- Dec 5, 2006
- 2,640
- 9,641
I made this point in the Super League thread but I feel like it needs it's own discussion.
Im really surprised there hasn’t been more talk in the media on how awful and anti-competitive the new proposals for the UCL are.
It may be Super League-lite compared to the main one, but it is a million miles away from being a preferred alternative.
Take an example.
Season 24/25:
Chelsea finish 7th but get a UCL spot due to doing well in Europe last 5 years.
Season 25/26
Chelsea finish 7th but again get a UCL spot because their coefficient in Europe is still high PRECISELY BECAUSE they had the opportunity to maintain/improve it by being allowed into the UCL last season.
Season 26/27
Rinse and repeat
Season 27/28
Chelsea will probably be finishing back in the top 4 and entering the UCL normally by now. All the while their coefficient is maintained just in case of any future bad seasons.
It will take 3-4 consistent seasons of poor performance domestically AND IMPORTANTLY in Europe too before these teams feel any affect. Which won’t happen as they are rich enough to solve the problems with money. Even if they don’t improve straight away, enough money will avoid any longer than 3 years of underachievement.
So basically the UCL is another form of the super league. Allowing the big clubs to never fall away from the top table. The changes were driven by the big clubs which is why they are so similar to the super league. But people seem to be thinking too much that the new UCL is a better, fairer and more competitive alternative. It’s baffling.
What do others think?
Im really surprised there hasn’t been more talk in the media on how awful and anti-competitive the new proposals for the UCL are.
It may be Super League-lite compared to the main one, but it is a million miles away from being a preferred alternative.
Take an example.
Season 24/25:
Chelsea finish 7th but get a UCL spot due to doing well in Europe last 5 years.
Season 25/26
Chelsea finish 7th but again get a UCL spot because their coefficient in Europe is still high PRECISELY BECAUSE they had the opportunity to maintain/improve it by being allowed into the UCL last season.
Season 26/27
Rinse and repeat
Season 27/28
Chelsea will probably be finishing back in the top 4 and entering the UCL normally by now. All the while their coefficient is maintained just in case of any future bad seasons.
It will take 3-4 consistent seasons of poor performance domestically AND IMPORTANTLY in Europe too before these teams feel any affect. Which won’t happen as they are rich enough to solve the problems with money. Even if they don’t improve straight away, enough money will avoid any longer than 3 years of underachievement.
So basically the UCL is another form of the super league. Allowing the big clubs to never fall away from the top table. The changes were driven by the big clubs which is why they are so similar to the super league. But people seem to be thinking too much that the new UCL is a better, fairer and more competitive alternative. It’s baffling.
What do others think?