Why, yes, I did watch the UEFA Cup final last night, and what a smart little encounter it was. The game was so good, in fact, that for long stretches I forgot to think of it as a referendum on the entire concept of an alternative tournament to the Champions League, and, heretically, enjoyed it as merely a football match. It was slicked-down, buttoned-up, spit-shined, and ready to hop in all the puddles as it made its way across the street, secure in its oversized Paddington raincoat. At the restaurant, its mother kept dipping her napkin in her water glass to scrub off a smudge on its cheek, but it scowled and flinched away. It was eating a scone. It didn't mind getting dirty.
I had a hard time not rooting for Shakhtar, mostly because I like the cool crossing and crisp free kicks of Darijo Srna and, as I don't actively follow the Прем'єр-Ліга, or any league whose name looks like something that would be written on an ancient tablet in a Nicolas Cage family adventure, I don't usually get to see them outside Croatian internationals. But I also wanted to root for Werder Bremen, because they beat so many strong teams to reach the final, including A.C. Milan. So I was a house divided against itself, but fortunately was able to prove that a building in that condition is capable of sitting on the couch.
It seemed clear from the beginning that Shakhtar were going to win, since the only thing capable of stopping their attacks, apart from some neat emergency goalkeeping by Tim Wiese, were Fernandinho's insanely vehement crosses, a few of which looked like they were meant for the gravitational constraints of Jupiter. (Shakhtar were a Brazilian-heavy side, as you may have heard, but they weren't that Brazilian, if you know what I mean.) And when Luiz Adriano scored a deeply weird first goal during which the entire Bremen team seemed to be performing some sort of Cirque d'Soleil routine in which they would spinningly fling themselves at the ball but without actually making contact with it, a two-or-three-to-nil Shakhtar victory seemed inevitable. So credit to Naldo, or, really, to Andriy Pyato, who sportingly dropped Naldo's free kick, for making a match of it. Extra time was a bit much, but it was the last-ever UEFA Cup, kind of, so you couldn't blame it for wanting to last as long as possible.
Next year begins the UEFA Europa League, which still sounds like a minor aunt from My Big Fat Greek Wedding, but which will soon be bringing us…probably about the same level of interest and excitement as the UEFA Cup does now. I'm mildly curious about the rebranding effort (much less so about the format change, which will introduce a miserable-sounding 48-team group stage), but I still think essentially what I thought when all this was announced: that the only way to improve the UEFA Cup would be to make it quicker, more fun, and more colorful; making it bigger, slower, and more focused on legacies and history only exacerbates what's unappealing about it in the first place. I'd love to see more matches like the one tonight, which was exemplified by the stray cat that mysteriously kept appearing in the stands and around the pitch. The whole thing was a fanciful spectacle, and you didn't need to believe that a billion people were watching to enjoy it. But UEFA want you to believe that this tournament is about challenging history and shaking the pillars of the establishment, which is possibly the single thing that least took place last night.
My Ideal UEFA Cup Format:
- straight Knockout with the Champions League teams from the start, with only 1 game;
- 512 Teams (9 games);
Every game matters, every team has a chance. The better sides could field weakened team (in carling cup fashion) while playing away at La Valetta or at Luxembourg. That could only help create more shockers. I can see the Final now: PSG – Gençlerbirligli
I think the UEFA Cup is the equivalent of March Madness in the States (the college basketball playoffs).
You get a lot of young and talented players still learning the game, but without the weight of lofty expectations crushing them into 10 yard back passes at the first sign of danger.
I also enjoyed the Zenit St. Petersburg romp not too long ago
Both of you — Exactly; this is my whole point. The more the UEFA Cup turns into March Madness, the better. "Every game matters" should absolutely be its mantra. It needs that kind of trumped-up intensity to make it fun despite the fact that everyone knows it's a second-tier tournament. UEFA's plans for the Europa League, however, seem to do the exact opposite: introduce a more complex format with more group-stage games and less clarity about where it's all going.
Am I going to watch Fimleikafélag Hafnarfjarðar play MTÜ SK FC Levadia Tallinn for point increments during an interminable home-and-away group stage? Never, ever, ever. Am I going to watch them play if they're fighting for their lives in the knowledge that the loser is out of the tournament? I might!
The more gradual and multi-phased this tournament is, the more tedious it's going to seem to everyone who doesn't have a club to support in it (and as things stand now, plenty of people who do have a club in it find it tedious). We need speed, fun, the chance of upsets, and an end to group stages and two-legged ties. Doesn't that sound like fun? Why is it so hard for UEFA to see that?
Because UEFA lives in the belief that every game in an european competition is the sole reason why football was invented.
The new Europa format reminds me of the tedious second-group-stage-era of the Champions League, which was about as comprehensible as watching David Bowie's Labrynth while sober.
"We need speed, fun, the chance of upsets, and an end to group stages and two-legged ties. Doesn't that sound like fun? Why is it so hard for UEFA to see that?"
Because group stages make too much money for all the wrong people.
I would love to see UEFA turn both these competitions into giant brackets with home-and-away ties in each round, but that might just be because I'm such a big college basketball fan who enjoys filling out a bracket every March, even when I get it horribly wrong. (*cough*Memphis*cough*) It would heighten the tension of every match and make people want to watch even more. It might also balance out the distribution of funds. Liverpool won't make as much if they're upset by Shaktar Donetsk in the round of 64.
And that's precisely why it won't happen, because the big clubs who benefit the most from group stages have far too much to lose. The moment UEFA dumped group stages in favor of a bracket or a straight knockout competition, the breakaway would be on faster than you could say Super League. So until the world just gets so bored with the Champions League that they stop watching, we're stuck with it.
Good point Dave – right now UEFA is caught in the American Football College Bowl vice.
However, the group stages also afford more matches to lower sides which would probably lose in the first knockout round anyway. Thus, from a socialist perspective, more group matches would mean more guaranteed games for the champions of Belarus and Scandinavian countries.
Still, from a fan's perspective, the group stages are boring until the games tilter towards a knife's edge, with survival on the line.
Elliot – But do those teams make money with their games? Remember that travelling can be hugely expensive for a small side. In Portugal (my place), most teams dread the european competitions because they represent an expense and not a income. I think that is true with most clubs in Italy and Spain, and maybe even in England, Germany and France, not to name the Maltas and Latvias of this continent.
As such i don't think that guaranteeing more games, with less sporting value will improve the teams economic situation….
Good point Joao – for very small sides, the traveling and added games can really tax their budgets. But they do still get revenue from additional home matches in terms of ticket sales. But I'm pretty sure TV deals is where the money is, not ticket sales anymore….