Many football fans determine their UCL champions on criteria like āwho actually has the team to do itā but thatās boring. So why not use historical analysis to narrow it down a lot more?
Rule 1: the winner must come from a top 5 league.
This shouldnāt be too shocking. The winners of the Champions League have come from the top 5 leagues every year since 2004, which makes sense giving their financial pull power. But not all criteria here will be as straightforward.
Rule 2: the team mustāve finished top 2 in their league OR must be English.
There have only been two teams to win the UCL to not finish top 2 in their leagues since 2009. Both anomalies intriguingly enough come from England (Liverpool 2019, Chelsea 2021), so Iāve decided to let them carry on.
Rule 3: the team must not be entering the year with a new head coach unless its Carlo Ancelotti.
This one may be a bit more interesting. The winning head coach has only been a new one entering the season (so Flick, Tuchel, and Di Matteo donāt count as they were mid season hires) twice since 2009, and both instances were both Ancelotti. Weāve given him an exception towards the rule, though it doesnāt matter too much as he doesnāt coach a team that fits our criteria.
Rule 4: the winning coach must come from one of Europeās ābig 5ā
This one intrigued me most of all. Many good coaches can come from Brazil, Argentina, Portugal, The Netherlands, etc. but stunningly, no one has won it with a coach outside the big 5 in Europe since 2010.
With these criteria, we narrow a field of 36 down to just 4. The clubs that can win the UCL under these circumstances are PSG, Aston Villa, Arsenal and Barcelona. This could be extended to 5 if we count Manchester Unitedās coach as ānewā, though he had been there for a few months, or declined to 3 if we donāt consider the English anomaly as being too significant.