The Asian Football Confederation (AFC) Champions League and its European counterpart, the UEFA Champions League, share several superficial similarities. Both competitions have aligned their calendars, transitioning from a spring start to an autumn one, and employ a group stage format where teams face multiple opponents once, a structure often criticized for its unwieldiness. Furthermore, both tournaments feature a limited representation of nations beyond their core regions. While UEFA includes Israel and Kazakhstan, the AFC incorporates 11 Asian nations alongside Australia, which hails from Oceania, bringing the total to a dozen.
However, despite the shared challenges within European club football, every UEFA member country has a theoretical pathway to the group stage and, ultimately, the coveted title. Out of 55 member associations, 53 (excluding Russia and Liechtenstein) have at least one team vying for contention. In stark contrast, only 12 out of 47 AFC member associations are represented in the Champions League Elite. A staggering three-quarters of Asian countries are either entirely absent or relegated to the two lower-tier tournaments, effectively rendering them irrelevant in the pursuit of continental glory.
The 2024 rebranding of the tournament saw the addition of "Elite" to the top-tier competition’s name. A more accurate descriptor would have been "Exclusive." Further exacerbating the imbalance, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar in the western zone, along with Japan, South Korea, and China in the eastern zone (the tournament is geographically divided until the quarter-finals), each boast three participating teams. This means that in the premier club competition of the world’s largest continent, a mere six countries account for 18 teams, while six others (Iran, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Australia, Malaysia, and Thailand) have a single representative each. The remaining 35 nations are left with no representation whatsoever.
The disparity is particularly evident when comparing populations and participation. Qatar and the UAE, with a combined population roughly 1% of India’s, enjoy a 6-0 advantage in terms of participating teams. Countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, and Jordan also face frustration, lacking the necessary points in AFC club competition rankings and being relegated to the AFC Champions League Two alongside teams from the top 12 countries. This leaves the remaining nations, such as Bhutan and Brunei, to compete in the AFC Challenge League, further marginalizing their presence on the continental stage.
The rationale behind the top-tier cull – the 2023-24 edition was open to 24 countries – was to raise standards and improve the tournament’s commercial performance. While it is still early days, and AFC officials claim they will evaluate the new format after a couple of years, concerns persist regarding continental-wide engagement. Excluding a significant majority of the confederation when there is limited fan support or media interest in clubs from other Asian countries poses a significant risk.
Organizing a 24-club tournament across such a vast and diverse region, lacking a unified football culture, is undoubtedly challenging. The experience of watching games in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar differs drastically from that in China or Malaysia. Reducing the number of teams simplifies logistics but also diminishes the element of surprise.
Asia’s advantage over Europe traditionally lay in its relative unpredictability, with 14 different winners in the past 20 years compared to Europe’s 10. Limiting participation to 12 countries creates a sense of familiarity and raises the specter of Saudi Arabian dominance. Last season, the Saudi Pro League contributed three of the four semi-finalists, a scenario that could easily repeat itself, and indeed, its recurrence would hardly be a surprise.
From the quarter-finals onward, all knockout games will once again be held in Saudi Arabia, providing SPL teams with a significant advantage and fostering disillusionment elsewhere. Some club officials in the major East Asian countries have privately questioned the value of playing ten international games (eight in the group stages and two in the second round, potentially involving away legs in Australia or Southeast Asia) only to face a long mid-season trip to Saudi Arabia against a team brimming with world-class players in front of their home fans.
Perhaps Saudi domination will, as the AFC hopes, incentivize other nations to invest more heavily in their football infrastructure and increase spending. However, this strategy carries inherent risks, especially considering the substantial investments already made in Riyadh and Jeddah. The financial disparity could further widen the gap, making it even more difficult for other nations to compete.
It is conceivable that only Saudi Arabian teams can effectively challenge other Saudi Arabian teams. Simone Inzaghi, who lost the most recent European final with Inter Milan, could potentially achieve greater success with Al-Hilal, especially after the acquisition of Darwin Núñez from Liverpool for a reported £50 million. Al-Ahli, the current continental champions, boast a formidable squad including Ivan Toney, Riyad Mahrez, Édouard Mendy, and others, aiming to become the first team since 2005 to successfully defend the Asian title. The last team to achieve this feat was their Jeddah rival, Al-Ittihad, who have European winners Karim Benzema and N’Golo Kanté within their ranks, seeking to add the Asian title to their impressive collection.
The concentration of talent and resources within a select few Saudi Arabian clubs presents a significant obstacle for teams from the other 11 participating countries. The financial power and strategic acquisitions of these clubs create a formidable challenge, potentially leading to a predictable and less competitive tournament.
The consequences of this lopsided structure extend beyond the competition itself. By limiting participation and concentrating resources, the AFC risks alienating a significant portion of its member associations. The lack of representation for 35 countries diminishes the sense of continental unity and shared ambition. Fans in those countries are deprived of the opportunity to support their local teams on the biggest stage, potentially leading to decreased interest and engagement in Asian club football.
Furthermore, the focus on commercial performance and raising standards may come at the expense of developing grassroots football and promoting inclusivity across the continent. By prioritizing the financial interests of a few wealthy clubs, the AFC risks neglecting the broader development of the game in less affluent nations. This could create a vicious cycle, where the lack of investment and opportunity further widens the gap between the elite and the rest.
The AFC’s strategy also raises questions about the long-term sustainability of Saudi Arabian dominance. While the influx of foreign talent has undoubtedly elevated the profile of the Saudi Pro League, it remains to be seen whether this investment will translate into sustained success for Saudi Arabian clubs in continental competitions. The reliance on imported players could also hinder the development of local talent, potentially undermining the long-term growth of Saudi Arabian football.
The decision to host all knockout games from the quarter-finals onward in Saudi Arabia further exacerbates the existing imbalance. This decision provides a significant home advantage to Saudi Arabian clubs, making it even more difficult for teams from other countries to compete. The financial incentives and logistical advantages offered by hosting the knockout stages in Saudi Arabia may have swayed the AFC’s decision, but the move has been criticized for prioritizing financial gain over sporting fairness.
In conclusion, the current structure of the AFC Champions League Elite, with its limited participation, concentration of resources, and geographical bias, risks undermining the principles of fair competition and continental unity. The dominance of Saudi Arabian clubs, while impressive, may come at the expense of the broader development of Asian football. The AFC needs to carefully consider the long-term implications of its current strategy and explore ways to promote greater inclusivity, foster grassroots development, and ensure a more level playing field for all its member associations. Without addressing these issues, the AFC Champions League Elite risks becoming a predictable and less engaging competition, failing to fulfill its potential as the premier club tournament in Asia. The exclusion of so many nations from meaningful participation ultimately diminishes the overall appeal and relevance of the competition, potentially hindering the growth and development of football across the continent. Fans in 35 other countries would probably have enjoyed seeing their teams try, but are not going to get the chance.