"How can you justify rewarding Arsenal’s worst season in a generation with tens of millions of Champions League money?” That is the rhetorical question being asked in relation to a new version of the Champions League which would move it closer to being a Super League and an American model in which a restricted set of big clubs compete with each other.
Concerns have been raised about UEFA
encroaching on domestic rights deals, player burn out and ‘steady creep’ of
elite club control. Eighth placed Arsenal would have qualified for
Champions League this year under the proposals. In several off the record briefings
officials have shared their unease at proposals put forward by UEFA to overhaul
the Champions League.
UEFA are proposing a
90 per cent increase in Champions League games under the revamp, with extra
match days before Christmas. A media
rights expert told offthe pitch.com : “Big six clubs really need a careful
think about whether that's going to benefit them long term or damage the Premier
League overall and therefore harm them in the long term. Cast back 40 years…(and) Aston Villa and
Nottingham Forest would be part of it. Why should any club have their position
enshrined at the top?” says a critical Premier League club executive.
UEFA has put forward an expanded group stage using a
so-called ‘Swiss Model’ [derived from chess] in which clubs will play matches
against ten opponents of different strengths based on seeding. The top 16 would
go through to the knockout rounds, with clubs finishing between ninth and 24th
in the table progressing via play-offs.
The plans were discussed at last Thursday’s Premier League
shareholders meeting and UEFA this week previewed them to national club
associations. Off the Pitch understands
that at the shareholders meeting concerns were expressed about the number of
games played in the new tournament, with a 90 per cent increase in fixtures
planned, including four additional matchdays before Christmas.
The concerns are understood to be centred not just on player
burn out, but the implications for domestic broadcast deals if UEFA effectively
doubles its offering whilst taking from a finite pot of TV money.
There is surprise, also, that smaller and mid-ranking
federations who elected UEFA president Aleksander Čeferin on pledges of
equalising inequalities in European football haven’t been more vociferous in
challenging the plans. The contention is that international football windows
will be diminished, which many federations rely upon for income.
One senior Premier League club official who was party to
last week’s discussions at its board meeting spoke of growing unease at the
“steady creep” towards a competition controlled by Europe’s elite.
It shows a chronic level of cultural misunderstanding from those who are familiar US-centred ‘closed competitions’ of what makes football
thrive, that is risk and unpredictability. However, the number of American investors in European football is on the increase, not least in Italy, and they want an assured return for their dollar.
Of particular
contention is the path to qualification given to two clubs who fail to qualify
for the Champions League based on the strength of their UEFA club coefficient. Had this rule applied last year, Tottenham
and Arsenal would have qualified for the Champions League on the strength of
sixth and eight-based places.
Comments
Post a Comment