Competitive Strategies Unveiled

How the UEFA Conference League Has Changed Rankings – Increased Variance and Strategic Implications

Since the introduction of the UEFA Conference League in the 2021/22 season, more clubs than ever have had the opportunity to accumulate coefficient points. This has significantly altered UEFA’s club ranking system, increasing the variance between clubs’ points and making ranking positions more volatile. The traditional stability of UEFA rankings, where top clubs remained dominant year after year, has given way to a more unpredictable landscape where teams can rise and fall much faster than before.

One of the clearest ways to measure this change is through standard deviation, which quantifies how spread out ranking points are. If all clubs had similar point totals, the standard deviation would be low, meaning the competition was relatively even. However, if some clubs accumulate significantly higher points while others remain low, the standard deviation rises, indicating a widening gap between top-performing teams and the rest.

Examining the UEFA coefficient standard deviation from 2016 to 2025, we see a steady increase up until 2021, followed by a sharp jump after the introduction of the UEFA Conference League. Before 2021, the standard deviation hovered around 10–11, meaning that most clubs’ ranking points were relatively close to each other. However, after the Conference League was introduced, the standard deviation spiked to 17.3 in 2025, showing that the gap between top-ranked teams and others has never been wider.

Below is a visualization of this trend:

This trend has created a double-edged sword for clubs. On one hand, the pathway to climbing the rankings has never been more accessible. Clubs that perform well in European competitions can accumulate points quickly, rising in the rankings faster than in previous years.

On the other hand, the same volatility applies in reverse—clubs that fail to win enough matches in the group stage or fail to qualify for Europe altogether can see their rankings drop rapidly. Missing out on European qualification can happen in two ways: by underperforming in the domestic league or failing to progress through the qualification rounds.

It is no longer enough just to qualify for European competitions; consistent performances and victories are now essential to maintaining a strong ranking position. Clubs that cannot sustain European success risk falling behind, making future qualification even more challenging.

A perfect example of this dynamic is Brøndby IF and Malmö FF. Brøndby won the Danish Superliga in the 2020/21 season, securing a place in the UEFA Champions League qualifiers. Although they did not reach the group stage, they dropped into the Europa League, where they gained coefficient points. This allowed Brøndby to reach 139th place in UEFA’s ranking.

However, in the seasons that followed, their coefficient points stagnated due to both poor European performances and struggles in the domestic league. Failing to win enough matches in European competitions and inconsistent league finishes have limited their ability to return to Europe, preventing them from accumulating new points. As a result, their ranking has fallen back below 200th place, highlighting the risks of ranking volatility in the current UEFA system. Similarly, Malmö FF has continued qualifying for European tournaments but has struggled to win group-stage matches. As a result, despite participation, they have lost -7.5 points since 2020, illustrating that even regular qualification does not guarantee ranking stability if performances are not strong enough. This decline in performance has also led to a significant drop in their ranking, falling 50 places from 66th to 116th.

The increasing volatility in UEFA rankings has profound strategic implications for clubs. According to Hammer and Davidsen’s methodology on long-term club development, sustained European participation is crucial for financial and sporting stability. This is especially true for clubs that operate as result factories where consistent success in European competitions is a fundamental part of their financial model and long-term strategy. However, in this new landscape, simply qualifying is no longer sufficient. Clubs must now optimize their approach to European football to ensure they maximize ranking points while maintaining strong domestic league performances.

Strategic Choices in European Competitions – The Trade-Off Between the Europa League and Conference League

For mid-sized European clubs, qualifying for Europe now comes with a strategic dilemma: Is it better to compete in the UEFA Europa League or the UEFA Conference League? Each competition offers distinct benefits and risks, shaping both short-term revenue and long-term ranking stability.

The Europa League provides higher prize money, but competition is tougher, making it harder to collect coefficient points. A club that struggles in the Europa League could find itself finishing last in the group stage, missing out on crucial points, and facing a tougher qualification path in future seasons.

The Conference League, on the other hand, offers an easier route to knockout rounds, where wins generate valuable coefficient points. Strong performances in the Conference League can lead to better seeding in future European draws, increasing the likelihood of consistent European participation. AZ Alkmaar, for example, has leveraged the Conference League to strengthen its UEFA ranking and ensure a more sustainable presence in European football.

This trade-off is particularly relevant for clubs that operate under different strategic models, as outlined by Hammer & Davidsen:

• Results Factories (e.g., FC Copenhagen, Malmö FF) prioritize short-term success and depend on European revenue. They now face greater pressure to balance financial incentives from the Europa League with the ranking benefits of a deep Conference League run.
• Talent Factories (e.g., Ajax, Red Bull Salzburg) rely on European exposure to attract and sell players. The Conference League can be an effective development platform, ensuring continued participation in European competitions.
• Hybrid Clubs (e.g., PSV Eindhoven, Anderlecht) must carefully assess whether immediate financial gains or long-term ranking security is the better strategy each season.

With UEFA’s ranking system now more volatile than ever, clubs must rethink their European ambitions. It’s no longer enough to qualify—winning matches and accumulating coefficient points are now essential for long-term stability. Those who fail to adapt risk seeing their ranking decline as quickly as it rose, making a structured, long-term approach to European football more crucial than ever.