How does the Champions League look on TV?

[10/09/08 - I finished the remainder of the post tonight.]

A couple of posts ago I gave my impressions of the CONCACAF Champions League in terms of the play on the field and how the rest of the Group Stage would unfold.  But the Champions League -- like all similar club tournaments around the world -- is more than just a regional club championship.  It's an opportunity for the continental association to centralize sponsorship, broadcasting, and presentation of its highest club competition to its member countries, participating clubs, supporters, and viewers. 

It's so easy to want to compare the CONCACAF Champions League to UEFA's homologue; after all, it's the original Champions League, the one that spawned the imitations all over the world (except in South America, which was ahead of the trend by decades).  It's really an unfair comparison - nothing compares to the UEFA Champions League.  Only the Copa Libertadores compares to the UCL in terms of the intensity and the attendance, but falls short in revenues, marketing, and promotion. 

CONCACAF's Champions League, in my opinion, is comparable to the Asian Champions League.  The ACL is restricted to the top 14 national leagues in the Asian Football Confederation; this year's edition of the CCL has clubs from 13 national associations.  The average attendance of the ACL during the group stage was just over 8,000, while CCL as of Matchday 3 in the group stage has averaged almost 6,800.   (I would have compared attendances in the African Champions League group matches, but CAF doesn't release attendance figures.)  Some of the matches in Mexico have been well-supported, and Montreal's home matches have drawn exceptionally good attendance.  Audiences in the USA have never taken to international club competitions except for the hard-core supporters which would number barely in the thousands.  Matches throughout Central America have drawn inconsistent crowds, from hundreds at Estadio Cuscatlán to larger attendances (maybe 33-50% capacity) at Saprissa, Olimpia, and Marathón.  It bears noting that this is only the first year of the new competition and therefore it will take time for the CCL to adopt its own identity in the regional footballing psyche.  Nevertheless, it's off to a decent start.

CONCACAF has made the most improvement in its branding of the event and the publicity given to its corporate sponsors.  In the Champions' Cup, any sponsorship around the touchlines was local with very few signage that identified the match as part of the CONCACAF Champions' Cup.  I went to a couple of Champions' Cup matches and they had an improvised feel in the organization.  I don't know what it's like in the stadium now, but CONCACAF has signage around the touchlines and endlines for its sponsors, and the Champions League logo is prominent in the centerline signage.   The host stadia appear well "scrubbed" of other advertising, and the organization does appear to have control over the video screens and public address system.  There are a couple of exceptions, however.   Cruz Azul's PA system lets out a police siren everytime La Máquina advances in the opposing half, and Atlante's plays a canned organist version of "Charge!" a la Major League Baseball.  I'm pretty sure that both are not permitted by the CCL regulations.  Perhaps CONCACAF should look into it.

So how does all this look on TV?  With the signage, the standardized entrance procedures, and the flash zones with tournament and corporate logos present, the Champions League matches have a more professional feel than the Champions' Cup.  But the crowds are very uneven, and sometimes the attendance is embarrassingly small, and the playing surface varies from good in North America to mediocre and poor in Central America.   I think CONCACAF is treating the Champions League like it's a big deal, but the public has not caught on yet. 

I should talk about refereeing, but I can only talk in generalities. I should have taken notes on any controversies that I've seen but didn't do so, and when discussing problems with refereeing I like to use specific examples.  In general the refereeing, in my view, has been decent and hasn't adversely affected the outcome of many games.  There were a couple of penalty decisions or red cards that I didn't think were justified, but I need to check my liveblogs.  

And finally, what does the Champions League mean to the clubs?  I believe they're trying to figure that out.  For the clubs from the smaller CONCACAF nations, and by that I mean those from the Caribbean leagues, the Central American leagues with the exception of Costa Rica, and Canada, the Champions League provides much greater exposure to regional competition than the Champions' Cup.  Three home matches mean increased gate receipts, at least in theory.  It remains to be seen if there are additional payouts to the teams in the group stage.  It could be that CONCACAF doesn't know how much money there will be to distribute to the clubs, and in the present economic climate there will be a fair amount of uncertainty.  But there needs to be some additional financial incentive or this competition will become a glorified (and equally unloved) version of the Champions' Cup. 

I've said in a few posts that the Champions League represents a big leap forward not just for CONCACAF, but also its clubs.  I understand what CONCACAF is trying to achieve through its stadia and facility regulations (e.g. all-seater, meeting/promotion space, etc.), but it should also remember that it's not in Europe.  CONCACAF is capable of making the Champions League successful, as long as it reminds itself of where its member clubs are right now and what it can do to move them forward.