In eight years' time, the European Championships will be a 24-team event.
The new format was first suggested by the Scottish FA and has now been accepted by all members of UEFA.
They all agreed the new competition will affect neither revenue nor the competitiveness of the original competition. It is also believed that the new format will actually make qualifying for the event more competitive.
Not all of the teams at Euro 2008 are within the top 24 of the UEFA section of the FIFA world rankings. The UEFA rankings make for interesting reading.
How are Greece still sixth and England still seventh in the UEFA rankings? I'm not quite sure! Greece were terrible at Euro 2008; England didn't even make it!
I'm sure England could squeeze into Euro 2016, though.
Funnily enough, four teams in the top 16 of Europe did not make it ti this year's glamour event. England, Scotland, Bulgaria and Israel are all in the top 15 and would, I think, have faired better than Poland, Sweden, Switzerland and the shockingly ranked Austrians (43rd behind Albania and Cyprus)!
I would repeat my call for just one country to qualify per dual-hosted event but that won't be a problem in 2016 and we don't even know who'll be the host in four years time!
So 24 teams should see my beloved Scotland qualify! After all, we didn't come up with the idea for nothing!
comments (14) write a comment »
write a new comment
3 months ago
To be honest Andrew, opening the tournament up to more nations will make it a weaker competition. Lets say the top 16 European teams in the FIFA rankings all qualified for the Euros this time around: Italy, Spain, Germany, Czech Rep, France, Greece, England, Holland, Portugal, Romania, Croatia, Scotland, Bulgaria, Turkey, Israel and Russia. In a 16 team tourno, that would be quite a summer's football right there.
Now lets add, the next 8 teams in the list to bring it up to the proposed 24: Norway, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine, Northern Ireland, Denmark, Finland and Rep of Ireland.
Is that a stronger tournament, or a more a needlessly drawn out competition full of cannon fodder just like the UEFA Champs League became when the doors were opened up to more obscure countries.
There are 53 teams registered as UEFA teams. 24 countries would mean almost half can qualify for the finals tournament. I dont see the merit myself.
Less is more as they say and exactly why this years (and the other years) was so successful. It was short and sweet.
from 3 months ago
UEFA don't feel it will be like that and they feel it will strengthn the qualifying process. The tournament will only be 2 or 3 days longer.
The champions league has better teams in it than ever before so I don't see where that remark comes from either to be honest?
2 of the next 8 were already in this years competition as well as the 43rd ranked team....that's cannon fodder right there.
Ukraine, Ireland and Denmark would all have contributed with Northern Ireland, Norway or Finland doing no worse than Austria.
I think it's a good step and I can't wait till 2010.
from 3 months ago
As far as the champs league is concerned, the quality of the top sides has improved, so in that respect, there are better teams than ever before, but they are the same teams who dominated 10 years ago. When Besiktas and Slavia Prague get humped 8-0 and 7-1, you know there is a disparity issue. You can pick the top two from the each group in the group stages in the ECL every time. It's not even an issue. Same cant be said of a 16 team Euros tournament. Because the standard is that much closer across the board. Keeping the numbers down will keep the unpredictability down.
3 months ago
I wouldn't agree with that Adam. The groups often don't go the way they are predicted....you just have to look at Celtic and Rangers getting through the group stages in recent years past teams like Porto (Who were European Champions two years earlier). The German champions were bottom of their group this year!
Any team you mentioned would have been better than Austria and we'll get to see different teams as well as our own. As a Scotsman, I want to see my country there and this will help. England would have been there this year in the new format. Would that have upset you?
3 months ago
Good article!
I have to say thought I am against this extension of the competition. UEFA have found the perfect formula in the current set-up of the European Championships. Qualifying is already competitive just look at Scotland and Northern Ireland pushing the likes of Italky, France and Spain to the wire. Poland topped a group including Portugal and of course England failing to qualify just go to show the strength in depth of European nations. However, an expansion of the competition to 24 teams will inevitably create a weaker competition. This current system is so good precisely because it is so competitive.
from 3 months ago
Thanks mate.
I was just having a wee joke about it but I don't mind the change in format really.
3 months ago
I don't think that it'll affect the quality of the spectacle of the Euros. On the contrary, more participation just adds to the drama and anticipation of matches. I love how tournaments like these 'bring the world together'.
However, I do agree with Adam that allowing more teams will probably dilute the high class football that we generally see at the Euros.
I reckon, as a consequence, you'll see a lot more teams getting easy rides into the latter stages of the competition (as we've seen in the World Cup from time to time *cough* England *cough*.
Most of all, it breaks the fundamental principle: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We've just seen what many have claimed to be one of the best tournaments EVER. I think that's partly to do with the perceived 'smaller' nations e.g. Russia and Turkey, actually being of much higher quality than many thought at the outset of the tournament.
Those particular teams raised the whole level of the tournament. Again, I think that adding teams who wouldn't have been there if 16 teams were the max, will dilute the quality of play.
The World Cup is fantastic, but we don't want the Euros to have an equivalent of Iran playing in the finals do we (no disrespect to Iran)?
Anyway, it's seems like the decision is final. Let's just hope that we have another great tournament in 2016!
from 3 months ago
Smaller countries with bigger hearts always add to these tournaments.
Yes there might be a small effect on the standard but not by the quarter finals and there will be a few more counries and millions more football fans involved.
Thanks for the comments and I'm sure it'll be a great tournament!
from 3 months ago
'Smaller countries with bigger hearts always add to these tournaments' (Andrew) +
'more participation just adds to the drama and anticipation of matches'(Steven) +
more money for UEFA +
it hasn't done the World Cup any harm
vs
'small effect on the standard' (Andrew)/'dilute quality of play'
Yeh. I think it'll be ok.
3 months ago
First of all I wouldn’t put too much store by the UEFA Rankings, or the FIFA ones for that matter. The mathematical formuale leave a lot to be desired – I for one don’t think that maths can really be accurately used to produce a ranking of teams. For one friendly matches don’t count for as much as qualifiers so tournament hosts always find themselves sliding well down the rankings due to not having to qualify. This is part of the reason why Austria were ranked so lowly (and because they lost most of their friendlies!), and I remember that England were ranked high 20s to low 30s at the start of Euro 96 due to no competitive games for around 3 years (also due to failure to reach USA 94).
I like the format at the moment, and it seems strange that UEFA want *more* money, oh sorry I mean games when everyone is already talking about the fixture list being overcrowded, etc. You can only keep saying “only one more game” for so long.
What I don’t like about the new format is that 24 teams = 6 groups of 4. This equals top 2 going through + the four best third placed teams (ie the same as USA 94 format). I think this is pretty rubbish as you’re getting every team to play 3 games and then only actually getting rid of 8 teams out of 24, ie it’s much, much harder to get knocked out than it is to actually get through. I don’t think this is ideal.
However, the one reason I am in favour of the expansion (apart from obviously giving England a much better chance of actually qualifying!!) is that I think the quality and depth of football in Europe is ever increasing, we now have teams like Macedonia, Serbia, Slovakia, Latvia, etc that are improving nations. These are teams that have come on incredibly in the last 10-20 years and the competition needs to be expanded so that these teams actually get a shot at competing as this is the only way they will ever progress. At the moment it’s a very much closed shop with the rankings dictating seedings, etc meaning that it’s very, very hard for these countries to get an achievable draw even in qualifying. This time it’s nice to see UEFA thinking of giving the up-and-coming teams more of a chance – although I think it’s the traditionally bigger nations that are pushing for this as well, so scared are they of continually missing out to these new teams (ie England!)
from 3 months ago
The Fifa rankings have greatly improved in recent years and doesn't excuse Austria's dismal 43rd in Europe.
So do you believe there should be no rankings then? As if it's not fair then it's just a monopoly for the top countries and it'll never change...
Every member accepted this, not one complaint....it seems all countries want to be a part of this tournament and fair play to them as it's a great spectacle.
Is that the actual format Matt as I haven't seen it? I thought it would be winners and best 2 runners up as it was said the tournament would only be days longer...not a week...
Thanks for the comments mate.
from 3 months ago
That’s the format that I’ve heard they will use. To be honest 24 teams into 8 would separate the men from the boys but I would be surprised if they went for this. As I said, from what I’ve heard (ie senior writers in British and European press) they will go with a format which mirrors the World Cup, ie adding in a round of 16. I think this could work and all the fuss would soon be forgotten, after all it was only 16 years ago that the Euros were an 8 team event! The number of actual countries has greatly increased since then with the break-up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, etc so it’s only fair that the number of places in the final tournament is increased as well.
The only negative is that FIFA probably won’t be too happy about UEFA’s event becoming more and more like the actual World Cup, ie bigger and longer.
As you said it’s obvious why all the members accepted these proposals – they all want to be there and this will naturally give everyone a better chance of competing. I’m a football fan so the more matches the better!!! Although hopefully this won’t be sacrificing quality for quantity, which I don’t think it really will given the emergence of new nations looking for a chance to step up.
As for the rankings, well I think they’re fundamentally flawed, teams like Brazil and Argentina seek to fill their fixure lists as full as possible (revenue anyone?) and hence play more games and are therefore liable to gain more ranking points (albeit less available for friendlies). Also the International football calandar isn’t standardised, so at this time of year you will see the European teams higher than they should be as it is just after the Euros have finished, just as there were a lot of African teams in the FIFA Top 20 at the turn of the year due to the ACON.
I appreciate that the rankings do serve a purpose though in terms of determinating seedings, etc – I only wish that seedings didn’t automatically go to the host countries. Austria and Switzerland qualifying as hosts? Yeah ok. Both being seeded in their groups? Give me a break!
3 months ago
I do not understand why there is an eight year gap. This is WAY worse than me making a 2010 NFL Mock Draft already.
from 3 months ago
Euro 2012 is already planned with venues and format decided...
write a new comment