Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: waernaer
Date: 13-04-2010, 16:35

OK, I have noticed the following:

Spain, Italy, England, and France all have top leagues with 20 teams. Germany and Holland have leagues with 18 teams.
Portugal and Russia have 16, Belgium 15 (strange to have an "odd" number of teams, but there it is), Scotland has 12.

I could go on, but this isn't the point.

The question I have is, is there a UEFA requirement to have a certain number of teams in each respective top (premier, super) league in each country, or is it simply up to the FA of each country?

Obviously, there is an advantage for having less teams -- fewer games in the league season; more money to each individual team when dividing collectively bargained television monies. Also, fewer teams in the top league "concentrates" the talent within that country, making sure that the teams that finish at the top (and go on to European campaigns) are worthy and strong teams.

I am wondering this because I can't seem to find any news on whether or not the Germans will introduce an additional two teams into the 1. Bundesliga? The Bundesliga briefly had 20 teams in the early 90's after Reunification called for the incorporation of both West and East Germany's top leagues, but that's pretty much all I can find.

Any insight would be appreciated.
Waernaer

Author: Forza-AZ
Date: 13-04-2010, 16:49

Belgium had 16 teams, but since Mouscron went bankrupt in December they were taken out of the league. That is why there are only 15 now.

There are even countries with only 8 teams in the top division (Lithuania, Armenia, Andorra), so I don't think there is a minumum number of teams for a league.
And less teams doesn't automatically give less matches. In leagues with less teams, the teams usually play each other 3 or 4 times, so a league with 10 teams gives more matches then a league with 18 teams.
Of course with less teams the TV-money is only split over less clubs, but I don't think that is the reason for forming leagues of only 8 or 10 clubs. Main reason is that in these small countries there are only a few strong teams and forming a league of 18 clubs will result in many (to) high scores. Making smaller leagues gives the strong teams more interesting matches and makes the league more exciting.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 13-04-2010, 16:57

It's totally up to the local FA's.

I presume the only caveat is that they need to be able to complete a full fixture program without using dates set aside for European & International games. So 20 is probably the maximum possible.

I think the other numbers probably have more to do with the number of competitive teams a country has - or at least that it's administrators think it has. I would say 20 is about right for the top leagues but I suppose Germany has to stick at 18 while it prefers quite a lengthy winter break.

18 or 16 should be fine for most other leagues of a reasonable level. Personally I prefer to see a league of 16 to 18 than one of 10 or 12 where teams play each other 3 or 4 times but maybe in some countries there just aren't the number of decent level teams to allow this. There seems to be some discussion in Scotland now about going to an 18 team league as the split is unpopular. I'd certainly have thought it was possible to find 6 more teams of a similar level to the lower half of the SPL. I don't know enough about the second level teams in countries like Austria & Switzerland to say if a 16 team league would work in those countries - or if not then why not.

Author: nemesys
Date: 13-04-2010, 17:28

The question I have is, is there a UEFA requirement to have a certain number of teams in each respective top (premier, super) league in each country, or is it simply up to the FA of each country?

As far as i know, no.

Obviously, there is an advantage for having less teams -- fewer games in the league season;

true

more money to each individual team when dividing collectively bargained television monies.

In part true. Also if more teams means more matchdays that means more money from tv: Tv preferes a longer competition. But you are right because tv right for a 16 teams league wouldn't be so much lower, so dividing it by 16 instead of 20 it will likely be some more for eachone of the 16, as you said.

Also, fewer teams in the top league "concentrates" the talent within that country, making sure that the teams that finish at the top (and go on to European campaigns) are worthy and strong teams.

True, I believe as well that the average quality grows up with less clubs involved in the top category.

I am wondering this because I can't seem to find any news on whether or not the Germans will introduce an additional two teams into the 1. Bundesliga? ... Any insight would be appreciated.

Ok, from my point of view there are at least four point to underline:
- European countries doesn't have the same population;
- European countries doesn't have the same climatic conditions;
- European countries doesn't have the same wealth;
- football doesn't have the same popularity in each European country.

So if in England or Italy, where live around 50-60 million people, there is not a long winter period of ice and snow, and football is extremely popular and practiced, you can find the resources for 20 clubs of Premiership or Serie A level (whatever this level is) and play a 38 matches competition; the same for example cannot be said for Scotland or Finland: in Scotland, even with a league of 12 (if I remember correctly) you have 2 big clubs in Glasgow and all the rest that it is hardly comparable to a medium-high club from the Top 5 ranking countries, and changing to 20 teams would really hardly be a better solution; in Finland, where football isn't even the major sport, you don't even have a big name neither any remarkable result in Europe from one of their clubs. And even in Netherland, I believe 20 would be just too much.

So if UEFA has to put a rule, it has definitively to considerate all this in that rule, it cannot be a rule like "X clubs in the 'first category' are required".

About 18 clubs in Bundesliga. If you ask my opinion, I don't blame Germany for keeping 18 teams in their top category, since I think that 16 clubs would be the best in every top country, because you have to add to those 30 matches the ones of the domestic cup (two domestic cups in the case of England and France), the CL/EL matches (which are even more than in the past), and the national team competitions (WC, EC, ...), qualification groups and friendly matches.
Top clubs would play anyway friendly matches to fill up those empty weeks, the other (whitout 25 top players to rotate) could allow their star players to have a period of breathe and just training, which would help avoiding stress injuries and keeping the quality of their football higher. Play those 8 extra official matches doesn't really help the quality of the matches in my opinion. One last thing about Serie A: it was 16, then 18; now it is 20 for consequence more than for choice, also if 20 from a Tv point of view is better. This choice was not planned the year before they switched from 18 to 20.

neme.

Author: waernaer
Date: 13-04-2010, 22:47

Thanks for the replies and insight. Makes for intelligent and informed discussion.

Now,... here is kind of why I brought this up.

I think UEFA 'should' institute a rule for the domestic leagues, but the rule should only apply to those countries that have direct access to the Champions League Group stage.

I say, make the top three have 20 teams in their leagues, 4 through 6 have 18 teams, and 7-12 have 16 teams.

You can do this because the number of slots won't change the year immediately following, it comes a year later allowing the leagues to prepare for relegation and promotion. Further it makes Europa League games INCREDIBLY important. All points gained in any European competition become extraordinarily valuable.

You would have the added benefit for those leagues (potentially Italy) where you would "concentrate" the talent at the top league; and create some competition for leagues like Germany, where you now have to play more domestic games, making it harder to retain your UEFA ranking. Some of the leagues with fewer entrants would have to play less domestic games on their schedules, so they would be fresher in the later stages of the seasons, and hence be better able to challenge for these spots.

Good idea,... bad idea,... not sure. Of course, with the current bonus point allocation schedule, UEFA has pretty much guaranteed the first five slots to England, Spain, Italy, Germany and France for the foreseeable future.

Just food for thought.

Author: Zhund0r
Date: 13-04-2010, 23:43
Edited by: Zhund0r
at: 13-04-2010, 23:49

I don?t know, if it really is an advantage to have a winter break. Mostly, the teams are in a really bad shape after the break and need to retrieve their form again. Sometimes, they are better, but sometimes worse than before the break. It?s a good phase to let recover some injured players, of course. The winter break is probably one of the main reasons, why there is a big competition in the Bundesliga. Leverkusen played awesome in the first half of the season, but decent in the second half. Stuttgart played totally bad in the first half and was afraid to get relegated and now they are 6 points behind a CL rank. There are very few teams who can constantly play good in both parts of the season and that?s a big problem for the Bundesliga. They can?t send the same teams to the CL, which is a big disadvantage regarding money and so on. They aren?t able to keep their CL squads and must sell their best players, because they can?t reach the CL so often. There are many examples like Berbatov, Diego, Van der Vaart, Rosicky, Hleb a.s.o. Werder looked like they can handle it, but failed in the end. This shows how hard it is to constantly qualify for the CL in Germany. Maybe the fluctuation will go away a little bit while having 4 CL starters, but it will be difficult anyway. Have a look where Wolfsburg and Stuttgart are, now. They had to play more matches and concentrated on the CL, of course. Then, some other decent clubs come along and grab the top spots. This time it looks like Schalke and Leverkusen, but next season you will see other teams on the top of the table at the end of the season.

Author: nemesys
Date: 13-04-2010, 23:44
Edited by: nemesys
at: 14-04-2010, 00:36

You can do this because the number of slots won't change the year immediately following, it comes a year later allowing the leagues to prepare for relegation and promotion.

Since 2004 agreement, Sarie A and Serie B cannot change the actual format for 10 years. So not before 2014 anyways. Besides, it is not so easy: just think about what brought Serie A to have 20 teams (the "caso Catania", which brought Serie B to have 24 teams for the next season, which brought to this agreement to save professional championships (mostly Serie B) trying to make everybody kind of happy, or using more emphatic words, "avoid a civil war"

).

from corriere della Sera August 2003: Link translated (Original in Italian)
from corriere della Sera September 2003: Link translated (Original in Italian)

Sorry, I didn't find anything in English. If something it is unclear just ask.

But beside this, also if I recognize there's some logic behind what you say, I see UEFA as a Federation, not the headquarters of an Empire. I mean I like domestic business beeing domestic business, so I'm fine with UEFA putting up financial rules, disciplinary rules, and such, but about organizing the local competiotion it should be up to the local Associations to organize them the way they think is the best, in my opinion: and the system the way it is works, and nobody complains, so why fix it?

For example England has two domestic Cups, and both are kind of relevant (also if FA cup probably more); Italy has one, and often is just ignored. There's cultural differences between countries. If UEFA would ask Italy to have two domestic cups, or England to have only one, it wouldn't be good.

So a UEFA rule could set a MINIMUM of top division clubs required, if there's some need for some reason, but I would leave the single association to have some freedom in setting the correct number of clubs. Also because the next "caso Catania" has to be solved someway (as the case in Belgium few posts above), and I don't think UEFA could care about the local issues of more than 50 associations.

Just my opinion.

neme.

EDIT:

@ZhundOr
Mostly, the teams are in a really bad shape after the break and need to retrieve their form again. Sometimes, they are better, but sometimes worse than before the break.

Of course. But I believe they will run more at the end of the season. Either they use the break to breathe, either they use those weeks for the "heavy kind" of training, the next month players will be less reactive, slower, and kind of "tied" compared to player who keept playing matches and practicing "light" training playing the ball. But they are under a lower risk of (mostly muscolar) "stress" injuries and they will be in a better shape at the end of the season.

Beside this, my talking about climatic conditions was mostly about countries in the extreme north: maybe in Germany you have more acceptable climatic conditions and hi-tech stadiums enough to potentially have a 20 clubs top league without winter breaks, in Finland I doubt the same could be done, in some months I believe they just couldn't play football. If I'm wrong on this someone correct me.

And mostly, 16/18 clubs compared to 20 could mean a winter break or less weeks of championship, but could also be some less mid-week fixtures, periods where the teams plays every 3 days: avoid mid-week championship fixtures means have some more weeks of "Monday to Saturday to breathe, free up the mind, and training", something cannot be done the weeks clubs play every 3 days (which already are there because of the domestic cup and the UEFA competitions). Just my opinion, but I believe this (at least) physically is an advantage.

neme.

Author: dzomba
Date: 14-04-2010, 14:19

We had similar question somewhere before ...

Unlike others, i think there IS a limit of minimum 8 clubs for a league to be eligible to participate in Eurocups.
Liechtenstein is the only country which doesn't fulfill this, and the only country not allowed to CL qualifying.

That's just my opinion, not based on any "official" document, or news ...

I think there is no limit for maximum number of clubs, but it's practically limited with number of available weeks.
I believe if some country decided to play two rounds EVERY WEEK, Uefa wouldn't care. That would enable 30 or so clubs in a league, but what would be the purpose ?? There is noone. It would increase costs, not incomes, so practically that will never happen.

Author: waernaer
Date: 14-04-2010, 19:00

@nemesys

Thanks for the info and links. I was not aware that the Serie A and B had fixed the number of league entrants for a period of time.

@dzomba

I completely agree; I don't believe that UEFA cares how many times per week individual FAs let their top league teams play. However I believe that they "should" care.

To nemesys' point:

"I see UEFA as a Federation, not the headquarters of an Empire [...> putting up financial rules, disciplinary rules [...> but organizing the local competition it should be up to the local Associations." (I paraphrased a bit, neme, I hope I got the spirit of what you wanted to say)

I am with you on this, but both the Champion's League and the Europa League are UEFA's competitions. It is generally accepted that local FAs must abide by their continental/regional FA's rules (whether it be UEFA or CONCACAF or CONMEBOL or CAF or AFC), which in turn, must abide by FIFA's rules. Even now we see this as African players were pulled out of their clubs (wherever they played) in Jan. to play in the African Cup of Nations.

So,... if regional/continental FAs have this kind of authority to disrupt the domestic seasons by pulling players in and out of regular competition, would it not be a similar extension of its (UEFAs) power to determine the number of league entrants at the domestic level from which UEFA will pull the participants for its premier competition(s)?

Yes, it would be seen as a massive power grab, and perhaps unjust use of authority. Also, there are geographical (and population)considerations which could prevent a countries from staying in the top twelve. Going back just a few years, we have Scotland as high as 9 in 2003. The Scottish Prem. league only has 12 teams right now. Can it truly support a 16 team premiership for the time necessary to remain in the top UEFA twelve for an extended period of time?

Ugh.... I went back over and re-read this post. I am arguing for and against my own points!

BLAH! I honestly don't know whether it is a good idea or not to set the league entrant numbers...

Ah, well,... I love talking football, whether or not I make sense.

Author: nemesys
Date: 14-04-2010, 19:47

Ugh.... I went back over and re-read this post. I am arguing for and against my own points! BLAH! I honestly don't know whether it is a good idea or not to set the league entrant numbers...

Don't worry. Only the fools never have doubts

By the way, I forgot to mention TV contracts. What if a TV signs up say a 3-4 years contract for the right of a 20 clubs (38 matchdays) league, then two years later the league is of 18 clubs (34 matchdays)?

Another example: if Tv is fine to spend a lot of money in England, Italy, Spain, Germany and France with leagues having only a home/away Round Robin; in Greece there is a playoff Round Robin at the end of the season, while in Netherlands a playoff KO phase; in both case I believe the goal (at least partially) is to give TVs some very valuable matches at the end of the season. As you see, every local association finds its own way to try to have a good product. It is just a guess, but if Uefa would impose in those countries a 16 clubs league with only a home/away round robin (as you proposed), the Tv contracts would probably be lower(?).

Ah, well,... I love talking football, whether or not I make sense.

Don't get me wrong, I think that what you say makes sense, but sincerly, and I hope I'not rude, the way I see it I believe your idea would not bring as many advantages as complicated additional rules that have to take in consideration so many aspects! So, using the Occam's Razor, I would concentrate UEFA attention on other aspects. Sorry.

About FIFA and UEFA authority on local issues: it is (correctly in my opinion) mostly a supervision authority than an organization one.

Once again, just my opinion.

neme.

Author: waernaer
Date: 14-04-2010, 22:06

Neme,

You are probably right about the roles of UEFA (et. al.) and FIFA being more supervisory versus organizational. The only overriding rules (IMHO) that they have from an organizational standpoint are:

A) UEFA's (again et. al.) FIFAs match days (whether they be club Champions Leagues or Internationals) take precedence over domestic league games. In other words, if a local FA had a domestic game scheduled for Jan. 15th and that coincided with a CL quarter final game that the local club team had qualified for, the domestic game is rescheduled, NOT the CL game.
B) If a player is called up for an international game and the player does not show up, UEFA (and/or FIFA) have the right to ban that player for upcoming domestic games. Has already happened, but does not happen often. Clearly the player's injury status has a role here, but I am referring to either the club or player not wanting to risk the player's health for upcoming important domestic games.

Those are really the only two areas you could say UEFA/FIFA have organizational roles.

But the rest, you are correct. Further, I really do see the merits of leaving league entrants up to the local FAs based on other outside influences, TV contracts being chief among them. Truly, the last thing football needs is more lawyers making these kinds of contracts EVEN more complicated.

Good discussion, though.

Appreciate it.

Author: nemesys
Date: 15-04-2010, 03:55

Further, I really do see the merits of leaving league entrants up to the local FAs

By the way, to be extremely precise, in Italy (I don't know about other countries), in the organization and managment of the football championships are involved many organisms of the FIGC (Italian Football Federation, member of UEFA), that have differents roles and are "indipendent" from eachother:
- FIGC (Federazione Italiana Gioco Calcio)
- Lega Calcio (Serie A, Serie B, Coppa Italia)
- Lega Pro (Prima Divisione, Seconda Divisione)
- Lega Dilettanti (Championships not Pro)
- AIA (Italian Referees Association: CAN A-B, CAN Pro, CAN D, ... )
- AIC (Italian Football-Players Association)
- AIAC (Italian Football-Coaches Association)
- Justice Organisms (Procura Federale, Giudice Sportivo, Commissione Disciplinare, Corte di Giustizia Federale, ...)
- ...

Truly, the last thing football needs is more lawyers making these kinds of contracts EVEN more complicated.

Amen.

Good discussion, though.
Appreciate it.

Same here. I'm sorry about my English surely far from perfection, but I'm glad that at least it was understandable

neme.

Author: lubomir25
Date: 17-04-2010, 18:01
Edited by: lubomir25
at: 17-04-2010, 18:01

The amount of teams in a league can have arguments for and against, scotland once had an 18 team division and had lots of success in europe, they went to a 10 team league in 1975, and won cup winners cups, a super cup, and dundee united went to the uefa cup final in 1987, after that scotland went to sleep in europe and done nothing until 2003 when celtic reached the uefa cup final, followed by rangers in 2008, scotland had since changed to a 12 team league in 2000, but now all the scottish teams are struggling, with reports more than one SPL team could go bust if change doesnt happen soon, an 18 team league may be back by the end of this season...

Re: UEFA League Requirements (number of teams)
Author: this_is_football Date: 17-04-2010, 21:27	The move from 12 to 18 in one season might be a bit too much, but a move from 12 to 16 teams is very likely and would in fact copy that what happened in Israel and in Croatia at the end of last season.

Author: Wak
Date: 18-04-2010, 21:38

Here is a list I made with the UEFA recap of last seasons' championship (to be found somewhere on the website). Were also specified the size changes to happen for 09-10 season. So here it is.

| ISO-3166 country codes
|   adding XE, XW, XS, XI to each part of the UK
| The order comes from the countries' names in English.

AL AD AM AT AZ BY BE BA BG HR CY CZ DK XE EE FO FI FR GE DE EL HU IS IE IL IT KZ
12  8  8 10 12 14 16 16 16 16 14 16 12 20 10 10 14 20 10 18 16 16 12 10 16 20 14

LV LI LT LU MK MT MD MN NL XI NO PL PT RO RU SM XS RS SK SI ES SE CH TR UA XW
10  0  8 14 12 10 12 12 18 12 16 16 16 18 16 15 12 16 12 10 20 16 10 16 16 18

| Total: 727
| With 651 (90%) non CL participants (52 champions + 24 well-ranked)
| And 492 (68%) non european participants (with 159 EL berths)

| teams 20 18 16 15 14 12 10  8  0         
| asso.  4  4 16  1  5 10  9  3  1  = 53   
| mean   4  8 24 25 30 40 49 52 53         
| The mean (27th) is 14 teams              
| The average is 13.716 teams per top tier

But the mean and the average numbers are lower given the century-long balkanization of Europe's territory...

Author: nemesys
Date: 19-04-2010, 06:48

As you can see, most associations (16) have a 16-teams top tier, which seems to suit the best the pace of the season without adding anything, letting time for cup matches, european matches, and post-winter grass growth :-)

Interesting research. And, as I already wrote few post above (I cite myself: since I think that 16 clubs would be the best), I agree on the fact that if an uniformity is needed, 16 clubs home/away round robin (30 matchdays) would be a balanced solution. If I understood you correctly, we have the same opinion on this subject.

But the discussion was more about the need or not of an uniformity imposed by UEFA (either a "global uniformity" or a "ranked-related uniformity") more that what would be the correct number of clubs UEFA should set: my position is that I'm fine with the actual situation, where local FAs are free to decide the format of their domestic competitions, because also if I recognize that this means a lack of uniformity in match played in a season by clubs from different countries, there are many aspects (which I described in my previous posts) to take into consideration that justifies the different competition formats between different countries and the fact that UEFA leaves up to the local FAs the authority on taking this decision.

And, since I like the subject of this conversation, I'm curious to know your point of view: by your research you mean that UEFA should impose a 16 clubs home/away round robin league to every country, or you were just talking about what is theorically the most balanced solution for a top tier football league in an European country (in that case we are sharing exactly the same opinion)?

neme.

Author: waernaer
Date: 19-04-2010, 16:01

Nemesys is precisely on, here when he comments about the theme of this thread (why I created it in the first place) -- should there be a UEFA imposed league entrants requirement for all domestic top tier leagues?

Although I myself seem to have argued for and against both sides of this issue

, I would like to see what others feel on this issue.

Please keep to the point here -- UEFA imposing a rule mandating "X" number of teams in the top league. Also, while Nemesys' point earlier in the discussion about Serie A and Serie B league entrants being fixed per contractual/legally binding agreement is valid, it is not quite on point (Neme, I did like this point and it's important.)

I would like to see what everyone thinks about the impact fixing the number of teams would have on the performance of each individual domestic league (the talent and financial viabilities of the teams), and whether or not that requirement would make the European competitions (Champion's League and Europa League) more competitive. By "competitive", I mean a more dynamic movement of the teams for different countries. It's nice to see your Wolfsburgs, Rubin Kazan's, and Debrecen's get into the group stage. Yes, I am a Chelsea fan, and I want to see them win it, but I want to see them win it against different teams every year

. I am resigned to seeing ManU, Real Madrid, and FC Barca in the GS every year, but even small steps to increase the diversity there is welcome.

Whether or not such a rule can be implemented, because of local FAs laws, TV contracts, or legal threory (UEFA may not be able legally to impose such a rule), is irrelevant for the sake of this thread (argument

)

Let the gladiators enter the stadium and have their say.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 20-04-2010, 16:11

I think it's a terrible idea.

I think it's entirely up to each national association - in consultation with their clubs - to set the league format that suits them best.

And personally I find it quite annoying when certain countries seem to be constantly tinkering with this number every year. So having UEFA actually introduce compulsory tinkering based on UEFA rankings is a horrible notion.

It would also massively affect the whole league structure. So lets imagine for a moment that England might start struggling in the rankings & veer between 3rd & 4th place every other year. Their current structure for the first five levels is 20-24-24-24-24 so if they dropped to 4th then realistically (24 being a sensible maximum) they would have to relegate 2 extra clubs from all of the first five levels. Then they go back up to 3rd the following year & have to promote two extra - at least to the top flight.

Even without the knock-on affects on lower leagues I'd personally rather see a fixed 3 up, 3 down type system than veering between 2 up, 4 down & 4 up 2 down; 3 up, 5 down & 5 up 3 down; 1 up 3 down & 3 up 1 down or any combination thereof.

Author: waernaer
Date: 20-04-2010, 18:24

@badgerboy

Agreed, this could be quite an issue. Most of the movement would probably take place at the 6 and 7 slots. In the last 10 years, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Russia, and Netherlands have been in and out of the slots.

England, Spain and Italy have occupied the top three slots since 2001. France and Germany have swapped between themselves places 4 and 5, with neither really truly challenging for 3rd until now.

Instituting the regulation could be seen by your "second" tier leagues as just a way to keep them down by constantly "changing" the rules.

Very valid point.

Author: amirbachar
Date: 20-04-2010, 19:57

The only thing UEFA should (and does) regulate is that the number of
relegated and promoted is determined before the start of the season.
They might add some rules about not changing it too much in a short period of time, but I really don't find it necesarry.
Regulating number of teams would have to take too many things into considerations (for example in Russia even 30 matches are too much and at the end of the season the stadiums are frozen). It should be left to the FA's and teams to decide.

Author: Wak
Date: 21-04-2010, 05:36

It is only now that I see my previous comment was off-topic, or just pointless. The topic is: In order to have a fairer system between the leagues, should we regulate their size?

But auto-regulation, downsizing on purpose is rarely done for any other intent than having more chances than before.
I don't see the bad in finding the league system that suits good performances - and they differ a lot depending of:
- the size of the markets,
- the demand in football (which will be greater in a country which has a football history)
- the structure of the competition
--> Scandinavian-like open title race?
--> Mediterranean-like closed title race?
--> Germanic mix of regular and surprising clubs?.

As long as I know, clubs can chose their own fate in a league unless they are a minority of a handful ones.

Notice that nowadays, the re-sizing, or re-shaping of the formats is more of a survival issue. Given the tendancy of the last decade, which gave proeminence to the biggest leagues after having concentrated the players in the biggest clubs... many leagues try to find a way to bring back their good ol' days and are ready to make big changes. Who would have thought such a profusion of new formats in the middle leagues, after almost a century of double round-robin ?

We have better way to balance the CL competitions that are way too unfair.
My claim is that you don't know enough about systems of the whole world, particularly what's being done in South America.

Take a look at Brazil way to have both a state and a federal system.

* The (ongoing) State championships, unequal in size. Paulista is made up of 20 teams facing between January (summer) and May (autumn) in a SINGLE round-robin (logical when you consider that they often share stadia...).

* Then, there are three National divisions (Serie A, B, C) of 20 teams, facing in a DOUBLE round-robin, from May to December (autumn to summer), with 4 relegated and 4 promoted. Serie D and below are made up of the remainder of the state championships.

This is perhaps our future Superleague. The system in use in Brazil separates in periods the two championships, and that's better than any other rule like regulating the size.

Author: Wak
Date: 24-04-2010, 15:41

Here's news for you:
(24.04.2010)
The DNCG (Direction nationale du contr�le de gestion), the body responsible for monitoring the finances of the French clubs, and which is the symbol of the French way (and Platini's) to regulate the clubs' finances, has proposed serious measures against the 100-million-euro cumulated deficit of the 40 professionnal clubs.

One of them is the downsizing of Ligue 1 to 18.

But as it means two matches less at home, it might be one among many more practical ones : "In order to face competition on the market, clubs rose wages up, notably for middle-level players." Le Havre President Jean-Pierre Louvel adds. He suggests to reduce them back, as early as this summer.

More here.

Author: waernaer
Date: 26-04-2010, 15:49

Whoa, this is interesting. I was only able to read the google translation of that article, but I understand the gist of what they are saying and what they are trying to do to alleviate the situation.

Do you think that UEFA should consider this and hold up this situation as the prime example for regulating the number of teams in a domestic league? Would holding down the number of teams "help" a domestic league in that "2nd tier" of Europe become more competitive against the bigger English/Spanish/Italian/German/French clubs?

Author: Wak
Date: 27-04-2010, 04:47

The size should be free otherwise some leagues would be even less interesting to watch because of their low quality, and worse, low quality would also mean thta players who could be lead to stay for financial reasons would not do so by professionnal interest (playing with better teammates and against better defenders/forwards, trying different styles of play).

Also, if you look at the gap between Top5 and below, you wouldn't bar them from one of the only opportunities to improve their results overall.

France can downsize their league and I don't see where's the problem. On MD36, all Premier league clubs know if they are, in the league, either european or not, and relegated or not, and that it was the case of most of them weeks before, This is not the case in Bundesliga. A 20-team league has its drawbacks.

But downsizing isn't unfair because it seems that any size increase also works on the short run, first of all because it means more matches to play and more rare fixtures, and also because it isn't a problem for fans who can see more national teams and possibly local ones. EPL could be enlarged to 22 like before. The only issue would be to find four more dates in the calendar (perhaps removing FA Cup replays and League cup semifinals second leg). There were (are?) talks about expanding Bundesliga to 20 - again the problems are the frozen pitches.

Re: UEFA League Requirements (number of teams)
Author: aobama52 Date: 08-06-2010, 09:43 Edited by: administrator at: 09-06-2010, 10:47	spam deleted