If real reforming the CL is the point, it should be a real CL, with the runners up from the strong leagues. So no country with more than two contenders. The other teams that now come in the CL other than the "chosen ones" can go to the Europa league with the prize to become finalists both go into the CL next season. That will definitely change the attitude for the EL, as it is a doorway to the CL, while another one has been closed.
No there weren't. And even including last year, you have 4/25 teams from small leagues advancing to the R16 compared to 28/39 from big leagues. It's not exactly a success story. Listen, I'd like to see the small teams do better. If I could wave a magic wand and see them be live dogs that could make a run to the semis every now and then, I'd be all about having them represented in the competition. The atmosphere for a team like Celtic in a big match is hard to replicate. But when the top teams are advancing year after year after year without any sweat, and you get small teams finishing in the bottom half of every single group and going years without making the quarters, and you get an entire last match day full of dead rubbers, something needs to change.
This thread is nonsense. The reason clubs like PSV or Celtic or Basel didn't advance is because they're losing to the normal clubs from the "top 6 league". They're playing the likes of Bayern, Barcelona and PSG. That's going to be a tough proposition even for a 2nd tier club from a top 6 league. Would Everton really qualify ahead of Bayern and Atletico? Would they qualify ahead of Real Madrid and Dortmund? The answer is no. Might as well spread the wealth. UEFA has a mandate to expand the appeal of professional football throughout the continent. Champions league is a big reason why clubs like Olympiacos, Basel, Ajax etc ... can stay strong and attract lots of fans and quality players. You take this away and you're practically killing the sport in 80% of the continent. Europa League is great, but only as a compliment to Champions League. What gives the tournament appeal is that every year you're going to have a few super clubs come around like Inter and Manchester United. And the fact that winning the tournament can now be a backdoor to get into Champions League. I think UEFA has a pretty good balance right now. I'd be OK with some changes around the fringes ... like for example maybe limiting the number of clubs that get in through the Champions route to 2 clubs. That might get rid of a couple of minnows and replace them with bigger clubs to make the groups more competitive.
Everton would be much more competitive, but no they would probably have almost no chance of qualifying from those particular groups either. That's why I think the real problem is the 32-team group stage. They need to do the group stage later in the competition when you're left with more top teams. Playing 6 games to find out whether Bayern and Atletico are better than Rostov and PSV is just ridiculous.
Here's a list of examples of non top 6 finishing ahead of top 6 in last few years : 2015/16 - Zenit/Valencia, PSV/Man United, Kiev/Porto 2014/15 - Basel/Liverpool, Donetsk/Bilbao 2013/14 - Galatasaray/Juventus, Olympiacos/Benfica, Zenit/Porto 2012/13 - Donetsk/Chelsea, Celtic/Benfica, Galatasaray/Braga 2011/12 - CSKA/Lille, Basel/Man United, Zenit/Porto 2010/11 - Donetsk/Braga 2009/10 - CSKA/Wolfsburg 2008/09 - Panathinaikos/Bremen 2007/08 - Olympiacos/Bremen, Celtic/Benfica 2006/07 - PSV/Bordeaux, Celtic/Benfica 2005/06 - PSV/Schalke, Rangers/Porto On average a non top 6 club prevails over a top 6 club twice per season. Some clubs like PSV, Olympiacos, Celtic, Donetsk, CSKA, Basel, Galatasaray and Zenit have done it on more than one occasion so it's not exactly a fluke. Those types of clubs deserve to be in this competition. Like I said ... if anything I would tighten the champions route a little bit to make it harder for clubs like Dinamo Zagreb to get in. It doesn't do any good to have a competitor that finishes group with 0 points.
Blame the populace. There is nothing wrong with KO rounds to get to the last 6, then a 6 team group stage to determine Europe's best. 5 home, 5 away. But then fans, especially in the u.s. and a, will get bored. Fans prefer KOs at the end, that brings in more $$$. They don't like it if someone can clinch the title while not even playing.
Let's just form an A tournament and a B tournament just like ice hockey and basketball. One advantage will be that we will get rid of the joke referees, who are just there to protect the other cartel members. Everyone with an objective look knows that there's something wrong with the officiating.
That final is of no interest to me. Why not play against kindergarden teams, surely we will dominate? Besides, who cares about what happened in the last decade. Last year matters the stuff before it does not.
Tournament B makes absolutely no sense. What is it you're competing for? 33rd place? I ain't watching Tournament B eve n if my club is there. And I am not watching Tournament A if my club can not compete there.
I agree, leagues that are not competitive enough should never be part of Champions League. If the top 6 clubs of top 6 leagues are given entry to Champions League than it will make the competition much more interesting and competitive.
That's what the qualifying rounds are for. The best clubs shouldn't have to face the champion of the 30th or 40th best league, and they don't have to unless the champion of the 30th or 40th best league beats champions of better leagues in the qualifying rounds. All champions should have access to it. Cyprus was 21st in the country coefficients for the five seasons ending 2009-2010, which determined access to 2011-2012 competitions. In 2011-2012 APOEL Nicosia advanced through three qualifying rounds, the Group Stage, and the Round of 16 before losing both Quarterfinal legs against Real Madrid by 3 goals. If 20 or fewer leagues had access to the Champions League, APOEL Nicosia wouldn't have been invited.
I have a feeling that when you typed this you were thinking of Man United and Arsenal. But obviously the champion of Portugal (currently the 7th best league) is stronger than the 6th place team in Russia. In fact the top 2 in Portugal would generally be stronger than the 4th-6th teams in pretty much any league. So no it wouldn't become more competitive. Just the opposite in fact. Also it wouldn't be more interesting. As it stands, the knockout stages are almost entirely composed of teams from the top six leagues anyway. In any case, I don't think this was what the original poster was suggesting. He was more of the thought to make the group stage more competitive by reducing it to 16 teams.
I don't really have much of an opinion on changing the format, but one thing they need to do is simply seed the top 8 sides at th elast 16 stage and then a random draw the rest of the way in, who cares if Real Madrid draw barcelona or Man city craw chelsea. Let ie happen. It'll give more variety to the quarters and semis, I reckon .....
I would have to dispute that bit I underlined. Porto and Benfica,etc would be weaker than Arsenal and Man Utd ??? nah.....
There are 8 top seeds after the group stage (i.e. 8 teams that won their group) and no legit way to separate them unless you take into account results from previous seasons. So what you propose doesn't really work in practice...
There is a legit way to separate them: 1.points 2.GD 3.goals scored 4.shots on target 5.time of possession 6.seed alphabetically if 1-5 are all equal
That's a legit way to separate them? May I remind you that the 6 played matches that you're compiling those stats from are against completely different teams? Of course if they were playing against the same teams, then alphabetical order of club names is a great way to rank teams. You should copyright that seeding format before FIFA steals it! I just wouldn't want to be a fan of Zwolle PEC.
The first 5 criteria would have to be tied to go to the alphabet option. Which means it would never happen Yeah, it's against separate teams, but so what. Better than the random draw.
Better for who? Draws generate more talk which in essence gives the competition more attention from fans. Copa Libertadores used to rank teams similar to what you are describing and they got rid of that process.
It could also generate talk and affect clubs' strategies before the last Group Stage matchday if the winners were being ranked relative to each other. For example, Club X could know they need a draw to win their group and a win doesn't help them more than a draw, but a win would help them more than a draw if they were being compared to other group winners. Ranking the group winners could also reduce the amount of times when the top clubs don't use their best players against a club that should be easy to beat like Ludogorets Razgrad.
It might help increase incentive marginally but I don't think it helps enough to the point that it really adds interest to the final group stage games. Nobody is going to risk an important player getting a costly yellow card in the 6th group game if they've already clinched first, imo. And it would lead to the same teams meeting in the knockout phase over-and-over. So I wouldn't be in favor of it.