Talk:2010–11 UEFA Europa League

Presenting the Changable Places
I've been mulling over the ways of presenting this (rather changable) article since SonjiCeli's edit. There seems to be two ways of doing it: there's the option of including only the guaranteed places, and putting others as "3rd placed team from 16th association" as I did it, or there's putting in all the places as they stand, with asterisks to indicate future changabilty as SonjiCeli did it.

I was wondering whether people watching and interested in this page had any opinion on which to use. To be honest the only reason I didn't rv the change and start this discussion ages ago is all of SonjiCeli's good work on the ndash-ing.

They both have possible problems with Wikipedia's rules. The Partial (mine) could be seen as a form of Original Research, and the Full (SonjiCeli's) method could be seen as Crystal Balling. I suppose both points are arguable, so I think it's a draw on that front. For the rest of it, I can't help but include me own opinion on why mine is better so I hope someone who wants to can give reasons to the contrary.
 * I think the Full method has too much changable detail to be worth it. First, the glancing reader has to search for what the asterisks mean, and then they see that the changable places are mixed in with the confirmed ones, which takes some sorting and considering by the reader. Plus, what the reader is being told is that the associations temporarily lie as they do, but then they may or may not change in future. This is effectively no useful information. I also believe that the Crystal Balling involved is the type which is discourage in Wikipedia's rules.
 * I think the Partial method is much clearer about what is and isn't confirmed. It gives the reader a much more immediate look at their country's places at a casual glance. I think that the Original Research point is minimal, as the data comes from Bert Kassie's ranking and only a few small calculations are necessary to see where teams can move to.

So there's my argument. I'll wait a few days for the input from any interested people. Aheyfromhome (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed a mistake or two, so I decided to revert the page a little sooner than I was planning to. Also there has been no response on here so... Aheyfromhome (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you've been waiting for my response, Aheyfromhome, since I did that edit, and now I will tell you my point of view on this article. The reason I put all those spots is not because I insist on putting all places but because it seemed to be a mess there. I understand that spots aren't confirmed, but that was actually the main problem. I mean, although the first six associations still have their teams in this season's European competitions, some teams have already been put (Spanish, Italian etc.) in their "virtual" spots. Moreover, there is an example where Italian cup-winners were put but the Italian 5th placed team that should have been put wasn't, what is rather unusual. I also noticed some mistakes, like putting places for Israeli Premier League 2008-09 instead of 2009-10, Latvian Football Cup 2008 instead of 2009, and some other. I agree that my version wasn't the best (since the reader is confused when/if he sees all those asterisks), but the previous one wasn't good either. For example, Scotland doesn't have any more teams this year in Europe, but they still aren't sure about their position because there are other associations that can finish in front of them. To summarize, the current version is only a half way towards putting only spots that are completely certain. Actually, most of the places that can still change are now put (see play-off round).


 * Anyway, my new suggestion is to put only spots (with being careful about the mistakes) from 27th lower (Croatia, Finland, Lithuania etc.) since, in theory, Lech Poznań (Polish club) can win UEFA Cup 2008-09 and thereby move very high in the list, changing other spots. You will maybe think of this suggestion as either purity about the whole thing, or sarcasm, but this is a serious proposition to give the reader a full view on the official associations' standings, without being confused about possible further changes. Bye! SonjiCeli (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The filled in places are those which are absolutely definate in terms of entry point and the team's qualification method. For example (open this) even in their worst case scenario, Italy cannot slip any lower than 4th (especially not lower than 15th). Therefore they are guaranteed to have their Cup winner in the Playoff round. However, slipping to 4th would affect whether it's their 5th placed or 4th placed team that also gets into the Playoff round, which is why that has not been filled in. This is why some countries don't have all their places filled in yet. (I actually have a nice Excel file illustrating the situation and my calculations. Pity I can't get you a copy.)
 * It's true that these places are represented in their "virtual" ranking spots, and that it isn't explained that these rankings my change. I suppose this may be misleading to some readers. I was thinking that these would explain who the rest of the spots were for, and interested readers may have followed the link to Bert Kassie's site if they were further interested.
 * I think your proposal for only filling in up to a certain point is a good one, if we can't agree on what to do. I would however ask if if we could put it in terms of whole sections on the page rather than rankings. I would be happy to blank the 3rd and playoff rounds, and only have up the the 2nd round filled in. (Maybe the few unconfirmed places in the 2nd round is worth the large amount of information held in the other slots??)
 * P.S. Even if Lech do win the UEFA Cup, Poland can only move up to 19th in the rankings, meaning the only change would be whether their 3rd placed team gets into the 1st round or 2nd round. (And consequently the same issue for Serbia)
 * Thanks for your reply! Aheyfromhome (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess we eliminated the "full method", which was when I see it now from a distance somewhat confusing. It seems we have two options (again). We should either leave the spots as they are or hide 3rd and play-off round. And I must admit you have a point there. I see you know better about those points and rankings calculations than me and realized why some slots were put and some weren't. However, I really don't know which option to choose since I can find negative sides about every option.
 * In this "hiding method" people won't know what to expect in the 3rd and play-off round. They are not sure about the number of teams in general and about the number of teams from xy-ranked association. Plus, the arfticle would seem incomplete.
 * As for the current version, I think the worst thing is that people would presume positions as they are now given. For instance, people probably won't realize that Italian cup-winners are only certain to compete in the play-off round, and they will think that they are certain to be third-placed cup-winner in that round (although it has been explained in the article that positions can change, but it is not easy to find).
 * Actually there is a third version (which was my main idea in that new suggestion from the previous post), and that is putting all certain spots as they are and on every other changable spot winners of ... cup or 3rd placed team of ... association (no matter if they are still certain to compete in that round) since, as I mentioned earlier, the correct positions are not certain. However, this isn't that good because we already have similar version.
 * To conclude, I must leave you the decision about the article since at this point I don't have any true, certain and definitive opinion. I would also suggest that this note about the possible further changability should be more visible, so that (if we leave this version, of course) an occasional reader immediately notices that the spots can change, and not that he is all confused for some time and then after searching notices the possible changes.
 * Anyway, I hope this discussion would leave to the improvement of the article. Bye! SonjiCeli (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

San Marino and Andorra
According to this link, it seems that UEFA allowed San Marino (and I suppose Andorra too) to have three teams in Europe in 2010-11. Besides regular champions (UCL) and cup-winners (UEL), runners-up will also qualify to UEL in 2010-11. I couldn't find anything on uefa.com, so feel free to write here any sorces you can find regarding this subject. SonjiCeli (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the original article that that article seems to source. Seems pretty well quoted. Doesn't say anything about Andorra though. I think it's worth a mention in the article, but I'd wait until access lists and what-not to come from UEFA before changing the content because theres more than one way they might alter it. Aheyfromhome (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

English/Not English
TBH I didn't realise how random some of the league naming is before tonight. We should get some ground rules on language really. Let's hammer some out.

Cups: If the cup has a generic name then it should be translated into English for great simplicity. That's if it consists of the words "cup", "football", the nationality or any abbreviations e.g. DFB Cup, Ukrainian Cup. If the cup has an unusual name than it should stay Foreign rather than lose character or meaning in translation. e.g. Coppa Titano (Titan Cup), Copa Constitució (Constitution Cup), Copa del Rey (Cup of the King).
 * It makes sense to me, if not being perfect. If a cup is called " Cup" sometimes with the word "football" included, it's worded in English. Where the Cup is branded or named, i.e. Copa Constitució, Copa del Rey, DFB Cup, it stays in the name of the nation responsible. As I say, maybe not a perfect system but logical. Falastur2  Talk 19:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

How they got there
I am always interested how certain teams qualify (where they placed in their league to qualify or what competition they one). Would it be possible to add that information next to each team that has qualified? Gregorybean (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Leagues: Pffff bigger kettle of fish this one. The can't suggest a rule tonight. I'm sleepy. Aheyfromhome (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The main problem with this is that it would take a massive amount of space to do this. There are almost 50 leagues that submit teams, and something like 180 teams in the competition. It would take pages - it could be an article in itself. I think the simplest system is just encouraging people to go to read the Wiki articles on individual league season articles (i.e. 2009–10 Premier League) as the league tables in every article explains it for their league, and that system is essentially the status quo - it's what this article encourages (maybe not very well) already. Falastur2  Talk 19:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well last years table (2009–10 UEFA Europa League) had a short thing in brackets beside each team in the table with a key to explain what it meant. Something like that would do. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Title Holder Question
The 2009-10 Final has now been fixed as Athletico Madrid v Fulham. Neither look like qualifying for Europe from their league - and both are from Countries that have 7 participants in Europe. Does anyone know if the winner will still get in in this scenario? Will they get in without any changes? or will they alter the qualification for whichever country ends up with 8 teams in europe? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It won't effect the other teams that have qualified from their country. They'll be an additional team, entered straight into the Group Stage. Madrid might qualify beforehand by winning the Copa del Rey, or by being the losing finalists if Sevilla get into the Champions League. In that case Spain wouldn't get an extra place, because Madrid qould have already qualified for the Europa League domesticly. Madrid would still get "plucked" from whatever round they qualified for and put straight into the group stage. TBH I'm on the verge of putting a Title Holder section in the artice explaining this, but I'm just waiting until Madrid definately cant qualify through the league, just to make it simpler.Aheyfromhome (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So in that situation[athletico making it], would other teams just be advanced a round in order to keep the number of entrants the same? (like last year where teams got moved around to make up for shaktar qualifying for the CL) 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. If Athletico qualify for the EL and then get moved to the Title Holder spot, there would be a round (either the Playoff or 3Q) that was one team short. So one Cup Winner would get moved up from each of the lower rounds to make up for it. Danish Cup winners would move from 3Q to PO (if needed), Finnish Cup Winners would move from 2Q to 3Q, and Maltese Cup Winners would move from 1Q to 2Q. After that, you'd have an odd number of teams in 1Q which means that the San Marinese Cup Winners would also move from 1Q to 2Q, getting what would be effectivly be a Bye from 1Q. this might illustrate it. (I'll just go and make the Title Holder section, seeing as I've just wrote most of that would be in it :D) Aheyfromhome (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

UEFA Fair Play rankings
Sweden came top between May 1 2009 and April 30 2010, with Denmark and England 2nd and 3rd, respectively. .

Fulham are the highest ranked team in England who haven't already qualified for Europe (well they have now). 

If Fulham win the Europa League then the English berth will go to Burnley. Don't know who's qualified in Scandinavia yet. VEO15 (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Gefle IF and probably Randers FC.  Mousega (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Lovely conversation, chaps, but this is all about the interim rankings at the end of 2009. It only mentions May 1st 2009 to April 30 2010 in order to clarifiy that that is when the Fair Play "season" is. Aheyfromhome (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Liverpool/Portsmouth
Isn't Portsmouth making a late application for a UEFA licence? Has UEFA ruled on it? Kingjeff (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems pretty clear. Even if they did take it to court, I'm not sure that for the purposes of this pages it's really relevant. Jlsa (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's relevant. Even if it's just a note. Kingjeff (talk) 03:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's worth mentioning briefly if you want to write it in. However, we shouldn't be making notes next to Liverpool speculating that they might lose their berth - unless Portsmouth actually get their appeal granted by UEFA it's nothing more than crystal balling. Falastur2  Talk 12:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not speculation when it is mentioned only about Portsmouth's decision to apply late. Kingjeff (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not speculation to write about it. What I meant is that it would be speculation to change where it says "Liverpool" in the "Third qualifying round" section to say something like "Liverpool/Portsmouth" because at the present stage Portsmouth do not qualify and their theoretical entry into Europe is entirely reliant on the basis of a highly unlikely and somewhat dubious appeal - that is to say, Portsmouth's entry relies on a rules change and not an accepted method of entry, and thus proposing they would be accepted is crystal balling. The event is notable as an event, but they shouldn't be added to the list of participants. Of course, you probably weren't proposing to add them to the list of participants, but...whatever. That was my point. Falastur2  Talk 00:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorting qualified teams by rating and seeding
...isn't helping. I had a hard time finding which are the three teams qulified from some of the countries. I think that teams in the article should be sorted by their league rankings as it was before. -NineInchRuiner (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One solution would be adding this table. It's a regular feature of these competition articles so it's technically only a matter of time before it's added anyway, and there's precedent for adding it before all teams are known anyway. Falastur2  Talk 15:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unknown Seeding in 3rd Round
?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.144.230.248 (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC) ¿¿ Aheyfromhome (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no problems with that. 78.188.64.172 (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Netherlands
Can someone tell me why the netherlands is, on the map of teams per country listed as number 1 with 5 teams? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.36.246 (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Because at the end of the Champions League group stage, two Dutch teams dropped down to the Europa League by finishing third in their groups and are now officially Europa League teams. The EL has not finished its group stage, however, and until it has the two Dutch teams who have already been technically eliminated are still officially EL teams and cannot be discounted from the map. Falastur2  Talk 12:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=64/newsid=796145.html
 * In Football Association of Ireland on 2011-03-19 09:17:41, 404 Not Found
 * In 2010–11 UEFA Europa League on 2011-06-19 02:07:45, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2010–11 UEFA Europa League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717191731/http://www.veikkausliiga.com/News.aspx?type=1&ID=39154 to http://www.veikkausliiga.com/News.aspx?type=1&ID=39154
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/matchorganisation/disciplinary/news/newsid%3D1507133.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/matchorganisation/disciplinary/news/newsid%3D1509489.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619171216/http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/seedel2010.html to http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/seedel2010.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/matchorganisation/disciplinary/news/newsid%3D1507076.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100723003628/http://en.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/matchorganisation/refereeing/news/newsid%3D1506902.html to http://en.uefa.com/uefa/footballfirst/matchorganisation/refereeing/news/newsid%3D1506902.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604113712/http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/matches/season%3D2011/round%3D2000133/match%3D2006268/postmatch/report/index.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/matches/season%3D2011/round%3D2000133/match%3D2006268/postmatch/report/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)