why 2 solves 1?there is nothing to solve. Playing in cup is much harder than in league, you can lose anytime, so you have to use mots and best players. cup winner should be well rewarded. i agree with 2 only because home team has advantage. in neutral stadium there would be no home advantage
First, How is playing 5 or 8 or even 14 matches in national cup harder than playing 30 in league? I don't get it. More matches = harder.
The point of national cups is to give lower clubs a chance to win silverware and prizes. If the national cup prize is significantly greater than the top level league winner's prize then those top teams will prioritize the cup over the league, when it should be the other way around, IMO. I would challenge you to find one national cup competition in the RW whose prize is more than half that of the top league in that nation. For example, in England, the FA Cup winner prize (counting winnings from all rounds) is a mere 20% of the Premier league winner's prize.
I would suggest increasing all league prizes by a factor of 1.5, so current prize table
would become
League prizes should be increased across the board in part to counteract increased wages with new transfer system as well as the inflation in transfer fees over the past few seasons that the new transfer system is probably designed to curtail. Prizes haven't changed since season 1, after all.
I still would think that national cup prize be reduced somewhat, but even if it remains (the same as top level winner) it would be better than current system where cup prize is higher.
Finally, Ruta is right, there is no home advantage in cup matches regardless where they are played. The point is only to increase the value of reaching the final given reduced prize money. I would also suggest that semifinals be played in national stadium to increase the value of making that far (even if only to lose), though it may seem unrealistic for two matches to happen simultaneously in the same stadium...
