Originally Posted by wal28:
“My personal feel is that it adds to the diversity of the competition, although this doesn't appear to be something that UEFA seem overly fussed about”
I think UEFA are (or certainly were) quite keen on improving the diversity / variety of the competition but the threat of the big clubs going their own way is now forcing them down a certain route. This isn't a blank page competition design anymore; whatever UEFA thinks is the perfect target operating model is now irrelevant and has been superseded by a set of compromises to keep the larger clubs (businesses) inside the tent. Bit of a shame that.
Martin Samuel has written eloquently on these subjects for a number of years now - although I stopped reading his columns when he left the Times for the Mail. He was also opposed to Financial Fair Play for the same reasons - entrenchment of established wealth causing a competitive imbalance.
Football is constantly walking a tightrope on matters such as these. It will never go down the US Sports route of attempting to impose parity for the sake of competitive balance. Culturally, European sports tend to be more comfortable with the idea of organic growth (ironically embracing an ultra capitalist model of wealth distribution versus the American quasi-socialist approach to team funding).
As with all of these things there is no right answer. My personal preference would be to retain the current format for the most part but introduce a knockout round prior to the start of the group stage and then go into a 4x4 groups, QF, SF, F tournament structure. It would be nice to see the groups more keenly contested between a higher stature of teams - the downside is that you would lose the R16 fixtures from the current format which can be quite entertaining.
All of that said, if the idea of certain clubs being guaranteed entry every year on the basis of reputation alone was ever truly on the table, it is a matter of huge relief that it has been avoided.