All Champions League Finals (1956-2019)

Since UEFA coefficient ranks of small football associations can change drastically after one season, i have to research alot football records to come up with more precise rankings for the small football associations. Nevertheless i managed to rank just 4 more football associations.

Coefficient rankings from 2009 to 2021



Number of Seasons in top 22 from 2009 to 2021

Denmark 12/13
Croatia 12/13
Romania 9/13
Sweden 5/13
Serbia 4/13

Other records



Records comparision

Rankings of leagues​

1) England
2) Spain
3) Germany
4) Italy
5) France
6) Portugal
7) Russia
8) Ukraine
9) Netherlands
10) Belgium
11) Turkey
12) Greece
13) Switzerland
14) Austria
15) Scotland
16) Czech Republic
17) Denmark
18) Croatia
19) Sweden
20) Serbia

Because the Romanian first league has been in decline since 2014-2015 season, Romania cant be ranked top 20 in my rankings. When you have football clubs being run by owners who either end up in jail for corruption or can go bankrupt due to an economic downturn, your domestic league isnt gonna thrive.

Most Romanian football clubs are seen as plaything for the rich so there has never been a long term plan to make these clubs grow finacially. Its common for these football clubs to receive short term financial backings, find some sucess in qualfying for an European competition and then have their financial support withdrawn and eventually get relegated or dissolved. The few Romanian football clubs that have financial stability are run by people who work in politics and used as a tool to gain people's electoral support.

The more detailed explainations for the decline of Romanian football can be found in these links:

https://thesefootballtimes.co/2016/06/21/the-slow-death-of-romanian-football/
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-bankruptcy-common-in-Romanian-club-football
https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/7wsdg4/the_absolute_joke_of_romanian_football/

Within an Eastern European nation, we can already see football clubs being invested with dirty money. This begs the question of whether football is a clean sport in most nations.

Besides having inflows of dirty money, football also has political elements that are often overlooked. In the past, the winning football clubs were owned by politicians and run by their family members (AC Milan as an example) but in modern days, the winning football clubs are run by oil states. Because of how popular football has become and how football clubs can be used as brands, oil states have become more involved in football.

 

Rankings of leagues
(with more specific breakdowns)

TOP 5
(UCL contenders)​

1) England
2) Spain
3) Germany
4) Italy
5) France

​

The top clubs from big 5 leagues have greater financial power than the top clubs from other leagues and are considered to be consistent contenders for UCL. All UCL finals in the last decade were played between top clubs from big 5 leagues.

TOP 11
(UCL all-time participants)​

6) Portugal
7) Russia
8) Ukraine
9) Netherlands
10) Belgium
11) Turkey

From top 6 to top 11 of my rankings, there are 3 nations with big population (Russia, Ukraine & Turkey) which provide their league a greater pool of talents & a higher number of viewership than other small leagues and incidentally turn their league into a platform where the rich & the powerful can improve their reputation among their countrymen.

Then there are 3 nations without a huge population (Portugal, Netherlands & Belgium) but with world class football academies, highly rated scouting networks and their population's unmatched passion for the sport. Thanks to such strong foundations, these 3 nations achieve high FIFA rankings and earn the respect from the footballing world. The top clubs from these 3 nations can have a one off deep run in UCL but are not gonna keep their best talents.

As for those who are interested in MLS, i would say the quality of MLS is definately among top 11 in Europe but before giving MLS a precise ranking, i have to do more research. Currently MLS is perceived to be like Everdivise & Primeira Liga - a talent pool for the bigger leagues but the big names from MLS would have a huge American following instead of a small Dutch / Portugese following.

12) Greece
13) Switzerland
14) Austria
15) Scotland
16) Czech Republic
17) Denmark
18) Croatia
19) Sweden
20) Serbia

The specific breakdown for the top 20 football associations will come later.

The main reason for all other nations to be ranked outside of the my top 20 is that these nations do not have well rounded football records.

You have an anomoly like Poland who isnt bad at national team level (having qualified for World Cup for a few times in recent decades) but underperforms at club level. Nations like Romania, Bulgaria & Norway have some history in European club competition (FCSB from Romania having won 1 European Cup, CSKA Sofia from Bulgaria having a commendable number of quarter finals, Rosenborg from Norway being in top 30 of UEFA all time rankings) but their national teams have not qualified for WC nor Euro in recent decades. At club level football, Romania and Bulgaria are considered to have been in decline while Norway fell off in the 2010s and has only climbed up in the rankings in recent years.

Having seen how small football associations can just fall off in just half a decade, i can not use my old criteria (football clubs' perfomances in UCL & UEL over a period of 2 decades) to rank the small football associations and have to come up with 3 new criterias.

My first and foremost criteria is the number of WC and Euro qualifications in modern times (since 1998). This criteria is to eliminate the likes of Cyprus, Belarus etc... whose national teams are practically invisible in international football. My second criteria is the number of years being in top 22 of UEFA coefficient rankings (after 1998) & the football associations' history in European Cup / Champions League. This criteria is to eliminate the likes of Hungary, Slovakia etc... who had just a few years of being in top 22 of UEFA coefficient rankings. My third and final criteria is the recent head to head results between football clubs who represent their football associations.

These are the 4 football associations that pass my 3 criterias.

And here are their rankings

21) Poland
22) Norway
23) Romania
24) Bulgaria

Rankings of leagues
(top 24 without specific breakdown)​

1) England
2) Spain
3) Germany
4) Italy
5) France
6) Portugal
7) Russia
8) Ukraine
9) Netherlands
10) Belgium
11) Turkey
12) Greece
13) Switzerland
14) Austria
15) Scotland
16) Czech Republic
17) Denmark
18) Croatia
19) Sweden
20) Serbia
21) Poland
22) Norway
23) Romania
24) Bulgaria

 

TOP 15
(UCL non-regular participants)​

12) Greece
13) Switzerland
14) Austria
15) Scotland

Greece & Switzerland have good numbers of UCL participations over a decade. Austria has been the most improved football association in recent years. Scotland is finally making a return to the UCL.

Rankings of leagues
(top 24 with more specific breakdowns)
​

1) England
2) Spain
3) Germany
4) Italy
5) France
================ ↑ UCL contenders
6) Portugal
7) Russia
8) Ukraine
9) Netherlands
10) Belgium
11) Turkey
================ ↑ UCL regular participants
12) Greece
13) Switzerland
14) Austria
15) Scotland
================ ↑ UCL non-regular participants
16) Czech Republic
17) Denmark
18) Croatia
19) Sweden
20) Serbia
21) Poland
22) Norway
23) Romania
24) Bulgaria

The specific breakdown for football associations outside of my top 15 will come later.

65 years of the most prestigious continental competition
(including moments of goal & trophy celebrations)

​

 

TOP 21
(top representatives for a region)​

16) Czech Republic
17) Denmark
18) Croatia
19) Sweden
20) Serbia
21) Poland

These football associations do not often qualify for UCL GS but still have their own national teams that can qualify for World Cup and Euro.

Denmark & Sweden are seen as the best national teams in Nordic region (Northern Europe).

Croatia & Serbia are the top dogs in Balkan region (Southeastern Europe).

Depending on your perspective, Czech Republic & Poland are either the best national teams in the non German-speaking Central Europe (East-Central Europe) or the best national teams in the non Russian-speaking Eastern Europe.

Rankings of leagues
(top 24 with more specific breakdowns)​

1) England
2) Spain
3) Germany
4) Italy
5) France
================ ↑ UCL contenders
6) Portugal
7) Russia
8) Ukraine
9) Netherlands
10) Belgium
11) Turkey
================ ↑ UCL regular participants
12) Greece
13) Switzerland
14) Austria
15) Scotland
================ ↑ UCL non-regular participants
16) Czech Republic
17) Denmark
18) Croatia
19) Sweden
20) Serbia
21) Poland
================ ↑ Top Representatives For A Region
22) Norway
23) Romania
24) Bulgaria

European football is quite an interesting topic to do research on. Its easy to rank the top dogs but how can you determine whether a team of fruitsellers or a team of farmers is better at football? Ranking a large number of low level teams is hard but entertaining at the same time.

 

In order to expand my rankings, i have to keep my 1st criteria (the number of WC and Euro qualifications in modern times), my 3rd criteria (head to head results between football clubs that represent their associations) but change my second criteria from "the number of years being in top 22 of UEFA coefficient rankings & the football associations' history in European Cup / Champions League" to just "the number of years being in top 30 of UEFA coefficient rankings" and come up with my 4th criteria: UCL qualifications in modern times (since 1998). This 4th criteria is to eliminate the likes of Bosnia & Herzegovina and Macedonia, etc... who have been non existent in UCL GS.

So these are the 3 football associations that pass all my 4 criterias.


Here are my updated rankings (with specific breakdowns)

1) England
2) Spain
3) Germany
4) Italy
5) France
================ ↑ UCL contenders
6) Portugal
7) Russia
8) Ukraine
9) Netherlands
10) Belgium
11) Turkey
================ ↑ UCL regular participants
12) Greece
13) Switzerland
14) Austria
15) Scotland
================ ↑ UCL non-regular participants
16) Czech Republic
17) Denmark
18) Croatia
19) Sweden
20) Serbia
21) Poland
================ ↑ Top Representatives For A Region
22) Norway
23) Romania
24) Bulgaria
25) Slovakia
26) Slovenia
27) Hungary
============== ↑ Occasional Participants In International & Club Football Tourneys

 

The Competitiveness Rankings of Historic European Football Clubs​

Winners
(these clubs have the highest number of cup wins)

1) Real Madrid (14 wins, 17 finals, 31 semi-finals)
2) AC Milan (7 wins, 11 finals, 13 semi-finals)
3) Bayern Munich (6 wins, 11 finals, 20 semi-finals)
4) Liverpool (6 wins, 10 finals, 12 semi-finals)
5) Barcelona (5 wins, 8 finals, 17 semi-finals)
6) Ajax (4 wins, 6 finals, 9 semi-finals)

Runners-Up
(these clubs have about the same number of finals with the winners but fewer cup wins)

7) Juventus (2 wins, 9 finals, 12 semi-finals)
8) Benfica (2 wins, 7 finals, 8 semi-finals)

Semi-Finalists
(these clubs have about the same number of semi-finals with the runners-up but fewer finals)

9) Man Utd (3 wins, 5 finals, 12 semi-finals)
10) Inter Milan (3 wins, 5 finals, 8 semi-finals)

Financial Powerhouses
(these clubs become CL contenders much later in their history (since the 2000s)

11) Chelsea (2 wins, 3 finals, 8 semi-finals)
12) PSG (0 win, 1 final, 3 semi-finals)
13) Man City (0 win, 1 final, 3 semi-finals)

Knock Out Stage Competitors
(these clubs are good enough to get out of group stage and ocasionally make deep runs)

14) Atletico Madrid (0 win, 3 finals, 6 semi-finals, 11 quarter-finals)

Best of Group Stage Participants
(these clubs might struggle to get out of group stage and advance not further than quarter-finals)

15) Porto (3 semi-finals, 10 quarter-finals)
16) Borussia Dortmund (4 semi-finals, 9 quarter-finals)

Best of Outsiders
(before finishing outside of top 4 in the last 6 years, Arsenal had been a consistent R16 team)

17) Arsenal (2 semi-finals, 7 quarter-finals)
====================================================================

(this line is to seperate the clubs with good EC / UCL records from all other clubs)​

Dropped to Europa League Level
(these clubs have qualified for Europa League or finished bottom of their CL groups for a decade. However these clubs' quarter-finals records are similar to Arsenal's due to their long history of participation)

18) Crvena Zvezda (3 semi-finals, 8 quarter-finals)
19) Dynamo Kyiv (3 semi-finals, 8 quarter-finals)
20) Celtic (4 semi-finals, 7 quarter-finals)
21) PSV Eindhoven (3 semi-finals, 7 quarter-finals)
22) Anderlecht (2 semi-finals, 7 quarter-finals)

Benchmark in All Time Rankings
(5 quarter-finals are the minimum to reach top 26 of UEFA all time rankings, clubs with less than 5 quarter-finals dont surpass Dinamo Zagreb's total points in UEFA all time rankings)

23) AS Monaco (4 semi-finals, 6 quarter-finals)
24) CSKA Sofia (2 semi-finals, 6 quarter-finals)
25) Lyon (2 semi-finals, 5 quarter-finals)
26) Galatasaray (1 semi-final, 5 quarter-finals)
27) Rangers (1 semi-final, 5 quarter-finals)

One Hit Wonders
(these clubs won one or two cups in a specific era but can never retain a high level of competitiveness throughout their history)

28) Marseille (3 semi-finals, 4 quarter-finals)
29) Hamburger SV (3 semi-finals, 3 quarter-finals)
30) Steaua București (3 semi-finals, 3 quarter-finals)
31) Feyenoord (2 semi-finals, 3 quarter-finals)
32) Nottingham Forest (2 semi-finals, 2 quarter-finals)
33) Aston Villa (1 semi-final, 2 quarter-finals)

Unable To Get Over The Line
(these clubs have less than 5 CL quarter-finals and missed their only opportunities to win a final of CL)

CL RU (2)​

34) Valencia (2 semi-finals, 4 quarter-finals)
35) Reims (2 semi-finals, 3 quarter-finals)

CL RU (1)​

36) Panathinaikos (3 semi-finals, 4 quarter-finals)
37) Roma (2 semi-finals, 4 quarter-finals)
38) Leeds United (3 semi-finals, 3 quarter-finals)
39) Borussia Mönchengladbach (2 semi-finals, 3 quarter-finals)
40) Tottenham Hotspur (2 semi-finals, 3 quarter-finals)
41) Saint-Étienne (2 semi-final, 3 quarter-finals)
42) Partizan (1 semi-final, 3 quarter-finals)
43) Bayer Leverkusen (1 semi-final, 2 quarter-finals)
44) Club Brugge (1 semi-final, 2 quarter-finals)
45) Fiorentina (1 semi-final, 2 quarter-finals)
46) Malmö FF (1 semi-final, 1 quarter-final)
47) Eintracht Frankfurt (1 semi-final, 1 quarter-final)
48) Sampdoria (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)

Only Sucessful in Lower Tiers
(these clubs have less than 5 CL quarter-finals but won Europa League and/or Cup Winners Cup)

6 EL ​

49) Sevilla (0 semi-final, 2 quarter-finals)

2 EL
+ 1 CWC​

50) Parma (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)

2 EL​

51) IFK Göteborg (2 semi-finals, 4 quarter-finals)

1 CWC
+ 1 RU
at EL or CWC​

52) Sporting CP (0 semi-final, 1 quarter-final)
53) Werder Bremen (0 semi-final, 1 quarter-final)
54) Lazio (0 semi-final, 1 quarter-final)
55) West Ham United (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)

1 EL or
1 CWC​

56) Villareal (2 semi-finals, 3 quarter-finals)
57) Schalke 04 (1 semi-final, 3 quarter-finals)

58) Shakhtar Donetsk (0 semi-final, 1 quarter-final)
59) CSKA Moscow (0 semi-final, 1 quarter-final)
60) Everton (0 semi-final, 1 quarter-final)
61) Mechelen (0 semi-final, 1 quarter-final)
62) Zenit Saint Petersburg (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
63) Napoli (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
64) Slovan Bratislava (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
65) Dinamo Tbilisi (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
66) Aberdeen (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
67) Ipswich Town (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
68)1. FC Magdeburg (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
69) Zaragoza (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)

Close to Glory in Lower Tiers
(these clubs have less than 5 CL quarter-finals and came close to winning a cup in European 2nd or 3rd tier competition)

EL RU (2) or
CWC RU (2)​

70) Rapid Wien (1 semi-final, 4 quarter-finals)
71) Athletic Bilbao (0 semi-final, 1 quarter-final)
72) Espanyol (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)

EL RU (1) or
CWC RU (1)​

73) Standard Liège (1 semi-final, 4 quarter-finals)
74) Bordeaux (1 semi-final, 3 quarter-finals)
75) Austria Wien (1 semi-final, 2 quarter-finals)
76) 1. FC Köln (1 semi-final, 2 quarter-finals)
77) Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk (0 semi-final, 2 quarter-finals)
78) Dundee United (1 semi-final, 1 quarter-final)
79) Ferencváros (0 semi-final, 1 quarter-final)
80) Górnik Zabrze (0 semi-final, 1 quarter-final)
81) MTK Budapest (0 semi-final, 1 quarter-final)
82) Carl Zeiss Jena (0 semi-final, 1 quarter-final)
83) Wolverhampton Wanderers (0 semi-final, 1 quarter-final)
84) Red Bull Salzburg (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
85) VfB Stuttgart (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
86) Braga (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
87) Fehérvár (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
88) AZ (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
89) Twente (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
90) Mallorca (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
91) 1860 Munich (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
92) Torino (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
93) Dynamo Moscow (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
94) Antwerp (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
95) Fulham (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
96) Middlesbrough (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
97) Alavés (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
98) Bastia (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
99) Fortuna Düsseldorf (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)
100) Lokomotive Leipzig (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)

Other Achievements in Europe
(these clubs have good achievements only in Fairs Cup, which is recognised as the predecessor to the UEFA Cup / Europa League and selected the highest ranked clubs from European cities that hold trade fairs)

FC (1)
+ FC RU (1)​

101) Dinamo Zagreb (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)

FC (1) ​

102) Newcastle United (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)

FC RU (2)​

103) Birmingham City (0 semi-final, 0 quarter-final)

FC RU (1)​

104) Újpest (1 semi-final, 3 quarter-finals)

Forever Minnows
(these clubs made only one or zero CL quarter-final and never made to a final of an European competition in their history but are in the top 26 of UEFA all time rankings due to the 2 clubs' long history of participation)

105) Olympiacos (0 semi-final, 1 quarter-final)

 

European football leagues by revenue
Not all European football leagues have provided their numbers of revenue and MLS is added into the table for the sake of comparision.

This is my rankings

1) England
2) Spain
3) Germany
4) Italy
5) France
================ ↑ UCL contenders
6) Portugal
7) Russia
8) Ukraine
9) Netherlands
10) Belgium
11) Turkey
================ ↑ UCL regular participants
12) Greece
13) Switzerland
14) Austria
15) Scotland
================ ↑ UCL non-regular participants
16) Czech Republic
17) Denmark
18) Croatia
19) Sweden
20) Serbia
21) Poland
================ ↑ Top Representatives For A Region
22) Norway
23) Romania
24) Bulgaria
25) Slovakia
26) Slovenia
27) Hungary
============== ↑ Occasional Participants In International & Club Football Tourneys

You can see how my rankings are consistent with the rankings of football leagues revenue.

The top 5 nations in my rankings are the exact same top 5 in the rankings of football leagues revenue. Big 5 leagues is a term that comes from the Americans point of view - the 5 football leagues that are bigger than their soccer league.

The top 11 in my rankings (with the exception of Ukraine) are also in the top 12 of football leagues revenue but in different order. All the top 11 in my rankings (with the exception of Ukraine) has their own league that generates more revenue than Europa League. Its no wonder that the top 11 in my rankings always qualify for UCL.

The top 15 in my rankings (with the exception of Greece) are in the top 16 of football leagues revenues.

Denmark & Sweden being the top dogs of Nordic region makes sense in both my rankings and the rankings of football leagues revenue.

Every league that is ranked lower than number 15 in my rankings generates less than 200 million euros annually.

In short, money does influence how good your league is gonna be.

The exceptions to the rule of money are Ukraine & Greece. These 2 nations outcompeted the Nordic nations in UCL competition due to having a larger human capital + greater financial backings from club owners (Ukraine) or having a population with strong passion for the sport (Greece).

Even though i am attempting to rank every football association, the reality is that there isnt a huge gap between small football associations. It could just be like a coin flip between them when they play against each other. My rankings for every association that is lower than number 15 should not be seen as the most accurate rankings. I dont mean to dismiss a gap between a league with 25 million euros and a league with 195 millions euros but the gap between the league with 195 million euros and a league with 1.7 billion euros is much greater than the gap between the league with 25 million and the league with 195 million. When you are at the top, all the small teams look the same to you.

 

European Leagues vs Non European Leagues

North America


Even though MLS is close to Ligue 1 in terms of revenue, France population is only 1/6 the population of North America (US + Canada). This simply shows that France is a far more footballing nation than US and Canada but MLS doesnt need the majority of Americans to like football in order to surpass Ligue 1, only 1/6 of North America would be enough for the MLS.

Liga MX is close to Erevdivisie in terms of revenue but Netherlands population is only 1/5 the population of Mexico. This shows that a league is big not only due to its number of viewers but also due to the amount of spending by the fans.

Asia

945 million euros look at lot but for a nation with 1.4 billion people, its embarassing. Russia and Japan, each has only about 1/9 the population of China but Russia's & Japan's own league revenue are not far behind CSL revenue.

K League and Saudi League are also an embarassment when the Scottish league with only 5.5 million people is close to them in terms of revenue.

South America


Not surprising to see Brazil and Argentina have big football leagues. But European leagues are still way ahead. When you divide the league revenue by the size of population, you can see that a proper European league generates 4 times more revenue than a South American league does.

For now I dont have any interest in comparing leagues that generate less than 200 million euros annually. There are simply too many of them.

 

The main reason for all other small football associations to be ranked outside of my top 27 is that they dont have well rounded records at both club level and national team level.

One kind of football associations has clubs that qualified for UCL GS but has weak national teams who are practically invisible in international football.

The other kind of football associations has national teams who qualified for a major international football tournament (WC or Euro) in recent decades but has never had a club who qualified for UCL GS.

In order to rank all the small football associations that are outside of my top 27, i have to change my ranking criterias.

Club records are now the main & most important criteria for all the associations outside of my top 27 and their national team records are used only as a tiebreaker against other associations with similar club records.

By this way of ranking, the small associations with the best club records will be placed higher than the small associations with the best national team records. This way of ranking is by no means flawless but helps me put all the small associations into simple & comprehensible categories.

Here are the two new assocations that got added into my rankings.


Here is my updated rankings.

1) England
2) Spain
3) Germany
4) Italy
5) France
================ ↑ UCL contenders
6) Portugal
7) Russia
8) Ukraine
9) Netherlands
10) Belgium
11) Turkey
================ ↑ UCL regular participants
12) Greece
13) Switzerland
14) Austria
15) Scotland
================ ↑ UCL non-regular participants
16) Czech Republic
17) Denmark
18) Croatia
19) Sweden
20) Serbia
21) Poland
================ ↑ Top Representatives For A Region
22) Norway
23) Romania
24) Bulgaria
25) Slovakia
26) Slovenia
27) Hungary
============== ↑ Occasional Participants In International & Club Football Tourneys
(East. Mediterr.)
28) Israel
29) Cyprus
================ ↑ Occasional Participants In Only Club Football Tourneys

 

4 more associationss are added to my rankings

Post Soviet republics are fairly young states who had not had the need to develop their own national teams until 1991 so these 4 nations not having a strong national team is quite understandable. However at club level, they have been catching up with nations in Eastern Europe.

My updated rankings.

1) England
2) Spain
3) Germany
4) Italy
5) France
================ ↑ UCL contenders
6) Portugal
7) Russia
8) Ukraine
9) Netherlands
10) Belgium
11) Turkey
================ ↑ UCL regular participants
12) Greece
13) Switzerland
14) Austria
15) Scotland
================ ↑ UCL non-regular participants
16) Czech Republic
17) Denmark
18) Croatia
19) Sweden
20) Serbia
21) Poland
================ ↑ Top Representatives For A Region
22) Norway
23) Romania
24) Bulgaria
25) Slovakia
26) Slovenia
27) Hungary
============== ↑ Occasional Participants In International & Club Football Tourneys
(East. Mediterr.)
28) Israel
29) Cyprus
-------------------------
(Former USSR)
30) Belarus
31) Kazakhstan
32) Azerbaijan
33) Moldova
================ ↑ Occasional Participants In Only Club Football Tourneys

 

All the associations outside of my top 33 have never qualified for UCL. Since 1998, there has been more than 23 UCL tourneys, 7 WC tourneys and 6 Euro tourneys. From my point of view, not qualifying for UCL tourney is a bigger failure than not qualifying for WC / Euro tourney because UCL is an annual competition while WC & Euro are not.

Here are the best 6 associations that have never qualified for UCL.


(the rise of Albania & Macedonia in the rankings)


Out of all the non UCL participants, Wales & Ireland are the 2 football associations with the most commendable national team records.

Wales is the best association to have never qualified for UCL. Because Wales' best clubs play in English divisions, they have to beat England's biggest clubs in domestic cup competitions or finish above them in premier league in order to qualify for a European level tournament. As Wales' best clubs could not compete against England's biggest clubs, the top Welsh clubs tried to organize their own domestic cup competition to get a Europa League qualification spot but UEFA refuse to recognize such domestic cup competition. Welsh are British when there is EPL money but are not British when they want easier qualification for European competitions.

Ireland having an okay national team is not surprising since their best talents are likely to play in English leagues.

Other than Slovenia, Croatia & Serbia, the western Balkan states that border with Greece would do better in football than the western Balkan states that are sandwiched between other Balkan states. Still the question remains: out the 2 small football associations Albania & Macedonia, which one is better? If we consider only club records then Albania football association is better but if we look at national team records then Macedonia has more impressive wins in recent times. After having done a quick research on other datas (recent h2h between clubs & national teams, nations league standings), i came to the conclusion that Albania should be put above Macedonia due to Albanian national team having beaten Macedonian national team in their most recent matchup and Albania currently having a higher league standing than Macedonia in UEFA nations league.

(club h2h)

(national team h2h)

(nations league standings)

Small nations whose favorite sport is ice hockey (Finland, Latvia) do better in football than small nations whose fav sport is basketball (Estonia, Lithuania). This means a sport that has a strong focus on leg movement (ice hockey) is closer to football than a sport that has strong focus on arm/hand movement (basketball, baseball). Canada beating US in their most recent soccer match came off as a surprise to many people but from a sporting perspective, it still makes sense that Canada, where ice hockey is king, got a soccer win over the US, where basketball & baseball are the top 3 sport.

My updated rankings

1) England
2) Spain
3) Germany
4) Italy
5) France
================ ↑ UCL contenders
6) Portugal
7) Russia
8) Ukraine
9) Netherlands
10) Belgium
11) Turkey
================ ↑ UCL regular participants
12) Greece
13) Switzerland
14) Austria
15) Scotland
================ ↑ UCL non-regular participants
16) Czech Republic
17) Denmark
18) Croatia
19) Sweden
20) Serbia
21) Poland
================ ↑ Top Representatives For A Region
22) Norway
23) Romania
24) Bulgaria
25) Slovakia
26) Slovenia
27) Hungary
========↑ Occasional Participants In International Football & Club Football Tourneys
(East. Mediterr.)
28) Israel
29) Cyprus
-------------------------
(Former USSR)
30) Belarus
31) Kazakhstan
32) Azerbaijan
33) Moldova
============== ↑ Occasional Participants In Only Club Football Tourneys
(British Isles)
34) Wales
35) Republic of Ireland
-------------------------------------
(Western Balkan)
36) Albania
37) North Macedonia
-------------------------------------
38) Finland
39) Latvia
=↑ Occasional Participants in International Football & Low-tier Club Football Tourneys

 

The list of UEFA Cup / Europa League winners are consistent with my rankings of leagues

Number of cup wins
13 - Spain
9 - England
9 - Italy
7 - Germany
(top 5 without France)
4 - Netherlands
2 - Portugal
2 - Russia
2 - Sweden
1 - Ukraine
1 - Turkey
1 - Belgium
(almost all of top 12 here are also in the top 11 of my rankings)

Opinions On Women Football​

70% of women football teams operate at a loss. This means the majority of the football world does not care about women club football. Only the biggest clubs can afford to have (proper) women teams. For now the main aim of women football leagues is not to bring in profits but to build up the reputation of the players and develop a loyal & global fanbase.

Nevertheless whats surprising to me is that women world cup games did get views on youtube. People watched them not because they wanted entertainment from their favorite sport boardcasts but rather to support their women national team. Patriotism & pride about your countrywomen's achievements are powerful things. These things bring people to watch women world cup instead of their fav sport programs.

As i watched a few women football matches and the parody compilations of women matches, i noticed the ugly aspects of the women game. Its already known that men have better physical atrributes than women (better pace, better height, better stamina, etc...) so I do not intend to compare the level of play between a men game and a women game. What im really comparing here is the level of professionalism. When it comes to defending, female football players are more prone to making mistakes than male football players. Why? Because women havent played as many games as men do. Men have been competing at a continental level since 1950s while women teams have only been developed since the last decade. Its obvious that the level of professionalism in the woman game is still below the men game. It could be said that the professionalism of today female footballers are like the male footballers in the 1950s. But can women become less mistake prone in playing football? The only way for any player (male or female) to minize their susceptibility to making mistakes is to play more games and gain more experience. Practice makes perfect.

From my observation, the best women teams have relied on their physical abilities (like winning aerial duels) more often than their technical abilities to score goals. Even when football is played by women, it is still a physical sport. Most of the playing conditions in women football are equal to men football. There is no smaller goal, smaller pitch, smaller soccer ball, less play time for women. The attractive aspect of women football is that goals from outside of the box happen more often in women games than in men games. But how? Women dont kick the ball as hard as men do so it should be harder for women to score from a long distance, right? Wrong. Because female goalies have shorter arm reach than male goalies, its easier for female players to score long distance goals against female goalies than for male players to score long distance goals against male goalies.

 

One more thing to notice about female goalies is that they are more likely to make mistakes than all other outfield female players. Why? Because goalies (male or female) dont train with their feet as much as other outfield players.

In my previous post about women WC views, my reasoning for the high number of women WC views was "people's patriotism and pride for the achievements of their countrywomen". But now i realize that it is more than just "patriotism & pride" that get people to watch women WC. Actually people want a sense of joy & fulfillment when they support their national teams. People want to root for winners, not losers. People want to root for a team that makes them feel happy & proud, not a team that would make them feel dissapointed or embarassed. What women WC did is that it gave nations with losers on the men side men (US, Japan, etc...) winners from the women side. Women WC help people ignore the male losers, who dissapoint their people, and let people indentify themselves with the female winners, who give their people a sense of joy & fulfillment.

Also the unbelievably high scorelines from the women WC matches (like the US vs Thailand match) would make many people feel curious enough to click on the highlights video of the match and find out how it ended up with such a high scoreline. Furtheremore the participations of a few female players, who are social media figures (Alex Morgan for example...), help women WC gain an audience outside of casual football fans. These players have a large following from little girls who idolize them and men who like pretty face. But do these demographics make up the majority of the views in women WC vids? The answer is no.

The main appeal of the Women World Cup is that it is a World Cup. Women WC uses a KO format that turns every match into a high stakes contest and has the participation of top women teams from every continent of the planet. All these teams come to the WC with their own national pride and every player in these teams has strong passion for the sport. To these players, there is no greater joy in their football careers than to score goals and win matches in WWC. The competition simply means alot to these players. To us the audience, even though we are not invested in WWC in the same way that these players do, we can still see the meaning of each goal and each victory in their celebrations. In case of us as an audience not wanting to relate to these players, WWC still offers us alot of entertainment values. Watching close matches between women teams could make us feel somewhat excited and witnessing special moments where a team wins against the odds/the favorites could give us the audience goosebumps. Gradually the competition between all women club teams & all women national teams will become tighter and we as the audience can expect more close matches & better entertainment from women football in 1~2 generation time.

Popularity of Football
​

Men's World Cup was watched by more than 3.5 billion people.
Women’s World Cup got watched by more than 1.1 billion people.
FIFA games got sold for more than 325 million copies.
But how does a sport become so big? I can give you the answer in these 2 vids:


Due to the sport's simplicity, football transcends not just national borders but also species. Many other sports can do the former but not the later.

 

There is
no video where an animal uses a hockey stick to score a goal,
no video where the animal shoots a basketball into a basket,
no video where the animal throws a baseball into a catcher's glove or uses a bat to hit a fastball,

There might be a video where the animal grabs a rugby ball and runs into the end zone with it
but there is no video where the animal kicks the rugby ball over a 3 metres high crossbar.

Nevertheless this video here shows why football is so universal.

The task of kicking a ball into the net that is straight in front of you is such a simple task that even animals can be trained to do it. If a religious person asks you what man-made sport is the closest to a God's creation, the answer would be football.

 

Whats surprising about football is that the inventors of the sport were not any genius but the ordinary English school boys. Without them, football would never possess such an amazing simplicity.

 

I have found a video of an elephant shooting a basketball
https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx3xC0Fhy2ziHuHlGUtcjutkbd4P-KwCJd
However the vid does not show multiple successful shots by the elephant but only one. Moreover elephants can not dribble a basketball in the same way they kick a soccer ball.

In the end, football is easier for elephants than basketball.

 

Even if you dont like playing or watching football, football still exists outside of stadiums & TV.



Even in table football, you need to win the midfield battle.

 

Women Football vs Men Football
​

There are 4 aspects of the game: physicality, technicality, tactics & mentality.

Physicality is the most important and most basic aspect of the game. You need enough physicality to not get dusted in a foot race or get bullied in the air or have your block tackle be a non obstacle. In anything that involves running, jumping and minor physical contacts, women simply lose out against men because women have less physicality than high school boys. Please understand that im not comparing between an athletic woman and a fat, lazy highschool boy but between athletic women and athletic high school boys when both groups have similar height & spend the same amount of time to work out at a gym.

To further my point about physicality being the most important & basic aspect of football, here are the stats about average distance per game from a player in each major sport:

World Cup Football Tournament player | 7 miles per game = 11.26 km per game
Wimbledon Tennis (Mahut vs Isner) | 6 miles = 9.66 km (11 hours match)
Field Hockey player | 5.6 miles per game = 9.01 km per game
NHL Ice Hockey player | 5 miles per game = 8 km per game
NBA Basketball player | 2.55 miles per game = 4.1 km per game
American Football player | 1.25 miles per game = 2.01 km per game
Baseball player | 0.0375 miles per game = 0.06 km per game

https://www.runnerstribe.com/expert-advice/average-distance-ran-in-various-sports/
So football is very demanding in terms of stamina. The statistics also prove my point about sports that have strong focus on leg movement (hockey) are closer to football than sports that have strong focus on hand movement (basketball, baseball).

 

More stats from athletes in other sports

Aussie Rules Football player | 12.8 km per game
(hard-working) Rugby player | 5.1 miles per game = 8.2 km per game
Tennis player | 4.8 km / 2.66 hours
Cricket player | 12 km / 9 hours (highest record: 23 km / day)

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2020/05/22/the-players-set-to-be-hit-hardest-by-new-2020-quarter-length/
https://rugbydome.com/how-far-do-rugby-players-run/
https://www.entertales.com/distance-covered-athletes-sports/
https://www.sportingnews.com/au/oth...y-tennis-basketball/nzkxdwhj8qhn1kkyjf43su45x
So Aussie Rules football is the only sport that requires its players to run as much as football players.

 

More comparisions with athletes in niche sports

(amateur) Gaelic Football player | 9.22 km per game
(hard-working) Lacrosse player | 4841 yards per game = 4.43 km per game

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/ga...ures-revealed-and-what-use-are-they-1.3650622
https://us.sportsperformancetracking.com/blogs/spt-playbook/using-gps-in-lacrosse
Just improving your stamina to cover 2 more kilometers in a match can make you go from playing like an amateur (9.22 km per game) to playing like a national team player (11.26 km per game).

 

After showing you how much physicality is required in top level football, let us now come back to the original topic of women football vs men football.

Even though the pace & physicality of the women game can never match the pace & physicality of the men game, football still requires alot of technicality (passing, dribbling, long-range shooting, weak foot finishing, etc...), sound execution of tactics (team chemistry, winning the midfield battle or sitting deep & playing on the counter-attack, etc...) & good decision making by individuals (making a pass that would lead to other good passes, choosing the right time to accelerate & not running like headless chicken for the whole 90 minutes, choosing to either shoot when there is enough space or pass to a teammate who is in a better position, etc...). Therefore the pace & physical aspects of the game do not outshine its technical & tactical aspects. These 2 aspects save the women game from being overshadowed by its slower pace & lesser physicality in comparision with the men game.

However in terms of technicality, the women game still lacks Messi-like superstars who can provide the wow factor. I dont see Putellas, Chloe Kelly, Alisha Lehmann and whoever got million views on youtube as superstars. Its theoretically possible for the women game to produce out of this world, tremendously technical players but in practicality the women game needs at least decades to produce awe-inspiring, exceptional players due to the women game still having a smaller talent pool than the men game and thus suffering from a lower level of competition than the men game. The most talented female footballers are the big fishes of a small pond while the most talented male footballers are the big fishes of the sea.

In regards to tactics, they are possibly the only aspect in the women game that is close to the men game but the best of women game are not on par with the best of men game. Being the best coaches in a newly formed professional league & non historic women UCL is nothing in comparision to being the best coaches who won the most prestigious international or club competitions.

On the subject of mentality & how players handle pressure, women tend to be more emotional and men are just known to be colder or at least better at concealing their feelings, hiding their nerves. Having played in more big matches also give the men more experience in dealing with pressure. Men are also better at dark arts of football - doing things that frustrate their opponents. (commiting minor fouls to stop the flow of an attack & cut down the amount of time for the ball to be in play, diving and acting injured to get free kicks or pens, surrounding the referees to get people sent off or penalized with yellow card) https://www.sports-king.com/dictionary.php?q=dark-arts

Besides male players commiting acts of shithousery in order to gain mental edge against their opponents, male fans are also better than female fans in creating a hostile atmosphere against the visiting team. So even when the women are playing on the field, their most helpful, most energetic supporters are the men.

Finally when it comes to refereeing, female referees have much less experience than their male counterpart and have only worked in professional leagues in recent years. This makes the female referees more prone to making bad calls or calls that favour the home team than the male referees. Should we just get rid of female referees altogether? No but it can be frustrating to see the inexperienced female referees still having to perfect their trade in international matches. The standards for refeering (especially in big matches) should always be the highest as they can be.

Overall, the women game in its current form should not be compared to the modern day men game. Objectively speaking, we should judge the modern women game based on the standards of 1950s men game. And if you want to account for the physicality difference, high school boys game in 1950s is probably the closest to modern women game. Only after 1 or 2 decades of women football development then the comparision between modern men game and modern women game would be more fair.

 

This girl is a hidden gem that got 5 million views. Some folks say she is gonna be a Ballon D'or winner.
Amazing ball control, good striking technique and terrific vision.

 

Back to the stats that i posted



Its just insane to realize that even female football referees have to keep up with the pace of male football players and therefore cover more distance per game than athletes in other sports. Female football referees are actually running more than American football male players & NBA basketball players.

 

Here is the new table with more accurate stats


https://sportsmedicine-open.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40798-021-00301-1/figures/2
https://rugbydome.com/how-far-do-rugby-players-run/
https://www.sportingnews.com/au/oth...y-tennis-basketball/nzkxdwhj8qhn1kkyjf43su45x