What worked? What didn't? Reflecting on the UCL league phase

After eight matches played across four months, we finally know the 24 teams who will continue in the new UEFA Champions League format through to the knockout rounds.

It’s been a big departure from the old way, with those eight four-team groups having become like a trusted old friend over more than 20 years.

Top-level football in Europe had never seen anything like this before: 36 teams in one massive league table, playing only eight opponents and not on a mirrored home-and-away basis.

But has it delivered a better competition? Our writers assess its impact.

---

Did you love or hate the new-look Champions League?

Gabriele Marcotti: I thought it was really good. Maybe in a few years the novelty wears off and we’ll hate it. But for now, I really enjoyed it. I like the fact that smaller teams actually have winnable games. And we have more games among big teams. I think it’s silly to call it “a slog” (Is the Premier League “a slog”?) or to say all those big-budget clubs who didn’t make the top eight mailed it in (how about some credit to those who beat them?) As for the jeopardy aspect, we won’t really know until we know how the seeds play out in the sense that it’s not clear now that being 20th is much worse than being 13th.

Mark Ogden: It’s been great on matchday 7 and 8, but that’s the problem — it shouldn’t have taken so long to become exciting. The early matchdays lacked intensity and jeopardy because the bigger clubs were coasting. The likes of Manchester City, Paris Saint-Germain, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich all made the mistake of thinking they could take it easy and cruise through, but they won’t repeat that mis-judgement next season. Credit to Celtic, Feyenoord and Aston Villa, though, for taking it seriously from day one. Qualification was their reward.

James Olley: It’s a money grab by UEFA that diluted the group-stage jeopardy to the point it was hard to know what any of it really meant until near the end. That obviously made for a more uncertain climax, and the idea of having all final-round matches kick off at the same time is a good one, but those positives were outweighed by two extra matches making this stage a painfully slow burner, which ultimately contributes to widespread and valid concerns about player welfare.

Rob Dawson: Personally, I am not a fan. There’s nothing wrong with trying to revamp the format, but I’m not sure adding loads more games was the answer. More statement matches are welcome because fans want to see Manchester City against Paris Saint-Germain and Liverpool against Real Madrid. The flip side, though, has been a gruelling league phase with lots of meaningless games and very little jeopardy. The excitement around all the final league phase games kicking off at the same time is one positive. It’s just a shame there wasn’t more at stake to make it a really blockbuster night.

Beth Lindop: The new format has been a little bit of a slog, with even players and managers admitting to being unsure of the permutations of various results. That said, I think the Champions League was in need of a shakeup, and there have been some more exciting matchups thanks to the new format, even if the level of jeopardy going into the final night was perhaps not as high as it it might have been.

Dale Johnson: It’s still early days, but I reckon it’s fair to say its only the bigger clubs who didn’t really enjoy the slog. For a lot of the clubs it has been a joy to experience a successful campaign in the Champions League, rather than simply expect to finish bottom of a four-team group with your European adventure over before Christmas. A lot of supporters didn’t really understand what was going on this season, and they’re still confused now by the knockout bracket ahead of Friday’s draw. But like all competitions, fans will come to know how it works and how important positions can be amid the drama of the final round of fixtures.

Did you prefer the new format to the old?

Johnson: For all the comments of a slog made up of meaningless games, people maybe forget how much of a ceremonial formality most of the four-team groups were. Most were effectively done and dusted by the time Matchday 4 kicked off. And by Matchday 6, you might have only a couple of positions in a couple of groups with real jeopardy. The old format had just as many, if not more, pointless matches, they were just hidden a little. At least this format has a final day where almost every match matters. That said, I think “more big games” is a false argument, as they are quite ceremonial due to the long nature of the league phase — ergo, what does one win really mean? And it’s definitely a good thing there’s now no safety net to drop into the Europa League.

Olley: No. The old format wasn’t ideal but don’t let the pursuit of the perfect be the enemy of the good. UEFA is keen to point out the rollercoaster nature of the league table but it is ridiculous that a team like Manchester City, for example, can still be in the competition after the campaign they’ve had. Only two of Wednesday night’s matches had no bearing on qualification, which, taken in isolation, is an obvious selling point for this format, but the price was too high: weeks of matches with minimal risk is not worth the one-night payoff.

Marcotti: 100%. If you’re a top seed, in the old format, you might stomp a bottom seed, win and lose against the third seed and — presto! — you have nine points and all you need is one point from two games against the second seed. That’s not exciting. Also, with the old format, the focus in each nation used to be on whatever groups had teams from that country in it. Now, it’s more spread out. You see more teams. It feels more like a league. Not to mention the seeding pots give you less of an advantage than they did before. And that’s a good thing.

Ogden: No, because there are too many games that feel like they don’t matter and it enables clubs to qualify by doing the bare minimum. I accept we are never going back to the jeopardy of knockout games from the first round, or when we had mega groups such as Bayern, Barcelona and Manchester United in the same four-team group in 1998-99, but the new format was sadly a non-event until January.

Dawson: Not particularly. The general principal of the new format — having more big teams playing each other — is the right idea. You wouldn’t have had top seeds playing each other this early in the old format and they’re the games that generate the most excitement. The problem is that to increase the number quality of matches without significantly expanding the schedule, you have to reduce the number of participants. UEFA is never going to do that because it means fewer games and less money. Regardless of whether UEFA wants to admit it, the driving force behind the switch in format was the increased revenue.

Lindop: I do think the old format had become a little bit tired. There are definite drawbacks to the new format, chiefly that teams who have performed poorly in the league phase have been able to seal a place in the top 24 relatively comfortably. However, the group stage always felt like something of a formality for many of the top clubs, so I’m not convinced that was a better model.

Who have been the biggest winners and losers of the new format?

Ogden: The biggest winners have been the clubs because they have made a lot more money from the format and that, ultimately, was the reason for the change. On a less cynical note, it’s been good for the teams who struggled to get out of the old group stage, such as Celtic, but it wasn’t designed for the mid-ranking teams to have more fun. The biggest losers? Probably the fans who have to pay for more games, most of which felt insignificant in the early stages.

Marcotti: Damn, Ogden is grumpy. Fans don’t “have to pay more” for more games, Mark. They can choose to pay more to watch the team they love two more times. Or they can choose not to. It certainly feels like mid-sized and smaller clubs have more of a shot than they did under the old format. And, of course, we have more knockout football. Which is what the traditionalists want, right?

Johnson: Let’s take a look at Pot 4 of this year’s draw. Three teams — Aston Villa, Brest and AS Monaco — have made it through to the UCL knockouts. Under the old format, only three teams made it in the last four editions. But this isn’t only about progress, it’s about being competitive too. Look at Celtic, who won one match in 12 in the last two editions and finished bottom of their group. This year, they won two of their first four matches. Sort of like the UEFA Nations League, giving teams more matches against teams of their own level (Pot 3 and 4) increases general competitiveness. Lille and Aston Villa are straight through to the round of 16, which would have been extremely difficult before, while the likes of Brest and AS Monaco were able to be competitive to the very last matchday.

The losers? Definitely those big clubs who missed out on the top eight and must now play two extra matches. Under the old format, with the round of 16 spread across four weeks, all UCL teams would get two midweeks of rest. But with the new knockout playoff round, AC Milan, Bayern, Borussia Dortmund, Juventus, Man City, Paris Saint-Germain and Real Madrid have to play all four midweeks. Let’s see how they approach the league phase next season.

Olley: One interesting losing group from this format is the club analysts. One high-placed source rightly pointed out to me a couple of months ago that the analysts’ workload has almost trebled, because instead of working on three group-stage opponents, they now face eight. That may have been a contributing factor in the number of upsets and high-scoring games in the group stage.

Dawson: Manchester City are the biggest winners. They’ve won three games in the Champions League against Sparta Prague, Slovan Bratislava and Club Brugge and still qualified for the next round. Slovan Bratislava finished 35th in the table, Sparta Prague finished 31st and Club Brugge scraped into the playoffs by finishing 24th. The way City played in the competition, they probably deserve to be out. But UEFA has built in a safety net for the big clubs with the sheer volume of games and City managed to save themselves at the crucial moment.

Lindop: In terms of winners, it’s nice to see some clubs who previously struggled to get out of the group stage, like Celtic and Feyenoord, have a chance to get through to the round of 16. For Champions League debutants Brest, too, the new format will surely be viewed as a big success. The biggest losers are probably the players, many of whom have had to play two extra games for very little payoff.

What would you change to make it better?

Marcotti: I think the only people who like what I’m about to say are me and Theo Theodoridis, the UEFA general secretary. But if we want to make the seeds really relevant, we should let the top seed pick whatever opponent they like (and whether they want to play home or away first.) Second seed gets next pick and so on. Not only would it enhance the narrative, but it would also avoid freak situations where a team does well and then get stuck playing Manchester City or someone like that who happen to have underachieved and drawn a lower seed.

Lindop: The playoff concept could yet throw up some interesting matchups, but the fact a team could finish 24th and end up qualifying for the round of 16 at the expense of one that finished ninth doesn’t sit quite right. It won’t happen but I would prefer it if the top 16 just went through automatically.

Ogden: Maybe find a way to cram all the games into the calendar before Christmas so that it gives the competition more momentum. I know that will cause havoc for some countries with too many games and cup competitions — hello, England! — but by making it more intense, it would help grab the attention better. The knockout stage looks great, so the tennis-draw model has worked, but it’s the journey before that which needs a tweak.

Olley: Reduce the group stage to 24 teams. Then, top eight go through, middle eight face a playoff and bottom eight are relegated. More jeopardy, higher quality, better product. Except of course that will never happen because the television revenue from more matches is too great to pass up. Which is the entire point of the change.

Dawson: The number of teams should be reduced and all the league-phase games played before Christmas. Matchday eight was an exciting night but it took too long to get there. It has felt like the Champions League has ambled along for months only to speed up at the last minute. The problem is that if it’s money UEFA is after then it is going to want more and more games. That dilutes the product and serves up just as many poor games as good ones.

Johnson: I’d remove the safety net that UEFA gives to the big teams by avoiding any marquee games on Matchday 8. It appeared to give all those teams an extra insurance policy to get through. Why couldn’t we have PSG vs. Man City on the final day?