Should the champions league be exclusively for champions?

Question

and not for teams finishing second and third in their national leagues

Answer 1

Well, quite clearly not, as teams often win the Champions League when they aren't Champions in their own country. Take Liverpool as a prime and obvious example. They usually do pretty well in Europe, but never produce on the 'home front'. I think the Champions league needs to have outsiders, and to have enough teams to sustain the group and knock out stages.

Answer 2

Yes it should - if not, change the name!

Answer 3

No, if you notice, it's not a league either.  It's real name is the european cup and it should be about watching the best teams in Europe.  The 'Champions League' is a nickname that even UEFA have adopted and started using. As qualification is earned in the previous year the squads of those taking part changes so to ensure that the best teams are involved more than one team is taken from the stronger leagues.  For instance, Man Utd were the best team in England last year, but who's to say they will be this year.

Also, the team who finishes 4th (or 14th for that matter) is very likely to be a better outfit than the champions of Iceland.  The amount of teams that each league sends is constantly reviewed to account for changes in league strengths, so that if the French league dramatically improves, they will get more spots in the competition.

It essentially comes down to a choice between wanting to have the best teams and the best football or wanting to make one of the names for the European Cup more technically accurate.  I know which one I'm going for.

Answer 4

no because it will be borinng and we will have same teams in  the cup which will be boring

Answer 5

Ideally YES, take it back to the days of the European Cup (a straight knockout competition between the champions of every european nation), Oh! wait a minute that would mean less income for Uefa less sponshireship & more tickets for the real fans.

Answer 6

Yes by the very definition of the word Champions. If they want others in it they should rename the tournament the "Champions along with 2nd 3rd 4th placed teams league" !! :)

Answer 7

It seems reasonable but less teams = less money and you know how important that is!

I should also point out that restricting it to champions would have meant that Man Utd would not have won it in 1999 and Liverpool in 2005.  

Answer 8

HU CARES

CHELSEAS GONNA WIN!!!!

Answer 9

Yes, finishing fourth in the league should not qualify you for the champions league. Simply because you are not champions if you finish fourth.

Did you hear that Rafa?!?!?!

Answer 10

I think the 3rd spot or 4th in some leagues should be given to the national cup winners. This way the money is spread out more.

Answer 11

no. You can ask any Big Four in England, Spain and Italy League to play with the champions of 'small' league like Cyprus. The Big Four will still win...

Answer 12

Yes, of course, less team, less games, a lot of big players missing out. It would be a a month tournament, with the same teams winning it every year, without the magic of giant killing and unexpected wins. Sarcasm by the way. Of course not. Sure change the name if you want, but making it just the champions...booring. Two of the best finals, 1999 and 2005. They would never have happened. In my opinion that is a pathetic idea because it would lose it's glamour and reputation and limit the amount of people who take interest in it.

Answer 13

In an ideal world yes, however as we all know football does not live in an ideal world. It is revenue and tv based which means that the the 2nd, 3rd and 4th teams in the major European leagues will always be favoured over the champions of the lesser known leagues. Unfair possibly but true

Answer 14

Actually , it should be exclusively for champions.

It is ovious from the name " champions league " .

Take real madrid as an example they have the record of number of wins while they r the best in whole Europe.