2021/2022 Champions League: Not the Super League
- Thread starter bosox4283
- Start date
"Historically successful" is a bit of a misnomer.
This part of the proposal has been on the table for a while. It gives two places to the teams with the highest UEFA club coefficients (calculated from the previous five seasons) who didn't otherwise qualify and who finished higher than any other non-qualifying club in their league table.
Realistically, this is a concession to big clubs - especially in England - to try to disincentivize them from supporting the Super League. And its probably a concession that needs to be made. The more dominant the Premier League becomes, the less and less sense it makes for the bigger clubs to support a CL model that only gives spots to four of them.
This part of the proposal has been on the table for a while. It gives two places to the teams with the highest UEFA club coefficients (calculated from the previous five seasons) who didn't otherwise qualify and who finished higher than any other non-qualifying club in their league table.
Realistically, this is a concession to big clubs - especially in England - to try to disincentivize them from supporting the Super League. And its probably a concession that needs to be made. The more dominant the Premier League becomes, the less and less sense it makes for the bigger clubs to support a CL model that only gives spots to four of them.
So, if this applied this year, the new rule would take some of the drama out of the 4th place races in Italy & England. The loser of Juve / Roma would get in, and then, in order - ManU, Spurs & Arsenal would get in if they didn't get 4th.
I think what this really hurts is the domestic cups. Getting fall / winter wins in whatever European tournament becomes so much more important than a League cup / early FA Cup match because of the need to keep the Coefficient high.
https://www.uefa.com/nationalassociations/uefarankings/club/#/yr/2022
I think what this really hurts is the domestic cups. Getting fall / winter wins in whatever European tournament becomes so much more important than a League cup / early FA Cup match because of the need to keep the Coefficient high.
https://www.uefa.com/nationalassociations/uefarankings/club/#/yr/2022
This smells like a Super League compromise. I’m sure there won’t be any controversy (or bribes) when they pick the two teams out of the three historical teams that wouldn’t qualify in any given year.
Edit: now I see the coefficients thing.
Edit: now I see the coefficients thing.
My understanding is it is entirely based on club coefficient, which is a mathematical formula, so there shouldn’t be any picking.
It’s still shitty. Qualify or don’t. There are already 4 fucking spots in England
I would be more okay with it if they make one tweak, namely if you qualify for the CL via one of these two "historically successful" spots, you dont earn any coefficient points for that season (i.e. just like you wouldn't earn any if you didn't qualify at all). That way, a team can't continually qualify only be being "historically successful".
Thanks. I missed that at first and assumed that Newcastle was magically in the Champions League next year.
Who is losing a spot for these extra two entries?
I don't like this, but agree that there should be some disadvantage to getting in the UCL through past accomplishments. Perhaps a good penalty would be automatic placement in pot 4 for the draw, regardless of coefficient.
Easy to say for a supporter of a state sponsored club that will spend enough to land in the top four every year.
I don't really see the issue. It hasn't been a competition among Champions for a long time, its always just been about developing different formulae for qualifying that balance the imperative to spread the competition among national associations and the competing imperative to have the best teams involved. The structure of the competition and the formula for qualification has been changed over and over and this is just another iteration of that process.
They’re not. The whole competition is being redesigned. No more groups, just one big league of 36 teams using the Swiss system where everyone plays against 10 of them.
They are expanding the competition by four slots, two based on club coefficient and two are going to other national associations.
The much more consequential and frankly problematic change is the abandonment of the group stage for a different "Swiss model" in which every team is going to play 10 games in the fall. That part of the change is going to be a complete nightmare.
Got it. So now there are 4 extra spots total and 2 are going to non qualifiers with high coefficient. I guess I would rather have 2 legacy teams than four more minnows.
And it is really annoying that you quoted my terrible grammar before I could edit.
Basically it’s going to mean that the group stage is completely uninteresting, so I bet lots of people only start paying attention once the knock out rounds start.
I’d say then adjust the number of teams that can qualify from a league.
It’s absurd to think a team could theoretically qualify for the Champions League after finishing 10th in their domestic league or whatever.
I mean, I know Boston sports fans have been spoiled, but the Pats shouldn’t be getting playoff spots based on past glories. Maybe not the perfect analogy, but the idea of divorcing entry from the most coveted place in football from current performance is really just intuitively objectionable.
This forces bigger clubs to take the Europa League and Conference League more seriously, because clubs can rack up valuable coefficient points in those tournaments.
Yup, there will be a huge number of dead rubber matches, or matches in which at most some seeding in the knockouts is at stake, and the schedule will be absolutely grueling for the participating teams.
That can't happen. There is a provision where you can't "leapfrog" another team in your domestic league if you finish behind them. So you can only get one of the spots if you have one of the two highest club coefficients among non-qualifiers AND there is no other non-qualifying team ahead of you in the league table. Basically, you have to either finish 5th or finish 6th in a situation where the 5th place team is the other club with the highest coefficient.
My understanding is that there is a lot of opposition to giving the biggest associations five spots among the smaller associations. So this is a compromise solution in which they take two spots and make them potentially available to the 5th place teams (or, in a less likely scenario, 6th place team) of those bigger associations. Realistically, its very likely to be teams from England, Italy, or Spain.
Last edited:
Yeah, 10 games instead of 6, but if they aren’t as meaningful I would assume we’ll see a lot of squad rotation.
More group stage matches also mean more opportunities to accrue coefficient points with no downside (under the current formula, you gain points for wins and draws but don't lose points for losses), which will tend to make existing CL participants more self-perpetuating.
That's a good point. I wonder whether they plan to tweak the club coefficient formula somehow to reflect the fact that the CL clubs will now play more matches than the CL/ECL clubs.
I think that's probably right. Even if you're rotating, however, its still just a huge disruption to have to travel, game plan, and coach these matches.
In a typical season there are something like 17 game weeks between the start of the PL season and Christmas (ie, taking out a couple international breaks). Playing 10 midweek European games plus potentially three League Cup rounds means very few weeks in which you're not playing a midweek fixture. Its just too much football.
Last edited:
So basically, at the end of the season, they’ll look at the highest finishing team in each country that didn’t qualify for the CL and whoever has the biggest coefficient will get a CL spot. They’ll then repeat the process (accounting for the newly added team) to fill the second spot.
I actually remember reading that now, but had forgotten that detail. I suppose that if Liverpool came in 10th one year, but ahead of City, Man U, Arsenal, et. al. it could theoretically still qualify, but I suppose the likelihood of that is close enough to zero that I’m fine dropping that point.
Still hate this though
No, they couldn’t. You can’t leapfrog any team, so you’d have to be 5th (in England) or 6th if the team in 5th also qualified by having a high coefficient.I actually remember reading that now, but had forgotten that detail. I suppose that if Liverpool came in 10th one year, but ahead of City, Man U, Arsenal, et. al. it could theoretically still qualify, but I suppose the likelihood of that is close enough to zero that I’m fine dropping that point.
Still hate this though
Last edited:
I was going from your description above. If, in my example the standings were say:
1.Man City
2. Man U
3. Chelsea
4. Spurs
5. Palace
6. Brentford
7. Norwich
8. Leeds
9. Newcastle
10. Liverpool
and say Liverpool won the Champions League the previous season, wouldn’t they get the “legacy” spot (assuming their coefficient was higher than at least one other non-qualifying team in UEFA)?
I’ll admit the hypothetical is as far-fetched as can be, but trying to understand what I’m not understanding then.
Edit: made my hypothetical conform a bit more to the question I was trying to ask, but I guess I could have done the same thing by essentially turning the standings upside down too.
I have less of a problem with these "legacy" slots, than with the Swiss model change requiring 9 matches like @Morgan's Magic Snowplow said. I mean, the group stage is already bloated, but at least it's only 6 matches and eliminates half the field quickly.
Liverpool would qualify automatically as holders. If they didn't win it the previous year, they wouldn't qualify because they can't leapfrog Palace, Brentford, Norwich, Leeds, or Newcastle.
I took a quick look at who would've got the 2 spots if the rule had been applied for this year's CL. Using the Club Coefficients at the end of the 20/21 season, these are the highest teams that didn't qualify for the CL, along with their respective league positions and how many teams from their league qualified for the CL:
Arsenal (8th, 4 qualified)
Roma (7th, 4 qualified)
Spurs (7th, 4 qualified)
Lyon (4th, 3 qualified)
Napoli (5th, 4 qualified)
Bayer Leverkusen (6th, 4 qualified)
Basel (2nd, 1 qualified)
Now, under the rules, Arsenal, Roma and Spurs would not get spots because that would require them to leapfrog teams that finished above them in the league (Leicester and West Ham for Arsenal/Spurs, Napoli and Lazio for Roma). Thus Lyon and Napoli would get the 2 'historically successful'' spots.
(Note, however that the CL is expanding by 4 spots and its thought that France would get 1 more automatic spot for their 4ht place team, so Lyon would probably qualify by league position under the new rules. If that was the case, the other 'historically successful' spot would of the Basel, since Leverkusen can't leapfrog Frankfurt who finished 5th).
Arsenal (8th, 4 qualified)
Roma (7th, 4 qualified)
Spurs (7th, 4 qualified)
Lyon (4th, 3 qualified)
Napoli (5th, 4 qualified)
Bayer Leverkusen (6th, 4 qualified)
Basel (2nd, 1 qualified)
Now, under the rules, Arsenal, Roma and Spurs would not get spots because that would require them to leapfrog teams that finished above them in the league (Leicester and West Ham for Arsenal/Spurs, Napoli and Lazio for Roma). Thus Lyon and Napoli would get the 2 'historically successful'' spots.
(Note, however that the CL is expanding by 4 spots and its thought that France would get 1 more automatic spot for their 4ht place team, so Lyon would probably qualify by league position under the new rules. If that was the case, the other 'historically successful' spot would of the Basel, since Leverkusen can't leapfrog Frankfurt who finished 5th).
Last edited:
Ah ok. Sorry that wasn’t getting through. So the only way to get a “legacy” spot in England is basically to finish 5th (with perhaps an exception or two). I appreciate you holding my hand through that!
I enjoyed the three seconds during which I though Union would have made the Champions League under the new arrangementThanks, yes, Frankfurt, but the analysis still holds.
Pretty stodgy so far in Villarreal-Bayern. Villa already defending with 10 behind the ball at times, although they've probably had the best chance of the match so far. Looks like Villa will have chances for 1v1s if they can connect to their striker(s), but Bayern are putting tons of pressure. Villa look organized though.
Sane has found the most space for Bayern so far. But he's only sent in a couple of medium-danger crosses.
And now Chelsea pulls one back early! Time for multicast!!
And now Chelsea pulls one back early! Time for multicast!!
Neuer doing Neuer things. Lo Celso just played a beautiful 60 yard pass that beat the entire Bayern backline but Neuer was 5-10 yards out of the box when he calmly chested the ball down to himself while the striker flew by.
Bayern really don't look like they have many ideas. Lots of speculative balls are going over the line for goal kicks.
Bayern looking dangerous early now. Anyone else on Bayern gets on the end of the Sane cross and it's likely a goal.
Bayern break through finally after Villarreal try too hard to play it out of the back from a goal kick.
It seemed plausible to me that the ball didn't touch Alonso's hand; he was drawing it back and it looked like after the initial ricochet it hit his hip instead of his hand. However; Alonso didn't seem particularly annoyed it was ruled off, which was pretty telling.
