So you'd see the Champions of Malta play rather than the Russian runners-up, a move which would reduce the quality of opposition in the competition. Lets not forget it was CSKA Moscow's great performance winning the 2005 UEFA cup which has helped the Russian league gain deserved recognition and a couple of extra coefficient points to bolster their collective Champions League ambitions.
That logic is so flawed. The amount of professional teams in England is more than the amount of professional teams in Albania, and the quality of English sides is far better. By your logic the fact that England has more teams than Albania, it makes "reasonable sense" that England have more teams in the Champions League than Albania![]()
Yes, but they don't upset the odds regularly enough to justify say Slavia Prague's entry in the competition over say, Liverpool's. You want the best teams on the continent competing for arguably the biggest accolade in club football, not the fricking Faroe Islands champions, just because they won their league but would probably get turned over by a Leyton Orient under-18's squad. People get far too caught up in the name of the competition, which in the context of the spectacle, is wholly irrelevant. The Champions League is designed to bring the best clubs in Europe together and see who wins. These smaller footballing nations have their chance in the Intertoto and UEFA Cups, and only the Russians and the Turks have really made any impact from Eastern Europe in recent years, by winning the competitions, and that is reflected in the fact they have extra qualifying places in the Champions League now, compared to when it started.




Reply With Quote