UEFA’s shake-up of the Champions League seeding process for the knockout rounds is already causing friction among Europe’s elite. The governing body has confirmed that from this season, home advantage in the latter stages will no longer be determined by a random draw or purely by league performance—but by a selective hierarchy that favors a narrow group of clubs.
The new regulation, introduced quietly in May, is a major departure from previous years. Now, only clubs finishing in the top four of the League Phase—or those who eliminate one of those four—will earn the right to host the decisive second leg of their knockout ties through the quarterfinals. This seeding model will also apply to the semifinals, albeit restricted to teams ranked first and second, and their direct conquerors.
It’s a move that leaves clubs positioned just outside the top spots questioning the incentive structure. Take Arsenal last season: third in the League Phase, but forced to play the second leg of their semifinal against 15th-placed Paris Saint-Germain in Paris. Under the revised format, that outcome would remain unchanged. PSG, having knocked out No. 1-ranked Liverpool in the round of 16, would inherit the home priority and carry it forward through the semifinals—despite their low original standing.
That’s the heart of the controversy. The system creates a peculiar knock-on effect where a lower-seeded team can essentially vault the rankings by eliminating a top-four opponent. It’s no longer enough to finish high in the League Phase; clubs must now rely on either a top-two finish or hope that their bracket path avoids “home-inheriting” underdogs.
Arsenal would again be disadvantaged if the same bracket emerged next season. Despite ranking third, they could never earn second-leg home rights in a semifinal if matched against a team ranked 1st, 2nd, or one of the unlikely few who knocked them out. It’s a narrow corridor to advantage, and it reduces the tangible rewards of finishing among the top eight.
UEFA’s approach is a significant deviation from playoff models in American sports, where brackets are routinely re-seeded to reward higher performance. In contrast, the Champions League bracket is now fixed with a structure that can favor a team finishing 15th or even lower—like 23rd or 24th—if they knock out the right opponents.
That shift would’ve notably altered last season’s semifinal alignment. Barcelona, second in the League Phase, would have hosted their semifinal second leg against Internazionale, who were fourth. Instead, the Nerazzurri had the advantage due to a static draw. Under the new framework, the Catalans would automatically host the reverse fixture—potentially changing the outcome.
Even in the quarterfinals, the changes are pronounced. Arsenal’s tie against 11th-ranked Real Madrid was played away in the second leg last season. In the current system, the Gunners would host that fixture at the Emirates due to their higher league standing—provided neither club had defeated a top-four team to leapfrog priority.
These revised rules extend beyond the Champions League and into the Europa League, Conference League, and Women’s Champions League. The principle remains the same: a narrow merit-based reward system that filters home advantage through elite or opportunistic success.
But it’s not hard to see the imbalance. A team finishing third or fourth in the League Phase can no longer hope to host a semifinal second leg under any scenario. That privilege now belongs to a mix of the top two finishers and lower-ranked clubs that beat them—a strange paradox where both ends of the ranking spectrum benefit more than the consistent performers in the middle.
As the knockout rounds return under this new model, clubs and fans alike will be watching closely. Not just for results, but for a sense of fairness that many feel may already be slipping away.
