32 Team Euros

[Lurkst]

Being proposed from 2028...

https://apnews.com/article/euro-2020-sports-soccer-international-soccer-world-cup-3e329fdaaf5d6817443e5beeec8639ab

 

Even though it helps Scotland's chances of qualifying I'm not sure it's a great move.

Presumably the Nation's League would be used for qualifying with the traditional route being binned if it goes ahead.

 

[HibeeJibee]

60% of members qualifying?

That's ridiculous.

[Gordon EF]

25 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

60% of members qualifying?

That's ridiculous.

Still 40% less than the Copa America.

Presumably the idea is to move to the current world cup format which doesn't require countries to play any more games at the tournament and does away with the whole qualifying from 3rd place thing.

I actually don't mind it. 24 is an awkward number. I know people will always pine for the days when it was 16 and see anything further as dilution of quality but a further 8 teams could potentially be, based on Nations League ranking.

Bosnia, Iceland, Norway, Serbia, Rep. of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Bulgaria, Israel.

I don't think that would really drag the standard down that much. What they really need to do is be far more open to multiple country bids, up to 3 or 4 hosts. Maybe even make it mandatory that more than one country hosts it.

[GordonS]

Bigger tournament finals surely can't be in the interests of the more successful countries. They already struggle for attendances and atmosphere at their qualifiers, and having 32 qualifying would pretty much remove all competitiveness for them.

If they're going to 32 they might as well go the whole hog and make it 48, abolish qualifying, and have a preliminary stage for the minnows.

[GordonS]

1 minute ago, Gordon EF said:

Still 40% less than the Copa America.

 

There are only 10 of them!

[RossBFaeDundee]

Is it utterly ridiculous and stupid? Yes.

Would I accept it if it almost guaranteed Scotland qualified for every tournament henceforth? Almost definitely.

It is a terrible idea though, let's be real.

Edited July 13, 2021 by RossBFaeDundee

[Gordon EF]

1 minute ago, GordonS said:

There are only 10 of them!

I know, I wasn't being entirely serious.

If the bigger countries are going to be pissy about it, they could just say that everyone in League A of the Nations League gets automatic qualification and the rest go through qualifiers. Leave them to play some friendlies against each other or something.

[Gordon EF]

Just now, RossBFaeDundee said:

Is it utterly ridiculous and stupid? Yes.

Would I accept it if it almost guaranteed Scotland for every tournament? Almost definitely.

It is a terrible idea though, let's be real.

It's basically just doubling down on the idea to expand it from 16. I think from tournament quality point of view, 16 is clearly optimal. If you're going to 24, why not just make it 32.

[HibeeJibee]

Euro qualifying fills an entire year (not including NL and  playoffs). Must be about 250 games.

Surely scrapping that would cost nations hugely in lost gate, sponsorship and TV revenue?

[Bully Wee Villa]

Would be much better than the current best third place and the teams in the latter groups have an advantage, plus some group winners get easier draws than others system.

I think you'd have to merge the qualifying with World Cup qualifying, like they do in other confederations, to ensure that the it stayed competitive and you didn't have too many dead rubbers near the end. They will need to do something like this if the proposal to switch to biannual World Cups goes through.

Edited July 13, 2021 by Bully Wee Villa

[GordonS]

11 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

I know, I wasn't being entirely serious.

If the bigger countries are going to be pissy about it, they could just say that everyone in League A of the Nations League gets automatic qualification and the rest go through qualifiers. Leave them to play some friendlies against each other or something.

I think they'd be better to have something like those who make the last 16 at the Euros qualify automatically for the next one, and they play a Nations League A among themselves while us plebs slug it out for the remaining 16 places.

They do similar things in other sports. 

[craigkillie]

Euro qualifying fills an entire year (not including NL and  playoffs). Must be about 250 games.

Surely scrapping that would cost nations hugely in lost gate, sponsorship and TV revenue?

The people running UEFA's competitions are incredibly innovative, they would almost certainly find a way to make this work without reducing the number of games. Most likely the Nations League would expand its influence a bit, for example by having the top 2 in each League A group automatically qualify and instead playing each other in an expanded NL group stage during the regular qualifying dates.

The remaining 24 (or 23) qualifying spots could then be made available via a qualifying system similar to the current one, but with the NL play-offs returning to 2 legged ties since there are more dates available.

[craigkillie]

I think they'd be better to have something like those who make the last 16 at the Euros qualify automatically for the next one, and they play a Nations League A among themselves while us plebs slug it out for the remaining 16 places.
They do similar things in other sports. 

That's a terrible idea, you shouldn't be qualifying for a tournament just because you did OK four years previously. It works in sports like rugby because there is much less variety in terms of which teams are good at a given time, and it would be pointless to make Scotland have to qualify.

The same isn't at all true for football, because there's more competition, especially in the middle range. The two Irelands and Iceland reached the last 16 in 2016 but didn't qualify this time.

You'd also have two totally different Nations League structures since several of the last 16 teams aren't currently in League A, and it also runs during the WC qualifiers.

[George Parr]

A 32 team Euros is a stinking bad shout. 

[Scumjob]

5 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

Still 40% less than the Copa America.

Presumably the idea is to move to the current world cup format which doesn't require countries to play any more games at the tournament and does away with the whole qualifying from 3rd place thing.

I actually don't mind it. 24 is an awkward number. I know people will always pine for the days when it was 16 and see anything further as dilution of quality but a further 8 teams could potentially be, based on Nations League ranking.

Bosnia, Iceland, Norway, Serbia, Rep. of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Bulgaria, Israel.

I don't think that would really drag the standard down that much. What they really need to do is be far more open to multiple country bids, up to 3 or 4 hosts. Maybe even make it mandatory that more than one country hosts it.

That's the last bloody thing we need in the group stage.

[HalfCutNinja]

Sensible idea, bit of a no brainer really. WC should be 64 teams too.

[latapythelegend]

Should be 32 then just stick the rest in the Challenge Cup surely? 

[Melanius Mullarkey]

A nonsense, you’ll just get shite like England getting to the final again.

Spoiler

 

[ArabFC]

The more the merrier imho

The 24 team (some 3rd places) go through is a mess. If you want groups of 4, you need 16 or 32 teams.

In 2026 they'll have 16 groups of 3 in the World Cup and that's gonna be a right old shitshow come the last set of group games!

Almost like they've set it up as an excuse to bump it up to 64 teams in 2030/34

[woof!]

I think the clubs will like this as it will probably reduce the number of qualifying games, so will reduce disruption of the club season. It also makes sense commercial sense as more nations will be invested in the finals. Make it so.