Reports today suggest that a deal is about 99% certain and that starting in 2024 the Champions League will increase the number of teams from 32 to 36 and introduce a new “Swiss Style” playing system. This is being done to head off any discussion about the top clubs forming a new “European Super League” and yet, the UEFA proposal is in essence exactly what the big clubs wanted from a Super League. In other words, UEFA is forming a new UEFA Super League in order to stop teams from forming a Super League which is like buying a gun to prevent gun violence.
The new system will do away with the group stages where 4 teams play 6 matches and instead all 36 teams will play 10 matches against “seeded” opponents. In order to seed these mini-leagues (or maxi-groups), teams will be ranked in three categories “high, medium, and low” with the guarantee that each group of 10 games will feature an equal mix of the categories. Teams will then play their opponents 1 time, doing away with home and away legs.
The purpose here, however, isn’t just to rid us of the boring home-away groups games between two or three low-ranked opponents, it’s to increase the number of “big” games between teams like Juventus and Barcelona. If every team is guaranteed to play three “high seed” opponents that means that in a 10-match system, a club like Arsenal could (theoretically) face Barcelona, Bayern, and PSG. This is intended to increase broadcast money, which in turn should enrich those “big” teams who will want a bigger cut.
After the 10 match round, the top 8 teams will advance to the knockout phase. And, this is key, those top 8 teams will automatically qualify for the next season’s Champions League – meaning a virtual lock in Champions League money for certain teams. This is the endgame here, folks: 6-8 (ish) teams constantly playing in the Champions League, and playing against each other.
Teams who finish 9-24 have a playoff round to decide which other 8 teams will advance to the knockout phase.
The number of games we are looking at here is astonishing. Currently, the Champions League is just 125 matches but in the new system that will rise to 225. That means that Champions League football will need to be played throughout the season and teams like Arsenal could play something like 65+ matches in a season. That almost certainly means that the Premier League and other leagues may look to reduce the number of domestic matches by either reducing the League size and/or eliminating certain cup matches, like the League Cup. Clubs like Bayern Munich already have an advantage over EPL clubs in that they only play 34 League matches in a season and they only have one domestic cup. By the season’s end this year, Bayern will play 50 matches or so while Arsenal are looking at close to 60. If you thought there was a LOT of football before, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
There is some confusion over how the additional 4 teams will be added to the new Champions League spots. Reports suggest that France will get a slot bringing them up to 4 teams and in line with the other “big five” leagues. Two more slots may go to smaller league champions but the 4th slot is being reserved for clubs which are traditionally part of the Champions League but who are maybe having a bad season. Everyone’s suggesting that would be Liverpool, but it just as easily could have been Arsenal a few years ago. Again, the only purpose here is to pander to the big diapers who are threatening to break off and form a Super League.
Big questions about all of this, however. Broadcasters don’t have infinite money and some are suggesting that the new league will take money from domestic rights. That’s a possibility, after all, most broadcasters are more interested in paying for Juve-Barca than Sunderland-Newcastle. However, it’s not a lock in my mind. There could be an initial shift but what happens when people get sick of watching the same 8 teams advance to the knockouts? People are already tired of many aspects of Champions League football. I see this as just increasing the number of those exhausting matches.
Another possible effect is in reducing the number of matches domestically in England. If we cut the League down to 18 teams (like Germany) that means fewer matches for sure but it also means fewer EFL sides get into the Premier League. And reduced TV revenue means smaller clubs, those not in the Champions League, are fed a subsistence diet while big clubs just keep shoveling the food in like Mr. Creosote. Also, “getting rid of the League Cup” seems like a popular position among many “big club” supporters but it’s an important part of the revenue for a lot of EFL clubs. Cutting that stream off would be a sizeable punishment to those clubs.
But according to various reports it is 99% likely that this proposal will be approved. As an Arsenal supporter, this could be akin to the death of middle-table clubs. If Arsenal don’t get back into the Champions League by 2024, it would be increasingly difficult to see a route in. Because the “top four” clubs would just have so much more money that even the best “moneyball” managers would find it increasingly difficult to break in.
Looks like it’s not going to be plain sailing https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/mar/30/crucial-vote-on-major-champions-league-changes-postponed-by-uefa
Wenger said it would happen.he predicted it ahead as always.
Hmm, my experience has been that guns have often been used (to great effect) to prevent gun violence. “Speak softly and carry a big stick”…and all that.
Aside from that contrary position, I do think this football saturation and strata-calcification is inevitable. The rush by content providers to adopt recurring revenue bundles is going to fuel rapid inflationary revenue models for content producers. Barring social backlash in response to increased player injuries and other health concerns from increased games — yeah, right! 🙄 — I see no real end to the football always being on.
“Guns have often been used to great effect to prevent gun violence.” I take it that’s the Texan experience? I’ve heard it all now. Let’s take that to its logical extreme. Give everyone a gun and there will be no gun violence at all? Perhaps you can explain why the US has far and away the largest gun ownership anywhere in the world and likewise the greatest number of civilian gun deaths.
@ Lonestar, I know this is a deeply divisive topic in the US but for the life of me I cannot understand why. I have to +1 Mark’s comment – no other democracy in the world shares this view.
I don’t have a gun, but the last thing in the world I’m worried about is being shot, because no one else does either. And to rip off Eddie Izard, guns don’t kill people – people kill people…. true but the gun kind of helps! It’s not quite as effective if I just point my fingers at you and shout “bang”!
The argument put forward by the NRA is that “a good guy with a gun” can save people from gun violence. Statistically untrue. Yet another one of Donald’s lies. Harvard did a study a few years back and found that that was only evident in 1% of cases over the 4 year period they looked at.
You may be wondering how you tell the difference between a “good guy with a gun” and a “bad guy with a gun” in a bar room fight. The good guys wear white hats and have perfect teeth, whereas the bad guys wear black hats and have dubious dental hygiene. Worth bearing in mind, before you start shooting.
Meanwhile kids under 12 in the US die accidentally roughly once a week, by playing with their parent’s guns around the house. If you’ve got kids David, I’d encourage them to point their fingers and go “Bang!”
The U.S, in per capita gun deaths, has a rate of 10.6/100K people. The gun death rate is nine times as high as Canada’s (0.47 deaths/100K people), and 29 times as high as in Denmark (0.15 deaths/100K).
I’m not saying guns don’t ever prevent violence, and like you say, it’s a divisive topic for Americans especially, but my understanding according to most recent statistics is that when someone has a gun in their home it’s far more likely to be used by a family member to kill themselves.
Something like 60% of gun deaths in America are suicides.
The proposed changes are not a good idea IMO. For one, I already think we have too many matches. We’d have better quality with fewer matches.
Two, seeing the top teams play each other over and over again is going to get very boring.
But there’s probably not much way to avoid it, short of players going on strike and putting their salaries at risk.
I predict a major fail. After a season or two the format will change once again. I agree with Lonestar (don’t mess with Texas) about “always on” football as a thing but I can’t see it lasting more than a few seasons.
The North American audience in particular will reach attrition among those who also follow other major league sport. The NHL and and NBA have an 82-game season. MLB is a freaking 162 game season. The NFL becomes more attractive with 16 regular season games. Each match has import. Pile extra European football on top of all that that and something’s going to give. That Cheesehead in Wisconsin who casually follows Barca will check out.
It’s depressing (and depressingly predictable) that they are choosing this path that increases the number of games, and increases the financial reward to clubs of being in Europe, when we really need for that reward to be reduced or redistributed.
Some of this is down to maximising advertising revenue. Some of it is down to the fact that the big clubs (including Arsenal) have budgeted their finances and cash flow based on a certain level of Champions League participation. Playing in Europe is seen as a fiscal necessity, and so big clubs are using their political power to lock in that revenue stream.
This sets things up as a trade-off between European and domestic football, and will increase the reliance of the big clubs on revenue from Europe compared to revenue from their domestic league. They don’t seem to realise that the excitement and fascination of European football relies on a healthy ecosystem of strong domestic football.
European football is exciting when you get to watch meaningful games between teams that have been forged hard in the crucibles of their domestic leagues, not repeated match-ups between rich clubs who waltz their way in every year. I want Slavia Prague to be fearful opposition, full of good players I’ve never heard of, otherwise what’s the point?
I would be much happier with fewer European ties, which would mean more meaningful games, and a big slice of the revenue from those matches going to domestic leagues in poorer countries to build up the ecosystem which gives the competition any meaning at all.
Yesterday I was contemplating the strong likelihood that we will miss out on the European spots and have no European games next season. It’s going to be weird. But that’s the way it should be.
Totally agree. If we make it to the Europa League final, I really hope we aren’t playing another English side. We do that all season long!
For me the biggest issue are these proposed wildcard entries. That really sticks in the craw and goes angainst everything football stands for in my opinion.
If you are not going to reward teams based on last season’s domestic merit, what is the point at all?
Say Liverpool flop this season and they just get a pass straight back up into the CL because they have the highest UEFA coefficient? Get out of here, what an absolute joke that is. It corrupts the competition beyond belief and degrades not only the domestic leagues but the whole nature of the qualification process.
These wildcard positions should go to winners of minor European leagues. I’d much rather see Belgrade, Prague or Warsaw in there on merit rather than the same old ‘big’ clubs getting a free pass no matter how poorly managed they’ve been. It is just going to entrench the elite and provide little or no reward for well coached, progressive smaller teams.
It honestly makes me furious and I cannot for the life for me see why this isn’t getting more attention.
Believe it or not, one of the best games I have watched this season was Locomotive Moscow vs Bayern. It was an absolutely brilliant game with all sorts of chances, a buzzing crowd and end to end attacking. Two of the worst games I have watched this season have involved Man U and Chelsea. This self-cancelling-out snooze fest that big clubs repetitively produce is because there is more to lose than gain. I’m not saying all small teams are great, but give me a unique giant killing any day of the week over Man U Chelsea part VI.
Incredible greed from UEFA and I hope to hell it comes back round to bite them hard.
For several years now the big clubs in Europe (primarily that ‘top 8’) and the UEFA technocrats have jealously watched the TV revenue of the Premier League go through the roof to the point that clubs like Everton who haven’t won anything in decades and have a tiny European profile can compete with them to sign players by offering big salaries. This is as much about rectifying what they see as the financial inequity of the current relative wealth of Premiership clubs as it is about appeasing the breakaway lobby whose motivation is primarily the same, i.e. to get their hands on more TV income at the expense of the Premier League.
As others have observed, it has become as boring to watch Juve play Real and PSG play Barca as it is to watch a Manure v Chelski borefest. That will get even worse in the proposed new structure as the usual suspects meet each other for the umpteenth time. At least for longstanding fans of Premiership clubs (or any national league at any level) there is a long history of grievance to motivate fans to attend/watch in the hope of payback. I can’t see that evolving for European games to the same degree for a very long time.
The automatic entry and wildcard option just stink of insider dealing.
Despite the marked increase in televised games I watch less football on television now than I did a decade ago. If it doesn’t involve the Arsenal or isn’t a match that might affect the Arsenal, it just doesn’t interest me any more. In their brave new gold encrusted world, do the money men anticipate audiences for their games simply made up of fans of clubs involved in the game or expect their wonderful new structure to draw legions of neutrals as fodder for the sponsors?
I do think football is ultimately going to eat itself.
Really good point about other leagues wanting in at the PL trough.
the english won’t take this lying down. they think they’re bigger than the champions league. they have the most watched league in the world and fancy themselves the greatest show in football. notice how the premier league would seldom allow teams to make schedule adjustments for their big games. only recently would they allow schedule changes under ridiculous circumstances, ie. having a tuesday champions league knockout game follow a sunday evening premier league game. other leagues always try and support their teams in europe. england have only just begun to do it.
What a depressing article, Tim.
I think the sad reality is that irrespective of whether it is successful or not, it will permanently damage the Premier League. And honestly I’d rather see the kids play in the League Cup and get excited about the potential of an Academy grad than watch the senior team play endless games against clubs that I couldn’t give a fish’s tit about.
More existentially however, is the depressing acceptance that It will permanently damage Arsenal, as despite our historic top 4 record, we are nowhere near a top 4 club now. I would struggle to imagine Daniel Levy is on board with it either, so ironically we might be counting on his loud voice to save our future!
This might be controversial, but there are certain parts of the proposal I don’t mind. I don’t think that organizing the Champions League in such a way that we get more meaningful and exciting matches is a bad thing. The current group stage system is extremely boring initially, and the swiss style system would fix that.
Having said that, the fact that the top 8 automatically qualify for next season is definitely bullshit. However, is it really all that different to the system we already have? The teams which make the top 8 year on year (PSG, Barca, Bayern, Real etc.) are effectively guaranteed to make it already. At least it is still a merit based award, you still earn the right to play in it by being better than everyone else.
Personally, I would much rather watch a tournament with the proposed structure than the current one. If the price we have to pay for more Juve vs Barca and Dortmund vs PSG is the League Cup than I can pay it. The ‘floating’ invitation leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but if this is what they had to do to prevent a full on breakaway Super League then it’s not so bad, and let’s not pretend the current system is a good one either.
I guess I just feel that the teams which can make the top 8 and will have “a virtual lock on Champions League money” already have a virtual lock on Champions League money.