Playing at home in the Champions League final

"Millwall will play Manchester United in the European Champions Cup Final.

The game will be played at Old Trafford on Saturday 20th of May 2034"

Is this a bug? Since the stadium is decided long before the participating teams are known, what would happen in real life if the match ended up being played on the home stadium of one of the teams?

Bayern played at home in the CL final in 2012.

They did? I wasn't aware of that. Haven't been paying much attention to real life football the last years

They did? I wasn't aware of that. Haven't been paying much attention to real life football the last years

Yes, as you rightly said in your OP, the venue for the Champions League final is decided before it is known who the participants are going to be, so it can and did happen in 2012 that Bayern played at home. I am sure it has happened before...

[checks Wikipedia]

Yes, In 1957 Real Madrid played in the (European Cup) final at the Bernabéu (they beat Fiorentina 2-0) and in 1984 Roma played Liverpool in the final at the Olimpico in Rome (they lost on penalties).

Since the UEFA Cup/Europa League moved away from 2-legged finals only Sporting Lisbon have played the final at their home ground, losing to CSKA Moscow in 2005.

Last but not least, Barcelona defeated Standard Liège in the 1982 Cup Winners' Cup final at Camp Nou!

"Millwall will play Manchester United in the European Champions Cup Final.

The game will be played at Old Trafford on Saturday 20th of May 2034"

Is this a bug? Since the stadium is decided long before the participating teams are known, what would happen in real life if the match ended up being played on the home stadium of one of the teams?

Just curious, does it list this game on your schedule as an away fixture or a neutral one? It appears in my games that during the World Cup and similar events involving national teams, games played by the host country are always incorrectly listed as neutral games.

Happened a few times IRL because the venue is selected well before the finalists are known.

Just curious, does it list this game on your schedule as an away fixture or a neutral one? It appears in my games that during the World Cup and similar events involving national teams, games played by the host country are always incorrectly listed as neutral games.

But that's not incorrect. It's still technically a neutral game, that just happens to be played at the host's stadium. They will not have "home advantage" in the way of having considerably more fans in the stadium (it should be an even split, although rarely ends up being). They could end up being drawn as the away team too, so lose the benefits of having the home dressing room etc etc. Even more so at a World Cup. So the matches are marked as neutral, and should be IMO.

But that's not incorrect. It's still technically a neutral game, that just happens to be played at the host's stadium. They will not have "home advantage" in the way of having considerably more fans in the stadium (it should be an even split, although rarely ends up being). They could end up being drawn as the away team too, so lose the benefits of having the home dressing room etc etc. Even more so at a World Cup. So the matches are marked as neutral, and should be IMO.

I see what you are saying, but I find it tough to not view Brazil's games at this World Cup as anything other than home games. As far as international games go, as long as you are playing within your borders, Football Manager should denote it as a home game and provide you with whatever benefits it normally provides home games. When you look at the history of the World Cup, the home country almost always punches above its weight, and there is a reason for that.

As far as the Champions League final goes, even if you have equal the number of fans at the stadium as your opponent does, and you have to use the away dressing room, it is still your home facility, your home city, etc., and, because of that, it is much more a home game for that club than it is a neutral one.

Thank you for the explanation, however. I always wondered why Football Manager changed those games from home and away to neutral a few years ago. Although I vehemently disagree with these reasons, at least I understand the "why" behind it now.

I see what you are saying, but I find it tough to not view Brazil's games at this World Cup as anything other than home games. As far as international games go, as long as you are playing within your borders, Football Manager should denote it as a home game and provide you with whatever benefits it normally provides home games. When you look at the history of the World Cup, the home country almost always punches above its weight, and there is a reason for that.

As far as the Champions League final goes, even if you have equal the number of fans at the stadium as your opponent does, and you have to use the away dressing room, it is still your home facility, your home city, etc., and, because of that, it is much more a home game for that club than it is a neutral one.

Thank you for the explanation, however. I always wondered why Football Manager changed those games from home and away to neutral a few years ago. Although I vehemently disagree with these reasons, at least I understand the "why" behind it now.

Then if FM gives you the 'home team' benefits it should also give you the added pressure of having to perform in your own country/stadium. That would probably mean any advantage was cancelled out. I have to disagree with the changing room comment though. Many new stadiums for club sides have the home changing room facilities better than the away ones. They tend to be bigger, more comfortable and generally 5* compared to the away sides 4* changing room.

I agree with forameuss that they should be marked as neutral and although i agree with your 'sides punching above their weight' as many side do. Without checking i think i am right in saying that most major championships have changed slightly from days gone by. Back in Euro 96 England played all games at Wembley - clear advantage, yet take this World Cup, Brazil are having to travel around the country for their games as did South Africa back in 2010.

Although I could see the point that it could be less than their normal home-field advantage, I just see no way that it is closer to neutral than it is to playing at home in real life and, therefore, as far as Football Manager goes. I know that here in America, our national team plays home games all over the place in cities that are thousands of miles apart (it's nearly 3,000 miles from New York to Los Angeles). And the U.S. team played all over the country during the 1994 World Cup (as did every country), but each of those U.S. games were absolutely home games. (I attended the U.S.-Brazil round of 16 game, and we absolutely had an advantage as opposed to if we were playing that Brazil squad in Germany, Australia or elsewhere. We likely would have lost by more in those cases.) Also, if England were hosting the World Cup or Euro and had to play a game in, say, Manchester, I just see no way that it could be judged as anything other than a home game for them. You just receive way too many benefits, from having a much higher percentage of the crowd to being able to be in the society where you feel most comfortable to being able to speak your native language when you go about and so on.

Also, I am sure that, assuming that all of the squads have the same talent level, every team - if they were being honest - would say that it is much easier to play somebody other than the home country at the World Cup, a continental championship or in a similar competition.

And, in the case of the Champions League final, there is enjoying the comfort of playing in your home stadium (and in your home community), even if you are in the (possibly worse) visitor's locker room. Sure, it will be more neutral than the rest of your home games, but it is still much, much closer to a home game than a neutral one.

I used to work in Division I college athletics here in America, and when a team plays host to postseason games, which is possible in sports like volleyball, baseball, women's basketball, soccer, etc. (men's basketball postseason games are always played at neutral sites), we are very firmly told by the NCAA that we need to treat it like a neutral event, or we risk not being given hosting rights in the future. In other words, there can be no advantages for the home team in just about every controllable area. You need to ensure that the public address announcer shows no more enthusiasm for the home team than the other teams, and music cannot be played in a manner where it would appear to be focused more on the home team. Every team, including the home team, receives the exact same amount of practice time at the facility. However, with all of that said, those games are still absolutely, without a doubt, home games. You can sleep in your own beds, you are in your home city, you know and are comfortable with the facility (even if you have to use the other locker room), and you will almost always have a significant advantage in fan breakdown.

Although I could see the point that it could be less than their normal home-field advantage, I just see no way that it is closer to neutral than it is to playing at home in real life and, therefore, as far as Football Manager goes. I know that here in America, our national team plays home games all over the place in cities that are thousands of miles apart (it's nearly 3,000 miles from New York to Los Angeles). And the U.S. team played all over the country during the 1994 World Cup (as did every country), but each of those U.S. games were absolutely home games. (I attended the U.S.-Brazil round of 16 game, and we absolutely had an advantage as opposed to if we were playing that Brazil squad in Germany, Australia or elsewhere. We likely would have lost by more in those cases.) Also, if England were hosting the World Cup or Euro and had to play a game in, say, Manchester, I just see no way that it could be judged as anything other than a home game for them. You just receive way too many benefits, from having a much higher percentage of the crowd to being able to be in the society where you feel most comfortable to being able to speak your native language when you go about and so on.

Also, I am sure that, assuming that all of the squads have the same talent level, every team - if they were being honest - would say that it is much easier to play somebody other than the home country at the World Cup, a continental championship or in a similar competition.

And, in the case of the Champions League final, there is enjoying the comfort of playing in your home stadium (and in your home community), even if you are in the (possibly worse) visitor's locker room. Sure, it will be more neutral than the rest of your home games, but it is still much, much closer to a home game than a neutral one.

I used to work in Division I college athletics here in America, and when a team plays host to postseason games, which is possible in sports like volleyball, baseball, women's basketball, soccer, etc. (men's basketball postseason games are always played at neutral sites), we are very firmly told by the NCAA that we need to treat it like a neutral event, or we risk not being given hosting rights in the future. In other words, there can be no advantages for the home team in just about every controllable area. You need to ensure that the public address announcer shows no more enthusiasm for the home team than the other teams, and music cannot be played in a manner where it would appear to be focused more on the home team. Every team, including the home team, receives the exact same amount of practice time at the facility. However, with all of that said, those games are still absolutely, without a doubt, home games. You can sleep in your own beds, you are in your home city, you know and are comfortable with the facility (even if you have to use the other locker room), and you will almost always have a significant advantage in fan breakdown.

But that's all subjective stuff. FM Is marking down what the game is classed as. The Champions League final is always classed as being played at a neutral venue, as is any major international tournament game. Whether it's a home game subjectively or not is irrelevant. It's not a normal home game, and it's treated differently.

But that's all subjective stuff. FM Is marking down what the game is classed as. The Champions League final is always classed as being played at a neutral venue, as is any major international tournament game. Whether it's a home game subjectively or not is irrelevant. It's not a normal home game, and it's treated differently.

I thought Football Manager specialized in incorporating the subjective stuff into FM like the impact of a big game, a large crowd, your pre-game talk, what you say to the press, etc. If a team receives an advantage from playing a game at home, which it clearly does at an event like the World Cup, then why shouldn't that advantage be incorporated into the game? Also, I would assume that any disadvantages that you get from playing at home, such as those mentioned by kris710 above, would be more than made up for with positive benefits. Teams do win more often at home after all. And, yes, nations absolutely do feel more of a pressure to do well at the World Cup when they are hosting. Brazil clearly feels more pressure now than they did four years ago or perhaps at any point since 1950.

If it has to be that way, I am okay with it being listed as a neutral game in these types of situations as long as the home team receives the benefits - and any negatives - of playing at home when hosting a World Cup, etc. Maybe less of an advantage if need be, but there absolutely needs to be more of an advantage for Brazil playing Croatia last Thursday in a Brazilian city as opposed to if Brazil played Croatia in a place like Japan or Germany instead. Those two situations are not remotely the same and, if it absolutely has to be black-and-white, home-or-neutral, playing that game in a Brazilian city is much more of a home game than a neutral one.

I don't know - this just seems so common sense for me. Brazil is playing at home at this World Cup. Their games are not neutral in any sense of the word when it comes to how the game is played and the impact that it has on players on both teams, and this needs to be incorporated into Football Manager. It's just not realistic to me for me to start playing FM, become the Brazil manager, and have each of these games treated as neutral when that is the furthest thing from the case with just about any measure.

I don't know - this just seems so common sense for me. Brazil is playing at home at this World Cup. Their games are not neutral in any sense of the word when it comes to how the game is played and the impact that it has on players on both teams, and this needs to be incorporated into Football Manager. It's just not realistic to me for me to start playing FM, become the Brazil manager, and have each of these games treated as neutral when that is the furthest thing from the case with just about any measure.

They may be playing at home, but FIFA will class it as a neutral venue, just like UEFA do with the Champions League Final. Hence, FM does the same. Whether there's anything going on under the hood when a team plays in a neutral game on their own ground is unknown, but it will always be classed as a neutral venue. Always.

I thought Football Manager specialized in incorporating the subjective stuff into FM like the impact of a big game, a large crowd, your pre-game talk, what you say to the press, etc. If a team receives an advantage from playing a game at home, which it clearly does at an event like the World Cup, then why shouldn't that advantage be incorporated into the game? Also, I would assume that any disadvantages that you get from playing at home, such as those mentioned by kris710 above, would be more than made up for with positive benefits. Teams do win more often at home after all. And, yes, nations absolutely do feel more of a pressure to do well at the World Cup when they are hosting. Brazil clearly feels more pressure now than they did four years ago or perhaps at any point since 1950.

If it has to be that way, I am okay with it being listed as a neutral game in these types of situations as long as the home team receives the benefits - and any negatives - of playing at home when hosting a World Cup, etc. Maybe less of an advantage if need be, but there absolutely needs to be more of an advantage for Brazil playing Croatia last Thursday in a Brazilian city as opposed to if Brazil played Croatia in a place like Japan or Germany instead. Those two situations are not remotely the same and, if it absolutely has to be black-and-white, home-or-neutral, playing that game in a Brazilian city is much more of a home game than a neutral one.

I don't know - this just seems so common sense for me. Brazil is playing at home at this World Cup. Their games are not neutral in any sense of the word when it comes to how the game is played and the impact that it has on players on both teams, and this needs to be incorporated into Football Manager. It's just not realistic to me for me to start playing FM, become the Brazil manager, and have each of these games treated as neutral when that is the furthest thing from the case with just about any measure.

I agree completely. There's clearly an advantage to playing at home even if the game is officially classed as taking place at a neutral venue. The game should model this.

Don't confuse the World Cup and Champions League.

Have you seen Brazil's games? They are very much the home team in their own country with massive crowd support.

It is a little different in the Champions League, imo. Ticket allocations mean that there should equal support from the fans. In terms of the pitch itself, there might be an ever so slight advantage in terms of being used to the pitch dimensions. With pitch size limits, that can't be much of an advantage though?

I'd also add as an aside and a bit of trivia, that at Euro 96, despite England playing every single game at Wembley, they were assigned the away dressing room for their match with Scotland. It's classed as a neutral venue.

Then if FM gives you the 'home team' benefits it should also give you the added pressure of having to perform in your own country/stadium. That would probably mean any advantage was cancelled out. I have to disagree with the changing room comment though. Many new stadiums for club sides have the home changing room facilities better than the away ones. They tend to be bigger, more comfortable and generally 5* compared to the away sides 4* changing room.

I agree with forameuss that they should be marked as neutral and although i agree with your 'sides punching above their weight' as many side do. Without checking i think i am right in saying that most major championships have changed slightly from days gone by. Back in Euro 96 England played all games at Wembley - clear advantage, yet take this World Cup, Brazil are having to travel around the country for their games as did South Africa back in 2010.

That's more to do with them having to get full value and pacify the public over the new 'white elephant' stadiums. When England hosted Euro 96, we hadn't just spent hundreds of millions on stadiums no one wanted.

That's more to do with them having to get full value and pacify the public over the new 'white elephant' stadiums. When England hosted Euro 96, we hadn't just spent hundreds of millions on stadiums no one wanted.

It matters little the reasons though.

IMO England had a bigger advantage in Euro 96 compared to South Africa and Brazil in recent tournaments yet the pressure remains the same.

The advantage is still there though. We easily outnumbered everyone else at the stadium in 2010, so South Africa would have benefited from that "home" support, not to mention being used to the conditions like weather.

The advantage is still there though. We easily outnumbered everyone else at the stadium in 2010, so South Africa would have benefited from that "home" support, not to mention being used to the conditions like weather.

Totally agree there is still an advantage. My point is more the players still have to travel large distances and play in stadiums and on pitches mainly unknown to them. Fans and climate apart the rest of the build up is the same as an away tie.

I'd also add as an aside and a bit of trivia, that at Euro 96, despite England playing every single game at Wembley, they were assigned the away dressing room for their match with Scotland. It's classed as a neutral venue.

Nobody is saying it shouldn't be classed as a neutral venue. If Newcastle got to the final of the CL and it was being held at St James' Park then even though it's being called a neutral venue they would still have an advantage as in reality they're playing at home.

Totally agree there is still an advantage. My point is more the players still have to travel large distances and play in stadiums and on pitches mainly unknown to them. Fans and climate apart the rest of the build up is the same as an away tie.

Brazil - and a few other nations - play their home qualifiers in a variety of venues, yet I assume that Football Manager gives each of those home qualifiers the same advantage as England playing every qualifier at Wembley. Not sure why the World Cup needs to be any different. Even if the stadium is new to Brazil's squad, they are still going to feel a lot more comfortable there than any of their opponents ever would.

Nobody is saying it shouldn't be classed as a neutral venue.

I am. Not sure I could have made that more clear earlier in this thread. However, I do see the case against it and am willing to give up this point as long as Football Manager gives these teams a home advantage, or close to it, in these scenarios. I know this is a subjective argument but, in my opinion, if playing a World Cup qualifier in your home country is given a rating of 20 on a scale of 1-20, playing a neutral game at the World Cup or elsewhere (i.e. anything but a Brazil game at the 2014 event) a 10 and playing an away qualifier a 1, then Brazil (or anybody) playing a home game at a World Cup or similar event should be at a bare minimum a 15 and more likely around 17 or 18. Same thing for a Champions League final in the rare times that situation occurs. This year's Scottish Cup semi-finals would apply as well with Rangers playing in one that, I suppose, would technically be listed as a neutral game despite it taking place at Ibrox (it was a predetermined site like the Champions League final, and I assume Rangers did not get first choice of a locker room, etc.).

This year's Scottish Cup semi-finals would apply as well with Rangers playing in one that, I suppose, would technically be listed as a neutral game despite it taking place at Ibrox (it was a predetermined site like the Champions League final, and I assume Rangers did not get first choice of a locker room, etc.).

Semi-finals are always held at Hampden (neutral) but can't be this year due to the Commonwealth games. It was decided very early on in the season that both semis would have been at Ibrox and the final at Parkhead, no matter who made it there. Both were classed as neutral venues, and ticket allocations were about as equal as they could be for a cup semi involving one of the Old Firm. I presume the home team was still drawn, and wasn't automatically Rangers.

Still, didn't do Rangers much good in the end.

Semi-finals are always held at Hampden (neutral) but can't be this year due to the Commonwealth games. It was decided very early on in the season that both semis would have been at Ibrox and the final at Parkhead, no matter who made it there. Both were classed as neutral venues, and ticket allocations were about as equal as they could be for a cup semi involving one of the Old Firm. I presume the home team was still drawn, and wasn't automatically Rangers.

So it sounds like Rangers playing in the Scottish Cup semifinal this year (and Celtic in the final if they had made it) was essentially the same as a club playing a Champions League final in its own stadium. In those situations, I still think that there should be some advantage of playing in the stadium where you play all of your home games, but I am absolutely okay if it is not treated like a normal home game. As I mentioned in my last post, somewhere between 15-18 on a 1-20 scale of home-field advantage.

Still, didn't do Rangers much good in the end.

True, but teams do lose at home at times. Bayern Munich lost that Champions League final that they played in their home facility in 2012 as well. But that doesn't mean that they didn't have an advantage, just that their opponents either overcame that advantage or were that much better than their opponent.

You need to realise that the Champions League final is awarded to a stadium, and not a football club. If the CL final is awarded to the San Siro, and the final by some miracle is Inter v AC Milan, do they both get shown as having a home game?

It's different to a World Cup, as this is awarded to a country. This year it is the Brazil World Cup, but the CL final was the Lisbon (Estadio da Luz) final, not the Benfica final.

You need to realise that the Champions League final is awarded to a stadium, and not a football club.

True, but I feel that there should be something in FM that gives some advantages to a club playing in a stadium (and community) that they know so well.

If the CL final is awarded to the San Siro, and the final by some miracle is Inter v AC Milan, do they both get shown as having a home game?

Well, then it would be neutral as you either have one team at home and one away, or both playing at a neutral site. But if one were to make it and be playing somebody else, they should at least be able to realize some home-field advantage when it comes to FM in order to realize the advantages that they would enjoy in this situation if it were to happen in real life.

However, you do make a really good point in relation to why these games should be labelled as neutral instead of home and away. When Inter play AC Milan during league or cup games, those are not neutral games, they are home games for one or the other. However, I still strongly believe that if one of these teams is playing somebody else in a situation like a Champions League final at San Siro, it should be at least somewhat treated like a home game for the reasons that I have mentioned in this post and elsewhere in this thread.

It's different to a World Cup, as this is awarded to a country. This year it is the Brazil World Cup, but the CL final was the Lisbon (Estadio da Luz) final, not the Benfica final.

This is one off the reasons why I will admit that I feel stronger about my point as it relates to national teams and events like the World Cup. You never share your country with somebody. If you are playing within your borders, I strongly feel that it should be labelled as a home game and be treated like one in FM. Or, at the very least, be labelled neutral but provide the host country somewhat of a home-field advantage. When it comes to international football, there are just too many benefits associated with playing at home, even if the games/events are neutral in terms of who gets what locker room, what uniforms you wear, which stadiums you play in, etc.

Who knows, maybe Football Manager already does incorporate these things into these types of "neutral" games. I just know that when FM made this change several years ago, changing home World Cup and similar games to "neutral," it bothered me quite a bit as I felt - and still feel - that those games are more home games than they are neutral ones. However, I have wondered ever since if FM has a blanket influence for the three different scenarios: home, away and neutral, or if it is a bit more in-depth than that.

Just beat Real Madrid in the Bernabéu in the CL final. The game considered it a 'Neutral' venue, and in fact I was the designated home team.

Just beat Real Madrid in the Bernabéu in the CL final. The game considered it a 'Neutral' venue, and in fact I was the designated home team.

Was it considered a neutral game under Real's fixtures?