Shuffling hastily through my action-packed schedule amid COVID-19 self-isolation regulations, I’ve found a few spare moments to relive the glory of UEFA European Championships from years gone by.
From the pirate ship that was Greece in 2004 to the Spanish dominance of 2008 and 2012, the European Championships have always been a showcase of international excellence during what is usually a football-free period.
Of course, COVID-19 makes Euro 2020 an impossibility. On March 18, UEFA announced the postponement of Euro 2020, proposing a June 11, 2021 commencement date.
While this comes as a huge disappointment – along with the indefinite postponement of basically all global sports – it has given me the opportunity to give my thoughts on what has become of the tournament.
Perhaps FIFA President Gianni Infantino best sums up my thoughts. When discussing the new 24-team format in 2012, which includes six groups of four teams, Infantino simply described the format as “not ideal”.
After nine tournaments consisting of four and then eight teams, we arrived at a perfectly balanced tournament between 16 nations starting with England’s hosting of Euro 96. A precise and intense festival of football, the European Championships created a sense of urgency from the very first kick-off.
With eight additional teams, a safety net has been added to the group stage in order to accumulate an even sum for the knockout rounds.
As seen with Euro 2016 – the first implementation of a 24-team event – the third-placed team has a chance of progression. And it can hardly be considered a chance, more of a straight-up bail-out.
Take eventual winners Portugal, for example. They won a total of zero group stage games – drawing all three – and finished third in a group containing Hungary, Iceland and Austria. They were not eliminated from the competition, as they were one of the four best third-placed teams. Or they were one of the four least-worst third-placed teams, in a group with four teams.
(Photo: Reuters)
Get your head around that logic. What a way to reward achievement!
Don’t get me wrong, it’s great to see smaller nations get their chance on the big stage. Wales’ run to the semi-finals was one of my favourite footballing memories of 2016. But additional teams plus the third-place rule removes a huge chunk of prestige and importance on group stage matches.
As much of a 3am-waking football maniac as I may be, there’s only so many times I can arise from slumber in near-total numbness from the icy reality of a June dawn to engross myself in the mayhem of Albania versus Romania and not hate myself.
It’s just hard to get excited seeing the groups for Euro 2020 knowing how the new rules work. Look at Group F, which contains Portugal, France and Germany. It’s the group of death. Normally, I’d look at that group and think ‘Wow! A big team is definitely going to get eliminated!’ Whereas now I think, ‘Wow! I wonder who the fourth team will be to serve as fresh meat for these three qualified teams.’
The cluster of nations almost completely eliminates the chance of a big team missing out on the tournament – and I say almost because the Netherlands still managed to miss out in 2016. Although you may not have enjoyed seeing England’s ghost hover over Euro 2008, the previous format meant even qualifying for the tournament was an achievement in itself, as opposed to the open invitation that UEFA have now essentially handed out. And that’s before talking about the Nations League.
Will I be watching Euro 2020 (or 2021)? I will. But to paraphrase a song from Green Day, just remember to wake me up when the group stage ends.
Steve 50
Roar Rookie
Wrong, what nerve you have to downplay the advances of emerging and new football nations. They got there fair and square teams like Iceland and wales. It’s not Iceland daily England etc were not good enough . Larger amount of teams give emerging nations a chance
The Icon Sting
Guest
Great article. As much as i enjoyed Portugal winning 2016, the tournament as a whole didn't have that 'win or go home' feel that makes international tournaments so cut throat.
Jorge Tsabasidis
Roar Rookie
Portugal won fair and square. No complaint there. What I will say is while they did beat Croatia and France (two eventual World Cup finalists), they also had Wales and Poland as knockout round opponents. Not the hardest run in for them - or France, really, who beat Ireland and Iceland to make the semi-final! We’ll no doubt see more of this next year and, like you said, UEFA have basically laid out a precedent that will see FIFA making a 48 team World Cup. Material for my next article, perhaps?
Bruz
Roar Rookie
Interesting points Jorge, I feel 3rd place qualification is a topic that has been shunned in the media for quite sometime now. The addition of proposed a 48 team World Cup tournament will demonstrate a lacklustre and uneventful qualification period, similar to your group stage statements. One factor to remember is Portugal overcome strong nations through out the knock out stages to reach the eventual final. Beating France in front of their home crowd was a remarkable achievement considering Portugal were the ultimate underdogs. I mean let’s face it, we all love seeing the little guy take it to the opposition!
Steve 50
Roar Rookie
Fine
Lance88
Guest
I agree with the author, too many teams make it more like a festival of football instead of a championship to find the best team in Europe. Wales and Iceland in the semi-finals says it all.
Jorge Tsabasidis
Roar Rookie
'Often it’s decided after the first two games of the three matches within the pool and the third and forth side by third game are only playing for pride Eg Peru and Socceroos at Russia 2018' Yep, and it provides a perfect illustration of one of my original points - both sides bottled their first two games (harsh on Australia to end up losing to France I must say) - and they were rightly put into a difficult situation in the final game. Simple. 'sport is a business and casual fans want tension and excitement they don’t care about integrity or mediocrity being rewarded, wake up you football purist…' Yes, UEFA likes money. FIFA likes money. We get it. Doesn't mean the obvious softening of tournaments is exempt from criticism, even if some prefer the watered-down free-pass version.
Steve 50
Roar Rookie
You say your article isn’t concerned about making money side but about NOT rewarding mediocrity. But that’s your whole problem what you gotta accept, money and rewarding mediocrity come first to UEFA$ and casual fans, not punishing mediocrity and credibility as opposed mediocrity..
Steve 50
Roar Rookie
I know euros progressed from 8. And your wrong about saying opening games aren’t interesting as they give teams more of a chance. Under your only two from the group qualify for round of 16, did you not read my point? Often it’s decided after the first two games of the three matches within the pool and the third and forth side by third game are only playing for pride Eg Peru and Socceroos at Russia 2018, so more people tune out and stagnate from staying connected . Under Euro format , knowing you can get 3rd place possibly(remember two still miss out), you get another chance and that keeps your fans connected to the tournament which means higher tv ratings which UEFA want, and yes boo hoo to mediocrity being rewarded sport is a business and casual fans want tension and excitement they don’t care about integrity or mediocrity being rewarded, wake up you football purist...
Jorge Tsabasidis
Roar Rookie
'Screw your mediocrity being rewarded purist traditionalist outlook' Wasn't always 16 teams. Started with four and moved to eight. You might have picked up on that if you read the article. 'Russia 2018 where Socceroos where virtually no chance of marking next round by Peru game which is boring' Yes! Because we were a hopeless barren disaster that did not deserve to make the next stage! How can you justify a circumstance being 'boring' because Australia simply weren't good enough? 'Ever think why UEFA expanded to 24, and allowing 3rd place getters a chance to make next round? Coz it’s about money and tv ratings and more fans will stay interested in the tournament even if a bit of mediocrity is rewarded' I'm aware that more teams = more money. But, once again, if you read and understood the article you'd know that's not what I'm concerned with. Correct, more fans will stay interested longer if they have a greater chance of progression towards the end of the group stage. But that's exactly the problem I picked up on during Euro 2016; it's as if the first two games don't even matter (especially if you bottled them) knowing that just one win could be enough for progression. The reason why I was heavily in favour of the 16-team format was because virtually every game had weight to it, as little filler as possible. And when you've gone from a nine month club season straight into an international tournament, you want to get to the point as quickly as possible.
Steve 50
Roar Rookie
They were close to getting forth at one stage. Boy your petty , boo hoo about mediocrity . It keeps more fans interested in the group phase longer as there’s a greater chance of qualifying to round of 16. So what if four make it and two get eliminated plus the six who came last in the group, boo hoo to you. More fans will stay interested in the tournament longer, screw your mediocrity being rewarded purist traditionalist outlook. If you think the sides fighting for 3rd are in some cruise control cake walk of mediocrity boy your wrong, why would they play roulette knowing the could be one of two sides coming third to be eliminated? Also the fight to get from fourth to third is tough in the group and neck and neck. So the group stays exciting longer, unlike just two advance under your let’s not reward mediocrity rules. Sorry I want more matches in the group stage to be cut throat and on edge rather than your model where often after two games the group has already been locked up like at Russia 2018 where Socceroos where virtually no chance of marking next round by Peru game which is boring. But hay let’s not keep larger numbers of fans interested in the group matches longer for you whinging about mediocrity being rewarded. Ever think why UEFA expanded to 24, and allowing 3rd place getters a chance to make next round? Coz it’s about money and tv ratings and more fans will stay interested in the tournament even if a bit of mediocrity is rewarded . UEFA care about money and interest as do causal fans. But hardened football fans like you care more about integrity and not rewarding mediocrity unlike the casual fans who want more tension and excitement to last longer and chuck integrity in the rubbish bin..
Jorge Tsabasidis
Roar Rookie
'Only four 3rd place sides make the round of 16, the other four go home' What 'other four' are you referring to exactly? Four out of SIX third place teams progress to the knockout rounds, only TWO are eliminated! This is called rewarding mediocrity. And Australia finished 2nd in the group at the 2019 Asian Cup.
Steve 50
Roar Rookie
Exactly right Monica
Steve 50
Roar Rookie
Wrong. You act like 3rd place is a casual meaningless thing it’s not. Only four 3rd place sides make the round of 16, the other four go home. It’s cut throat, and within the group it’s cut throat to for 3rd place . Asian cup same deal, the Socceroos we’re in a very tense group in 2019, almost came last had to fight hard for 3rd place...
Monica Di Battista
Roar Rookie
I couldn't agree with you more. More teams means more games which means more quality football to be watched and enjoyed.
Jorge Tsabasidis
Roar Rookie
You’ve completely missed the point of the article. ‘Smaller teams’ isn’t a problem. Like I said, I enjoyed seeing the likes of Wales and Iceland excel. It’s the fact that the 24 team format includes this 3rd place rule which renders far too many of the group stage games meaningless. What you end up with is a drawn out tournament with an excess of dead rubber matches between teams given too easy of a chance at progressing to the knockout rounds. I repeat - wake me up when the group stage ends.
Steve 50
Roar Rookie
Your wrong , disagree with your article opinions. I really enjoy the 24-team Euro much better than 16 teams. And so do most European fans enjoy the inclusiveness and less fancied European nations a chance to shine and be part of Europe’s biggest tournament. Who are you to deny the expansion of medium standard European nations? Why should they be starved of not getting an invite to the big dance. More teams makes more money as more European nations will watch the tournament in larger numbers an invest in it.. Boo hoo to you if Portugal won it via being one of the best four 3rd place getters, build a bridge and get over it... Austria/Hungary/Iceland type teams, it was great having them there and they performed well.. Yet you wanna be backwards and deny them that opportunity.. Insular view, 24 teams is far more exciting and European connected like a big Euro vision than your narrow insular 16 team model that you as a fan want. Your wrong and backwards, most European fans love 24 teams Euro 2016 was awesome well done UEFA, and football fans like you need to stop being so anti expansion and backwards.