Euro Championships to be increased to 24 teams from 2016

[gwhite]

That'll probably mean the top 3 teams from each qualifying group should get there with the tournament having the same format as the World Cup from 1986-1994, i.e. 6 groups of 4, the top 2 and 4 best 3rd places going through to the last 16. Should mean a tournament for us at least every 4 years...

[elroy]

I think overall the standard of the competition will suffer in the early stages and it may make the qualifying less interesting. But from an Irish point of view this is brillant, based on recent qualifying, we should qualify for each tournament which can only be good for the promotion of the game here. Not to mention the trips to major tournaments!!!

[SalvadorSanchez]

I'm all for it...It'll mean we qualify more often (we should qualify every time) and that there'll be a few more poor games but still not as poor as the worst games in the world cup, to be honest even the current format can serve up some poor games....
It'll be ok though each team will have 3 group games like now and then a second round, and then into the quarters... it's just one more game for teams that come out of the groups.
We now have no chance of co-hosting ever (did we ever?) A tournament that size will mean countries with bigger and better leagues will host it all the time... looks like Spain, England, Portugal, Germany, France and Italy will dominate the hosting from now on... co-hosting will still mean each country will have to have at least 6 good quality stadiums.
The sponsors will love it too... my cousin works for Carlsberg in the UK and they lose big money when England don't qualify, England getting to a finals is a huge money spinner for the sponsors, us the Scots and the Danes also go beer crazy for a month as well whenever we qualify...

[gwhite]

We'd need the GAA on board to co-host with e.g. Scotland/Wales. Croker, Lansdowne, Semple, Thomond, Parc ui Caoimh, etc. Surely by 2020 we'd have 4 stadiums with at least 30,00 seats and then Lansdowne and Croker then the same for the co-hosts. A bit of government backing to re-fit the stadiums, some sweeteners for the GAA. Who knows...

[Pauro 76]

More than fine with that too, we never really had a chance to co-host any tournaments but I'd say the Scotlands etc may have had a good chance to host in the future, probably not now.

[jinxy lilywhite]

I'm stuck in two minds over this. The thing I love about the Euro's is that rarely they are crap teams in it. unlike the world cup. There is little margin of error for teams in the euro's either. This allows lesser teams in the euro's.
On the flipside 53 European teams complete for sometimes 14 (especially if its co hosted) qualifying spots. For the amount of european teams maybe the amount of teams that qualify is too low. It should be interesting but does anyone get the feeling that future championships could be hosted by up to 4 countries at one time

[NeilMcD]

If it means we are more likely to qualify than I am all for it. We are only a short time on this planet and I have never gone to a tournament yet that Ireland have been in, so if this makes it more likely that I am all for it.

I think fans who go to all the Ireland games home and away will be all for it. Those that like to watch their football on TV, maybe against it as it does reduce the quality but whenyou have 3 weeks away from work and you are drinking and singing and watching football and chatting up the local ladies who cares about the quality of the football being played by Ukraine and Switzerland and Latvia.

[gwhite]

Quality may deteriorate but it'll never be as bad as Tunisia v Saudi Arabia in
'06, Jamaica v Japan in '98, China v Costa Rica in '02, etc. On the other hand there'll be every possibility of the Republic of Ireland v Northern Ireland in the Nou Camp or the San Siro. Now that'd be the dogs b*llocks!

[Gather round]

On the other hand there'll be every possibility of the Republic of Ireland v Northern Ireland in the Nou Camp or the San Siro. Now that'd be the dogs b*llocks!


I think fans who go to all the Ireland games home and away will be all for it. Those that like to watch their football on TV, maybe against it as it does reduce the quality but whenyou have 3 weeks away from work and you are drinking and singing and watching football and chatting up the local ladies who cares about the quality of the football being played by Ukraine and Switzerland and Latvia

Hmm. On another current thread, most posters here don't seem to want to play Northern Ireland (or Scotland, or Wales), in Dublin (or Belfast, Cardiff or Glasgow). In a tournament which, although small-scale, at least offers all the participating teams a realistic chance of winning.

Most NI fans (including those to go to every game) I know are against expansion, ditto those in Wales. Of course this may be unduly negative- we don't expect to finish in the top 24 in Europe in most tournaments- but there you go. I wonder what most fans of the biggest countries think? They generally don't need qualifying to be made easier, but might be irritated with having to play an extra game in a much longer tournament.

I'm totally opposed (even though NI would presumably have qualified for the last finals). As others have previously mentioned, variously,

a) you simply wouldn't be able to stage the tournament anywhere beyond the big five in Western Europe (Germany, Italy, France, England, Spain)

b) assuming six groups, four best third place finishers qualifying and a round of 16, there'd be 20 extra matches (and the tournament would likely last an extra 10 days, as per WC 1994)

c) the quality would inevitably be diluted with half the European teams in the finals

d) the bigger countries wouldn't necessarily want to continue with qualifying groups of six and three qualifying. They're under pressure from their bigger clubs to cut international football, not expand it. You might find qualifying cut to say, eleven groups of only four or five teams. So only six matches per qualifying- could be a significant loss of income

e) since the Euros expanded top 16 finalists, 24 different teams have qualified anyway. You don't need to increase the size of the finals to have a wide spread of teams over three or four tournaments.

[gwhite]

a) you simply wouldn't be able to stage the tournament anywhere beyond the big five in Western Europe (Germany, Italy, France, England, Spain)

Not true, Russia can handle it alone and maybe Greece, Turkey, Portugal. They can continue with co-hosting meaning a couple of Balkan nations, the Nordics, Belgium/Holland, and maybe a few more by the time 2016 comes round. And if Ireland qualify, who cares where it's being held?


As for extra matches, if the players don't fancy it, they can always retire from international football. Just ask Stephen Ireland, Paul Scholes, Jamie Carragher et al.

[NeilMcD]

Hmm. On another current thread, most posters here don't seem to want to play Northern Ireland (or Scotland, or Wales), in Dublin (or Belfast, Cardiff or Glasgow). In a tournament which, although small-scale, at least offers all the participating teams a realistic chance of winning.

Most NI fans (including those to go to every game) I know are against expansion, ditto those in Wales. Of course this may be unduly negative- we don't expect to finish in the top 24 in Europe in most tournaments- but there you go. I wonder what most fans of the biggest countries think? They generally don't need qualifying to be made easier, but might be irritated with having to play an extra game in a much longer tournament.

I'm totally opposed (even though NI would presumably have qualified for the last finals). As others have previously mentioned, variously,

a) you simply wouldn't be able to stage the tournament anywhere beyond the big five in Western Europe (Germany, Italy, France, England, Spain)

b) assuming six groups, four best third place finishers qualifying and a round of 16, there'd be 20 extra matches (and the tournament would likely last an extra 10 days, as per WC 1994)

c) the quality would inevitably be diluted with half the European teams in the finals

d) the bigger countries wouldn't necessarily want to continue with qualifying groups of six and three qualifying. They're under pressure from their bigger clubs to cut international football, not expand it. You might find qualifying cut to say, eleven groups of only four or five teams. So only six matches per qualifying- could be a significant loss of income

e) since the Euros expanded top 16 finalists, 24 different teams have qualified anyway. You don't need to increase the size of the finals to have a wide spread of teams over three or four tournaments.


Not sure why you have my quote in there as its not relevant to the points you make after it.

[Gather round]

Not sure why you have my quote in there as its not relevant to the points you make after it.

It's relevant to my reply that most NI and Wales fans I know (including those who attend every game) are opposed to expansion.


Not true, Russia can handle it alone and maybe Greece, Turkey, Portugal. They can continue with co-hosting meaning a couple of Balkan nations, the Nordics, Belgium/Holland, and maybe a few more by the time 2016 comes round. And if Ireland qualify, who cares where it's being held?

Russia doesn't have 10 or 12 stadia capable of staging the Euro finals. Portugal would need significantly more than they had in 2004, ditto Belgium and Holland. All Greece's suitable facilities are in one city. Do you really think Scandinavia is going to spend on 12 30,000-seat modern stadia.

Rumours from UEFA's politbuo (meeting today) suggests Ukraine may lose 2012, which would be a shame. But given their size hardly suggests smaller Balkan countries are likely to do any better.


As for extra matches, if the players don't fancy it, they can always retire from international football. Just ask Stephen Ireland, Paul Scholes, Jamie Carragher et al

I was thinking of the organisers. They have to fit in 20 extra games in four extra venues- even if any individual player only looks forward to one extra.

[carloz]

How are they going to work the groups though. A 3rd place team from a group of 4 should never qualify, but this was the case when the world cup was 24 teams. Think 20 teams would have been a good number but. 4 groups of 5 and the top 2 qualify.

[NeilMcD]

It's relevant to my reply that most NI and Wales fans I know (including those who attend every game) are opposed to expansion.



R


But this is not in World Football its in the Ireland forum so its about the impact will have on our team and our fans. I could not give a damn how the Welsh or Northern Irish fans feel about it.

[jinxy lilywhite]

Most NI fans (including those to go to every game) I know are against expansion, ditto those in Wales. Of course this may be unduly negative- we don't expect to finish in the top 24 in Europe in most tournaments- but there you go. I wonder what most fans of the biggest countries think? They generally don't need qualifying to be made easier, but might be irritated with having to play an extra game in a much longer tournament.



What about the othe 51 European Countries. I said before that I'm in two minds about this but every euro championship there has been playoffs between the 2 best finished countries. This is hugely unfair on those countries and a creul way to decide if they make it or not due to a two legged play off.
We may say that its easier to qualify but we said that probably for qualification for Euro '96 when it was expanded to 16 and we've never qualified for euro when it was 16 teams in it. So for it to be 24 it wouldn't be foregone conclusion that we'd qualify

[SalvadorSanchez]

Hmm. On another current thread, most posters here don't seem to want to play Northern Ireland (or Scotland, or Wales), in Dublin (or Belfast, Cardiff or Glasgow). In a tournament which, although small-scale, at least offers all the participating teams a realistic chance of winning..

Well the Celtic cup us offers the chance to play only mediocre teams in venues we know well, for no prestige. A local derby in a major championships in a good venue abroad with half the world watching and something at stake would be much more fun... can't compare the situations I'm afraid!

Just look at the rugger...... compare the Celtic league with Heineken cup..... doesn't get the pulse racing does it?

[Wolfie]

Most NI fans (including those to go to every game) I know are against expansion, ditto those in Wales.

Ulster says No..............World carries on turning.

[Lenny82]

How are they going to work the groups though. A 3rd place team from a group of 4 should never qualify, but this was the case when the world cup was 24 teams. Think 20 teams would have been a good number but. 4 groups of 5 and the top 2 qualify.

Have to agree with Carloz there. Why increase it to 24 teams? Increasing it to 20 would have been a much better idea and then have 4 groups of 5. This would only increase the number of games in the tournament by 8 which should be sustainable by any of the previous hosts and would only extend it by one week.

Increasing it to 24 teams would mean 40% of the countries in the qualifiers would go through to the Championship. Hardly a show case for the cream of the crop!!!

[gwhite]

Here's the top 24 European teams, in order, according to the current FIFA rankings. Let's assume they all qualify (and one of them is hosting) and they're seeded that way.
Spain, Italy, Germany, Holland, Croatia, Czech Rep.,
France, Russia, Portugal, Turkey, Romania, England,
Scotland, Bulgaria, Greece, Israel, Ukraine, Poland,
Sweden, N. Ireland, Serbia, Norway, Denmark, Ireland.

Ireland could get a group containing Spain, France and the Ukraine. Hardly a cakewalk is it? And MOST teams there, on their day, are capable of beating each other. I know it's all theoretical but it looks an ok tournament to me.

[Gather round]

How are they going to work the groups though. A 3rd place team from a group of 4 should never qualify, but this was the case when the world cup was 24 teams. Think 20 teams would have been a good number but. 4 groups of 5 and the top 2 qualify

Current 16 team finals in four groups of four: 31 matches

Proposed 24 finalists in six group of four with a round of 16: 51 matches

Proposed 20 in four groups of five: 47 matches (ie, still a big exapnsion to the tournament, infrastructure etc.)


But this is not in World Football its in the Ireland forum so its about the impact will have on our team and our fans. I could not give a damn how the Welsh or Northern Irish fans feel about it

Fine. I referred them merely to suggest that not everyone everywhere is in favor of the idea. Even a few of your own fans.


A local derby in a major championships in a good venue abroad with half the world watching and something at stake would be much more fun... can't compare the situations I'm afraid!

I just did. Scotland v Wales in Glasgow or Cardiff to win a four team tournament might JUST attract more attention than the same two teams trying to avoid a group wooden spoon in Barcelona or Milan (or more realstically, Albacete or Bari etc.). I'm asuming you don't seriously think any of the local countries are going to challenge seriously?


What about the othe 51 European Countries. I said before that I'm in two minds about this but every euro championship there has been playoffs between the 2 best finished countries. This is hugely unfair on those countries and a creul way to decide if they make it or not due to a two legged play off

What are the alternatives? Either a larger number of smaller groups with only one qualifying, or the weakest countries having to pre-qualify? The first might mean you're drawn in a group of four with Spain, Belgium and Montenegro, and only two qualifying; the latter would be arguably even more unfair on Liechtenstein etc.


Ulster says No..............World carries on turning

Actually, Ulster has said yes (the IFA, like FAI and the other 51 countries) have all supported the idea to date. I think they're all ill-advised.

The same get-together this week is rumored to be about to drop Ulraine as a co-host for 2012. If the fourth-sized country in Europe can't be trusted to run half of a 16-team set-up, it hardly suggests much confidence in anyone bar the big five in Western Europe staging a bigger tournament.


]
Increasing it to 20 would have been a much better idea and then have 4 groups of 5. This would only increase the number of games in the tournament by 8

In the existing four team groups, there are six matches per group. A five team group would have 10 matches. So the four groups together would mean 16 extra games.

[jinxy lilywhite]

Here's the top 24 European teams, in order, according to the current FIFA rankings. Let's assume they all qualify (and one of them is hosting) and they're seeded that way.
Spain, Italy, Germany, Holland, Croatia, Czech Rep.,
France, Russia, Portugal, Turkey, Romania, England,
Scotland, Bulgaria, Greece, Israel, Ukraine, Poland,
Sweden, N. Ireland, Serbia, Norway, Denmark, Ireland.

Ireland could get a group containing Spain, France and the Ukraine. Hardly a cakewalk is it? And MOST teams there, on their day, are capable of beating each other. I know it's all theoretical but it looks an ok tournament to me.

Looks a good tourney to me. Personally I was thinking of games like Lithuania V Austria or Finland V Wales


Current 16 team finals in four groups of four: 31 matches

Proposed 24 finalists in six group of four with a round of 16: 51 matches

Proposed 20 in four groups of five: 47 matches (ie, still a big exapnsion to the tournament, infrastructure etc.)



Fine. I referred them merely to suggest that not everyone everywhere is in favor of the idea. Even a few of your own fans.

Ok the tournament increases by 50% but still looks on paper a decent tournament.
where infrastructure is concerned this allows co hosting by a possible 4 countries.

If you took for example 2008 and the countries that didn't make it.
Serbia- Missed by 3 points
Scotland- Missed by 2 points
Norway- Missed out by 1 pt
Ireland- Missed by 10
England- Missed by 1
North Ireland- Missed by 6 pts
Bulgaria- Missed by 1.
With the exception of ireland and the North the 6 remaining sides probably would of deserved to be in the tournament judging that they missed out by 3 or less points.

[Gather round]

where infrastructure is concerned this allows co hosting by a possible 4 countries

I'd be amazed if UEFA considered four countries co-hosting. They're still struggling with getting two to do it successfully.

[tetsujin1979]

I'd be amazed if UEFA considered four countries co-hosting. They're still struggling with getting two to do it successfully.

FIFA have said they will more than likely never have another World Cup join hosted by two countries

[Dodge]

It will obviously hugely increase the likelihood of Ireland qualifying (and of course increase the shame heaped upon the nation if we don't...)

I'd still be against it personally.

[Donadoni]

More teams, more games, more travelling fans, ching-ching. I think it was inevitable that this expansion would happen.

My preference would have been to leave it at 16 teams and leave the finals format exactly as is. It makes the qualifying campaign more challenging (and therfore interesting), helps ensure better quality finalists, and makes each game in the finals tournament more signifcant, with little margin for error.

I agree with previous posters that a compromise should have been made between quantity and quality and the ceiling should have been set at 20 teams. 4 groups of 5 with the top two in each group going through to the last 8. Just like the RWC. One issue with this structure that maybe UEFA wish to avoid is having one team not playing in the final set of group games, allowing an extra possibility of result fixing on the last day.

If they go with a WC90/WC94 type format I think it would be a real shame, 36 games to eliminate just 8 teams is a very American like regular season. If instead UEFA opt to have 6 groups of 4 with the winners and top 2 runners-up go through to the quarter-final then the group game become a whole lot more interesting, bear in mind that no team can be eliminated until they've played at least 180 minutes of football, so the first 2 rounds of matches would be cracking and more than make up for some dead rubbers in the last round of group games. That might make a 24 team finals palatable.

To be honest, if it had to change from 16 I'd have prefered a reduction to 12 teams, with 2 healthy groups of 6 fighting to go straight to the semis. It would also allow more countries the possibilty of hosting. But I don't think I'd get many takers for that

[NeilMcD]

Donadoni are you Irish or Italian. Cause if you are Irish why would you want it reduced to 12. I know the only time that we qualified was when it was 8 but surely the more places available the better it is for fans for the Irish footballing team.

The rest is all pseudo footballing intellectual meandering. I cannot see how fans of mid ranking teams like ourselves cannot be all for this.

[Colbert Report]

This is garbage. What makes qualifiers so special is that you get one bad result and you're likely out. If this had been brought earlier we would have been in with a shout for qualifying after being stuffed by Cyprus - twice! Total garbage. Teams like France, Italy, Spain, Germany, England, etc would qualify every time no matter what if they only had to finish third.

[jinxy lilywhite]

This is garbage. What makes qualifiers so special is that you get one bad result and you're likely out. If this had been brought earlier we would have been in with a shout for qualifying after being stuffed by Cyprus - twice! Total garbage. Teams like France, Italy, Spain, Germany, England, etc would qualify every time no matter what if they only had to finish third.

They do qualify every time with the exception of England who seem to blow one qualifier every 12 years. There are too many games in the qualifiers. Really the groups should be cut down to at leat 5 teams

[Dodge]

They do qualify every time with the exception of England who seem to blow one qualifier every 12 years. There are too many games in the qualifiers. Really the groups should be cut down to at leat 5 teams

What? They play 10-12 times over a two year period and you think thats too much?

It'll mean that Ireland will qualify every time but if anything that'll probably hurt the quality of the national team as some will still point to qualifying for every 2nd major competition as a sign we're doing OK. When the reality would be quite different (if we got through in 3rd place) and we wouldn't have the same impetus to improve.

Middle ranked countries associations want it because they need the money. UEFA/Sponsors want it because it means guarenteed big TV markets get through.

Still a rubbish decision, even if it does increase the likelihood of a great big irish **** up every 4 years

[SalvadorSanchez]

Gather_round
You can't honestly say that a "Celtic League or Empire Cup" or whatever they'll call it will mean more to British/Irish fans than meeting each other in a European Champs game with 500million people watching worldwide?
I'm sorry but consider the scenario of 15,000 bored Irish and Welsh fans in a final in say Murrayfield with the rain ****ing down in March... it isn't going to get the pulse racing is it?

[Straightstory]

We'd need the GAA on board to co-host with e.g. Scotland/Wales. Croker, Lansdowne, Semple, Thomond, Parc ui Caoimh, etc. Surely by 2020 we'd have 4 stadiums with at least 30,00 seats and then Lansdowne and Croker then the same for the co-hosts. A bit of government backing to re-fit the stadiums, some sweeteners for the GAA. Who knows...

There's no way on earth the isolationist GAA would ever get involved in anything like the European Championships.

[Dodge]

I'm sorry but consider the scenario of 15,000 bored Irish and Welsh fans in a final in say Murrayfield with the rain ****ing down in March... it isn't going to get the pulse racing is it?

Do you think his example of a wooden sppon decider between Wales and Ireland in bari would have the masses heaving?

[Newryrep]

It does seem to be purely about money, like others I think it should of been left as it was, obviously UEFA want their 'big guns' there and England missing out last time surely influenced their decision although practically everybody else breathed a sigh of relief.

It will obviously make it easier for us, but it will certainly devalue qualifying as any sort of major achievement

[gwhite]

Do you think his example of a wooden sppon decider between Wales and Ireland in bari would have the masses heaving?

Probably. Because they'd have at least 20,000 fans each at a major championships in Europe.

[eirebhoy]

I don't see why it needs a change. There'll be plenty of meaningless matches in the qualifiers when the bigger teams qualify with ease.

[elroy]

The finals will be better assuming we qualify, i think 20 teams wouldve been better than 24 however. We would still stand of good chance of making the 20 each four years. I think qualifiers will suffer the most, the 'bigger' nations are almost guaranteed to qualify now.

[EalingGreen]

It's curious that on OWC, only one poster out of twelve (so far) is completely enthusiastic about this change; the rest either have reservations, and/or are dead against it, since it will severely devalue the standard and competitiveness which made the 2008 Finals so compelling.

Moreover, most people on this forum are concentrating on the Qualification process, but one OWC poster made a great point about the effect on the Finals themselves:

"And as for the finals themselves, well you just despair at UEFA. Euro 2000 and 2004 wee the best tournaments in years and Euro 96 and 2004 were hardly shabby either. We [NI] were absolute balls in World Cup 86 but if we'd nicked an equaliser against Spain we'd have been through to the second round, despite not winning a game and being completely shown up against Brazil. Because we didn't, Uruguay progressed with the stellar record of two draws and a 6-1 defeat. That's a taste of why a 24 team tournament is so crap, it removes virtually all the excitement from the group games because nearly everyon goes through. You can lose your first two games, win the third handily enough against one of the weak teams that will inevitably clog up this bloated competition and bingo, you're alive again. Probably the worst decision a football governing body has ever made and Platini's pandering to the "little nations" that got him elected to the detriment of his organisation's showpiece international competition is truly disgusting."

I know it increases my own team's chances of qualifying considerably; nonetheless, competitions like this should be about merit, not money, so I have to say it's a regressive step.

Down with this sort of thing! :mad:

[Dodge]

The point was made to me that under the new guidelines, Staunton's Ireland may well have qualified. if that doesn't send shivers donw the spine of europe...

[irishfan86]

The point was made to me that under the new guidelines, Staunton's Ireland may well have qualified. if that doesn't send shivers donw the spine of europe...

"Here's Alan O'Brien running down the left side. Kicks it past his man, and crosses it in...HE'S DONE IT! JOSEPH LAPIRA! We're into the next round! Goodbye Belarus, hello Armenia!"

[youngirish]

"Here's Alan O'Brien running down the left side. Kicks it past his man, and crosses it in...HE'S DONE IT! JOSEPH LAPIRA! We're into the next round! Goodbye Belarus, hello Armenia!"

Classic.

Also John Motson:
"And Ireland have managed to progress from this group of death featuring the Faroe Islands, Malta and Andorra under the guidance of their manager Stephen Staunton due to other results going their way. Their central midfield pairing of Johnathan Douglas and Lee Frecklinton have been particularly impressive in this tournament thus far.

[geysir]

[QUOTE]It's curious that on OWC, only one poster out of twelve (so far) is completely enthusiastic about this change; the rest either have reservations, and/or are dead against it, since
Nothing curious about only one unreserved enthusiastic poster out of 12.
Reservations may mean there are 4 or 5 out of 12 who think the plan is overall a good idea but acknowledge to some degree that the Finals will be diluted


Moreover, most people on this forum are concentrating on the Qualification process, but one OWC poster made a great point about the effect on the Finals themselves:
This plan has already been discussed in more detail on the thread
Euro to expand (http://foot.ie/showthread.php?t=94554)

[Baker]

If it means we are more likely to qualify than I am all for it. We are only a short time on this planet and I have never gone to a tournament yet that Ireland have been in, so if this makes it more likely that I am all for it.

I think fans who go to all the Ireland games home and away will be all for it. Those that like to watch their football on TV, maybe against it as it does reduce the quality but whenyou have 3 weeks away from work and you are drinking and singing and watching football and chatting up the local ladies who cares about the quality of the football being played by Ukraine and Switzerland and Latvia.

Well said Neil.

Im delighted with this for the same reasons given here. Its all good as far as Im concerned.