The 'Swiss Model' has been lauded by some for generating more excitement, but it completely misses the point

Jamie Carragher is among those sold on the new Champions League format. "It's been brilliant," the former Liverpool defender wrote on social media on Thursday. "Instead of the bore fest we’ve had for years on the last match day, next week will be sensational."

UEFA will be absolutely delighted with themselves. It appears they've already managed to convince a significant number of pundits and supporters that the 'Swiss Model' has been a success; a positive development for the competition and, by consequence, the game itself.

Nothing could be further from the truth, though. The format's flaws have been brutally exposed and the only real beneficiaries of its introduction have been UEFA and Europe's elite – which was the objective all along.

Getty'Not great'

As soon as the longstanding Super League threat finally materialised in April 2021, UEFA knew it needed to act. Europe's richest clubs wanted more games, because more games means more money, so that's exactly what UEFA gave them in May 2022.

The initial idea was to expand the pre-knockout round to 10 games. but even after a bitter backlash from coaches, players and domestic leagues with serious concerns over an already congested international schedule, they still managed to push through a new format featuring eight matchdays – and sneak in an additional play-off round. It was a Super League in everything but name. Everyone knew it too.

"It's very good that the new Super League is off the table," a visibly bewildered Jurgen Klopp told reporters in April 2021,” but the new Champions League is not great. UEFA showed me the idea and I said, 'I don't like it.' I've no idea where [they'll] put the extra games in… But the show must go on."

It was clear that sacrifices would have to be made, but only by the organisers of domestic tournaments, such as the once-prestigious FA Cup, and, more significantly, the players.

Advertisement(C)Getty ImagesNo concern for player welfare

UEFA justified its expansion by claiming that football fans wanted to see "more top European matches" – and at an earlier stage of the Champions League. However, what's the point in having more heavyweight showdowns if neither participant is in peak physical condition?

As an exasperated Pep Guardiola pointed out four years ago, "Every time we speak about [player welfare] to UEFA, they say 'We take note.' But, after, more games. It's like an actor or actress in a theatre going three times a day: they'd like to put on a good performance, but three times a day is too much."

Guardiola was right to be concerned. His Manchester City side won the treble win 2023, but are toiling this season after being decimated by injuries to key men, including Rodri, who was already threatening a players' union strike over the schedule before being sidelined with an ACL tear.

There has been little sympathy for City, but it merely reinforced the point that players are playing too many games. If one of the most expensively assembled squads in football history can reach breaking point, what hope is there for clubs who are not sponsored by a state?

GettyMoney over meritocracy

City's struggles have highlighted the most glaring problem with the new Champions League format: it's far too forgiving.

Former Juventus president Andrea Agnelli pushed so hard for a Super League because he was disgusted by the fact that small, well-run provincial clubs such as Atalanta could earn a seat at Europe's top table at the expense of one of the traditional superpowers.The revenue accrued from regular participation in continental competition has been the biggest distortive force in the competitiveness of European football over the past decade, the reason why the gap between the haves and the have-nots is wider than ever before.

In an ideal, fair and just world, the Champions League would be the sole preserve of actual champions – just like the European Cup used to be. But that was never good enough for the likes of Silvio Berlusconi, who realised that the real money was to be made in regular games between the teams from the biggest TV markets in Europe.

So, Super League threats were made and UEFA replied by including the top four teams from the 'Big Five' leagues and adding group stages (there were two at one point).

However, those amendments still weren't enough to satisfy ESL backers Agnelli and Florentino Perez, who wanted a closed shop to protect their profits – and the 'Swiss Model' is a product of the prioritisation of money over meritocracy, which has been quite clearly implemented to protect the big boys.

GettyExtra safety net

In any other year, a team that has performed as poorly as City, who have been beaten by Sporting CP, Juventus and Paris Saint-Germain, and held at home by Inter and Feyenoord, would already be out. But because of the nature of the supposedly "brilliant" revamp, City still only need to beat Club Brugge at home to progress to the play-off round, which is, in itself, an extra safety net introduced to spare the elite from the financial repercussions of an early European exit.

It's all so blatant that it's barely believable that the same people that criticised the Super League are now championing the expanded Champions League – particularly when the argument that it's been more exciting doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all.