11/17/24
July 09, 2003
Blatter: 16 Teams Max at the Top: FIFA Pres proposes a maximum of 16 teams in the top division (EPL, Serie A, La Liga) of any national league, and therefore a max of 30 club matches per regular season, which is his way to respond to complaints that too much is being demanded of top players. Since the EPL currently has 20 clubs, that would mean in one year (if and after the proposal is accepted) the three relegated clubs plus one extra would go down and no teams promoted.
Personally I don't see this happening, at least not at the 16 level. Maybe 18, which is what Germany and Italy have, but otherwise the clubs will scream at losing so many moneymaking home matches. Love it or hate it? What would be a better alternative to this problem?
posted by billsaysthis to soccer at 02:25 PM - 15 comments
To be fair, Blatter can stick his proposal up his fat arse. European football is dull. If anything they should change the Champions League back to the European Cup on a knockout basis. It ain't a "Champions League" if second, third and fourth are involved.
posted by squealy at 06:02 PM on July 09, 2003
Clap clap clap clap clap.
posted by worldcup2002 at 07:23 PM on July 09, 2003
squealy, don't the champions of the tiny little country leagues get in to the CL? And aren't the 3rd and 4th EPL/La Liga teams better than them?
posted by billsaysthis at 07:48 PM on July 09, 2003
I don't know the exact rules for qualification bill, they seem to change every year. Yes, the 3rd/4th place EPL/Liga teams would be better than say the top team in Lichenstein. AFAIK though, smaller nations/teams have to go through pre-qualifying to sort the wheat from the chaff as it were. The problem is there are too many teams involved and too many games played. I found it far more exciting when it was a knockout competition, and obviously there were far fewer games played.
posted by squealy at 06:12 AM on July 10, 2003
Champions League should only have champions!! I would MUCH rather have some team from "Lichenstein" than the 3rd or 4th best team from England, Italy, etc... And they better not STOP PLAYING during Christmas...those games are great! Having long weekends because of the holidays with no football!??! ARE YOU INSANE!?
posted by StarFucker at 11:13 AM on July 10, 2003
Hahahaha. I know what you mean, SF. I had to stop and think about that. It would be a dreary Christmas without teams playing three matches each in the space of 10 days. I just thought hey, maybe a break would be nice. And I also agree, Champs League should only be for Champs. No fricking no.2s, etc.
posted by worldcup2002 at 11:39 AM on July 10, 2003
posted by walrus at 03:11 AM on July 11, 2003
Having just champions in Big Cup would make a mockery of the first round(s) - would you really want to watch, say, Total Network Solutions (Wales) against Arsenal? You'd get a decrease in the number of "big" matches until the later stages in the competition, and fewer "big" matches means less interest, and less money for all concerned. FIFA wants the top-flight players to play less football, and therefore be more available for internationals. If you take into consideration that all national leagues can ignore FIFA recommendations (except for actual changes to the rules of the game), I can't see this happening unless FIFA finds a way to bribe everyone into doing it. The Premiership does have a two week winter break starting early January, but yes, perhaps it should be longer. After all, we've got to give these over-hyped preening superstar footballers some decent opportunities to sign lucrative advertising and sponsorship deals to supplant their meagre incomes. bah.
posted by BigCalm at 06:54 AM on July 11, 2003
would you really want to watch, say, Total Network Solutions (Wales) against Arsenal? Yes. That's why the third round of the FA Cup provides the best weekend in the football calendar: because on any given Saturday, you could have a piece of giant-killing to go down in history. You'd get a decrease in the number of "big" matches until the later stages in the competition, and fewer "big" matches means less interest, and less money for all concerned. On the contrary, the first league stage of the Champions League, with its 'two through, one to the UEFA Cup, one out' was deadly dull. Even with the revised format for next season, it's a much less compelling tournament than the UEFA Cup, which at least has a greater prospect for giant-killing. Pure knockout is the essence of the European Cup: until the Champions League, ties such as Man Utd vs. Juventus or Real Madrid vs. Bayern Munich were enthralling because they were so rare. Now, it's more like 'Arsenal - AC Milan? Yawn.' Which is exactly the motivation of those who want a European league. Michel Platini wants a return to the knockout format. My gut agrees, but the greedy bastards who run Europe's top clubs and want a free pass to the quarter-finals would sooner kill the tournament than risk having Ducla Prague or CSKA Sofia or Vitesse Arnhem come through. Or having nights like the one in 1971 when Cardiff City beat Real Madrid at home.
posted by etagloh at 10:02 AM on July 11, 2003
Yes. That's why the third round of the FA Cup provides the best weekend in the football calendar: because on any given Saturday, you could have a piece of giant-killing to go down in history. GREAT POST ETAGLOH! Platini for president!!!
posted by StarFucker at 10:42 AM on July 11, 2003
That's why the third round of the FA Cup provides the best weekend in the football calendar: because on any given Saturday, you could have a piece of giant-killing to go down in history. True, but that's only a one-match round, where the Champions League is a home-and-home affair (non-group play, that is). I like seeing the giants get upset now and again, but the chances are much greater for an upset when you catch them on an off day rather than waking them up one round and then getting clobbered the next.
posted by chules at 10:53 AM on July 11, 2003
Chules, but if the Romas and the ManUs and the Arsenals and the Real Madrids had to play against the smaller teams, the smaller teams would get a chance at the big money and be able to buy some better players... It would be awesome in my opinion... I would MUCH rather see a game between Real Madrid and Wisla Krakow for instance...at least once in a while... I have been watching the UEFA Cup more for the past two years because of that... Champion's League should be called, "If You Got The Cash League..."
posted by StarFucker at 10:59 AM on July 11, 2003
I'm with etagloh and the Fooker! Champions for Champions! Home-and-away knockout format! Giant-killing goodness! Graaargh!
posted by worldcup2002 at 01:00 PM on July 11, 2003
I didn't say I was against it, SF! Just pointing out the difference between the FA Cup and Champions League and the chances of upsets, 'tis all. Trust me, I want to see the minnows put some fear into the the big clubs all the time, as well as getting some nice spending cash. I loved watching the smaller clubs when they would broadcast the FA Cup on Fox Sports World. In fact, I hope I get to see something like that when I go to Italy in April. I know that the tourneys are going to be too far advanced to see any of the smaller clubs, but there's always hope. (I wanted to start a thread asking what grounds are the best to visit in Europe, but I can't find an article about that. I know I saw one in FourFourTwo, but they don't usually publish their material online.)
posted by chules at 07:16 PM on July 11, 2003
I'd go with 18, as long as it gives the players a real break (say at Christmas, or during the summer) and doesn't then increase the opportunities for UEFA to hold dumb competitions like another Not-quite-a-champion Championship or the Super Mega Ultra Club Cup and crap like that. But my guess is, I would be wrong.