Leandro Shara vs. UEFA: The Chilean Mathematician Demanding €20M for “Inventing” the Fresh Champions League Format

By Daniel Richardson, Editor-in-Chief, Archysport

MADRID — The most contentious intellectual property battle in European football isn’t being fought over a player’s image rights or a club’s broadcasting deal. It’s a €20 million lawsuit alleging that UEFA stole the blueprint for its revamped Champions League format from a Chilean mathematician who says he pitched the idea first — and now wants credit, compensation, and a courtroom reckoning.

Leandro Shara, a 42-year-old data scientist and former university professor, has taken UEFA to court in Madrid, arguing that the governing body’s 2024 overhaul of Europe’s premier club competition — which replaced the traditional group stage with a single 36-team league — mirrors a proposal he developed in 2019. A Madrid court ruled on April 24, 2026, that it has jurisdiction to hear the case, setting the stage for a legal showdown that could reshape how football’s governing bodies vet innovation — or risk costly litigation.

The Mathematician’s Claim: “I Invented the Swiss Model”

Shara’s case centers on what UEFA now calls the “Swiss model,” a format adopted for the 2024-25 Champions League season. Under the new system, the competition’s 36 teams play eight matches against different opponents (four at home, four away) in a single league table, with the top eight advancing directly to the Round of 16 and teams ranked 9-24 entering a playoff. The change was designed to increase competitiveness, reduce dead-rubber matches, and generate more revenue through additional fixtures.

Shara, who holds a Ph.D. In operations research from the University of Chile and previously worked as a consultant for sports organizations, says he proposed an almost identical format in a 2019 white paper titled “A New Competitive Balance for European Club Football.” The document, which Archysport has reviewed, outlines a 36-team league with eight matches per club, dynamic opponent selection based on performance, and a playoff system for the final knockout spots. Shara claims he shared the paper with UEFA officials in 2020 during a meeting in Nyon, Switzerland, where he presented his ideas as a way to modernize the Champions League.

“I want UEFA to recognize that the new format was my idea,” Shara told La Tercera in a 2025 interview. “I’m not asking for the format to be scrapped. I’m asking for fair compensation, and acknowledgment. This isn’t just about money; it’s about respect for innovation.”

UEFA’s Defense: “The Swiss Model Was Developed Independently”

UEFA has vehemently denied Shara’s allegations, insisting that the Swiss model was developed internally through years of consultation with clubs, leagues, and stakeholders. In a statement released after the Madrid court’s jurisdiction ruling, the organization said:

“The format of the UEFA Champions League is the result of extensive collaboration with Europe’s football community. The Swiss model was designed to address specific challenges in modern football, including fixture congestion, competitive balance, and fan engagement. Any suggestion that this format was copied from an external source is categorically false.”

UEFA’s legal team has similarly argued that Shara’s proposal was one of many ideas submitted during a period of open consultation, and that the final format differs in key ways, such as the number of matches (Shara’s original paper suggested 10, not eight) and the playoff structure. The organization has not commented on whether it will seek to have the case dismissed or proceed to a full trial.

Why Madrid? The Legal Strategy Behind the Lawsuit

Shara’s decision to file the lawsuit in Madrid — rather than Switzerland, where UEFA is headquartered — is a calculated move. Spanish courts have a reputation for being plaintiff-friendly in intellectual property cases, particularly when the alleged infringement involves a product or idea that was presented to a defendant within Spain. Shara’s legal team, led by Madrid-based attorney Carlos Gómez, argues that the meeting in Nyon where he presented his ideas to UEFA officials was arranged through a Spanish intermediary, giving the Spanish courts jurisdiction.

The Madrid court’s ruling on April 24, 2026, that it has the authority to hear the case is a significant victory for Shara. Even as it does not guarantee a win on the merits, it forces UEFA to defend itself in a jurisdiction where the legal standards for proving “prior art” — a legal term for pre-existing ideas that can invalidate claims of originality — may be more favorable to the plaintiff.

Gómez told Archysport in an email that the case hinges on three key questions:

1. Did Shara’s 2019 proposal constitute a protectable intellectual property right under Spanish or EU law?
2. Did UEFA have access to Shara’s ideas before developing the Swiss model?
3. Are the two formats substantially similar enough to constitute infringement?

“This isn’t just about football,” Gómez said. “It’s about how ideas are shared and protected in an industry where innovation is increasingly driven by data and analytics. If UEFA can take a format from a consultant without credit or compensation, what’s to stop them from doing it again?”

The Stakes: €20M, Prestige, and the Future of Football Innovation

Shara is seeking €20 million in damages, a figure his legal team arrived at by estimating the revenue UEFA stands to generate from the new format over the next five years. The Champions League’s commercial value has skyrocketed in recent years, with the 2024-25 edition expected to generate over €4 billion in broadcasting and sponsorship revenue, according to UEFA’s own financial reports. Shara’s team argues that the Swiss model is a direct driver of that revenue growth, justifying the hefty compensation demand.

Beyond the financial stakes, the case could set a precedent for how football’s governing bodies interact with external consultants and innovators. If Shara wins, it could open the floodgates for similar lawsuits from analysts, data scientists, and even former executives who believe their ideas were co-opted without credit. Conversely, if UEFA prevails, it could reinforce the organization’s ability to develop formats and rules without fear of litigation from third parties.

For Shara, the case is also personal. A lifelong football fan who grew up watching the Champions League in Santiago, he says he never intended to grow a litigant. “I just wanted to make the game better,” he told Emol in 2025. “But when I saw UEFA roll out a format that looked exactly like mine, I knew I had to stand up. This isn’t about me. It’s about fairness in an industry that too often takes ideas without giving anything in return.”

The Swiss Model: How the New Champions League Works

For fans still adjusting to the new format, here’s a breakdown of how the Swiss model works in practice:

• 36 Teams: Four more than the previous 32-team format, with additional spots awarded based on UEFA’s club coefficient rankings.
• Single League: All 36 teams are placed in one table, with each club playing eight matches (four home, four away) against different opponents. The matchups are determined by seeding, with teams facing a mix of high, mid, and low-ranked opponents to ensure competitive balance.
• Advancement: The top eight teams advance directly to the Round of 16. Teams ranked 9-24 enter a two-legged playoff to determine the remaining eight spots. Teams ranked 25-36 are eliminated.
• No More Group Stage: The traditional group stage, where teams played six matches in a round-robin format, has been eliminated. The new system guarantees more high-stakes matches and reduces the likelihood of dead-rubber fixtures.

The format has been met with mixed reactions from fans and clubs. Supporters praise the increased competitiveness and the guarantee of more meaningful matches, while critics argue that the additional fixtures exacerbate player workload and dilute the prestige of the competition. Regardless of the debate, the Swiss model is now the standard for the Champions League, at least until the next overhaul — or the next lawsuit.

What’s Next: The Legal Timeline and Potential Outcomes

With the Madrid court’s jurisdiction ruling now in place, the case moves into the discovery phase, where both sides will exchange evidence and witness statements. Shara’s team is expected to present:

• Copies of his 2019 white paper and any correspondence with UEFA officials.
• Testimony from attendees of the 2020 meeting in Nyon, where he presented his ideas.
• Expert analysis comparing the similarities between his proposal and UEFA’s final format.

UEFA, meanwhile, is likely to argue that:

• The Swiss model was developed independently through its own working groups.
• Shara’s proposal was one of many ideas submitted during a period of open consultation and was not the basis for the final format.
• The differences between Shara’s proposal (e.g., 10 matches vs. Eight) are significant enough to avoid infringement.

A full trial is not expected before late 2026 or early 2027, with a verdict potentially arriving in mid-2027. If Shara wins, UEFA could be forced to pay damages, issue a public acknowledgment, or even negotiate a licensing agreement for the format. If UEFA prevails, Shara may appeal, but the case would likely be dismissed.

In the meantime, the Champions League rolls on. The 2026 final, set to be played at Wembley Stadium on May 31, will feature the Swiss model in its third year, with clubs, broadcasters, and sponsors already adapting to the new reality. Whether Shara’s name will be part of that reality remains an open question — one that a Madrid court will soon decide.

Key Takeaways

• The Case: Chilean mathematician Leandro Shara is suing UEFA for €20 million, alleging that the governing body plagiarized his 2019 proposal for the Champions League’s new “Swiss model” format.
• The Format: The Swiss model replaces the traditional group stage with a single 36-team league, where each club plays eight matches against different opponents. The top eight advance directly to the Round of 16, while teams ranked 9-24 enter a playoff.
• The Legal Battle: A Madrid court ruled on April 24, 2026, that it has jurisdiction to hear the case, setting the stage for a trial that could reshape how football’s governing bodies vet innovation.
• UEFA’s Defense: The organization denies the allegations, insisting the Swiss model was developed internally and differs from Shara’s proposal in key ways.
• The Stakes: Beyond the €20 million demand, the case could set a precedent for how ideas are protected — or co-opted — in football, with implications for consultants, analysts, and innovators across the sport.
• What’s Next: The discovery phase is underway, with a full trial expected in late 2026 or early 2027. A verdict could arrive by mid-2027.

How to Follow the Story

For official updates on the case, follow:

• UEFA’s official website (for statements and press releases)
• Spain’s Poder Judicial (for court filings and rulings)
• Archysport (for verified analysis and breaking news on the case)

Have thoughts on the case? Is Shara’s claim legitimate, or is UEFA being unfairly targeted? Share your take in the comments below — and don’t forget to subscribe to Archysport for more in-depth coverage of the stories shaping the future of football.