Not much given that 1) Roma have had their struggles for years in the CL, and 2) there is a notable drop-off in Serie A after the top 3 (i.e. Juve, Roma and Napoli). You also can't assume that the 4th team will be one of the Milan "giants" given that the 2 Milan teams haven't been very good or consistent for a while. That might change by 2018 but I'm just speaking in terms of what things look like right now.
For the people that were complaining that the new system was being "unfair" by giving more spots to top leagues, I'd like to point out that through 4 games in the Champions League: -Every team from a Top 4 league is ahead of all teams from non-Top 4 leagues within their groups. -Every team from a Top 6 league is ahead of all teams from non-Top 6 leagues within their group. -Teams from non-Top 6 leagues have a combined record of 0-6-30 in 36 games against teams from Top 6 leagues. That's right, 0 wins and 30 losses! At this point, all holding these spots open does is make for a bunch of boring, non-competitive matches and groups. I'm OK with having a few cinderellas, but 4-6 is plenty. We definitely don't need to keep 11/36 spots reserved for non-competitive fodder.
The gaps going to continue to widen regardless. The money from the top domestic leagues dwarfs the money for even winning the Champions League, let alone the money for reaching the group stage. If you're really worried about the smaller leagues getting money they can spend on players, then just give them more money for making the qualifying rounds. Continuing to put teams that can't win into the group stage though, does nothing but make people not want to watch the group stage.
So the EPFL is balking at this. Might they take this compromise. In summary, the 4th Italian team has to start in Playoff Round, the champ from the 11th ranked league is bumped into group stage, and the runners-up from leagues ranked 11-15 no longer qualify (they go to Europa League). Group Stage (26): CL title holders EL title holders Champs (1-11) Runners-up (1-6) 3rd (1-4) 4th (1-3) Champions Route: Playoff Round: 8 clubs from 3rd qualifying round 3rd Qualifying Round: Champs (12-15) + 12 winners from 2nd Qualifying Round 2nd Qualifying Round: Champs (16-24) + 15 winners from 1st Qualifying Round 1st Qualifying Round: Champs (25-55, excluding Liechtenstein) League Route: Playoff Round: 4th (4) + 3 winners from 3rd Qualifying Round 3rd Qualifying Round: 3rd (5-6) + Runners-up (7-10)
In 2015/2016, Dynamo Kyiv, PSV Eindhoven, and KAA Gent advanced to the round of 16 with Gent, specifically, passing a club from Spain, and Eindhoven getting by a club from England. That destroys your argument right there.
Most of the Round of 16 clubs come from the top six leagues, but all 16 coming from the top six leagues is an exception. In 2015-2016, in addition to naming who PSV Eindhoven and KAA Gent finished ahead of, Dynamo Kyiv finished ahead of Porto. In 2014-2015, Basel and Shakhtar Donetsk reached the Round of 16. In 2016-2017, Basel finished last in Group A behind Ludogorets Razgrad and Shakhtar Donetsk is in the Europa League. In 2013-2014, Olympiakos Piraeus and Galatasaray reached the Round of 16. In 2016-2017, Olympiakos Piraeus lost in Qaulifying Round 3 and went to the Europa League, while Galatasaray didn't qualify for the Champions League. To conclude, clubs from outside the top six leagues can do well sometimes, but it's hard for them to reach the Round of 16 twice in four seasons. I want all champions to have access to the Champions League.
There are rumblings this proposal is getting squashed. If so here is my proposed replacement (ignore the previous patch job): Group stage (24): CL title holder EL title holder Champions (1-13) Runners up (1-6) 3rd (1-3) Playoff Round: 4th (1-3) 3rd (4) 12 winners from previous round 3rd Qualifying Round: 3rd (5-6) Runners up (7-8) Champions (14-15) 18 winners from previous round 2nd Qualifying Round: Champions (16-49, excluding Liechtenstein) 3 winners from previous round 1st Qualifying Round: Champions (50-55) The runners up from leagues 9-15 would no longer be in CL as they are surplus to requirements. They would either get EL group stage or playoff round spots. Also, I would have two time slots for the group stage (6:45 and 8:45) instead of one to increase revenue.
UEFA has gone through with it's plans and has chosen Option 2. Thanks to Partizan_Belgrade for the info.
http://www.uefa.org/mediaservices/newsid=2430054.html#lyon host 2018 uefa europa league final BTW there is still a chance that all of these changes to be revoked
I'm guessing it's about EPFL's threat of ripping up its Memorandum of Understanding ... if they do and e.g. the English and/or Spanish leagues start scheduling matches at the same time as the CL the TV deals aren't worth that much ... EPFL has set a March deadline, let's see if it gets tweaked. Also, the Atlantic League is back on the table ... mainly as a bargaining chip to prevent a Super League as these reforms are edging closer to just that ... have to see what happens there too ... if anything happens at all.
The Atlantic league is a bluff and everyone knows it. Celtic and others aren't going to go through with that. As far as the EPFL, UEFA has given all champions another chance in the EL (not just those that lose in the last two qualifying rounds). That is a big compromise. We'll see what happens in March.
http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=2450083.html #1 to #4 (Spain, Germany, England, Italy): four group #5 to #6 (France, Russia): two group, one qualifying (they make no distinction between "qualifying" and "playoff" here) #7 to #10 (Portugal, Ukraine, Belgium, Turkey "currently hold those posititions"): one group, one qualifying #11 to #12 (Czech Republic, Switzerland, currently): play-offs top 12: at least one Europa League group