Further Euros Expansion?

[sergie's no1 fan]

How long will this 24 team set up last till it expands to 32 teams?

 

It has created an absolute cluster f'ck of permutations and has given teams playing later in the week an advantage over other 3rd placed teams. The standard has been diluted anyway so I can't see how another 8 teams being entered would make it much worse. 8 groups of 4 with the top 2 teams qualifying from each group. 

 

I think it it's only a matter of time till we see it expanded to 32 teams. Maybe even by 2024.

 

Thoughts? Oh and before someone else mentions it, Scotland would still fail to qualify   .

[Michael W]

You may as well expand it to 32 - it removes the nonsense situation where 3 teams qualify from most of the groups and puts it back to top 2 and a round of 16. 

 

I'd personally bin the 24 and revert to 16. The major advantage of the Euros against the World Cup was that it mostly kept out the jobbers, but the 24 has seen several shades of dross qualify and dilute the quality. 

 

I'm sure we'd give it a good go of fucking it up as well, probably by losing a decisive game to Georgia that sees them qualify instead. 

[HomelandsOur]

No way the FA's will vote to reduce it now.

32 would be over half of the 55 members so ridicules qualifying a bit (especially the nation's league). A compromise could be 30 teams and 6 groups of 5, same knock out format as bow but only just over half the teams would progress, although that would be over 27.5 too.

[HibeeJibee]

Only solution to the "unfairness" side of things is 32, but I don't see it being as easy as OP implies... For starters the size of the tournament has begun to discourage countries - including multiple countries - from bidding, due to the costs and logistics and security demands, so making it 1/3 bigger again would only add to that. They've had to hold Euro 2020 across the continent for that reason, and the only credible bids for Euro 2024 look like Germany or a muddle of all 4 Scandanavian countries.

 

You would also have 32 out of 55 members qualifying, which would severely weaken the qualifying system... It just about held together going to 24 - in part thanks to a number of smaller countries all performing very well - but even then some countries were safely in with a number of matches to spare. They've had to establish this rather contrived new system of the UEFA Nations League and the divisional playoffs to try to combat that.

 

I suppose we can't really blame anyone else as it was SFA + FAI who proposed expanding, and proposed 24 instead of 20.

 

It has led to more "cautious" play and will cause unfairness, IMO. I'd have left it at 16.

[sergie's no1 fan]

You may as well expand it to 32 - it removes the nonsense situation where 3 teams qualify from most of the groups and puts it back to top 2 and a round of 16. 

 

I'd personally bin the 24 and revert to 16. The major advantage of the Euros against the World Cup was that it mostly kept out the jobbers, but the 24 has seen several shades of dross qualify and dilute the quality. 

 

I'm sure we'd give it a good go of fucking it up as well, probably by losing a decisive game to Georgia that sees them qualify instead. 

 

That's what I am thinking. 

 

That's before you even talk about the financial aspect of it. Surely having fans of 32 countries travelling about Europe, spending money , more sponsorship, extra tv revenue possibly? You wonder if this is Uefa's plan in the long term but they didn't just want to double the number of entrants from 16 to 32 instantly.

[AMC13]

I'm willing to wait till the end to see my overall thoughts on 24 teams but 32 would be far too much, it wouldn't really be any achievement qualifying and the quality would be severely diluted. 16 was a good number most groups were death matches and were all top teams.

[HibeeJibee]

That's what I am thinking. 

 

That's before you even talk about the financial aspect of it. Surely having fans of 32 countries travelling about Europe, spending money , more sponsorship, extra tv revenue possibly? You wonder if this is Uefa's plan in the long term but they didn't just want to double the number of entrants from 16 to 32 instantly.

 

Expanding to 24 wasn't actually proposed by UEFA centrally, it was the Scottish and Republican Irish FAs. (No doubt officialdom across the rest of the continent has a hearty laugh when they remember this and realise that we didn't even make it having increased the slots by 50%...).

 

Platini was fairly indifferent, IIRC, and not everyone voted for it.

[Meth Damon]

Scrap qualifying just have every team turn up, straight knockout system right  from the start

 

And aye, Scotland would still fail to qualify

[sergie's no1 fan]

Expanding to 24 wasn't actually proposed by UEFA centrally, it was the Scottish and Republican Irish FAs. (No doubt officialdom across the rest of the continent has a hearty laugh when they remember this and realise that we didn't even make it having increased the slots by 50%...).

 

Platini was fairly indifferent, IIRC, and not everyone voted for it.

 

Aye just seen your post above, interesting!

 

I agree it should have been kept at 16 but now I think they will only expand it not decrease it.

[HibeeJibee]

Had it been up to me I'd have limited any expansion to 20 and used the Rugby World Cup 1999 format.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Rugby_World_Cup#Pool_stage

 

Gives extra incentive to win the group and with only 1 "third place" progressing no point in playing defensively.

 

 

They tried to get around it at WC1982 by top 2 progressing and R2 being 4 groups of 3, but that had issues as someone sits out each matchday.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_FIFA_World_Cup#Results

[Mr Bairn]

The extra 8 qualifiers would be:

 

4 playoff losers Bosnia-Herz, Denmark, Norway, Slovenia

 

4 best 4th placed teams Scotland, Netherlands, Israel, Finland

 

I don't think those 8 teams are significantly worse than the bottom 8 teams that made the actual tournament, so 32 has legs.

[trgf]

The extra teams have added nothing to the tournament as it is, Sweden, Ireland, Turkey, Ukraine etc. Adding more of those just makes it worse

 

Half the teams in the tournament would be poor

[HibeeJibee]

The extra 8 qualifiers would be:

 

4 playoff losers Bosnia-Herz, Denmark, Norway, Slovenia

 

4 best 4th placed teams Scotland, Netherlands, Israel, Finland

 

I don't think those 8 teams are significantly worse than the bottom 8 teams that made the actual tournament, so 32 has legs.

 

Wherever you draw the line, the next few teams below will be of similar standard to those above it. Plus "not significantly worse" is questionable: we haven't qualified since 1998. Israel and Finland never have.

[Jamaldo]

If it were up to some people on here qualifying would be scrapped and it would be the same 16 teams every tournament.

 

The format isn't perfect but it has it's merits which I've mentioned on other threads. Northern Ireland and Austria won their groups and would have qualified anyway so I hope they're not going to be used as an argument against the expansion. A match between two heavyweights can, and has, proven to be just as shit as a match between two smaller teams, both in club football and international football.

 

I also really don't believe the football has been as negative as people are making out. The strikers have just been shit. Poland against Germany was the prime example of that, with Milik just ballsing up a hatful of chances for them. They had the chances though, and they were willing to try and win the game.

 

I'm tiring of people trying to find flaws in these tournaments. They only come along every couple of years so just enjoy them for f**k sake.

[AMC13]

Had it been up to me I'd have limited any expansion to 20 and used the Rugby World Cup 1999 format.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Rugby_World_Cup#Pool_stage

Gives extra incentive to win the group and with only 1 "third place" progressing no point in playing defensively.

They tried to get around it at WC1982 by top 2 progressing and R2 being 4 groups of 3, but that had issues as someone sits out each matchday.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_FIFA_World_Cup#Results

The rugby World Cup format looks good although you could just take out the play-offs to get to the quarters and do the best point/GD gets through.

[sparky88]

I'd argue that increasing the size of the tournament actually allows more countries to host it through shared bids.Norway Sweden Finland and Denmark are bidding for 2024 for example. Only 6 or 7 countries can host it on their own whether it is 24 or 32 teams

[Moo]

This 2020 euros in mixed cities is a cluster f**k for the fans. Be several hundreds of pounds on just travel and accommodation alone before even thinking about spending money. Could go from Portugal to Sweden to Italy of some sort to see your team play unless they've said a Nations games will be in countries close by?

I wouldn't mind seeing it go from 24 to 32 as long as it gets rid of teams in third being able to progress to the latter stages. In this years group stages, a team could draw all three group games 1-1 and still progress to the latter stages.

Back to 16 or up to 32 for me.

[dogmc]

20 teams would work with 4 groups of 5 top 2 through to qtr finals. If we want more teams I'm ok with 32 as opposed to 24.

[Monkey Tennis]

In this years group stages, a team could draw all three group games 1-1 and still progress to the latter stages.

In fairness, even in systems that saw two sides progress from a group of four, this could happen. 1982 got a recent mention and the ultimate winners of that World Cup provide the best example.

Overall though, there's no doubt that this is a guddly system.

Expanding from eight to sixteen after '92 made an awful lot of sense, given political changes.

That was a perfectly sensible number though and expansion beyond it has been a mistake. I can't see it getting yet bigger, but I also imagine it would be difficult to undo what's happened.

[HibeeJibee]

They won't take groups needing 5 matchdays and only 2 of 5 progressing.

 

 

This 2020 euros in mixed cities is a cluster f**k for the fans. Be several hundreds of pounds on just travel and accommodation alone before even thinking about spending money. Could go from Portugal to Sweden to Italy of some sort to see your team play unless they've said a Nations games will be in countries close by?

I wouldn't mind seeing it go from 24 to 32 as long as it gets rid of teams in third being able to progress to the latter stages. In this years group stages, a team could draw all three group games 1-1 and still progress to the latter stages.

Back to 16 or up to 32 for me.

 

Coupled with the 4 playoffs being as late as March - 16 teams in them, 4 progressing and each also hosted in 1 city - and you wonder if it will feel like a "proper" finals tournament at all certainly for the fans actually attending.

 

Stockholm wasn't successful, btw.

 

There will be some kind of "geographic approximation" but that will clearly wane in KO stages and look at the spread of venues:

 

British Isles

Glasgow

Dublin

+ London (SFs & Final)

 

Iberia

Bilbao

 

Benelux

Brussels

Amsterdam

 

Scandanavia

Copenhagen

 

Central Europe

Munich (inc QF)

 

Southern Europe

Rome (inc QF)

 

Eastern Europe

Budapest

Bucharest

 

former USSR

St Petersburg (inc QF)

Baku (inc QF)