The improvements in the Champions League signify the end of meritocracy
The planned Champions League adjustments from UEFA aren't as severe as some had feared, but the days of pure meritocracy are over.
It's been almost a year since the European Super League was first announced, and fans' outrage surely sent a message to those in charge of football that supporters of the game should be heard.
You'd think UEFA would be particularly aware of this; after all, the demonstrations in England helped them more than anyone else. Without this intervention, it's possible that they could have been pushed through.
We are now looking at a future for European club football that is designed to favor just the wealthiest clubs, leaving UEFA in a weak position.
UEFA's proposed Champions League format
UEFA is scheduled to finalize their plans for a rebuilt and expanded Champions League a year after this specific saga.
From the start of the 2024-25 season, the traditional group stages will be phased out and replaced by a 'Swiss model' in which each side will be guaranteed 10 matches.
This necessitates 36 teams in the group stages rather than the existing 32, resulting in four additional spots. One of these will go to the winner of the competition's 'champion pathway' (preliminary rounds).
The other will go to the fifth best-performing league in the competition, most likely France.
UEFA are expanding the Champions League to 36 teams in 2024 and clubs who finish 5th in the Premier League could still qualify thanks to their co-efficient.
That really showed those pesky European Super League teams.
There's nothing particularly controversial about these two methods of qualification for the Champions League. But the way the two teams for the remaining spots are going to be selected is certain to cause controversy.
The principle that clubs should qualify for competitions solely on the basis of merit was one of the main arguments against the European Super League. The decision to protect founder member clubs from 'relegation' outside the competition was seen by many as being antithetical to the very principles of sporting competition.
So what is UEFA doing with the other two Champions League group stage spots, both of which are incredibly lucrative?
They're...distributing them to two clubs based on their historical coefficient.
To put it another way, the governing body is pushing through a watered-down version of the same principle, with no more consultation than what was there before the European Super League.
Cheat codes must be offered to the 'largest clubs'.
All that has changed is that Champions League, rather than the European Super League, will be the final beneficiary of their presence.
It's almost as if they didn't care about 'sporting integrity' in the first place, and were only concerned with maintaining control and preserving their profit margin.
Two clubs will be accepted into the Champions League group stages under proposals that are set to be ratified this week.
These clubs will not have qualified for the Champions League through normal means, but will rank highest in the coefficients (based on historic performances over the previous five years).
However, this isn't an 'automatic' admission to the wealthiest underachievers.
To qualify, clubs must first finish outside their domestic league's normal Champions League spots (for example, fifth place in the Premier League). Secondly, the team above them should have qualified in the same manner.
These ideas aren't as horrible as they could have been, to be sure. One of the main worries that clubs had about this allocation was that the historic performance element of it might have trumped the current league performance.
Allowing larger under-performing clubs to leapfrog smaller clubs that have performed better. The proposals put out by UEFA do, to some extent, address such objections.
However, there are still several areas to be concerned about. The Champions League's latter stages have long been dominated by a small group of the world's most powerful leagues.
Porto were the last side to reach the Final that did not hail from England, Spain, Italy, Germany, or France, and that happened 18 years ago. It was Ajax before that, and that was a quarter-century ago.
PSG President Nasser Al-Khelaifi says there is no potential for the European Super League to be revived, with "unity found." https://t.co/WfP0KyOXSU
As can be seen from this list, awarding two additional spots based on historical performance will almost certainly favor leagues who already dominate the competition.
Then there's the possibility that this move will be the tip of the iceberg in terms of eliminating meritocracy in European club football qualification. It is a valid criticism to argue that the decision to allow teams to enter based on their 'historical performance' is the start of a new way of doing things.
Is it reasonable to expect that the period for judging historical coefficient will not be increased further as soon as UEFA deems it politically convenient to do so?
If UEFA feels that simply not being part of the European Super League has earned them the trust of the European footballing public, they are definitely delusory. They don't appear to have won over Barcelona, Real Madrid, or Juventus, whose sense of entitlement is as strong as ever.
They don't appear to have been discouraged from carrying out their coup d'etat.
Whatever direction we look, European club football appears to be inexorably heading in one direction: the best interests of the wealthy clubs.
That has been the norm in European club football for the past three decades. There is little in UEFA's planned Champions League revisions to suggest that this could change.