It always confused me why the Champions League wasn’t, you know, a league. We’ve reached a point where as a society, four-team groups just don’t excite us any more: suggestions that England were better off finishing second in their 2018 World Cup section were the first red flag, and FIFA briefly suggested getting rid of them altogether for the 2026 World Cup.
The (old) Champions League proves why they no longer move us. There was no peril whatsoever, as they all followed the same pattern: two big teams, two small teams, with the giants vying for first and second – unless you drew Sevilla, whose sole mission was to end up in the Europa League.
Even then, finishing top never guaranteed an easier last-16 tie.
The Champions League's Swiss model ticks all boxes
Whether it’s the X Factor or the Champions League, the rationale for the first round of any competition is simple: it’s there to build excitement, establish the favourites and provide minor shocks without emptying the tournament of too many big names. The Swiss-style model ticks all the boxes.
There are big games every week, and those fixtures are one-offs – no returns here. The format is fairer, too. If you want to know the favourites for the Champions League, you just have to look at the table, rather than working out who had the most difficult group.
Even better, Aston Villa and Brest quickly excelled, while RB Leipzig, Manchester City and Real Madrid all found it unexpectedly tough. Those crises would have happened anyway, but the new format magnified their poor form.
It would be no surprise if international tournaments were to copy it. It’s been fresh, simple to follow and provided us with crunch clashes in January to get into the next round. What’s not to love?
On the other side of the coin, Senior Staff Writer, Chris Flanagan believes the new Champions League format is the European Super League in sheep's clothing, read his contrasting opinion HERE
