This is how CL will look like starting in 2018 The 2016 access list with the 2018 rules would look like this Red - direct places Green - league route - 2 places Countries 11-54 - champions route What has changed: League route gives 2 (had 5) places now. Will have 11 entrants (had 15). Champions route will involve 44 countries (had 42) and will give 4 places (had 5) 11th place will most likey go directly into the CL as the TH will most likely be qualified via domestic palces
I doubt that there will be 11 clubs in the league route. It is likely the runners up of leagues 11-15 will qualify for the EL instead. That way, the 3rd place sides from leagues 5-6 will get a bye to the playoff round with the runners up of leagues 7-10 will start in the 3rd qualifying round. If this is the format of the CL going forward I am pumped. No wild cards. No more league runners up from medium sized countries. No weekend play (except the final) http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=2398611.html
This is a definite improvement if this is what we get. Glad to see the Portos and Monacos of the world who are actually competitive be unharmed, and also glad to see a champions route spot be taken away as the non-competitive minnows are killing the group stage right now. Say we lost Rostov and Dinamo Zagreb and replaced them with Roma and Inter. That wouldn't be a huge difference maker, but it would still make the group stage significantly more competitive.
I get what you're saying but Rostov were the Russian runners up. We don't know if they'll be competitive yet.
I'm sorry but you Americans are so damm annoying. Yeah make 44 countries fight for 4 places. Because making 42 fight for 5 was hurting the brand Woohoooo so so great. How about eliminate the spots in the CONCACAF CL and leave us with the European one
I agree. 11 clubs competing for 2 spots would make at least 6 of them have to go through all four qualifying rounds. Having to play that many qualifiers would prevent some of them from playing friendlies or International Champions Cup games in the summer to make money. Reducing the Champions Path from 5 spots to 4 spots could make a big difference. In 2011-2012, APOEL Nicosia reached the Quarterfinals. In the Playoff Round, their coefficient was the fifth best out of ten, so they were seeded. They won their aggregate over Wisla Krakow by 1 goal. If there were four seeded clubs, APOEL Nicosia would not have been seeded, and maybe they would have lost to BATE Borisov or Dinamo Zagreb and not even reached the Group Stage. What do you mean? Every confederation has a Champions League including OFC with amateur clubs. The CONCACAF Champions League has clubs that do poorly in the Group Stage, but why should that bother Europeans? Is the CONCACAF Champions League on TV in Europe?
It's just that it annoys me that people from outside Europe have this "I do not care about this shitty small european club" I choose to follow this extra rich team from the CL and I am not entertained by lowly shit small European team. Usualy speaking about 40 European countries. There are 8 games a day in the groups stages. In MD 1 you have Bayern, Barcelona, City, A Madrid, PSG - Arsenal, but CL sucks now because Basel play Ludogorets the same day and the non-competitive minnows are killing the group stage right now So if the likes of him want to give their opinion about UEFA Champions League start with you own continent first and those shitty clubs and leave us from the shitty European clubs complain
I feel like you're completely missing the point. It's not that there's not enough matches between big teams or that I want to see the big clubs do well. I just feel like the competition is more exciting when you don't know who's advancing out of the group ahead of time. Bayern and Atletico are just playing for seeding because PSV and Rostov don't have a prayer of advancing over them. Likewise for Real and Borussia Dortmund against Sporting and Celtic. The PSG/Arsenal match is a lot more compelling since Basel's strong enough to actually compete and take a spot away in that group. I'm just saying if we could get a couple more teams in the competition like Roma and Inter that are competitive enough that they could actually advance ahead of a top club, it makes the group games a lot more interesting and meaningful. I don't see what's fun about seeing 2 big clubs fight for seeding while 2 small clubs play a glorified Europa league qualifier in the same group. And until we can get at least 3 competitive teams in each group, I think we should keep adding more big clubs. I actually wouldn't mind seeing a playoff between the 5th place teams from the top countries. Man U vs. Schalke, Athletic Bilbao vs. Fiorentina, winners play for a CL spot. Whoever gets through that still really had to earn their spot and one more group becomes exciting and competitive.
a) Don't assume all Americans feel this way, please. b) Regrettably plenty of folks in Asia and in Europe are just as plastic/bandwagon as the American's you're lambasting. Then we should go back to the old style where every round is simply a home-and-away knock-out stage, followed by a random draw. Every game then has an air of tension since it's essentially "lose and go home." If Bayern has a bad patch vs. Zenit... The problem with this approach is that a) it assumes the bigger brand teams will always be the better teams, and b) the allocation of CL riches under this approach will assure those bigger teams continue to get richer while the smaller teams fall further behind. In my personal opinion... UEFA competitions are designed as, and intended to serve as, championship events on behalf of all Europe. Continuing to tilt the financial deck in favor of those leagues already blessed with greater resources not only skews the competition but it adversely impacts the development and appeal of local teams in poorer nations. As it is now, nations like Poland, Russia and Turkey, where over time their resources could enable their domestic leagues to become more competitive internationally, have high walls to climb to achieve UEFA success. These changes only make it harder, and run afoul of what UEFA's structural and payment models should be. Instead of using this wealth to compound the riches for the Madrids and Bayerns of the game, use it to give other, smaller leagues a clubs more of a chance. Otherwise don't call it a European championship. Call it the Rich Leagues' Cup.
If those teams were so good they would have advanced easily. Italy has lost all but one of the play offs since 2010. If they aren't capable of winning that play off they aren't capable off finishing above the likes of Barca or Real B. Moncheglandbach has the same chances as Rostov to win the group they are in. Also you may have noticed that these powerful European teams have players that came from those less exciting countries. European or from outside Europe but brought by those small European countries. So let's give them less money because that is fun Becasue as we know English players are the ones that drive the success of English clubs
http://www.espnfc.us/uefa-champions...evamp-a-scandal-for-ligue-1-clubs-union-chief Fourth paragraph from bottom says third team from fifth-ranked league will begin in Playoff Round, thus making my prediction of only six clubs in the league route of qualifying plausible.
They're only losing when they play other big clubs from other big countries. When the teams from the Top 4 leagues face off against teams from the smaller leagues, they dominate. Here are the results in the playoff round the last 5 years when a club from a Top-4 league plays a club from a non-Top 6 league: 2012/2013 Malaga 2 Panathinaikos 0 Borussia Monchengladbach 3 Dynamo Kyiv 4 2013/2014 Schalke 04 4 PAOK 3 AC Milan 4 PSV Eindhoven 1 Arsenal 5 Fenerbahce 0 2014/2015 Arsenal 1 Besiktas 0 Bayer Leverkeusen 7 Copenhagen 2 2015/2016 Manchester United 7 Club Brugge 1 2016/2017 Manchester City 6 Steaua Bucuresti 0 Borussia Monchengladbach 9 Young Boys 2 Won 9 out of 10 ties with a total margin of 45-12. Obviously, if you made the clubs from the smaller leagues face off against teams from bigger leagues to qualify, very, very few would make it through. I'm totally fine with giving them that shot and making the clubs from the big leagues earn it, but when you add a special path to protect teams like Copenhagen and Ludogorets Razgrad from the Romas and Portos of the world since they wouldn't have a prayer of winning, and then throw them in the deep end with Real Madrid and Barcelona and expect people to watch, I just don't get the appeal. A championship of Europe should be for the best teams in Europe, not for teams who wouldn't rank in the Top 100 but got given easy draws against other non-top 100 teams who just so happened to be champions of tiny leagues.
This is not a for you. This is not your competiton. There are 6 confederations and the ony one who matters in this discussion is UEFA. UEFA has 54 countries. You are not European.. Your football competitions are the MLS and CONCACAF CL. Or the NFL. UEFA CL is in Europe where 700 million Europeans live ..... plenty of them outside the big 4 countries. Not for you. And like I said plenty of games to watch every matchday. There are 8 games a night in the groups stages. You will get at least one that caters to your taste. You want 5? If you as non European enjoy it sure why not go ahead, but you cannot shit on the small teams because you want the competition to cater to you. Not for lack of trying from UEFA's part but I am sure this will bite them in the ass because at the end of the day you still become head of UEFA via votes and last I heard 4 is not bigger than 50 Platini won for a reason last time
Many clubs that get from the Champions Path to the Group Stage are in the Top 100, so not in the Top 100 is an exaggeration, and APOEL Nicosia reached the 2011-2012 Quarterfinals after being 125th going into 2011-2012. The UEFA CL makes money from TV in many countries of Europe. A bunch of soccer competitions are shown in far away areas. Neither Europeans nor Americans should be the only ones UEFA cares about. UEFA should care about both. Countries outside of Europe don't get to vote in UEFA, but countries in UEFA can vote based on what they think UEFA should do to make money from non-Europeans.
Well, when you continually make the group stage of the CL due to always facing other teams outside the Top 100 in talent, eventually your ranking is going to go up. But I don't think anyone really thinks that Molde (UEFA rank 85) is really better than Southampton (UEFA rank 114), just because they've benefited from having an easy path. None of these teams would actually be Top 100 in Europe on the basis of talent: Ludogorets Razgrad Legia Warsaw FC Copenhagen Dinamo Zagreb The only team that actually came through the Champions path that I would put in the Top 100 is Celtic and even that is very close. Transfermarkt value would have them the 99th best team in Europe. I'm all for giving the minnow champs a chance, but at least make them earn it in a home and away tie against a real side before committing to having them play 6 high-profile group matches against the best in the world and taking a spot that could be used for a legitimate competitor.
http://kassiesa.net/uefa/forum/view.php?topic=20160609185245.xml What was presented at 17th General Assembly of ECA CHAMPIONS PATH: Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler Preliminary Rounds (PR): 4 starters (52-55), two PR, for 1 place in CQ1 Starters 2018/19, at the moment: 52. Gibraltar, 53. Andorra, 54. San Marino, 55. Kosovo. CQ1: 33 starters (18-51, without Liechtenstein) + 1 winner from PR = 34 teams Starters 2018/19, at the moment: 18. Denmark, 19. Belarus, 20. Sweden, 21. Poland, 22. Norway, 23. Scotland, 24. Israel, 25. Azerbaidjan, 26. Cyprus, 27. Serbia, 28. Bulgaria, 29. Kazakhstan, 30. Slovenia, 31.Slovakia, 33. Hungary, 34. Moldova, 35..Iceland, 36. Finland, 37. Albania, 38. Bosnia, 39. Georgia, 40. Latvija, 41. Ireland, 42. Macedonia, 43. Estonia, 44. Montenegro, 45. Armenia, 46. Luxembourg, 47. Nothern Ireland, 48. Lithuania, 49. Malta, 50. Wales, 51. Faroe Islands CQ2: 3 starters (15-17) + 17 winners from CQ1 = 20 teams Starters 2018/19, at the moment: 15. Netherlands, 16. Romania, 17. Austria. CQ3: 2 starters (13-14) + 10 winners from CQ2 = 12 teams Starters 2018/19, at the moment: 13. Croatia, 14. Greece. CQ4 (play off): 2 starters (11-12) + 6 winners from CQ3 = 8 teams Starters 2018/19, at the moment: 11. Czech Republik, 12. Switzerland. NON CHAMPIONS PATH – Option 1: Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler NCQ3: 8 starters (3rd 5, 3rd 6, runner up 7-12) Starters 2018/19, at the moment: 5. France (3rd), 6. Russia (3rd), 7. Portugal, 8. Ukraine, 9. Belgium, 10. Turkey, 11. Czech Rep, 12. Switzerland. NCQ4 (play off): 4 winners from NCQ3 UEFA Europa League: CW 13-15 directly in a GS! NON CHAMPIONS PATH – Option 2: Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler NCQ2: 6 starters (runner up 10-15) Starters 2018/19, at the moment: 10. Turkey, 11. Czech Rep, 12. Switzerland, 13. Croatia, 14. Greece, 15. Netherlands NCQ3: 5 starters (3rd 5, 3rd 6, runner up 7-9) + 3 winners from NCQ2 = 8 teams Starters 2018/19, at the moment: 5. France (3rd), 6. Russia (3rd), 7. Portugal, 8. Ukraine, 9. Belgium. NCQ4 (play off): 4 winners from NCQ3 Whitch option for NCQ will be taken, it will be decided in the next 2-3 months - by the Club Competition Commitee Working Group. If one spot in a GS would be free (because of title holder UCL / UEL in the previous season 2017/18), champions of 11 (Czech Rep. at the moment) and 12 (Switzerland at the moment) would not start in play offs – they would go directly to the GS. Therefore we would have 27 teams directly qualified for the GS, 3 teams gualified through CQ and 2 teams qualified through NCQ. Many thanks to Partizan_Belgrade ---------------------------------------- Option 2 is the pic in the opening post Option 1 is option 2 without the runners up from 13-15 And apparently they are making the champions of 52. Gibraltar, 53. Andorra, 54. San Marino, 55. Kosovo. play a potential 6 rounds to reach the GS. That is insane
I like option 1 much more (at least it gets rid of three teams that shouldn't be in the competition. However, I don't like the smallest countries having to play as many as six qualifying rounds.
Yeah, let's worry about the champions of San Marino or Andorra having to play 6 rounds once every 100 years. Come on, none of those teams are getting out of Round 3.
If UEFA creates too many qualifying rounds, there will be two Champions Leagues in progress at once. The 2014-2015 Final was on 6 June 2015.
Perhaps one thing that would help is a classification of leagues based on their professional status. Some of these domestic champions are, for all intents and purposes, recreational clubs. They come from teams and leagues where the players aren't really full time pros. I'm fixed in my belief the tournament needs to be representative of Europe and not cow-tow to the handful of big brands currently ruling the scene, but I also agree that there is probably line whereby UEFA is giving too much credence to these domestic leagues that it creates a logistical and practical concern. (A similar divide needs to be addressed at the FIFA voting membership level, as well.) I don't know where to draw the line and I don't want UEFA to not support these smaller leagues, but there should be some way to differentiate between truly full-time Div 1 football and these leagues that are in actuality something much, much lower.
Well, the best team from the champions' path lost 7-0 today in their Champions League opener. Feel the excitement!
Yes giving more spots to Italy is much better. Can you see the excitement. Is Barcelona capable of scoring 7 like United and Bayern? Who knows! Excitement
Plus the "new" team wouldn't be Roma it would be the #4 Serie A team and the way the league is now there is a serious drop-off from #3 to #4 in Italy. That might change by 2018 but if we had 4 Serie A teams in this season's CL the evidence suggest that the 4th team would be no better than Rostov, Zagreb, etc. Perhaps worse.
Seriously? "No evidence" that Inter Milan might be better than Rostov and Zagreb? You're joking, right?