Does diversity of winners matter?

I loved the Champion's League as a teenager. Back then you simply didn't see players from other leagues outside of international tournaments. Having the chance to watch players like Romario or teams like Ajax 95 on free to air TV was amazing. I probably watched every available second of action.

This pretty much continued until the early 2000s when I started to lose interest. Maybe it was familiarity breeding contempt. I could now see these players more often and it seemed to be the same teams every year. There also seemed little jeopardy with seeded groups generally a procession for the bigger teams.

I would however still watch the knockout games. 

But I haven't watched any of it since the last free to air final which was Dortmund vs Bayern.

Why?

Surely it is the best football ever? You love football, you must love the Champions League? All the best players playing against each other in Titanic clashes available in 4k quality? What is not to like?

If we take 2000 as the year the Champions League expanded (it has changed several times but the expansion to 3, then 4 places was around then) we can see why I have come to loathe the competition.

It has replaced competition with oligopoly. 

There were always dominant "big" teams with support from glory hunters around the country, and even internationally. What has changed is that global exposure has allowed these teams to monetize this support like never before. Once upon a time teams made money through ticket sales and a bit of advertising from local companies. It didn't really make that much difference to the bottom line if you had big pockets of support in Norway or Australia. 

These teams were always richer. But not so much richer. A good group of players could develop over a few years and make a title charge if things went their way.

Where the Champion's League has changed things is a classic example of the Matthew Effect, the rich have become richer. Domestic leagues have become less and less equal.

Let's look at the teams who finished in the top 4 positions between 1980-1999 and how often they did so:

1980-1999

Teams that have finished in the top 4 of their league

England: 

Aston Villa x 4,

Ipswich x 2

Arsenal x 10

West Brom

Liverpool x 15

Manchester United x15

Tottenham x5

Watford

Southampton

Nottingham Forest x 4

Everton x 4

West Ham

Norwich x2

Crystal Palace

Leeds x 4

Sheffield Wednesday

Blackburn Rovers x 3

Newcastle x 3

Chelsea x 2

2000-2019

England:

Manchester United x 15

Arsenal x 15

Liverpool x 12

Leeds

Newcastle x 2

Chelsea x 14

Everton

Tottenham x 6,

Manchester City x 9

Leicester   

Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal have been dominant forces in both time periods. But it is below that tier where things have really changed. The "provincial" clubs with mainly local support bases have all but disappeared. 

Chelsea and Manchester City have joined the elite group through spending billions of pounds which has enabled them to access CL money and also grow their sponsorship income. Tottenham now generates twice as much revenue as Everton each year and have a £1b new stadium to further extend the gap, the other clubs even more. 

This isn't just true in England, can you imagine Hellas Verona or Deportivo La Coruna winning titles again? 

Italy, France and Germany are dominated by single clubs, Spain by two or three, even the smaller nations are becoming dominated by single clubs who have such a revenue boost from CL qualification (and associated sponsor income) that external financial backing is the only way to challenge. The irony is that the PL remains "competitive" because it is an oligopoly, not a monopoly, and domestic clubs are sufficiently rich through a fairly egalitarian TV income distribution (until John Henry gets his way).

The stars may align once in a generation and see someone like Leicester City emerge for a one-off season (and let us not forget huge external funding from a Thai billionaire to get to that point) but the consistent period of 3 or 4 years of building a team up and winning a title are now gone. 

Why? For a start the dreaded words every fan of a midtable (or below) club hears every time a player emerges...."I want to play Champion's League football"

Even when someone like Southampton does everything right in recruitment terms they get raided for their best players if they look like becoming a club capable of challenging the elite. There were more ex-Southampton players in the CL final than had come through either of the finalist's youth systems.

To me, football has always been about hopes and dreams. I want the kid growing up supporting his local team to have a chance of seeing them win a cup or challenge for a league. That was a realistic possibility once upon a time. 

The globalisation of football has stopped that happening. If you are picking a team to support you want one who wins things. This is a tale as old as time. I didn't pick Tranmere to support, I chose Everton. I don't blame the glory hunters for their choices. But realistically the only way that clubs without international supporter bases can seek to ever have any glory is being used as a reputation cleanser for a nation with dubious human rights records or an oligarch. 

Silvio Berlusconi, one of the architects of the Champions League envisaged a time when people would support one of a handful of clubs around the world, perhaps additionally supporting their local team. I think that time is already here.  

Viewing figures and "fan engagement" show the takeover of football by capital has been a complete success. And fans are still turning out in their tens of thousands at lower league games all around the world so does it matter that they will likely never see their club win anything? Will all the Ipswich fans I know who reminisce about the glory years of Bobby Robson and the early 80s be replaced by a generation who talk about the glory days of George Burley. Will the hopes and dreams of fan bases just become slightly lessened?  Or will the fan base itself be lessened? 

So enough moaning what would be my solution?

I would replace the Champion's League with an FA Cup style competition open to all top-flight teams in Europe. Like the FA cup the "big 5" league teams would come in at the third round stage equivalent.

Yes it would make income less assured for the big clubs. Boo hoo. They may have to keep their squads to 25 rather than 40 world class players. Shock, horror, some may move to play regular football now the chance of playing in European games is available to all. 

Why should a Crystal Palace fan be denied the chance to go to a European away game when his Croydon born and bred Liverpool supporting fan sings about "conquering Europe 6 times" despite never having been to Anfield let alone Madrid?

I don't even buy the argument the quality would be lessened.  If the best players were spread around more as the CL football wasn't guaranteed every match would be of higher quality. 

And as this money wouldn't be guaranteed diversity would return to leagues as the richest clubs have to reduce their spending. We might even see a Hellas Verona, Deportivo La Coruna or Nottingham Forest winning their domestic league again.