2018-19 UEFA Europa League

[hatterson]

So who gets directly to the CLgroup stages and who has to go through the qualifying, if Spurs and/or Arsenal win the CL/EL finals? Will Chelsea drop below them in the CL rankings even if they finish 3rd in the PL?

If they would, that adds an extra incentive for Chelsea against Arsenal in the EL final.

I believe all make the group stage, would just depend on which pot they're in.

 

[gary69]

I believe all make the group stage, would just depend on which pot they're in.

Yeah, you're right, the top 4 will be in the group stages no matter what.

England (ENG): Both the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League title holders will come from England. As at least one of these two teams will finish in the top four of the 2018–19 Premier League, England will have either four or five group stage entrants, not six as shown in this table. If the winners of the 2018–19 UEFA Champions League have already qualified for the 2019–20 Champions League by finishing in the top four of the 2018–19 Premier League, the following changes to the access list will be made:

• The champions of association 11 (Austria) enter the group stage instead of the play-off round.
• The champions of association 13 (Czech Republic) enter the play-off round instead of the third qualifying round.
• The champions of association 15 (Greece) enter the third qualifying round instead of the second qualifying round.
• The champions of associations 18 and 19 (Israel and Cyprus) enter the second qualifying round instead of the first qualifying round.

If the winners of the 2018–19 UEFA Europa League have already qualified for the 2019–20 Champions League by finishing in the top four of the 2018–19 Premier League, the following changes to the access list will be made:

• The third-placed team of association 5 (France) enter the group stage instead of the third qualifying round.
• The runners-up of association 10 and 11 (Turkey and Austria) enter the third qualifying round instead of the second qualifying round.

2019–20 UEFA Champions League - Wikipedia

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

I suggest that sports should NOT be impacted by political discourse. However, there are exceptions, the only two countries I would personally ban are Soviet Union and other communistic parties like Venezuela (suffering people makers) and Nazi Germany.

Y'know, I know I shouldn't be surprised when you prove yourself to be an absolute f***ing idiot, but I am still consistently blown away.

 

[S E P H]

Y'know, I know I shouldn't be surprised when you prove yourself to be an absolute ****ing idiot, but I am still consistently blown away.

Not surprised by your lack of class since you're obviously a Marxist.

 

[Theokritos]

Azerbaijan indicates Arsenal's Mkhitaryan can play in Europa final - Sportsnet.ca

Good. In cases like this, politics do not supersede football. If you want to be a part of UEFA/FIFA, you play by their rules.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Y'know, I know I shouldn't be surprised when you prove yourself to be an absolute ****ing idiot, but I am still consistently blown away.

Why is that a bad take? 1936 Olympics should not have been in Nazi Germany. Countries should've boycotted. It should be for very extreme cases, but those listed are the extreme. He didn't list them because of political differences.

Same for banning North Korea. I understand the argument for including everyone, but it's not a bad take to want to ban countries that violate basic human rights.

 

[robertmac43]

Good. In cases like this, politics do not supersede football. If you want to be a part of UEFA/FIFA, you play by their rules.

In theory yes, but if it comes down to the safety of Mkhi than yes politics > football. I would rather him stay home and be safe then go and risk some bigger than football problems emerging

 

[Theokritos]

"Banning countries" as in not letting them host? Or as in not letting them participate? The latter is a problematic idea on several levels. Who defines which countries are on the list? And even if there was a consensus on this, why should athletes who qualified fair and square get thrown out of the competition for non-sporting reasons?

One of the biggest disgraces in soccer history was the disqualification of Yugoslavia from the 1992 European Championship over the war. One of the best teams in the world, a legit contender who had earned the right to play like every other participant, was eliminated for reasons that had nothing to do with soccer. This is absolutely not what people & soccer fans should strive for.

 

[Theokritos]

In theory yes, but if it comes down to the safety of Mkhi than yes politics > football. I would rather him stay home and be safe then go and risk some bigger than football problems emerging

Sure, but that's not my point. I was always referring to the alleged prospect of Mkhitaryan not being allowed to enter by Azerbaijan, which I said would be inacceptable to UEFA/FIFA.

 

[bleedblue1223]

"Banning countries" as in not letting them host? Or as in not letting them participate? The latter is a problematic idea on several levels. Who defines which countries are on the list? And even if there was a consensus on this, why should athletes who qualified fair and square get thrown out of the competition for non-sporting reasons?

One of the biggest disgraces in soccer history was the disqualification of Yugoslavia from the 1992 European Championship over the war. One of the best teams in the world, a legit contender who had earned the right to play like every other participant, was eliminated for reasons that had nothing to do with soccer. This is absolutely not what people & soccer fans should strive for.

Yeah, this is the fair pushback on it. You can say you only reserve it for the obvious extremes like Nazi Germany, but in practice, the ones determining the obvious extremes will inevitably ban a country that shouldn't be banned. Just look at how certain opinions and views are banned on social media. Some are obvious ones to get rid of, and others seem a bit questionable.

In today's world, North Korea is probably the most obvious one to ban. They should never host, but I could see banning participation as a slippery slope to banning other countries that shouldn't be banned. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to want to ban participation though. All those leaders want is to be legitimized and show the world they have the best athletes.

 

[Albatros]

Why is that a bad take? 1936 Olympics should not have been in Nazi Germany. Countries should've boycotted. It should be for very extreme cases, but those listed are the extreme. He didn't list them because of political differences.

Same for banning North Korea. I understand the argument for including everyone, but it's not a bad take to want to ban countries that violate basic human rights.

Things are never completely black and white. Even in 1936 the Olympic hero Owens had it worse back home than he did in Berlin. Drawing the line is very difficult, exactly what is extreme enough and what is not? The joint Korean Olympic team has not solved human rights issues, but was it still not a much better contribution for a peaceful future than banning North Korea would have been? And if human rights violations are to be a reason for a ban then not many countries would be able to compete, the Olympic juggernauts like China and the United States would be the first to go.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Things are never completely black and white. Even in 1936 the Olympic hero Owens had it worse back home than he did in Berlin. Drawing the line is very difficult, exactly what is extreme enough and what is not? The joint Korean Olympic team has not solved human rights issues, but was it still not a much better contribution for a peaceful future than banning North Korea would have been? And if human rights violations are to be a reason for a ban then not many countries would be able to compete, the Olympic juggernauts like China and the United States would be the first to go.

I'm not excusing the way Owens was treated, but if he was living in Germany at the time and not just traveling there as an athlete, he'd probably be dead, so lets not sugar coat that.

I'm not putting my exact standards out there, but I think it's a pretty clear difference between 30s/40s Nazi Germany and North Korea to whatever you are saying the United States is guilty of. Not saying US is innocent, our foreign policy has been bad, I just don't know what you are alluding to there, but there is a massive gap between that and Nazi Germany and North Korea.

 

[robertmac43]

Sure, but that's not my point. I was always referring to the alleged prospect of Mkhitaryan not being allowed to enter by Azerbaijan, which I said would be inacceptable to UEFA/FIFA.

Ah I see! I agree he should be allowed to go. I would not however not want to push the Azerbaijan government and it sound like that is where UEFA is as well.

Arsenal is still looking to get backing from UEFA that guarantees Mkhi's safety and they still have not come out and said anything. I think it will be a go at your own risk type of thing as UEFA does not have the backbone to make any demands at this point.

 

[Albatros]

I'm not excusing the way Owens was treated, but if he was living in Germany at the time and not just traveling there as an athlete, he'd probably be dead, so lets not sugar coat that.

I'm not putting my exact standards out there, but I think it's a pretty clear difference between 30s/40s Nazi Germany and North Korea to whatever you are saying the United States is guilty of. Not saying US is innocent, our foreign policy has been bad, I just don't know what you are alluding to there, but there is a massive gap between that and Nazi Germany and North Korea.

Demanding a ban based on events that took place years later would be anachronistic, Germany had a nasty regime but it was only one out of many in the world at the time. The World Cup had recently taken place in Italy under quite similar circumstances.

Regarding North Korea today there has been no great change in their position as a member of the international sporting community, and also the domestic situation in the country has not showed any such signs of worsening that could justify singling them out. Any attempt to ban them would appear motivated by political considerations.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Demanding a ban based on events that took place years later would be anachronistic, Germany had a nasty regime but it was only one out of many in the world at the time. The World Cup had recently taken place in Italy under quite similar circumstances.

Regarding North Korea today there has been no great change in their position as a member of the international sporting community, and also the domestic situation in the country has not showed any such signs of worsening that could justify singling them out. Any attempt to ban them would appear motivated by political considerations.

I don't think it would ever happen or even that it should happen, I'm just saying it's not an unreasonable take for someone to have.