UEFA never seems far away from reforming European Football. Before a ball has even been kicked in their most recent reform - the Europa Conference League - they are at it again. Their latest plan is to radically overhaul the group stage of The Champions League, changing from eight groups of four teams, to one big group - known as the ‘Swiss Model’.
This comes with some reforms to how teams qualify for Europe (those progressing to the knockout stages are set to be rewarded with qualification for the following year’s tournament), and an expansion of the number of teams taking part.
Much has been said about the unfairness of closing off the Champions League to only those who currently play in it, unlinking it from their domestic performance, so I’m not going over that yet again. Instead, I wanted to focus on the nuts and bolts. How would the group stage work and how would this have affected this year’s Champions League, had it been in place?
The Swiss Model
UEFA are trying to achieve two things with the Swiss Model. First, they are trying to expand the number of teams in the Champions League (without sending half of them home after a two-legged tie), and second they are trying to correct what they see as unfairness in the current model.
Currently, The Champions League features eight groups of four teams. Teams play each other home and away, and group winners and runners up go through to the knockout stage (teams finishing top are seeded and in second are unseeded in the following round draw). The team in third drops into the Europa League, and the team in fourth goes home.
Under the Swiss Model, all teams form one big group but only play against 5 teams (home and away) with all records compared for who performed best and worst. A team is no-longer competing against just the teams they play, their records are compared against everyone involved in the tournament - even those they don’t play.
To understand what this would mean (and to highlight some of the unfairness UEFA has identified) I have reworked this year’s tournament as if it was run under a Swiss Model - ranking all the sides involved in this year’s group stage in one big league table. Teams who finished top of their group are shaded gold, second in silver, third in bronze, and fourth are left unshaded.
To note, as UEFA’s ranking system is formed around a system where teams play each other, I have had to use the Premier League’s ranking system (where teams are judged first on points, then goal difference, then goals scored and goals conceded) as this is better geared up for comparing teams who have not played each other.
I have also retained the same four outcomes for teams - the top eight are seeded in the knockout round (as the eight group winners are now), the next eight are unseeded, the following eight drop into the Europa League, and the bottom eight’s European journey ends here.
The Top Eight
First the top eight, who would go through and be seeded, under a Swiss Model. You can already start to see the unfairness in the current system UEFA wants to correct:
The team that immediately stands out here are Barcelona. A group runner-up, Barca had the third best record of every team in the Champions League this season (and, as a result of using the Premier League ranking system, they place higher under a Swiss model than their own group winners Juventus). But despite this, their reward under the current system is a difficult tie against a group winner.
In the knockout stage Barcelona drew, and were then knocked out by, Paris Saint Germain - a team who didn’t even make the top eight under this model. Barcelona having a stronger record than most of the group winners (even their own), yet being considered a ‘weaker’ unseeded tie than all of them is a clear injustice UEFA wants to correct.
9-16
Moving on to the second eight - who would go through and be unseeded under a Swiss Model.
Three teams stand out. Paris Saint Germain (who we have already discussed), Real Madrid and Manchester United.
Real put in the 14th best performance of all the teams in the competition - that’s worse than six group runners up - yet their reward was to be seeded in the first knockout round and avoid the supposedly tougher ties (at time of writing they hold a 1-0 lead after the first leg against Atalanta - one of the weaker group runners up).
Comparing Real Madrid to Barcelona, for every two points Real took across the group stage, Barca took three. Yet Barca were treated as a weaker unseeded side in the following round. Again, something UEFA sees as an injustice.
Manchester United meanwhile scored only one point fewer than Real Madrid. But while Real Madrid went through as group winners, and bagged a supposedly easier draw against an unseeded side, United were dumped into the Europa League in third place. United put in a strong group stage showing - better than two group runners up - yet find themselves in UEFA’s secondary tournament. Again, something UEFA feels is unfair so wants to correct.
17-32
Moving on to the final two sections of the table:
The scenes of Borussia Mönchengladbach celebrating as they heard Inter Milan’s draw with Shakhtar Donetsk had sent them through to the knockout stages for the first time would be cruelly taken away under a Swiss Model. As the worst performing group runner up they just miss out on progression by the fact Manchester United did better over the course of the group stage.
Meanwhile, Inter Milan lost their group yet performed better than four group runners up. Their reward? Knocked out of Europe despite getting double the number of points of Olympiacos (who stay in Europe despite only scoring twice over the whole group stage).
What this tells us
To sum, UEFA has clearly seen some element of unfairness in the Champions League and, when you compare across the group stage, that criticism does have merit. The Swiss Model is seen as helping make the Champions League more competitive. But what UEFA’s proposals do is instead reward the sides who under the current system dominate an uncompetitive group - and in fact penalises sides who at present have a more competitive fixture list.
The only two group winners who lose out under a Swiss Model are Paris Saint-Germain and Real Madrid - the only two group winners who were not guaranteed to progress going into the final round of fixtures, as a result of their competitive groups.
In fact the irony of Real Madrid’s low showing is the fact that their group was so competitive - something UEFA say they want to see more of. Their group contained Mönchengladbach, Shakhtar Donetsk and Inter Milan - with only four points separating the group winners from bottom place (there was a bigger gap of seven points between Bayern Munich and their group runners up, Atlético Madrid).
Meanwhile, the winners under a Swiss Model benefit in different ways. The headline beneficiaries in UEFA’s eyes would be Barcelona and Porto - in groups where two sides dominated (in the group stage, Barca and Juventus finished level in their group on 15 points, yet there was an 11 point gap to third placed Dynamo Kyiv), their performance was much better than many group winners, but under the current system only one was deemed strong enough to be seeded in the group stage.
Meanwhile, Manchester United and Milan would be big winners - being reprieved from the Europa League and from being knocked out of Europe respectively, and rewarded from a strong showing over a competitive group stage. Something UEFA is keen to see as merits of the Swiss Model.
A bridge too far?
Football fans are used to a system where you play everyone and your record is judged only against sides you have played. Fans see a sense of fairness of only being judged after playing everyone twice - the Premier League is over after 38 games, not 22. This is a system of football meritocracy going back to the first Football League in 1888. To completely rip up how we do football and compare records against sides you have not played - and never were going to play - seems an experiment in confusion.
For example, yes Barcelona had a very strong group stage record. But, ultimately, they didn’t win their group. Does it matter that they had a better record than Real Madrid? After all, they didn’t play Real Madrid (or anyone in Real Madrid’s group). They played Juventus, Dynamo Kyiv and Ferencváros. Comparing Barca to Real is comparing apples and oranges. You may as well compare Manchester City’s Premier League results to Bayern’s in the Bundesliga.
In fact, arguing that Milan should be in the knockout stages of the Europa League, because they got more points than Olympiacos, is not that different to arguing Wolves should be in the Europa League because they got more Premier League points than Hoffenheim did in the Bundesliga. It’s picking and choosing to form a narrative benefiting the bigger clubs - that Barcelona should be seeded, not PSG. That Manchester United should be in the knockout stages, and not Borussia Mönchengladbach. It’s going against football’s meritocracy in the light of new upstarts upsetting the status quo.
And yes, ranking teams in this way may make the current system seem a little unfair, but all a Swiss Model would do is correct a few minor injustices. In fact, when you look across the Swiss Model as a whole, only eight teams aren’t where they would be under the current system (and only three - Barca, Real and Inter Milan - are more than a couple of places out).
So even when taking aside a lot of the more headline issues with the latest proposed Champions League reform - taking aside it making European football a closed shop, taking aside it cramming more fixtures into a congested schedule, and even taking aside that they are planning yet more reform before the latest reforms have even come in yet - a Swiss Model presents a radical change to correct what is really a very small set of isolated injustices. But more than that, it undermines the great meritocracy of football.
The Swiss Model Champions League 2020-21 in full
Comments