Currently, we are halfway through the second year of the reconfigured UEFA Champions League, and the significant effects of the 2024 alteration to a 36-club, Swiss-style group stage, a novel concept in European football, are already apparent.
As an illustration, during the concluding game day of this year’s group stage, Benfica’s custodian, Anatoliy Trubin, created a memorable highlight by heading in a goal in the 98th minute versus Real Madrid, preventing their exit and advancing the Portuguese team to the next stage. Conversely, the competition’s structure has become so intricate that Trubin personally was unaware of the critical importance of his goal for Benfica’s aspirations in the Champions League.
Evidently, an ideal resolution remains elusive, yet this doesn’t preclude attempting improvements. Given that the elimination playoff fixtures are scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, we posed a query to our contributors: What alterations would you suggest for the Champions League structure, considering practical feasibility?
Presented below are three compelling suggestions from Mark Ogden, Gabriele Marcotti, and Bill Connelly, spanning from groundbreaking to moderately impactful concepts.
A pair of smaller leagues, culminating in an extensive playoff stage
Since reforming the former European Cup layout in the early 1990s, UEFA has presented numerous versions of the Champions League. Notwithstanding these adjustments and modifications, the tournament retains its status as the peak of club football, and its fundamental appeal has remained intact.
However, it is within the elimination phases that the true spectacle unfolds. This represents a challenge UEFA needs to address, as regardless of how frequently they revise the preliminary rounds, these initial stages will never possess the same level of risk and thrill as traditional two-legged, decisive confrontations.
The sole factor making the eighth game day of the group stage so captivating was its resemblance to an elimination match, highlighted by Benfica’s 4-2 triumph over Real Madrid – attributed to custodian Trubin’s goal in added time – a contest as thrilling as any playoff fixture.
Considering these points, what adjustments can be made to the structure to infuse more vitality into the initial group/league phase? A return to direct elimination from the very first round is out of the question – the financial insecurity for elite clubs is too great for such an endorsement – hence, some form of group play is essential.
Therefore, why not divide the group phase into two distinct sections, with both feeding into the elimination rounds, reminiscent of how the AFC and NFC contribute to the NFL playoffs? Rather than a cumbersome 36-club division, establish two 18-club divisions where only the top pair from each are assured a place in the round of 16. The remaining 24 clubs, 12 from each division, would then proceed to an expanded playoff competition – featuring an unseeded draw!
1:41
Leboeuf: Benfica’s goalkeeper scoring was a Champions League miracle
Jürgen Klinsmann and Frank Leboeuf react to Anatoliy Trubin’s last minute goal to send Benfica to the Champions League playoffs.
The aim is to grant benefits exclusively to the strongest teams; thus, if a club places beyond the top two, it might encounter any opponent in the playoff. A match against Real Madrid or Bodo/Glimt could occur, determined by random chance instead of a ranking system. Furthermore, every team would still participate in eight group stage fixtures, ensuring no decrease in income from matches.
This arrangement would nonetheless be imperfect. An excessive number of clubs could still advance after a substandard group performance, and one might contend that a comparable quantity of somewhat inconsequential matches would persist. However, my objective is for encounters like Arsenal versus PSG or Real Madrid versus Bayern Munich in November to possess greater significance than they presently do. Limiting automatic berths to merely two would intensify the competitiveness among leading contenders, and our collective desire is to observe prominent teams performing with genuine intensity. — Mark Ogden
Teams gain the ability to select their adversaries
The request is for pragmatic suggestions, a point to consider. A return to the eras of single leagues or individual team formats is not feasible, nor is reverting to entirely direct elimination rounds. (In any case, a distinct single-elimination competition effectively follows the initial group phase.)
In my view, the existing structure presents few significant flaws; instead, the primary concern lies with the seeding system. Specifically, its impact lacks substantial weight!
The previous year, Liverpool secured the top position in their group, and their supposed ‘prize’ was a confrontation with Paris Saint-Germain, who placed 15th (and eliminated the Merseyside club). Subsequently, Real Madrid, finishing 11th, was drawn against Manchester City (22nd). While both clubs admittedly performed below expectations, this served as a ‘penalty’ for them. If Real Madrid had placed just one rank lower, they would have encountered – with all due respect – Celtic. Which opponent would be preferable?
Rating teams in the preliminary phase solely on points (or, less effectively, goal difference) does not constitute a precise evaluation of their comparative prowess. Therefore, let’s imbue the seedings with actual consequence: Allow teams to choose whom they play against.
What would the process entail? Real Madrid concluded the group stage in ninth position, positioning them as the highest-ranked participant in the elimination round playoffs. Rather than being compelled to face the 24th-ranked team (Benfica), they would have the liberty to select any available playoff opponent. Following them, Internazionale, in tenth place, would also have the option to make their selection.
Perhaps Real Madrid might wish to avoid an immediate reunion with Jose Mourinho. Or possibly Inter, currently paired with Bodo/Glimt, might prefer not to journey to the Arctic Circle to compete on an artificial surface in February. Irrespective of the motive, this system would offer a substantial advantage for clubs achieving higher placements, while also generating a captivating television spectacle: Picture each team’s delegate having a 60-second countdown to announce their opponent choice. Moreover, this approach would inherently guarantee that stronger, more prominent teams are separated for a prolonged period.
Subsequently, this procedure would be replicated for the round of 16: Arsenal would make the initial selection, succeeded by Bayern Munich, and so forth. Furthermore, let the club with the superior ranking determine whether their first match is home or away. It is generally presumed that playing the second leg at home confers an advantage, but some might opt otherwise, possibly owing to a crowded schedule, tactical preferences, or other considerations. Indeed, they could even choose their playing day between Tuesday or Wednesday.
Such “athletic benefits” are merits attainable through on-field performance and carry genuine significance. They diminish the probability of clubs underperforming or accepting a draw late in the group stage, particularly once they are aware they will not secure a top-eight position. — Gabriele Marcotti
In reality, the revised structure is … largely acceptable, yet the seeding mechanism requires greater definition
Candidly, I believe the most substantial alteration we can implement pertains to perspective. While an extensive, eight-game group stage indeed offers limited immediate risk, this very characteristic generated some of the season’s most compelling narratives. The allowance of eight fixtures enabled teams like Benfica and Bodo/Glimt to overcome initial difficulties and establish their presence in the tournament. In fact, Pafos and Union Saint-Gilloise almost achieved similar feats. Their performances improved as they gained momentum, and this reduced urgency actually enhanced the viewing experience. Approaching the group stage as an authentic season – albeit a condensed one – allowing for unexpected developments and late breakthroughs, renders this format genuinely enjoyable, even with the understanding that no team faces elimination as early as October.
Nevertheless, should modifications be deemed essential, I offer a pair of minor suggestions.
Initially, concerning nations supplying four or more participating clubs, I would permit at least one fixture against a national rival during the group stage. In an environment where the Premier League commands substantial revenue and can secure a majority of premier players, their advantage is further amplified by avoiding internal competition. It would undoubtedly have proven more challenging for Premier League clubs to occupy five of the top eight positions in the standings if, for instance, Chelsea had visited Arsenal, or Manchester City had confronted their perennial difficult opponent (Tottenham Hotspur). Furthermore, if an additional, unexpected El Clasico or Der Klassiker were to appear in the November schedule, who would voice an objection?
Concurrently, despite numerous American-influenced elements being put forward, I would indeed advance a particular concept even further. Discard the notion of flexible seeding – I would implement a rigid seeding system for all aspects!
A potentially vast disparity exists when drawing, for example, seventh-placed Sporting CP (currently 16th in Opta’s performance metrics) compared to eighth-placed Manchester City (second) this year, or 17th-placed Borussia Dortmund (19th) versus 18th-placed Olympiacos (45th). The previous season demonstrated a significant contrast when top-seeded Liverpool drew 15th-placed PSG instead of 16th-placed Benfica, or 21st-placed Celtic rather than 22nd-placed Man City. A considerable degree of unpredictability is already inherent in the ultimate league standings – there’s no necessity for a final surge of it during the draw. Allow the standings to dictate every outcome: In the round of 16, the first-place club competes against the victor of the 16th and 17th ranked teams, the second-place club faces the winner of the 15th and 18th ranked teams, and so forth.
These modifications are not extensive, as truthfully, I perceive minimal need for significant alteration. We engage in a condensed season sufficiently long to experience profound narrative shifts and developments, featuring several exhilarating game days towards the conclusion of the group stage, followed by an expansive knockout structure guiding us through several months of contests. The tournament’s enlargement was fueled almost exclusively by the incessant pursuit of increased revenue, yet, as is often observed in this sport, the avaricious chase for financial gain has paradoxically provided us with more entertaining football to observe. — Bill Connelly
