Does the Champions League’s New League Phase Give Underdogs a Better Chance, or Just More Matches?

When the Champions League replaced its group stage in 2024, the promise was more excitement and more unpredictability. Two seasons later, with the third edition now underway, there’s enough evidence to start asking whether the format has delivered.

The short version is that underdogs now get more games and a bigger chance to stay alive. It’s much less clear that they get a better chance to win.

What the format actually does

The competition has 36 teams. Each plays eight matches against eight different opponents, two from each of four pots. The top eight teams go straight to the round of 16. Teams ranked 9th to 24th play a two-legged playoff round for the other eight places, and the bottom 12 are out of Europe entirely.

Under the old format, 32 teams played six matches in eight groups of four. The top two went through, third place dropped into the Europa League, and fourth place was eliminated.

So there are two more matches per team and a playoff round that didn’t exist before. Four debutants are in this year’s field: Como, LASK, Viking and Azerbaijan’s Sabah, a club that was only founded in 2017.

More lives, fewer places

Here’s the part that rarely makes the headlines. Sixteen teams still reach the round of 16, but they now come from a field of 36 instead of 32. That’s about 44 percent of the field, compared with 50 percent before.

On the other hand, 24 of the 36 teams, two-thirds, now get at least one knockout tie, compared with half the field before. Nine points is usually enough to make the top 24, while about 15 points tends to secure the top eight.

So the format gives mid-table clubs an extra life. It gives the smallest clubs a few extra matches. It doesn’t increase the number of places in the round of 16.

Opening matchday results showed the other side of that. Manchester United beat Sabah 4-0, Como won 4-1 against RB Leipzig, and Slavia Prague lost 3-2 at home to Lens. The pattern is mixed.

What the first two seasons showed

The first season had a clear lesson. Liverpool finished top of the league phase and were then knocked out by PSG in the round of 16. PSG had needed the final matchday just to reach the playoff round, and went on to win the competition.

Aston Villa finished eighth and drew Club Brugge in the next round. Brugge had finished 24th, then beaten ninth-placed Atalanta in the playoff. That’s an unlikely path for a club ranked 24th, and it’s the best argument for the format: a team that squeaks in can still have a run.

It’s also the best argument against. Finishing first in the league phase doesn’t guarantee an easy draw, because the knockout bracket depends on other teams’ results. Liverpool’s manager admitted in January that he wasn’t sure what the advantage of finishing top actually was.

Who benefits most

The evidence suggests the format helps the middle of the pack more than the bottom. Clubs that finish between 9th and 24th get a second chance, and those with strong squads usually take it. The minnows get extra matches against bigger opponents, which means more income and more experience, but not necessarily more wins.

That’s not nothing. A club like Sabah or Viking gets four home games against European opposition and a bigger share of television money. For a smaller league, that’s a real gain.

But the trophy has gone to the same kind of club it always did. PSG have won the last two editions, and the sport’s biggest names remain the favorites.

It’s reasonable to say the format has made the competition more varied and less predictable in the early rounds, and has not changed who wins in the end. Both statements can be true.

If the aim is to give underdogs a fairer shot, should UEFA reward the top eight of the league phase more clearly, or scrap the playoff round and move to a smaller table?