retired_khabmth

30 of those teams would beat most teams from the Asian/African/N American federations though.

The smallish european nations are the 4th PL/LaLiga/Serie A and the Asian/African/N American are the minnows so your analogy is off.

retired_sedimohasel

True. That doesn't make it a good idea.

If you want to watch crappy minnows just get more satellite channels ffs, don't mess up our CL. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Plenty of good teams round there to be honest, the gap has just grown over time, few years and they'll catch up to a decent level again. </BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the thing, I don't think the gap is closing but rather widening (if that is a word) </BLOCKQUOTE>

It is at the moment and has been since 1998 when non-champions were admitted. That's why it needs addressing </BLOCKQUOTE>

But the overall level of the CL increased since 1998 which is why it doesn't need addressing imo </BLOCKQUOTE>

Has it? It's certainly much less competitive in the group stage than it was back then. Why was that? Because the ridiculous gap in money didn't exist so much then, so we had Kiev thrashing Barca home and away for example.

The situation now is not a good thing, it makes our league ever more predictable at the top. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Group stage is less competitive: arguable
KO stage is much better today than it was 10 years ago. It's easier to predict who will make it to the KO round but then it creates great more clashes against the giants of the football world.
I even liked the CL better when it had 2 group stages in a row.

retired_sedimohasel

I fully agree with that. Just don't think teams should be given a CL spot because of them being good sometime in the future, it's about who's best now.

I do think that the CL tv money should be distributed in a more fairly way but as UEFA doesn't want to screw up the smaller leagues we'll have to do with this system. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Champions of their league shouldn't be disadvantaged over clubs finishing fourth though for example. It's fair that the mid ranking champions (Russia, Romania, Scotland, Ukraine etc) over them. None of this Slovenia/Moldova rubbish, that's just not who this is affecting </BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you think that the Russian/Scottish/Ukranian champion is better than the 2nd/3rd team in Spain/England/Italy?
If not then the debate is over since most people want the best teams in the CL regardless of what country they are from.
Imagine the EPL not allowing more than 2 teams from London just because there's not enough teams from Kent, everyone would think this is ridiculous and ask for the best teams to play the EPL no matter where they're from. I don't see why it wouldn't be the same way with the CL.
If the 32 best european teams where from the same country then put them all in the CL just like if the 20 best English teams were in London they'd all play in the EPL. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Put simply, many of the greatest European teams are from outside the biggest league

And yes, I'd rather see Celtic, Shakhtar or CSKA instead of Osasuna, Everton or Chievo thanks. And yes they are often better teams, even with the money gap. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Then why don't these "better teams" win against the middle table teams of the big 3 leagues?
Btw I am aware that they do every once in a while which is what we call an upset but in general even the 5th/6th team in Spain wins against any champion that is not from one of the top 6-7 leagues

retired_jdupont

30 of those teams would beat most teams from the Asian/African/N American federations though.

The smallish european nations are the 4th PL/LaLiga/Serie A and the Asian/African/N American are the minnows so your analogy is off. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt Malta or Andorra are better than the likes of Guatemala, Cameroon or China (to mention some non-Euro teams that failed to play the last WC). But my point was that although there are 53 countries in Europe, half of them are too weak to ever have a chance of reaching the WC or EC. So, in the end it's something like 25-30 countries fighing for 13-15 WC/EC spots.

retired_sedimohasel

But the results are here though, besides the weird (and controversial) semi-final that South Korea played in 2002 it's always Brazil, Argentina and 5 European countries in the QT. Sometimes an African country kicks in, sometimes the US or Mexico but Europe having at least half of the teams in the QT at every WC should justify Europe having at least half of the spots in the WC

retired_jsnap

That was the most pointless thing ever.

retired_sedimohasel

No it ensured that you had the best 8 teams in Europe in the QT (with maybe an exception or 2 here and there) which imo should be the point of every competition, have the best teams face each other at the end to see who is the best among the bests

DebSchiff

The group stage is ****ing ****. The second group stage was even shitter.

They are and were there for one reason only, and it wasn't "to find the best teams" and it'd make for a much more entertaining competition if they were scrapped, frankly.

retired_sedimohasel

Upsets do not make a competition good, great games do and these happen when great teams face each other.

retired_jsnap

Why don't you go and play your competition on paper and not bother the rest of us then?