Is the Champions League bad for football?

orourkeda

It’s the greatest club tournament in world football. This is beyond question. But do the financial implications for clubs mean that the Champions League is doing as much harm as good. If we take the current top four clubs in England as an example. All four clubs are perennial competitors and would be considered among the very few realistic contenders. However, how many of these clubs could afford to be without Champions League football. They are all carrying huge debts and need the income badly to service these debts. They simply can’t afford to miss out. If we are to look at the next few clubs who would see themselves as contenders to break into the top four. Manchester City have bought really big. Aston Villa, Spurs and Everton would need to do the same to stand any chance. Is there any way to level the playing field for chasing clubs.

DSB

The competition itself isn't bad for football, the way its been organised however with England getting 4 clubs, and the lower countries barely even getting 1, coupled with the amount of money going in it, means the competition is a massive factor in hindering the development of football in plenty of European countries, when UEFA should be doing all they can to help it prosper, instead of sticking in 3rd place Chelsea and 4th place Arsenal, just because they make a prettier sight for event junkies.

ArmaniJeanss

The question in your Title is different to the question in the text.

To answer the question in the Title - No, the Champions League is not bad for football. In fact (2nd to the concept of the World Cup) it is the greatest thing that has ever happened to football.
Its brough more TV Money, sponsorship, bums on seats, fan support, media attention etc into the game than could ever have been dreamed of during the rather dark days for club football of the mid80s.

There is a problem in England that you've raised (and to be honest its England only, it hasn't happened anywhere else) where the same 4 teams are hogging the 4 spots each year (Though its effectively only 3.5 slots now which could change the dynamic).

Whether something needs to be done to fix the English problem is a hugely different question to whether the Champions League itself is bad for football. The answer to the latter is clearly No.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

ArmaniJeanss

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Seriously, I'm struggling to think of any other sport which doesn't use seeding for its major competitions/world championchips etc.
Tennis, Snooker, Rugby, Cricket. Yep, seedings.
So if its against the nature of sport, then it seems that every sport out there is doing it wrong iyo.

As for bring back the old European Cup (champions only) I'm old enough to have seen this competition from the late 1970s onwards etc. And it was rather cack to be honest.

Nowadays it would make even less sense.
What sort of communistic competition would give more importance to the winners of the League in countries where the game is barely played (Finland, Slovakia etc), countries which are basically makey-up entities (Kosovo, Montenegro) than it would to 2nd and 3rd place teams in counties that are the very lifeblood of the game (England, Spain, Italy, Germany)?

Thankfully it will never happen.

CHD

No.

flahavaj

Depends who you support really.

DSB

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Nowadays it would make even less sense.
What sort of communistic competition would give more importance to the winners of the League in countries where the game is barely played (Finland, Slovakia etc), countries which are basically makey-up entities (Kosovo, Montenegro) than it would to 2nd and 3rd place teams in counties that are the very lifeblood of the game (England, Spain, Italy, Germany)?

On what basis? Because the 2nd and 3rd teams in those leagues are better than the winners of Finnish and Slovakian leagues, or because the game is more played in those countries? Either one is a bit of a dead point, because if those leagues were given a CL spot every year, both those things would change, the sides would become better, and the game would become more popular, which is what UEFA should be trying to encourage, instead of creating a super elite realistically 3 (maybe even 2 now) country Champions League.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

ArmaniJeanss

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, the aim should be (and is) to have the two best players/teams in the final, the 4 best in the semi finals etc. This is done for the spectators, to maintain the quality of the latter stages (and this is tied in with money etc).

So rugby won't have a World Cup stage one group with France/Australia/NewZealand/England in it, tennis won't have Federer and Nadal meeting in the first round at Roland Garros, Darts won't have Barney and Taylor meeting in the first round at Alexandra palace.

Seeding is good for everyone because it is good for the overall competition, and if you are good enough you will break through the seeding anyway. e.g., Federer started off at ranked number 1328 or whatever in the world at one stage.

Seedings are good.

mike65

I suppose one solution, that no one would dream of signing up to, would be to make the CL a revenue free event apart from seats sold. No additional tv cash, no UEFA pot, no specific sponsership.

Just the glory

DSB

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

No, the aim should be (and is) to have the two best players/teams in the final, the 4 best in the semi finals etc. This is done for the spectators, to maintain the quality of the latter stages (and this is tied in with money etc).

So rugby won't have a World Cup stage one group with France/Australia/NewZealand/England in it, tennis won't have Federer and Nadal meeting in the first round at Roland Garros, Darts won't have Barney and Taylor meeting in the first round at Alexandra palace.

Seeding is good for everyone because it is good for the overall competition, and if you are good enough you will break through the seeding anyway. e.g., Federer started off at ranked number 1328 or whatever in the world at one stage.

Seedings are good.

So what you're saying is, seedings are pretty much there to placate the event junkies?

SectionF

The Champions' League as currently constructed isn't bad for football, it's positively toxic. It's a financial competition, not a sporting one, and it sucks the blood from all levels of the sport. Whatever bunch of (often quite creepy) suits can raise the most through LBOs has the best prospect of winning it.
That isn't to say that there shouldn't be a European competition.

flahavaj

SectionF wrote: »

The Champions' League as currently constructed isn't bad for football, it's positively toxic. It's a financial competition, not a sporting one, and it sucks the blood from all levels of the sport. Whatever bunch of (often quite creepy) suits can raise the most through LBOs has the best prospect of winning it.
That isn't to say that there shouldn't be a European competition.

City to be European Champions in five years then?:pac:

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

L'prof

DSB wrote: »

The competition itself isn't bad for football, the way its been organised however with England getting 4 clubs, and the lower countries barely even getting 1, coupled with the amount of money going in it, means the competition is a massive factor in hindering the development of football in plenty of European countries, when UEFA should be doing all they can to help it prosper, instead of sticking in 3rd place Chelsea and 4th place Arsenal, just because they make a prettier sight for event junkies.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I think it would devalue the competition if you filled it up with shíté teams rather than the way it's laid out currently and any attempt to change the current format could have dire consequences a la Super League formation which I'm sure nobody wants to see happen!

flahavaj

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Horrible analogy with the golf, there. Its not as if the top teams get a 2 or 3 goal head start in the CL. In fact in golf, when they actually play a comparable tournament such as the world matchplay, the players are seeded as well.

Unearthly

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I can see it now. A world cup qualifying group containing

San Marino
Armenia
Andorra
Malta
Moldova
Liechtenstein
Faroe Islands

One of them guaranteed to be going to the most prestigious competition in football.

I'd have goosebumps in anticipation for these matches.

orourkeda

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The question in your Title is different to the question in the text.

To answer the question in the Title - No, the Champions League is not bad for football. In fact (2nd to the concept of the World Cup) it is the greatest thing that has ever happened to football.
Its brough more TV Money, sponsorship, bums on seats, fan support, media attention etc into the game than could ever have been dreamed of during the rather dark days for club football of the mid80s.

There is a problem in England that you've raised (and to be honest its England only, it hasn't happened anywhere else) where the same 4 teams are hogging the 4 spots each year (Though its effectively only 3.5 slots now which could change the dynamic).

Whether something needs to be done to fix the English problem is a hugely different question to whether the Champions League itself is bad for football. The answer to the latter is clearly No.

I was just using it as an example. While the English league is unique in the sense that all four spots have been occupied by the same four club for 4\5 seasons now, If you look at the other major European Leagues there are one and often two clubs that are practically untouchable when it comes to CL qualification. Inter (Usually accompanied by Juventus and A.C). Barcelona and Real Madrid in Spain. Lyon In France. Bayern Munich. Celtic and Rangers (although not necessarily into group stages) and so on. There are others across Europe.

orourkeda

Unearthly wrote: »

I can see it now. A world cup qualifying group containing

San Marino
Armenia
Andorra
Malta
Moldova
Liechtenstein
Faroe Islands

One of them guaranteed to be going to the most prestigious competition in football.

I'd have goosebumps in anticipation for these matches.

Lets be realistic. Before a ball is kicked in anger in a world cup campaign, you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be at least 25 qualifiers that have absolutely no chance of competing in a world cup finals tournament. They are there to make up the numbers quite literally. Costa Rica, Trinidad and togo among the world superpowers that qualified for Germany.

orourkeda

DSB wrote: »

The competition itself isn't bad for football, the way its been organised however with England getting 4 clubs, and the lower countries barely even getting 1, coupled with the amount of money going in it, means the competition is a massive factor in hindering the development of football in plenty of European countries, when UEFA should be doing all they can to help it prosper, instead of sticking in 3rd place Chelsea and 4th place Arsenal, just because they make a prettier sight for event junkies.

Thats a fair point you make. Thats maybe how I should have phrased it to start with.

Unearthly

orourkeda wrote: »

Lets be realistic. Before a ball is kicked in anger in a world cup campaign, you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be at least 25 qualifiers that have absolutely no chance of competing in a world cup finals tournament. They are there to make up the numbers quite literally. Costa Rica, Trinidad and togo among the world superpowers that qualified for Germany.

Agreed

and they are seeded accordingly.

Although I'd probably prefer to shorten the amount of teams in the world cup like in the past.

flahavaj

orourkeda wrote: »

Lets be realistic. Before a ball is kicked in anger in a world cup campaign, you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be at least 25 qualifiers that have absolutely no chance of competing in a world cup finals tournament. They are there to make up the numbers quite literally. Costa Rica, Trinidad and togo among the world superpowers that qualified for Germany.

Yes and by not having seeding, you're only increasing the chances of even more no hopers getting to the finals.

pickarooney

It all depends on what your outlook on the game is.

If you're the type to prefer seeing the same, top-quality opposition play one another over and over ad infinitum (cf Federer/Nadal) then the CL is set up pretty much exactly the way you want it.

If you're the type who prefers the unknown, the unexpected or the triumph of the underdog then no, the CL is positively pointless.

The former appears to be the larger group. Even when major upsets happen (e.g. South Korea in '02) the overwhelming public reaction is one of disappointment.

DSB

Unearthly wrote: »

I can see it now. A world cup qualifying group containing

San Marino
Armenia
Andorra
Malta
Moldova
Liechtenstein
Faroe Islands

One of them guaranteed to be going to the most prestigious competition in football.

I'd have goosebumps in anticipation for these matches.

I honestly don't see the big deal.

pickarooney

DSB wrote: »

I honestly don't see the big deal.

At least they'd be competitive games.

flahavaj

pickarooney wrote: »

At least they'd be competitive games.

Thats why there should be a qualification group such as above to get into the qualifiers themselves. Another example of how seeding is a good thing, not a bad thing.:D

DSB

pickarooney wrote: »

At least they'd be competitive games.

And I mean it'd only be 1 of them that went through anyway, considering none of them would have a hope in a playoff, but how beneficial would it be for football in a country like Moldova to qualify? It'd be amazing. Obviously you don't want 32 poor teams, and you do want your strongest teams there (naturally they should be, if they're the strongest) but I think its wrong to pave the path for them while lesser teams are made navigate a forest full of obstacles.

pickarooney

flahavaj wrote: »

Thats why there should be a qualification group such as above to get into the qualifiers themselves. Another example of how seeding is a good thing, not a bad thing.:D

It's more 'weeding' than 'seeding'.

DSB

flahavaj wrote: »

Thats why there should be a qualification group such as above to get into the qualifiers themselves. Another example of how seeding is a good thing, not a bad thing.:D

You could nearly see this post as the kind of ideas they'd come up with at Sky boardroom meetings.

JPA

Winning or doing well in the Champions league brings 2 thing to a club, prestige and money.
Compare that to the UEFA cup where prestige is the only motivator for a team as the money is about 10 times less. (Not an exaggeration)
The distribution is just disgraceful.

flahavaj

DSB wrote: »

You could nearly see this post as the kind of ideas they'd come up with at Sky boardroom meetings.

Why, you think Sky would want to show the group thats posted above!?

pickarooney

They should run the CL and WC like the Eurovision/Premiership and just promote a few useless teams to replace the crap that finishes last.

DSB

flahavaj wrote: »

Why, you think Sky would want to show the group thats posted above!?

No because you seem to have the opinion that the way sport is run should cater to what people would want to watch on TV.

flahavaj

DSB wrote: »

No because you seem to have the opinion that the way sport is run should cater to what people would want to watch on TV.

Not in the slightest. Putting weaker countries in a pre qualification group for the main qualifiers would give them regular games against teams of similar quality, which benefits them far more in the long run than being hammered in the normal group stage on a regular basis. It also gives them something tangible and attainable to aim for, rather than going out knowing they have no hope of any kind of result in their matches.

dyl10

Make it an actual league of champions with the champions of each EU country given entry.(A kick back to the European Cup)

How do the 4th placed team in England qualify as champions?
That's not even a bronze medal! :eek:

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Hagar

It's good for the game IMHO for one reason alone, it's one of the few decent competitions that us ordinary TV viewers get to see without being subject to the tyranny of Sky Sports.

flahavaj

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They're not good enough to be there. They have a chance of qualifying in the current system and none of them have ever come within an asses roar of qualification. Its not that no one wants them to be there per se, but having teams of that calibre compete for the most prestigious prize in the world id laughable: they don't deserve to be there.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

ArmaniJeanss

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Golf in not a great analogy, but lets consider how seedings in golf works.
Because contrary to initial perception there are seedings at play here.

Firstly I'm number 170 in the World, you are in the top 10.
So you'll get auto invited to all 4 Majors, and all the top money events that are just below Major level. You will effectively be able to pull up anywhere in the World on a Wednesday and play in any competition on any tour.

On the other hand for the Majors, I'll have to play a succession of qualifiers in the weeks beforehand against a couple of hundred golfers of similar ability in pursuit of 20 or 30 places reserved for qualifiers. This is the equivalent of the prelimiary rounds which FC Dynamo MakeyUp etc have to go through.

So I qualify for the British Open, wahoo. Random draw time now? Not at all.
Watch whilst Tiger and Phil Mick etc get a nice 11AM/11AM start on the Thursday and the Friday, whilst I get lumbered with 6.00 AM on the Thursday and 3PM on the Friday, historically most likely to get the worst of the weather.

And I battle through that, Saturday evening comes I'm lying in joint second place. Paul Casey is 3under, Me and Tiger are 2under. So Paul Casey goes out in the last group and who do you think get selected to also have the advantage of also going out in the last group? Clue. It won't be me.

So the top guys don't get a 5 shot lead or whatever, but they do have get certain seeding advantages.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

flahavaj

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Seeding teams is the best way of ensuring all teams will play the same number of teams of equal ability in a qualification group ie a team from each of the seeded pots in the draw. If anything, an open draw makes it much much more unequal, no matter what perspective you have: you could get potentially the 6 best teams or the 6 worst or any random combination in between. Thats not equal AT ALL.

5starpool

This is a bit of a silly argument. If things were changed to make it more equitable for the smaller teams, as it was in years past before the champions league, the tv money would not be there for European football. No TV company (except from the countries of the teams) would pay the money to show Malmo vs Bohemians, or Dinamo Moscow vs Linfield or similar. There would not be a list of huge tournament sponsors, there would be very little in the way or prizemoney. I'm not saying things are perfcet still, but UEFA had to do this or else there would have been a breakawy european league years ago.

ArmaniJeanss

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, I believe so.
Its correct that the highest rank players should automatically qualify. There are 1000s of pro golfers worldwide and it would be a major timewaste for the Worlds Top players to continually have to battle their way through scores of qualifying rounds.
The teeoff times 'fix' is a bit less defensible but it brings greater revenue/spectators into the game which filters down to everyone. And if you get good enough then you become the guy who gets the cushy start times and you replace some 'loser'.

Overall there remains enough of a level playing field, and a path to the top, which any aspiring player can get through given enough ability.

You continually have to 'break' the seedings in any sport. Moving up the next level and getting the rewards and protection which comes with it.

I accept you disagree with this in any sport by the way. I more take issue with the fact that you (I think it was you, apols if not) seem to think that seedings are something that only happens in football.

ArmaniJeanss

5starpool wrote: »

but UEFA had to do this or else there would have been a breakawy european league years ago.

This is a good point often forgotten, maybe not even known by some of the younger contributors (and I'm taking my most recent birthday badly!).

If UEFA hadn't done what they did to the European Cup in the early 90s then its generally accepted that we were within months of a major breakaway by about 20 teams who would have created effectively a closed shop European Super League, causing a major split in international football, and the end of World Cups as we know it (as FIFA would have banned participants, yet FIFA themselves would have been shorn of the best players making a mockery of their competitions).

This would have been the ultimate disaster for football.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

deisedude

I cant see how having 4 British and Spanish teams is in anyway good for football throughout Europe. It may be good for the coffers of UEFA but certainly not football. Is it any wonder the likes of the league of Ireland is on its deathbed? If the Irish league champions got at least some European game with exposure the league would be more popular here, the same applies across Europe. The Champions league while entertaining embodies all that is wrong with football. The game is ruled by fatcats with suits. The rich remain rich and the poor remain poor. Anyone who makes claims that this is fairer or better for football is talking ****:mad:

pickarooney

Hagar wrote: »

It's good for the game IMHO for one reason alone, it's one of the few decent competitions that us ordinary TV viewers get to see without being subject to the tyranny of Sky Sports.

Instead you're subject to the tyranny of Canal +

Let's not forget that the money each team receives from the CL is not so much dependent on how far they progress but on the amount contributed by the TV companies of their home countries.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

deisedude

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just adding a bit of socialism to football:D