UEFA’s desire to increase the number of televised Champions League matches was always going to dilute the quality on show. This has been a gradual process, not limited to this year’s change. Prior to 1991, only one club was permitted per country (in addition to the defending champions). Simpler times. 

A 36 team Super League makes it virtually impossible for the giant clubs of Europe to miss out (though fans of Manchester United might disagree). And that’s exactly what UEFA want. Guaranteed revenue from the millions of people watching Real Madrid, Barcelona, Liverpool, Juventus, and Bayern Munich. And if they score nine goals, even better. More highlights, more clicks, more money.

I’m not meaning to be provocative here. If I were, I’d say that, frankly, if Celtic are winning 5-1, the quality isn’t good enough. But actually, I completely believe that the Slovakian champions warrant a place.

Bizarrely, the players are beginning to vocally object to the overloaded fixture list, despite being happy to accept the pay rise arising as a direct consequence of the number of televised matches. I assume that Rodri went into the City boardroom last morning and asked for a 20% pay cut in return for a cap on the number of appearances he makes per season. Best of luck to him.

Greed is not limited to football. Cricket is seeing a similar trend. Quality is being diluted for an increased number of matches. England internationals against Australia are being marginalised for August headline fixtures - Welsh Cakes vs. Cornish Pasties - or something along those lines.

So what is the problem? It’s us. We keep turning up, and keep paying our subscription fees.

Specifically regarding this week’s Champions League fixtures, though, I think there are two problems.

First, the results of the first round of fixtures just don’t seem that important. More games mean more time to recover or slip up. Manchester City’s frustrating draw at Inter Milan, Celtic’s impressive win against the aforementioned Slovakian champions. There are still seven games to go, and fortunes can be reversed as teams’ performances regress to the mean. That is also UEFA’s plan, of course, to reduce the opportunity for upsets.

The second is the lack of context. Slovan Bratislava, for example, don’t have an opportunity for revenge. I think, for UEFA, that is the trade-off they have accepted. There is no jeopardy to the draw for the top teams anymore, no groups of death. There are no storylines developing over six weeks as clubs trade blows.

In conclusion, I think I’m fine with the number of matches increasing; there is no noticeable drop in the quality of individual fixtures on paper (there may yet be dead rubbers as the tournament progresses). But the bonkers format needs to be revisited, and – if I may – weighted towards domestic champions, somehow. In the meantime, I will continue to follow from afar and make no effort to remember who is playing who. I didn’t have to before. 

SUPPORT THIS WEBSITE - buy from Amazon using this link: https://amzn.to/4dBv022

By Leon Parrott