32 Team Euros

[forameus]

I'd be up for this.  I've preferred the 24 team tournament to be honest, and I've enjoyed having teams there that wouldn't usually get there (lololol Scotland lololol).  With 32, the countries being quoted wouldn't reduce the standard that much, and it isn't as if matches between two of the bigger teams always guarantees quality.

The only question mark is around qualifying really.  I'm not sure you can really justify keeping things the way they are and handing out 8 more spots.  Having three go through from each group would be utter baws, and lead to completely tedious groups.  Only a handful of them would go even close to the wire if it was present for 2020.  Hell, we'd have comfortably qualified despite finishing 9 points behind Russia and losing as often as we won.  You could maybe argue it might lead to teams in 4th pot and below picking their game up as it's closer to their reach, but that's a stretch.

You could just keep the two qualifiers from the normal campaign and open up the Nations League a bit more.  20 teams from the main route, 2 hosts (assuming you have to have it shared with the expansion), then an expanding and contracting playoff system depending on who does what in the Nations League.  Group winners through, playoffs for the rest.  I'd be up for it.

Or a third option, get the often bland qualifying campaign to f**k, and really go all in on the Nations League.  You'd probably not be able to play as many games, but I'm sure with a bit of imagination they could come up with something.  

[craigkillie]

Given the discussion has mostly focused on the qualification structure, I thought I'd firm up my idea a little bit. I think this would be the best way to go if they do want to move to 32 teams.

Phase 1 - Nations League

The Nations League continues under the current structure, but there are now 8 automatic qualification spots up for grabs in League A.

League A (16 teams) - 4 groups of 4.
League B (16 teams) - 4 groups of 4.
League C (16 teams) - 4 groups of 4.
League D (7 teams) - 2 groups of 3/4 (I think a single group of 7 is preferrable and workable).

The existing promotion and relegation rules apply:

• The top two sides in each League A group qualify for the Euros (8 spots) and also to the Nations League Final 8.
• The winners of each League B group are guaranteed a play-off final spot
• The winners of each League C group are guaranteed a play-off semi-final spot
• The winners of each League D group will be given first priority for any vacated play-off spots
• The remaining 46/47 sides (excluding the hosts of the Euros) continue to the normal qualifying.

 

The 8 Nations League Final 8 will involve 2 groups of 4, and will play each other home and away during the time that the other countries are playing qualifiers. These groups will be seeded based on Nations League ranking, and countries can't play teams from their own Nations League group. The top two in each group will qualify for the Nations League Finals, which will take place under the current format.

Phase 2 - Qualifiers

The 46/47 remaining sides are drawn into 10 qualifying groups of either 4 or 5 teams, seeded based on Nations League ranking. These groups will follow the exact same format we have now. The top two sides in each qualifying group qualify for the Euros (20 spots).

 

Phase 3 - Playoff

There will be either 3 or 4 more places up for grabs depending on whether the hosts also finished in the top 8 of the Nations League, and these will be determined via the Nations League play-offs.

I've tweaked the existing structure to give a bit more of a preference to nations who won their Nations League groups. Because there will be two extra matchdays freed up by having smaller qualifying groups, the play-offs will also be two-legged.

League B play-offs (2 spots)

The League B play-offs will have two qualifying places up for grabs. The four League B group winners will be drawn against each other, with both winners qualifying. If any of the group winners have qualified automatically, then the remaining places will be filled by other countries (either League D winners or the other best placed Nations League sides) - but these countries would have to play a semi-final.

For example, if 3 League B winners have to enter the playoffs, and 1 qualifies automatically, then we would have a one semi-final involving two "other countries", and then two finals involving the 3 League B winners plus the semi-final winners. This sounds complicated written down but is basically this format.

Playoff 1: Winner B1 v Winner B2
Playoff 2: Winner B3 v Team X/Team Y

Obviously if another League B winner qualified automatically that would mean we'd have another semi-final and so on.

 

League C play-offs (1 spot)

The League C play-offs will have one qualifying space up for grabs. The four League C group winners will be drawn against each other and will play semi-finals and a final.  If any of the group winners have qualified automatically then the remaining places will be filled by other countries (either League D winners or the other best placed Nations League sides).


Extra play-off (?1 spot)

If the hosts finished in the top 2 of their Nations League group then there will be another space. It would be filled by the League D winners and/or the other best Nations League sides.
 

As mentioned several times above, there will most likely be a number of vacancies to fill in the play-offs - first priority would be given to the League D winners, and then it would simply be based on Nations League ranking. Unlike the current format, there are no League A play-offs and therefore it is possible (but unlikely) that League A team(s) could end up in the play-offs. They would be placed in the extra play-off if there is one, but if not they would be randomly drawn into the other play-offs.

Edited July 15, 2021 by craigkillie

[Dunning1874]

Once you've gone to 24 and going back to 16 obviously isn't happening, moving to 32 at some point is inevitable to give the tournament a sensible format. While you make qualifying tedious for a number of teams who will have no chance of failing to make it, that's worth it for the tournament itself being better IMO.

You'd think you'd be letting some complete and utter shite in, but when you look at the best eight non-qualifiers from the 24 team tournaments so far there aren't really any minnows there:

2016: Bosnia, Denmark, Norway, Slovenia, Scotland, Finland, Bulgaria, Netherlands

2020 (using qualifying groups): Serbia, Republic of Ireland, Iceland, Northern Ireland, Norway, Kosovo, Greece, Slovenia

2020 (using Nations League position): Iceland, Bosnia, Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Norway, Serbia, Bulgaria, Israel

The only teams there who haven't qualified for a tournament through UEFA before are Kosovo who only first competed in 2018 and Israel whose only World Cup qualification came in 1970 when they were still playing in Asia.

Edited July 16, 2021 by Dunning1874

[HalfCutNinja]

You know what I would liken the way Uefa is treated in WC qualifying to?  The Open is on just now. What they do to Uefa countries is like saying to all the American and British players in the field golf is already big in your country and reached saturation, so your tees are further back.  The guys who are from countries where we want to grow golf can play from further forward.

That's what they do. They don't give everyone an equal chance or even try to and are quite open about it. They say its about growing the game and being a global tournament etc, but its just cheating the European countries who get punished for being good. And the big European countries who wield huge power don't care as they generally qualify anyway.

But Uefa has by far the most clout and power of any federation. If they used it they could achieve change. I said at the time when WC was awarded to Qatar Uefa should have issued a statement saying their teams wouldn't be taking part. It would have been moved within 48 hours. But they are just as corrupt too. 

[greenockraver]

perfect tournament format from 1996 - 2012. groups were awsome 

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

12 hours ago, HalfCutNinja said:

You know what I would liken the way Uefa is treated in WC qualifying to?  The Open is on just now. What they do to Uefa countries is like saying to all the American and British players in the field golf is already big in your country and reached saturation, so your tees are further back.  The guys who are from countries where we want to grow golf can play from further forward.

That's what they do. They don't give everyone an equal chance or even try to and are quite open about it. They say its about growing the game and being a global tournament etc, but its just cheating the European countries who get punished for being good. And the big European countries who wield huge power don't care as they generally qualify anyway.

But Uefa has by far the most clout and power of any federation. If they used it they could achieve change. I said at the time when WC was awarded to Qatar Uefa should have issued a statement saying their teams wouldn't be taking part. It would have been moved within 48 hours. But they are just as corrupt too. 

With the way the WC is going, it genuinely looks like UEFA have an opportunity to make the Euros the more prestigious competition.

After all, other than Brazil, and Argentina (and cyclically, the likes of Chile and Uruguay), the Euros have every team of any real quality anyway.

The WC has become (and will become more so), nothing more than a participation event, rewarding countries by virtue of simply existing in an uncompetitive region of the world.

Looking at the new guaranteed numbers for each region, countries like Russia, Norway, Serbia, Turkey won't qualify, but it effectively guarantees places to Japan, South Korea, Australia, Iran, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, whilst adding in the likes of UAE and China.  Utterly absurd.

The setup also guarantees qualification for New Zealand forever, whilst also ensuring that 4 from this list qualify: Canada, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, Jamaica, Trinidad, and Haiti.  

The WC is going to become a glorified Confederations Cup, certainly until the last 16.  The Euros clearly has a lot more to offer.

[forameus]

3 minutes ago, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

With the way the WC is going, it genuinely looks like UEFA have an opportunity to make the Euros the more prestigious competition.

After all, other than Brazil, and Argentina (and cyclically, the likes of Chile and Uruguay), the Euros have every team of any real quality anyway.

The WC has become (and will become more so), nothing more than a participation event, rewarding countries by virtue of simply existing in an uncompetitive region of the world.

Looking at the new guaranteed numbers for each region, countries like Russia, Norway, Serbia, Turkey won't qualify, but it effectively guarantees places to Japan, South Korea, Australia, Iran, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, whilst adding in the likes of UAE and China.  Utterly absurd.

The setup also guarantees qualification for New Zealand forever, whilst also ensuring that 4 from this list qualify: Canada, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, Jamaica, Trinidad, and Haiti.  

The WC is going to become a glorified Confederations Cup, certainly until the last 16.  The Euros clearly has a lot more to offer.

At the same time though, with letting diddies qualify, it's not a guarantee that they're going to stink the place out.  These three team groups are probably not going to help, but if you're a nation on the cusp of qualifying but never quite making it, that one appearance at a tournament could be massive.  Does that then push some of them to dream a bit more and lead to improvement over the years?  The expansion to the Euros definitely made for a more lively qualification stage as people started to realise it was actually possible.

But then again, on the same note is it then a bad thing for the likes of New Zealand and the other "automatic" qualifiers?  Not going to be much incentive for them to kick on when they could probably play at 20% and still get there.

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

26 minutes ago, forameus said:

At the same time though, with letting diddies qualify, it's not a guarantee that they're going to stink the place out.  These three team groups are probably not going to help, but if you're a nation on the cusp of qualifying but never quite making it, that one appearance at a tournament could be massive.  Does that then push some of them to dream a bit more and lead to improvement over the years?  The expansion to the Euros definitely made for a more lively qualification stage as people started to realise it was actually possible.

But then again, on the same note is it then a bad thing for the likes of New Zealand and the other "automatic" qualifiers?  Not going to be much incentive for them to kick on when they could probably play at 20% and still get there.

That's obviously an important point, and one's pre-established view depends on whether you look at the new setup cynically (increasing FIFA's voting base, marketing reach, and income) or whether you view that football is being used as a force for good and expanding the franchise.

As with everything FIFA, I have a more cynical view and would argue that your most prestigious competition should be competitive first, and participatory second.

The Olympics, as an ideal, allows for every country to put forward athletes to every event.  If they didn't, the USA, Russia, China would absolutely dominate some events, and other countries wouldn't get a look in at all.  That is fair and quite reasonable approach.

However, unless it's a mass participation event (e.g. marathon) most sports have qualifiers which weeds out the non-competitive athletes, long before Eric Moussambani gets destroyed by Ian Thorpe.   

The difference with this World Cup is that it is inviting nations to a level of competition that they simply don't deserve to be, whilst countries and athletes that absolutely should be there - aren't.  There's a balance between equity and meritocracy, but I sense it doesn't suitably exist when you have the likes of Haaland sat at home, but Qatar and Oman playing Brazil. 

Besides, why is it okay for Syria/El Salvador/Canada/Qatar to get a very real shot at the World Cup, where the likes of Macedonia, Finland, Northern Ireland, Israel, (Scotland even!) need all of their stars to align perfectly to qualify once, whilst being significantly stronger.

I'm not expecting anyone to have answer to the last point (and I'm not suggesting it's your position), but it is a genuine problem if promoting participation is the goal.

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by HuttonDressedAsLahm

[forameus]

Just now, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

That's obviously an important point, and depending on one's pre-established view depends on whether you look at the new setup cynically (increasing FIFA's voting base, marketing reach, and income) or whether you view that football is being used as a force for good and expanding the franchise.

As with everything FIFA, I have a more cynical view and would argue that your most prestigious competition should be competitive first, and participatory second.

The Olympics, as an ideal, allows for every country to put forward athletes to every event.  If they didn't, the USA, Russia, China would absolutely dominate some events, and other countries wouldn't get a look in at all.  That is fair and quite reasonable approach.

However, unless it's a mass participation event (e.g. marathon) most sports have qualifiers which weeds out the non-competitive athletes, long before Eric Moussambani gets destroyed by Ian Thorpe.   

The difference with this World Cup is that it is inviting nations to a level of competition that they simply don't deserve to be, whilst countries and athletes that absolutely should be there - aren't.  There's a balance between equity and meritocracy, but I sense it doesn't suitably exist when you have the likes of Haaland sat at home, but Qatar and Oman playing Brazil. 

Besides, why is it okay for Syria/El Salvador/Canada/Qatar to get a very real shot at the World Cup, where the likes of Macedonia, Finland, Northern Ireland, Israel, (Scotland even!) need all of their stars to align perfectly to qualify once, whilst being significantly stronger.

I'm not expecting anyone to have answer to the last point (and I'm not suggesting it's your position), but it is a genuine problem if promoting participation is the goal.

 

All fair enough points.  I think the biggest issue is indeed the way the places are divided.  You're always going to get Europeans claiming we're underrepresented (which by quality, it's hard to argue against) but how do you do it fairly without it being reduced to just the same 32 (or 48, or 64 or 403) nations involved?  

If we're really going for a revolution, do we give the barest minimum spots to each confederation, then set up a massive intercontinental playoff for the rest?  If, say, El Salvador manage to beat us in a playoff, they earn their spot.  Plus who wouldn't want a good battle between Scotland and Syria, where one disadvantaged, poor side gets to experience a better way of life and the warner climate of Syria rather than Glasgow.

[HuttonDressedAsLahm]

8 minutes ago, forameus said:

All fair enough points.  I think the biggest issue is indeed the way the places are divided.  You're always going to get Europeans claiming we're underrepresented (which by quality, it's hard to argue against) but how do you do it fairly without it being reduced to just the same 32 (or 48, or 64 or 403) nations involved?  

If we're really going for a revolution, do we give the barest minimum spots to each confederation, then set up a massive intercontinental playoff for the rest?  If, say, El Salvador manage to beat us in a playoff, they earn their spot.  Plus who wouldn't want a good battle between Scotland and Syria, where one disadvantaged, poor side gets to experience a better way of life and the warner climate of Syria rather than Glasgow.

I don't think that's a bad shout at all.  A playoff system involving Bolivia, Venezuela, Canada, Norway, Scotland, Qatar, New Zealand, and Ghana, would at least have some novelty value.  It could be hosted in a country with a long history of diversity, tolerance, and human rights - perhaps Qatar, North Korea, or England?

[realmadrid]

On 14/07/2021 at 22:16, craigkillie said:

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.

 

 

it could be argued you earn the spot by getting promoted to A or not getting relegated from A 

Im not saying id agree with automatic qualification , i was just looking at a system that would get 32 teams to the finals without having the top 3 in groups of 6 qualifying. 

[realmadrid]

4 hours ago, forameus said:

All fair enough points.  I think the biggest issue is indeed the way the places are divided.  You're always going to get Europeans claiming we're underrepresented (which by quality, it's hard to argue against) but how do you do it fairly without it being reduced to just the same 32 (or 48, or 64 or 403) nations involved?  

If we're really going for a revolution, do we give the barest minimum spots to each confederation, then set up a massive intercontinental playoff for the rest?  If, say, El Salvador manage to beat us in a playoff, they earn their spot.  Plus who wouldn't want a good battle between Scotland and Syria, where one disadvantaged, poor side gets to experience a better way of life and the warner climate of Syria rather than Glasgow.

The way that could be done is to award confederations a minimum number of places and then have 16 places up for grabs by confederation based on the previous competitions last 16.

I have a different view having gone to the world cup in 2018 in that the most enthusiastic an loudest fans came from the likes of Egypt and id now hate to see it as another version of the Euros with Brazil , Argentina and Mexico. 

Ideally id like the confederations cut to 4, one for the Americas , Europe, Africa and then an Asian/Pacific group.

If the format was to stay at 32 based on the last world cup each confederation would be looking at the following numbers in 2022

The Americas 4 base plus 5 from the last 16 - Total 9 in 2022

Europe 4 base plus 10 from the last 16 - Total 14 in 2022

Africa 4 base - Total 4 in 2022

Asia and Pacific 4 base plus 1 from the last 16 - Total 5 in 2022

As most of the confederations operate with opening rounds the cost argument would not stand as the very small islands would get knocked out early on .

With a 48 team world cup the base goes to 8 for each confederation etc.

It keeps it a world wide competition but rewards the better confederations 

 

[realmadrid]

5 hours ago, HuttonDressedAsLahm said:

The Olympics, as an ideal, allows for every country to put forward athletes to every event.  If they didn't, the USA, Russia, China would absolutely dominate some events, and other countries wouldn't get a look in at all.  That is fair and quite reasonable approach.

However, unless it's a mass participation event (e.g. marathon) most sports have qualifiers which weeds out the non-competitive athletes, long before Eric Moussambani gets destroyed by Ian Thorpe.   

There is a similar problem in the Olympics. Take the 100m . its possible that the person who finished 4th in the USA Olympic trial would finish ahead of many of those who make the final. They limit the numbers each nation can put forward. In some sports its only 1 , was there not a sport in 2012 where it was a solo entry and GB had world number 1 and 2 and for some reason picked number 2 who went on to win a gold medal.

[Lurkst]

I like the idea of inter-confederation play-offs for the last dozen or so places at an expanded World Cup.

It might need some absolutely hopeless sides to qualify for the next couple in order for such an idea to gain traction though.

 

[Lex]

It’s got to be 16 or 32, this 24 team nonsense is a bit of a joke.
From a Scotland perspective 32 is obviously much better, we would surely qualify every time.
From a competitive perspective 16 would be better. The competition had a real elite feel about it between 1996 and 2012.

[HibeeJibee]

There is no chance of the other continents agreeing to a greatly expanded range of intercontinental playoffs. By definition that'd mean more Europeans qualifying and less of the rest.

Very fact that adding 16 teams to the finals from 2026 led to only 3 coming to Europe... plus no representation in the repechage (unlike every other confederation)... illustrates the situation.

[craigkillie]

The other continents would change their mind very quickly if the European and South American nations threatened to withdraw.

[DC92]

On 14/07/2021 at 12:39, 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.

I don't really think the format added to the excitement. In the examples you cite, Denmark went through because they finished 2nd and Group F would still have at least as exciting had the World Cup format been used. Different combinations of France, Portugal, Germany and Hungary were in the top two at various points in the evening.

In other cases, the format probably reduced the excitement. In Group A, Italy v Wales was basically a dead rubber because Wales already had 4 points, despite the fact Switzerland were racking up the goals against Turkey in the other game. The same was true of England v the Czech Republic in Group D. In Group C, you had a scenario where Austria and Ukraine could play out a draw to ensure near-certain qualification. That's not what happened ultimately, but Ukraine still ended up going through despite losing to both of their only decent opponents.

I can see the argument for going back to a 16-team Euros in preference to the 32, but I don't really see much of an advantage in sticking with 24 teams. The format is clearly better with 32, and I think the weaker teams this time around are probably much of a muchness with the next 8 teams in line. Those teams are still capable of competing on their day and producing entertaining games (see Hungary for example). I'm also unashamedly selfish and like the idea of Scotland being near-guaranteed a qualifying spot, so I'm quite keen on the idea.

[Tartan Dave]

Could we not have worldwide qualifying? Players travel all over world now anyway

[Bully Wee Villa]

Worldwide qualifiers would be crazy, the clubs would, rightly, be up in arms about that. There's nothing wrong with having lots of African and Asian teams in it. It's a World Cup.