Coefficient calculation principles 21/22 onwards?

[Forza AZ]

Yes, and after the Liverpool episode, a 4 team limit was established, so if it had gone that way again, Everton would have been dropped to the EL. I don't remember any exploitation though. Rules were top 4 to the CL, there was no spot for the champ, and Liverpool weren't in the top 4. UEFA were the ones that wanted Liverpool in, and put them into Q1.

The rules said the national FA could choose between the CL-winner and the 4th placed team. UEFA thought the national FA's would always choose the CL-winner as Spain did in 2000 when Real Madrid won the CL and was only 5th in the league. 4th placed Real Zaragoza was send to the UEFA-cup by the Spanish FA.

[Lorric]

Yes, and after the Liverpool episode, a 4 team limit was established, so if it had gone that way again, Everton would have been dropped to the EL. I don't remember any exploitation though. Rules were top 4 to the CL, there was no spot for the champ, and Liverpool weren't in the top 4. UEFA were the ones that wanted Liverpool in, and put them into Q1.

The rules said the national FA could choose between the CL-winner and the 4th placed team. UEFA thought the national FA's would always choose the CL-winner as Spain did in 2000 when Real Madrid won the CL and was only 5th in the league. 4th placed Real Zaragoza was send to the UEFA-cup by the Spanish FA.

Oh, I see. Well, credit to our FA then!

[babaluj1]

well I meant pot 3 for Inter. But Shaktar on eyelevel with Benfica, Salzburg and maybe Ajax or Porto (the big five in ELO for longer time) what I think both are a bit ahead of them and Zenit with Basel in better days, no better at all, their advantage was that their "neighbours" in Ukraine were good enough to made them play CL all the while without hardly one single qualifier in the past but their good neighbour(s) actually only Dinamo rather moves more and more to mediocrity.

http://clubelo.com/Ranking

The three currently strongest clubs outside the Top 4 league by clubelo are 9.PSG, 20.Porto and 26.Shakhtar. Your Basel is not even in the Top 100, while the number 11. is Inter, in terms of strength, Inter should be in the 2nd pot CL.

is this the fake elo you often use? But I tried to explain it already some time ago. Well there are already several of elos nowadays on the market and there is defenitely one you would find great and I'll find one that suits me so we rather stick to Uefa 5 years ranking, fair enough?! Anyway if you did read carefully I wrote: "Zenit with Basel in better days" that simply means they had better times some time ago. So it's not MY Basel but just a neutral note. If you look at Dragonite's positioning for Inter somewhere else here than you'll find them in pot 4 as if by magic. But nobody would eg Atletico put seriously in pot 4 so you can see that Inter has still to go a long way to get to the top.

You don't like clubelo rating? Here is the European club Elo Rating http://elofootball.com/index.php All elo ratings are very similar because they are based on results and there are no privileges. There is Shakhtar 28th, and Inter 8th the strongest club in Europe,so Pot 1 in CL.
Why is the UEFA rating so distorted that we can find the weakest clubs in pot 1 and the strongest in pot 4? There are several reasons:
1.privileged path for champions
2. rating is looked back 5 years and scores the same last year as it did 5 years ago
3. The minimum club coefficient is only 20% of the country ranking, which is absolutely too little. It should be far higher, at least twice.
4. privileges like direct places in the group, while other clubs have to go through difficult qualifications

[bugylibicska]

Yes, and after the Liverpool episode, a 4 team limit was established, so if it had gone that way again, Everton would have been dropped to the EL. I don't remember any exploitation though. Rules were top 4 to the CL, there was no spot for the champ, and Liverpool weren't in the top 4. UEFA were the ones that wanted Liverpool in, and put them into Q1.

The rules said the national FA could choose between the CL-winner and the 4th placed team. UEFA thought the national FA's would always choose the CL-winner as Spain did in 2000 when Real Madrid won the CL and was only 5th in the league. 4th placed Real Zaragoza was send to the UEFA-cup by the Spanish FA.

Oh, I see. Well, credit to our FA then!

Indeed. The English FA played their cards very well and outsmarted UEFA.

[Club-Mate]

http://clubelo.com/Ranking

The three currently strongest clubs outside the Top 4 league by clubelo are 9.PSG, 20.Porto and 26.Shakhtar. Your Basel is not even in the Top 100, while the number 11. is Inter, in terms of strength, Inter should be in the 2nd pot CL.

is this the fake elo you often use? But I tried to explain it already some time ago. Well there are already several of elos nowadays on the market and there is defenitely one you would find great and I'll find one that suits me so we rather stick to Uefa 5 years ranking, fair enough?! Anyway if you did read carefully I wrote: "Zenit with Basel in better days" that simply means they had better times some time ago. So it's not MY Basel but just a neutral note. If you look at Dragonite's positioning for Inter somewhere else here than you'll find them in pot 4 as if by magic. But nobody would eg Atletico put seriously in pot 4 so you can see that Inter has still to go a long way to get to the top.

You don't like clubelo rating? Here is the European club Elo Rating http://elofootball.com/index.php All elo ratings are very similar because they are based on results and there are no privileges. There is Shakhtar 28th, and Inter 8th the strongest club in Europe,so Pot 1 in CL.
Why is the UEFA rating so distorted that we can find the weakest clubs in pot 1 and the strongest in pot 4? There are several reasons:
1.privileged path for champions
2. rating is looked back 5 years and scores the same last year as it did 5 years ago
3. The minimum club coefficient is only 20% of the country ranking, which is absolutely too little. It should be far higher, at least twice.
4. privileges like direct places in the group, while other clubs have to go through difficult qualifications

clubelo I could go along with but elofootball.com is a fake or rather a systematical error. I already posted here their questionable outputs:
country ranking: 8. CZE, 11. SUI, 12. GRE, 15. ROM, 17. AUT, 18. SWE, 21. SCO (rankings from the last century it looks like!)
similar creative outputs for club ranking: Oly, Slavia Prague in front of Salzburg and Benfica! and so on...

from all these Elo rankings I personally prefer "538" it looks somehow realistic to me when I switch on my common sense and browse through it. But just to be opportunistic you'll always find YOUR special Elo ratings.

Why is the UEFA rating so distorted that we can find the weakest clubs in pot 1 and the strongest in pot 4?
maybe they turned the bowl 180 degrees

[Dragonite]

Yes, and after the Liverpool episode, a 4 team limit was established, so if it had gone that way again, Everton would have been dropped to the EL. I don't remember any exploitation though. Rules were top 4 to the CL, there was no spot for the champ, and Liverpool weren't in the top 4. UEFA were the ones that wanted Liverpool in, and put them into Q1.

The rules said the national FA could choose between the CL-winner and the 4th placed team. UEFA thought the national FA's would always choose the CL-winner as Spain did in 2000 when Real Madrid won the CL and was only 5th in the league. 4th placed Real Zaragoza was send to the UEFA-cup by the Spanish FA.

Oh, I see. Well, credit to our FA then!

In Asia it happened more than once that the AFC CL winner isn't among the top 4 domestically and so it doesn't participate in the following edition!!!



And Lorric, Everton 2005/2006 wasn't "unlucky", they were awful. They also lost to Dinamo Bucharest, aggregate score 2-5, in UEFA Cup round 1, and then Dinamo Bucharest finished bottom of its group. So you can have an idea of how bad Everton was.

Fortunately back then there wasn't a CL direct spot for them.

Good old days when UEFA was ruled by serious people instead of crooks.

Indeed. The English FA played their cards very well and outsmarted UEFA.

UEFA had the last laugh - Liverpool played the CL anyway, while Everton couldn't even reach the UEFA Cup groups.

[Funkmaster]

Looking at this new coefficient calculation system from my club´s (Rapid Wien) perspective:

The chance to score a high-coefficient season is much bigger when you play Conference League instead of Europa League. In both competitions you get 2 points for a win, 1 point for a draw and you need to "jump" over the "3-point barrier" to really start scoring for the own club coefficient (ok, it´s 3 vs 2,5 points, but basically the same). Looking at the onedrive-simulation pot 3 and 4 of Conference league will be full of very weak champions from small leagues (Flora, Buducnost, Sarajevo, Shkendija, The New Saints, Dudelange). And take into account, this simulation shows the "perfect way", so in reality it´s not unlikely we see the champions of Armenia, Latvia, Malta or Armenia (even weaker leagues) in Conference League. Rapid had the fortune to play in this year´s EL against a club exactly like these clubs. This club was Dundalk (champion of Ireland) and you could clearly see that they didn´t belong in this competition , they were extremely weak, like a club from Austria´s second division. And from next year on we will have like 8-10 Dundalk´s in Conference League. So I can see Rapid getting very easily like a 3-1-0 or a 4-0-0 against this clubs in Conference league and suddenly you have 8-10 points for your club coefficient with bonus points for 1st or 2nd place. And also clubs from pot 1 in Conference league look hardly any better (Basel, Astana, LASK, Anderlecht, Alkmaar) and beatable.

Playing Europa league will be a whole different story for Rapid. In this competition I think it will be definitely difficult for Rapid to get 2 victories or 1 win and 2 draws to jump over this "3-point barrier". Pot 1 looks extremely strong, so getting a 1st place in EL-GS like in 2015/16 will become nearly impossible, and also in pot 2, 3 and 4 are hardly any easy names. I think there will be some "easy" clubs like Ludogorets, Steaua, Rapid itself, Malmö, Legia, Sheriff, Maribor or Apollon in EL-GS, but all of these clubs are lightyears ahead and much stronger than the "Dundalk´s" or "Dudelange´s". Imo there should have been 1 bonus point for 3rd place in EL-GS.

Of course the main goal should be to play in better competition, earn more money, more prestige, have better opponents etc. But looking at this coefficient calculation-system and possible opponents, it will be better to play Conference league to get a good club coefficient and being well-seeded.

I´m ok with Europa League getting more difficult, but I think UEFA made a big mistake with giving a ticket for GS to all these weak champions. If I am correct there will be 36 (!!!) champions in GS. From next year on there will be 16 more extra spots in GS, but UEFA gave 10 of them to all these weak clubs and only 6 to the "Rijeka´s, Partizan´s, Rosenborg´s, Cluj´s or Beer-Sheva´s", non-champions clubs from fairly competitive leagues. UEFA really overdid it with giving all these weak champions so much bonuses and privileges, I think there shouldn´t be a champions-way in ECL-qualification.

[Clockingbell]

I'm quite new to this forum, so forgive me if this is not the right place to ask, but why aren't points given for winning a CL group, or winning a total tournament? It seems as if the big clubs don't really wanna have competition amongst each other this wat, but only want to keep the rest at distance

[bert.kassies]

I'm quite new to this forum, so forgive me if this is not the right place to ask, but why aren't points given for winning a CL group, or winning a total tournament? It seems as if the big clubs don't really wanna have competition amongst each other this wat, but only want to keep the rest at distance

In CL it is tradition to reward the round of 16 with 5 points. The new regulations state it differently: 1 point (like EL) + 4 points for CL round of 16. That 4 points can also be seen as 4 points for CL group winners and runners-up. Maybe it's better to state it that way so it becomes more comparable with EL.

No bonus points for winning the final is as far as I know the case since 1979. Not really an era in which clubs had much to say

[Clockingbell]

I'm quite new to this forum, so forgive me if this is not the right place to ask, but why aren't points given for winning a CL group, or winning a total tournament? It seems as if the big clubs don't really wanna have competition amongst each other this wat, but only want to keep the rest at distance

In CL it is tradition to reward the round of 16 with 5 points. The new regulations state it differently: 1 point (like EL) + 4 points for CL round of 16. That 4 points can also be seen as 4 points for CL group winners and runners-up. Maybe it's better to state it that way so it becomes more comparable with EL.

No bonus points for winning the final is as far as I know the case since 1979. Not really an era in which clubs had much to say

Thanks! But in EL and ECL there will be a difference of they become 1st or second. Shouldn't there at least be a little competition in the CL too? It just seems like the big clubs can get ahead of the rest, but not of each other.

And winning a final might be worth a bonus point imho.

[Forza AZ]

I was reading the regulations, but as far as I understand in the play-off round (round between the groupstage and the 1/8 finals) the points (2 for a win and 1 for a draw) do count for the country coefficient, and only for the club coefficient no points are awarded:

In article D.3 (Association coefficient calculation) no exception is mentioned for that round. That expection is only mentioned in articles D.4.2 and D.4.3 (Sporting club coefficient calculation).

[dnina10]

I was reading the regulations, but as far as I understand in the play-off round (round between the groupstage and the 1/8 finals) the points (2 for a win and 1 for a draw) do count for the country coefficient, and only for the club coefficient no points are awarded:

In article D.3 (Association coefficient calculation) no exception is mentioned for that round. That expection is only mentioned in articles D.4.2 and D.4.3 (Sporting club coefficient calculation).

This is an interesting development. Still don't agree with it, but that's another matter. Do you mind sending the link(s) to this? Sounds very interesting

[Forza AZ]

This is an interesting development. Still don't agree with it, but that's another matter. Do you mind sending the link(s) to this? Sounds very interesting

You can find all regulations here: https://documents.uefa.com/search/all?f ... lang=en-GB

[dnina10]

This is an interesting development. Still don't agree with it, but that's another matter. Do you mind sending the link(s) to this? Sounds very interesting

You can find all regulations here: https://documents.uefa.com/search/all?f ... lang=en-GB

Perfect, thanks

[Diouf]

I was reading the regulations, but as far as I understand in the play-off round (round between the groupstage and the 1/8 finals) the points (2 for a win and 1 for a draw) do count for the country coefficient, and only for the club coefficient no points are awarded:

In article D.3 (Association coefficient calculation) no exception is mentioned for that round. That expection is only mentioned in articles D.4.2 and D.4.3 (Sporting club coefficient calculation).

I read it otherwise. D.3 says "The season coefficient of an association is calculated by adding up the points obtained by all its clubs in a given season". And the rules for how clubs obtain point i D.4 have the exception for the knockout round playoffs.