Double Or Nothing
Michel Platini, head honcho at UEFA, suggested a more radical solution - a 64-team Champions League, scrapping the Europa League entirely. The idea brought with it much scepticism; after all, it seems to create more problems than it solves. The Champions League in its current form already has the problem of "nothing games" - ties which, for one side at least, are as good as friendlies. Take Manchester United this season, who guaranteed top spot in their group after winning their first four matches. Sir Alex Ferguson - quite understandably - fielded second-string sides against Galatasaray and CFR Cruj, losing both games but importantly managing to rest key players. This is a problem simply for fairness: Braga, the other side in the group, had to face United at their best twice, whereas the others only did once. Merging the two competitions would see sides like Barcelona and Bayern Munich potentially matched up with this year's League Cup winners Swansea, who - with all due respect to Laudrup's side - are a world away from being world-beaters, and would make it far more likely that situations similar to Manchester United's this season occur again. It also (presumably) reduces the amount of games in Europe that smaller clubs are likely to face, which misses the point completely; we love that the Europa League allows teams like Fulham to have cup runs like they did in 2010. An idea which hasn't received any attention is making the Champions League a double-elimination tournament. A double-elimination tournament does exactly what it says on the tin: it's a knockout competition which you don't exit until you lose twice. The Champions League would work as it does now. The Europa League, however, would be different. Say, for sake of argument, eight teams get through the new group stages of the EL. They would face the eight teams which lose in the last-16 of the Champions League. The eight teams that get through this round of the Europa League would enter a draw with the four teams which lose in the quarter-finals of the CL. The six teams that get through this stage of the EL would then enter the EL quarter-finals with the two losing semi-finalists of the CL. From here on in, it would be an ordinary knockout tournament. Essentially, the winner of the Europa League would be the third-best side in Europe, rather than 17th-best. This idea solves a lot of the problems outlined earlier. For a start, money raised from the television deals would increase - after all, there are bigger teams involved. It would also be considered a more worthy tournament from a fan's point of view. Coupled with the prize of a Champions League place for the winner, some might argue that this is the solution we've been seeking. Purists would say differently, however. According to them, this new format completely ignores the spirit of the Europa League and its previous guises. It
's not meant to be a tournament for the bigger clubs; it's supposed to put smaller (but still worthy) clubs on the international stage.