It has become common ground for debate over the Champions League, a competition which by name should consist of ‘champions’, but by nature invites runner-ups and teams who finished in third and sometimes fourth domestically. You can see where the confusion sparks from but I guess this is what we call football, or UEFA for that count.
The history of European club football
History has it that the editor of French sports tabloid L’Equipe, Gabriel Hanot conjured up the idea of an elite tournament for champions in the 1950’s following a remark the then English crown bearers made. Wolverhampton Wanderers were the top team in the England and self proclaimed world beaters. Due to there being no competition to prove this, the midlands side organised friendlies to make their point. Hanot did not approve and wanted to challenge Wolves against the likes of Real Madrid and AC Milan.
The Mitropa cup was a central European club tournament at the time which was first developed in Austria in 1926. The competition included two teams from each of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Hungary. This was a gathering that invited champions, along with either runners-up or domestic cup winners but the structure of the tournament was not very strict, therefore it didn’t influence any growth beyond the four countries.
Hanot planned to devise a large scale improvement to determine who the champion of champions should be. Once his idea was authorised and put into practice by those at the round table at UEFA, the idea was to include clubs with a large stature, with a substantial following. However, the tournament initially invited champions only which saw title holders from Finland, Cyprus and Lithuania embarrassed due the sheer difference in quality from table-toppers in Spain, Italy and Germany.
The revolution of 1992
Despite the original process holding some of football’s greatest memories including Aston Villa’s solitary European triumph, the appeal began to fade and a re-brand was needed. Therefore the year 1992 arrived, a year of revelation. The Barclays Premier League was born and re-branded from the old First Division, whilst the European cup eventually took on Hanot’s idea for commercialism and growth. More teams were added to the whole process to beef up the tournament, with the more significant nations given an advantage to give the group stages the chance to field the best teams available. Teams from minnow footballing nations were instructed to qualify through a structure of rounds via seeding, before reaching the actual competition itself. Since the restructure, only Slovakian side Artmedia Bratislava can be identified as ‘minor champions’ to achieve the ‘right’ to play in the big time. The Slovakian’s did themselves no harm with a substantial win over Celtic before sealing a narrow victory over 2004 European Champions Porto in the group stages in the first round. Inevitably their story in the tournament saw an early exit.
As the competition developed so did the formula of entry. The top three to four teams from the most established countries would gain either automatic qualification into the group stages or would be seeded in the qualifying rounds to get an ‘easier’ route, without playing too many games before the predictability of entering the ‘actual tournament’. The UEFA Champions League has become a global phenomenon as fans get to see some of the greatest club sides, with the best players on show doing battle with each other to determine the right to lift the title of the best team in Europe. It is sheer brilliance.
Is there a better option?
Although the tournament doesn’t include rightful champions from every European country it does invite those who failed to topple the rest in their country, a competition with a huge divide in quality would not have the greatest appeal, especially in the modern game. Which game would you prefer to watch? The champions of Sweden versus the champions of the Faroe Islands or the runners-up of the Premier League face to face with a third place Italian Serie A side? The response will inevitably sway towards the latter option due to the better quality of players available, the bigger fan base and their established global appeal.
With great clubs and world class players there isn’t much to complain about apart from the name of the competition in my opinion. The tournament still fulfils the fundamentals of the original outlay; it enables the champions of each country to take part but just at different stages and allows other teams to enter who are not silverware winners to beef up the intensity and value. The odd shock has happened and still can despite the seeding system making it easier for the bigger sides, but it doesn’t always guarantee their spot in the top 32 teams. It could be suggested that the competition has become too predictable due to the same elite sides progressing to the latter stages but isn’t it supposed to be system that finds the best teams in Europe? Whether it is seeded or not or the format is changed, the Champions League will always continue to have the best teams competing to the end, whether that is just one from Germany, two from Italy and three from Spain. If there are going to be complaints about the best teams winning every year then they clearly do not understand how the game works. Those with financial power and commercial equities are the giants, have the best players and play the best football. That is why they are called champions is it not?
Rename it maybe, I’ll let the big guns in Nyon, Switzerland, decide on that, for now I’m going to continue to enjoy the greatest club competition in history, enjoy the glamour, the money and the grave importance it means to those involved. There is no greater competition and the glamour of it catches the attention year on year.
Football: Our Controversial Passion 