Less means more - Olsson

UEFA Chief Executive Lars-Christer Olsson has reiterated his view that the move to change the UEFA Champions League format was correct.

Consultation process
In an interview which appears in the latest edition of the official UEFA Champions League magazine, Champions, Mr Olsson emphasised that the consultation process which was carried out three years ago before the introduction of the new format - one group stage, followed by a 16-team knockout round - would be repeated in future discussions on the format.

More competitive
"Obviously the switch from 17 matchdays to 13 matchdays cost the clubs ticket receipts," Mr Olsson told Champions. "But the change has made the Champions League more competitive and increased the quality of football. We have 32 fewer games a season than we did in 2000/03, but total revenue is up by 25 per cent. In this case, less has proved to be more. That said, we have started a process of talking to fans, clubs, leagues, commercial partners, broadcasters and the media so they can have their say on the best format for all our competitions from 2009 onwards. In that process, everything is up for discussion."

Market share
In response to the view that clubs deserve more UEFA Champions League revenue because they are the main box-office attraction, Mr Olsson said: "Over the last four years, the 32 clubs in the tournament have had over €1bn, while some €300m was distributed to the rest of the game by UEFA. That billion is weighted towards the big clubs because it is divided depending on things like the television market share in each country. The clubs argue that they provide the players, but often they've bought them from clubs at the bottom of the pyramid who have been supported by money distributed via their national associations from UEFA."

Current model worth defending
Mr Olsson said the current European sports model was worth defending. "Do fans want to watch their team play in an invitation only, self-perpetuating competition? America is one country with a completely different legal and social framework - they have salary caps, the draft [where the best college stars are made available to the worst clubs], neither of which would work in the legal context of the European Union. When these leagues have launched elsewhere in other sports, they have started off well, often because they have imported lots of stars, but after two or three years, when there are better teams who can't join, fans lose interest and they crumble."

Negotiate with players
On the question of payment for players on international duty, Mr Olsson replied: "If clubs feel that strongly, they should negotiate with players. The players get paid twice, by club and country, at the moment. They could say to the agent,'here's a contract, but we won't pay when he's away with the national team'. But clubs won't do that, they know the players want to compete in World Cups." Mr Olsson agreed that major international tournaments raised considerable revenue, but asked where extra money would come from for the clubs. "It can only come from the payments that go to national associations to support the structure of the game.

Dominant source of funds
"At UEFA, for example, we know that the money we distribute from tournaments like the UEFA European Championship is the dominant source of funds for the majority of our member associations. Without that, the structure of the game in Europe might not survive." Mr Olsson concluded with the viewpoint that issues of contention could still be dealt with by dialogue. "There's always room for talk, proper talk, not talks conducted in the courtroom or under threat," he said. "There is a review of European football, on behalf of the EU, which is due to report at the end of May, and that will give everyone something to think about."