What’s in a name?

So, it’s change afoot in the UEFA Cup. Again. In a bid to increase its profile – and no doubt differentiate itself from its slicker, richer, better-fed sibling, the UEFA Champions League – the competition has undergone a radical overhaul. Say goodbye Group Stage, with eight leagues of five; say hello Group Stage with…er…twelve groups of four. Begone, lowly UEFA Cup; enter in its place the mighty UEFA Europa League – a name I’m sure you’ll agree adequately reflects just how reinvigorated, aspirational and totally-not-the-Champions-League this competition really is. Doesn’t it…?

Whilst there is a greater level of subtlety to UEFA’s latest jiggery-pokery than I’m possibly letting on, such changes are not all that much fun to write about (eg. the winning FA Cup team cannot ‘give’ their UEFA Cup place to the losing finalist, in the case that they are already in the Champions League – the place instead going to next-highest team in the Premier League). See: told you.

To be honest, for the clubs concerned, I have a feeling that the only key difference they care about is just a little more fundamental: cold, harsh cash. For example, last year Liverpool raked in a reported £18 million as a losing Champions League semi-finalist. By contrast Spurs’ 2007/08 UEFA Cup run, where the club reached the competition’s Knockout Stage, playing a total of 10 matches, purportedly brought in around £500,000 in prize money. Approximately the same amount of revenue Tottenham made last season for a single live match on Sky Sports.

Can we have our ball back?

Ever thought that putting on London 2012 looked like a bit of a challenge?

Well, if the Games had to be co-hosted with a neighbouring country sharing no common language; if the journey time between certain Olympic venues was in some cases upwards of 9 hours; if the IOC had visited LOCOG a year ago and voiced mild concerns over our preparations – then returned six months later only for things to look even worse; if our national supporters were fearsome regulars on Ross Kemp on Gangs; if Seb Coe and his team were suspended from their duties due to charges of corruption…I could probably understand your concerns. As it is, this is the situation facing Poland, co-hosts of UEFA EURO 2012™.

Although Poland and Ukraine had never been the realistic front-runners during the bidding phase back in 2006/07, corruption and hooliganism in Italy’s game – along with the public support of FIFA’s Sepp Blatter – saw the tournament handed to Eastern Europe.

At present we are told there is no immediate threat to Poland’s position – but with Ukraine unable to act as sole host, Spain now more interested in bidding for the 2018 World Cup, Germany still recovering from 2006, and England ‘otherwise engaged’ in 2012, there are few obvious takers should Poland’s position become untenable. Forget east: whatever way you look at it EURO 2012 may have now officially gone south.

(Almost) Everyone’s a winner

Good news for fans of the Home Nations: by 2016 we may qualify for the European Championships. No, the UK is not bidding to host the tournament. Nope, this won’t be thanks to a future midfield triumvirate of Brooklyn, Romeo and Cruz Beckham. And no, all decent teams aren’t being disqualified from qualification. It’s in fact simpler than that: UEFA are letting more nations into the Finals. 

With the expansion from 16 to 24 teams, UEFA EURO 2016™ will be an interesting tournament from several angles. From a commercial perspective, the return on investment for brands sponsoring the event is likely to be greater, as there is an opportunity for more of a sponsor’s European markets to engage with their consumers via Football – the flipside of this likely to be that the contractual fee from UEFA rises accordingly. And as a fan, there’s a 50% greater chance that your team might actually make the tournament. Okay, maybe 10% if you’re Scottish…

By Jonathan Izzard on October 10th, 2008

Tags: Default, Football, Football Sponsorship, London 2012, UEFA Champions League