Potential UCL Changes

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
https://www.thescore.com/seri/news/2062252
British newspaper The Times reported that a "Swiss system" that would see all sides in the competition compete in one league and play 10 different opponents, selected by a draw, is now UEFA's favoured model for reform.

The system is designed to have fewer meaningless group matches and more games between the continent's biggest clubs.

After the 10 games, the top 16 clubs in the standings would progress to the knockout rounds. The team that finished top of the league standings would play the club in 16th, second would play 15th and so on in a system similar to that used by the NBA playoffs.

The teams finishing 17th-24th would drop into the Europa League knockout rounds.
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
3,434
So it basically adds 4 matches for each team since 6 group matches get replace by 10.
 

bosox4283

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Mar 2, 2004
4,673
Philadelphia
This question is a bit dumb: does this change mean that there will be 20 teams in the Champions League (2 groups of 10) rather than 32 (8 groups of 4)?
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,410
A Lost Time
So it basically adds 4 matches for each team since 6 group matches get replace by 10.
This basically widens the big club financial advantage that's actually more pronounced in smaller leagues, while being a step in decreasing the prestige of domestic leagues.

There's one reform I want to see is this: Any financial windfall from participation to European compeititions is spread among all domestic clubs. That would help narrow the big discrepancies leading middling & smaller clubs into pariah status.
 
This question is a bit dumb: does this change mean that there will be 20 teams in the Champions League (2 groups of 10) rather than 32 (8 groups of 4)?
It sounds more like they're going to go with an NFL-style model - e.g., every NFC team doesn't play every other NFC team during the season, but you still wind up comparing records of teams who haven't played each other to determine which teams get the wild-card playoff berths.
There's one reform I want to see is this: Any financial windfall from participation to European compeititions is spread among all domestic clubs. That would help narrow the big discrepancies leading middling & smaller clubs into pariah status.
No chance in hell. The goal of the oligarchy in charge of these things is the exact opposite of this.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,410
A Lost Time
It sounds more like they're going to go with an NFL-style model - e.g., every NFC team doesn't play every other NFC team during the season, but you still wind up comparing records of teams who haven't played each other to determine which teams get the wild-card playoff berths.

No chance in hell. The goal of the oligarchy in charge of these things is the exact opposite of this.
I know that the chances are infinitesimal and big clubs are opposed to this. But most people don't realize what is happening and that the system is demoting the favoring middle class into pariah class, so if there's a chance of changing this, people need to understand the situation. Also, all the non-top tier domestic clubs need to coalesce together because they are getting squeezed out of the picture.
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
3,434
So it basically adds 4 matches for each team since 6 group matches get replace by 10.
The way I read it there will be 1 group of 32 teams, but each team in that group would only play 10 opponents. The top 16 would qualify for the knockout stages, the next 8 would go to the Europa and the bottom 8 would go home.
 

GreenMonster49

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
644
10 random matches is not a Swiss system. Playing matches against opponents with similar records is a Swiss system (or at least it is in endeavors like chess and bridge that run Swiss tournaments).
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
10 random matches is not a Swiss system. Playing matches against opponents with similar records is a Swiss system (or at least it is in endeavors like chess and bridge that run Swiss tournaments).
Maybe, since UEFA is headquartered in Switzerland, any system they come up with is technically a Swiss system?
 

Zososoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2009
9,209
South of North
Leaving aside the fact that I think of this as another gambit by the mega clubs to secure more money from UEFA...

I actually like the format of the UEFA Nations League and wonder if there's a way to copy some or all of that format for UCL. Let's use 4 groups of 8 as an example. The clubs with the 8 best UEFA coefficients (leave aside how that's calculated for a moment) form Group A and they automatically progress to the knockouts (and likely earn the money that goes along with that). Group B has 2 subgroups and they play a typical UCL Group stage (H-H round robin). Top 2 from each group move on. We now have 12/16 knockout participants. 2 third place Group B clubs play the winners of Group C, which plays a typical UCL format Group Stage as well. The winners of those matches qualify for knockouts, bringing the number to 14/16. For the last 2 spots, use the Group Stages to determine who gets to play for those spots (to avoid pointless matches) but also give Group D clubs a small chance to qualify for the knockouts--e.g. as part of a mini playoff.

Incorporating domestic performance into this could get complicated, but I think it could still be done in a way so that the mega clubs and even the big clubs are satisfied with their increase in likelihood of qualifying for UCL even in a down domestic year (e.g. falling from Group A to Group B) but also still rewarding a midsize club that has an outstanding year.

The other aspect I like about this is how the UEL could then become more of a tier to qualify for UCL. It feels a bit hollow as it stands right now that only the UEL winner automatically qualifies, and really gets any increased chance, of UCL qualification. If the winner of UEL automatically got a place in Group B, runner up in Group C, and third place in Group D, or if those positions were already secured then their coefficients would be improved above and beyond that, I think that could be very fun.

Any way, just some mental floss from me!
 
Leaving aside the fact that I think of this as another gambit by the mega clubs to secure more money from UEFA...

I actually like the format of the UEFA Nations League and wonder if there's a way to copy some or all of that format for UCL. Let's use 4 groups of 8 as an example. The clubs with the 8 best UEFA coefficients (leave aside how that's calculated for a moment) form Group A and they automatically progress to the knockouts (and likely earn the money that goes along with that). Group B has 2 subgroups and they play a typical UCL Group stage (H-H round robin). Top 2 from each group move on. We now have 12/16 knockout participants. 2 third place Group B clubs play the winners of Group C, which plays a typical UCL format Group Stage as well. The winners of those matches qualify for knockouts, bringing the number to 14/16. For the last 2 spots, use the Group Stages to determine who gets to play for those spots (to avoid pointless matches) but also give Group D clubs a small chance to qualify for the knockouts--e.g. as part of a mini playoff.

Incorporating domestic performance into this could get complicated, but I think it could still be done in a way so that the mega clubs and even the big clubs are satisfied with their increase in likelihood of qualifying for UCL even in a down domestic year (e.g. falling from Group A to Group B) but also still rewarding a midsize club that has an outstanding year.

The other aspect I like about this is how the UEL could then become more of a tier to qualify for UCL. It feels a bit hollow as it stands right now that only the UEL winner automatically qualifies, and really gets any increased chance, of UCL qualification. If the winner of UEL automatically got a place in Group B, runner up in Group C, and third place in Group D, or if those positions were already secured then their coefficients would be improved above and beyond that, I think that could be very fun.

Any way, just some mental floss from me!
I like it. The big clubs want more games, and specifically more games against other big clubs. The smaller clubs don't want to be permanently excluded from the UCL. And your idea basically accomplishes both of these goals to some extent. I think you could tweak this idea at the margins - e.g., maybe the worst 1-2 clubs in Group A go into a playoff round against other clubs from lower tiers, rather than automatically advancing everyone to the knockout stage, or maybe teams finishing in the bottom few spots in Group A become ineligible for Group A in the following season (i.e., Nations League-like relegation). But I think this sort of competition would be much more watchable than the current pre-Christmas UCL group stage.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,025
Chelmsford, MA
I like it. The big clubs want more games, and specifically more games against other big clubs. The smaller clubs don't want to be permanently excluded from the UCL. And your idea basically accomplishes both of these goals to some extent. I think you could tweak this idea at the margins - e.g., maybe the worst 1-2 clubs in Group A go into a playoff round against other clubs from lower tiers, rather than automatically advancing everyone to the knockout stage, or maybe teams finishing in the bottom few spots in Group A become ineligible for Group A in the following season (i.e., Nations League-like relegation). But I think this sort of competition would be much more watchable than the current pre-Christmas UCL group stage.
The big clubs want the revenue of playing other big clubs without the risk of being eliminated. I don’t think any format change happens unless it secures additional guarantees of revenue for clubs who are building their business models on these annual revenues. While many of these clubs are evil, the truth of the matter is that FFP has forced teams to monitor annual revenue. They’re seeking regular, reliable cash flows and quite frankly aren’t interested in anything that ties those cash flows to pitch performance
 

Zososoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2009
9,209
South of North
The big clubs want the revenue of playing other big clubs without the risk of being eliminated. I don’t think any format change happens unless it secures additional guarantees of revenue for clubs who are building their business models on these annual revenues. While many of these clubs are evil, the truth of the matter is that FFP has forced teams to monitor annual revenue. They’re seeking regular, reliable cash flows and quite frankly aren’t interested in anything that ties those cash flows to pitch performance.
I think this is spot on, but the only reason people like me care about UCL as much if not more than domestic titles is because it pits the best from each country against one another. I don't care if Bayern plays Liverpool just because the shirts and badges carry history. I care about that match because both of those clubs play hyper aggressive football at the highest level. In other words, I'd be more excited to watch Atalanta vs. Dortmund as opposed to United vs. Milan--Atalanta vs. Dortmund features world class attacking football from non-traditional powerhouses whereas United vs. Milan should probably feature lots of historic clips in the promo at the moment.