Sunday, 31 December 06, 07:10 AM · Comments(3)
I tend to agree more or less completely.
The problem is that the Champions' League, ever since it's evolution into allowing runners-up and so on into the competition, has rapidly become (and will continue to become) a playground for the richest clubs in Europe - a Rich's League so to speak.
The number of clubs per country has to be reduced otherwise the richest clubs from the richest league will dominate along with their other equally rich counterparts from other leagues. Which is exactly what has happened. The likes of Arsenal and Lyon have managed to keep up with other continental giants, despite a marked difference in financial resources, only because of exceedingly shrewd management and slightly maverick styles of play. Without having the benefit of a 25 Million plus treasure chest every year they have resorted to playing an attacking games with younger, hitherto unknown emergent starlets.
Conversely, restricting the number of clubs per country will allow other lesser leagues to send entrants in (More Steaua Bucharests) who would benefit from playing regularly in the the competition proper. Domestically this will also have a knock on effect since the safety net of finishing in the top 3-4 will be reduced and the richer clubs who consider that safety net to be a consolation prize.
At the current rate of attrition the G14 of football clubs are fast becoming the only ones who are capable of winning the Champions' League. With this growing influence and financial muscle, they may soon add more thought into forming a breakaway league. At which point the rest of European football may be damaged irreparably.
Here's to hoping Arsenal and Lyon are in the Champions' League final - with Arsenal to win of course.
Cheers.
3 Comments · Add yours
Agree with all of that Ian, except for the Arsenal bit of course ;)
Let's see if Platini can change things for the better.
For sure Platini, if elected, will reduce max number of clubs per country to 3...