Is 24 teams too many for a Euro championship?

darkman2

From 2016 the European Championship is being expanded to 24 teams. I know this is helpful for us and we should qualify regularly but on the other hand I think it cheapens the tournament. There will be fairly bad teams going through. Just makes me think what's the point in going through such a long and tiring qualification if 24 teams are going through? They may aswell scrap qualification and just have a big tournament with everyone in it.If the World Cup was expanded i'd be in favours but it cover many more countries. How many are in Uefa - 40 - 50? Just think it takes away from the tournament to have 24 teams. Good for Ireland and some of the worse teams then us, bad for the tournament?

That's a lot of teams, too many imo.

Money talks though.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Definitely bad for the tournament, imo. More games to watch during the summer and all, but it dilutes the competition. With the 16-team tournament the chances of the groups being quite competitive are quite high, whereas with 24 there will be more thrashings and one sided games.

Not saying that it doesn't happen already, but it would increase the chance of it happening more often.

dreamers75

Not if you want to raise the standard of European players as your concerned your flagship competition is dominated mostly by Argentinians and Brazilians (top scorers via accumulation in the last few CLs).

And also money.

darkman2

dreamers75 wrote: »

Not if you want to raise the standard of European players as your concerned your flagship competition is dominated mostly by Argentinians and Brazilians (top scorers via accumulation in the last few CLs).

And also money.

How is an expanded Euro championship going to do that? If it was already in place Armenia and Estonia would be qualified. Not exactly must see football?

irishh_bob

darkman2 wrote: »

From 2016 the European Championship is being expanded to 24 teams. I know this is helpful for us and we should qualify regularly but on the other hand I think it cheapens the tournament. There will be fairly bad teams going through. Just makes me think what's the point in going through such a long and tiring qualification if 24 teams are going through? They may aswell scrap qualification and just have a big tournament with everyone in it.If the World Cup was expanded i'd be in favours but it cover many more countries. How many are in Uefa - 40 - 50? Just think it takes away from the tournament to have 24 teams. Good for Ireland and some of the worse teams then us, bad for the tournament?

yes , thier are too many , we dont need a world cup minus argentina and brazil every two years which including 24 teams amounts to , 16 is more than enough

JerryHandbag

20 would have been enough I think. I presume it will be top 2 automatic qualifiers from now on, and 3rd place gets into the 2 legged playoffs.

ArmaniJeanss

To an extent it brings us into line with the rest of the World with regards to how many more teams get into their own confederation championships compared to the World Cup.

Currently.
South America. 5 teams in World Cup, 10 in Copa.
Asia. 4 in World Cup, 16 in Asia Cup.
Concacaf. 4 in World Cup, 16 in Gold Cup.
Africa. 5 in World Cup, 16 in ACN.
Europe. 13 in World Cup, 16 in Euro Champs.

So in every other confederation the 'local' championship gives a dramatically improved chance (double, even triple) to qualify.
Therefore midrankings teams (say Bolivia, Canada, Kuwait, Senegal) who might qualify for a World Cup once every 50 years have a reasonable expectation of qualifying for their own championships.

Now it will be similar in Europe, the teams ranked 30-45 who have little chance of qualifying for anything at the moment will now have an attainable goal, thinking of the likes of Finland, Iceland, Cyprus, Faroes Islands.
This has got to be good for football in these countries, for everything from government in investment in football down to getting kids interested.

Whilst it does dilute the competition, it's still fundamentally a good idea.

ArmaniJeanss

rarnes1 wrote: »

That's a lot of teams, too many imo.

Money talks though.

I think the money argument is wrong to be honest.

A financial pot which currently gets split 16 ways is now going to be split 24 ways.
There will obviously be an increase in income but there is no obvious reason why it will be >50% more. Therefore the top countries who voted for this are probably going to be no better or worse off.

Whatever peoples misgivings (I understand the dilution of quality argument) I think this move is being made for the right reasons, with the ultimate good of football in Europe as the core motive.

gnfnrhead

I dont see any problem with the expansion. Europe has a lot of the higest ranked teams in the world. Due to that, the smaller nations rarely get a chance to qualify. Adding 8 more teams will only increase their chances of making it to a big stage.

If you are worried about a few matches being one sided, dont watch them. Simple.

yabadabado

51 teams in uefa and 24 teams getting qualification seems excessive.

recyclebin

I don't think 24 is too many. Going by this years qualification it would mean all 8 that are now in play-offs would qualify automatically. The weakest would be Estonia but I don't think many teams would necessarily trash others.

TheTownie

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I think the money argument is wrong to be honest.

A financial pot which currently gets split 16 ways is now going to be split 24 ways.
There will obviously be an increase in income but there is no obvious reason why it will be >50% more. Therefore the top countries who voted for this are probably going to be no better or worse off.

Whatever peoples misgivings (I understand the dilution of quality argument) I think this move is being made for the right reasons, with the ultimate good of football in Europe as the core motive.

The host country will make a hell of a lot more money from it.

mike65

Ireland have a 47% chance of qualifying for the next EC.

tolosenc

darkman2 wrote: »

From 2016 the European Championship is being expanded to 24 teams. I know this is helpful for us and we should qualify regularly but on the other hand I think it cheapens the tournament. There will be fairly bad teams going through. Just makes me think what's the point in going through such a long and tiring qualification if 24 teams are going through? They may aswell scrap qualification and just have a big tournament with everyone in it.If the World Cup was expanded i'd be in favours but it cover many more countries. How many are in Uefa - 40 - 50? Just think it takes away from the tournament to have 24 teams. Good for Ireland and some of the worse teams then us, bad for the tournament?

Comparing the relative "purities" of continetal championships (percentage of WC places per qualified team):

AFC: 16 at continental, 4.5 at WC (28%).
CONCACAF: 12 at continental, 3.5 at WC (29%).
CONMEBOL: 10 at continental, 4.5 at WC (45%).
UEFA: 16 at continental finals, 13 at WC (81%). [13 of 24 is 54%]
CAF: 16 at finals, 6 at WC (38%).
OFC: 11 at finals, 0.5 at WC (5%)

We'd still have a higher quality tournament than any other confederation.

Plus the qualifying schedule will be changed. I read recently in an Italian paper that the 52 teams would go into 13 groups of 4, with the winners qualifying for the finals, and 4th places being eliminated. 26 seconds and thirds would battle it out for 10 more spots (maybe worst 3rd place eliminated, and 5 groups of 5 with the top 2 making it). Maximum qualifying games would go from 12 to 14, but the best players would most likely be done after 6. Platini wants the teams that qualify in the first phase to play friendlies to pass the time, or something.

Dub13

24 is to many,its just under half the teams in UEFA.After you strip away all the andoras and the like you maybe have 30 half decent teams in Europe.24 of them will be going to the finals.

tolosenc

yabadabado wrote: »

51 teams in uefa and 24 teams getting qualification seems excessive.

What's excessive is 10 CONMEBOL members and 12 teams at the finals...

homerjay2005

hard to know if its good or bad, i mean their are 12 teams qualified and then 8 more, so there is 20 there already, though minus one host, so essentially you need 5 more teams.

is there 5 more teams who would be good enough?

dreamers75

darkman2 wrote: »

How is an expanded Euro championship going to do that? If it was already in place Armenia and Estonia would be qualified. Not exactly must see football?

Gives top players from EACH COUNTRY experience playing vs other TOP PLAYERS(without south americans).

In fairness its not an idea thats hard to grasp.

South Americans have seriously went mental focusing on youth to improve their national teams. We have alleged whipping boys in Europe, in SA they have none.

inforfun

Would have given players like Giggs and Litmanen a chance to play at a tournament if this had been done in the past.

At the other hand, players need to play less, not more. 24 teams will probably mean that the tournament will last a week longer so clubs will get their players back even more tired. With all the more chance they get injured for long periods.

16 is enough.

citytillidie

yabadabado wrote: »

51 teams in uefa and 24 teams getting qualification seems excessive.

There is 53 teams in UEFA.

Banjaxed82

darkman2 wrote: »

How is an expanded Euro championship going to do that? If it was already in place Armenia and Estonia would be qualified. Not exactly must see football?

Whatever about Estonia, but I wouldn't mind watching Armenia as a neutral. 12 goals in 4 games sounds good to me.

16 teams going to 24. Given the 5-6 decent teams who will/have missed out on euro 2012, I think you'll only be talking about 2 or 3 gammy teams being involved i.e. Norway, Romania (not exactly that gammy!), etc. Compared to the World Cup it will be quality.

Predalien

It'll make it very hard for some countries to host it on their own, but could mean an increased chance of three countries hosting it together, might be time to start thinking bout a three-way bid with Wales and Scotland.

Zonda999

Another point that no one is after mentioning yet, the addition of another 8 teams into the competition means that only very few countries would have the stadium infrastructure to host the competition on their own, not without massive capital investment, that is. Considering this time, with 16 teams, they need 8 good quality stadia, that will need to go up to about 12, 10 at a minimum, which means we wont be involved in hosting such a competition anytime soon, be it on our own or with another nation.

Predalien wrote: »

It'll make it very hard for some countries to host it on their own, but could mean an increased chance of three countries hosting it together, might be time to start thinking bout a three-way bid with Wales and Scotland.

And Northern Ireland I guess. At that though, as well as the many stadia that would need serious improvements, it would be a logistical nightmare, and the stadium distribution would have be something like this;

ROI - 3
NI - 2
Wales - 2
Scotland - 3

the untitled user

From the point of view of the development of the game in the smaller countries it's a huge positive. I'm thinking of the likes of Armenia, Belgium, Norway, Scotland etc, who really did run it close. This time they are back to square one but from next campaign onwards young teams like that (i.e. who start from a low base and seeding and go on to show dramatic improvements) will have a better chance of being rewarded for their efforts, gaining experience and building upon on it for the next one.

From the perspective of the tournament spectable, it's a loss. Personally I feel 16 teams is the ideal length for a tournament, any more and the number of games really takes it toll. I find it's much easier to engage with all the football at the Euros, whether in the World Cup you find yourself being more selective about what you watch because you just haven't the time to watch all.

Secondly, the limited places for the Euros really does result in the best (overall) quality of football in a tournament. You don't get the same clash of cultures as in the world cup, but overall standards tend to be higher and I think the tourney is more entertaining and less predictable as a result.

Overall it's whatever you think is the priority. I can't really make my mind up.

Cypher_sounds

I think if you name the top 24 teams that you think should and would qualify for the tournament....even those teams at the bottom of your list would be pretty decent teams, so I think the more team that are able to get into the Euros the better for the competition and the teams overall imo.

Paully D

I think it is excessive, but UEFA only care about the following:

More teams = more money

Either way, it'll still always be a better tournament to watch than the World Cup.

Cypher_sounds

The Euro qualifiers would be more competitive because of this imo presuming the top two of each group go straight through to the Euros and scrapping the play-offs altogether??...it kinda gives teams more of an incentive to want to get that second spot in the group.

Fight_Night

I like it, Europe has by far the most decent football teams, we could easily field 20 teams all capable of winning when on form. 24 may seem excessive but it brings in more money, helps the minnows have they could actually achieve and it won't lower the standard of the tournament that much.

JerryHandbag

Cypher_sounds wrote: »

The Euro qualifiers would be more competitive because of this imo presuming the top two of each group go straight through to the Euros and scrapping the play-offs altogether??...it kinda gives teams more of an incentive to want to get that second spot in the group.

9 groups, top 2 qualify automatically in each = 18 teams

Best 3rd place team (Yeah I know!) goes through also. = 19 teams

Remaining 8 3rd place teams playoff for 4 places = 23 teams

Plus hosts France.

Predalien

Zonda999 wrote: »

And Northern Ireland I guess. At that though, as well as the many stadia that would need serious improvements, it would be a logistical nightmare, and the stadium distribution would have be something like this;

ROI - 3
NI - 2
Wales - 2
Scotland - 3

I think it'd be possible with Scotland (4), Wales (3) and Ireland (3). Scotland could use Hampden, Ibrox or Celtic Park, Murrayfield, and maybe a redeveloped Pittodrie. Wales have the Millenium and it wouldn't take too much to get Swansea and Cardiff's grounds up to 30,000 capacity. We'd prob be the only ones who'd need something new, which would have to be outside Dublin (although, I'd wonder if Thomond might be able to get near the size needed).

Dolph Starbeam

darkman2 wrote: »

How is an expanded Euro championship going to do that? If it was already in place Armenia and Estonia would be qualified. Not exactly must see football?

In fairness to Armenia they have some good technical players and outplayed us for a lot of the game, In a couple more years I'd expect them to be even better.

While I think expanding to 24 teams does cheapen the competition a bit I think in the long run it will be good. Hopefully it will help some of the smaller nations something to cheer about and help their teams develop.

Cypher_sounds

JerryHandbag wrote: »

9 groups, top 2 qualify automatically in each = 18 teams

Best 3rd place team (Yeah I know!) goes through also. = 19 teams

Remaining 8 3rd place teams playoff for 4 places = 23 teams

Plus hosts France.

Ah yes only thought about the amount of groups after I posted.

Looking at that it really does give us every chance of qualifying and i retract what i said about the competitiveness of the qualifying stages.

There are 3 groups with only 5 teams in those groups at the moment, it would make those groups a bit of a joke tbh.

ArmaniJeanss

Cypher_sounds wrote: »

There are 3 groups with only 5 teams in those groups at the moment, it would make those groups a bit of a joke tbh.

All that those groups are missing is a weak 6th seeded team like Andorra or San Marino, it doesn't necessarily make the group a joke.

There'll always be some groups where the top 2 run away it and then there'll be groups (like ours just finished) where 4 teams go to the last two games with realistic possibilities.
Though the focus in the final week is probably going to be on 2nd/3rd place in the majority of groups.
Worth pointing out also that the use of Uefa co-efficient for the actual finals should ensure the integrity of the groups, even if you have qualified with 2 games to spare you should still be trying to win your remaining games.

Cypher_sounds

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

All that those groups are missing is a weak 6th seeded team like Andorra or San Marino, it doesn't necessarily make the group a joke.

There'll always be some groups where the top 2 run away it and then there'll be groups (like ours just finished) where 4 teams go to the last two games with realistic possibilities.
Though the focus in the final week is probably going to be on 2nd/3rd place in the majority of groups.
Worth pointing out also that the use of Uefa co-efficient for the actual finals should ensure the integrity of the groups, even if you have qualified with 2 games to spare you should still be trying to win your remaining games.

I didnt know that the 6th seed teams arent included in those groups, not as much of a joke so.

Overall I think it's good for the tournament and helps those teams that don't normally get to the finals(that doesnt mean they are a useless team), it would give soccer more interest to those countrys and hopefully help their young talent for the future after seeing their heroes compete in the competition.

Bodhisopha

Yeah it's too many. Too many muck teams like ourselves will be in it every 4 to 8 years diluting the quality of the highest standard international tournament left.

tolosenc

JerryHandbag wrote: »

9 groups, top 2 qualify automatically in each = 18 teams

Best 3rd place team (Yeah I know!) goes through also. = 19 teams

Remaining 8 3rd place teams playoff for 4 places = 23 teams

Plus hosts France.

Platini thinks differently...

_blank_

There should be an invitational element also.

Instead of having play offs to add numbers, they should invite the likes of South Korea, Egypt - the better teams from the smaller confederations.

mike65

Egypt can play in the African Cup of Nations. Europe for Europeans!

Beefy78

I actually would have more than 24 teams. I'd go 32. International football, IMO, remains the most important and prestigious level of football, the big tournaments do a huge amount in terms of raising the profile of the game and changing the demographic of the support (think 1990 & 1994 for Ireland and 1990 & 1996 for England) and it's biggest obstacle right now is the Clubs moaning about too many games during the season.

Enhance the tournment to 32 teams giving other smaller countries their chance of having that moment in a Finals which revitalises the sport in their homeland and use the fact that so many teams will be there to massively cut back on the format used for qualifying. Win win, IMO.

Dub13

Beefy78 wrote: »

I actually would have more than 24 teams. I'd go 32. International football, IMO, remains the most important and prestigious level of football, the big tournaments do a huge amount in terms of raising the profile of the game and changing the demographic of the support (think 1990 & 1994 for Ireland and 1990 & 1996 for England) and it's biggest obstacle right now is the Clubs moaning about too many games during the season.

Enhance the tournment to 32 teams giving other smaller countries their chance of having that moment in a Finals which revitalises the sport in their homeland and use the fact that so many teams will be there to massively cut back on the format used for qualifying. Win win, IMO.

Why bother with a qualifying stage if you want that,silly idea,

mike65

Going in to the realms of fantasy, maybe UEFA could split Europe in two - top 16 who get by right in and then the rest who play a qualification tournament to select the next 8. Looking at the current rankings that would create some friction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_coefficient#Current_ranking

AstonMartin

mike65 wrote: »

Ireland have a 47% chance of qualifying for the next EC.

2012?

your saying we are dogs to Estonia?

jaykay74

Happy enough to have 24 teams go to the tournament as we will have a better chance to go but I remember when the World Cup had 24 teams and the initial group stages were boring as hell. Loads of group games and the end product is that you went from 24 down to 16 for the knock out stage. It encouraged teams to place for cagey draws as 3rd place was often good enough.

Most of the 51 games in the competition are group games where more than likely 3rd place will do.

The format of the final tournament will consist of six groups of four teams, followed by a round of 16, quarter-finals, semi-finals and final. The top two from each group would qualify in addition to the four best third-ranked sides, the same system as was applied in the World Cups from 1986 to 1994. This format would generate a total of 51 games, compared with 31 now, to be played over a period of 29-31 days.

4 of the 6 best 3rd placed teams go through. :rolleyes:

mike65

AstonMartin wrote: »

2012?

your saying we are dogs to Estonia?

I was referring to 2016, sorry. 2012 is this EC in my mind.

Beefy78

Dub13 wrote: »

Why bother with a qualifying stage if you want that,silly idea,

Why bother indeed... It's ridiculous that Spain and Germany have to play ten games to get to the finals. It's those pointless matches which make International football such an easy target for the big clubs to kick at. Qualifying should be a very short process for the larger nations.

jaykay74 wrote: »

Happy enough to have 24 teams go to the tournament as we will have a better chance to go but I remember when the World Cup had 24 teams and the initial group stages were boring as hell. Loads of group games and the end product is that you went from 24 down to 16 for the knock out stage. It encouraged teams to place for cagey draws as 3rd place was often good enough.

Most of the 51 games in the competition are group games where more than likely 3rd place will do.

4 of the 6 best 3rd placed teams go through.

Very good point, again showing why 32 would be a better solution than 24.

ArmaniJeanss

mike65 wrote: »

Going in to the realms of fantasy, maybe UEFA could split Europe in two - top 16 who get by right in and then the rest who play a qualification tournament to select the next 8. Looking at the current rankings that would create some friction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_coefficient#Current_ranking

Jeez no. One of the great things about football is that everyone starts on an equal basis - Estonia, Bosnia, Faroes, Georgia have as much chance of qualifying as Germany, Holland and England.
If you go down the route of having automatic qualifiers like in rugby, then you might as well switch off the lights.

Beefy78 wrote: »

Why bother indeed... It's ridiculous that Spain and Germany have to play ten games to get to the finals. It's those pointless matches which make International football such an easy target for the big clubs to kick at. Qualifying should be a very short process for the larger nations.

Is there any appetite amongst the big teams for less qualifiers - One of your examples Germany seems to be able to sell 60,000 tickets every game even when qualification is done and dusted? Would they really prefer a 6 game campaign and then friendlies on the other dates?

jaykay74

Beefy78 wrote: »

Why bother indeed... It's ridiculous that Spain and Germany have to play ten games to get to the finals. It's those pointless matches which make International football such an easy target for the big clubs to kick at. Qualifying should be a very short process for the larger nations.

All countries should face a similar task to qualify. Its reams of friendlies that make International football a pain not qualifying.

Beefy78 wrote: »

Very good point, again showing why 32 would be a better solution than 24.

For the tournament itself 16 or 32 is much better than 24 for the reasons I explained previously. I would not argue too much against 32 when you look at the full list of countries taking part in qualifying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_coefficient#Current_ranking

For Euro 92 there were 16 places at the finals and 33 countries taking part in qualifying.

Beefy78

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Is there any appetite amongst the big teams for less qualifiers - One of your examples Germany seems to be able to sell 60,000 tickets every game even when qualification is done and dusted? Would they really prefer a 6 game campaign and then friendlies on the other dates?

I suspect not amongst the fans. England as well sell around 80,000 seats at Wembley every time. But we all know the attitude of the big clubs towards 'pointless' qualifying campaigns and every time a player comes back from an International squad injured after a routine win against Andorra or San Marino it just strengthens their case.

If we can reduce the qualifying process to a shorter series of meaningful matches then that seems a good alternetive, to me. I also think it'll be better preparation for the tournaments because the build-up matches will mean so much more.

I'd do something like this:
- 19 lowest ranked UEFA nations compete in four pre-qualifying groups with top two from each group advancing to play off stage.
- 40 play-offs over two legs with 20 winning teams advancing to finals.
- 20 'second-chance' play-offs for the losing sides. Winning ten teams advance to finals.
- automatic places given to host and holder.

Qualifying should be something that you go through in order to get to the main event. It shouldn't be the thing which determines the size and format of the competition itself.

Sorry for sidetracking this thread. 32 just seems to make more sense to me than 24 does.

citytillidie

jaykay74 wrote: »

All countries should face a similar task to qualify. Its reams of friendlies that make International football a pain not qualifying.




For the tournament itself 16 or 32 is much better than 24 for the reasons I explained previously. I would not argue too much against 32 when you look at the full list of countries taking part in qualifying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_coefficient#Current_ranking

For Euro 92 there were 16 places at the finals and 33 countries taking part in qualifying.

Euro 92 only 8 teams took part. It was not until Euro 96 that 16 teams took part when there 47 teams in UEFA