There are times when sport, at an international level, could really do with some expansionist tendencies. Yet is it right for Euro 2016 to include eight extra teams?
I suppose, in this apparently environmentally-sustainable-conscious time we humans are living in, I just question whether Michel Platini is right for giving the nod to the eight extra teams in European football’s major event.
Please don’t get me wrong. I think the Euro Cup is a terrific tournament and a great showcase for football. But is it the most prudent decision to feel the need to expand it, particularly at this point in time when economic pressure is weighing heavily on multiple UEFA member states?
That will be eight extra teams’ worth of transport – to and from the host nation and between venues. Eight extra teams’ worth of supporters.
The Russian Football Union has already been handed a potential six-point deduction before the qualifying round for the 2016 event even starts, following crowd disturbances at the side’s group A match against the Czech Republic in the Polish city of Wroclaw.
Meaning eight extra teams’ worth of security – meaning more money would need to be spent on local policing for just a single-month event.
Eight extra teams’ worth of diluted quality – giving underdogs a go is fantastic, but if the likes of the Dutch (cough!) are unable to fight their way out of a group in a 16-team tournament, how would other nations go if they join a 24-team Euro cup?
And, judging by the reaction of Holland striker Arjen Robben to his 83rd-minute substitution against Germany last week, eight extra teams’ worth of potentially petulant players.
Eight more teams’ worth of opportunity for the goal-line officials – or whatever technological gizmo is in vogue by then – to get something wrong and leave the fans in the stands and armchairs alike aghast at how such a blunder could ever be allowed at this level.
England and France would have probably qualified from group D regardless of the result on Tuesday, but again there was a side denied a clear goal, live on television in front of an audience of millions.
There is definitely just something so neat and compact about the way it is now. Sixteen teams, four groups of four, straight quarter and semi knockouts and a final. And – mercifully – no third-place play-off. At least UEFA has left well alone and not added that inconsequential blip to the schedule in 2016.
Then there’s the format quibbles. It’s back to the messy World Cup structure of the 1980s and early 90s – 24 teams in six groups of four, then somehow, through supercomputer calculatory systems, squeezing that down to 16 in a cumbersome and clumsily-arranged second round. Then quarters, semis and a final.
And if nearly 50 per cent of the continent can now get in on the fun, what’s the point of holding qualifying matches? Why not just pick it on a FIFA/UEFA ranking equation and be done with it?
It’s worth noting the statistical side of all this. Extrapolating the percentage of confederation members that can qualify in a continental tournament produces some interesting results. Perhaps surprisingly, the African Cup is even harder to get into than its Euro equivalent – 16 out of 56 nations, only 28.57 per cent of the continent.
Given that the Euros will become bloated in four years’ time, some fans might start following the African edition even more if compressed quality over a month-long tournament is still what they’re after.
The Copa America – the world’s oldest such tournament – for South American sides may be a unique and special case – where all 10 member nations compete, plus two invitational opponents as well.
If the Euros can expand, why not a combined Americas Championship – the North, Central and South American teams would all together match UEFA’s membership, how about pooling the best 16 teams from that lot every four years?
But I digress (slightly).
When Euro 2016 increases in size, it will become the third-easiest to qualify for and therefore also the third-most representative tournament of its kind.
Of course, then there’s Platini. Conveniently, he’s French. France was pulled from the hat back in May as 2016 host, by a Frenchman, no less. And amid some controversy, too, apparently. More political football, of the literal kind, as they say.
But France it will be – getting to stage the largest Euro tournament to date.
The decision to expand the tournament was taken in September 2008 – at a meeting in…you guessed it. Bordeaux. Hmmm.
“I’m sure that it will not change the technical level,” Platini said at the time.
“In addition to the 16 [current] qualifiers, there are eight other teams just as good.”
Yet, according to a FOX Sports online report via the Associated Press on June 18 this year, Platini virtually acknowledged the reverse – that the next edition of the tournament would have a “less dramatic” group stage.
He then told Eurosport online that there would be “no problem of quality” with more teams.
Which one is it? If even the confederation’s own manager seems confused about the merit of the expansion, where does that leave the fans?
“It’s very important for the [additional] countries that qualify,” Platini added.
“It is good for the national associations and their development.”
Fair enough.
“The sponsors are present because they are proud to participate…more games in more stadiums, which leads to better investment,” said Platini.
I see.
The French hosted the first expansion of the World Cup from 24 to 32 teams, so accommodating the increase, stadium-wise, shouldn’t be difficult. And they will use just one venue more than the Poland/Ukraine edition.
It has previously welcomed the Euro tournament to France in 1984 – and won. It’s most recent World Cup hosting was in 1998 – and it won. And this year’s side seem to be playing with a bit of freedom and a lack of expectation for the first time in a while.
What chance to make it three major titles in just over 20 years are Laurent Blanc’s Les Bleus stay fit?
The French will use nine venues. Seventeen were used for the first 24-team World Cup held in Spain in 1982. Eleven were used four years later at Mexico ’86. It briefly returned to 12 at Italia 90, back to nine at USA ’94. At least someone has learned how to down-size something somewhere.
Percentage of Member Nations in International Tournaments (As of June 2012)
Fifa Nations – 209
World Cup – 32
Percentage that qualify: 15.31%
African Nations – 56
African Cup of Nations – 16
Percentage: 28.57%
North/Central America Nations – 40
CONCACAF Gold Cup – 12
Percentage: 30.0%
UEFA Nations – 53
Euro Cup – 16 (In 2012)
Percentage: 30.18%
Asian Nations – 47
Asian Cup – 16
Percentage: 34.04%
Oceania Nations – 14
Oceania Cup – 11
Percentage: 78.57%
South America Nations – 10
Copa America – 12 (10 Plus Two Invitational)
Percentage – 100%+
UEFA Nations – 53
Euro Cup – 24 (in 2016)
Percentage – 45.28%
Alex
Guest
I'd rather go with the system that was in Spain '82 where were 6 groups of 4 teams with the first 2 in each group would qualify for the next round with other 4 groups of 3 teams where the first team from each group to play the semifinals . This system would avoid two playoff matches that can reach to the penalty shootout.First eliminatory match would be in the semifinals. In my opinion should be more attacking games ..
Euro 2016
Guest
24 teams it's a great idea. Beside commercial it has social aspect. The European Championship is quick tournament. More fans would have possiblility to take part in this great event specially from former Yugoslavia Republics.
Aleks Duric
Roar Guru
Terrible idea. Whilst the economic rationale can't be questioned, from a footballing perspective it would dilute the talent pool. What's so great about this tournament is that we've already seen germany v holland, Germany v Portugal, England v France, Spain v Italy with Italy v England and Spain v France coming. Thats was separates the euro and creates such interest. Every match is vital, and is so often a heavyweight clash. Plus, the shortened route to the finals increases the chances of various winners e.g Greece and Denmark.. Get through the group stage and you're three wins from being champion. Adding an extra eight teams is going to separate the big teams through seeding, and make it harder for smaller nations to win, as evidenced by the world cup, which only has a handful of likely victors each time
Johnno
Guest
Heck i wouldn't oppose 32 to be honest that would be cool to.
Nick
Guest
Europe currently has 13 World Cup spots and 16 Euro spots. Asia has 4.5 WC spots and 16 Asian Cup spots. Only 3 more spots from Europe make the Euros than the WC, I think one of the best things about these events is to give countries a chance at a major tournament who rarely qualify for the WC.
Johnno
Guest
great plan. in the 80's as said above it was only 8 teams. -24 is so good it will be like eurovision. Lots of nations in europe with a chance. -In south america all nations go to the copa america , so it gives it a real continent feel. -24 euro 2016 will be great teams like scotland,belguim,switzerland, turkey, slovenia, hungary,bulgaria, finland, serbia,norway will all be there or have a better chance now. This will be great as it will bring more of europe involved in the tournament a real winner by UEFA.
MV Dave
Guest
Whilst it may initially dilute the technical quality of the tournament l believe this will be compensated for by the potential/actual upsets when smaller nations come up against the big boys. It would be terrific to see nations involved that normally don't have a chance and subsequently quality players, who normally wouldn't get a chance to play in Euros, involved...would loved to have seen Giggs and Hughes playing for Wales at a Euro for example. The current edition is smashing TV records and by introducing more teams more people will have reason to tune in. After the group stages it will be down to a knockout tournament of 16 nations which will be sensational. The only downside is that with such a large number of teams it may restrict the number of countries that could host it.
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Hi Justin - nice to see you've found your way to The Roar mate!
Justin Millard
Guest
Will be a far less dramatic and much harder to follow format than what we have had. Remember England failing to qualify in '08 and Gus Hiddink's young exciting Russia making the semis? To say that Scotland would be top five or six in Asia is ludicrous. Australia consistently performs better than the Scots so I can't imagine them being a force in the Asian Cup.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
Sounds pretty good to me, Ben. Plus, there are many other Euro football nations missing from that list, who have performed well at recent tournaments, but missed out this time: Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Serbia, Scotland, Norway, Bulgaria
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Hi Hoolifan - fair points, although it's equally interesting to note that no other continental tournament needs to be extended beyond 16 teams as currently stands. I mean, one more 'expansion' for UEFA and they'll have a 32-team tournament!
Mark Roth
Guest
No, it really doesn't make my mouth water. There are too many teams that don't seem to belong there. Though qualification might rule out some of the lesser lights...only for them to be replaced by lesser lesser lights.
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Hi dasilva - heh, heh, reverse reason in place in the ICC World Cup - cut the thing down so no major nations are likely to be eliminated in the group stage by an Associate-level team...
Ben Carter
Roar Guru
Hi all - thanks for the comments. A mix of 'expansion is understandably fair enough' and 'it's perfect just as it is'. And no-one questioning my ability to write about football (hurrah!). I did some more digging and came up with a hypothetical 24-team tournament, as if it was picked today based on the most recent UEFA rankings. As of May 21 - before the latest Euro tournament - UEFA's ranking system would give us the following top 24, which we could split into six groups, for the sake of curiosity, seeding as we go (so group A contains teams 1, 7, 13, 19, etc, bar allowing France to be installed in the group A-1 position as host). Group A - France, Russia, Denmark, Czech Republic Group B - England, Holland, Switzerland, Poland Group C - Spain, Ukraine, Austria, Croatia Group D - Germany, Greece, Cyprus, Romania Group E - Italy, Turkey, Israel, Belarus Group F - Portugal, Belgium, Scotland, Sweden So, essentially - if that was what the draw looked like for France 2016, would it make your mouth water or not?
Mark Roth
Guest
Echoing the sentiments of many, there is a certain superiority of a 16 team tournament in my mind. The group stage is simple, direct, and quick. Could six groups be played over the same 12 days as the four groups of this tournament? The concentration of the teams also creates a real interest, again at least for me, in the group stages. If 16 of 24 teams advance to the knockout rounds, the group stage will become a race to see who is too incompetent to make the next round. Basically the Group(s) of Death would be replaced by four Groups of Life where three teams go through out of four. How painfully unexciting.
Mystery
Guest
16 teams is perfect as it is. No dudd fixtures like we get in every group during the group stage at the world cup. And currently the 16 is trimmed down nice and evenly to 8 in the qtr finals. Everyone knows who will play whom in the second round. However my main problem with a 24 team format is the ridiculous fact that two thirds of these teams will avoid being knocked out, as 16 of them will go to a knockout stage (the top 2 in each group plus the best 4 of the 6 third placed teams). What's the point of a group stage when chances are that even if you finish 3rd (out of 4) you will go thru to knockout anyway? Hardly a good reward to finish third, then get no better a reward than finishing first. Then you think you know who you play in the knockout round? nope, they pull it out of a hat! Ludicrous. Currently the Euros is the best comp in the world, bar none. It's because the quality and the format are the best, bar none. They are ruining this and will never get the greatness back.
Purple Shag
Roar Guru
If you added the likes of Belgium, Scotland, Wales, Serbia, Turkey, Switzerland, Slovakia & Austria to the current tournament the quality would not suffer too badly as they are all pretty decent sides. But I agree the beauty of this format is that the action, big match ups that come thick and fast and it's great having these strong groups where one top team is sure not to advance. But I thinks it's futile to argue for no expansion on the back of economic and environmental sustainability grounds. It is going to make UEFA tonnes more money which is why they are doing it, and the sustainability impact is far less moving teams around Europe than say, the World Cup or even the Asian Cup. Just look at the Qatar WC where they are building stadiums from scratch , all with the A/C pumping full blast. The footballing powers that be have made it very clear that the last thing on their agenda is the impact on the environment in any of their tournaments
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
I'd rather see it maintained as a 16 team tournament, which means every team in UEFA has 1 chance in 3 of qualifying; rather than 1 chance in 2. But, money talks and, with an additional 8 teams likely to generate a 65% increase in broadcast & sponsorship revenue for UEFA, I can't see it not happening Also, 8 extra nations is a massive boost for the economy of the host nations & better return on their infrastructure investment. It should add approx. €300-400 million extra tourist dollars injected into the host economy in 1 month (20-30k fans per 8 extra team spending €150-200 per day for average stay of 14 days) Increased revenue from broadcast rights & sponsorship Current: 31 matches (24 group, 4 QF, 2 SF, 1 Finale) Future: 51 (36 group, 8 Ro16, 4 QF, 2 SF, 1 Finale) Increase in tournament matches: 65%
Hoolifan
Guest
Can understand the author's thought process, wanting to keep the status quo. Remember it was only 8 teams in the 1980s, so it has grown as more states have appeared in Europe. But you have to know Europe, it is a very high standard football all over. A Scotland or a Lithuania would be top 5 or 6 in Asia, they are better than Iran, Iraq to give you an idea. The UEFA body is there for all members, not just a private club for the giants of the confederation, so expanding will allow more of the smaller states to compete. These other nations till now have wandered off and become interested in other sports, like handball, ice hockey, basketball etc.. because football is futile as there are too many big nations. You could go more than 24 if you had to in Europe, but that keeps it very competitive.
Freddie
Guest
A 24-team Euros is ridiculous, and all aimed at earning more money. The problem is, the extended format will mean an unwieldy group system. It will likely mean six groups of four, with only group winners and best-placed second teams going through, killing interest in the group phase. The 16-team format is perfect for the Euro's, to enlarge it further demeans both the tournament, and qualifying.