The Effects of UEFA’s Changes on the Champions League

Directions to the Champions and Non-Champions paths of the CL.

A little while back when UEFA announced some format changes for the Champions League competition, there was much consternation amongst the football cognoscenti about what it would mean. Well, my friends, I am here to tell you that so far it has meant…something. Seriously, you won’t get insightful analysis like that just anywhere on the interwebs.

The change focused on dividing qualifying clubs into a “Champions” path and a “Non-Champions” path (what clever names). The thinking was ostensibly that by separating out the stronger clubs from the weaker ones, the latter would at least have some representation in the group stage of the Champions League due to competing on a different path. Aside from the fact that this sort of makes the name “Champions League” a misnomer, people were mostly concerned that the flip side of that fact meant that some of the stronger clubs would be eliminated in competition against clubs of similar strength. Did we really want to see Unirea Urziceni at the expense of Celtic or PSV Eindhoven? Short answer, no. Long answer, in the end it doesn’t really matter (with apologies to Linkin Park).

So, to make up for our light content during today (seriously, people. WE WORK!), enjoy the following novella – it only took me 17 hours to write.

Let’s break down the clubs involved in the group stage of the Champions League, comparing this year to last. To get started, exactly 50% of the clubs from the 2009-2010 competition also played in the 2008-2009 version. There are really no surprises among this group, as you would expect to see them consistently at this stage. These clubs are:

Group A: Bordeaux, Juventus, Bayern Munich – all of whom received direct entry into the group stage
Group B: Manchester United – direct entry into the group stage
Group C: Real Madrid, Marseille – both of whom received direct entry into the group stage
Group D: Chelsea, Porto – direct entry into the group stage; Atletico – direct entry into the playoff stage
Group E: Liverpool – direct entry into the group stage; Lyon, Fiorentina – direct entry into the playoff stage
Group F: Barcelona, Dynamo Kiev, Internazionale – direct entry into the group stage
Group G: No one in Group G played in the 2008-2009 Champions League group stage
Group H: Arsenal – direct entry into the playoff stage

Now, of the clubs who are new to the group stage this year, we have:

Group A: Maccabi Haifa – started at the 2nd qualifying stage, beating Glentoran, then Aktobe (Champions path), and then Red Bull Salzburg (Champions path)
Group B: Wolfsburg, CSKA Moscow, Besiktas – direct entry into the group stage
Group C: Milan – direct entry into the group stage; Zurich – started at the 3rd qualifying stage, beating Maribor (Champions path), and then Ventspils (Champions path)
Group D: APOEL – started in the 2nd qualifying stage, beating EB/Streymur, then Partizan (Champions path), and then Copenhagen (Champions path)
Group E: Debrecen – started in the 2nd qualifying stage, beating Kalmar FF, then Levadia (Champions path), and then Levski Sofia (Champions path)
Group F: Rubin Kazan – direct entry into the group stage
Group G: Sevilla, Unirea Urziceni, Rangers – direct entry into the group stage; Stuttgart – direct entry into the playoff stage
Group H: AZ Alkmaar, Standard Liege – direct entry into the group stage; Olympiakos – started at the 3rd qualifying stage, beating Slovan Bratislava (Champions path), and then Sheriff Tiraspol (Champions path)

So, let’s look a little more closely at what happened there. The “Champions”/”Non-Champions” path split begins in the 3rd qualifying stage, with 10 clubs falling into the “Non-Champions” path. These 5 matches resulted in advancement into the playoff stage for: (1) Panathinaikos, 4-3 on aggregate over Sparta Prague; (2) Timisoara (who?), 2-2 on away goals over Shakhtar Donetsk; (3) Sporting, 1-1 on away goals over FC Twente; (4) Celtic, 2-1 on aggregate over Dynamo Moscow; and (5) Anderlecht, 6-3 on aggregate over Sivasspor. The 5 winners then faced off in the “Non-Champions” path of the playoff stage against the 5 clubs that were given direct entry into the playoff stage, resulting in 5 wins for the latter clubs: (1) Atletico Madrid, 5-2 on aggregate over Panathinaikos; (2) Stuttgart, 2-0 on aggregate (that’s kind of weak) over Timisoara; (3) Fiorentina, 3-3 on away goals over Sporting; (4) Arsenal, 5-1 on aggregate over Celtic; and (5) Lyon, 8-2 on aggregate over Anderlecht.

Got all of that? So, what does it all mean? It means that of the 32 clubs currently involved in the group stage:
22 (68.8%) received direct entry into the group stage
5 (15.6%) received direct entry into the playoff stage and won their only tie necessary to reach the group stage
2 (6.3%) received direct entry into the 3rd qualifying stage and won both ties necessary to reach the group stage; both clubs were on the “Champions” path
3 (9.4%) started at the 2nd qualifying stage and won all 3 ties necessary to reach the group stage; all 3 clubs were on the “Champions” path

Thus, for all of the excitement about the division into paths, in the end only 5 teams from the “Non-Champions” path will ever make the group stage (by design), and the clubs that did so this year only had to play 1 tie to do so, since they had received direct entry into the playoff stage. The idea that the new format will result in more “small” clubs in the group stage due to the “path” system is fallacious.

The change more responsible for the current make-up of the group stage is in how UEFA allocates direct entry into the various stages of the tournament for the 53 UEFA countries. In both 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the 76 clubs were divided as follows: (1) Spain, England, Italy – 4 clubs qualify; (2) France, Germany, Portugal – 3 clubs qualify; (3) Romania, Netherlands, Russia, Scotland, Ukraine, Belgium, Czech Republic, Turkey, Greece – 2 clubs qualify; and (4) everybody else – 1 club qualifies. However, when they are allocated to the various stages we get:

First qualifying round:
(08/09) – 28 champions from associations 25-53;
(09/10) – 4 champions from associations 50-53
Second qualifying round:
(08/09) – 14 winners from the 1st qualifying round, 8 champions from associations 17-24, and 6 runners-up from associations 10-15;
(09/10) – 2 winners from 1st qualifying round, and 32 champions from associations 17-49 (excluding poor Liechtenstein, which doesn’t field a domestic league)
Third qualifying round:
(08/09) – 14 winners from 2nd qualifying round, 6 champions from associations 11-16, 3 runners-up from associations 7-9, 6 third-place finishers from associations 1-6, and 3 fourth-place finishers from associations 1-3 (and a partridge in a pear tree!);
(09/10) – “Champions” path includes 17 winners from 2nd qualifying round, and 3 champions from associations 14-16, while the “Non-Champions” path includes 9 runners-up from associations 7-15, and the third-place team from association 6
Fourth qualifying round (i.e. playoff stage):
(08/09) – not applicable, haven’t you been paying attention?;
(09/10) – “Champions” path includes the 10 winners from the 3rd qualifying round from the “Champions” path, while the “Non-Champions” path includes the 5 winners from the 3rd qualifying round from the “Non-Champions” path, 2 third-placed clubs from associations 4 and 5, and 3 fourth-placed clubs from associations 1-3
Group stage:
(08/09) – 16 winners from the 3rd qualifying round, 10 champions from associations 1-10, and 6 runners-up from associations 1-6;
(09/10) – 5 winners from the playoff stage from the “Champions” path, 5 winners from the playoff stage from the “Non-Champions” path, 13 champions from associations 1-13, 6 runners-up from associations 1-6, and 3 third-placed clubs from associations 1-3

WHEW! Essentially, UEFA has actually made the path slightly easier for the majority of the “superclubs”, while throwing some of the lesser leagues a bone. This is the best of both worlds for UEFA – they get the steady revenue generated by having the traditional powers advance further (as they are positioned to be fresher, and thus more likely to finish higher in the group stages), while allowing them to claim that they are leveling the playing field by preventing the minnows from getting knocked out of the competition too early.

Of the clubs currently in the group stage, there are truly only 6 that could be considered a surprise – Unirea Urziceni and Rubin Kazan (who both received direct entry into the group stage by virtue of finishing first in their domestic league), Zurich (who received direct entry into the 3rd qualifying stage, but faced weaker opposition in Maribor and Ventspils), and APOEL, Debrecen, and Maccabi Haifa (each of whom started in the 2nd qualifying stage and had to beat at least 1 club from a “middle” UEFA association). If these clubs fail to advance out of the group stage, will anyone be surprised?

Contrast those 6 clubs to more traditional clubs that were in the 2008-2009 Champions League but failed to receive entry into any stage of this year’s competition, such as: (1) Roma; (2) Werder Bremen; (3) PSV Eindhoven; (4) Villareal; (5) Fenerbahce; and (6) Zenit. Or compare them to clubs who were in the 2008-2009 Champions League and received entry to this year’s competition (most of them in the 3rd qualifying stage) only to fail miserably: (1) BATE; (2) Panathinaikos; (3) Shakhtar Donetsk; (4) Sporting; and (5) Celtic.

Of the 11 clubs listed in that last paragraph, how many would we have expected to advance out of the group stage? Is anyone worse off for having to watch Chelsea hammer APOEL rather than Fenerbahce or BATE? Would we have expected Werder Bremen to advance out of a Group E featuring Lyon, Fiorentina and Liverpool where Debrecen clearly will not?

As I said, in the end all of UEFA’s machinations make themselves look better while amounting to much ado about nothing.