Should the Champions League and Europa League be merged into a Super Champions League?

[Dont be a lemon]

Inspired by a post I read and a thought I had in another thread, would it be good for UEFA's two club competitions to be merged together?

Some badmouth the Europa League for it's implicit 'second rate' status and allege many clubs in it therefore don't really care.

Europe's best 80 clubs playing it out like nobody's business?

 

[Kaan]

No.

UCL should be the real deal from the get go not after the 40 Europa quality teams get eliminated with this 80 club system of yours.

Europa is a simple fix. Offer a champions league spot to the winner (or at least a spot in the UCL play offs). Teams like Liverpool, Tottenham and Newcastle will start taking it more seriously because getting a spot via EPL is hard.

 

[Cruyff14]

No.

 

[ADL9798]

I don't think so. Too difficult logistically with that many sides and the whole point of the Champions League is it's exclusivity. I think what they should do is award the winner or the 2 finalists of the Europa League with a spot in the qualifying stages of the Champions League. That would provide some incentive to the teams participating in the EL and stop the situation we have now where many are viewing it as a 2nd or 3rd priority and subsequently rarely fielding their best sides.

 

[Stratton_Gun]

Shouldn't be a Europa League. What is the point of being the 17th best team in Europe (or thereabouts)?

 

[Dont be a lemon]

this 80 club system of yours.

The number need not specifically be 80. I just added the CL's 32 to the EL's 48 (group stage participants).

 

[LFTWNG11]

Definitely not. Should be a real Champions League (as in 1st of every European league) and the old school Cup Winners Cup. Obviously not commercially viable though.

 

[moomba]

No, I think the comps are fine as they are.

Only change I'd suggest is play them of different weeks. Then the Europa league will be the prestige European matches for that week, rather than an afterthought from that weeks Champions League matches.

Don't think winners or runners up should get a free pass into the champions league (even qualifiers), clubs should have enough pride in themselves to take the competition seriously in the first place.

 

[Kaan]

The number need not specifically be 80. I just added the CL's 32 to the EL's 48 (group stage participants).

Still, most of the Europa teams would be filler in a combined tournament.

 

[ADL9798]

No, I think the comps are fine as they are.

Only change I'd suggest is play them of different weeks. Then the Europa league will be the prestige European matches for that week, rather than an afterthought from that weeks Champions League matches.

Don't think winners or runners up should get a free pass into the champions league (even qualifiers), clubs should have enough pride in themselves to take the competition seriously in the first place.

Given the financial incentives for prioritising the league and in particular qualification for the more prestigious and lucrative Champions League over the Europa League, this clearly hasn't been the case for many clubs. Unfortunately pride doesn't pay the bills nor give you the financial power to lure in quality players

UEFA need to look at it seriously, because if the bigger clubs continue to not take this competition as seriously as they should, then pretty soon the fans and more importantly for UEFA the sponsors will follow their lead.

 

[Kaan]

Don't think winners or runners up should get a free pass into the champions league (even qualifiers)

Why?

What's wrong with a minnow team making way for the Europa winners especially when teams will take the tournament more seriously. It wont hurt anyone other than the team that will have to start from an earlier round.

There's hardly any reason to take this tournament seriously.

 

[moomba]

I guess its about what's important to the club and its supporters.

For me, even when we had no money I would have been livid if my club prioritised cash over trying to win something.

I personally think any club that doesn't think Europa League is worth trying to win shouldn't be allowed to participate in any European competition.

Kick them out and let clubs that want to be in it play.

 

[moomba]

Why?

What's wrong with a minnow team making way for the Europa winners especially when teams will take the tournament more seriously. It wont hurt anyone other than the team that will have to start from an earlier round.

There's hardly any reason to take this tournament seriously.

Why should a side thats achieved success in their league make way for someone that's had a good cup run?

It used to be that incentive for football clubs was trying to win something.

 

[moomba]

I'd also add that the only fair way for UEFA to add the cup winner to the champions league is to reduce the number of entrants from the same association.

Do a cup winner qualifying for the champions league would almost certainly come at the expense of 4th spot.

 

[ADL9798]

I'm in the same boat as you moomba in that I'd definitely prefer to see my club prioritise winning trophies over money, but unfortunately that's not the way football works these days. Not to have a dig at City or Chelsea because I'd love to be in their position and I understand clubs like Liverpool and United have spent money in the past - but those 2 coming into the market has resulted in a rapid quantum leap in spending that the rest of the clubs I don't think were really prepared for.

Now the only way for sides without such wealthy benefactors to compete at anywhere near the same level is through ensuring they have the revenue and more high profile sponsorship deals that only Champions League football provides (or risk falling far behind the pack), and this has come at the expense of competitions such as the Europa League which for all intents and purposes has no financial incentive attached to it and thus has been deemed irrelevant by many clubs.

Trophies in the cabinet are fantastic but the people have spoken and apparently no-one cares about the Europa League/UEFA Cup anymore, it's not like it used to be where everyone bar the league champions took part and thus it held some prestige. Money talks, and so the only way I think you'll see sides take the Europa League more seriously (if City are dropped into the EL I guarantee they'll be playing 2nd string sides in most of the games if you're still in 3-4 competitions) will be by either increasing the prize money by diverting some of the money from the Champions League into the Europa League or by giving the winner a spot in the early qualification stages of the Champions League.

 

[Super Hans]

No.

 

[Cooldude]

There's nothing wrong with going for cash in football, coz most times you need cash to win trophies in the first place. It's the same as people who would pick CL football over a league cup (which is a sensible decision), it's just common sense, you need the CL money for long term success

The problem is investing that cash back into the team (some type of football fiscal responsibility) rather than putting it in your own pockets, which is what Arsenal seems to be doing. Arsenal is an extremely well run administration, just that the cash isn't being invested back in the team either due to the board or manager

The crap about trophies over cash is an overly simplistic, naive and idealistic view that doesn't hold water in a sport which is predominately about money

 

[moomba]

I'm in the same boat as you moomba in that I'd definitely prefer to see my club prioritise winning trophies over money, but unfortunately that's not the way football works these days. Not to have a dig at City or Chelsea because I'd love to be in their position and I understand clubs like Liverpool and United have spent money in the past - but those 2 coming into the market has resulted in a rapid quantum leap in spending that the rest of the clubs I don't think were really prepared for.

Now the only way for sides without such wealthy benefactors to compete at anywhere near the same level is through ensuring they have the revenue and more high profile sponsorship deals that only Champions League football provides (or risk falling far behind the pack), and this has come at the expense of competitions such as the Europa League which for all intents and purposes has no financial incentive attached to it and thus has been deemed irrelevant by many clubs.

Trophies in the cabinet are fantastic but the people have spoken and apparently no-one cares about the Europa League/UEFA Cup anymore, it's not like it used to be where everyone bar the league champions took part and thus it held some prestige. Money talks, and so the only way I think you'll see sides take the Europa League more seriously (if City are dropped into the EL I guarantee they'll be playing 2nd string sides in most of the games if you're still in 3-4 competitions) will be by either increasing the prize money by diverting some of the money from the Champions League into the Europa League or by giving the winner a spot in the early qualification stages of the Champions League.

It's lucky that clubs like City and Chelsea are about so other clubs can blame their can't be arsed attitude on us.

It's like I said, if a club doesn't want to give the competition the respect it deserves then withdraw and let another club in.

It's all a cop-out really, Atletico put in an effort in the comp every year and are thriving because of it. Spurs couldn't be arsed last year and fell away in the league. It's just a convenient excuse. As for how serious City would take the Europa league (if we make it), this was our lineup for our first Europa league match last year:

Hart, Richards, Kompany, Lescott, Clichy, Barry, Nasri, Silva, De Jong, Toure Y, Balotelli. Don't think anyone can accuse us of not taking that competition seriously.

 

[moomba]

There's nothing wrong with going for cash in football, coz most times you need cash to win trophies in the first place. It's the same as people who would pick CL football over a league cup (which is a sensible decision), it's just common sense, you need the CL money for long term success

When I think of clubs that have sacrificed European competition in recent years - Villa, Spurs, Bolton - I don't think that really rings true. As you mention you need to re-invest the money back in the team, but to be honest a club that can't handle European and domestic challenges at the same time is going to need to invest a whole lot more than they'll get out of the champions league.

The crap about trophies over cash is an overly simplistic, naive and idealistic view that doesn't hold water in a sport which is predominately about money

It may be idealistic, but it is the case that many clubs prioritise money over success. If you think that's a good thing, then go ahead and mock the simplistic, naive view that it isn't a good thing for the game.

 

[moomba]

FWIW, I think there is a better solution. Champions league revenue should be shared equally between all clubs, not just the ones that participate in that seasons competition.

Make it about the sport again.

 

[Cooldude]

When I think of clubs that have sacrificed European competition in recent years - Villa, Spurs, Bolton - I don't think that really rings true. As you mention you need to re-invest the money back in the team, but to be honest a club that can't handle European and domestic challenges at the same time is going to need to invest a whole lot more than they'll get out of the champions league.

This is sorta the other way around, but I remembered Rafa sacrificing some league games in 05 before big European games, and we end up winning the whole thing despite finishing 5th. Not every club can afford to compete at all fronts purely coz their squad cannot handle it, it's just pragmatic common sense that you need to prioritize which games in which competition are more important.

They can only invest a lot more than they'll get out of the champions league if they continually get money every year from the CL to build a squad, ya know, and that also means they need the money, and they only get that by qualifying through CL. You see how this works?

It may be idealistic, but it is the case that many clubs prioritise money over success. If you think that's a good thing, then go ahead and mock the simplistic, naive view that it isn't a good thing for the game.

This is where your argument falls apart, coz money = success in this sport. This is particularly at odds with your own vehement defense of Man City's spending in recent years for success when you've been saying how success in clubs have always been about money. Why is it that now suddenly it's success > money?

Put it this way, if I can choose between a Europa Cup or CL spot, I'd take the CL spot any day. I agree that the Europa League should have the winner qualifying for CL, worthy incentives are important. As we've seen over the years, a lot of Europa Cup teams have whipped the floor with teams that come down from the CL, they ain't exactly lacking in quality over a two legged tie

 

[ADL9798]

moomba I don't know why you get so defensive on this issue of spending. It's not an insult nor is it intended to be, it's a fact that City and Chelsea are on another planet when it comes to spending compared to most other clubs at present - yes Liverpool, Arsenal, United etc spent big in the past but they were different times where players weren't demanding such unfathomable wages. The gap between rich and poor is far greater than it ever was, and as much as I don't like it there is now a far greater emphasis on securing finances so that we and other clubs like us can build a squad which is capable of getting back into a position where we can compete on multiple fronts without sacrificing the league through fatiguing players than there is on winning cups. At the moment this simply is not possible, it's not a case of 'can't be arsed', it's an unavoidable truth that unlike Manchester City (to answer your question on squad depth - you could send out a dozen combinations of players without losing too much in terms of quality), we and several other clubs don't have enough quality players to realistically challenge in the Europa League and at the same time achieve our primary goal of reaching the top 4 in the Premier League.

Liverpool are perhaps unique in that despite our poor league finishes in recent years, our fan base remains one of the largest in the world so our sponsors will remain relatively happy regardless due to the exposure their brand is given. However for many other clubs the situation is different, if they didn't care about the money and prestige that high finishes in the Premier League and qualification for the Champions League brought then the sponsors would vanish and with it any hope of reaching the likes of City, Chelsea and United at the top.

It's not as simple as just saying toughen up and try harder because not all clubs are in the same position or have the same level of quality players running through their squads, and if that's the approach UEFA are adopting then the Europa League is going to going to become a financial basket case. The fact is that at best you have a few Champions League rejects and some of the 5th-7th best sides in their respective leagues - hardly a prestigious competition anymore, what they need to do is raise the stakes a little. The clubs will then shift their priorities towards this competition and the fans and sponsors will follow creating a far more sustainable economic model for UEFA and giving the clubs and their fans something more to aspire towards.

 

[ADL9798]

This is sorta the other way around, but I remembered Rafa sacrificing some league games in 05 before big European games, and we end up winning the whole thing despite finishing 5th. Not every club can afford to compete at all fronts purely coz their squad cannot handle it, it's just pragmatic common sense that you need to prioritize which games in which competition are more important.

They can only invest a lot more than they'll get out of the champions league if they continually get money every year from the CL to build a squad, ya know, and that also means they need the money, and they only get that by qualifying through CL. You see how this works?

This is where your argument falls apart, coz money = success in this sport. This is particularly at odds with your own vehement defense of Man City's spending in recent years for success when you've been saying how success in clubs have always been about money. Why is it that now suddenly it's success > money?

Put it this way, if I can choose between a Europa Cup or CL spot, I'd take the CL spot any day. I agree that the Europa League should have the winner qualifying for CL, worthy incentives are important. As we've seen over the years, a lot of Europa Cup teams have whipped the floor with teams that come down from the CL, they ain't exactly lacking in quality over a two legged tie

Agree with this.

 

[Cooldude]

In answer to the reference about Man City fielding almost a first choice XI for their first Europa game, this is a non-serious sly dig, but considering the way you guys are like in Europe, unless you field your best team you mightn't win

 

[ADL9798]

FWIW, I think there is a better solution. Champions league revenue should be shared equally between all clubs, not just the ones that participate in that seasons competition.

Make it about the sport again.

This would also be a good solution.