Proposal #1a: 40-team Champions League This would require the major domestic leagues to shrink to 16-team 30-match formats. 4 groups of 10 (18 matches) Top 4 out of each group qualify for Round of 16 (1a vs. 4b/3c vs. 2d) vs. (1b vs. 4a/3d vs. 2a) vs. (1c vs. 4d/3a vs. 4b) vs. (1d vs. 4c/3b vs. 4a) Access list: CL title holder EL title holder Champions (1-13) Runners up (1-9) 3rd (1-7) 4th (1-5) Only champions qualifying path consisting of champions of leagues 14-55 (excluding Liechtenstein) fighting for 4 spots. Proposal #1b: 40-team Champions League Access list is different than 1a: Access list: CL title holder EL title holder Champions (1-11) Runners up (1-8) 3rd (1-6) 4th (1-5) 5th (1-4) Only champions qualifying path consisting of champions of leagues 12-55 (excluding Liechtenstein fighting for 4 spots. In both a and b proposals if CL/EL winner qualifies for group stage through league position, next highest ranked league winner qualifies for group stage. If both EL/CL winners qualify, next two highest league winners qualify. Proposal #2a: 48-team Champions League I would suggest major leagues shrink to 18-club 34-match formats (well, I would anyway as of now) and Europa League would now only contain 2 clubs per country instead of 3. 8 groups of 6 (10 matches) Top two from each group advance to Round of 16 where tournament continues as it does now Access list: CL title holder EL title holder Champions (1-20) Runners up (1-10) 3rd (1-7) 4th (1-5) Only champions qualifying path consisting of champions of leagues 21-55 (excluding Liechtenstein) fighting for 4 spots. Proposal #2b: Access list: CL title holder EL title holder Champions (1-17) Runners up (1-9) 3rd (1-7) 4th (1-5) 5th (1-4) Only champions qualifying path consisting of champions of leagues 18-55 (excluding Liechtenstein) fighting for 4 spots. Proposal #2c: Access list: CL title holder EL title holder Champions (1-14) Runners up (1-9) 3rd (1-7) 4th (1-5) 5th (1-4) 6th (1-3) Only champions qualifying path consisting of champions of leagues 15-55 (excluding Liechtenstein) fighting for 4 spots. In proposals a, b, and c; if EL/CL title holder qualifies via league position, the next highest ranked champion qualifies automatically; if both EL/CL title holder qualify, the next two highest ranked champions qualify.
My personal favorite is proposal 2c as it allows more countries into the competition but adds the 5th and 6th teams from the top 3/4 countries so that the quality isn't really diluted much as more wealthy people will invest more in medium size clubs in those countries to try to get that last spot. Who would possibly qualify in that scenario (using current standings): Note (half) 27 of the 48 clubs would be from the Big 5 leagues. Let's assume the CL and EL title holders both qualify via league position: Spain: Barcelona, Valencia, Atletico Madrid, Real Madrid, Sevilla, Villareal England: City, United, Tottenham, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal Italy: Napoli, Juventus, Inter, Lazio, Roma, Sampdoria Germany: Bayern, Leipzig, Dortmund, Schalke, Hoffenheim France: PSG, Monaco, Marseille, Nantes Russia: Lokomotiv Moscow, Zenit, Krasnodar Portugal: Porto, Sporting Lisbon, Benfica Ukraine: Shakhtar Donetsk, Dynamo Kiev Belgium: Club Brugge, Charleroi Turkey: Galatasary Austria: Sturm Graz Netherlands: PSV Czech Republic: Viktoria Plzen Greece: Atromitos (shocker) Switzerland: Young Boys Denmark: Brondby ------------------------Teams below this line went through qualifying Croatia: Dinamo Zagreb Romania: Steaua Bucuresti Sweden: Malmo Scotland: Celtic
That's 48 games for a club's domestic league and Champions League Group Stage combined, which is 4 more than any club has now, and your Round of 16 proposal has the same amount of games as the current format. As I've said before, if the Champions League has too many clubs, the top clubs won't use their best players every game. The top clubs will have times when their domestic league game after that is harder than their midweek Champions League game. If you want the best players to play all their club's Champions League games, having 40 or 48 clubs in the Group Stage is not the way to go. Furthermore, why should what the top clubs want make clubs who aren't good enough to make the Champions League have four fewer domestic league home games per season (a decrease from 38 with 19 at home to 30 with 15 at home) to make money from or have a harder time staying in the top level because four fewer clubs can do that?
So what does this for the interest in the CL? It's declining, even in the big leagues. It seems to be a lossmaker for the network in the Netherlands and the question is raised if it will be broadcast next season. It has to down big time in price to get interest from the networks.
I like the format as it is now. Bigger groups mean even less pressure, which is already a problem. Small change I'd make would be to only seed top 8 (according to last year's place in domestic leagues), let the rest be a random draw (except same countries kept apart). My other, bigger change, would be for the Europa cup to go to staight 2 legged knockout, right from the beginning. No groups.
I don't like that idea because in 2017-2018 five of the top eight coefficients were by clubs in Pot 2, with three coming from champions of the top leagues. The top non-champions deserve better seeding than the worst Group Stage clubs. Would you want a group with Real Madrid, PSG, Manchester United, and another club? With a random draw you could get third place clubs who could have won easier groups. You also increase the chances at having bottom clubs get no points and a -15 goal differential because bottom clubs could face three clubs who were among the top half.
I'd love a group of Real Madrid, PSG, and ManU; I don't like any them! And it would be a good group to watch. It would be unfair on winners of 2nd tier leagues though, so maybe a bad idea.