Do you think a Champions League win will be devalued this year?

8-10

Vex Willems wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it was, wasn't until 97-98 that runners up entered the competition.

Aha! My memory was way off then on the timing, sorry.

Yeah as I say these days I equate it to the likes of the World Series having only 2 countries represented or teams from New York and London competing in the All-Ireland. The title of the competition is just a brand.

It's personal choice but I prefer the format now as it's a much harder competition to win.

But overall I don't think it means this season is devalued in any way because of pandemic restrictions. From the quarter final onward it's a completely level playing field

Fr Tod Umptious

Vex Willems wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it was, wasn't until 97-98 that runners up entered the competition.

Oh no, before then.
I'd reckon 1993/1994

I know Leeds as English champions lost to Rangers as Scottish champions in 2992/1993 and I don't think the runners up were in it that year.

yourdeadwright

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I like Liverpool enough but wouldnt care if they never won anything again. Certainly don't like United. And trust me its not about that. I don't even care about PL that much in general, I'm more of a Bundesliga man. But I really have a problem with the Champions League because its mostly non champions.

I never get the argument about it being not just champions ,
Its to see who is the best team in Europe that season,

So if a team who have come 3rd in there domestic season the year previous win it them they deserve to be there and have shown that by wining it ?

Vex Willems

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Oh no, before then.
I'd reckon 1993/1994

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997–98_UEFA_Champions_League

For the first time, the runners-up of eight domestic leagues entered into the competition.

irelandrover

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I never get the argument about it being not just champions ,
Its to see who is the best team in Europe that season,

So if a team who have come 3rd in there domestic season the year previous win it them they deserve to be there and have shown that by wining it ?

going by that logic then why limit the teams that can enter at all, just have a giant european cup where every club from UEFA is allowed enter.

weldoninhio

No

kowloonkev wrote: »

Do you think it would be a better competition if only one team from each country was in it? I wonder what football would look like today if that was still the case.

Yes, as a straight knockout I think it would. Can't be having the big clubs knocked out early though can we. Perish the thought. :rolleyes:

weldoninhio

No

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I never get the argument about it being not just champions ,
Its to see who is the best team in Europe that season,

So if a team who have come 3rd in there domestic season the year previous win it them they deserve to be there and have shown that by wining it ?

So why have seeding in the qualifiers?? It's a closed shop for the rich to get richer.

8-10

irelandrover wrote: »

going by that logic then why limit the teams that can enter at all, just have a giant european cup where every club from UEFA is allowed enter.

Number of games probably, that would be a lot of teams. Think of the expense for smaller teams going overseas in the really early rounds.

I think the only practical option is to have some sort of domestic path to qualification first, like we already have.

If it worked though for everyone without impacting on the league season then I wouldn't be opposed. Think it's just a bit of a pie in the sky idea when you get to the details of what it would mean and you try to line up costs v benefit

8-10

weldoninhio wrote: »

So why have seeding in the qualifiers?? It's a closed shop for the rich to get richer.

Yeah I'm against this too. I like the champions v non-champions paths though.

ArmaniJeanss

Interestingly no other pan-European team sports event which started since the European Cup has gone with the one-per-country method.

Like there's no demand for Munster and Ulster to drop out of the Heineken Cup rugby so that the champions of Russia and Georgia get a shot.
And no-one ever suggests a case for Tralee Tigers basketball team to have a place in the Euroleague instead of one of the three Greek teams.

Fitz*

No

Roughly speaking, in the last 20 years more clubs have won the CL after not winning their own national league the season previous than clubs that did go into the CL as their national league holders.

I so think that both formats have certain merits, but also some pitfalls. Firmly sitting on the fence here!

I would prefer the name to be changed back to European Cup though. European Cup would suit the current format more IMO.

yourdeadwright

irelandrover wrote: »

going by that logic then why limit the teams that can enter at all, just have a giant european cup where every club from UEFA is allowed enter.

Technically they all get the chance to enter ,
Logic would suggest only a certain amount of teams can enter so it can be finished as domestic leagues also need to be played,

kowloonkev

No

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Interestingly no other pan-European team sports event which started since the European Cup has gone with the one-per-country method.

Like there's no demand for Munster and Ulster to drop out of the Heineken Cup rugby so that the champions of Russia and Georgia get a shot.
And no-one ever suggests a case for Tralee Tigers basketball team to have a place in the Euroleague instead of one of the three Greek teams.

Would you hear about it if there was a demand?

It's a ridiculous comparison anyway. The gap between the big European football leagues and smaller ones wasn't always so big. It has gone relatively unnoticed (or at least without opposition) but the smaller leagues are just slowly being exterminated by an organisation that is supposed to represent them.

irelandrover

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Technically they all get the chance to enter ,
Logic would suggest only a certain amount of teams can enter so it can be finished as domestic leagues also need to be played,

Technically they don't. The teams chance to play in this seasons cup is based on last seasons team, which could be completely different.

yourdeadwright

irelandrover wrote: »

Technically they don't. The teams chance to play in this seasons cup is based on last seasons team, which could be completely different.

Wouldn't that be the same if it was winner only ?

ArmaniJeanss

kowloonkev wrote: »

Would you hear about it if there was a demand?

It's a ridiculous comparison anyway. The gap between the big European football leagues and smaller ones wasn't always so big. It has gone relatively unnoticed (or at least without opposition) but the smaller leagues are just slowly being exterminated by an organisation that is supposed to represent them.

Giving them a place in a one-per-country 54-team European Cup wouldn't particularly help those leagues anyway.
Because the European Cup would become a bit of a non-entity - the sponsors would drastically reduce their payments, BT and the other broadcasters would no longer pay anywhere close to €250M a year for TV rights. (that's what BT alone pay)

All it would do is recreate the potential breakaway environment of the mid 90s which the expanded competition put a stop to.

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Interestingly no other pan-European team sports event which started since the European Cup has gone with the one-per-country method...

Which simply highlights that across many sports, money and TV audiences dictate everything. You cite rugby where teams were amalgamated and almost "made up" to create interest, so Munster that used to get 3 men and a dog at Inter Pros were touted as a club, like Borders in Scotland, and the Cork Cons and Garryowens all but overlooked.

Sheridan81

No

8-10 wrote: »

I'm saying that it makes them less worthy champions because they match fixed.

Match fixing is a serious offence against the sporting integrity of the competition.

What sporting integrity? It's football mate. Juventus were doped in the nineties and the great Barcelona teams were likely doped by Fuentes. Add to that the constant cheating on the pitch by the players. God knows what else is going on.

To be fair, you might have a point with Marseille being less worthy , but the only thing that was proven in a court of law was the bribery of three players in a league match.

For you to downplay match fixing because 'it didn't make a difference anyway' is a bit like saying attempted murder or plotting a terrorist attack shouldn't be crimes because nobody died.

Very unsuitable comparison. Not for me, Clive.

Sheridan81

No

It'll have the atmosphere of a pre-season Micky Mouse cup in the USA. The only difference will be no LA Galaxy.

BonnieSituation

Personally I don't think this year has been devalued in comparison to recent years.

The devaluation has long sunk in.

weldoninhio

No

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Giving them a place in a one-per-country 54-team European Cup wouldn't particularly help those leagues anyway.
Because the European Cup would become a bit of a non-entity - the sponsors would drastically reduce their payments, BT and the other broadcasters would no longer pay anywhere close to €250M a year for TV rights. (that's what BT alone pay)

All it would do is recreate the potential breakaway environment of the mid 90s which the expanded competition put a stop to.

I never understand posts about money in football, as if it means anything. If BBC were paying E10m a year for the TV rights and putting it on terrestrial tv, would that make Messi any better or worse? Or Koulibaly? Or Salah? Players would still be on decent money, and there'll be more chance of proper fans getting tickets to matches because they wouldn't be "events". All the "extra" money pumped in means is that the sucker fans get to pay more to watch it.

Coillte_Bhoy

8-10 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that everybody who's won it have been domestic Champions in their country at some stage. I think you mean in the year proceeding it rather than 'never'

Also, it used to be just domestic Champions and holder a long time ago and was a lot less competitive. The re-branding to 'Champions League' happened after it was already expanded to non-domestic Champions.

So I wouldn't read too much into the branded name of it, it's like being annoyed that the World Series only has teams from 2 countries competiting in it.

It might not be easier to qualify now that there's more teams in the competition, but that also means it's much harder to win these days than before when the Champions were winning knockout ties against the Swiss, Welsh or Northern Ireland domestic champions.

Its official title before the CL was European Champions Cup afaik, hate the name tbh, wish they would change it, might stop the ridiculous arguments about reverting to the old format

Coillte_Bhoy

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I agree with weldoninho that Champions League is an awfully named thing when some champions have to qualify to even make it to the group stages and elsewhere someone placed 4th just breezes in. Has always been a bug bear of mine with regards to the Champions League.

Would it be a better competition? Most certainly not but in return it would give the next tier - Europa League its called now - a much higher value. Now thats just a micky mouse thing and most big teams don't even want to be in it. And lets be honest all those extra teams in the CL give us the group stages which are just money making exercises. As a spectator I feel you get about one decent match per group, in some groups not even that. The CL starts for me when the group stages are over.

Maybe a compromise. Say you gain Champions League access for two years for winning your national title. So you have two teams from each country. Or some other thing. Now you had teams winning the Champions League that hadn't won their national title for 30 years. Sounds like a dig but its not I quite like Liverpool but they shouldn't have been allowed to win the Champions League.

Maybe if you stopped looking at things from an English football POV, you would realise that the EL is a big deal for a huge amount of clubs and leagues, outwith the top 5 leagues

~Rebel~

weldoninhio wrote: »

I never understand posts about money in football, as if it means anything. If BBC were paying E10m a year for the TV rights and putting it on terrestrial tv, would that make Messi any better or worse? Or Koulibaly? Or Salah? Players would still be on decent money, and there'll be more chance of proper fans getting tickets to matches because they wouldn't be "events". All the "extra" money pumped in means is that the sucker fans get to pay more to watch it.

I don't get your point... like, yes, that's obviously true that football would still be football for us watching... we'd all obviously love if matches were cheaper to go to, and cheaper to watch on tv, but that's got nothing to do with why it's happening.

Armani's point is that the clubs themselves would be unwilling to go with any sort of change like that because they, as a business, would make less money. And everyone involved, from the CEO's to the marketing execs, to the analysts, and couches and managers, would all be getting less money. So there's no chance of them going along with it.

As Armani said, all it would do is hasten the big clubs to split off to take financial advantage of the massive demand that is clearly there.

MurDawg

No

I think it will be the most memorable run of games out of any champions league (with the format)

Really looking forward to it.

Mitch Connor

The more top teams that are in the competition the higher the quality of the competition and the better chance you have of the best team in Europe being crowned champions.

The old format was harder to qualify for, but much easier to win cause you were more likely to face poor teams on the run to the final than you are now.

Look at who United had to get past on the way to winning the CL in 99. Had a group with the other finalist that season, barcelona with Player of the Year Rivaldo, Inter Milan with Ronaldo, Zamorano, Juventus with Inzaghi, Zidane, Davids and then Munich, again, in the final. That is a much more difficult route than Hibernians (of Malta), Sarajevo (or Bosnia), Górnik Zabrze (of Poland) in the 67/68 win (then played Real Madrid and Benfica)

5 rounds, 3 of which were fairly easy. vs a group stage with 2 of the other best sides in europe, followed by 3 more rounds, against some of the best sides in Europe.

There is no question, in my mind, that once you are in the CL (which is easier to qualify for) that it is a much more difficult competition to win than it was before the format changed.

The CL has devalued the other European trophies (Uefa Cup/Europa League, the old Cup Winners Cup), but I cannot get on board with the idea that the CL itself is devalued. It has become an even bigger trophy, imo.

8-10

Mitch Connor wrote: »

That is a much more difficult route than Hibernians (of Malta), Sarajevo (or Bosnia), Górnik Zabrze (of Poland) in the 67/68 win (then played Real Madrid and Benfica)

Try:

Crusaders -> Trabzonspor -> St Etienne -> FC Zurich -> Monchengladbach

or:

BYE -> Dynamo Dresden -> Benfica -> Monchengladbach -> Brugge


For back to back European Cup wins

klose

I think the one off games will be played at a ferocious pace, no away goals or second chances, 90 minutes do or die I think the games will be quality.

Mitch Connor

8-10 wrote: »

Try:

Crusaders -> Trabzonspor -> St Etienne -> FC Zurich -> Monchengladbach

or:

BYE -> Dynamo Dresden -> Benfica -> Monchengladbach -> Brugge


For back to back European Cup wins

I felt it was safer for me to be critical of opponents in a United cup win, rather than a Liverpool one....

Fitz*

No

8-10 wrote: »

Try:

Crusaders -> Trabzonspor -> St Etienne -> FC Zurich -> Monchengladbach

or:

BYE -> Dynamo Dresden -> Benfica -> Monchengladbach -> Brugge


For back to back European Cup wins

While those names now don't mean much, we do have to remember that at the time those teams were the best in their countries.

For example St Etienne won the French league 3 seasons in a row at that time. Gladbach had also won 3 German leagues in a row, and Benfica also won 3 Portuguese League titles in a row.

Clearly those teams were the best teams in their countries at the time so beating them was no mean feat. Now I do appreciate that beating the likes of Crusaders is not much to write home about but you still had to beat the top teams in Europe to win the competition. This was before the days of big money transfers too. Generally speaking, a lot of the best players any country produced played for the top teams in the country and didn't move to foreign clubs.

Tchaikovsky

Not if Atalanta win it.

ArmaniJeanss

"Sarejevo (of Bosnia)" would actually have been "Sarejevo (of Yugoslavia)" at the time, presumably with players who'd been 4th in the 1962 WC and would be runners-up in the 1968 Euros.
So you are probably downselling the difficulty of that 1/4 final MUFC had.
And trips to Eastern Europe had their own special problems regardless.

But doubtless the overall point of potentially getting an easy run to the last 4 is valid.

@Mitch

ERG89

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

Not if Atalanta win it.

I just want Atalanta to knock out Juventus after their chairman Andrea Agnelli said Atalanta shouldn't be allowed in the tournament based on their history.

Sheridan81

No

FitzShane wrote: »

While those names now don't mean much, we do have to remember that at the time those teams were the best in their countries.

For example St Etienne won the French league 3 seasons in a row at that time. Gladbach had also won 3 German leagues in a row, and Benfica also won 3 Portuguese League titles in a row.

Clearly those teams were the best teams in their countries at the time so beating them was no mean feat. Now I do appreciate that beating the likes of Crusaders is not much to write home about but you still had to beat the top teams in Europe to win the competition. This was before the days of big money transfers too. Generally speaking, a lot of the best players any country produced played for the top teams in the country and didn't move to foreign clubs.

Exactly. Furthermore...

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The old format was harder to qualify for, but much easier to win cause you were more likely to face poor teams on the run to the final than you are now.

That's a contradiction.

Look at who United had to get past on the way to winning the CL in 99. Had a group with the other finalist that season, barcelona with Player of the Year Rivaldo,

Neither of whom they beat in the Group Stage incidentally.

Inter Milan with Ronaldo, Zamorano, Juventus with Inzaghi, Zidane, Davids and then Munich, again, in the final.

5 rounds, 3 of which were fairly easy. vs a group stage with 2 of the other best sides in europe, followed by 3 more rounds, against some of the best sides in Europe.

This is an example of looking at names rather than judging by the quality on show.

Placings in Serie A that season:

Inter: 8th (lost 14 games)
Juventus: 7th (lost 10 games)

8-10

FitzShane wrote: »

While those names now don't mean much, we do have to remember that at the time those teams were the best in their countries.

For example St Etienne won the French league 3 seasons in a row at that time. Gladbach had also won 3 German leagues in a row, and Benfica also won 3 Portuguese League titles in a row.

Yep but I don't think it's necessarily devalued that the same team then beat the French Champions (PSG), German Champions (Bayern), Spanish Champions (Barcelona), Portuguese Champions (Porto), Serbian Champions (Red Star) and best teams they met from the other 2 top leagues (Napoli and Spurs) to win the competition last year.

Mitch Connor

Sheridan81 wrote: »

Exactly. Furthermore...

That's a contradiction.

Its not a contradiction. it is two different things.

Once you are in the competition it was easier to win because of the relative quality of the opposition.

Now it is easier to qualify for, but the quality of teams you have to beat to win it is generally higher. So it is harder for any given team that is in it, to win it.

How many back to back winners were there in the European Cup format? How many back to back winners have there been in the CL format?

Same argument for the Club World Cup (or the older version of it).

Hardest competition in football to qualify for (as a european team), but pretty easy to win once you are in it.

8 instances of Back to Back EC wins (including Madrid 5 or Ajax 3 as 1 grouping) vs 1 back to back CL win (Real Madrid 3peat)

ERG89

The draws for the latter stages are on now. Did not hear it mentioned until YouTube recommended it to me.

Real v City

ooo

y0ssar1an22

RM/city vs jyon/juve
leipzig vs atleti
napoli/barce vs chelsea/munich
atalanta vs psg

y0ssar1an22

RM/city vs lyon/juve VS napoli/barce vs chelsea/munich

leipzig vs atleti VS atalanta vs psg

y0ssar1an22

bottom half of the draw certainly looks easier

MD1990

No

could be PSG's year.

Good draw for them

ERG89

MD1990 wrote: »

could be PSG's year.

Good draw for them

If I'm not mistaken playing the 4th match means they will have 2 days less rest than their opponent in the semi finals. Handy that the teams who qualified are all on one side whereas the messy ties are all on the other.
It is a good chance for PSG, maybe the best chance Barca will have going forward to win this tournament too. Don't fancy them tho but its an opportunity.
Juve will not like the draw as I would not fancy them against (likely) Man City.

Sheridan81

No

It's surely Atletico Madrid's big chance.

But I'd love Atalanta to win-that would mean they'd have only one less European Cup than Juve... LOL.