To understand the change to this format, you have to understand what they're trying to get to. The final goal is a European league(s). This gets everyone used to the idea by creating the format first, and then slowly increasing the number of games you play within the format. It doesn't make sense now, but in a couple of years, you'll maybe have 8 games in Europe rather than 6. Then 10. The closer you get to the final format, the less pronounced are the differences in fixtures but, paradoxically, the effects become more visible (team X played exactly the same fixtures as team Y, bar one fixture which they lost and finished three points behind them, missing "promotion"). At that point, the calls are then switched to shouting for a full round of fixtures for everyone rather than questioning the tournament itself.
It's basically using the sunk cost fallacy to get what you want. Governments, businesses and football cunts do it all the time. The most obvious example is VAR. Your goal is to remove all refereeing errors from football, so you introduce a shite system. You then slowly chip away at each type of decision until you get what you want. At a certain point, people stop questioning the existence of the system itself and they are the ones saying "well we've got this system, why aren't we using it for throw-ins?". Aided and abetted by morons in the media who have discussions about "how we can make VAR better", rather than "how can we organise to get rid of VAR", not realising that the former discussion doesn't mean impartiality, you've already agreed with Thatcher's TINA (there is no alternative).
It's not just football. Every single town and city on the planet is setup in the most ridiculous fashion to accommodate car travel, for example. We must bail out banks, and so on.
We don't have a say. We all know that the correct answer is to rip it up and go back to knockout tournaments, unseeded. We all know that what makes European football magical is its scarcity.