10 Ways We’d Improve the UEFA Cup
By: Daryl | September 18th, 2008
It’s the first round of the UEFA Cup today, with 80 teams playing 40 games to see who makes the group stage. The UEFA Cup gets a hard time and maybe deserves a little extra respect. But if UEFA want to make the competition, they need to make it more than a poor man’s Champions League. Here are 10 ways (some serious, some silly, some somewhere inbetween) we’d improve the UEFA Cup if we had Michel Platini’s ear*.
1. No group stages
Let’s not pretend it’s the same as the Champions League. Because it isn’t. So keep the adrenaline levels up by making every round a knockout round. Like the old days (ask your dad)
2. And while we’re at it: no two-legged ties
Just do it straight knockout with teams drawn either home or away. Split the gates so no-one loses out.
3. Fair play should not get you a UEFA Cup spot
If fair play’s that important, give the team with the best disciplinary record a Champions League spot. Otherwise, a medal or a cookie will do.
4. Don’t invite teams that win second rate trophies
Looking at you Carling Cup.
5. Design a better looking official ball
Come on guys, this looks like something you find in the bargain bin at a second rate sports store.
6. Reduce Champions League places for big countries
Finishing fourth in the Premier League or Serie A or La Liga shouldn’t get you in the Champions League. Finishing fourth should get you in the UEFA Cup at best.
7. Stop dumping Champions League losers into the UEFA Cup
Right now, finishing third in the CL Group Stage gets you a free pass to the latter stages of the UEFA Cup. Does anything devalue a competition more than inviting losers from another competition?
8. The Intertoto Cup must die
If a team doesn’t make the UEFA Cup the first time around, they shouldn’t be able to get in by winning a few pre-season friendlies.
9. Winner gets a Champions League spot
Let’s face it, that’s where they really wanted to be isn’t it?
10. Failing that, scrap the UEFA Cup entirely and make the Champions League even bigger
You just know they’ve already thought about doing that.
*to talk into, not to use as a ransom. just so we’re clear.
UEFA might not be doing much to make the competition more exciting, but you could up your UEFA Cup interest by putting some money on it
 |
Soccer Forums | Team/International Results |  |
 |  |
Category: UEFA Cup
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share
      |
Comments
-
disagree about #6 and #7
Posted from
United States
-
With the changes to CL qualifying, I think there will be bigger teams in the CL next season.
Posted from
United States -
I’d like to see the Champions League back to what it used to be, a League of CHAMPIONS. Heavily agree with these.
Posted from
United States -
Agree MOST about 6 and 7. Fourth place teams making the CL is just ridiculous, and the UEFA Cup shouldn’t be a second-chance for CL losers to get a trophy. It should be a tournament on its own, with the smaller, mid-to-high level teams taking each other on.
Posted from
United States -
Ok Adidas could fix the ball issue. I believe their good at this. And they always come with insainly cool names for the balls (is that necesary). This looks like the FIFA vs Olimpic Football may I say FEUD for popularity. Its clear that the Champions League doesn’t want any kind competition. Olimpic Football and the Uefa Cup are understimated (a lot of people don’t care). Their like ugly sisters of footie championchips
Posted from
United States -
I actually enjoy the UEFA Cup more because of the actual clubs and more regional representation. You tend to get more upsets and clubs overcoming challenges – i.e. AC Omonia is ahead of Man City right 1-0 and City has a very solid lineup on the pitch today.
Posted from
Bulgaria -
Couldn’t agree more with #7.
Posted from
United States -
The thing is though, people would rather watch Fiorentina Vs Liverpool than watch Cluj Vs BATE.
Posted from
United States -
Absolutely right on #6 & #7, plus it would be funny to see a ‘big’ club being in the tournament.
Posted from
United States -
I agree with the most part.
How about make the CL for league winners. The champions of their championships, as one might call them. Like it used to be.
Posted from
United States -
I like #9, and I suspect the Tottenham Hotspurs and Evertons of the world would feel the same way — and spend more practice time on penalty kicks.
Posted from
United States -
Rob – unfortunately you’re right about modern fan in most regions. A shame “club” Football has nothing to do with its past.
Posted from
Bulgaria -
#7 and #9 are spot on. I actually enjoy the UEFA very much because it gives a chance to learn more about the up and coming clubs in Europe and learn some world geography while I’m at it..
Posted from
United States -
Fantastic and reasonable.
Posted from
Canada -
I think this was the last year for the Intertoto Cup.
Posted from
United States -
11. A tittie show at the halftime mark of each game. Let’s face it, titties always liven things up, which the new UEFA Cup will need.
Posted from
United States -
Um I believe this is the last year of the Intertoto. It’s kaput.
Posted from
United States -
thank you
Posted from
United States -
very thanks
Posted from
United States -
People who want #6 and #7 enforced, remember that the Champions League is more open than the European Cup exactly because the competition is better…
Remember the 70s and the 80s uptil the Heysel Disaster?
Let me remind you : 4 winning countries (Netherlands 4 times 70-73; Germany 4 times 74-77 and 83; England 7 times 78-82 and 84; Italy in 85), and even with only one club per country (in fact, quite often two, since the European Champions were sometimes not domestic champions the same year) only seven of those sixteen finals did not feature ONLY those four countries (Celtic 70, Pana 71, Athletico 74, Saint-Etienne 76, Brugge 78, Malmo 79, Real 81).
Pretty much, with the old rules, a team from one of the then-top leagues could get to the final if they had a nice draw, simply avoiding other top teams until the final. Liverpool 77 won 3-1 against Monchengladbach… Having previously beaten Crusaders FC 7-0, Trabzonspor 3-1, Saint-Etienne 3-2 and in the semi-final beaten Zurich 6-1. The following year, Liverpool retained the title playing only seven games… 5-1 home win against Dresden, followed by a 2-1 defeat without many key players away, 2-1 and 4-1 wins over Benfica, a 2-1 defeat against Monchengladbach, followed by a 3-0 win at Anfield that qualified them for the final, and in the final that can only be described as boring, with Brugges lacking seven first team players due to injury, Liverpool won 1-0…
You’re complaining about what? That one league has 3 semi-finalists? How is that any different from a semi-final with Austria Wien against Malmo, and Nottingham Forest against Koln? (1978-79) Forest-Koln was billed as a “final before the final”, exactly because -nobody- believed Malmo or Koln had a chance (and they proved not to, Malmo had a long injury list and played the now-famous “eleven men behind the ball” in yet another boring 1-0 final).
The only mildly unpredictable time was during the Heysel ban with two countries winning their first European Cup (and even then, Steua Bucharest had -only- participated in nine prior editions, and Red Star Belgrade -barely- 14, hardly making them newcomers to the competition)… It could be argued that Aston Villa’s win in 82 or Nottingham’s in 78 were greater surprises, since it was the first time either club competed in the European Cup that saw them lift the trophy in the final…
In 16 seasons, the Champions League has neither seen a country nor a club remain champions. I prefer to watch a competition where my club won’t turn up against teams that are comically inferior for more than half the games (Hibernians of Malta, Sarajevo, Gornic, Real Madrid, Benfica or Lodz, Barcelona, Brondby, Inter Milan, Juventus, Bayern Munich? I’m taking the latter, because I actually prefer to watch my team struggle to a 4-3 win over Juventus rather than watch them beat Hibernians of Malta 4-0, for some strange reason). Why should teams like Liverpool not be allowed to compete in the premier european competition, and clubs like Hibernians of Malta should? If Abramovic had invested in Hibernians of Malta instead of Chelsea, would you be more in favor of it? Or would it simply be worse, since he’d not have such competition in the domestic league, allowing him to concentrate harder on the nine games he needs to win in order to bring Malta their first European Cup? (Yes, -only- nine games including home and away) Add to that the fact that he wouldn’t have non-champions to break Chelsea of Malta’s winning streaks (2004-05 Liverpool weren’t champions, 2006-07 Liverpool and eventual winners Milan weren’t champions) and I believe Abramovic would have had a much easier time winning a European Cup with the old format. Champions’ League rewards clubs for being the best in the world, not for being the best in their back yard.
Posted from
United States
Comments are closed
Home 
