32 Team Euros

[Northboy]

50 minutes ago, ArabFC said:

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

One positive I see in having 24 teams is that almost all teams go into their final group match with a chance of qualifying which can create some exciting games. In this tournament we saw Denmark scoring against Russia to sneak through on goal difference after losing their first two matches and the Germany/France/Portugal/Hungary group going to the wire.

[HibeeJibee]

1 hour ago, ArabFC said:

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!

They could use penalty shootouts after draws or the scheduling arrangement used at Spain 1982 (where you play each group at 1 venue with only the opening fixture preset and whoever loses Game #1 plays in Game #2) which might help reduce that problem... Another issue not mentioned as much is that quite a number of nations will play their last game and exit just 3 or 4 days after starting.
 

51 minutes ago, woof! said:

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.

I don't see how that will happen. International windows are a worldwide arrangement not just for Europe. (There is the oddity of an extra doubleheader in late January/early February next  year but not for European nations, with some European leagues stopping and others including SPFL playing through - but that is due to the peculiar circumstances of the last 18 months).

Plus as mentioned 55 nations rely on qualifiers for ticket and TV revenue, selling sponsorship, etc.

[realmadrid]

My thoughts on an extended Euros could be that they take those in Nations league A and split them into two groups giving automatic qualification and 14 match days over the 8 scheduled dates in the 2 year run. They could even have the finals on the 8th date with the two winners and two runners up play. Relegation in this cycle would be the bottom 2 in each group or they could put the bottom team down and have a 7th v 6th play off between each group to decide who was going down. That gives the big nations (Or those who make A) 14 or 16 games which is the same number they would have in the current set up and with more big match ups , possibly more TV cash

Then the remaining 39 could play in the usual Nations league groups of 4, thus playing 6 games, (bar group in C) then be split into 8 groups for qualification which would have 5 teams and one group of 4 with the top two making the Euro finals.  The groups of 5 would need the 10 match days and every nation would have 2 free dates for friendlies with the group of 4 only needing 8 games but they could either sit out the November or summer sets of games. The seeding for this would be based on performance in the nations league groups to give some extra intensive to finish second rather than third if the group winner in B or C was already decided.

its not a clean solution as in world cup cycles A would drop back to 4 4 team groups but if they did go to 32 teams and the current qualification style some of the big nations will have qualified with 4 games to play.

 

 

[Forest_Fifer]

32 teams would mean either multiple hosts, or it only going to the 4 or 5 big countries. A Celtic nations bid would be nice, let's face it, there's no chance of England hosting anything again for quite a while after Sunday.

[RobbieD]

13 minutes ago, Forest_Fifer said:

32 teams would mean either multiple hosts, or it only going to the 4 or 5 big countries. A Celtic nations bid would be nice, let's face it, there's no chance of England hosting anything again for quite a while after Sunday.

This.

I’d be fine with 32 nations really. Really, who actually cares how many are in? Once the tournament starts, we’re all excited for it. 
 

mulitple country bids would be good to get a lot of the smaller countries hosting a tournament they normally never would. 

[FairWeatherFan]

31 minutes ago, Forest_Fifer said:

32 teams would mean either multiple hosts, or it only going to the 4 or 5 big countries.

That's going to be the case with 24 teams. It also became normalised with 16 teams anyway with Belgium & the Netherlands, Austria & Switzerland, and Poland & Ukraine.

[ArabFC]

1 hour ago, Forest_Fifer said:

32 teams would mean either multiple hosts, or it only going to the 4 or 5 big countries. A Celtic nations bid would be nice, let's face it, there's no chance of England hosting anything again for quite a while after Sunday.

Russia held the last WC and Qatar are holding the next one. The other night's shenanigans won't make a blind bit of difference to hosting.

[HibeeJibee]

Events of last 18-months must put financial viability of Argentina/Uruguay/etc. in doubt given WC 2030 awarded in 2023. Must be a lot of stadium rebuilding needed and perhaps transport infrastructure too. La Plata and Penarol seem the only modern grounds they have - while the respective capitals of Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay are their only cities with capacities anywhere near the minimum.

North Africa? Balkans? Surely no chance.

Basically talking British Isles v Iberia v China IMO.


Plan along lines of:

Wembley / Arsenal / Spurs
Manchester Utd / Manchester City
Liverpool / Everton?
Newcastle
Sunderland
Aston Villa
Sheffield Wednesday or Sheffield Utd
3 or 4? from say Leeds, Leicester, Middlesbrough, Nottingham, Southampton, Wolves
Hampden
Murrayfield
Millennium Stadium
Lansdowne Road?
Cork?

would be quite workable IMO although its unlikely the Celtic nations would qualify automatically, given Europe is only going up from 13 slots to 16 from which hosts are deducted in future.

Edited July 14, 2021 by HibeeJibee

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Can't remember where, but the proposal I saw for the 32 team Euros involved binning qualifiers altogether and using the Nations League along the lines of League A (16 teams) and League B winners (4) qualifying automatically, with the remaining spots going to play offs, with the rest of League B and the 4 League C battling it out.

[HalfCutNinja]

People who think 32 is too many are arseholes. They're the same fannies who would have said 16 is too many when it was 8, then 24 was too many when it was 16 and whose burds if they exist only ever get pumped missionary. 

There's way more countries in Europe now, even more in Uefa, loads of countries are good now who used to be shite. 32 is great, and the right number for a tournament, 24 is a shambles.

You can also spread and grow and improve football if most countries in Europe know they have tournament football basically every 4 years. 

Same with the WC, complete no brainer make it 64, make it represent the whole world and make it a massive festival of football. And Europe should get at least 25 spots, we are woefully underrepresented in WC's, its deeply unfair and in effect punishes Europe for being good and also for making the game what it is. 

Corrupt arseholes didn't need our votes and TV companies know we will watch anyway so Europe got completely shafted. At any given time 20-25 of the best teams in the world are European. Of the best 30-35.

Every time there is a WC these days one or two teams from Uefa don't qualify who could have potentially won the tournament had they been there. Witness Italy last time out, look at them now. That isn't remotely true for any other federation and its deeply, deeply unfair. People in particularly places like Scotland should be outraged about it and hammering FIFA all the time. 

The WC is a sporting event, the whole ethos of sport is fairness. Its not possible to be perfect but the idea of the qualifiers should be to give every team in the world an equal chance to get to the WC. That simply is not the case right now. It is astonishingly hard to qualify for the WC from Uefa, and every time there's a pile of teams from here who don't qualify who would have absolutely strolled any other federation's qualifying section.

That just isn't fair. Its far far far far harder for Norway or Sweden or Scotland or Ireland or Poland or whoever to qualify for a WC than the USA or Australia or Saudi etc. That's not fair. That's not sport. And a 64 team WC would allow us to rectify that situation to a degree.  So that's another good reason for it.

[HalfCutNinja]

I mean look at Scotland now, to qualify we just have Denmark, semi finalists in the Euros, and Austria, who were unlucky not to knock out the eventual winners. We just have to finish above one of them and beat fuckin Portugal or someone in a play-off. Aye nae bather. And that's an easy group compared to what you can get.

Do you think fucking Saudi Arabia would qualify from our position?  Would they f**k. But they'll be there. That's not fair. 

Expanding these tournaments is long overdue, when you look back at some of the groups we've had when tournaments were smaller no fuckin wonder we never qualified. 2008 both WC finalists and a quarter finalist, go and finish above two of them or you're out. Aye right you are then. Can you see Australia having got out of that group?  Can you f**k.

And it damages our game, it starves it of funds that are generated by qualification to grow the sport and the excitement and interest it creates. We should have been raging about this for years and the small countries in Uefa banding together to flex their wee muscles. 

[Chris McDonald]

Im not entirely sure what to make of this. It might work or as was mentioned the 48 team although it would take forever. I like the idea of a 32 team euros even if there is the risk of games such as north macedonia v bosnia but until you try a new format youre never going to know how well it will go although i do believe the world cup should be extended by this point

On 13/07/2021 at 16:56, GordonS said:

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.

 

[craigkillie]

My thoughts on an extended Euros could be that they take those in Nations league A and split them into two groups giving automatic qualification and 14 match days over the 8 scheduled dates in the 2 year

Nobody should be getting automatic qualification, you need to earn it in some way or other.

It's better to stick with the current Nations League format to begin with, and give the top two in each group a qualifying spot, then play some sort of Final 8 tournament while the rest are playing qualifiers.

[David W]

32 teams, play a knockout round then have the 16 team tournament that didn't need spoilt in the first place.

[parsforlife]

Don’t see many downsides.   Increases the number of games during the close session,  puts less requirements on taking needlessly interrupting the club season for diddy  games.  Far from what we need(which is international football only taking place during the club close  season)

Edited July 15, 2021 by parsforlife

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

Even with 32 teams, the Euros will still be a much better competition than a 32-team World Cup.  The 48-team WC with 32 non-European nations is nothing short of farcical.

Irrespective of how this helps Scotland, I’d much rather watch Bosnia v Serbia, and Hungary v Iceland, than Honduras v Venezuela, and New Zealand v Canada which is exactly what we’re going to get from 2026 onwards.

If we really wanted the best Euros (average quality of match) then we’d go back to 8 teams, which obviously is never going to happen.

At that point, you may as well go to 32 teams because it’s at least a format that makes sense, and goes some way to streamlining qualification, and further improves the (imo very successful) Nations League.

Edited July 14, 2021 by HuttonDressedAsLahm

[Lurkst]

10 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

They could use penalty shootouts after draws or the scheduling arrangement used at Spain 1982 (where you play each group at 1 venue with only the opening fixture preset and whoever loses Game #1 plays in Game #2) which might help reduce that problem... 

I either never realised that at the time or had totally forgotten, it's a fair while ago now.

The difference in 2026 compared to 82 is that two teams will progress out of each three team group.

It really is a farcical setup, as you say teams having to pack their bags after a few days, like going back to some of the pre 1960 World Cups. 

[Gordon EF]

23 hours ago, Northboy said:

One positive I see in having 24 teams is that almost all teams go into their final group match with a chance of qualifying which can create some exciting games. In this tournament we saw Denmark scoring against Russia to sneak through on goal difference after losing their first two matches and the Germany/France/Portugal/Hungary group going to the wire.

In both of those groups, all four teams could still have qualified on the last day if only the top 2 went through. I don't think only the top 2 qualifying would have led to less drama or excitement in either group.

[Gordon EF]

Why can we not just go back to the finals being a 4 team tournament?

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

3 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

Why can we not just go back to the finals being a 4 team tournament?

That's the UEFA Nations League, and it's not very exciting