UEFA’s latest group-stage format for the Champions League, also referred to as the “Swiss system”, is altogether problematic. Its workings primarily remain an enigma to most, lacking complete transparency and accountability. In addition, it has been successfully utilised as a lucrative avenue for some of the most deplorable global elements to contend with.
Interestingly, the first steps into this audacious new chapter occur in Switzerland itself, with an early Tuesday match-up between Young Boys and Aston Villa, concurrently with Juventus facing PSV. This pairing serves emblematic purposes beyond face value. Despite being viewed as competition dark horses, the Swiss club, based in Bern, has persistently dominated at the national level, bagging six Swiss titles in the last seven seasons, even in the face of internal disputes and lacklustre football.
The question is; how did they achieve this? According to the Swiss Football League’s financial records published last April, Young Boys have left other clubs trailing in their wake in several parameters including wages, revenues, assets, profit and league points. Their income from broadcasting last season was tantamount to the combined total of all their Super League rivals.
A significant portion of their revenue is resultant from the Champions League, empowering Young Boys to capitalise in a league where others must liquidate. The anticipated monetary reward of €42 million from this year’s competition is an amount greater than the annual revenue of almost all their Swiss Super League competitors—aligning perfectly with their planned expenditure for the new centre of excellence, erected in the peripheries of Bern.
An identical narrative can be observed in many of Europe’s medium-sized football leagues. For example, Shakhtar Donetsk has secured six out of the last seven Ukrainian championships, Red Star has clinched seven consecutive titles in Serbia, and Dinamo Zagreb has triumphed in seven consecutive Croatian leagues (and 18 out of the last 19). While local variables may differ, each of these series of league victories shares a common contributing factor: the Champions League revenue, which even in modest amounts can distort domestic competition to such an extent that it seems futile.
This is why it’s peculiar to find individuals who, observing this scenario, believe that bigger payoffs are what contemporary contests truly require. Nevertheless, the idea of expanding the group stage to yield larger rewards has always been part of the sport, despite all the rhetoric about “risk” and the slick UEFA promotional videos, like the one where Zlatan Ibrahimovic praises the revised format because “the fans deserve more action.”
It is highly likely that the backlash against their inflated Champions League ticket prices has elicited astonishment amongst the management of Aston Villa. Because the competition’s closest approximation to intrinsic values is a commitment to exact as much as possible from fans, advertisers, and broadcasters. What did you think the purpose of this competition was? Prestige?
Whilst UEFA pledges that the tournament will become more comprehensible once it starts, its current logic is quite straightforward: generating content for the sake of it, scheduling more matches because more is preferable, erecting a structure which benefits the largest clubs in Europe and their benefactors. For the first time, there will be eight games each. For the first time, the knockout stages will involve Wimbledon-style seeding. For the first time since 2003, group games will spill into the New Year, thereby not only affecting the winter break but also the January transfer window.
In the meantime, we ought to provide some context to all the chatter about risk. Where the erstwhile format necessitated 96 games to whittle down 16 teams, the new one calls for 144 games to cull just 12 teams. A unified 36-team league table will determine advancement to the knockout stages, with the top eight proceeding directly, and teams from ninth to 24th place competing in two-leg playoffs.
Based on the statistical analysis from the Football Meets Data website, they have carried out 10,000 test runs of the group stage in football, finding that earning 17 points all but secures your place in the top eight. A final score of nine or ten points in most cases results in a playoff. A persisting concern in the old group stage remains unsolved – dead rubbers. Instances still arise where teams who either have secured their place or have been eliminated play against teams still battling to qualify. This raises the potential for mismatched games, especially if a team decides to rest players for future difficult matches.
Furthermore, the inequality of each team playing a unique suite of eight fixtures raises concerns about fairness. UEFA’s current format is a continuation of a broader trend where primacy of sport is steadily replaced with the synthetic excitement of televised games. If the primary goal was to determine Europe’s best team, you would arrange a round-robin league where every squad faces every other. Contrarily, if heightening suspense and making each game consequential were the goal, you would operate a straight knockout stage, as was done until 1991.
UEFA, however, pursues neither of these models. Instead, the method in place has essentially been designed in reverse from the desired outcome: the top teams play from the beginning, but not to the point where they start eliminating one another, with the aim of still having them around for the end. The format’s inherent meaninglessness, lack of context, and uncertainty over the significance of plays, for example, the Liverpool vs Real Madrid match on November 27th, is not a unintentional oversight but a deliberate design feature.
What is most striking about the revamped format is not its revised nature, but the minimal changes made. Last season, Opta’s supercomputer predicted a 79 per cent chance the victor would hail from one of the competition’s top eight-ranked clubs. This year, that figure is 80 per cent. Last year, Manchester City had a 99 per cent chance of making the final 16, and this year it’s slightly lower at 95 per cent. The continuation of the seeded knockout stage appears to a concession towards the elite clubs following consecutive seasons with distinct weak and strong halves of the draw, giving rise to unlikely finalists like Borussia Dortmund and Inter.
The fact that we can even talk about these two previous champions in such a context shows how quickly the landscape has dwindled. Nonetheless, despite all the changes and new faces, the conventional hierarchy of favouritism surfaces once again: City and Real Madrid are inarguably spearheading the pack, trailed by about six external contenders such as Bayern Munich, Paris Saint-Germain, Barcelona, Liverpool, Arsenal, and Inter.
Is Bayer Leverkusen likely to succeed? Probably not, in spite of their benign draw and the extended preparation time provided to Xabi Alonso’s team by the new format of the contest. This could be applicable to Girona, Atalanta, and Stuttgart as well, the teams that surprised everyone last season, but will likely face much sterner challenges this time. Villa, on the other hand, has some enticing fixtures lined up and should be poised to secure a playoff spot. Celtic, while they have a favourable draw on paper, will need to strike a careful balance between fearlessness and caution.
This is when we should consider the definition of success in this revamped tournament. More excitement? Increased upsets? Less pointless matches? Larger TV viewerships? Someone finally understanding the role of Benfica? Or is it simply an echo of any other year’s triumph, reinforcing current economic positions, with the wealthiest clubs winning in ever more intricate and profitable ways?
Despite all the rule changes and new beginnings, an all too familiar outcome is looming, where the largest clubs are determined to gain even more advantages in the next rounds. If an eight-match group stage is possible, why can’t it be expanded to 10 or 12 in the future? There are still numerous midweeks available in the calendar for exploitation. Italy and Germany may have snagged the two extra places this season, but why not extend extra places to England and Spain as well? And how long will it be before the decision-makers determine that Manchester United and Chelsea — despite their questionable competition skills — are imperatively included solely for viewer engagement?
Football aficionados display an inherent aversion to alterations, with their affinity towards tradition and cyclical routines. They are instinctively apprehensive about new propositions and immediately visualise numerous possibilities of failure, from misunderstanding to boredom and inequity, a plethora of concerns doesn’t fall short. Nonetheless, this is not the gloomiest prospect. If the potential failure of the revamped Champions League sparks concern, the impact of its possible success should warrant even greater consideration. – Guardian