Premier league contraction

Hi I've recently been doing research into European football pyramids, and was going for some veiws on a proposal for a shortened premier league season. The proposal was made by then Barcelona president sandro rossell. He put forward an idea of smaller leagues across Europe so there would be more space in the calender for an expanded champions league. With the hope of weekend fixtures in european competition. It's been e easy enough to find the negatives but what positives could you see in this. Everyone's insight would be greatly appreciated. Cheers

I think they should expand CL football and can the Europa league all together. Maybe cut down a couple of teams from each of the top flight leagues and then let in the top six or seven clubs from the major powers. I doubt that will ever happen as the traditionalists in each country fear change. I never understand the concept of the Europa league in the first place. A consolation tournament, or the league cup frankly. Isn't one domestic cup enough? But you won't find much support for it in most countries. Although I do find the intereuropean battles with teams playing differing styles to be intriguing, I think we shouldn't have quite as many competitions, which frankly aren't that prestigious to begin with.

The CL is expanded enough (should be cut back if anything), but I would agree that the Europa League and League Cup should go.

Cut the PL down to 18 teams as well.

Yes we've been looking at those models. I think the premier league is one of only two still to have a league cup. Its getting less significant all the time. It pales in comparison to the fa cup, and the europa league is same I think an expanded champions league has merit because it means scrapping the europa league which is good on my book.

No. Do not expand the Champions League. Just don't. You'll ruin it by making it less exclusive.

The League Cup is fine too. Just because it's not prestigious doesn't mean you should scrap it. I don't care if we get knocked out but I do enjoy it when we win it. A cup is a cup.

cdm86 wrote:Yes we've been looking at those models.  I think the premier league is one of only two still to have a league cup. Its getting less significant all the time. It pales in comparison to the fa cup, and the europa league is same  I think an expanded champions league has merit because it means scrapping the europa league which is good on my book.  

Try telling that to the City and Sunderland fans who travelled to Wembley at the weekend, or the Swansea fans last season.

By expanding the Champions league you are opening it up for criticsm, people already complain that a fourth placed team can enter, what will they say if a 6th placed team enter and win it? I also noticed you mention getting rid of some of the smaller nations. Why shouldn't they have their time in the spot light against Europes big boys? The money it makes those clubs is huge, and keeps them ticking over in some cases.

A cup that doesn't include all of the best teams in Europe is watered down. If you only had champions then real madrid or Barcelona miss out or man u or man city. Im a chelsea fan and although we won the europa league it was still a poor European season for us as we weren't good enough to progress in the champions league. Although that is my opinion only.

The Champions League isn't about elitism. It's good to see the different clubs that get in and what it means to their fans.

Also last season wasn't a disappointment for Chelsea. We got a double figured points total and went out on goal difference. Only four teams in the last three seasons have gone out of the group with at least 10 points. Then we won a trophy despite the negativity towards Benitez and reclaimed our position in the top 3.

I think they should scrap Europa league for sure and I think the league cup only hurts English teams when they do play in Europe. I mean I don't buy this idea that a cup is a cup. Having two cups takes away from the significance of both cups. If a cup is a cup why not add another cup as well I mean lets have them playing in cup matches all year while trying to play in Europe as well.

Scrapping the Europa league while taking in some good teams into an expanded CL would improve the CL and certainly be a financial windfall. Right now the Europa league for countries from major leagues seems more like a burden than a reward with trips to nowhere on thursday before playing on the weekend.

You don't get it Socal. Why do you want to ruin the Champions League? The Europa League is important. The Champions League calibre clubs that play in it make way more money than they ever would in the Champions League.

Expanding the Champions League for financial gain is wrong. It puts more money in the pockets of UEFA and the elite clubs.

All they need to do is go back to the old style when they had Champions League on a Tuesdays, CWC on Wednesdays and UEFA Cup/Europa League on Thursdays. Obviously with no CWC you put Europa League on Wednesday. But spreading the games out makes them more money. It's why we now have the last 16 spilt over 5 weeks instead of the old way of two or three weeks.

If they scrap the Europa League and expand the Champions League we'll go from one great tournament and a decent tournament to one big farcical tournament.

The split in the games for the knockout round is abysmal. It is purely for money but would they have to do things like that if they had the best teams in. Sometimes the europa league has big market teams in who are not being rewarded enough. Would increasing the prize money help?

Ruin the Champion's league by adding lets say the 5th place or 6th place team in England, Germany, and Spain, a couple of quality teams from the smaller leagues who qualify early in the season hardly ruins the Champion's league. The Europe league is just not that successful financially or otherwise. The early rounds of it are filled with trash sides that some of which aren't even at the level of the Championship. Very few people actually care about the Europa league. At the later stages there are some good teams and good matchups but really not until you get the CL teams knocked out into the mix. It isn't a matter of getting it or not getting Nick. I have different opinion than you, you don't hold the one correct answer to the this question. You like chocolate maybe i like strawberry ice cream. I would rather see the quality teams of Europa incorporated to the CL and have a few more CL games than to see the Europa league.

The Champions League is already far too bloated, not to mention it has a laughable name.

Why expand it? More dull games layered on top of some more dull games.

How many teams are in the Champions League currently, if one includes team from the very opening qualifying rounds? Too many.

Expansion? No.

Trim it, thus having greater quality and less one-sided games? Most certainly.

Duty281 how would you go about reducing it?

What did we then do with the champions of the lesser countries then Socal, do they get ignored completely or does the champions league qualification round get expanded even more than it already is?

What happens to say Motherwell who came second in the Scottish league?

There would definitely need to be more places for lower league champions

cdm86 wrote:Duty281 how would you go about reducing it?

Lessen the amount of teams currently in the competition by ten-twenty or so. (rough estimate)
Have some initial two-legged knockout ties for the "lesser" sides, probably decided by seeding, to whittle the competition down to sixteen clubs.
Then a group stage; 4 groups of 4. Top two go through to the quarters.
Two-legged knockout ties from there until the final.

Something along those lines anyway. I think it needs to be thought through a bit more.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:What did we then do with the champions of the lesser countries then Socal, do they get ignored completely or does the champions league qualification round get expanded even more than it already is?

What happens to say Motherwell who came second in the Scottish league?

Scotland lost that place a couple years back. Belgium have two spots now.

They screwed the UEFA Cup ages ago. Its not interesting enough for a group stage.

Im not really one to touch things. People like tradition for more than just traditions sake. Sometimes, people just have to mess with things

CFCNick wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:What did we then do with the champions of the lesser countries then Socal, do they get ignored completely or does the champions league qualification round get expanded even more than it already is?

What happens to say Motherwell who came second in the Scottish league?

Scotland lost that place a couple years back. Belgium have two spots now.

I mean the second and third placed teams who get Europa league qualification, getting rid of the Europa league doesn't take into account those teams who rely on it for extra income.

cdm86 wrote:The split in the games for the knockout round is abysmal. It is purely for money but would they have to do things like that if they had the best teams in.  Sometimes the europa league has big market teams in who are not being rewarded enough. Would increasing the prize money help?

The split has nothing to do with the quality of teams. Each team is shown in their own country but by spreading the games out it means every knockout game will be on TV in every country and that's where the money for splitting the last 16 comes from. TV viewers and sponsors adverts. The more countries the sponsors are shown in the more money UEFA get.

If you think the last 16 quality is bad you need to bang your head against a wall.

Man United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund, PSG, Atletico Madrid, Leverkusen, Milan, Olympiacos, Schalke, Zenit and Galatasaray.

Are you telling me you'd prefer the likes of Spurs, Everton, Sevilla, Roma, etc. to take one or two of those teams out?

Keep it how it is, its fine.

For the teams in the smaller leagues like belgium and scotland we can have them play qualifiers like the 4th place team in EPL does right now. Give them a chance to get into the tournament proper by playing it out. Some of the teams that play in the Europa league in the early rounds are just awful and should not even be playing in European competitions. I agree with Duty the name Champion's league is stupid though since a lot of the teams aren't champions just quality sides. They should go back to it being the European Cup it describes the event better.

Cfcnick I didn't say the last sixteen teams were a hard sell I said they were clutching at straws for more money. Im saying as a whole the 32 are missing some big tv markets and because of that they are finding ways of collecting what they perceive as lost income. Im also not proposing swapping teams out for spurs, roma etc, but adding them to that list of teams. Adding more teams from lower ranked coefficients is a no brainer as well perhaps more important in the long term than adding 5th and 6th teams from top leagues.

There's already 76 teams in the whole competition. Why expand? Some of these teams in the early stage have to start their season a month before anyone else. Expanding would mean the players only get a few weeks off between seasons and there'd be no space for the World Cup or Euros. If you expand and keep the season the length it already is then you're gonna have major fixture pile ups. And there's not just League Cup games that you might think are in the way but FIFA will not move any of the international match dates.

There's far too points to consider to even think about expansion.

And I don't know why you want bigger tv markets in the competition. TV markets have no baring on the money a club receives each match or the money UEFA make. TV markets don't matter because the whole continent watches these games regardless who's playing on certain nights.

socal1976 wrote:For the teams in the smaller leagues like belgium and scotland we can have them play qualifiers like the 4th place team in EPL does right now. Give them a chance to get into the tournament proper by playing it out. Some of the teams that play in the Europa league in the early rounds are just awful and should not even be playing in European competitions. I agree with Duty the name Champion's league is stupid though since a lot of the teams aren't champions just quality sides. They should go back to it being the European Cup it describes the event better.

So basically the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, why does a team that has won it's domestic league no matter where it is not deserve to play against the best teams, far more deserving than a team that has come 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

socal1976 wrote:For the teams in the smaller leagues like belgium and scotland we can have them play qualifiers like the 4th place team in EPL does right now. Give them a chance to get into the tournament proper by playing it out. Some of the teams that play in the Europa league in the early rounds are just awful and should not even be playing in European competitions. I agree with Duty the name Champion's league is stupid though since a lot of the teams aren't champions just quality sides. They should go back to it being the European Cup it describes the event better.

So basically the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, why does a team that has won it's domestic league no matter where it is not deserve to play against the best teams, far more deserving than a team that has come 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th.

He's American HH. That's how their country works.

Tv market size has a massive bearing on how lucrative a television deal is. If only teams from three countries reached the group stage uefa could not command as much in broadcasting revenue as it does now. That's where your right in a sense it is Europe wide. but if big teams from big countries miss out veiwing figures drop from said country. Advertisers look at those figures and so do broadcasters. If you told a potential advertiser they can buy rights next year but there's no presence in Madrid london Rome and Munich would they pay as much money

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

socal1976 wrote:For the teams in the smaller leagues like belgium and scotland we can have them play qualifiers like the 4th place team in EPL does right now. Give them a chance to get into the tournament proper by playing it out. Some of the teams that play in the Europa league in the early rounds are just awful and should not even be playing in European competitions. I agree with Duty the name Champion's league is stupid though since a lot of the teams aren't champions just quality sides. They should go back to it being the European Cup it describes the event better.

So basically the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, why does a team that has won it's domestic league no matter where it is not deserve to play against the best teams, far more deserving than a team that has come 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th.

Because the concept of the tournament is to find out who the best club team in Europe is. It is not to reward the winner of the Bulgarian league. If like Porto they are good enough to compete under and expanded CL and expanded qualification they will have ample opportunity to prove it. Currently the EPL, la liga, and Bundesliga get more spots because they are better leagues with a higher quality of play. I understand this is determined by looking at the results of teams from these leagues in past few years of the competition. If for example like in Russia all of sudden you get an influx of resources and the league starts winning more of its ieuropean games against other leagues eventually they can get more spots in the CL. It makes sense to me if the point of the tournament is an attempt to crown a club champion of EUrope. If the Scottish or Belgium reps routinely get rolled by the 4th or 5th place sides in England or Germany for example then they don't deserve to have additional representation.

CFCNick wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

socal1976 wrote:For the teams in the smaller leagues like belgium and scotland we can have them play qualifiers like the 4th place team in EPL does right now. Give them a chance to get into the tournament proper by playing it out. Some of the teams that play in the Europa league in the early rounds are just awful and should not even be playing in European competitions. I agree with Duty the name Champion's league is stupid though since a lot of the teams aren't champions just quality sides. They should go back to it being the European Cup it describes the event better.

So basically the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, why does a team that has won it's domestic league no matter where it is not deserve to play against the best teams, far more deserving than a team that has come 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th.

He's American HH. That's how their country works.

Ding, Ding, ding, can't have a civil discussion about football with you guys without you taking swipes at my nationality within about 3 or 4 posts. You know nothing about my history, politics, way of thinking, or my background. So please don't pretend you are in any position to make judgments about because of where I live.

I agree in most parts with you socal and I actually agree that an expanded CL and the europa league canned means less european games not more. But I do think most European leagues should have one automatic qualifier at least. And if there's minor teams not making it all the way to the group stage just redistribute the money from the europa to the early qualifying rounds of the CL.

cdm86 wrote:I agree in most parts with you socal and I actually agree that an expanded CL and the europa league canned means less european games not more. But I do think most European leagues should have one automatic qualifier at least. And if there's minor teams not making it all the way to the group stage just redistribute the money from the europa to the early qualifying rounds of the CL.

Yes I mean with the expansion you can guarantee most countries get an automatic qualifier. Increase the number of groups and add one more round of knockout ties. That would mean that to win the title really you would only have to schedule one additional round of knockout ties and not increase the number of group matches at all, but that you would have more qualification matches early in the season that would also be intriguing. It wouldn't be that much bigger of a burden in terms of scheduling.  This would adequately cover giving the champion's of the vast majority of the leagues if not all of them automatic qualification. The Europe league is just not viewed with a lot of prestige, it doesn't have the same ratings and a large number of the teams that play in the early group stages are just plain awful.

socal1976 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

socal1976 wrote:For the teams in the smaller leagues like belgium and scotland we can have them play qualifiers like the 4th place team in EPL does right now. Give them a chance to get into the tournament proper by playing it out. Some of the teams that play in the Europa league in the early rounds are just awful and should not even be playing in European competitions. I agree with Duty the name Champion's league is stupid though since a lot of the teams aren't champions just quality sides. They should go back to it being the European Cup it describes the event better.

So basically the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, why does a team that has won it's domestic league no matter where it is not deserve to play against the best teams, far more deserving than a team that has come 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th.

Because the concept of the tournament is to find out who the best club team in Europe is. It is not to reward the winner of the Bulgarian league. If like Porto they are good enough to compete under and expanded CL and expanded qualification they will have ample opportunity to prove it. Currently the EPL, la liga, and Bundesliga get more spots because they are better leagues with a higher quality of play. I understand this is determined by looking at the results of teams from these leagues in past few years of the competition. If for example like in Russia all of sudden you get an influx of resources and the league starts winning more of its ieuropean games against other leagues eventually they can get more spots in the CL. It makes sense to me if the point of the tournament is an attempt to crown a club champion of EUrope. If the Scottish or Belgium reps routinely get rolled by the 4th or 5th place sides in England or Germany for example then they don't deserve to have additional representation.

It's a CHAMPIONS LEAGUE. Having four English clubs is too many already. Adding more spots for the higher leagues waters down what it means to qualify.

While you're at it you may as well switch it to weekend afternoons like the Heineken Cup.

socal1976 wrote:

CFCNick wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

socal1976 wrote:For the teams in the smaller leagues like belgium and scotland we can have them play qualifiers like the 4th place team in EPL does right now. Give them a chance to get into the tournament proper by playing it out. Some of the teams that play in the Europa league in the early rounds are just awful and should not even be playing in European competitions. I agree with Duty the name Champion's league is stupid though since a lot of the teams aren't champions just quality sides. They should go back to it being the European Cup it describes the event better.

So basically the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, why does a team that has won it's domestic league no matter where it is not deserve to play against the best teams, far more deserving than a team that has come 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th.

He's American HH. That's how their country works.

Ding, Ding, ding, can't have a civil discussion about football with you guys without you taking swipes at my nationality within about 3 or 4 posts. You know nothing about my history, politics, way of thinking, or my background. So please don't pretend you are in any position to make judgments about because of where I live.

I know American sports. I know how the "suits" in those sports think. All of these ideas you keep coming up with are incredibly American and whilst things like that work well for the NFL, MLB, NHL, MLB, MLS, don't work as well over here (Europe not England). When it comes to berths in a the playoffs in those leagues the percentage of qualifying spots compared to league size are all bigger than the percentage of Premier League clubs qualify for the UCL.

It's just an observation I made. Whilst I very much enjoy those sports (apart from the NBA) the ideas are not right for football.

I don't know what you are talking about. In regards to rich getting richer football is way more undemocratic and way more impacted by big money teams getting richer than any American sport. That was hammersmith's point that you quoted. The distribution of money and success is much more evenly distributed in American sports. The rich getting richer is a huge aspect of European football not of American sports where you basically can't buy players, trades for players have to be approved by the leagues so as to not be one sided or just a financially motivated deal. Also teams that go over a certain payroll have to pay tax to the other teams in the league in the NBA that can be as much 200 percent tax. All these ideas that I support are made by Europeans, Platini was the one who suggested the sin bin. Playing shorthanded is an alien concept in the American team sports. Hockey is someone else's game we adopted, unlike basketball, baseball, and American football. And the NFL and NBA go out of their way for parity and in revenue sharing. Your swipe had nothing to do with AMerican sports and instead was a little dig on the country as a whole. If I support certain changes to the game I think they will help, also I am happy with the game the way it is or wouldn't support it and watch the matches. But to believe that things shouldn't change or improve over time I think is short sighted.

CFCNick wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

socal1976 wrote:For the teams in the smaller leagues like belgium and scotland we can have them play qualifiers like the 4th place team in EPL does right now. Give them a chance to get into the tournament proper by playing it out. Some of the teams that play in the Europa league in the early rounds are just awful and should not even be playing in European competitions. I agree with Duty the name Champion's league is stupid though since a lot of the teams aren't champions just quality sides. They should go back to it being the European Cup it describes the event better.

So basically the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, why does a team that has won it's domestic league no matter where it is not deserve to play against the best teams, far more deserving than a team that has come 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th.

Because the concept of the tournament is to find out who the best club team in Europe is. It is not to reward the winner of the Bulgarian league. If like Porto they are good enough to compete under and expanded CL and expanded qualification they will have ample opportunity to prove it. Currently the EPL, la liga, and Bundesliga get more spots because they are better leagues with a higher quality of play. I understand this is determined by looking at the results of teams from these leagues in past few years of the competition. If for example like in Russia all of sudden you get an influx of resources and the league starts winning more of its ieuropean games against other leagues eventually they can get more spots in the CL. It makes sense to me if the point of the tournament is an attempt to crown a club champion of EUrope. If the Scottish or Belgium reps routinely get rolled by the 4th or 5th place sides in England or Germany for example then they don't deserve to have additional representation.

It's a CHAMPIONS LEAGUE. Having four English clubs is too many already. Adding more spots for the higher leagues waters down what it means to qualify.

While you're at it you may as well switch it to weekend afternoons like the Heineken Cup.

socal1976 wrote:

CFCNick wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

socal1976 wrote:For the teams in the smaller leagues like belgium and scotland we can have them play qualifiers like the 4th place team in EPL does right now. Give them a chance to get into the tournament proper by playing it out. Some of the teams that play in the Europa league in the early rounds are just awful and should not even be playing in European competitions. I agree with Duty the name Champion's league is stupid though since a lot of the teams aren't champions just quality sides. They should go back to it being the European Cup it describes the event better.

So basically the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, why does a team that has won it's domestic league no matter where it is not deserve to play against the best teams, far more deserving than a team that has come 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th.

He's American HH. That's how their country works.

Ding, Ding, ding, can't have a civil discussion about football with you guys without you taking swipes at my nationality within about 3 or 4 posts. You know nothing about my history, politics, way of thinking, or my background. So please don't pretend you are in any position to make judgments about because of where I live.

I know American sports. I know how the "suits" in those sports think. All of these ideas you keep coming up with are incredibly American and whilst things like that work well for the NFL, MLB, NHL, MLB, MLS, don't work as well over here (Europe not England). When it comes to berths in a the playoffs in those leagues the percentage of qualifying spots compared to league size are all bigger than the percentage of Premier League clubs qualify for the UCL.

It's just an observation I made. Whilst I very much enjoy those sports (apart from the NBA) the ideas are not right for football.

Ok so one team from every country that means that clubs like Real, Barca, Juventus, AC Milan etc. will miss the competition and only play every couple of years while we watch the champion's of finland play. The Champion's league is simply a marketing name for the European Cup.

It's a CHAMPIONS LEAGUE. Having four English clubs is too many already. Adding more spots for the higher leagues waters down what it means to qualify.

While you're at it you may as well switch it to weekend afternoons like the Heineken Cup.

Ok so Real Madrid, Chelsea, and City wouldn't get in to this year's Champion's league but we could make up for it by watching the champion's of finland play.

I don't think it should be restricted to champions only. But reducing to three or even two spots would help the prestige of the competition far more than expansion.

The idea is to find the best team in Europe but the best team in Europe would also be the best team in their own country something the 5th or 6th best team would not be. Under the champions league format Manchester United are the only English team who can claim to have been the best in Europe something we've been twice.

I don't see why a team coming 6th should be rewarded for domestic mediocrity by getting a massive cash injection through European football, it's an elitist view that feeds the rich and nobody else.

You might not want to see the champions of Finland play but I can guarantee that the Finnish do and why should they lose out because of a so called elite English side. You may as well turn it into a Super League where you are voted in and out, as a United fan I want to see us in the Champions league because we earned it not because of our reputation.

If Chelsea, Barcelona, United or anybody finishes outside the top two they should miss out in  favour of a smaller countries champion, it's called fair play.

I would happily accept it if 3rd meant Europa League.

Question Nick, what made you more proud, beating us to the 2010 title or winning the champions league?

Last season you could argue chelsea were 17th best in europe but finished with a European trophy What's your thoughts on that. ( I am a chelsea fan by the way)

My thoughts are Rafa Benitez was desperate to win something.

I'm in favour of the top 2 qualifying for the CL only.

Not that it'll ever happen again.

Don't even get me started on CL drop outs entering the Europa League.

cdm86 wrote:Last season you could argue chelsea were 17th best in europe but finished with a European trophy What's your thoughts on that. ( I am a chelsea fan by the way)

With any tournament or cup competition you will get surprises. Like Porto winning or Chelsea winning when they were in 5th place in the league. But that doesn't change the fact that the CL is the best competition to gauge who is the best team in Europe. And usually that is the way that it works it out. Bayern last year, Barca winning three titles recently when they have been the class of Europe, United's treble winning side, and Juventus and Milan in the 80s and 90s.

socal1976 wrote:

cdm86 wrote:Last season you could argue chelsea were 17th best in europe but finished with a European trophy What's your thoughts on that. ( I am a chelsea fan by the way)

With any tournament or cup competition you will get surprises. Like Porto winning or Chelsea winning when they were in 5th place in the league. But that doesn't change the fact that the CL is the best competition to gauge who is the best team in Europe. And usually that is the way that it works it out. Bayern last year, Barca winning three titles recently when they have been the class of Europe, United's treble winning side, and Juventus and Milan in the 80s and 90s.

So Porto - after winning their own domestic championship and going onto to win the CL - can't be the best team in Europe?

The fans in Europe and the world in general would rather see Arsenal or Chelsea as 4th place team or 3rd place team getting in than watching Bulgarian champions getting thrashed by Barca or Real. It is an honest reflection of the varying strengths of the different leagues. Lets remember that the CL is a competition that is marketed globally to a global fan base. Also the goal is to gauge the strength of the best teams in Europe against each other and see who wins out. It is possible for a great side to slip up in their domestic league but have the players and the pedigree to be more than deserving of being considered the best or nearly the best in Europe. Barca playing Chelsea, or Bayern playing Arsenal, or Man U playing Madrid; has global appeal that the champions of smaller leagues simply don't have that appeal. And nothing is listed in stone, if English teams bomb in Europe for a few years and teams from lets say turkey do better than expected or from Russia for example England can be stripped of an automatic spot in favor of another league. Italy was the best league in the world throughout the 80s and 90s and then they fell off and don't have 4 teams in the CL because their teams have not performed in recent years.

FreekShow wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

cdm86 wrote:Last season you could argue chelsea were 17th best in europe but finished with a European trophy What's your thoughts on that. ( I am a chelsea fan by the way)

With any tournament or cup competition you will get surprises. Like Porto winning or Chelsea winning when they were in 5th place in the league. But that doesn't change the fact that the CL is the best competition to gauge who is the best team in Europe. And usually that is the way that it works it out. Bayern last year, Barca winning three titles recently when they have been the class of Europe, United's treble winning side, and Juventus and Milan in the 80s and 90s.

So Porto - after winning their own domestic championship and going onto to win the CL - can't be the best team in Europe?

No they can and they were for that cup run, just saying you will see surprises as the more fancied sides don't always win it.

So like I said you're advocating a system that makes the rich richer?

Unless you win your domestic league you simply cannot be the best team in Europe, there's no ifs and buts with that, it's all there is to say on the matter.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:So like I said you're advocating a system that makes the rich richer?

Unless you win your domestic league you simply cannot be the best team in Europe, there's no ifs and buts with that, it's all there is to say on the matter.

I disagree with this entirely. What if you have a team that is a great and class team but early in the season have a rash of injuries and bad luck end up being out of the league race. However they are in the CL, and they win enough to get into group phase. They get their players back and maybe even add a star or two in january and convincingly win the CL, although they can't quite do enough to make up for a poor start in league although they finish near the top. Winning your domestic league is a strong indicator of ability especially in a strong league. But it is a different format than a cup competition.

As for the rich getting richer there are many other factors that favor that situation in football that has nothing to do with CL or CL money. The fact that clubs can basically spend unlimited amounts on transfers and wages, and that TV money is not democratically shared across various leagues is a much bigger reason for the rich getting richer. And that there is not revenue sharing within leagues adds to this trend much more than CL money.