As we approach the midpoint of Year 2 in the updated UEFA Champions League, the effects of the 2024 transition to a 36-team, Swiss-style league phase have already proven to be revolutionary in European football.
A noteworthy incident occurred on the final matchday of the league phase, when Benfica goalkeeper Anatoliy Trubin achieved a spectacular feat by scoring a 98th-minute header against Real Madrid, thereby saving his team from elimination and securing a place in the knockout rounds. Interestingly, the complex structure of the tournament left even Trubin uncertain about the significance of his remarkable goal for Benfica’s Champions League prospects.
It’s evident that while no perfect solution exists, we can still strive for improvement! As the knockout playoff round is set for Tuesday and Wednesday, we posed a question to our writers: How would you reform the Champions League format to enhance its appeal?
Here are three intriguing suggestions from Mark Ogden, Gabriele Marcotti, and Bill Connelly, ranging from innovative ideas to more subtle enhancements.
Two mini-leagues leading to one massive playoff
Since revamping the traditional European Cup format in the early ’90s, UEFA has experimented with various versions of the Champions League. Despite these adjustments, the competition remains the pinnacle of club soccer, showing resilience amidst change.
The knockout rounds are where the real excitement lies, and this presents a challenge for UEFA to address. No matter how many times they redesign the group stages, the initial rounds can never replicate the thrill and tension of the classic two-leg, winner-takes-all encounters.
The excitement of Matchday 8 in the league phase this year stemmed from its knockout-like atmosphere, highlighted by Benfica’s 4-2 victory over Real Madrid—largely thanks to Trubin’s last-minute heroics.
– 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, and more
Considering all this, how can we revitalize the group/league phase format? Transitioning back to pure knockout rounds from the start isn’t feasible due to financial risks for top clubs; therefore, some form of group stage must remain.
Why not divide the league phase into two smaller leagues, each feeding into the knockout rounds, akin to the AFC and NFC in the NFL playoffs? Instead of a single 36-team league, we could have two sections of 18 teams each, with only the top two from each guaranteed a spot in the round of 16. The remaining 24 teams, 12 from each section, would enter a supersized playoff—the draw being completely open!
1:41
Leboeuf: Benfica’s goalkeeper scoring was a Champions League miracle
Jürgen Klinsmann and Frank Leboeuf react to Anatoliy Trubin’s last-minute goal that propelled Benfica into the Champions League playoffs.
With this structure, only the best teams would have an advantage, as lower finishers could meet any playoff team, leading to potential clashes with high-profile clubs like Real Madrid or lower-ranked teams such as Bodo/Glimt—entirely based on luck instead of seeding. Furthermore, all clubs would still compete in eight league phase matches, ensuring revenues remain unaffected.
Though it’s not an ideal solution—mediocre league performances could still allow teams to advance, and some games might remain inconsequential—my goal is to ensure that matches like Arsenal vs. PSG or Real Madrid vs. Bayern Munich in November carry more significance than they do currently. Limiting automatic advancement to two spots would increase tension at the top, and we’d all benefit from seeing elite teams competing with urgency. — Mark Ogden
Clubs designate their opponents
Let’s remain realistic: reverting back to the one league/one team format is out of the question, nor will we shift to pure knockout matches (after all, we essentially have a separate knockout tournament post-group phase).
I don’t have major issues with the current format; rather, the key problem lies with seeding—specifically, that it lacks true meaning!
For instance, last year Liverpool topped their group, only to face Paris Saint-Germain—who finished well below them. Meanwhile, Real Madrid finished 11th but faced Manchester City (22nd). Both teams struggled, but for what it’s worth, had they misplaced just one spot, they could have faced much easier opponents.
The current approach of ranking teams by singular points or goal difference doesn’t reflect their relative strength very effectively. So why not allow clubs to choose their opponents?
Here’s how it could function: if Real Madrid finishes ninth, they would be the top-ranked team in the knockout playoff. Instead of automatically facing the 24th-ranked Benfica, they’d have the option to choose any playoff team. Then there’s Internazionale in 10th, who can select their opponent as well.
This approach adds a tangible reward for finishing higher and could turn into a thrilling TV event: imagine giving representatives from each team one minute to make their choice. Plus, it ensures that top teams remain separated for as long as possible.
Then, this process could repeat in the round of 16: Arsenal would have first choice, followed by Bayern Munich, and so on. Additionally, allow the higher-ranked teams to determine whether they want to play at home or away first, which could influence strategy based on scheduling or style of play. Give them the option to select whether they prefer playing on Tuesday or Wednesday, too.
These elements would be earned through performance and would add significance to every match, reducing the likelihood of clubs going through the motions late in the group stage if they know they aren’t advancing to the top eight. — Gabriele Marcotti
Actually, the new format is … mostly satisfactory, but let’s enhance the seeding
In all honesty, I believe the most significant change should be a shift in perspective. While the eight-match league phase may introduce minimal jeopardy, it has also led to some of the most compelling narratives this season. With eight games, teams like Benfica and Bodo/Glimt managed to recover from early setbacks and progress within the tournament. Teams that may have faltered earlier, like Pafos and Union Saint-Gilloise, nearly found themselves on similar paths. They improved as the competition unfolded, and this lack of intense jeopardy actually enriched the viewing experience. Approaching the league phase as a true season—albeit a brief one—encourages twists and turns that make this format enjoyable, even if eliminations aren’t looming in October.
However, if we are to pursue changes, I propose a few minor adjustments.
First, for the nations that send four or more teams, I would advocate for at least one matchup against domestic rivals within the league phase. If we’re in an environment where the Premier League generates substantial revenue and can attract top talent, this setup could further exacerbate their advantages if they skip such encounters. It would have certainly complicated matters for Premier League teams to claim five of the top eight spots if, for instance, Chelsea had to travel to face Arsenal, or Manchester City had to contend with their challenging rival (Tottenham Hotspur). And if an unexpected El Clasico or Der Klassiker appeared in November, who would argue against that?
Furthermore, while various American-style enhancements are being discussed, I would take it a step further in one area: let’s implement hard seeding.
A considerable discrepancy exists between drawing, for instance, seventh-place Sporting CP (now 16th in Opta’s power rankings) and facing eighth-place Manchester City (second) this year. Last season, the vast difference between top-seeded Liverpool playing 15th-ranked PSG and a hypothetical draw with 16th-place Benfica—or facing 21st-ranked Celtic instead of 22nd-place Manchester City—was evident. There’s enough randomness already affecting the final standings; we don’t need one last twist from the draw. Let’s align the matchups based on standings: in the round of 16, the first-place team meets the winner between 16th and 17th, with the second-place team facing the winner of 15th and 18th, and so on.
These aren’t drastic suggestions, as I see little necessity for extensive alterations. We enjoy a mini-season where substantial plot twists can unfold, culminating in dramatic matchdays at the league’s conclusion before entering the expansive knockout tournament spread over several months. While the competition’s expansion primarily seeks greater financial gain, as often happens in this sport, that relentless pursuit of revenue has inadvertently gifted us with more thrilling soccer. — Bill Connelly