As is almost always the case, the powers that be in the league offices of sport will dilute and adulterate so as to bring in the marginal fan, while banking that the existing fans will stay because, face it, they have nowhere else to go.
We've seen it in many sports, under the logic of changing with the times. While we would all like it to imply improvement, changing with the times (effectively) means catering to the increasingly ADD-led populace that can't focus, and certainly can't appreciate. It means more highlight plays, less inside sport. The NBA and NFL are almost unrecognizable as compared to 20 years ago, let alone 50. NASCAR makes it so everybody is piled up on top of each other, then concocted a playoff system, as if NASCAR needs playoffs, so that it can hit the reset button on a one-horse race and get fans to hang in until the conclusion of the soap opera. Golf does this as well.
Hell, the NCAA has conference tournaments, where, the 18 (or so) games played in regular season be damned, some slacker can go on a four-game run and make the tournament, or some slacker can go on a four-game run and play itself into a high seed.
Football has largely steered clear of playoffs. Sure, it has promotion playoffs, relegation playoffs in a few leagues, playoffs for a country's other Champions League spot. But it doesn't have playoffs to determine a domestic league champion. It has the respective national cups, which, in theory, anyone can enter and win.
Because Bokolis has seen this coming down the pike for a while, I've been withdrawing from the soap opera aspect of football. I still watch matches, but not in the context of the broader implications. In the big picture, it's a rigged game.
Accordingly, Bokolis didn't come around during the world cup to offer knockout round predictions. For the record, I might have lost an extra game in the second round, but I perceived Croatia to be finalists from its second match (against Argentina?) and I perceived neuf trois to be the winners after its second round match (against Argentina!). From watching u-18, u-19, u-20 tournaments over the past few years, I knew, sooner or later, one was coming their way.
Aside - Neuf trois is the new moniker Bokolis as applied to France. I've long-referred to them as North Africa, but that gag has run its course. For those who skipped the first week of elementary French, that means nine three. It is the colloquial name for the suburb of Paris where much of the footballing talent grows up.
Bokolis supposes that the Champions League is a playoff of sorts. Once upon a time, UEFA had this competition where the champions of each national league met in midweek clashes to determine the champion of Europe, winner of the European Cup, as it was and sometimes still is called. As it became more practical to travel and television (and the money it brings along) became increasingly involved, the lords at the bigger clubs started to envision a European super league. To stave off a possible mutiny, UEFA has tried its damnedest ever since to create such a league for them.
As Bokolis remembers it, the idea was first shot down way back when by the courts. Instead, UEFA revamped and rebranded the European Cup into the Champions League. Ever since, UEFA been slowly changing the format so that it increasingly resembles a conceived super league, moving away from a club being owned- officially or effectively- by its supporters and getting ever closer to the American franchise model of a sports team.
It started when they started letting in clubs who didn't win their leagues. Once upon a time, if you didn't win your league, you were consigned to the UEFA Cup. In those days, this was a much stronger competition than its Europa League successor. Bokolis wants to say that there were two years in the 1990s when Serie A sides met in the final, that's how strong the league was. Even though today's Europa League is a competition of 5th-7th placed teams from the big leagues, winning this earns a Champions League group stage spot- that is, if it hasn't already qualified via the relaxed standards to be described below.
A lot of (the less than) casual supporters think the Champions League starts with the group stages. Hardly, as they were playing early-stage qualifying matches while the World Cup was still ongoing. Upwards of 75 clubs participate, while 32 make it to the group stage.
Every few years, UEFA revisits the format and formulas. Invariably, it has increased the access for non-winners from the largest leagues. It used to be that teams that didn't win their domestic leagues had to at least go through some part of the qualifying stage. Soon, they started giving second-placed clubs from the highest ranked leagues direct access to the group stage. Then it was the third placed clubs sliding through.
Finally, the revisions made to this year also allow the fourth-placed club from the top four rated leagues (Spain, England, Italy, Germany) direct access to the group stage. With the other automatic group stage slots given out, 24 to 26 clubs will get automatic spots, including at least 15 clubs in the group stage that have not won their domestic leagues- some champions league, eh. The remaining 50-odd clubs, including dozens of domestic league champions, are now left to dogfight for 6 to 8 spots via multiple qualifying rounds.
It is sad but, hang on- we haven't yet gotten to the truly scandalous part.
Again, with the expansion of television (and internet) coverage to all nooks of the globe, principal support for clubs no longer comes from their respective home bases. The English top-flight has harnessed the (white) American market, as well as the Asian/Australian markets, where there is even more money available than they can milk out of the home nations. Predictably, the vast majority of fans from outside the respective home countries choose to support one of the giant clubs, rather than the random mid-level teams.
Really, how many fans of Southampton or Valladolid do you meet?
Aside - Bokolis came to become a fan of Milan through a hatred of Maradona, just before its 20-year run of dominance. I had become a fan of Liverpool (as a child) years before, as it was the only team whose coverage filtered through to America. Because of something called the Kop, I had the misguided impression that they had the sickest fans. So, as someone who had a romantic notion of anarchy, I gravitated towards them. I didn't jump on the Liverpool bandwagon, as I didn't know of their success, but it was their success that carried them to my attention. I would up supporting giants just the same as a glory hunter.
This phenomenon has created an economy of scale for the biggest clubs, the ones that fit into a super league, as a disproportionate share of the incremental support has gone to them.
If the above concept doesn't register, or you don't agree that it has gone down this way, might Bokolis suggest WSHH videos- you've read too much already. There are close to 3,000 words to follow. Don't do it to yourself.
With the guaranteed and implied revenue that comes with getting to the Champions League group stage, it provides the participants with a significant budgetary advantage over clubs in the same league who didn't make the group stage. It amounts to a club buying another top-line, borderline-superstar player, and/or keeping the ones it already has, which the 16 clubs not in the Champions League cannot match. Such an advantage will ensure that it is the same rotation of clubs making the Champions League.
It is already understood that the 'big five' leagues are, perennially, virtually already decided. The Bundesliga has been Bayern Munich's to lose for this entire century. Ligue 1 is PSG's to lose. Now that the Milan sides have fallen on lean times, Serie A is Juventus' to lose. La Liga is, with rare exception, won by Real Madrid or Barcelona.
From its inception/rebranding, the Premier League, the most 'competitive' league of the lot, has been a steady rotation of manchester united, Chelsea, Manchester City, Arsenal. The top 4 places in the table almost always fall to a group of six teams, with Liverpool and Tottenham, neither of which has won the rebranded league, added to the above.
Aside- Blackburn won it in 1994-95, after finishing second the prior season, because they had Alan Shearer and, because the league hadn't fully assimilated foreign (or Black) talent after the enablement of freer movement of players, everybody else didn't. In fact, that season was the second of four consecutive seasons where Shearer's teams finished in the top two.
The miracle of Leicester City winning was because, while some teams had a Jamie Vardy and some teams had a Riyad Mahrez, NO ONE had a N'golo Kanté. In fact, missing such a player is essentially why Arsenal have not won the league since they let Patrick Vieira go, and why manchester united have not won the league since Rednose retired to the luxury seats. Mourinho has realized this and is desperately trying to get Paul Pogba to play that role. Pogba did it for North Af...errr...neuf trois in the World Cup, but has not yet shown an inclination to consistently do it during league play.
Liverpool (and England) had such potential in Ox (Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain), but England lost out on him for the World Cup, as will Liverpool for this coming season.
While the above is certainly a tangent, it means to offer that, despite its importance, money is not the be-all and end-all- odd place for it, I know- that, despite all the money and data being thrown around, until they start allowing time-out during play, the game will hinge on humans' ability to control territory through reaction, recognition, insight and effort without (much) outside input.
By giving teams direct access, it frees up their summers to run around the globe playing glorified friendlies. Another tangent...
Let's go in the Waybach machine to 2002, when, on a random weeknight with almost no leading buzz/heat/hype, Real Madrid and Roma played a(n inconsequential) match in the original Giants Stadium in front of 70,000 fans, Bokolis among them. Because there was no buzz until the day of the game, I thought it would be lower bowl only. The advance sales were in the low 20k range, and Bokolis only paid $25 for his upper-decker. I think parking was more.
The game itself was effectively a scrimmage- guys were going 75% (max)- and nobody in the crowd much minded, as this was a rare treat. It was likely on this night when European clubs fully realized the enormity of the American market. The next year, Juventus and AC Milan showed up to play the Supercoppa Italiana. Only about 55,000 showed up that day, but we paid NFL prices. Bokolis still can't believe how fast Maldini was at age 35.
Fast forward a few years- the American football scene has become more saturated, as more clubs are doing full on tours into areas of the US where there aren't so many first-generation Europeans or South Americans. They were having trouble giving tickets away- they played one of these games at the current Yankee Stadium and, having only sold about 11k tickets, were trying to give them away to sports industry personnel to fill up the stadium- as the ridiculous face value...they were charging significantly more than Premier League matches, which themselves are priced significantly higher than other leagues, to watch guys play at 75% (max) effort and not give a shit about the result.
To overcome such apathy, they make the games 'matter' by tagging them as 'International Champions Cup' matches. They are still playing at 75%- sometimes 80%. But, since there is allegedly something on the line, (white) Americans slowly bought in. Once they had that buy-in, they expanded the 'tournament's' reach so that any team on a tour is somehow involved. It has bloated to 18 teams.
Without looking it up, Bokolis is guessing that 16 of the 18 clubs have direct qualification- quelle surprise- to the group stage of the Champions League- Milan is not in it and Benfica still has to qualify.
This is important because, on top of being guaranteed the group stage money, teams like Liverpool and Tottenham don't have to prepare for a tricky qualification fixture on some eastern European (or central Asian) rockpile of a pitch. It's true that the qualifying round(s) usually turned out to be more of an inconvenience than a hazard, and that it wasn't exactly turning a big club's world upside down. But, the elimination of inconvenience is secondary to the benefit. This means they can stay on tour longer, make even more revenue and don't have to sort out transfers before they might otherwise want to.
Again, this isn't about the hardship placed on domestic champions of the smaller countries; it is about the enablement of the teams from the 'top' leagues.
One might ask, why is profit important? A few years back, UEFA also implemented 'financial fair play' standards. Essentially, the clubs' operating results have to be within a certain threshold; losses cannot exceed some arbitrary number. On the surface, this is done to protect all the clubs, as many, in their quest for glory, would spend outside their means, racking up debt that they cannot get out from under, even to the point of financial ruin. This was also done to prevent clubs whose owners had bottomless pockets from spending like mad and creating an 'arms race.'
It seems noble enough. In practice, however, it favors the biggest clubs, as UEFA pays them but tells everyone to operate within the same Euro threshold. Further, upon cursory review from Bokolis, each year, most of the largest clubs 'magically' come in as losing just less than threshold amount. This may be coincidence, the product of 'prudent' budget management, or some book-cooking. Bokolis can't say for sure, but my pet cynic, mocking the lack of diligence the whole while, indicates that the process by which they get just under the threshold is where the real scandal lies, and simply reinforces that entities of such size as these can get away with virtually whatever finagling they want because NOBODY wants to derail a money train. You see how pissy poor people are because they have no money- counterintuitive as it may seem, it's nothing compared to the rage that the wealthy have when they find out they aren't going to be making as much.
Here is the feedback loop: Television draws the marginal fans from outside the home town/country, who are increasingly likely to attach themselves to one of the largest clubs (some might call them glory hunters). These fans bring in revenue for the club, be it from merchandise or viewership. The club can then invest in improvements to its product. It gains more fans, eventually enough to go on tour so it can gain direct access to these fans. The incremental revenue allows for still more investment in its product. UEFA comes in and builds a backflow valve in the form of Champions League television revenue and FFP regulations. Armed with that revenue, those clubs can now buy more players and construct teams that can more easily overcome middling and lower sides, who now have to rely on effort, tactics and luck to compete. More likely, the already created class system is cemented.
Aside- If there are doubts about whether this scheme has worked, consider the last 13 years of the European (Champion Clubs') Cup format, where 8 of the clubs to win were not 'monster' clubs. As there were never more than six or seven monsters in the competition in any given year, this would seem a plausible trend.
Then, consider that, with the round robin format and as the ratio of monster clubs has greatly increased, of the last 21 years of the Champions League, 20 of the winners are 'monster' clubs. The one time that an 'outsider' has won it, it was considered so Special that we still haven't heard the end of it. Not coincidentally, the losing finalists since Porto won in 2004 have also all been 'monster' clubs.
And, Bokolis didn't use the old G-14 to define 'monster.' Considering that Porto was part of the G-14, EVERY club to win the European cup since Red Star Belgrade in 1991 has been G-14, except for, ironically, Chelsea, the epitome of the modern deep-pocketed club.
Again, this doesn't just extend to the other clubs in the same league. It extends to teams that have won their domestic league, but have to further qualify for something called the Champions League because 15- potentially 17- group stage spots have been given to non-winners. Further, because no clubs from the same country are placed in the same group, each of those top four leagues has the opportunity to have all its clubs qualify for the next round. In fact, last season, England, with manchester united gaining access from winning the Europa League despite finishing outside the top four in the league, had five clubs qualify for the knockout stages.
The next question might be, how are the top four leagues determined? Does UEFA wave a magic wand? Effectively, but not quite. UEFA uses a formula based on club's results in European competition to determine a country coefficient. It is explained on UEFA website and on Wikipedia and, whereas UEFA updates when it wakes up in the morning, it is tracked and updated almost immediately here.
To figure this coefficient, a team earns points based on results in European matches- two points for a win, one for a draw. It also gains bonus points, one at a time, for qualifying for certain rounds. The biggest bonus points come from qualifying for the group stage (4) and knockout stage (5) of the Champions League. All the points from all the clubs are added up, then divided by the number of clubs from that country playing in European competition, yielding a coefficient. UEFA uses the scores from the last five complete seasons to rank the countries.
For example, let's take an English side. It gets four points for being in the Champions League group stage, even though it was given a direct pass to the group stage. Assume a pedestrian three wins and a draw- seven more points- and qualification for the next round- five further points. We are up to 16 points. If you divide that by the seven teams England has in Europe, the coefficient points comes out to a little over two and a quarter. Multiply that by the four sides in the competition, and you get to a little over 9 coefficient points that are essentially gifted to the top four leagues. A view of the rankings shows that, in any given year, there will be four or five other countries, in addition to our top four countries, that earn as many as 9 coefficient points in total.
Sure, the four points for being directly placed in the group stage are a gift, but how are the rest gifted? The Champions League is set up so that the countries from the top four groups will stay away from each other. Clubs from the same country cannot be drawn in the same group. While UEFA can't fix it so, this will play out that the 16 clubs from the top four leagues will be spread out among the eight groups so that no group of death, with three or four clubs from the top leagues drawn into one group (i.e., Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, Liverpool, Napoli). If such a group happens, it is because PSG is also in the group with two clubs from the top four leagues, and because an interloper manages to snag the fourth-place spot in one of the top four leagues.
Do you think UEFA would have the guts to stick all four clubs from the same country into one group? If you ask someone at UEFA, make sure they don't have anything in their mouth at the time.
Now, let's say you are Red Star Belgrade, currently of Serbia and having once won this competition while still part of Yugoslavia. Because of your country's ranking, UEFA has set it up so you will have to go through four qualifying rounds to get to the group stage. Leaving aside that any club that runs that gauntlet to qualify deserves a lot more than 4 bonus points, it does mean that there is potential for eight victories. This would be a pretty good haul if our English club managed it during the main competition. However, cynical as ever, UEFA decided that victories in qualifying rounds only carry half-value. The four points handed to the English side for automatic qualification now seems akin to a government subsidy for Apple, Verizon, General Ele- wait, we already do that...
While the English side is off touring in first-world footballing markets and charging first world prices for glorified scrimmages, Red Star is off in Latvia and Lithuania playing in front of crowds of less than 5,000 and 3,000 (its home matches for these ties both drew 23k and change, but Bokolis suspects that its ultras were comped). As tickets to matches in these countries don't fetch what our English side was getting in the American/Australian/Singapore/Chinese markets, Red Star's away fixtures were likely money-losing trips- all for half value, if they get a result.
As it will turn out, entrenched sides from the top four leagues will be playing winners and second-placed clubs from second-tier leagues and winners from yet smaller leagues- all of it designed so that the largest clubs stay in the competition for as long as possible, as they bring the largest television revenues.
To further indicate that it is all by design, the bonus points for progressing to the deeper rounds of the Champions League are much fewer. Clubs get no bonus for progressing to the round of 16 and one bonus point each round for progressing to the quarterfinals, semifinals and finals. Since UEFA expects that representation in those rounds will be entirely from its biggest clubs, there is no reason to award more bonus points, and run the risk that a club from a lower-ranked country could upset the apple cart.
There's your feedback loop.
UEFA's intention is for the clubs from smaller leagues to play in the Europa League. Bokolis says play, not compete. Clubs from the largest leagues will still have clubs in the competition. As the deepest league, this season, England will send Chelsea and Arsenal, neither of which will need any incremental spending (on players) for this competition. In fact, it is certain that they will rest several first-team players for almost every group stage matchday.
UEFA has another wrinkle to keep the biggest clubs in European competition. Instead of being sent packing, the eight third-placed sides in the group stage of the Champions League get the consolation of going into the Europa League to create a knockout tournament of 32 clubs. Of course, motivation would be a significant issue for such sides, but the clubs have two months (and a transfer window) to do something about this. One always does, as 14 of the 18 finals this century have featured a Champions League refugee, and some have featured two.
So, if PSG or a Russian or Portuguese side (or, heaven forbid, a Dutch, Belgian, Czech or- gasp- Greek side) break through at the expense of a side from the top four leagues, unless they've spit the bit, the latter can pick up the pieces in the Europa League against softer competition. A club from England or Spain has claimed the last seven, so, again, it's as UEFA wants.
There's some more of your feedback loop.
With so much going into describing the problem, Bokolis will not waste more words detailing the solution. That would presume that UEFA want to fix it.
