UEFA Looking To Potentially Extend the Champions League

[toffeejack]

Keep the Champions League as it is, its working,

turn the Europa league back into a cup (2 legs) competition with the winners getting a place in the Champions League.

it's not rocket science is it. Anyway, isn't it only from an english viewpoint that the europa league isn't worth bothering? Only teams like liverpool, spurs and newcastle (you have to laugh) think they're too big for it. I see bilbao and stuttgart struggling so maybe they don't take it seriously, or is the standard just higher than some of us think? I mean ffs, how hard would it be for them to do what deloodid suggested and also not let these 3rd place CL teams come down to the UEFA - it would definitely gain integrity. How a team can come 4th in their division, come 3rd in their group (hence knocked out) and still have a chance of winning a european cup is beyond me. Only cup i know where a team can get knocked out and still win something lucrative

 

[daulbo9]

I Guess i'm the only one that thinks the system works, they just need to make the Europa League more financially viable and teams would take it seriously. The Champions League works, despite it not being just for the 'champions', anyone that says it otherwise is just silly imo.

The Europa League is a strange one, although when we were in it, I always want us to play our best side and win (anyone who was at Fiorentina home would agree, one of the bittersweet nights in Goodison history)... But something feels, pointless about it.

 

[Royal Blue Jersey]

As long as it's simply called the European League I'd have no problems with it.
Whoever won would be rightly Champions of Europe, you can't argue with that. I think finishing 7th in England is a greater achievement than 1st in Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Ireland, Wales e.t.c
Chelsea and Liverpool both won the Champions League while finishing outside the top 5 or even top 6 of their leagues. Other teams have done the same. It would make it more interesting to see a variety of mid-level teams that may have the odd big performance in them giving something new each season and a greater proportion of that famous European honeypot being shared about. I can't see the issue. The best teams will still win if they are good enough. There is no devaluation.

 

[andy4efc]

Only two things wrong with teh Europa,

1. The massive difference in pot money.

2. The fact that CL dropouts enter it after the group stage.

Get rid of 2 and push for 1 and it's sorted.

Dont forget that the rest of europe takes teh europa league seriously, it's just english teams that give it no respect.

 

[Jay]

The thing is: Europa League was born dead and it is still dead and they can't keep it as it is

 

[njligernj]

For ****'s sake. Just make the Champions League do what its name suggests and make it "Champions" only. That way, you would have the likes of Manchester United, Barcelona, AC Milan, Bayern Munich, Arsenal, Benfica, Valencia, Schalke all competing in the UEFA Cup or Europa League, whatever it gets called. There would then be a lot more prestige in winning the bloody thing.

They won't agree to that in a million years. You might as well propose an idea where all the big clubs just take their profit at the end of the year and split it evenly among all football league clubs.

What if we had one team in the Europa League composed entirely of the best footballing unicorns? There would then be a lot more prestige in winning the bloody thing.

But how could it continue to call its self champions league? Currently even that's tenuous at best.

I'm aware football fan standard opinion is that the semantics of a "Champions" League are incredibly important. # 2 in the league are no more champions than # 5. Regardless change it to European Cup again if you like. I don't care what it's called. They should change it to be called the "32 Club Champions League" right as they expand to 64 just to [Poor language removed] people who take names too literally. Are we renaming Great Britain?

It doesn't make sense mate. The revenue would be lower simply by the virtue if their only being a handful of teams in it. Can you really imagine Real and Barca being happy with a tournament where only one of them could play In it every season ? Too many powerful teams would miss out.

Exactly. Brennan nailed it. It's not just pointless to suggest a Champions (only) League and newly expanded Europa but it's disingenuous too. Nobody watches the Europa Cup right now. Loads of people say "no keep things as they are" and then proceed to not give a crap about the Europa. It has no prize money for a reason -- it's because casual fans don't care about it (I know people who watch every Champions League match day and literally are not even aware of the existence of the Europa League).

If I were inventing European football I would quite possibly think it was a good idea to create a Champions League and a Europa League (but I might not name them that to avoid angering pedants). That said, after a few years I would realize, "Wait a second, we are putting all this time and effort into this Europa league and nobody cares about it. Why bother? Because it makes more sense on paper? Because it *feels* right to do it this way? Well, since I'm not completely deranged I don't think that way so let's merge them and give more money to clubs like Everton ... their fans would never be against an idea to expand the Champions League and deliver tens of millions in extra revenue and perhaps be that club's absolute last realistic chance to get back into the modern day big clubs would they? ... what's that? ... they are? ... because it's technically called *champions* league ... oh yeah that's a great reason to turn down tens of millions ... good call."

Remember the "Europa" itself was an attempt to "re-brand" that competition and make it more important. It failed for the same reason the Prem makes billions more than the Championship. Oh ... the "Championship" ... something that was also re-branded because it was the second-tier competition. How did that work?

Very few people care about how it *should* be done or what's *proper* football or how it was better in the 70's or 80's ... they want to watch the top competition and they will ignore the second-tier and watch the top-tier whether it has 16 teams or 64. If it has 64 we might be in it so let's hope it's 64.

 

[njligernj]

Only two things wrong with teh Europa, 1. The massive difference in pot money. 2. The fact that CL dropouts enter it after the group stage. Get rid of 2 and push for 1 and it's sorted. Dont forget that the rest of europe takes teh europa league seriously, it's just english teams that give it no respect.

If they take it so seriously then why does your very own point number 1 exist? They don't take it seriously enough to watch it in numbers large enough that TV companies pay huge money for the competition so there is huge money in the pot. So they don't really take it seriously. They are likely a lot like message board football fans -- they like the idea of it in principle and defend it out loud and then when they are home late at night they just watch the Champions League like everyone else in the world.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Extending the current format to include 64 teams would merely serve to devalue the Group stages even more than they already are. With seedings they'd turn into a glorified version of what the Europa league already serves up i.e. the competition that nobodies interested in, as it's second rate. It'd only become interesting at the knockout stage, as there'd be too many poorly matched games, & just as many no hoper vs no hoper ties.

Crap idea, but it's come from Platini's office, so it'll no doubt become a reality & the start of a European league system, that will eventually replace the domestic leagues for the 'big boys'.

 

[njligernj]

I Guess i'm the only one that thinks the system works, they just need to make the Europa League more financially viable and teams would take it seriously. The Champions League works, despite it not being just for the 'champions', anyone that says it otherwise is just silly imo. The Europa League is a strange one, although when we were in it, I always want us to play our best side and win (anyone who was at Fiorentina home would agree, one of the bittersweet nights in Goodison history)... But something feels, pointless about it.

Because it is pointless. As for "increasing the prize money would help" (which everyone says) would the fact Atlético Madrid won an extra 10 million pounds have made you more interested in watching the final? Your answer is no. Prize money won't help.

It's the second-tier so nobody cares ... unless your team is in it in of course which case it's all "this is great I don't know why more people don't watch the Europa" ... then your team gets knocked out and you immediately stop watching the Europa.

Extending the current format to include 64 teams would merely serve to devalue the Group stages even more than they already are.

The group stages aren't devalued. Nobody outside of message board football fans thinks that way. The idea that a competition is harder to win with less teams in it is so wrong-headed I can't believe anyone who can form letters into words could possibly hold that position.

Man U finished with the same number of points as Man City last year. Removing Man U from a tournament does not make that tournament more difficult to win (or more entertaining to watch). Chelsea won while finishing fifth domestically.

If it's semantics ("Champions") then change the name but don't pretend it would be harder or more prestigious with less teams in -- that's not how football works.

With seedings they'd turn into a glorified version of what the Europa league already serves up i.e. the competition that nobodies interested in, as it's second rate. It'd only become interesting at the knockout stage, as there'd be too many poorly matched games, & just as many no hoper vs no hoper ties.

Yes the part everyone hates in the FA Cup is when a small team faces a big team. Or when Barca plays Celtic and we all know it's going to be an easy win for Barca. Or imagine a Champions League game night at Goodison where we played Barca ... if both teams weren't league champions we wouldn't even bother watching that game on TV!

Sorry for so many posts. I'll stop now. People just seem to throw all logic (and reality) out of the window with this issue and live in a fantasy world where a competition they couldn't care less about under normal circumstances is suddenly a precious entity they must protect with their lives. Kill it now and end this farce and get us into a 64 team CL.

 

[Deloodid]

Because it is pointless. As for "increasing the prize money would help" (which everyone says) would the fact Atlético Madrid won an extra 10 million pounds have made you more interested in watching the final? Your answer is no. Prize money won't help. It's the second-tier so nobody cares ... unless your team is in it in of course which case it's all "this is great I don't know why more people don't watch the Europa" ... then your team gets knocked out and you immediately stop watching the Europa.

Sorry for so many posts. I'll stop now.

Keep it up mate you making some great points.

 

[Christiffa25]

Bigger CL with seeded qualifiers.

The really really poor teams have ruined the Europe league. A few extra groups with a team or 2 extra in each group wouldn't harm the CL IMO.

 

[stanleypark]

Give the Europa League a greater share of the money. That's it.


From an Everton angle I would hate the Europa League to be scrapped before we had won it.


From a personal point of view, I hate the Champions League.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

The group stages aren't devalued. Nobody outside of message board football fans thinks that way. The idea that a competition is harder to win with less teams in it is so wrong-headed I can't believe anyone who can form letters into words could possibly hold that position.

Who said it was harder to win with less teams? I said it'd be devalued further than it already is.

I know plenty of football fans who aren't arsed with most of the CL group games these days, & even more who'd never watch the EL, as the standard is lower. By including some of the lesser teams in to an extended CL, you're simply moving the EL product to the CL & further lowering the standard of the CL.

None of which means that some average side e.g. Liverpool 2005, could spawn their way to lifting the pot, as it's a cup competition.

 

[The-Golden-Vision]

The 'Champions' league.

http://www.tradedescriptionsact.co.uk/content/trade-descriptions-act-2010-10.html

 

[andy4efc]

If they take it so seriously then why does your very own point number 1 exist? They don't take it seriously enough to watch it in numbers large enough that TV companies pay huge money for the competition so there is huge money in the pot. So they don't really take it seriously. They are likely a lot like message board football fans -- they like the idea of it in principle and defend it out loud and then when they are home late at night they just watch the Champions League like everyone else in the world.

Teams in spain, italy and likewise do take it seriously. Im not on about the viewing figures or fanbase go to support it,. English clubs are the only ones who decide 'you know what, this isn't worth it', whether rightly or wrongly, we're the only nation who don't value it. Everyone else see's it as another trophy to win and field strong sides.