UEFA's Nations League Will Only Make the Rich Richer – That's Why it Exists

This article originally appeared on VICE Sports UK.

International football is shit. You might pretend that it isn't – the World Cup and all its multicolour jamboree may convince you differently for five weeks every four years – but it is. If you've been to Wembley to watch England play at any point over the past decade you'll probably agree; if you're Scottish you'll definitely know what I'm talking about.

But the malaise in international football goes deeper than just the tortured souls of those not fortunate enough to be Germany or Brazil. If spectacle is now the currency of the modern game, the international variance of the sport is decidedly penniless. Major tournaments aside, international football is hardly worth your attention, let alone your engagement.

But UEFA has a plan to make it less shit. A grand ambition to counter all those qualification dead rubbers against the likes of Estonia or Lithuania with something better. Their blueprint wants to take international football and make it every bit as engaging (and as lucrative) as the club game – and they're serious.

The Nations League is the manifestation of how UEFA plans to overhaul international football. Essentially, the competition – which will start up in 2018, after the Russia World Cup – will replace international friendly fixtures for European countries, with 52 teams split into four divisions each consisting of four groups of three or four sides.

Those divisions will be sorted by ranking, meaning the best teams will be grouped together and scheduled to play six fixtures between September and November. The winners of the four groups in the top division will play semi-finals and then a final in June 2019. Automatic qualification for the 2020 European Championships will be handed to the four semi-finalists, giving the competition an incentive in much the same way Champions League qualification is a reward for winning the Europa League.

It all seems slightly contrived through the medium of PR-heavy statements and puff talk, but the concept is a simple one – UEFA wants its best international teams to play each other more often. It's designed to give the international game a sparkle it is so desperately lacking. It's a classic Michel Platini move.

Sepp Blatter was once described by a disgruntled FIFA employee as a "concierge". The implication was that he remembers the names of his most powerful guests and their children, smiles when a bank note is slipped into his hand, and has no ideology other than to satisfy those who can keep him in control. In that sense, Platini as UEFA president isn't altogether different.

As head of UEFA for eight years, the now-embattled Platini has weighted the European club game significantly in favour of its superpowers. Financial Fair Play might have been the recommendation of the European Club Association, but it has been implemented under the watch of Platini – and for all its well-intentioned purpose, it preserves the status quo and protects the interests of the continental aristocracy.

Then there's the manner with which the Champions League has been repackaged and branded with the former Juventus and France playmaker as the head of European football's governing body. More significantly, however, he has imposed a financial distribution model that rewards the sport's biggest clubs - making the rich even richer.

The winners of this season's Champions League will scoop around €100 million, with clubs reaching the group stages receiving just €8.6 million. It's a model that could be replicated with the Nations League, with those at the top-end of the pyramid receiving far higher royalties than those at the bottom.

The Nations League is the brainchild of UEFA, who want to boost general interest in the international game, but the concept could also mirror the way in which Platini has made club football the domain of the privileged. If the fundamental essence of international football is to give the game's minnows a chance against the elite, then the Nations League serves to completely undermine that.

UEFA sells it differently. As they put it, "the key driver of the Nations League is sporting integrity, as member associations, coaches, players and supporters increasingly feel friendly internationals are not providing adequate sporting competition." Translated: the most illustrious, richest member associations feel friendly internationals are not providing adequate revenue. And so Platini, the concierge, has done his best to help.

Money can indeed be made from the international game – lots of it. The Brazilian national team, more than any other side, have demonstrated this, showing just how lucrative football can be when the product comes with enough bows tied on top. The self-styled 'Brasil World Tour' has found a way to turn the romance and allure of the Selecao and Joga Bonito into cold, hard cash, with host cities and venues paying as much as $3 million for just one match against Brazil.

With television rights centralised and sold off to regional broadcasters, UEFA could replicate this, to an extent, with the biggest countries naturally earning the biggest pay cheque. The only ones left unhappy are the minnows, who will no longer have the chance to test themselves against better opposition; but who cares about them?

The Nations League will also provide UEFA with more leverage in its power struggle with FIFA. The European game already boasts most of world football's biggest and best teams and leagues, and now it will have yet another platform to pit its biggest and best international sides against each other.

The G14 might have been disbanded seven years ago – and replaced by the more inclusive ECA – but European football is still largely controlled by a select, privileged few. The Nations League will only serve to tighten their grip on the continental game, just as the Champions League has done for club football.

But there should be no surprise about this: that's exactly what it's designed to do.

@grahamruthven