Euro 2008: Should England Be There?

OK, I'm an Englishman, so my gut feeling is that of course we should be there!

But what right do we have? Sixteen teams have earned their right to be in Austria and Switzerland for this summer's European football festival. The fact that England are not is down to one thing only; we were not good enough. From the head of the English FA, down to the players, we failed and have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Would Euro 2008 be any richer, both financially and aesthetically, for England's involvement? Yes, it probably would. Would England provide a more difficult opponent than Romania, Austria or Switzerland? Yes, they probably would.

Does this mean that the qualification for such a tournament requires closer examination? In snooker, golf and tennis, the top seeded players in the world automatically qualify for major events, leaving wild card spaces for the lesser challengers. With England currently at No. 9 in the FIFA world rankings, under such a system, the English nation would be preparing for yet another summer of over-hyped expectations ended by the dreaded penalty shoot-out! The quality of football would be, theoretically, strengthened by higher ranked teams at the finals.

OK, so Austria and Switzerland will play. But as hosts, who can deny them their chance? A tournament without the host nation participating would be like attending a wedding without the bride and groom! It just wouldn't be right.

But would this make a more attractive proposition? Simply, no. This would kill the romance of the under dog performing on the big stage! We all look back with great fondness at historical upsets. The Cameroon team at Italia '90, Denmark (who only qualified after Yugoslavia ceased to exist and withdrew) at Euro '92, the Czech Republic at Euro '96 and indeed South Korea at World Cup 2002. The list goes on. If you are good enough, you will make the finals. If not, then tough! Accept it and enjoy watching the best teams play!