Champions League
of Websites
2015/16

Welcome to Champions League of Websites 2015/16

This table complements the study by Departamento de Internet, which is available by clicking on the button.

View table

Champions League of Websites (2015-2016)

We are here again with the 5th updated study of the websites of the participating teams in the UEFA Champions League, 2015-2016 edition. This year, qualifying was more demanding, due to the importance of the most important competition in European football.

Study

It is a ranking of the websites of the participating teams in the UEFA Champions League according to the criteria of the Heuristic Evaluation Guide for Websites. This is a guide (checklist) to evaluate objectively the Webs.

Each of the variables analyzed have a relative importance in the final assessment, represented by a specific percentage, taking as reference the 100 as the highest score.

Being as our fourth year, we have seen positive developments in many of the teams. In this website, you can observe the classification of previous years.

Criteria

As we mentioned, we continue with the same criteria as in previous editions. Note that even if the same criteria, we have added a much more rigorous level of assessment.

Objective of the website (9%)

Upon reaching the Web, are clearly identified what are the objectives? Corporate information, official News, tickets, events, competitions...

URL Friendly (5%)

Having a URL friendly, serve to help visitors, both to indicate where you are to remember the URL of that particular section.

User Orientation (9%)

The general structure of the entire Web, both landing page as the Home and its sections, must show in a precise contents and services offered. They would have to be oriented to the uses and needs of visitors.

Look & Feel (8%)

All this is meaningless unless enters the eye. All this has to breathe the same idea, the same character. Certain combinations of colors help to give a serious and professional ... others, just the opposite.

Logo & Slogan (5%)

This variable is shown whether the site's identity in all internal pages, if clearly identifies what is, on who is talking, of authorship, of the services it provides...

Language and Writing (9%)

Use a language for 'humans'? In some cases, we were unable to obtain an English version, so it has been assigned a standard value. It has also been sought in these variable characteristics as concrete and concise language, close, showing that a paragraph is an idea...

Ticketing (8%)

Another new criteria added in the study. It has much to do with the objective of the Website and, given the result, it is surprising how difficult it is sometimes to buy a ticket via the Web. We scored taking into account that we are "experienced users", so we have been very strict in this regard. We have also evaluated aspects of secure platforms, browser compatibility and you do not need to download any plug-ins, etc. .

Memory Overload (4%)

The Memory Overload is a concept that values in the main menu there are not too many terms and / or interfere with the navigation options and understanding of the Web. According to the Guidelines taken as a reference, you should not exceed 7 (+ / - 2) elements, or the 2 or 3 words per element.

Lay-Out (8%)

A good use of the layout of the page when leveraging main informative areas, such as central column. It also examines whether there are spaces too 'visual noise' with blank spaces or too many clean areas. This section also enters the entire page length.

Multimedia (4%)

A good use of these elements, helps clear some variables described above.. We need to seek added value in this use.

Responsive Design (8%)

One of the new criteria has clear relationship in how users navigate the Web. It is therefore completely adapt Web design to fit on any device. Webs is very content, so that at first may seem a difficult criterion to overcome ... Of the 32 teams, only 10 have a customizable design !

Structure and Navigation (15%)

Main criteria in the study. The main questions are: Is the navigation simple and intuitive? Are the links easily visually? Am I an octopus in a garage when I'm on this site? ...

Content in Social Networks (8%)

Finally, we also wanted to assess the use given to the various Social Media channels. If add value to the user, if they are frequently updated , if there is only content ...

Conclusion

We are big fans of Europe TOP 6

Barcelona, Arsenal, Juventus, Bayern, Real Madrid y Valencia

  • Websites with a clear focus on the user, with a easy to use navigation and structure, a careful look & feel with excellent responsive design, optimal use of social networks and a functional platform for buying tickets.
  • Top 6 Best Websites of the UEFA Champions League with a rating higher than 92 out of 100.
  • Barcelona is the first team to win this competition for the second time (Winner in 2012).
In the middle

Benfica, Dinamo Zagreb, Gent, Atl├ętico y Manchester City

  • Corporate Webs with a very high ranking on some criteria, but with some others with fails or not excellent, such as the lack of adaptation to portable devices or a complex system of ticketing sites.
  • Benfica, Atletico or Manchester City (with a very powerful UEFA coefficient) share ranking with more modest teams like Dinamo Zagreb or Gent.
For its potential, the Ranking in Unexpected

Chelsea, Man. United, Porto, Galatasaray, Leverkusen...

  • In this group, we believe that the websites of the teams are not in the same lever of the competition or the history of each institution.
  • In addition, we have added screenshots of the web evolution (found in previous studies) and there are websites that have not been updated since 2011.