Sports

Spread Champions League wealth a bit

In print | February 28, 2008

Last week I was so happy to see the Union of European Futbol Association Champions League, Europe’s premier football competition, resume after a two-month hiatus.

Naturally, a number of Europe’s biggest, most talented clubs are going at each other.

There were such high-powered match-ups as Liverpool-Inter Milan, Roma-Real Madrid, Arsenal-Milan and Lyon-Manchester United.

The first leg of the knockout stages provided much entertainment, controversy and discussion for enthusiastic pundits and fans. The usual spats over whether a red card was deserved (Materazzi’s was obviously not), the penalties not given, the blame placed on referees and the unfortunate missed opportunities (thank you Adebayor) set up an enjoyable round of matches next week.

Now I realize I’m probably being a hypocrite by saying this, as I passionately support Milan, but it is slightly unfair that we see pretty much the same teams making it to the latter stages of the competition. While this no doubt will increase the number of fans watching the games as well as the publicity and media attention, it makes this game a lot more predictable and, hence, less exciting.

Milan have remarkably won the cup twice and made it to the finals three times, semi-finals once and quarterfinals once, all in the last 5 years! Manchester United, Liverpool, Barcelona and Chelsea usually reach the quarterfinals stage as well.

While the better teams will probably continue to reach for Europe’s most prized footballing asset, there can be some changes made to the structure of the Champions League that can promote involvement among lower level clubs.

I think much of the problem resides in the initial qualification set-up. Currently, Italy, Spain and England, the nations with the best domestic leagues, are allowed four teams to participate in the tournament, Germany and France three apiece, while the rest of the countries have two or one, some even having none.

Michel Platini, currently running to be president of UEFA, asserts, “Four clubs are too many for the country itself, the fans and TV rights. Three should be the limit. There are not enough national champions in the last 32 of the tournament and that cannot be right.”

I agree. The Champions League should involve at least one club from every country in Europe with a domestic league. The more nations represented, the more there is a sense of pride and competition associated with winning the Champions League. It would be much more sensible because smaller clubs would have the chance to play with bigger fish and their global fan base would increase.

In addition, it would also add to the intensity of domestic competitions as teams would be fighting much harder for the top three places to get the chance to qualify for Europe.

Some of you might argue the Champions League is only for Europe’s elite, which is why there is the less prestigious UEFA Cup for the lower level clubs. Unfortunately, the UEFA Cup doesn’t bring nearly as much entertainment due to its lack of global appeal, hence it isn’t as financially profitable as the Champions League. Isn’t it wonderful how money makes our world go round?

I’m tired of the same teams reaching the same stages. Remember the time when Porto (or Mourinho?) took everyone by storm and won the finals? In fact, their opponents were Monaco, another surprise contender. That was unpredictable and exciting to watch. But whatever, I guess for next week’s deciders I’ll revert back to the hypocrite that I am. Forza Milan!

Dheeraj is a junior. You can reach him at dravi1@swarthmore.edu.