As it stands right now, the Champions League is doing really well. However, there are still some major problems in the sport around Europe: 1) national cups are growing less and less important every day, 2) Eastern European clubs are struggling financially, leading to little talent or ability to keep it, 3) as usual, big clubs are trying to find additional ways to gain income, and 4) the Europa League needs a major overhaul. My solution: a 48-team Champions League. Entrants (assuming the CL winner would qualify anyway and EL winner wouldn't) in Group Stage (12 groups of 4): EL winner from previous season Champions of leagues ranked 1-20 Runners-up of leagues ranked 1-6 Third-place clubs of leagues ranked 1-5 Fourth-place clubs of leagues ranked 1-3 (This totals 35, leaving 13 spots to those who qualify from one of three qualifying paths) Champions qualifying path (33 clubs for 5 spots): 1st qualifying round: Champions of leagues ranked 46-53 (I ignore Liechtenstein) enter 2nd qualifying round: Champions of leagues ranked 32-45 + 4 winners from previous round enter 3rd qualifying round: Champions of leagues ranked 21-31 + 9 winners from previous round enter Playoff Round: 10 winners from previous round enter Non-champions qualifying path (9 clubs for 3 spots): 3rd qualifying round: Runners-up of leagues ranked 10-15 enter Playoff Round: Third-place club of 6th ranked league + Runners-up of leagues ranke 7-8 + 3 winners from previous round Cup winners path (54 clubs for 5 spots): Note: if cup winner is already qualified for group stage or other two paths of qualifying, the next highest ranked team in country gains berth here (runner-up in most low-tier countries, 5th place in England) 1st qualifying round: Cup winners (or league representative) from leagues ranked 15-54 2nd qualifying round: Cup winners from leagues ranked 7-14 + 20 winners from previous round 3rd qualifying round: Cup winners from leagues ranked 1-6 + 14 winners from previous round Playoff Round: 10 winners from previous round Note: I chose 4 groups of 12 instead of 8 groups of 6 because that would take too long to complete: fixture congestion would be a nightmare. Also, Pot 1 teams would be title holders, winners of leagues ranked 1-7, and the next four best clubs by coefficient. Knockout Stages: Round of 32 includes 12 group winners + 4 best runners-up as seeded sides while 8 other runners-up and 8 best third-place sides are unseeded. Clubs from same country or group cannot meet until quarterfinals, however, the Round of 16 is unseeded other than those two restrictions. How the Europa League is affected: A) Teams will no longer drop into the EL from the group stages as the worst third-place clubs and the fourth-place clubs don't deserve to continue in Europe. B) Europa League would a straight knockout competition with the Tournament Proper beginning with 64 clubs. C) There will still be four qualifying rounds, but because each country loses one berth (due to having an extra one in the CL qualifiers), less clubs will be in qualifying. Pros: 1) Big clubs get more revenue as they play 2 more games if they go the whole way. 2) It is less challenging for big clubs to fall before the knockout stages, but the CL is already diluted as it is so this doesn't change that much. 3) More clubs from smaller/Eastern European nations gain vital group stage money. 4) Cups across Europe are revitalized as winners are granted CL qualifying. 5) Each country gains a berth in the competition. 6) The top five countries no longer have to deal with the non-champions path as the 4th-place clubs of the best three leagues and the 3rd-place clubs of leagues ranked 4-5 are given byes straight to the group stage. 7) The Europa League could return to a knockout format because the revenue lost from not having a group stage would be gained back by having a Round of 32 in the Champions League. 8) It would be easier for big clubs to scout talent from smaller clubs due to some of the latter having a better chance of making the group stages. Cons: 1) Group stages are more diluted: I can't deny that. 2) Clubs have to play 2 more games to win the competition, meaning less breaks for players. 3) Due to the Round of 16 being virtually unseeded, big clubs could meet there, allowing for a minnow to get to a quarterfinal or semifinal (this could also be viewed as a pro).
I don't think the Group Stage will expand to 48 clubs anytime soon. You acknowledged the Group Stage would be more diluted, and I would go farther and complain about the big margins of victory for Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Juventus, etc. against champions of leagues ranked 21st or worse, 5 of whom per season would reach the Group Stage in your format. Under the current format, the Cup Winner from League 15 starts in Europa League Qualifying Round 3. Under your format, the Cup Winner from League 15 would start in Champions League Qualifying Round 1, which starts 4 weeks earlier if the schedule remained the same. Currently 158 clubs start in the Europa League including its qualifying rounds. If the Europa League became a 64 club tournament with only knockout rounds, how would you schedule it? I think there could be one fewer qualifying round with more spots in the tournament proper. One possibility is to play the Round of 64 and Round of 32 during the Champions League Group Stage (something like Matchdays 1, 3, 4, and 6 of the Champions League Group Stage could have Europa League games that Thursday) with the Round of 16 and on played during the second calendar year of the season.
I understand your point about the cup winner from the 15th ranked league having to start two rounds earlier, so I will make a few comments about this and answer your other question about scheduling at the same time: 1) a team should have to work harder to get into the CL than EL (that's why this particular team would have to start a month earlier) , 2) it is very unlikely that that team would lose in the 1st qualifying round as it likely would be the best team (or close to it) so it could probably trot out its A/B team in the first qualifying round anyway, and 3) I would change the rules so that clubs that lose in the 1st and 2nd qualifying rounds of the CL would drop into the 2nd and 3rd rounds of the EL respectively. This means that the team you mentioned would only do worse under my format if it somehow stumbled against a far inferior team in the 1st qualifying round of the CL. Otherwise, if it lost in the 2nd qualifying round of the CL, it would parachute into the 3rd qualifying round of the EL (where it starts now). I hope this wasn't confusing. As far as scheduling, that would be pretty easy. The four qualifying rounds would stay as is. The Round of 64 first and second legs would be played the same weeks as the CL group stage matchdays 1 and 2. The Round of 32 would be played the same weeks as the CL group stage matchdays 3 and 4. The Round of 16 would be played the same weeks as the CL group stage matchdays 5 and 6. Only 8 teams would be left by Christmas (this is a good thing as less teams will not have to worry about the EL when trying to finish high enough in their respective leagues to secure CL participation). The Quarterfinals will played the same weeks as the Quarterfinals of the CL (the break between Round of 16 and Quarterfinals will be close to three months, which will allow these teams to recuperate and UEFA to focus on the CL). The Semifinals will match up with the CL semifinals, and the final will be played (this would be interesting) four or five hours before the CL final to give the EL final more notoriety.
This is a horrible idea. Even under the current system, the top sides are all but guaranteed to advance to the knockout stages. Now you want to add more teams, and then let 32/48 teams advance? You're basically turning the entire group stage into an absolute joke. And then, if it's not bad enough that anyone decent will be 95%+ to move on before starting group play, you're also going to have a bunch more completely meaningless matches at the end after teams have already clinched spots or even clinched a seed (being 2nd with good points is as good as winning your group so often, the last 2 games will be completely meaningless). I can't get behind this at all. If you were going to expand the Champions League, I'd much rather see 8 groups of 5 teams, while still only having 16 advance to the knockout stage.
I'll give you rep for that. Letting 32 out of 48 clubs advance could lead to elite clubs using worse players in easy Group Stage games, especially if they're a few days apart from a big domestic game like Manchester United-Manchester City.
The other alternative was 8 groups of 6 with group winners facing 4th place-teams in the R of 32, and runners-up facing 3rd place teams, but the group stages would be too long.
It doesn't matter if it's 12 groups of 4 or 8 groups of 6. What I'm taking issue with is letting 32 of 48 teams advance to the knockout stage. In either setup, allowing 32 teams to advance makes it MUCH too easy for the good teams advance leading to the expanded group stage turning into a boring and ultimately meaningless set of fixtures. Go ahead and let a few more teams into the group stage if you want, but you still have to still keep the knockout stage at 16 teams. I already mentioned an alternative myself which was making the group stage 40 teams and doing 8 groups of 5 while still having group winners face group losers just like they do now.
Fine, the top two of each group advance. Those sixteen then form four groups of four, with top two of each group advancing to quarterfinals.
I don't think clubs would want to play as many games as two group stages require. There was talk about players being tired in World Cup 2014 because some of them were on clubs that played 38 league games, domestic cup games, and a Barcelona players (for example) could have played in up to 10 games in the 2013-2014 Champions League.
I think it's stupid that the 4th team of the big leagues can qualify for the Champions League. Wished they would go back to a maximum of 2 teams per country. Champions, runners-up. Also improve the money in the Europa League so that smaller clubs can invest in their future. Nowadays the big leagues are far too protected which ruins the balance of European football.
I'm fine with the 4 clubs per country limit. I think Atletico Madrid, who was third in La Liga 2014-2015, is more deserving than taking another champion from a lesser league.
That's the problem. I think that every European nation should be treated equally so to me it's unfair that the "big leagues" gets more places. Yes, they have better clubs (only because they can spend more money!) but that doesn't mean they should qualify that easy. And yes, it's the CHAMPIONS League so I rather see a champion from a lesser league than a "loser" team that came 3rd or 4th because they weren't good enough to win their own national league. Football should be about football and not about commercial issues or money. The rules of today are just because UEFA wants to keep the big clubs "happy" so they don't get any ideas to leave the UEFA to form their own football organisation. Meanwhile we are looking at the same boring clubs getting richer while the rest of Europe declines. I really wish they brought back the foreign cap as well... it's stupid to see, for example a English team without barely any English players or an Italian team without any Italians. "Let's buy all the good foreign talent because we can't educate our own youngsters!". To me it's pathetic. Nope, can't say I enjoy football like I once did.
Atletico Madrid starts the La Liga season knowing they have little chance at finishing in the top two, but they have a significant chance at reaching the Champions League. Reduce La Liga's Champions League spots to 2 and this siginificant chance goes away. In the UEFA coefficients for the five seasons ending 2014-2015, Atletico Madrid has a higher coefficient than every club from 50 out of 53 countries that have access to the Champions League! Reducing the quality of the Champions League by including more champions would just lead to more games with bigger margins of victory in the Group Stage. Counting draws as having a 0 margin of victory, the 2014-2015 Champions League Group Stage had a 170/96 = 1.77 average margin of victory. That's significantly higher than the 1.28 average margin of victory for the first 100 games of the 2014-2015 EPL season.
The other thing that can be done is for UEFA to put more prize and TV money in the Europa League and keep the Champions League for champions and maybe some second-place teams. That way the Atletico Madrids of the world would still have the opportunity to qualify for a lucrative and strong competition. Although I think the best answer is have all the best 32 teams in Europe in the same competition which is essentially what the current formula is aiming for. So I have no problem with the way things are now. They also have the bigger populations, generally speaking. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to give the same # of CL spots to a country that has 80 million people and a hundred professional football clubs versus a country with a population of 0.5 million and maybe 3 professional football clubs. Nobody wants to see the 2nd-best team from San Marino in the CL. Even people living in San Marino probably support Juventus or Fiortentina before any "domestic" club.
Of course, it would be silly to have too many clubs from dwarf countries competing but the gap between Spain and the Netherlands should not be as big as it is now. Well, quality-wise yes of course but it's not our fault that the level in our country drops because our biggest talents get snatched away by clubs in the bigger leagues. The players want a lot of money and you can't earn it here. At this moment only the Dutch champion is lucky to receive all the Champions League money but all the other ones have to adjust their budget because else they run into problems. This means they have to sell their best players every season and can't improve their team at all. It's not exactly fair play.
I admit that if England had only two Champions League spots, Manchester United wouldn't be in the 2015-2016 Champions League, and Memphis Depay might still be playing in the Netherlands because Manchester United would have less revenue. I still don't think that justifies limiting countries to two Champions League clubs. It would also be bad if a two clubs per country limit resulted in a Europa League winner who arguably could have won the Champions League. Real Madrid and Chelsea have recently won Champions Leagues while finishing outside of the top two in their domestic leagues that season. With a two clubs per country limit, the 2008-2009 Champions League would have had a different winner because Barcelona finished third (10 points behind second) in 2007-2008 La Liga.
I have no problem with having a different winner and I'm a Barca fan. But I'd also like to see a return to the old European Cup format, thus. Barca ended the 2007-08 La Liga season in disastrous form. They likely sacrificed La Liga to focus on the Champions League. Round 30: Real Betis 3-2 Barça ........... 7 pts behind leaders R. Madrid UCL qtr-1 Round 31: Barça 0-0 Getafe ................. 7 UCL qtr-2, advanced Round 32: Recreativo 2-2 Barça .......... 9 Round 33: Barça 0-0 Espanyol ........... 11, dropped to third place UCL semi-1 Round 34: Deportivo 2-0 Barça .......... 14 UCL semi-2, knocked out Round 35: Barça 6-0 Valencia ............ 14 Round 36: Real Madrid 4-1 Barça ....... 17 Round 37: Barça 2-3 Mallorca ............ 18 Round 38: Real Murcia 3-5 Barça ....... 18 pts behind leaders R. Madrid But what if only the top two had qualified for the 08-09 UCL? Who's to say Barca would not have tried a bit harder to maintain second place?
I've changed my mind: I understand that we could never go back to the days of champions only due to revenue loss and talent loss, but is 4 clubs for the biggest countries overkill? Do middle-tier leagues (Poland, Croatia, Sweden) get the shaft with the current system? Personally, here is how I would slightly change the Champions League (the format [group stage and knockout rounds] stays the same): Automatically qualifies for Group Stage (let's assume title holders would qualify): Champions (1-13) Runners-up (1-8) Third-place (1-4) EL winner Qualifying (champions path only) for 6 spots (40 clubs) 1st qualifying round: Champions (22-54, excluding Liechtenstein) 2nd qualifying round: Champions (14-21) + 16 winners from previous round 3rd qualifying round: 12 winners from previous round This would make the Europa League better as the 4th place team of the best 3 leagues, the 3rd place teams of leagues 5 and 6 and the runners-up of league ranked 9-15 would now enter the Europa League. The question then becomes would removing the teams above mentioned and placing them into the EL significantly hurt the Champions League or would it slightly help it by giving it a more elite feel and allowing two more champions than before in?
The last thing we need is more patsies in the Champions League. As it is now, there's one team in almost every group that has no chance to advance who only got in because they won some minnow league Here's how all the teams did who were their country's only representative in the group stage last year ignoring games between two such teams: Olympiacos: 2-0-2 Basel: 1-2-3 Bate BORISOV: 1-0-3 Shakthar Donetsk: 0-4-2 Maribor: 0-3-3 Anderlecht: 0-2-2 Ajax: 0-1-3 Ludogorets Razgrad: 0-1-3 Galatasaray: 0-0-4 APOEL Nicosia: 0-0-4 Malmo: 0-0-4 That's a combined record of 4 wins, 13 draws, and 33 losses. 8 of the 11 teams failed to win a single game against a multi-bid country. And the teams that actually had some success were from potential multi-bid leagues where the 2nd place team in the league lost out in the non-champions qualifying route. All 5 teams that made it through the champions route qualifying finished dead last in their group. You really want to bring in even WORSE minnow champs? Watching BATE Borisov get outscored 24-2 wasn't non-competitive enough for you? You think maybe we should have taken away Liverpool's once every 5 years Champions League run for the likes of Debrecen or Slovan Bratislava? Boy, those would be some exciting group stage matches to watch. Maybe we could let in 16 minnow champions so that we would know exactly who was going to advance from each group and we wouldn't have to watch the group stage at all!
I think the change that actually needs to be made is to stop separating the champions route from the league route. Give the minnow champs the same access they have now, but don't give them the protection of only playing each other. Just put them into the draw with everyone else. Teams like Basel and Celtic will still get seeded and end up with similar matchups to what they have now, but if Dinamo Zagreb and APOEL Nicosia want to crash the party, let them earn it home and away against a real opponent.
The one upside to this is that UEFA will probably scrap a qualifying round and move the runners-up of leagues 12-15 back a round (as they should be) so that it will only take three qualifying rounds to get down to 10 qualifiers. However, the problem with this is that it significantly reduces the changes of clubs from leagues ranked roughly 13-20 to qualify as they no longer are guaranteed to play national champions of worse leagues in the last qualifying round.
The two 2015-2016 Champions League qualifying paths combine to go from 56 clubs to 10 that reach the Group Stage. Here is one way to do that with the clubs ranked from 1 to 56: Clubs 17 to 56 play in Round 1 (40 clubs) Clubs 5 to 16 and 20 Round 1 winners play in Round 2 (32 clubs) Clubs 1 to 4 and 16 Round 2 winners play in Round 3 (20 clubs) Here is one way of ranking the 56 clubs: Clubs 1 to 4 would be fourth in Leagues to 1 to 3 and third in League 4 Clubs 5 to 16 would be third in Leagues 5 and 6, second in Leagues 7 to 12, and first in Leagues 13 to 16 Clubs 17 to 56 would be second in Leagues 13 to 15 and first in Leagues 17 to 54 excluding Liechtenstein Note that when all the clubs in the qualifying rounds were together, 16 Group Stage spots came from qualifying rounds and now there are only 10 Group Stage spots. If the 2015-2016 Champions League Qualifying Round 3 had one path with 15 seeded clubs and 15 unseeded clubs, here is how it would have been different: Young Boys (31.375), Sparta Praha (30.825), and Fenerbahce (30.020) would go from unseeded to seeded. Milsami Orhei (3.750 coefficient but took the 25.350 from Ludogorets Razgrad), Dinamo Zagreb (24.700), and FK Astana (3.825 but took the 22.225 from NK Maribor) would go from seeded to unseeded. If the 2015-2016 Champions League Playoff Round had one path with 10 seeded clubs and 10 unseeded clubs, here is how it would be different: CSKA Moscow (55.599), Lazio (49.102), and Club Brugge (41.440) would go from unseeded to seeded. APOEL Nicosia (35.460), BATE Borisov (35.150), and Dinamo Zagreb (24.700) would go from seeded to unseeded. Therefore this season Dinamo Zagreb should be happy there are two paths because they are on both lists.
The one really small change I would make is having the 3rd place team from league 5 move up to the third qualifying round, resulting in the runner up of leagues 11 and 12 starting in the first qualifying round. The fifth best league is not going to be happy that their third place team has to survive two qualifying rounds instead of one.