Three potential adjustments to improve the Champions League format

We are currently at the midpoint of the second year of the restructured UEFA Champions League, and we have already seen the significant effects of the 2024 transition to a 36-team, Swiss-model league phase, which is unprecedented in Europe.

For instance, the concluding matchday of this year’s league phase showcased Benfica’s goalkeeper Anatoliy Trubin, who made headlines by scoring a 98th-minute header against Real Madrid, preventing elimination and advancing the Portuguese team into the knockout rounds. Conversely, the new format has become so intricate that even Trubin was unaware of the crucial nature of his goal for Benfica’s Champions League aspirations.

It is evident that a flawless solution does not exist, but that does not imply we should not attempt to improve! With the knockout playoff round scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, we posed the question to our writers: How would you amend the Champions League format, considering what might be feasible?

Here are three intriguing suggestions from Mark Ogden, Gabriele Marcotti, and Bill Connelly, varying from creative to subtly impactful.

Two mini-leagues, one massive playoff round

Since the overhaul of the traditional European Cup format in the early 1990s, UEFA has introduced various versions of the Champions League. Despite the modifications, the tournament remains the pinnacle of club football, and it has yet to be fundamentally broken.

However, the knockout stages are where the excitement truly unfolds. This presents a challenge for UEFA, as no matter how many times they refresh the group stages, those initial rounds will never possess the same thrill and stakes as classic two-leg, winner-takes-all matchups.

The only reason Matchday 8 of the league phase was so captivating was due to its knockout-like atmosphere, exemplified by Benfica’s 4-2 victory over Real Madrid, highlighted by Trubin’s last-minute goal, which was as thrilling as any knockout fixture.

– Ogden: Real Madrid broke Mourinho. Now he could break them in UCL
– UCL knockout round analysis, predictions
– Best Champions League tifos, 2025-26: Bob Marley, Haaland as a Viking, more

With this in mind, how can we revitalize the format to bring more excitement to the group/league stage? We are unlikely to revert to straight knockouts from the outset—there’s too much risk and insufficient guaranteed revenue for top clubs to endorse that—so some form of group stage is necessary.

Why not divide the league phase into two sections, with two leagues leading into the knockout rounds, similar to how the AFC and NFC operate in the NFL playoffs? Instead of a cumbersome 36-team league, create two 18-team divisions, with only the top two from each guaranteed a spot in the round of 16. The remaining 24—12 from each division—would enter a large playoff round, featuring an open draw!

play1:41Leboeuf: Benfica’s goalkeeper scoring was a Champions League miracle

Jürgen Klinsmann and Frank Leboeuf respond to Anatoliy Trubin’s last-minute goal that propelled Benfica into the Champions League playoffs.

We should ensure that only the top teams gain an advantage, so if you finish outside the top two, you could face any opponent in the playoff. You might end up playing Real Madrid or Bodo/Glimt, but it would depend on the luck of the draw rather than a position-based seeding. Additionally, all teams would still participate in eight league phase matches, ensuring no decrease in match revenue.

This format would still not be perfect. Too many teams could still qualify with a lackluster league phase, and one could argue that there would still be a number of relatively inconsequential matches. However, I want encounters like Arsenal vs. PSG or Real Madrid vs. Bayern Munich in November to carry more significance than they currently do. Limiting automatic spots to just two would heighten the tension at the top, and what we all desire is to see the top teams competing with intensity. — Mark Ogden

Clubs get to choose their opponents

We are asked to be realistic here, so keep that in mind. We are not returning to the days of one league/one team, nor are we going back to purely straight knockouts. (Moreover, we effectively have a separate straight knockout tournament following the group stage anyway.)

I don’t believe there is much wrong with the existing format; rather, the primary issue lies with the seeding. Specifically, it lacks meaningfulness!

Last year, Liverpool topped their group stage, and their “reward” was a matchup against Paris Saint-Germain, who finished 15th (and eliminated the Reds). Similarly, Real Madrid, who finished 11th, faced Manchester City (22nd). While both teams underperformed, that was a “penalty” for both. Had Real Madrid finished just one position lower, they would have faced—no offense—Celtic. Which matchup would you prefer?

When we rank teams in the group stage based on single points (or, even worse, goal difference), it does not provide a precise evaluation of their relative strength. Therefore, let’s make the seedings significant: allow clubs to select their opponents.

How would this function? Real Madrid finished ninth, making them the top-ranked team in the knockout round playoffs. Instead of being compelled to play the 24th team (Benfica), they can choose any playoff team. Next, Internazionale in 10th would also have the option to select their opponent.

Perhaps Real Madrid would prefer to avoid facing Jose Mourinho again so soon. Maybe Inter, matched against Bodo/Glimt, would rather not travel north of the Arctic Circle to play on an artificial pitch in February. Whatever the rationale, this would provide a club with a meaningful incentive for finishing higher, in addition to creating a television event: envision giving a representative from each team 60 seconds “on the clock” to choose their opponent. Furthermore, it would naturally ensure that the stronger teams are kept apart for as long as possible.

This process would then be repeated in the round of 16: Arsenal would have the first pick, followed by Bayern Munich, and so forth. While we are at it, let the higher-ranked team decide whether they want to play at home or away first. We assume that playing at home second is advantageous, but some may prefer otherwise, whether due to fixture congestion, style of play, or other factors. Additionally, allow them to choose whether they want to play on Tuesday or Wednesday.

These “sporting advantages” are rewards that can be earned on the pitch and are genuinely significant. They reduce the likelihood that clubs will underperform or settle for a draw late in the group stage once they realize they are not making the top eight. — Gabriele Marcotti

Actually, the new format is … mostly fine, but let’s make the seeding more concrete

In all honesty, I believe the most significant change we can implement is a shift in mindset. A large, eight-match league phase does indeed offer minimal jeopardy, but it has also produced some of the best narratives of this season. With eight matches, both Benfica and Bodo/Glimt managed to overcome early challenges and find their rhythm in the competition. In fact, Pafos and Union Saint-Gilloise nearly achieved the same. They improved as they gained confidence, and that absence of jeopardy actually enhanced our viewing experience. Treating the league phase as a genuine season—albeit a brief one—with opportunities for twists and surprises makes this format quite enjoyable, even if we know that no one will be eliminated in October.

If we are committed to making adjustments, however, I have a couple of minor suggestions.

First, for countries that provide four or more participants, I would permit at least one match against a domestic rival in the league phase. If we are to exist in a scenario where the Premier League generates the majority of the revenue and can attract most of the top players, it actually benefits them further to avoid facing each other. It would certainly have been more challenging for Premier League teams to secure five of the top eight spots in the table if, for instance, Chelsea had to visit Arsenal, or Manchester City had to confront their bogey team (Tottenham Hotspur). And if we happen to have a random extra El Clasico or Der Klassiker added to the November schedule, who would object?

Meanwhile, although there are numerous Americanized elements being proposed, I would actually advocate for going even further in one specific aspect. Rather than eliminating seeding, I would enforce hard seeding across the board!

There is a potentially significant difference between drawing, for example, seventh-place Sporting CP (currently 16th in Opta’s power rankings) and eighth-place Manchester City (second) this year, or 17th-place Borussia Dortmund (19th) and 18th-place Olympiacos (45th). Last year, there was a substantial difference in top-seeded Liverpool drawing 15th-place PSG instead of 16th-place Benfica, or 21st-place Celtic instead of 22nd-place Manchester City. There is already a considerable amount of randomness inherent in how the final table appears—we do not need one last surge of it with the draw. Let the table dictate everything: In the round of 16, the first-place teams would play the winners of No. 16 and No. 17, No. 2 would face the winners of No. 15 and No. 18, and so on.

These are not drastic changes because, frankly, I don’t believe much needs altering. We engage in a mini-season long enough to experience genuine plot twists and developments, we have a few thrilling matchdays at the conclusion of the league phase, and then we have a substantial bracket guiding us through several months of action. The expansion of the competition was primarily driven by the relentless pursuit of increased revenue, but as often occurs in this sport, the relentless chase for profit has resulted in more enjoyable soccer for us to watch. — Bill Connelly