Champions League: To the Knockout
Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Man U, and Celtic all move on.
For the first time ever, five British teams have advanced to the knockout phase of the Champions League. That's 5 out of 16. Almost 1/3. Incredible. And four of those are Premiership teams. The next best leagues, Spain and Italy, advanced three.
No league is as strong at the top as the Premiership. But EVERY league is top heavy. "Parity" is not in the discussion over here.
Just to clarify, the top teams in all the leagues in Europe make the Champions League. Even the top Estonian club team gets a home-and-home in the qualifying stage (before the bigger clubs jump into the fray). The Premiership sends it's top 3 teams automatically ahead into the round of 32 (that's what was completed tonight), while the 4th-place team goes to the qualifying stage.
There is virtually no turnover from year to year in that elite field. Consider this: what do the following leagues all have in common?
English
Spanish
Italian
Scottish
Portuguese
French
Dutch
Answer: The team currently leading all of those leagues is also in the final 16 of the Champions League. The only major league not making that cut is Germany, because Werder Bremen were in a group with Chelsea and Barcelona.
The fact is, the Champions League is incentive NOT to have parity. Why would you water down your best clubs with a salary cap and revenue sharing when they have to face teams from leagues that don't have those things.
I'm not complaining. It's an exciting format. Everton may never be the biggest club in Liverpool, but every few years it is the best. I'll take it.
For the first time ever, five British teams have advanced to the knockout phase of the Champions League. That's 5 out of 16. Almost 1/3. Incredible. And four of those are Premiership teams. The next best leagues, Spain and Italy, advanced three.
No league is as strong at the top as the Premiership. But EVERY league is top heavy. "Parity" is not in the discussion over here.
Just to clarify, the top teams in all the leagues in Europe make the Champions League. Even the top Estonian club team gets a home-and-home in the qualifying stage (before the bigger clubs jump into the fray). The Premiership sends it's top 3 teams automatically ahead into the round of 32 (that's what was completed tonight), while the 4th-place team goes to the qualifying stage.
There is virtually no turnover from year to year in that elite field. Consider this: what do the following leagues all have in common?
English
Spanish
Italian
Scottish
Portuguese
French
Dutch
Answer: The team currently leading all of those leagues is also in the final 16 of the Champions League. The only major league not making that cut is Germany, because Werder Bremen were in a group with Chelsea and Barcelona.
The fact is, the Champions League is incentive NOT to have parity. Why would you water down your best clubs with a salary cap and revenue sharing when they have to face teams from leagues that don't have those things.
I'm not complaining. It's an exciting format. Everton may never be the biggest club in Liverpool, but every few years it is the best. I'll take it.
posted by Prof. A at 7:29 PM
3 Comments:
Great post. I love the stability of European soccer. It is so dependable.
If Everton tops Liverpool, Everton did something good.
The best part, however, is when a smaller club threatens to break into the ranks. A massive signing like West Ham's Tevez splash in August could, in theory, boost West Ham into the upper echelon. This happens. Clubs rise, clubs fall. It just takes a decade or two. See Chelsea, circa 1990. See Chelsea now. See Coventry City circa 1990. See Coventry City now.
The speculation about a possible Saudi buyer for the club is something that fascinates me. How do West Ham fans feel, Paul? Is the foreign ownership so distasteful that they'd prefer not to be sold? Or is his money — and possible competitive implications — enough to sway opinion? I'm fascinated.
The helter-skelter aspect to NFL football — rises and falls take a month at shortest, and sometimes up to two years — drives me crazy. The Seahawks never know if a particular victory means anything. Baseball does it better than the NFL, but European soccer does it best.
One of my classmates is actually a West Ham fan. He's fairly pleased with the possible influx of cash. West Ham, a London team, used to be a borderline "big club" back in the late nighties. Lampard, Ferdinand, and others came up through their ranks. All the coverage over here that I've seen has been about the money the new ownership might bring it.
It seems like that Man U-Glazers thing was a one-time deal, which I still don't understand. Did Man U supporters really think the Glazers were going to run their team into the ground? Was it really that big a deal to be under foreign ownership? Is the city of Manchester perpetually existing in the 1930s? And whatever happened to that spin-off Manchester team that disgruntled fans tried to start? Some one should look these things up and blog on it.
Joe Cole is a West Ham product, too! Don't leave him off any list.
For the record, I think the Glazer family takeover was slightly different, because they leveraged ManU to the hilt. They borrowed money to buy the team, then transfered that debt to ManU's books. Fans correctly believed the move exposed the club to risk. It's my understanding the Saudi dude would just pay cash.
Post a Comment
<< Home