The great moral debate of today

The great moral debate of today is whether, if Liverpool win the Champions League but finish outside the top four, they should be given England's fourth Champions League ticket for next year's competition. If you are a random Timberblog visitor and don't understand what I'm talking about here, I suggest you skip to another entry as it's not going to get any more understandable and/or interesting.

I have a feeling that this story is going to "do a Millennium Bug" - i.e. generate plenty of debate and press coverage in a purely speculative form, and then singularly fail to even happen. The whole debate could well be completely dead by this time on Tuesday night. But I guess the situation could happen again, so I will outline ye olde argument here as a precedent for further referral.

Everton, Liverpool's oldest rivals, are currently in pole position for that famous fourth place. They claim it is logical they should get the CL birth for next year as they have outperformed Liverpool in the league. It is criminal to whisk away the reward that they have worked for and deserved over an entire season. If I supported Everton, I would find this a completely arse concept and would be up in arms. After all, I supported Reading in 1995 when, due to a reduction in the size of the Premiership that year, they became the only team in history to finish second in the second tier of English football, but not be promoted to the top flight. That too was arse, but you cannot argue with the rule book. Well, you can, but you can't do anything about it. And in Everton's case, luckily for them, it would appear the rulebook, or at least the authorities, point in their favour.

However, I believe that if the CL winners finish outside the qualifying positions, but only by a margin of 2 or 3 places, then it is they who should be allowed to enter the following season. If Liverpool finish fifth or sixth, as is very likely, Shirley they have a legitimate claim to retain their CL trophy if they win it? There are a number of reasons I would give for this:

1. It is obvious that Liverpool have underperformed in post-European league games. They have been obliged to sacrifice league form for their CL adventure. If they did not have this distraction, you could argue that they would be above Everton, as at most there is a matter of 3-6 points in it. This argument has no weight if they were languishing in 14th, for example, but it seems harsh to take away the CL ticket when you would have probably acheived the fourth qualifying berth if you weren't busy winning the thing.

2. There is only one precedent - in 2000, Real Madrid finished fifth in their league, but were allowed to defend their trophy at the expense of the fourth-placed team by the Spanish authorities. Admittedly you can also argue that Real Madrid have enormous political influence and basically get whatever they want, and any rule-bending goes in their favour. But it is still the one and only precedent.

3. Why does England have as many as four CL places when other countries have 3, 2, or only 1? It is because English sides have done better than most other countries' in European competition, and have thus earnt the extra qualification spots. They also have more TV money, granted, but England only nicked that fourth place off Germany a few years ago because of UEFA coefficients - Premiership sides consistantly outperformed Bundesliga ones. Who is to thank for this? Everton? Er, don't think so. Liverpool, the last English side to win a European trophy? Champions league quarter finalists in 2002, and semi-finalists this year helping to ensure the Premiership keeps that fourth spot?

My first conclusion: on the basis of the rulebook, Everton deserve the CL place. But on pretty much everything else, Liverpool do.

My second conclusion: watch Chelsea go through on Tuesday night, and remember that this entire debate is completely pointless.