Heartbreaking: UEFA was right about the new Champions League format
It works. It's a tragedy,
Back in June, Real Madrid won their 15th Champions League1 title at Wembley Stadium in London.
On Tuesday they will return to England to face the previous year’s champions, Manchester City, in the first of a two-legged knockout tie.
It’s February.
Part of this is clearly about how badly things have gone for Man City this season. I don’t need to write a whole newsletter for you to know that they’re obviously a worse side than they were 12 months ago. And because football is just cruel and funny like that, City thoroughly dominated at home to Inter on matchday one but had to accept a 0-0 draw. Had they scraped a 1-0 win against the Serie A champions, they would’ve ended the “Champions League League Phase” (a horrible name) in 15th place ahead of Paris Saint-Germain and could look forward to facing Monaco. There’s always some random chance in these things, but the first edition of the League Stage really couldn’t have gone much better.
I don’t want to imply this was done for good reasons. The “Swiss format” was agreed back in 2021, heavily pushed for by the European Club Association under its then-President Andrea Agnelli. Yes, that’s right. Shortly before the deal was signed, Agnelli’s Juventus, along with eleven other major clubs, attempted to ditch the Champions League altogether and start their own European Super League. As you might have heard, that one didn’t go so well, but we’re still stuck with the compromise position that UEFA thought would deter the elite from ditching the Champions League.
But this format also works out pretty well for UEFA. The “League Phase” adds two extra matchdays compared to the old group stage, along with entirely knew playoffs before the Round of 16, giving four extra matchdays in total (one “matchday” here including both Tuesday and Wednesday of the same week). It’s also designed to ensure more “high profile” games, both in the league phase and the playoffs. I’m not sure any of this is good for the players, nor did the fans ask for it, but it’s certainly a way to keep the rights value high.
Let’s look at Real Madrid as an example. Last season, they faced Union Berlin, Napoli and Braga in the group stage, home and away. The season before, they faced Celtic, RB Leipzig and Shakhtar Donetsk. The season before that, they played Inter, Sheriff Tiraspol and Shakhtar again. Now, Inter and Napoli were both reigning Serie A champions when they played Madrid, so those are high-standard games, while RB Leipzig are no pushovers. But Napoli, for their very fierce local support around Naples, arguably don’t resonate quite so much outside of Campania. Only Inter could really claim to be a global “brand”, which shouldn’t matter, but it does when it comes to maximising TV revenues.
This season, Madrid have already played two “global brands” in Liverpool and Milan, along with Napoli-level side in Borussia Dortmund, plus Stuttgart, Lille, Atalanta, RB Salzburg and Brest. They will play Man City twice before the Round of 16 (if they make it). The format was designed to give us more games, and more of the games people are most likely to tune into. It has delivered on that front.
Much, much more importantly, it has delivered on entertainment value. On the final matchday of last season’s group stage, just 10 teams were still fighting to stay in the Champions League. The other 22 were either already through or already out (yes, there were the seeding and Europa League questions, but it’s not the highest-stakes event in the world). This time around, Liverpool and Barcelona were already certain to qualify, while nine sides had been knocked out. The other 25, though, were all competing, either to make the playoffs or qualify automatically. “Last day of the season” drama is one of football’s great pleasures, and we’ve now brought something like that to the Champions League.
I’ve seen some people say that getting into the playoffs is the same as “going through”, and I just don’t think that’s true. Take Man City as an example. I’m not claiming this to be an accurate number, but for the sake of simplicity, let’s just say that City have a 50% chance of beating any opponent here (be it over two legs or in the final). Had they made it straight through, they’d have to play four opponents across the round of 16, the quarter-final, semi-final and then the final. With a 50% chance of winning each tie, they’d have a 6.25% probability of lifting the trophy a second time. But because they went into the play-off stage, they now have to play five opponents. And while (we’re pretending) they have a 50% chance of beating Real Madrid, that cuts their chances of winning the tournament in half, down to 3.25%. The current bookies’ favourites to win the Champions League are Liverpool, Arsenal and Barcelona, all of whom went straight through. Real Madrid – the great Real Madrid! – are now considered fifth favourites, all because they’re having to face Man City in the play-offs.
The draw right now is looking pretty favourable for Arsenal. They will face the winners of either the Juventus-PSV tie or the Feyenoord-Milan matchup. Juventus and Milan are both a fair way off the pace setters in Italy this season, while the Dutch sides aren’t exactly all-conquering. They should really make it into the quarter-finals, where they could face a whole range of sides. Mikel Arteta has been criticised at times this season for being too cautious and negative. Could that actually be an effective approach in knockout football? All I know is that the draw looks kind right now. Inter will face whichever winner of those two ties does not draw Arsenal. They’re second in a tight Serie A title race right now, but clearly the strongest side in Italy by xG difference, so they should also be in the conversation with this favourable draw.
Liverpool will play the winner of either PSG-Brest or Monaco-Benfica. Whichever of those two Liverpool don’t draw will face Barcelona. There’s a pretty obvious preference here. PSG, currently 22 points ahead of Brest in Ligue 1, will surely win that tie. From there, I think drawing the winner of Monaco-Benfica will arguably matter more than which of Liverpool or Barcelona we consider the better football team. That said, Liverpool have really been at it over the winter months, while Barcelona have started to look pretty flaky since the clocks went back. If Liverpool were to face Monaco or Benfica then I think they could fairly be considered the team to beat.
Bayern really did get the draw they wanted, facing Celtic in the play-offs. It’s business as usual after last season’s mess as they sit atop the Bundesliga. If they beat Celtic, they will face either Bayer Leverkusen or Atlético Madrid. I don’t think that’s likely to be an easy game. My hunch is Bayern should come through it, but there’s plenty that could go wrong to get there.
While they each take a hit for having to face each other, the combined chances of either Real Madrid or Man City are rated as about equal to Liverpool by the bookies. They’ll be facing Atlético Madrid or Bayer Leverkusen in the Round of 16, which certainly won’t be an easy tie. If a huge upset is on the cards, perhaps Atalanta could pull it off? They’re the most aesthetically pleasing side in Europe and I always pick them for this, so let’s go for them again. If they beat Club Brugge in the playoffs, they’ll face Lille or Aston Villa, who themselves probably feel like Unai Emery is well suited to knockout football.
This is a really good, exciting tournament. Yes, there are too many games. Yes, it’s about corporate greed. But as a spectacle, I think they’ve made the Champions League better. I’ll be watching along with all of you.
Yes, I know it was called the European Cup. No, I do not care right now.
I agree that it's been a qualified success, but I think there are a few ways to improve it (if UEFA want to send some consultancy money my way).
Firstly, I don't see why the league phase couldn't have six games rather than eight. The Conference League has six games because they split the draw into six pots of six teams, rather than four pots of nine. I don't think that would work for the Champions League, but future draws could be split into three pots of twelve teams.
If that had been the case this season, the extra teams joining pot one would have been Bayer Leverkusen, Atletico Madrid and Atalanta. I really don't see that as diluting the quality very much.
There are a few advantages to this. One, you reduce the players' workload, at least relative to the new baseline. Two, you increase the proportion of 'big games' played by each team - instead of one in four being played against a 'pot one' team, it's now one in three.
It would also increase the jeopardy in the league phase. City wouldn't have been caught out (they were 22nd after six games) but PSG would. If the 'last day' had been matchday six, only Liverpool would have been secure in the top eight, while only four teams would have had nothing to play for. And it would obviously change the dynamic surrounding the earlier games.
I also just don't like the way they've done the draw for the knockouts. If you're going to do seeding, you should do it right. It doesn't make sense that Liverpool's likely reward for finishing first is to face PSG, who finished in 15th, while Lille or Aston Villa (who finished 7th and 8th) could end up with 24th-placed Club Brugge.
My solution would be to have the playoff round set in stone - 9th plays 24th, 10th versus 23rd, and so on - from the start. You would then have a few options. You could go for an old-fashioned open draw, with top eight sides guaranteed a home second leg. Or you could have a semi-open draw, with the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th seeds on one 'side' and 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th on the other. Or you could redo the seedings after the playoffs, so that if the 24th-placed team knocks out the 9th-placed team, they become the 16th seed, instead of 'inheriting' the 9th seed. You could then keep this weird semi-open draw they've been doing, where 1st/2nd plays 15th/16th, 3rd/4th plays 13th/14th, etc.
Overall, though, I agree with your main argument. I was expecting to hate the new format but, while I still prefer the 'apples to apples' competitive logic of the old group stage, it's been much, much better than I thought. It will be interesting to see if that's the case in future years, or whether the possibility of City getting knocked out has heightened the interest around the lower end of the table. Then again, they weren't the only big teams to have a poor league phase - just look at Real Madrid!
P.S. The increase in workload is big, of course, but it's also not unprecedented. The maximum number of games a team can play in the competition proper under the new format is 17 - eight league phase games, a two-legged playoff, then seven knockouts, including the final. This is the same as under the old two group stage format (six group games, then another six group games, then five knockouts). It would be interesting to look back on how and why that was abolished and whether concerns over the number of games played a role - they actually decreased it by almost a quarter!