A Dramatic (but not unfamiliar) Suggestion

Rory Smith (The Times & ESPN) wrote:Michel Platini's Champions League plan needs revising

Michel Platini saw it as his manifesto for the dispossessed, a blow delivered by the most powerful man in European football on behalf of the little guy against the ruling elite. He saw it as fair, and just, and right.

His critics looked at it very differently. They saw it as a promise made by a politician, a clever piece of electioneering, a way of securing a tranche of votes to secure his own position. He thought it was a stand; they thought it was a sop. The truth, as ever, lies somewhere in between.

It is five years now since the Champions League shifted ever so slightly on its axis to accommodate the UEFA president's big idea. He decreed that those teams who have to qualify for the group stages of the world's most lucrative club competition should be split into two groups.

There would be a champions' route, for the title winners in those nations who do not rank high enough to be given an automatic spot in the tournament proper, and a non-champions', for the runners-up, third- and fourth-placed teams in the larger countries.

It is this change that means, at today's draw for the group stages of the 2014-15 edition, Ludogorets, BATE Borisov and APOEL will all be present, hoping for a meeting with a Real Madrid, a Barcelona or a Bayern Munich, but that Napoli, Lille and Besiktas, all unquestionably better sides, will not be.

Only the most modernist, capitalist, elitist fan would recoil from what Platini projected as the principle behind his promise. Clubs in larger television markets -- Spain, Italy, Germany, England and France -- have a vast, unbridgeable advantage over those in smaller nations; a host of famous names from the European Cup's illustrious past have essentially been robbed of their ambitions and deprived of the ability to compete simply through an accident of geography.

Steaua Bucharest and Red Star Belgrade, two former winners, will never be in a position to challenge western Europe's aristocrats again. That feels not just unfair, but sad, too. It was the element of mystery, of voyaging into the unknown, of variety that made the competition so magical in the first place. Platini wanted to coax that back into existence, in some way, or at least to give these sides a fighting chance.

By ring-fencing five positions for them in the group stages, Platini hoped he would not only empower those sides to compete financially, but to encourage investment, best practice and excellence in their leagues, too. Whether it was designed out of goodwill or political expediency is not really the issue; there is no question that the intention, or at least the intended effect, was a fine one.

The problem, five years on, is that it has not really worked. The champions' route has provided 25 teams for the group stages since its introduction. Three -- APOEL in 2011-12, Celtic a year later and Olympiakos last season -- have made the knockout stages. Twice that number lost all of their games.

Last season, Austria Vienna, Viktoria Plzen, Celtic, Steaua and Basel were the representatives. Three finished bottom of their groups. Basel came third, ahead of Steaua. Plzen did too, beating CSKA Moscow on head-to-head.

Thus, there is nothing to suggest that these teams are competing, or even getting better at competing. Whoever this year's lucky five -- Malmo, BATE, APOEL, Maribor and Ludogorets Razgrad -- face, whether they have the kindliest draw imaginable or have to overcome three of the giants, you would get long odds indeed on any of them reaching the last 16.

They will, at least, stand to gain financially. Celtic made 17 million euros last season, Steaua 15 million, Basel 13 million, Austria Vienna 12 million and Plzen a little more than 11 million. For clubs of that size, such money is crucial. It probably does enable them to invest in their facilities and their squads. It may, in some cases, help them retain players they might otherwise have lost.

Let us not pretend that it is helping to close the gap, though, not when Napoli and Marseille -- who also fell at the group stage last season -- made 38 million and 32 million euros respectively. It is also something of a stretch to suggest that the incentive of those riches is having a discernible effect on smaller leagues around Europe. Celtic's rampant cost-cutting drive led them to not one but two eliminations at the playoff round stage this season.

In Switzerland, meanwhile, it has simply served to cement Basel's enormous financial advantage over all of their rivals. Problems with corruption, non-payment of players and dwindling attendances continue to blight many Eastern European leagues.

There is a reason for this. Platini's principle was sound. His idea was conjured in the right spirit. The old adage that the Champions League should be reserved for champions is a sweet sentiment, but it is not only unrealistic but undesirable.

There is no interest and no benefit in watching Real, Barca, Chelsea and Bayern wipe the floor with teams with a fraction of their resources for the majority of the competition. The Champions League benefits from having the best three or four sides from the major nations in its ranks*.

A space must be made, though, for actual champions, without question. European football has lost something by the concentration of power and money in just a handful of leagues. The problem is that simply throwing these sides in at the deep end is mere tokenism. Platini was right to look for a more egalitarian model. It is simply that he did not go far enough. Drastic change is needed.

And that, ultimately, leads to just one conclusion. UEFA's smaller members -- everyone, essentially, from the Netherlands and Portugal down, because they will go the same way soon enough -- must investigate fully the idea of cross-border leagues. It works in rugby, and it works in Major League Soccer, so it is not prohibited by FIFA. We may not live in an ideal reality. There may be many of us who would not have it as it is, who yearn for something lost, but we must accept it and adapt to it.

The age-old proposal for the so-called "Atlantic League," comprising sides from the Netherlands, Portugal, Scotland and Belgium was not only poorly named -- the Netherlands and Belgium are not on the Atlantic -- but it was impractical.

There is no reason, though, that a Benelux league could not be introduced, as it is in the women's game, to enable the likes of Ajax, Feyenoord, PSV, Anderlecht and Club Bruges to face each other. A Scandinavian or Nordic league, comprising clubs from Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, would make perfect sense, too. Perhaps Scotland, Ireland and even Wales could join forces, as they do in rugby union.

More sensitive is the idea of unifying the competitions in the former Yugoslavia and across Eastern Europe but here, too, any security concerns should not automatically hold back something that would provide immense benefit, from a footballing point of view, to all concerned.

This is not wilful radicalism. It is not change for the sake of change. If it sounds naïve, so be it. There are problems, obstacles and potential pitfalls, but we do not live in a perfect world. Besides, a solution to an issue does not have to be perfect to be legitimate.

Ludogorets, BATE and the rest have all earned their place in the Champions League group stage. We should wish them luck, because -- in the absence of an actual levelling of the playing field -- they will certainly need it.

*An additional note: the idea that teams can go through the qualifiers and then end up as first seeds, such as Porto and Arsenal, is entirely ludicrous. That privilege should be reserved for champions of the five major nations, the holders, and then the two best sides by coefficient. It is very easy.

http://www.espnfc.us/blogs/74/post/2007734/michael-platinis-champions-league-playoff-plan-needs-revising

UEFA is close to changing the seeding system for the group stages of the Champions League, Sky Sports News’ Chief News Reporter Bryan Swanson can reveal.

UEFA has confirmed that, under new proposals, the top eight seeds would comprise of the defending Champions League winners, along with the seven domestic league winners of the top-ranked UEFA nations.

Initial talks over the seeding system took place earlier this year, and the plans were approved by the club competitions committee in May.

UEFA president Michel Platini, and other top officials, hope the new rules will prevent defending league champions seeded lower than other teams from their country.


UEFA plan to change the seeding process for the Champions League from next season onwards
Chelsea and Arsenal were both in pot one in this month's draw and seeded higher than Premier League holders Manchester City.

The new rules would prevent top-ranked domestic champions from being drawn in the same group.

Had the rules been introduced this season, it would have meant Manchester City were placed in pot one.

The plan needs approval from the UEFA Executive Committee before it can be introduced but it is hoped it would take effect from next season.

UEFA's next Executive Committee meeting takes place on September 18 in Nyon.

UEFA has also confirmed to Sky Sports News HQ that it has received no complaints from any club involved in the Champions League this season following Thursday's draw in Monaco.

windkick wrote:So City would of been in pot 1, and both Arsenal and Chelsea in pot 2? Pool would stay in pot 3?

that means both Barca and real Madrid would of been in pot 2 this year? would really spice up groups tbh, i like it

windkick wrote:So City would of been in pot 1, and both Arsenal and Chelsea in pot 2? Pool would stay in pot 3?

that means both Barca and real Madrid would of been in pot 2 this year? would really spice up groups tbh, i like it

S wrote:

windkick wrote:So City would of been in pot 1, and both Arsenal and Chelsea in pot 2? Pool would stay in pot 3?

that means both Barca and real Madrid would of been in pot 2 this year? would really spice up groups tbh, i like it

Madrid would've been in Pot 1 since they're defending champions and yeah,quite agree with what you said.

sportsczy wrote:Netherlands are not in the top 7 leagues though. The top 7 currently are:

EPL
Bundi
La Liga
Serie A
Ligue 1
Portuguese league
Russian league

windkick wrote:

S wrote:

windkick wrote:So City would of been in pot 1, and both Arsenal and Chelsea in pot 2? Pool would stay in pot 3?

that means both Barca and real Madrid would of been in pot 2 this year? would really spice up groups tbh, i like it

Madrid would've been in Pot 1 since they're defending champions and yeah,quite agree with what you said.

Oh yea, I didn't think about that

so Atletico and Real M. would both be in pot 1 and Barca would of ended up in pot 2

What about EPL, how would of all 4 teams been placed in pots?

Don't call me James wrote:So if this implemented this year we'd have

Pot 1:
Madrid
Atletico
Man City
Bayern
PSG
Benfica
Juventus
CSKA


Ajax won't benefit because Eredivise is shit, lower than Russian league in co-efficiency ratings

Pot2:

Barca
Chelsea
Arsenal
Dortmund
Schalke
Zenit
Porto
Basel

Pot3:

Leverkusen
Shakhtar
Ajax
Olympiacos
Liverpool
Sporting
Galatasaray
Bilbao

Pot4:

Roma
Monaco
Ludo
BATE
Maribor
Anderlecht
Malmo
APOEL