Comments on: UEFA Cup: Does Anyone Really Care?

By: toby

toby — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:53:12 +0000

Both the champions league and UEFA cup have an element of boredom, too many teams over too many legs rendering anything but the latter stages irrelevant.

The solution? Make it straight knockout – each match becomes much more meaningful and we’d only have to watch Arsenal choke once.

By: richteams

richteams — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:18:04 +0000

20 richest clubs? So you think clubs currently ranked in the top 20 of wealth like Newcastle, Man City, Hamburg or Celtic would have more right to be in there than Valencia, Sevilla, Porto or PSV?? It’s a stupid idea anyway – would kill domestic leagues and make football less interesting for fans of other clubs and maybe even for big clubs too (only 1 league prize to aim at rather than domestic and europe)

By: Fifth Column

Fifth Column — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 23:21:36 +0000

Why bother having any teams except the top 4 in each major league. Have a European league made up of the richest 20 teams in Europe and just cancel all other football.

UEFA Cup football is boring for people who only like the Champions League.

If you reverted the “Champions League” to what was the European Cup and the UEFA Cup to being as it once was… all only 2-legged matches, you would solve the problems of fixture congestion and meaningless matches instantly. But it won’t happen because of the money.

By: emilio calleja

emilio calleja — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 20:26:31 +0000

You’re right there mate!!

The Uefa Cup is boring. I prefer to watch the Carling Cup than the Uefa Cup. I only watch 1 semi final and the Final

By: MangoSoup

MangoSoup — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:52:22 +0000

I like the CL the way it is now. If Platini’s plans go through I don’t think I’m going to enjoy watching a group stage where Arsenal thumps Robotniki or Elfsborg 6-0 every game. There’s no point for a group stage if you only give the top leagues 2 slots. Every group will have 2 obvious teams who will go through and 2 obvious teams who won’t(altho this can happen in current CL format already). So it’ll simply be a battle for 1st and 3rd. Not very exciting.

The system isn’t broken. Only thing that needs to be changed to echo others here is get rid of UEFA Cup group stage and do full knock out tourney(kinda like March Madness! ooo im getting excited already) or else go to 4 team groups who play each other twice and then to knock outs.

I enjoy the fact that the 3rd place team in each CL group gets into UEFA. For instance Group G has Arsenal, Sevilla, Steaua, Slavia this year. Well, it’s pretty clear that it’s a battle for 1st and 3rd. If you don’t give any incentive for taking 3rd to Steaua and Slavia then what do they or the fans care? By their 4th game in group they would have absolutely nothing left to play for.

By: Ian Rose

Ian Rose — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:02:20 +0000

Daniel, in re-reading your post, I think you’re right that I and some of the others jumped on you a bit much in defense of our favorite mid-level teams. Sorry about that. I guess what I would propose to “have it both ways”, as you say, would be less CL spots for the big leagues (no one should get four), but to leave the lower-ranked leagues alone. A maximum of two Champions League spots for any one league would bring a bit of the “Champions” feel back to the CL, and still allow the little teams that guys like Marco and I love to watch their place in the UC. True, they’d have to take on Liverpool instead of Everton, but that I could live with.

By: Marco Pantanella

Marco Pantanella — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:49:27 +0000

Sorry Daniel, by the time you posted comment 12 I was already in the process of writing comment 13. I missed your response.

Anyways, it’s not about what makes it ‘worse’ or better for the small clubs Daniel, it’s about re-invigorating the interest of a Cup no spectator really cares about. I’d rather have the CL lose a few of its best teams (because then we’d really have a “Champions” league i.e. Champions & Vice-champions of each league, rather than a “3rd/4th rank league”) to the benefit of the UEFA Cup.

From the point of view of the clubs it would probably be better, because bigger teams = more money in the competition. A small team would get paid a lot more in TV rights by hosting Liverpool than by hosting Red Star Belgrade. It would also mean more prestige, because it’s a lot more stimulating to play Liverpool.

From the spectator point of view, it’s also a bonus because they’d get to see more exciting games.

By: hobtuse

hobtuse — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:02:07 +0000

Not rocket science. Just let the domestic cup winners and those whom finish below the Champions League qualifers be eligible for the UEFA Cup. Don’t let the 3rd placed group losers from the Champions League in.

An interesting idea: Let the winner of the UEFA cup play in the Champion League the next season. Drop one of the 4th placed slots in the major leagues in exchange.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:40:57 +0000

It does need an overhaul but I wouldn’t call it a pointless competition. It gives valuable European football experience to teams who may well end up in the Champions League at some point in the future.

By: Daniel Curtis

Daniel Curtis — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:57:00 +0000

Don’t know what you’re on about Marco, I’m afraid. As I’ve repeated before, I wasn’t belittling ‘smaller’ clubs in the UEFA cup.

I find your comments contradictory. At first you say my ‘bashing’ of smaller clubs is uncalled for, and then conclude that the UEFA cup needs 3rd/4th place sides from the champions league in it! If the bigger sides from the champions league went into the UEFA cup, wouldn’t this make it worse for the smaller clubs, not better?

The point is you can’t have it both ways – exciting contests between the better sides in Europe AND a more democratic and fair representation of all countries in Europe. Something has to give.