clubs which is entirely understandable in political terms, but which will not buck the depressing trend toward the further limiting of the number of teams able to compete. Unfortunately I see the current trend as inevitable without stronger regulation of the football industry which is not going to happen due to the weight of vested interests that would be against it.
You are talking about moving 10 million euros or so from here to there in an industry in which the club with highest revenue has almost the double revenue of fifth and almost five times the revenue of twentieth (look at the Deloitte money league). The roots of financial disparities are not in the Champions League prize money, so different distribution could not solve it.
There are many vested interests and there are far more small clubs and national associations than the big ones. Claiming that those changes are a form of appeasement to the biggest clubs while disregarding recent changes in qualification format, an obvious case of appeasement, if you insist on that word, to the smaller national associations and clubs, with very dubious effect on the quality of CL, is unfair. At least in my view.
I agree that emotive language doesn’t help us much, but I do think (a) the Champions League significantly altered the balance of power in Europe- it’s fairly clear in the data that domestic results in the big leagues have become more polarised since the CL was created (b) changing the money distribution could change the balance of power. UEFA disburse 1 billion euros a year to clubs in prize money, mostly in the CL and the lion’s share goes to the big clubs in big countries. It is theoretically possible to generate a more even landscape if the money is spread more equally. But this raises two questions (i) would the big clubs stand for it? (ii) who wants the whole of Europe to look as flat as the Netherlands (no disrespect to Simon and our Dutch readers)?
(b) I agree. But it would only happen in the case, as you wrote earlier, of equal distribution regardless of, or maybe opposite to (presuming that those with small revenue and worst results need much more money, they could be given larger share than rich clubs with better results), sporting merit. While it might be possible for the big clubs to agree on sporting merits alone (although that opens some other questions) they would probably never stand for those other options.
I would like you to expand, if you have time of course, on a). At the same time as Champions League was formed the importance of TV money increased, the ticket prices were starting to go up (favoring those with bigger stadiums)… To which an extent was CL responsible for polarization in big domestic leagues and to which an extent it was a result of other factors?
Just for the sake of clarity, and after some rethinking, I would like to expand on my comment. UEFA distributes 1 billion euros a year. It is more or less the same amount of money as the combined revenues of just two clubs, Barcelona and Real Madrid. Even movement towards collective TV deal in Spain would probably not change that to more than 1:0.8 ratio (and we would still have huge disparities between them and the other Spanish clubs, for example, both clubs have matchday revenues comparable to Valencia’s total revenue). If I calculated correctly, the amount of UEFA prize money in both clubs’ revenues was lower than 10% last season. That shows us the limits of any kind of distribution. Even if all the prize money was divided between 10 clubs with smallest revenues in the competition, they would still lag behind a number of big clubs. Their home leagues however, would end up being hugely disbalanced. So, a “socialist” model for really making all Europe flat as the Netherlands would probably have to include a money sharing at the European level, with a regulator controlling and distributing all the money, not just the current UEFA’s share.
I agree Stephen. Apologies if the phraseology could have been better. I had no intention of using particularly emotive language and the word “appeasement” is certainly not one I’m hung up on. The basis of the article was negotiation with big clubs against a threat of a breakaway so it seemed appropriate.
Speaking as a Liverpool fan, I’m completely in favour of this change, simply as it increases the opportunity for LFC to play in the Champions League.
Re the format, I’m not keen on larger groups; I would think more groups is the way to go. More groups keeps it simple; also in such a scenario doubling the teams taking part only adds 2 more games ie an extra knock-out round for the ‘last 32’.
Re domestic football, this move could also really help resuscitate the value of FA and ‘League’ cups, if 2 of England’s proposed/assumed 7 places were given to the winners of each trophy.
The Champions League is where the money is, we all know that. Dividing the cake among more teams in each country, especially here in England, would help our Premier league ie stop it becoming what it has been of late, a two horse race between two clubs with £300m plus squads and wages to match.
In my dream world there would be one European cup, where all clubs in the top division in their country would take part in a two-leg knock-out, with no seeding! But we know the big clubs will never accept that, because of the money at risk.
I think you’re missing the point here- it’s not the fact that it is called the Champions League that makes it attractive, it’s that it pits the best teams against each other- when big teams play minnows in the CL the audience is tiny. Moving more minnows from the Europa League to the CL just shuffles the cards, it doesn’t create more cards. If you have a lousy product changing its name doesn’t make it more attractive.
Hey Stefan,
A good read and especially the ‘American approach’ is something which I have also personally thought is the best way forward even for that matter at a league level. As for the 64-team format, I think it could be an absolute mess as already the CL is inflated to a high level.
For me, the main reason the Europa League has become the crappy sideshow it is, is thanks to UEFA’s own handling of the situation. Instead of inflation, contraction of the CL could be a better way forward. Say for instance, UEFA restricts the CL to 24 teams. This system only allows the top two teams from the top five European leagues, plus champions from the five below as direct qualifiers. Plus ‘one champions’ slot – this would go to the team that wins the competition if they don’t qualify on their own, and if they do goes to the winner of the rebranded Europa League which I will come to. If winners of Europa have too, goes to finalists of CL, and lastly EL.
Basically, that gives us 10+5+1 teams gaining direct entry, and leaves 8 spots open which will be settled between the second place teams for the fifth-tenth places against the rest of the European nations from 10th below in the usual qualification program to determine the rest of the line-ups. The group stage is the usual four teams per group x 6. Plus with four spots for the best third placed sides too, thus giving teams more of a chance in what will undoubtedly be much tougher groups. The big clubs are happy as they still play the usual 6+7 games if they get to the final and net the TV revenue from there.
Now, on to the Europa League where you give the teams finishing third and the domestic cup winners from the top five countries direct entry and those finishing fourth entry via qualification. Fifth place gets in, if the cup winners are in the top three. Sixth and below become irrelevant. The next five countries get only two spots – one for third place (automatic) + one qualifying spot for the cup winners. Basically, this allocates 10 + 5 automatic qualifiers. You then have teams dropping down from the CL qualifying round and the lower member nations giving you a 32-team group stage.
If this was implemented this year, the Europa League would have featured Arsenal, Tottenham, Valencia, Malaga, Napoli, Lazio, Schalke and others. This is not a bad line-up of teams by any means and naturally would attract more viewers in turn generating higher revenue for distribution. Plus, if the CL games are held Tuesday and Wednesday at 1945, and the EL games have kick-offs at 1800/1900 on the same days there won’t be too much conflict of interest in terms of viewership to start with.
It would you be great to get your thoughts. Cheers.
Nice comment. As I understand it this would give 56 teams a place in competition proper, compared to 80 at the moment (32 CL + 48 EL). This would be more attractive to a TV audience since you would have fewer minnows. The big clubs might go for this, so long as they keep most of the money> The problem is that this wouldn’t work well for Platini, whose political strength comes from championing the minnows against the big clubs. That said, I’m not sure why Platini thinks abolishing the EL and having a 64 team CL serves the interests of the smaller clubs either.
The thing is also, there are more than two top teams in Europe’s big leagues that would many like to watch playing against top competitors at the highest stage. I am not sure that removing the number of English/Spanish/German/Italian teams would contribute to the quality and attractiveness of the competition.