European Football - the best it's ever been?

A recent article by Jim White, columnist for Yahoo Eurosport and the Telegraph, described how the new Champions League format - where champions of the lesser-known leagues are pitted against each other in a play-off round (previously known officially as the third round), while non-champions from the bigger leagues have to play each other in order to progress - as a farce. He slammed the group stages as "institutionally fixed", and “not a competition (but) an exercise in ensuring the big names progress smoothly”. Pretty strong words from the veteran journalist.

However, when the Champions League didn’t have this system, then journalists claimed it was a closed cartel. Always the same names in the competition. Very rarely did champions from smaller footballing countries make it through - teams such as BATE Borisov from Belarus, MSK Zilina from Slovakia or FK Partizan would often be relegated to the UEFA Cup and nothing more, while third and fourth-placed teams from Italy, Spain and England would breeze through the third round. Eshaan Koshal argued this in a Goal.com editorial two years ago. He, like many, harked back to the old European Cup, a knockout cup contested between actual league champions and direct runners-up, and called for a (somewhat wishful) return to that format.

Going back to the early 2000s, when the Champions’ League had two group rounds and the G14, an actual cartel of football clubs, attempted to lobby UEFA to maintain their status quo, lest it be “forced” to form a breakaway European Super League, those calls were incredibly more vociferous, but despite the scrapping of the second round stage and the eventual dismantling of the G14, there were still voices of dissent. The group stage still contained too many non-champions. In addition to that, the UEFA Cup was seen as a second-rate competition, with too many small teams.

Now, with the play-off system sending big teams into the Europa League group stage, while actual champions play in the Champions League, the competitions are as balanced as they’ve ever been, but now the argument is, the top league champions now have it too easy against the smaller league champions! They’re virtually guaranteed to go into round 2! So should they be going back to how it was before the play-off round, in order to make the provide more competition for those teams (and shunt the smaller champions into the Europa League) or will Jim White not rest until it reverts back to a seedless knockout competition between the winners and runners-up? I can guarantee that even if this was to happen (which it won’t because no team in their right mind would give up six guaranteed European ties, three at home, with the possibility of more in the knockout stages of either European competition), people would still complain, along the lines of “that team wasn’t given enough of a chance to prove itself in only two games”, “the winner had an incredibly easy ride to the final”, and of course, one which crops up in international football, “some teams are getting destroyed - what’s the point of them even playing in it?” - what Jim White is arguing currently.

The direct knockout format didn't stop the 1991 final, won by Red Star, being decided on penalties after 120 minutes of 0-0.

Let’s face it, you can never please everyone in football. Everyone will have their opinion. However, one should take into account things such as principle (having champions play champions, no matter how big or rich the league), development of the smaller teams (ensuring that qualification will be both an unforgettable and constructive experience for the Cypriot or Slovenian team, upon which it can build in the following years, both in league and subsequent European adventures) and romance (Russian Rubin Kazan beating Barcelona, or APOEL Nicosia playing out a 2-2 draw against Chelsea). Sure, the smaller teams probably won’t progress at first, but at least they’re getting a chance, something they didn’t previously get. The group stage is an adventure for them rather than a short lived blur of disappointment. It will guarantee them money upon which they can build, and they always have the opportunity to record memorable results. Seeding in the group means there won’t be any scenarios where the big teams will wipe each other out too early, leaving lopsided ties in the latter rounds. If you think that may actually work, just remember Manchester United versus Millwall in the 2004 FA Cup final.

Furthermore, the Europa League is now a worthwhile competition to watch, thanks to the injection of stronger teams in the group stages (incidentally this was also a fairly new format - up until 2005 it was a knockout, and a combination of this and mediocre teams really made for a forgettable competition), which in turn had perked up the interest of the bigger clubs in the competition - with teams like Atletico Madrid, Villarreal, Bayer Leverkusen, Juventus, PSV, Porto and Liverpool jostling for the trophy, it really is like a simultaneous Champions League.

So for once, instead of moaning (and there seriously is plenty to moan about in football), shouldn’t we be praising Michel Platini’s efforts to improve European competition? Based on the above criteria, could we say this format is the best it's ever been?

Isn't it time we stopped patronising Africa?

Africa, as a continent, has experienced much hardship in the last 130 years, such as colonialism, racism, brutal genocides, dictatorships, war and pillaging of the land for the resources. Some of these things are still happening today. The Western media tends to focus on all these characteristics. However, what the media doesn't tell you is there are also success stories. Many African countries have been coming into their own economically and politically.

People forget that South Africa has successfully hosted a Rugby World Cup and a Football World Cup in its short history as a democratic multi-party state. Other countries, such as Gabon, Botswana, Namibia and Ghana are also showing encouraging signs. A recent Reuters article reported that "Africa withstood the financial crisis better than many predicted, and the region's economic growth is forecast at 4.75 percent in 2010. Next year, half of the world's 10 fastest growing economies are expected to be in Africa."


Why am I writing this article? To dispel the common misconceptions that so many have about Africa. This may seem really banal to some who read this, but a recent poll conducted by Sunshine.co.uk shows that 20% of Brits think it never rains in Africa, 70% think the Sahara is always hot, and 54% think Timbuktu is imaginary. This, I believe, is the tip of the iceberg. Ergo, let me dispel two of the biggest misconceptions.

1) "Africa? Isn't it a country?"

Africa is NOT a country. Pan-Africanism is common in Africa - slightly less in the North where people also feel a strong sense of Arabism and Middle Easternness, but certainly in the Sub-Saharan region - because, in the face of adversity past and present, African people like to express solidarity with one another. One such example is in the 2010 World Cup, when the South African crowd voraciously supported Ghana against Uruguay when it was the sole African team left in the tournament, and booed Luis Suarez (he of the goal-line handball) in the 3rd place playoff. The African way of thinking is: "We may be from different countries but we're all African". However, because one is proud to define oneself by continent as well as country, this does not mean the two can be blurred. I identify myself as Italian, English AND European, for example, but even though Europe has at times shared a common history, claiming that Italian culture and history is the same as French culture, German culture, British culture and Serb culture would seem preposterous to us, and Africans are entitled to feel the same acerbic feelings when someone, in the space of a few words, lumps together every country in Africa, ignoring the history, culture and existence of each.

2) "Africa is a mess! Everyone is starving, dying of AIDS or killing each other there!"

This is incredibly wrong and ignorant. Africa is NOT a barren wasteland where everybody's malnourished, dying in the street and covered in flies. It baffles and disgusts me how people my age or older (physically, obviously not mentally) ask me "Africa? Isn't everyone starving there?" or "Be careful when you go to Africa, you'll catch AIDS!". And yes, I have been asked. One wouldn't say "North America is a wasteland" or "Asia is a big mess". There are richer countries and there are poorer countries. There are big prosperous cities, there are small quiet towns and there are slums. Some regions are at war and others aren't. Africa is just as varied, economically, politically, and culturally, as any other continent.

The Band-Aid song "Do They Know It's Christmas Time" is to blame for putting these preposterous ideas into people's heads. If one imagines how much tourism has been lost by people not even considering Africa as a holiday destination, as well as charity money ending up in the wrong hands, and just the sheer indignification of it all for its people, it's been more of a bane than a blessing - particularly when the same song with the same patronising, misleading lyrics has been released three times, the latest in 2004, just so the sons and daughters of those who witnessed Live Aid can also learn that Africa is a place to be avoided and derided.

You know it's telling when Birhan Woldu, the famous child from Live Aid, openly opposes food aid and charity. In a 2009 Telegraph article, she says: "As well as being demeaning to our dignity, my education has taught me that constantly shipping food is costly, uneconomic, and can encourage dependency", and: "we know our vulnerabilities. We are a proud people... let us grow our own food and help manage our own systems so we are not hit so hard when the next drought or flood comes."

(Furthermore, it does rain in Africa. If anyone saw the 2010 World Cup in SA, it rained during several matches. The Sahara is freezing at night, because low humidity and lack of cloud cover allow most of the day's heat to radiate back into space. And Timbuktu is in Mali.)


A brilliant satire on Lee Nelson's Well Good Show, of how young adults, and by extension, the general public, view Africa. This is a must-watch.

If you truly want to help Africa, book a flight to Johannesburg, Accra or Addis Ababa, book a hotel, rent a car, and go there on holiday. Visit the restaurants, buy curio, and visit the attractions. Yes, some areas are to be avoided, but I'm sure one doesn't need to be told where the no-go areas are in London or Los Angeles. By treating African nations, and its citizens, as we would any other country in the world, we are giving so much more than simply popping a cheque in the post, or a coin in a charity bucket, and getting on with our day. Not that I'm saying stop giving to charity, but in the mid to long-term, assuming that Africa is a place where "there won't be snow... this Christmas time, the only gift they'll get this year is life, where nothing ever grows, no rain, no rivers flow" is at best undignifying and at worst downright dangerous and stifling to Africa's development. Africa is home to so many beautiful countries, friendly proud people, fantastic food, rich culture, stunning attractions and some of the greatest flora and fauna in the world, so isn't it time we stopped patronising it?