Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: cska
Date: 03-05-2006, 14:30
Edited by: cska
at: 03-05-2006, 14:40

Dear fans,
I am raising this topic, because very often I see on the other threads opinions like that: "Oh, if team X wins the title (or cup) then team X (or Y) will play CL (UC) and it would be disastrous for the coefficient of the country A."
I think that a championship exists to allow the teams play against one another to determine which are better and which are worse.
I prefer to see in CL, UC and IT teams which deserve it by qualifying through good performance in league (cup) and not teams which have performed well in the past and only rely on past glory (and points).
If they qualify, I am OK with the seeding system - teams which perform well over a long period deserve seeding. But teams which flash for a season and then do nothing significant do not deserve it.
So, what do you prefer ? To see your country very high in ranking, but with few teams participating ? Or to see many teams of your country, even though this may damage its future coefficient ?
I think that if a team is strong enough, it will perform well - no matter seeded or not. So, I don't complain that most of the teams from my country will not be seeded. If they improve, they will perform well. If not, seeding is not to blame, but only their inability to win is to blame.
I, personally, support CSKA Sofia. But if they don't deserve the title, I will be OK even if our rivals Levski win. Not because of coefficients. Yes, Levski will be seeded (very likely) in CLQ3 and CSKA would not be (if they become champions). So, for Bulgarian coef's will be better if Levski win. But I don't care only about coef's, I like the fact that Levski play well in Europe and that is why I will like to see them in CL GS.
What is your opinion ? Do you also think that good coef's always guarantee secure qualification for CL or UC GS ? Do you think that if a country has a high coefficient, then its teams will be more "secure" about their chances to go through ?
I will be glad to see a Bulgarian team playing UC after winning IT. Even if it becomes harmful for the coefficient. If coefficients serve to increase the number of teams from a country (if high enough), then why so many people here are worried that country X gets very high coefficients and with more teams it may drop down in the ranking ? If this is always true, why are coef's important ?
The better we play, the higher we go. The higher we go, the more teams we get. The more teams we get, the worse we play. The worse we play, the lower we go. The lower we go, the less teams we get. The less teams we get, the better we play... It's like a vicious circle...

Author: panda
Date: 03-05-2006, 15:53

I prefer to have the 'better teams' part of this cycle. If I did not visit this (excellent) site, I would be like a normal fan = want own team to play in Europe; follows the performance of other teams from same country and selected foreign teams in Europe + does not think about coefficient implications. Better to have (e.g.) one exciting / romantic story.

Yes, of course now I visit this site all the time I make many hypothetical calculations about coefficients! But, as said many times by people in other threads, that is not what football (or any sport)is really about.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 03-05-2006, 16:20

It is not easy to answer this question. For example, I am a Red Star fan. Red Star is champion now but has much lower coeff than Partizan. According to present situation with coeffs (see Forza's site), Red Star is not expected to go through to the UC GS while Partizan is expected to do so. That is because of Partizan's previous success. On the other hand Red Star is better at the moment. My sympathies aside, it is hard for me to decide what is better. Clearly Red Star has to win against a better European team to enter UC GS.

But it is so in other sports. I just watched world snooker championship (congratulations Greame Dott! finally my favourite won!) and it seems that players are seeded all through qualification rounds. Better ranked players start competing at later stages. Everybody takes it for granted and no one complains.

So I learned to accept things the way they are now (though I still dislike them). It is up and down thing with teams and coeffs as you say.

Author: vlad-tzepesh
Date: 03-05-2006, 16:59

I would certanly root for a team with a high coefficient, even if the respective team is not very competitive at the moment. This is mainly because a seeded team is more likely to go through, simply due to the fact that their opponent is not a top team. Moreover, in Romania the teams with the highest coefficient are also the richest and perhaps the only teams that can afford not to sell their best players at the end of the season. So, as things stand right now, I surely hope that Sportul does not qualify for Europe, as it is higly unlikely that the star players will stay with the team. What is more, I strongly disagree with the opinion that a good team will go through despite being unseeded. While it is true that a seeded team is by no means sure of advancing to the next round, it has a huge advantage, as only a very unfortunate draw would pit them against a strong opponent. On the other hand, an unseeded team can encounter the likes of Liverpool, Internazionale or Valencia in the QR or the first round of the UEFA Cup, and almost surely go out.
To conclude, I think it does not matter so much how strong a team is at a given time, what matters most is the strength of the opponent and in such a case the teams with a high coefficient are much more likely to go through. This is why I hope Dinamo Bucuresti manages to get a place in the UEFA Cup at the expense of Sportul, despite playing extremly poorly right now. The easiest potential opponents of an unseeded team are almost always stronger than the toughest potential opponents of a seeded team.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 03-05-2006, 18:16
Edited by: badgerboy
at: 03-05-2006, 18:19

CSKA

I think you've summed up the "vicious circle" pretty well. There's not much point in wanting your teams to perform well and increasing the coefficient if you then worry about how the "lesser" teams are going to bring it crashing down again. I do think it's a shame for a country like Romania - having performed so well this year - still only getting three teams (plus Intertoto) next year. The "big three" plus one newbie (possibly) Sportul would probably be better.

Most neutral fans (in my experience) tend to support the underdog if their own team can't win but victory for the underdog of course tends to mean victory for the team with the lower coefficient. I'm not sure if coefficient knowledge changes this attitude or not. I know my own attitude HAS changed in the last few years, but I think that's more to do with "maturity". When I was younger I hated all the "big clubs" (talking English here) with a fair amount of passion. Now I can appreciate the quality of their football - and definitely support them in Europe - whilst still wishing deep down the money and the star players weren't concentrated in quite so few hands. When it comes to - who I want to qualify for Europe - I find myself with something of a dilemma. I like to see new teams in the CL but at the same time I know that Arsenal, Man Utd, Chelsea and Liverpool are realistically the only English teams with any chance to win the thing and I like the English clubs to do as well as possible... So Tottenham or Arsenal? I'm leaning towards Arsenal mainly because it would be a shame to see their efforts on reaching the final this year end up in the UEFA Cup next. But Tottenham are an attractive footballing side who could perform with credit in the group stage - but of course might get Real Madrid or Inter Milan in the qualifiers...

As for the UEFA Cup - I'm less concerned. There are a lot of difficult opponents but none as daunting as the aforementioned Real Madrid, Inter or Liverpool (even those same teams would be a less daunting proposition in the UEFA Cup in my opinion). I really think there is more scope for upsets in that competition. Next season West Ham and Tottenham may well not be seeded, Blackburn and Bolton (say they got through the Intertoto route) possibly would be - but it would be no great surprise to me to see the two seeds go out and the two non-seeds go through....

Apologies for my wittering - which possibly didn't answer the question...

Author: panda
Date: 03-05-2006, 19:49

Interesting thread - after all, is it better to have the weaker team that loses but is very unlikely as a Euro competitor (e.g. Gretna) or the stronger that is more expected to win, but then goes further (so you can follow in more matches).

Like many English, I support underdog if all else is equal, like any patriot, I also want the teams of my country to win.

Still, if you wait enough seasons, everything comes around (except winning world cup again).

Author: Lyonnais
Date: 04-05-2006, 00:41
Edited by: Lyonnais
at: 04-05-2006, 00:47

For me it is a typical bias we can see on this forum for some participants.. They are so focused on the coefficient as a figure that they tend to make a confusion (to my point of view) between coefficients and the purpose of the coefficient system.

Coefficients help determining how many teams of your country are allowed to play in the next European season.
And when a country does well, some people might start complaining that the country coefficient might be affected by the newbies in the future.

That doesn't make sense to me. Having a good coefficient is not an objective in itself. The objective is to have the maximum of teams qualified. And if the newbies don't prove that they are not good enough, then fine, the coefficient will decrease and these teams will not be allowed to play in Europe anymore.

Author: Aliceag
Date: 04-05-2006, 01:55

Or Lyonnais you can see from another view:

Nacional or Boavista?? They're both not so good, they're fighting for 5th place... I KNOW Nacional is a little bit better at the moment, but in a scenario of UCR1, I know, nacional probably be out for not beeing seeded, and a weaker Boavista seeded will go trough. So I prefer COEFF instead of teams, in case of "not too much difference in competitive term"...

Author: ymathiou
Date: 04-05-2006, 03:03

The Hellenic experience shows better teams.

My country managed to keep the 8th place for one more year but personally I was sad to hear that Steaua ( or Zenit earlier ) did not get the result thier counties needed in order to overcome Greece at UEFA rankings.
The reason is that UEFA cup for many of the second class Greek teams is in one side of low importance and of the other side a great opportunity to gain money by their participation.
The result was that the 4 teams that took part in the UEFA competition earned a total of 8 points ( 2 - 4 - 10 ) in 16 games.
Next year our country starts from 14th place. So I believe that since our teams are not interested so much in the UEFA cup, the fact that we are still keeping the 8th place only harm can do to our mentality.
We need the punishment of taking part in many qualification games and the punishment of losing teams in order to get the lesson and try to achieve in a more thourough way what our National Team achieved in Portugal-2004

Author: dawgs
Date: 04-05-2006, 05:34
Edited by: dawgs
at: 04-05-2006, 05:47

For me, it is a mix of the two I guess. I would very much like to see our arch-rivals CSKA qualify for Europe, because they are traditionally the one to bring a big name club to Sofia and give them a good spanking.

On the other hand though this year ChernoMore Varna qualified for the Bulgarian Cup final for the first time in their history and if they win, they'll take the last UC spot instead of 4th placed and more successful LokoSofia. I respect both clubs, LokoSf even more so for their success in Europe t'ru the years. But ChernoMore will have a sell out crowd for their likely loss in the UCQR1 against the champions of SanMarino, where no more than 2k will see LokoSf win by 8:0 if they qualify instead.

For me if you have a stadium that meets UEFA regulaions and if you can draw 15k in the QRs - hey, knock yourself out. The coefficients will balance themselves out in the end.

Teams with pitiful attendances (like Juve in the early stages of the CL for example) bring nothing to the competition imo.

I do brush all arguments aside, when my LevskiSofia is concerned though. I do want us to qualify, regardless of whether we have the best stadium, the biggest crowd and the highest chance of success (as we actually do), or just the opposite. I'm sure it's the same with most supporters everywhere.

Author: putzeijs
Date: 04-05-2006, 12:29

Well,
I realise that I'm one of the people concerned in this topic.

As a sports fan, I like the result of an open game. So the best has to win.
As a rankings fan, I often like to point out that rankings are good but not perfect. And that in some cases it can be better for the ranking (and future seeding)of a team/country, not to win a particully game or title.

But in general: Sport before ranking to me.

Author: cska
Date: 04-05-2006, 13:22

It's very curious to me how quickly this modest question posted as a separate thread really brought many answers.
Yes, some sports fans prefer the result of an open game, while coefficient fans prefer the European spot winners to be the best prospects to be seeded next year. And, yes, Dawgs pointed out that all arguments are brushed aside when it is about one's favorite and very beloved team.
Yes, I prefer that my favorite team (CSKA Sofia) win the title in Bulgaria, although they would be probably unseeded in CLQ3. And, yes, if Levski win, I will be unhappy about CSKA's failure, but I will still be satisfied that a Bulgarian team will be seeded in CLQ3 (even if they are CSKA's worst rivals). And that my attitude is not because of coefficients. It's just because I want to see at last a Bulgarian team in CL GS. I don't care if they lose all 6 matches in GS. I just want them go through.

Author: STK
Date: 04-05-2006, 13:56

I prefer better teams, decided through qualification matches. All of them. This is the main reason of a "qualification match" to decide what teams are more suited for competition, an not the organisatoric reason. The coefficients, in the way that they are established, are not representing a realistic view. They are composed from a unfair circumstace (not playing QRs), from an unfair contribution, and just a small part represents the team's earned, but you can't distinct. Also you can't assume that a better teams has also a better coefficient. The only realist assumption you can do is that a weak teams has a weak coefficient. But a good coefficient can be easily obtain when playing direct in competition and playing agains other teams that have also direct access. We deal with some kind of assumed football and assumed coefficient.

Author: panda
Date: 05-05-2006, 11:29

@ignjat63

I just thought about your snooker comment (interesting you support Dott - I heard an interview where he complained about no-one liking him or even having heard of him).

No-one objects to seeding in snooker and tennis because ONLY INDIVIDUALS are involved. In tennis your ranking lasts 12 months; you decide yourself which tournaments to play for points. So there is not the issue of your performance affecting other individuals (let alone teams) of your country. And then Davis Cup , Fed cup, etc is totally separate.

So if you have a bad ranking, it is your own fault.

With country coefficient playing a part (even if not 50% any more), then the performance of others is affecting you.

I am on the 'big countries' side of this debate for Euro football, but I have to admit that the system has a different resonance from just individuals.

Re: What do you prefer: better teams or better coef's?
Author: ignjat63 Date: 05-05-2006, 12:35	panda The snooker comment was just an illustration. Not that important. Anyway, the key thing about seeding is that better seeded teams not only start the competition at later CL QRs but are seeded within each CL QR(which is sort of double reward - or protection). This "double" part I find unjust. It would be enough to start the competition later but within each QR there should be no seeding.

Author: panda
Date: 05-05-2006, 12:42

I guess seeding is bigger protection than starting later.

seeding means supposedly bigger team meets tea with lowr coeff.

Starting later may just mean avoiding matches against MUCH weaker opponents, so other than resting players, and having to start your season really early (and maybe play countries whee the schedule is different, e.g. because they have winter break) it may not have a big disadvantage - e.g. I don't think Liverpool suffered from having to start in QR1.

Not sure starting later is a big deal; obviously in QR3 there ARE a lot of strong teams, but even then, the GS direct entrants would surely think they are favourites to beat them.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 05-05-2006, 12:56

Starting later may not be a big deal if you look at it from stronger teams' point of view. Otherwise I disagree. However, if you organize a competition would you consider a stronger (and richer) teams' point of fiew more than view of other teams? If so than you would be organizing only strong teams' competition and not all teams' competition. To put it bluntly, the G18 are not the only teams in Europe and they are treated as if they are by UEFA (I know this is somewhat of an exageration but still...)

Author: panda
Date: 05-05-2006, 14:04

Well, I think this could be going back to the main 'philosophical' issue of the forum.

1) only truly fair competition is a league
2) domestic KO cup does not make people worry about fairness because league is going on in the same season.
3) Euro competition, for obvious reasons, cannot be all-play-all league
4) uefa has a kind of compromise between league and cup, using its coefficient system
5) depending on your point of view (which is very hard to separate from where you live and what team you follow) you think the format is better or worse.

I suppose in my case, because I live in England and English teams have a realisitc chance each year of getting to finals of CL and UC, I am guilty of thinking the system is too much OK. The only comparison I follow week by week is of course Scotland, where I still think, the system is 'pretty fair.' But from other viewpoints i know it will look very different.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 05-05-2006, 15:12

Yes, the point of view of a person does depend on where the person lives. When the CL started in 1992/93 it was great. In the QRs teams were equal and there was no seeding. 8 best teams played CL and still the best west european teams won. You had CL, there was no unequality and the best teams still were winning the title. The deterioration of the competition began when more teams from one country were allowed in and seeding was introduced. Then it was not all-european competition any more but west-european competition. The worst thing about it is that such a system produced G18. The whole system of making rich richer is now, quite logically, getting out of hand. What I miss is not so much my club in there but the sporting spirit that seems to be gone forever.

Author: STK
Date: 05-05-2006, 15:24

In my opinion, any country that will have 8 guaratee spots from which 6-7 with direct access and just 1-2 playing JUST ONE qualification round would have chances to reach the 2 finals. Of course chances may be different regarding a country footballistic potential, investition level at a spechific time, or number of competitors from the same category, but the chances are there. Combine this with the economical recipe and you will obtain a top with 5 countries imposible to reach. It is nice to see that so many people enjoy this kind of static system, in which o lot of things will never change. It is also nice to see that many people aknowledge that the economical factor play a main role in the current seeding system, but this seems natural enough not to uppset anybody. Well it uppsets me, and a lot other fans, from my country at least. Again, the lack of chances, not the lack of value, because i will never buy the nonsense that a top 5 secon-hand team has the same value like a top team from other counries. The places 1-2,3 from countries like Rusia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Poland, Greece, Romania,... are comparable in value and class with places 1-4 from top 5 countries not with places 5-8.
Another problem with the coefficient system (in the way that was build), is that he don't offer reasons for serious investment in a team from a not top 5 country, because the chances for performance are much smaller. The Abramovici case is relevant, if cannot fight the system then join him. From every angle you look the things are pointing just in one direction: an exclusive top 5 countrys league. The only thing that is annoing for me is the fact that this process is leasting too long. UEFA takes small and certain steps, and she don't want to be held responsable for a further break out. A very abil organism, football advocate and other nonsense. They say that they support football development in smaller countries. Yes nice one, maby some funds for junior centers, because those "big clubs" need reinforcements. If you want to support a uniform football development then you drop the current seeding system, offering the same chances (not more, SAME) for performance, which performance will bring money through investments, sponsorship, TV rights and prizes, which actually mean DEVELOPMENT. It is as simple as that.

Author: panda
Date: 05-05-2006, 15:50

I believe:

1) money helps a lot and is maybe the single biggest factor (skill and will are still there!)
2) whether co-efficient system skews outcomes is essentially a separate issue from how you regard imbalances of money in European football. I have to disagree that somehow there is a conspiracy in uefa to have a system to discriminate against the poorer countries
3) but of course I do not believe that uefa is some kind of benevolent humanitarian organisation either; probably it has the failings of all bureaucracy

Yes, talent flows to money - club in financial trouble or relegated or without other chances to earn lots of money sells players. Ambitious player wants to leave for more wages / more exposure / play for bigger club.

But how can you stop this? You may feel there is injustice between your country and a top 5. But in a 'top 5' country, if you do not support one of the regular CL clubs, most of your season is usually disappointment, you will always think, but if we were Real/ Man U/ Chelsea/ Milan, etc we would have money to buy players etc etc. Even if you are Liverpool fan, you are upset that for years your club never attracted 'world level' investment

Yes, I am sure no coincidence Abramovich put money into EPL club, but why, for example Romanov into a Scottish club? Sct will NEVER be top 5.

Also, I asked this several times, but no-one replied - if co-efficient stops the rise of countries and preserves status quo, how come English clubs are now top 3, when they had to start from 0 at end of 80s?

Author: ignjat63
Date: 05-05-2006, 16:19

OK if it is as you say, why then change CC (one team per country no seeding) into CL as it is now (more teams per country, seeding almost all the way). Just for the good of sports? There were no G14 in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Why have they became so powerful now and not before although they were winning titles even then?

I can understand that a WestEuropean is quite satisfied with a competition that was all-european now became west-european. But please, do not tell me that it is just or even desireable.

Author: STK
Date: 05-05-2006, 16:19

I don't know why. Maby because then qualification rounds bring you not very competitive opponents; there are a lot of countries that with some time ago had very little competitive teams, from political and economical reasons, turkish football, Greece, Russia, Ukraine,... In Romania, with 10 years before, there weren't more than 2 teams to have chances to the domestic title. Now there are easy 4. The general ideea is that the football and infrastructure changes. And a static system could not help this changes. It will benefit only to the countries that already have a good preliminary base.

I've come some time ago with an ideea like these coefficients to be reseted to 0 from time to time (for all the countries of course), to assure a better dinamic to the top and to absorb these potential changes. Regarding what you say, that a good country will retake his place no matter what, i don't see what is so wrong in this ideea. This reseting will benefit only to performance, and i assure you that we will see more teams in competition (that kind of teams that now don't have the opportunity to play). This last thing is fact what UEFA say that supports.

Author: FrancoisD
Date: 05-05-2006, 16:28

on topic : I prefer the best team goes to European competition.
My main interest into coefs was initially to be able to predict media comments on draws. Journalists who ignore seeding's existence always write papers like "oh my god, Rennes has a difficult draw, whereas Marseille has an easy prey". Helps to rank your information sources.

panda's question : how did England rise ? there were times when CL had only ONE qualifying round, only because country number is not a power of 2. The same goes to UC. Recent changes in competition format (except UC group stage, maybe), and addition of details (QR don't count in club's coef), make things always more difficult for low-ranked countries.

Conclusion : combination of seeding and qualification roundS is evil. My opinion is : seeding in itself does not go against sports morality. So it's the various QR who should be removed. (And, as french teams have had good success in the Intertoto cup or with fair play spots, I don't fear such change at all)

Author: dawgs
Date: 05-05-2006, 16:45
Edited by: dawgs
at: 05-05-2006, 16:51

It's not only England. Serbia was banned from European football for >5 years and after they came back they quickly climbed up and found their deserved place in the top21. Bulgaria was out of the top30 in 1998, but after Abramovych type owners came in and improved infrastucture, we also got to where we are now and have been pretty stable w/ a coefficient ~4 per year, bar the disaster last year and the success this year.

I'm pretty sure there was seeding in 1992/93, but if you are the supporter of a big club you probably didn't know it. Just as most Milan supporters don't know the first thing about seeding even today.

I believe the divide is not East/West, but rich/poor. The system right now does benefit the richer, but it benefits the poorer even more by protecting them from the free competition of the giants. Example in hand is EastGerman football - once they were merged in the Bundes-system they slowly disappeared. The protectionism of having their own association and league helped EastGermans be among the better in European club competitions, but as soon as the free market came to reign, their once fearsome clubs had to settle for lower division existence.

I belive the SuperLeague if sanctioned by UEFA will first make the small (like Dudelange) and mid-tier (like Levski) clubs disapear. Almighty Lyon and Ajax will be relagated to something like punching bags. The big global brands like Milan and Barcelona will rule the day. Then one day the Manchester city council will reject funding for a new ManUtd arena and the management will move the franchise to booming and football hungry Sofia. The Coca-Cola Park will be filled every weekend by 60k happy customers signing "Glory, Glory, Sofia United".

As bert would put it: "Or is it just a bad dream?"

Re: What do you prefer: better teams or better coef's?
Author: ignjat63 Date: 05-05-2006, 16:47	Actually it would not be too difficult to improve the CL format a lot. Decrease the number of participants to 64 (only eight teams less) and after one qualification round 32 winners (seeded against unseeded) make it to the CL GS.

Author: STK
Date: 05-05-2006, 17:07

Protecting a "smal club" by the "Giants" means to UEFA understandings not allowing to the "small club" in competition. Nice protection

; yes you are right from this point of view UEFA is a real protector. But i need to say that you are very wrong.

Plese make a simple calculation and see who loose more money in in case of elimination: The Giant club or the small club? And find out who needs protection in this case.

And another observation, the word "protection", either way you see it, has no place in the arguments which you bring in favor of the current system. Only if ... you are kind of people that thinks one thing and say someting else.

One time you say how good and fair the seeding system is, and after that he protects, so protected and assumed perfotmance. Not buying....

Author: panda
Date: 05-05-2006, 17:15

I thought I was understanding the issues better, but reading this and the 'What do you think of the CL system'? thread I am not sure any more.

In an earlier thread I read that Bert thinks (am I right?)the existence of uefa is more to the benefit of smaller associations. Is this related to the point about E Germany, that the free market comes and grabs everything for the biggest?

I am trying to think if the various ideas for reforming the CL system can be summarised as

'more like a true cup' v 'more like a true league'

Again, I think this is a different question (but of course, not totally separate) from what we think about richer v poorer and how we might want to correct that imbalance.

Author: dawgs
Date: 05-05-2006, 17:24

@STK
It's just my opinion, funny as it is to you.

Another funny opinion of mine is that "small" in Europe, more often than not means "giant" domestically. And "small" domestically, more often than not means "giant" regionally. In all countries there is free competition between clubs regardless of regional affiliation, and the "unfairness to the spirit of true football" reasoning can be applied to the exclusivety of the Premirship or the DiviziaA in the same way it is applied to the Champions League.

Only the clubs that raise those complains are different, the rationale is basically the same. Free market competition (in its business, not sporting sense) is simply trying to cross national borders, like it crossed regional ones with the formation of the domestic leagues across Europe in the 1920s.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 05-05-2006, 17:36

"Another funny opinion of mine is that "small" in Europe, more often than not means "giant" domestically. And "small" domestically, more often than not means "giant" regionally. In all countries there is free competition between clubs regardless of regional affiliation, and the "unfairness to the spirit of true football" reasoning can be applied to the exclusivety of the Premirship or the DiviziaA in the same way it is applied to the Champions League."

I am not sure I got this correctly. But I do not agree with you

.

All the teams competing in Serbian (or any other) league compete under the same rules. In CL and UC participating teams do not. And they do not ever since UEFA started thinking "money" instead of thinking "football". And they did that ever since they introduced several teams per country combined with the seeding system. That started the whole thing. If they kept the CL format as it was in CL beginning it would have been fair.

Author: STK
Date: 05-05-2006, 17:41

Again, I think this is a different question (but of course, not totally separate) from what we think about richer v poorer and how we might want to correct that imbalance.

It is not about correcting the ballace. A different format, with qualification rounds for both richer and poorer teams, shouldn't stop the good and rich clubs from being richer and poor and weak clubs to became poorer. It is only that we bring in calculation another factor that now is ignored, COMPETITION, with all his features, features in which the economical wealth is not included.

Because this system protects now both good and weak rich teams, and is against both good and weak poor teams. So eliminating the seedings we will have both good rich team and good poor teams in the same category of "protected" teams.

It all coming to the question, what you want to see in the competition? Better teams or richer teams? And there are again a distinction that must be made: money helps the performance, but never guarantee it (like this seedings system trying to do); and of course always the performance brings money and improvment.

Of course there are a lot of better league formats, who can help more or little the footbal quality, but the teams should have all access in a competition in the same way (because this is the point of using word "competitio").

Also i fink that is another major change that can be made in the last rounds of the competition, that will decide a more acurate winner: in place of semifinals and final, all 4 groups playing a group with 6 game each, to decide the winner, even if that means more eliminatory rounds before, in lace of the group stages.

Author: dawgs
Date: 05-05-2006, 17:51
Edited by: dawgs
at: 05-05-2006, 17:56

@ignjat63
How many QRs is CrvenaZvezda going to play for a place in the Prva Liga this summer then? Why are there 5 teams from Belgrade and not even a single one from Dimitrovgrad? How did the FSJ decide which teams deserve a place in the different divisions when they started the Yugo-league 50+ years ago, and do they make money of the current system?

It's all good while you're on top, and back in 1991 CrvenaZvezda was on top of both the world and Yugoslavia. They didn't know the first thing about seedings. Today they are top of Serbia and mid-tier in Europe, but it is not all UEFA's or FSJ's fault that Barcelona are doing better off than them, and that whatever team Dimitrovgrad is sporting are worse off. The better (worse?) part of it is that now they are very aware of the seedings in European competitions and the unfairness of the current system.

Blame it on the free market if you would. Just my opinion.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 05-05-2006, 18:03

dawgs, I am sorry to say that you seem to have completely missed the point. Free market is one thing, fairness of the competition is quite different. As I said in the previous posts I do not mind western clubs being better. They always were. But I do mind them having privileges because it creates an unfair competition. Red Star is not privileged domestically it is just better. But if a national champion of one country starts in CL Q3 and the second placed team from another country gains direct access to CL GS that to me is unfair competition. Especially because it is not so for the sports reasons but for money reasons. If all teams were treated equally then still the best teams from West would win but at least it would be fair competition like it was untill mid 90s.

Author: STK
Date: 05-05-2006, 18:09

And of course my opoinion too, the free market has no connection with the fact that some teams have direct access and other play 2-3 qualification rounds; it is nothing free about that, maby a market yes, a market in which someone with more money can buy more things than somone with lesser.

But well, you see, some idiots, who planed the first sportive events, didn't find relevant that a wealthier individual to start more advantages then others, in a contest about physical effort and creativity, talent (nonsense like that). Let's blame them ok ? Not the free market.

Author: dawgs
Date: 05-05-2006, 18:17
Edited by: dawgs
at: 05-05-2006, 18:30

It is just that with globalization - and globalization is a fact, regardless of whether we like it or not -

the best team of Serbia having the right to challenge the best team from Spain in a QR for a place in the CL

is the same as

the best team of Dimitrovgrad having the right to challenge the best team of Belgrade in a QR for a place in the Prva Liga.

I don't like the ideas of pan-European league football, but people keep posting them on this forum, so I accept that there are people out there that like them.

One more example for your consideration: in the 1920s organized football competitions started in Bulgaria. The regional associations send 1 team each to a pure KO tournament that decided the national champion. In the 1930s the Sofia association was given 2 additional spots and the Plovdiv association 1 additional spot, and one more round was introduced with the Sofia and Plovdiv clubs getting a bye. In 1938 a pure national league system was started with half of the spots in the top division given to Sofia teams.

Is it really that hard to see the parallels?

UEFA has to make a decision between the business competition and the sporting competition, and I do hope that they revert some of the harm they have done to the sporting competition in the last 10+ years since the start of the CL. But I remain sceptical about their true intentions.

Re: What do you prefer: better teams or better coef's?
Author: ignjat63 Date: 05-05-2006, 18:27	About extra spots for Sofia clubs in 1920s. The same things in then Kingdom SHS. So it is a clear parallel and so what? It was still unfair to non-Sofia regions.

Author: STK
Date: 05-05-2006, 18:29

I'm sceptical too, but this is not the point. Alternative solutions and organisation could be find or made. The point is like the issue to be aknowledge and not recive like a FAIR situation, how unfortunately it happens.

You lost me about the domesic leagues. I know that all the teams from a domsetic league have the same rights: to chalange any other domestic teams in league or cup. No one starts with better points, no one play both game away, all have the same rights to a european spots. The better teams win, because is a fair system from bottom to top, so what's wrong?

Author: Lyonnais
Date: 05-05-2006, 18:52

yes, but sorry, I still don't see why the system (having to play or not a qualifying round) is unfair.
I certainly am a simplistic person but I tend to believe that a team unable to win the qualifying round would have struggled anayway in the group stage (should they have had direct access to the group stage).

Again, take domestic cups. Is it that unfair that Steaua presumably enters the competition while some amateur teams had to play 3-4-5 or more games to be at the same level? Is it that unfair that there is a selection between amateur teams to elect those that will be able to play vs. top teams of the country ?

why should it be very different in Europe ?

Author: ignjat63
Date: 05-05-2006, 19:09

Can't compare domestic cups with the competition in which national league champions participate. If you can though, then anything is possible.

CC was imagined and implemented in mid-50s as a competition between the national champions. Even then, Malta or Cyprus or Iceland or Luxembourg... champions struggled and were eliminated quickly but nobody thought they should play QRs.

The system was changed in mid 90s. Why? The reason is simple. Money. And once money became all important an unfair system was created. It affects teams from smaller west europe countries too.

What is unfair about it is that business criteria prevails over sporting criteria.

Author: Lyonnais
Date: 05-05-2006, 19:21

Can't compare domestic cups with the competition in which national league champions participate. If you can though, then anything is possible.

it's your opinion. Mine might be different.

There is certainly much more difference between Barca and Dudelange than between Lyon and a french 4th level team.

If you don't find shocking that amateur teams need to play together to elect those who will have the right to play professionals, why do you find shocking that Dudelange has to play some qualifiying rounds to gain the right to go to the Nou Camp ?

In other teams, why Dudelange Luxemburg champion would have more rights to play the Champions League than Real Madrid or Manchester United runners-up of their own leagues ?
This is the basic question here.

What would you think if the Serbian or Romainian federation decided that only one team from Belgrade or Bucharest would be allowed to play the domestic cup. ?

Author: ignjat63
Date: 05-05-2006, 19:35

"In other teams, why Dudelange Luxemburg champion would have more rights to play the Champions League than Real Madrid or Manchester United runners-up of their own leagues ?
This is the basic question here. "

It is basic question only if you do not want champions' competition any more but something else. For 40 years that basic question was not asked. So now all of a sudden we see the light. We are cleverer then they were? We see something they did not? No it is not that. It is something else. And whatever it is (I think it is greed) I do not like it.

I still think your domestic cup question is senseless.

Author: Lyonnais
Date: 05-05-2006, 19:41

and what about the World Cup ?

should FIFA give an equal number of seats to each confederation ?
say 6 European teams would be allowed to play the WC to protect diversity and allow teams from the other continents to play the World Cup too.

I guess that it is senseless too.

It's not because the old Champions Cup working in a given system 40 years long that we should assume this was the best system. Should we?

Author: panda
Date: 05-05-2006, 19:57

This is an unbelievable forum. I mean I cannot believe how much energy people have a) those that have will to compute the potential seedings lists etc but also b) those that have the energy to attack the current system. It is like a politics forum.

Today in EPL they announced the next TV deal; details are not 100% clear yet, but it looks like Sky paid an unbelievable amount (over 1.5 billion Euro, if I heard radio right)for 67% of the rights (i.e. not even all). This will make the poor/ rich divide between non-premier and premier even bigger. And the promotion contest from 2nd tier even more desperate. The imbalance between EPL and 2nd tier is big already; promoted clubs often go straight down (not all!). But supporters of the non top clubs, though they grumble, basically accept the situation.

Author: STK
Date: 05-05-2006, 20:03

@Lyonnais,

how i've explain before, the system in national cup is different; the campions and runner-up teams enters in the same cup round like the teams promoted from the second divion. The only distinction that is made is between teams that came from another division, and if the division is lower they enter earlier. The distiction between the domestic division is cleary made and is reglementated; there are clear valoric differences between teams, that are proven in time, with every season of promotions and relegations. How you put the problem is the same thing like why all the football teams from a country are not playing in the same division? It is clear why.

On the other way, the european cometition are organisated like 2 divisions. Indiferently the fact that they are some time in cup/league format or mixed, they have been created like 2 divisons. And this the only way in which they have been accepted. You are right that what is happening looks more like a domestic cup format, in which teams from smaller leagues form some lower division. And again this is one of the reason that i could not agree with the current seeding system. A good team from a lower divison when have a good season promote, another one with a bad season relegates. This is not happening in the european competition. The weak teams stay always seeded with direct access and the country protection, and good teams but wrongfully placed, stay in the same lower division facing qualification rounds.

And again this "imaginary distinction" that you made between rich teams and not so rich teams, have not been made also regarding the ability to compete/perform. There are many top 5 weaker teams with a lower footballistic value than top teams from not top 5 countries, but you place them above the imaginary line. To be best you also must prooved, like individual-team, any assumption is worthless. And then again for these are competition for, to show which teams are better, if we put a team in the middle of it, what's the point of the competition?

Qualification rounds, are not similar with the domestic cup rounds; their reason is to see what teams are suited for entering the competition. But the fact that some teams doesn't play team means that we don't know about them that they are suited or not. How you say about Steaua, that she not deserved, how would i know about Man. Utd, Lyon or Lille that they deseved to play? Man. Utd -> struggle, lille -> struggle. The all point here is not that Steaua or another team to avoid qualification matches, but to play them along with other teams. Maby then you will find out what a qualification match it really means, and how different is it by a group stage match, and how unfair is to fight for something that other teams don't have to work for (in the worst case will let the country coefficient and position to speak).

Author: badgerboy
Date: 05-05-2006, 21:18
Edited by: badgerboy
at: 05-05-2006, 21:22

Getting involved in a discussion like this - again - is probably a waste of energy but I can't help it...

There is nothing wrong with "weaker" champions having to play qualifying rounds - in my opinion of course. I can see a reasonable argument that no runners-up should qualify for the group stage and - if I was in charge - I'd make them qualify. Pretty sure they all would though (given that 3rd and 4th placed clubs usually do - unless seeding forces them to play each other, in which case one gets knocked out). Quite happy for them to have to prove it on the pitch though.

Sorry though STK and others. Seeding HAS to stay. Why? Well - first is economic reality, which may be lousy but it's reality.

The CL NEEDS a certain number of clubs from the big leagues to take part because if they don't then the major TV markets - which provide much of the prize money - lose interest and the money isn't there any more. Which shouldn't be a problem in a purely sporting context -less money, more even competition, would be fine by me. But that's utopia. In the real world, all those rich businessmen who invest their millions (or billions) would see a "product" that wasn't fulfilling it's "marketing potential" and be off to set up a super-league or some such entity that would. Some of you may say "so what - good riddance" but I'd prefer to see a competition which includes everyone (on terms that some may not consider perfect but still give the Champion of EVERY European country (except San Marino and Andorra - sorry for them) - the opportunity to reach the Group Stage IF THEY ARE GOOD ENOUGH.

So next season (as purely theoretical examples) - if Artmedia can beat Inter on the pitch, if Legia Warsaw can beat Liverpool, if Dinamo Zagreb can beat Valencia, if more controversially Levski can beat Tottenham and Steaua beat Fiorentina then those clubs will be in the Group Stage and good luck to them. If they can't...

Not everything about the current competition is perfect but it could be a hell of a lot worse....

The second reason why seeding has to stay. Well, I personally WANT to see the best possible teams in the group stages. OK it would be nice for the small clubs if Inter could draw Liverpool and Marseille draw Valencia next year and knock each other out and Dudelange only have to face Linfield for a direct CL spot because there was no seeding. But would it make for an interesting group stage?

Sorry, but the financial gaps between the "haves" and the "have-nots" is just too huge these days to make such a tournament interesting to watch. OK, for some people watching Juve v Barca or Man Utd v Madrid every year isn't interesting either - but at least there's some doubt over the result and, for those who don't want to watch these games, they don't have to...

Fact - whatever fans of different clubs might want football can't go back to the 70s or the 80s. We have to live with the world we have now and make the best of the current realities.

Just to finish by saying that next season I hope Levski, Steaua (or Rapid), Slovan Liberec and Legia (or Wisla) - to name but a few - DO make the group stages, because I like to see new teams get their chance on the CL stage and I'll probably be jumping off my sofa and punching the air in delight should any of these teams succeed in turning over an Inter or a Real Madrid - though maybe not an Arsenal

Author: STK
Date: 05-05-2006, 21:58

To tell you sicerly, a breakout between some FAs and UEFA it is very hard to came from the FAs. Because the FAs presidents have the main responsability the national teams, and they have a low interst what happens with the internal competitions. They are very tie by their chair and their reputation; this is the romanian FA case anyway; like a consequence the clubs don't have a real advocate direct to UEFA, so they are kind of forced to keep the lines. Very deep connections. Anyway, this situation bring us to the conclusion that the only hope is G14-G18, like example to follow, ironic isn't it?

Author: bert.kassies
Date: 05-05-2006, 22:05

badgerboy, good posting, I agree with you for a large part.

You asked if it is right that I think that the existence of uefa is more to the benefit of smaller associations. Yes, I do. At least to some extent. Without UEFA and FIFA the G14s of this world would be eager to organise a closed-shop European League.

Take a look at all the money in the Champions League. European football has a market potential of more then 1 billion euros (my assumption). It is naive to believe that nobody would use that potential, if not a large part was in the hands of UEFA. And even now UEFA and FIFA need threats of exclusion to keep the spirit in the bottle. We have seen the near-panic at the last UEFA congress in Budapest. And since the big countries generate the majority of the money there would be no chance for teams from smaller countries. In the Champions League there is at least the chance for every domestic champion to succeed.

Author: dawgs
Date: 05-05-2006, 22:22

UEFA has been backing down under G#'s pressure for a long time now though. I can see them keeping up this trend. IMO the only chance to restore the relative parity b/w the participants (and member clubs of UEFA as such) is to re-distribute the income from TV rights according to the (oh so European) concept of "solidarity".

It is still our choice as "customers" as to the recipient of our money. Is it going to be the ManchesterUnitedLtd or the FC United of Manchester?!? Or maybe change hobbies altogether.

Author: STK
Date: 05-05-2006, 22:31

@bert, i respect your opinion but i take the liberty to bring some variations.

I could not say 100% that G14s is actualy a project for creating a new league, or it is maby a blackmailing instrument for UEFA, with the purpose of what i criticise today.

Why i think that? Because i am convinced that a close league will not proove like a long term solution for bigger financial income. The fans wants diversity most of all and love competition, even if some of them don't want to recognize that. So the logical effect will be loosing fans (that fans) smaller TV rights and so on. Is not very satisfactory a champion title won against the same 3-4 teams every time. The boringness is the logical and predictable effect of this kind of close league. So the fans, in short time will turn their faces to the real football and competition, and very few of them will keep up, but the ones that are lesser football fans.

I think this consequence is easy to predict, and G14s is more dangerous in the way it is now than actualy a realised project. It is effective and dangerous. And by the way i don't saw anyone to agree with him, don't you think that those rich clubs have any survey system?

I think it is more a blackmail thing, and that he cannot produce more damage than the current.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 06-05-2006, 13:58

Well I have to say I do agree - to a degree at least - with a lot of your last post STK.

I'm not convinced either that a breakaway Super League (or any form of closed European league) would be a great success in the long run. Unfortunately though it probably would have a fair bit of appeal initially and make a lot of money. And sadly, too many of the people running football clubs these days would be very happy to take that money and run. The fact that the fans might get bored after three to five years wouldn't matter to the "moneymen" - as long as they judged when the appeal would wane, sell off their football assets and move into Rugby or Hockey or alternative fuel sources or whatever could make them a nice income.

Right now the balance is OK - the PLC's get enough of what they want from the current CL set-up to ensure the additional gains they might make from any breakaway probably not worth the gamble. Good "business" says an ongoing income of �20m or so every year (just a ball park figure) is better than a couple of bigger windfalls followed by it all going belly-up. Of course the G14 (and the richer clubs generally) would like to see any doubts about their current "guaranteed" income removed - so MORE direct qualification for the CL or "past Champions guaranteed a place in the event of domestic failure" - something like that. UEFA are right to resist this.

So, yes G14 are - in a way - a pressure group that issues threats to get what it wants. It will win and lose small battles. In the current set-up I can't see any benefit of a breakaway. But in a scenario that sees a Platini victory in the next UEFA Presidential election and any attempt to set up a pure knockout CL, like the old days. Then I see an empty threat becoming a near certainty.

Some more musings on this topic (if this thread is still on topic, although I guess that doesn't matter as it's interesting anyway)...

There is a lot of talk about the seeding system (or qualifying rounds) disadvantaging "smaller" nations and Eastern European teams especially. The system might have small disadvantages but the real
reason clubs from smaller countries have so little success is not really about seeding it's about money. Someone mentioned on here (maybe on another thread) about the past success of East German teams in Europe and how - once they merged into one country they suddenly couldn't compete financially - even domestically, let alone in Europe. This is true for much of the "east" as is the fact that - before 1989 (or thereabouts) most of the players produced by Romanian clubs, or Russian clubs, Polish clubs etc. stayed where they were because, whatever the financial rewards elsewhere, they weren't able to move to take advantage of them. So a club like Steaua, or Dinamo Kiev or any number like them could - potentially - be the best club in Europe and remain so for some considerable time. Now - I fear - the very best clubs like them can hope for is an extremely successful group stage campaign in the CL. Then, if their players prove good enough to compete with the Real Madrid's, the Milan's, the Chelsea's etc. those clubs and others not quite as big but still with more financial clout bring out their chequebooks in the January transfer window and the dream dies...

The only real possibility of some equality (and I don't want this either as it's not football as we know it) would be a franchise system with a similar set up to the one American sports has now. So you have your London Lions, Paris Panthers, Moscow Marauders, Bucharest Bears etc. in a league where all the best players go. These players are paid out of one central pot and picked on a draught basis - one at a time - Ronaldinho to Paris, Henry to London, Shevchenko to Moscow etc. Then you get equality, and anyone can win but - like I said - it's not football. No local rivalry, no soul, no sense of history. The current set-up sounds better to me all the time....

Author: ignjat63
Date: 06-05-2006, 14:50

Well, the system maybe perfect now but this is not final situation. An that is precisely the reason that I am so concerned. After all, I am 42 years old, and have been a football lover for more less 35 years and am currently witnessing football go down. And why is it going down?

It seems to me that the answer is fairly simple. Where the money enters the money ruins. Call it greed if you like. And it's not only in sports. The tendency nowadays is not "I am going to make a good movie" but "I am going to make millions at the box-office". It is in music industry too. And it is definitely in football. And it is not going to stop. I am concerned that G18 logic is going to prevail at the end.

For me personally it is second my favourite sport being ruined. The first was chess (not for money reasons though - never a lot of money there). First it was Kasparov with his cosmic ego (and lousy character), than oh so many Swiss type tournaments (faceless and colourless and senseless - 200 players playing 11 rounds). Finally it is now kids with computers that analyze positions instead of people - players only need to memorize moves provided by machines.

And I do not have a third sport that I love. So perhaps I should start looking for a new hoby

I am saying this personal stuff precisely because for football lovers it is more than anything a personal matter. What I liked most about football is that it was an All-european thing. Now that it is not All-european any more for me it is ruined. And there are many people who agree with me. I talk to them every day.

Author: Lyonnais
Date: 06-05-2006, 17:06
Edited by: Lyonnais
at: 06-05-2006, 17:08

absolutely agree with badgerboy.

The Bosman Act had much more effect to create a huge gap between clubs than the creation of the Champions League or the seeding system.
Rich clubs can have 20-25 confirmed international players in their squad while the 'non-have' cannot build competitive teams as most of them have to sell their players as soon as they made 1 good season. This creates a strong inequality, much more than the seeding system.

And I am a bit concerned too about this evolution. Take the example of PSV last year. They had a good team and lost their players last summer. Fine. Why not. That's part of the game.
However, my concern is that these players don't really play with their new clubs: Van Bommel is part of the group but not really a key player of Barca; same for Vogel at Milan; Park never really played with ManU, etc..
Is that a win-win game really ? Is is good for football ? not sure.

When I see so many young French (and more and more Spanish or Portuguese) promising guys flying to England every year whereas they have no chance to play really for most of them, I tend to believe that not only the educating clubs lost a lot, but players too (as they don't play) and without any real benefit for the buyers.

At the end, I don't really see any benefit for European football.

Author: panda
Date: 06-05-2006, 17:52

Yes - from an english point of view we see many foreigners; therefore also many english players sitting on bench or not playing.

But mayb we can hope - good player wants to play, so does not necessarily see sitting on Chelsea bench as good move etc etc.

Yes, for sure, Bosman has had a bad effect.

I am less pessimistic and have a let's see point of view.

But certainly, another problem is, if you are, in your country, not one of the top few clubds (believe this is also a big problm in italy, for instance), it is almost impossibl to become one of those top clubs.

Author: cska
Date: 09-05-2006, 15:44

It became quite obvious to me that opinions on terms like "fairness", "competitiveness" or "equal chances" depend mainly on the country everyone of you is from.
I also saw many posts blaming UEFA for introducing an unfair way to conduct the CL competition.
Personally, I don't think so. I don't think so, because if UEFA did not exist to regulate those competitions, then rich clubs would have organized themselves into a NBA-type no-promotion, no-relegation league of the richest clubs. The only thing that stops G14 (or more precisely G18) from doing it this way is that UEFA is still the only regulatory body regarding football - UEFA has authority and also has the right to "excommunicate" all "heretics" speaking about an European Superleague. UEFA can ban all players from all competitions it administers including games at national level. So, it will be very hard for G18 to find the best players, to be able to perform transfers from outside G18 and to have big star players not dreaming to play in their antional teams.
UEFA however, stops any attempt to be created such a super league. It in fact defends the smaller clubs. However, there is no perfection existing in the world. UEFA also has to make compromises. People want to see more international games and UEFA extended CL and UC giving more spots to the top ranked countries. In this way they made the compromise to allow more rich clubs, pulling off some of the pressure from the big clubs.
I personally thin that it will be better if CL and UC are merged. One cup is really enough to be decided which is the best team. And no speculations about "higher or lower quality" when comparing CL and UC would exist.
I support the opinion that seeding is reasonable, but to have the champion of a country in CL QR1 and the 2nd team of another country in CL GS - this is unfair. I support the opinion that all teams should start at one and the same round. And then, let the best teams win ! A good team does not need protection to enter CL GS. Liverpool was a good example this season.
By the way - isn't it very funny that a tournament is called "Champions League", but it neither includes only champions, nor is a league at all.

Author: panda
Date: 09-05-2006, 16:13

@cska

Yes, your last observation has been made many times, but is very true.

In fact, is it the case that the CL winner is more often than not NOT the domestic champion of the same season? The domestic - CL double is very rare and hard. (I guess the best comparison is the domestic champion of season year xxxx + the CL winner of season year xxxx + 1; i.e. was the CL winner the domestic champion of the previous season? even then I do not know if the correlation is any better either).