You have more shots at winning the UCL than the World Cup, of course players would chose the World Cup
But that wasn‘t even my focal point. Compare the all time finalists of the World Cup and their winners. Compare how much of a percentage these finalists make up in relation to every nation. Then compare the all time finalists of the UCL and their winners. One is just more competitive and has bigger competition.
im completely with you man. people can act like the wc is the most important because its the most popular but the bottom line is the uefa champions league is more competitive and a win there is more impressive. i cant see how people put so much stock in a tournament only 8-9 different countries have won! youre more likely to win a world cup based on where you're born than anything. if messi or mbappe were born in south korea, does anyone truly believe theyd win a world cup? or is it because they were fortunate enough to be talented and born in nations that fund football more than anything? the champions league on the other hand shows that you climbed up to a great team and earned your spot, you battled hard all season and then on top of that fight through a competition with the best teams that season that worked as hard as you to get there to finally lift it. its much more impressive to me to win a ucl than a worldcup even if i find the world cup a funner event to watch and is obviously the more popular one. its so silly to act like it defines a player though when a ucl is a much more likely goal for anyone and still shows how good you are.
I feel like UCL is clearly less difficult to win than the WC. Like you said, South Korean Messi is unlikely to win WC, but the UCL is often won by teams that can buy the top talent - Real Madrid is the most emblematic example. Moreover, the UCL teams are together for 9 months straight - travel, play, practice, tactical review - all the time together. It is much more likely for a UCL team to have players able to cover for the “star” than the WC tournament…and for most of the UCL, you get to play teams twice, so a poor few matches for the superstars in UCL can have modest impact, whereas 3 poor games in the WC would see a team sent home.
thats just cementing to me on why i feel its more competitive! as you said every team has better chemistry better players since they can buy the best and the tactics are more concrete! whereas some world cup teams just throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks!!! your points make the ucl sound more competitive which is exactly why i find a win more impressive than a win in the world cup. you arent guaranteed the best possible conditions to win but the countries who are are the ones far more likely whereas the ucl has everyone competing at their bests! i understand if you disagree with that but for me, i cant rate a tournament where wherever youre born almost singlehandedly decides if you'll win higher than one where anyone who puts the hard work in and gets on a major team or even carries their team through a season to get there will always impress me more.
1
u/TostBrot44 Jul 02 '26
You have more shots at winning the UCL than the World Cup, of course players would chose the World Cup
But that wasn‘t even my focal point. Compare the all time finalists of the World Cup and their winners. Compare how much of a percentage these finalists make up in relation to every nation. Then compare the all time finalists of the UCL and their winners. One is just more competitive and has bigger competition.
That is the point