With the Premier League's current top two clubs, Manchester City and Manchester United, commencing their involvement in UEFA's secondary competition this week, here are five reasons why the Europa League cannot be fully accepted as an important competition by serious fans of football:
The presence of teams who haven't really achieved anything
Arguably the biggest problem with the competition is the number of teams taking part who have achieved little to justify being able to take part in what is supposedly a prestigious UEFA tournament. The team that finishes sixth in Serie A qualifies, the team that finishes fifth in the Portuguese Liga qualifies. Hell, the teams that finish third in the leagues of Andorra, Luxembourg and the Faroe Islands qualify. You can be runner-up in a domestic cup competition, which could mean achieving as little as a five-match unbeaten spell followed by a defeat in the final, and still qualify. Are these teams worthy of representing their countries in a continental showcase competition? No. What galls me the most is the presence of three teams due to 'fair play'. OK, it is great to promote 'Respect' and all that within the game, but the system is flawed. When Fulham qualified by this route it was because England's league had been allocated a place due to the country's fair play performance in European competition. But Fulham hadn't finished top of the Fair Play league, they were merely the highest placed club not to have already qualified for Europe. Is that an achievement worthy of a European place? Not in any way.
Comparatively slim financial gains
The Europa League simply doesn't have the financial benefits which make the Champions League so appealing and important to the top clubs. For example in 2009-10 AS Roma reached the last 32 of the Europa League, having failed to qualify for the Champions League. This meant they lost £21.3m in broadcasting revenue alone, compared to the previous season where they had reached the Champions League's last 16. Not to mention the further revenue lost by smaller attendances on match days and lesser sales of merchandise. UEFA's distribution to Europa League participants is less than 20% of what is paid to the Champions League teams, despite there being considerably more teams in the secondary competition. This lack of financial incentive means teams are often better off chasing domestic glory and Champions League qualification for the following season to earn cash, instead of putting their efforts into winning the Europa League.
Overblown number of teams and games
Another problem with the Europa League is the sheer number of teams that take enter the competition, and therefore the number of games the teams have to play. 48 teams take part in the group stage alone, and before this there is a play-off round which consists of 76 teams (another ten drop out of the Champions League play-off round to take part). There are also three qualifying rounds and by the time the knockout phase starts in February there are still 32 teams in the tournament, the same amount that start the Champions League group stage in September! If a team entered through Fair Play, in the first qualifying round, and reached the final, they would play a whopping 23 games - that's only seven less than the entire Portuguese domestic league schedule. Too many games, many of which feature less-than-interesting teams, means lack of interest.
Champions League dropouts entering the competition
The simple fact that teams drop into the competition after being knocked out of another competition midway through the season completely undermines the Europa League's validity. It is explicitly stating that it is an inferior competition to the Champions League, suitable for that competition's failures. The teams that drop in, as often as not, have little interest in being in the competition and while it may bring some bigger names into the fold, it is unfair on the teams that have been competing in it from the start. As Harry Redknapp recently put it 'you don't get knocked out of the third round of the FA Cup and find yourselves in the Carling Cup semi-finals' and while this analogy doesn't quite work perfectly, he has a point. If the tournament is to gain more respect, this is one element which certainly needs to change.
'Thursday nights, Channel Five'
Finally, this phrase has been chanted at Manchester City and Manchester United voraciously by mocking fans of rival teams since the league-leading duo's group stage failure in December. But there is indeed a genuine stigma attached to both parts of the chant. Firstly, playing on Thursday nights is bad news for everybody. League fixtures are shifted to Sunday which is never ideal for fans, if for no other reason than habit. In weeks with big Champions League games on Tuesday and Wednesday, and Premier League fixtures on weekends, Thursday is a night when fewer paying spectators are likely to turn up and fewer viewers are likely to turn on the box. Which is why Channel Five, a considerably smaller and financially weaker broadcaster than the likes of Sky Sports and BBC, take up the first choice rights ahead of ITV4 and ESPN. It is a vicious circle, as association with the smaller broadcaster makes the competition seem less important (and attract less viewers), and the less importance attached to the competition the more likely the smaller broadcaster is to carry on showing it (and attract still less viewers).
My proposed solution
This competition clearly needs serious rethinking. I say bring back something resembling the Cup Winner's Cup of old. It will be teams that have achieved something in a straight knockout ( so not too many games) with more financial incentive and no Champions League dropouts. And where possible, play it on non-Champions League weeks. If only UEFA had any sense...
