When the euro's expand to 24?

[legendz]

When the euro's expand to 24, are UEFA likely to stick with 9 groups for qualifiying? For France '16 if they are keeping 9 groups, I'd imagine they might go with:
9 group winners qualifying automatically.
9 runners-up qualifying automatically.
1 best third placed team.
4 play-off winners from the remaining 8 third placed teams
1 Host - France.

24 countries.

[jbyrne]

24 teams is mad and will dilute what is currently a better tournament than the wc imo. 16 teams is perfect

[Wolfie]

When the euro's expand to 24, are UEFA likely to stick with 9 groups for qualifiying? For France '16 if they are keeping 9 groups, I'd imagine they might go with:
9 group winners qualifying automatically.
9 runners-up qualifying automatically.
1 best third placed team.
4 play-off winners from the remaining 8 third placed teams
1 Host - France.

24 countries.

Reminds me abit of Eurovision.

[nigel-harps1954]

Except not as many 'nil point pour Irlande' hopefully.

[legendz]

The question I suppose based on this qualification process is would any 8 of the 13 countries below enhance the Euro's in a tournament of 24?


Play-off countries to miss out:
Turkey
Estonia
Montenegro
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Third placed countries to miss out:
Belgium
Armenia
Serbia
Romania
Hungary
Israel
Switzerland
Norway
Scotland

[tetsujin1979]

to compare with the current set of qualifiers, using the above template the finals in Poland & Ukraine would consist of

Hosts:
Poland, Ukraine,

Qualified:
Germany, Turkey, Russia, Ireland, Italy, Estonia, France, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Croatia, England, Montenegro, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic

Best third placed team:
Hungary

Play offs:
Belgium, Armenia, Serbia, Romania, Israel, Switzerland, Norway, Scotland

That leaves 25 teams, because of the two hosts.

Estonia and Turkey are the stand out weaker qualifiers there

<EDIT>

legendz posted his while I was working on my list. Great minds, and all that.

[elroy]

Whatever about the actual finals. It will probably make the qualification process a non event for the bigger teams. The chances of a shock non qualification for the likes of England, Spain, France etc will be almost gone.

On the flip side the chances of us qualifying and a major tourno at least every four years to look forward to are greatly increased. So think im in favour overall.

[BonnieShels]

I hate the idea of it. I think its complete tosh.

[pineapple stu]

It will probably make the qualification process a non event for the bigger teams.
Definitely.

I think I'm overall in favour though. But maybe that's because I like seeing the minnow do well, and would enjoy seeing the likes of Estonia or Armenia in the finals. I think they'd be an ok addition too, even if we didn't see the best of them in our games.


Estonia and Turkey are the stand out weaker qualifiers there
It's probably an endorsement for expansion if the semi-finallists from the last tournament are now deemed one of the weaker of 24 teams.

[legendz]

If a look is taken around at other nations cups in other confederations, it has to be a good move to have more countries involved. The main issue will be keeping qualifying competitive. using qualification as seeding for the final draw itself could be of benefit e.g. for France '16, France as hosts in pot 1 along with the 5 best group winners, the remaining group winners (4 of 9) and 2 best runner-up to be placed in pot 2 etc.

[BonnieShels]

Good move in what sense?

The reason a finals tournament should be limited is so that there can be a higher quality tournament. I like that the Euros are nigh on impossible to qualify for. It would suck that the likes of Israel and Armenia should get to a tournament on the basis of coming third in a group of 6. It's bull.

If we had larger groups it would make sense but the logistics of that is as mental.

45% of a region should not qualify for a tournament. Only 15% can qualify for the World Cup and 30% qualified for Euro 2012 (26% if you exclude Poland and Ukraine)

[born2bwild]

88 was a good year - eight teams only. To think we were one of the top teams in Europe in those days! Just got my copy of Ronnie's book signed by the man himself in Swords tonight.
Eight is a bit low but opening it up to 24 degrades the whole thing.

[DannyInvincible]

Good move in what sense?

The reason a finals tournament should be limited is so that there can be a higher quality tournament. I like that the Euros are nigh on impossible to qualify for. It would suck that the likes of Israel and Armenia should get to a tournament on the basis of coming third in a group of 6. It's bull.

If we had larger groups it would make sense but the logistics of that is as mental.

45% of a region should not qualify for a tournament. Only 15% can qualify for the World Cup and 30% qualified for Euro 2012 (26% if you exclude Poland and Ukraine)

It certainly devalues qualification to the extent where it will become a mere formality for sides like us who tend to finish as runners-up. I'd hate to be an England, Spain or Germany fan in the sense that qualification is so taken for granted, it provides little to celebrate. Once the 24-team format is introduced, the same will apply for us.

[BonnieShels]

It certainly devalues qualification to the extent where it will become a mere formality for sides like us who tend to finish as runners-up. I'd hate to be an England, Spain or Germany fan in the sense that qualification is so taken for granted, it provides little to celebrate. Once the 24-team format is introduced, the same will apply for us.

I have to say I missed the tension last night.

[thischarmingman]

For purely selfish reasons it would be nice to qualify more often.

However that said, in an age when expansion, TV ratings and money often force football into second place it's a shame to see one of the 'purer' football competitions be diluted. No big team cares about the UEFA Cup, the CL somehow manages to go through 7 months and countless games before it even begins to get exciting, and the World Cup frequently pits hopeful against hopeless in the groups. That's not to say it's a bad thing the North Korea's of the world get to mix it with Brazil, just that the one football tournament that managed to resist was the Euros and it was all the better for it. Euro 2000 and Euro 2008 were two of the best football tournaments of the past quarter century.

And just have a look at the teams going to Ukraine and Poland- it's one seriously good lineup. Any of maybe 12 teams, three quarters of participants, could probably see themselves lifting it with a bit of luck. This is a strong, strong competition:

POL UKR ESP NED
GER ITA ENG RUS
CRO GRE SWE POR
DEN FRA CZE IRL

[backstothewall]

The format should be 20 teams qualify. Hosts and Champions automatically. 9 groups, top 2 go through.

Then 4 groups of 5 in the finals. Top 2 go through.

[SwanVsDalton]

For purely selfish reasons it would be nice to qualify more often.

However that said, in an age when expansion, TV ratings and money often force football into second place it's a shame to see one of the 'purer' football competitions be diluted. No big team cares about the UEFA Cup, the CL somehow manages to go through 7 months and countless games before it even begins to get exciting, and the World Cup frequently pits hopeful against hopeless in the groups. That's not to say it's a bad thing the North Korea's of the world get to mix it with Brazil, just that the one football tournament that managed to resist was the Euros and it was all the better for it. Euro 2000 and Euro 2008 were two of the best football tournaments of the past quarter century.

And just have a look at the teams going to Ukraine and Poland- it's one seriously good lineup. Any of maybe 12 teams, three quarters of participants, could probably see themselves lifting it with a bit of luck. This is a strong, strong competition:

I don't think the tournament will be particularly diluted by expansion. Less teams will have a realistic chance of winning but that would be the case no matter the number of competitors. Could just have eight teams if that was the real thing.

There are problems with expansion, but I think the teams mentioned above would bring something more to the competition. In Europe, international football us uber-competitive and there was a bunch of teams who missed out on qualification on a point or two. Armenia wouldn't have disgraced this tournament never mind the likes of Romania, Switzerland and Belgium, teams with proud histories and great fans who would enhance a tournament.

45% of a region is an awful lot, I wouldn't go that far, but these teams are very fine sides. The 2016 Euros could feature and unprecedented amount of surprises and at least one or two unfancied teams making a run to the quarter's and beyond. We'll have to wait to find out but I'm for seeing what it's like. I do regret it'll mean qualifying being less competitive with the top seeds pretty much guaranteed going through. But...


I'd hate to be an England, Spain or Germany fan in the sense that qualification is so taken for granted, it provides little to celebrate. Once the 24-team format is introduced, the same will apply for us.

I wouldn't go that far! We came fourth in a group only six years ago and European football is too competitive to take our place at the top table for granted. I'd expect us to be involved more in Euros but in the long-term it'll be interesting what this does to the qualification process.

Another thought - the qualifying process itself while less competitive, might feature more open, flowing football. Teams have more opportunity to qualify, and less to lose, so may have a go a bit more in games, particularly against close rivals in the group. Just a stray observation...

[legendz]

The format should be 20 teams qualify. Hosts and Champions automatically. 9 groups, top 2 go through.

Then 4 groups of 5 in the finals. Top 2 go through.

All options for expansion were considered when the move was made i.e. 20 or 24. 24 from reports had unanimous backing. If there were 20 I'd be more in favour of 5 groups of 4 than 4 groups of 5.

World Cups '90 and '94 were good, having 24 teams with 4 third placed sides going through to the last 16 worked well. When groups used to have the top 2 going through automatically, it was always easy win the group and finish in the top 2. Some countries will become more competitive chasing for the third placed spot. As long as UEFA can have an incentive for winning groups as outline above, I think the new tournament will be good. It'll still only come around every 4 years. Politics could see UEFA lose one or two World Cup spots. Africa is bound to get more unless the World Cup goes in the direction of an expansion.

[Eirambler]

Of course it was the FAI that proposed the expansion initially and brought it forward to UEFA together with the SFA. Although the Scots are not in Europe's top 24 in the seedings co-efficient at present and are showing no signs of progress so they might not benefit much from the change.

I think we win in a big way with this expansion. Qualifying this time proves that we can do it with just 16 teams and means that if we make it the next time we won't feel like we've needed the expansion to get to tournaments like this. We will also welcome not being the underdogs in every single game. It might also give us the chance to hockey the north at a finals tournament some day.

Saying that qualification will become almost automatic for us is well wide of the mark though, I'm sure we'll still find it tough enough and will occasionally miss out.

[legendz]

At the time it was proposed the FAI and SFA badly needed the exposure of a big tournament for the game within each country. I'd take satisfaction that we have gotten their before the expansion.
We're not always going to get into top 2. It's not easy and the third place should offer us decent chance to be within a shout.

[DannyInvincible]

I wouldn't go that far! We came fourth in a group only six years ago and European football is too competitive to take our place at the top table for granted. I'd expect us to be involved more in Euros but in the long-term it'll be interesting what this does to the qualification process.

We've so often been the "nearly men" in recent years, but fair point in that it's not a dead certainty or something to take for granted.

In qualification for the Euros in 1992, 1996 and 2000, we finished second each campaign. We finished third in our 2004 and 2008 groups.

[Murfinator]

I'm not sure on the idea really, on the one hand it feels ridiculous that fantastic teams like Bosnia, Belgium, Turkey and Serbia won't be there. On the other throwing in the likes of Israel, Scotland, Slovakia, Montenegro. Those kind of teams could cheapen the experience. I feel like there's regularly 20 very good European teams and some harshly miss out on the Euro's.

The current situation is a bit strange really where its possibly easier to qualify for the world tournament than it is the continental one. The Euros should be more encompassing than that.

Why not have a 20 team tournament like the rugby world cup? 4 groups of 5, top 2 qualify for the quarters?

[mypost]

Good move in what sense?

The reason a finals tournament should be limited is so that there can be a higher quality tournament. I like that the Euros are nigh on impossible to qualify for.

So you must have really enjoyed the last 5 Euros without us involved then, and the 7 before we did too, when the qualification criteria and the finals themselves were minimalist, and that's putting it mildly.

In 1990, 13 European teams qualified from 33 nations. 14 of the 24 teams were from UEFA. Nobody minded. Today, only 13 countries from our region can qualify for a World Cup, yet half of South America's can qualify. That's a disgrace.

I am absolutely 100% in favour of 24 countries at the tournament. I couldn't care less how much quality the tournament has, as long as we're in it. If we're not in it, then no matter how many teams are there, it's not the same. Not only have we a great chance of qualifying, we have a great chance of getting out of the groups at the finals and making the quarter-finals. Give me that over having to sit through a 0-0 Spain-Italy borefest any day of the week.

[BonnieShels]

So you must have really enjoyed the last 5 Euros without us involved then, and the 7 before we did too, when the qualification criteria and the finals themselves were minimalist, and that's putting it mildly.

In 1990, 13 European teams qualified from 33 nations. 14 of the 24 teams were from UEFA. Nobody minded. Today, only 13 countries from our region can qualify for a World Cup, yet half of South America's can qualify. That's a disgrace.

I am absolutely 100% in favour of 24 countries at the tournament. I couldn't care less how much quality the tournament has, as long as we're in it. If we're not in it, then no matter how many teams are there, it's not the same. Not only have we a great chance of qualifying, we have a great chance of getting out of the groups at the finals and making the quarter-finals. Give me that over having to sit through a 0-0 Spain-Italy borefest any day of the week.

I have enjoyed every Euro from 96 onwards (bar the result of 04). Euro 2000 and Euro 2008 were incredible tournaments.

A finals tournament should be tough to qualify for. I of course prefer if we were there but if we aren't then I want a cracker of a tournament.

Also how do the emboldened pieces of text work?

Sure why not have a 48 team tournament? 16 is the ideal number. 20 at a push. 24 is a step backwards.

It was funny... I was watching the 2008 final and the camera panned to Blatter sitting beside Platini and I text my mate saying, "What's that c**t doing there?" and my mate responded with "Probably ensuring that a tournament as good as this never happens again". Straight after that Dunphy was talking about how 2016 will be 24 teams... My heart sank. Next year is going to be the last of the great tournaments.

[mypost]

How should they work?

I do know that if you want quality, we can go the other way, and just have a pre-1980 week long tournament with Spain, Germany, Italy, and England played at Wembley, and sod everyone else as they've no quality and can't win it, so what's the point?

But this isn't the CL. Everyone is included, and everyone has the right to get to the finals. I really enjoyed the 2002 World Cup, Ireland were involved, and there were lots of unexpected results in it all the way to the semi-finals.

[SwanVsDalton]

It was funny... I was watching the 2008 final and the camera panned to Blatter sitting beside Platini and I text my mate saying, "What's that c**t doing there?" and my mate responded with "Probably ensuring that a tournament as good as this never happens again". Straight after that Dunphy was talking about how 2016 will be 24 teams... My heart sank. Next year is going to be the last of the great tournaments.

I can see your concern but I still think you're a bit premature. There a slew of fantastic teams and fan bases not going to next year's tournament who would be not diminish the overall quality. International football in Europe isn't like the Champions League, with a few sides getting obliterated every week.

Teams like Belgium, Romania, Norway, Turkey, Serbia, Bosnia and even Armenia and Montenegro would be tough opposition against pretty much any side, particularly in tourney football when the margins are tighter.

EDIT - That's eight extra teams I named, and to think there's still teams like Slovakia, Switzerland and Slovenia who were at the last World Cup. It might diminish things with a large number of these teams almost assured qualification, but I still don't think the quality would go down match-to-match.

[SwanVsDalton]

We've so often been the "nearly men" in recent years, but fair point in that it's not a dead certainty or something to take for granted.

In qualification for the Euros in 1992, 1996 and 2000, we finished second each campaign. We finished third in our 2004 and 2008 groups.

Yeah of course we're often there or thereabouts. But there's a lot of historically 'big' teams - Belgium and Scotland, for example - who haven't been involved at the tail end of qualifying for a while. Wouldn't have taken much for us to end up in the wilderness like that. Obviously with things changing we'd have to righteously mess it up to not get within touching distance of qualifying but we like a challenge!

[pineapple stu]

EDIT - That's eight extra teams I named, and to think there's still teams like Slovakia, Switzerland and Slovenia who were at the last World Cup.
Wales are improving fairly quickly again, with great players like Ramsey, Bale and Bellamy. Just hammered Norway 4-1, to add to three consecutive qualifying wins.

I wonder would there be a possibility of, say, the first seeds being removed from qualifying and entered straight into the finals so they can play in money-spinning friendlies rather than go to San Marino?

[mypost]

No. You earn your seeding through ranking points. Beating San Marino contributes to those ranking points, and they may end up giving you the edge over another country in getting a better pot.

There will be 6 Top Seeds next time. Only the Hosts get a free pass.

[pineapple stu]

Sure you can do seedings based on world rankings. It probably won't happen - there's money in the qualifying campaign too, as we've seen with the date switches - but your post isn't a reason why it couldn't happen.

[elroy]

My biggest concern for the international game is the power of the clubs. Unfort that is where the real money at. You only see this week that the Barcelona president (I think) coming out and saying that too much time is spent away at international games. Perhaps Uefa are looking at a longer summer tournament but a shorter qualification process. I for one would be in favour of less friendlies (Reduction by max one to two a year) but offset by an increase in competitive games.

For me, the club game doesnt come close to the interational stage.

[legendz]

There are good arguments for and against staying with 16, expanding to 20 or 24. Personally I'd have supported an expansion to 20 but there must have been more support for 24 and a structure similar to the World Cups of '86, '90 and '94.
Having three teams qualify from our group at USA '94 didn't take away from the competitiveness of the group. We secured our play-off place this time around in the last game. I don't think much competitiveness will be taken away in that situation if we have won qualification with that result over Armenia and if they or the Slovak's were in a play-off as a result.

[pineapple stu]

20 is awkward as UEFA will want to avoid the idea of teams knowing what they need to do on the last day (because another country has already finished their group games. Football is a lot more competitive than rugby (where groups of 5 work because you can pretty much predict the results in advance); UEFA will want to avoid repeats of the likes of Argentina v Peru, West Germany v Austria or Spain v Malta.

[Dodge]

20 is awkward as UEFA will want to avoid the idea of teams knowing what they need to do on the last day (because another country has already finished their group games. Football is a lot more competitive than rugby (where groups of 5 work
You know 20 can be made up of 5 groups of 4 too ;)

[pineapple stu]

I thought of that after posting, yeah! But then you're looking at either dropping just four teams for the last 16, or having two group runners-up not qualifying at all for a last 8. Both a bit untidy, I think.

[legendz]

The RWC in '99 had 5 groups of 4. Groups winners advanced to the quarter-finals and the 5 runner-up + best third team played off for the remaining 3 quarter-final places. Personally I think they should've kept the format but maybe tweaked it that the 4th best group winner took on the 5th placed group winner.

I'm sure expanding to 20 would've been considered anyways before it was agreed on 24. 24 is probably more acceptable because it's been used before in previous world cups for those who voted on it.

[Stuttgart88]

My biggest concern for the international game is the power of the clubs. Unfort that is where the real money at. You only see this week that the Barcelona president (I think) coming out and saying that too much time is spent away at international games. Perhaps Uefa are looking at a longer summer tournament but a shorter qualification process. I for one would be in favour of less friendlies (Reduction by max one to two a year) but offset by an increase in competitive games.

For me, the club game doesnt come close to the international stage.

I agree, and there's a big power struggle going on between the European Clubs Association and UEFA. The contract between UEFA and the ECA is up for renewal soon enough - 2014? This contract essentially sets out how European football is structured. In theory there is little to stop the ECA breaking away into a European Superleague (might even be better than the UCD one) with no release of players for international football. Peter Kenyon, ex-Chelsea and Man U, is rumoured to be trying to encourage a breakaway.

However, the EU / European Commission is very supportive of the status quo (see European White Paper on Sport, 2007 (http://ec.europa.eu/sport/white-paper/white-paper_en.htm)). Here the EC falls short of recognising as ubiquitous a "European Model of Sport (http://ec.europa.eu/sport/library/documents/b1/doc424_en.pdf)" which is essentially a system of national leagues with promotion & relegation and solidarity payments - linking big clubs to the smallest amateur clubs in theory, with international club competitions and international country-versus-country competitions. Not all sports follow this model (e.g., the Rabobank Direct Pro rugby league) but the EC is believed to support the European model over the American model. This explains why the EC allows UEFA some leeway in selling the CL's TV rights collectively, for example, despite it being abuse of dominant position / monopolistic behaviour.

Anyway, will the EC exist in 2014?!

Cynics argue that UEFA is just seeking to retain power but having studied this issue I genuinely believe UEFA is acting in the interests of everyone, especially the traditionalists like you and me. By curbing the spending power of big clubs via the Financial Fair Play Rules better balance will be restored to club football in due course (I hope) and the balance of power between the club and international games might be tipped back to where it used to be.

The likely outcome is for the status quo to be maintained, UEFA's fair play rules will take effect (they are actually supported by the ECA) but FIFA - who only have influence over international competitions, rules governing the global transfer system and some degree of influence over rule setting alongside the IFA :) (via IFAB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Football_Association_Board)) but with FIFA changing its membership structure to include lobbyists from the club game. It's thought that Blatter's regime has ultimately cost FIFA the moral authority to govern the game without input from the clubs and they are exploiting this with their breakaway threats. It'll be interesting to see where it all ends up.

[legendz]

My biggest concern for the international game is the power of the clubs. Unfort that is where the real money at. You only see this week that the Barcelona president (I think) coming out and saying that too much time is spent away at international games. Perhaps Uefa are looking at a longer summer tournament but a shorter qualification process. I for one would be in favour of less friendlies (Reduction by max one to two a year) but offset by an increase in competitive games.

For me, the club game doesnt come close to the interational stage.

I wouldn't be too worried for international football. An announcement was made recently about an internation week for qualifiers where teams will play Thursday & SUnday, Friday & Monday and Saturday & Tuesday. November and February friendly dates are to merge and the August date is likely to be axed.


If a European league was formed without UEFA's backing, you'd imagine the Champions League would continue minus the clubs opting out. UEFA would still provide the European Champion for the FIFA World Club Cup.


In any European league, there will only be 3 or 4 challenging for the title. The rest will be also rans. Are supporter of those clubs want to be involved in that if there's no promotion/relegation? There's been crazy talk across the water of ending promotion/relegation full stop.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Ah sure it'll be brilliant.

The ideal cure for Insomnia.

[elroy]

Maybe its just me and maybe im getting old but the thought of Barca, United etc in a European league doesnt appeal to me. For a mad football fan, I dont think Ive watched a full game of CL this season and probably wont until the knock out stage. In my ideal world I would like to see the CL go back to a knockout competition, never going to happen I know. But what makes games like Barca V United great is that in general, those type of games only come round once every couple of years and our real occasions to be savoured. If they played each other twice or more a season that greatness diminishes in a big way. More football is great but only to a point, the greed for money could lead to increased saturation of the game.

[Charlie Darwin]

The thing about a European super league is, wouldn't there need to be like 30 teams in it? The top teams play 60+ fixtures right now.

[Stuttgart88]

What I think is paradoxical is how the clubs want to reduce the international calendar so they can play more club games, to generate more income. But they spend all their income anyway, so what matter?

[legendz]

Was it a European Super league they are alluding to or Champions league reform? It seems to be Real-Barca driven if anything. Would there be an appetite for more Champions League games or whatever format they would look for? The Champions League had to back track from the double group stage to the round of 16 knock-out currently offered after Christmas.

[Stuttgart88]

This (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/27/european-clubs-breakaway-fifa-uefa) is what I was referring to.

Total pull out of UEFA control by the top clubs who will run their own competitions and will not be obliged to release players for internationals. Agenda driven by 9 European clubs.

Probably just posturing to get better representation in decision making, to shorten the international calendard and to drive forward the issue of UEFA providing insurance for players injured on international duty, but it's interesting nonetheless.

[legendz]

Smacks of postering alright. In fariness UEFA are making moves to revamp the qualifiers. It's expected issues regards friendly dates will be addressed as well. November and February friendly dates are likely to be combined with the August friendly scrapped. Questions have to be asked of the major leagues as well though. 20 teams is a bit much. Italy used to be 18 and the talk in England was of reducing to 18 at one stage. Italy itself went the opposite way.
International football does a lot for the game. The World Cup is massive, great promotion of the game. I couldn't imagine the game without it. It good for the players and the profile of the game as a whole. There are issues with insurance that have to be addressed. It's frustrating for any club to have a player injured while on international duty, there has to be fair compensation for clubs paying players wages.

[Stuttgart88]

If footballers are so fragile - why pay them so much? It's just like the argument that because there's so much money in the game now we need more technology to make decisions. Surely the best way to look at it is: if so much rides on potential human error, don't have so much money riding on it!

The EPL originally promised to reduce the league to 18 teams. At the time the FA and the Football League were in a fierce battle over control of the game. The FL had little interest in the national team whereas it was the FA's key property, along with the FA Cup. The FA went along with the EPL because it meant the big teams withdrawing from the FL - the FA wanted to "smash" the FL - and on the promise of an 18 team league. This never materialised and the FA has so little impact on the EPL now that the EPL can now do what they want with the game. The club v country conflict that the FA wanted to resolve actually got worse.

[Kingdom]

Maybe its just me and maybe im getting old but the thought of Barca, United etc in a European league doesnt appeal to me. For a mad football fan, I dont think Ive watched a full game of CL this season and probably wont until the knock out stage. In my ideal world I would like to see the CL go back to a knockout competition, never going to happen I know. But what makes games like Barca V United great is that in general, those type of games only come round once every couple of years and our real occasions to be savoured. If they played each other twice or more a season that greatness diminishes in a big way. More football is great but only to a point, the greed for money could lead to increased saturation of the game.

I'm the same as you in a way. I agree with you on the above too.

As for your post a few posts back, I read the same when i heard that the tournament was expanding -> a reshuffling of the seedings -> more qualifying groups -> less qualifying games -> less international dates. Which will appease the clubs (although Stuttgart makes a fair case against having to appease the clubs anyway)
The European championships are excellent as they are; the quality of football is really good, there are fewer dud matches, and to me it pees all over the WC. However like others have said, the quality is not going to be diminished by adding (in theory) the next 8 teams. The tournament might get even better - Would a 24 team tournament ever lead to a L16/QF/SF/F situation? Probably not.
What would worry me is that if the Euro's expand, it will be the deathknell of the EC going to any but the major powers (i.e. France 2016, England 2020, Italy 2024, Spain 2028, Russia 2032, Germany 2036 <repeat>) - the only alternative would be a Scandinavian championships or a Celtic Championships, again unlikely given that 3 qualifying places would be lost, while the spread would be too great perhaps?

I'm for the move.

This would only be a two year period though.

[legendz]

Scotland and Ireland pushed for the Euro's to be expanded. Scotland accepted at the time it could be at the cost of their chances of hosting the competition.

Regards the Champions League, I'm more interested in football than rugby but have to say the Heineken Cup offers a more entertaining group stage. I wouldn't agree with going back to entire knock-out. Allowing third placed teams enter the EL is bit too much of a safety net. It's a tough one though, how can they make more of an incentive to win a group when runner-up get through as well? I know there's the second leg away but is it enough?

[Stuttgart88]

Some of the H-Cup first two rounds have been brillliant. Leinster v Glasgow was a damp squib but most of the rest was really interesting. Northampton's concession of a late try to Scarlets just after they hit the upright with a penalty even bordered on hilarious (Ashton was at fault!). So many close games. To think that there is a strong lobby claiming that competitive balance isn't essential for sport to thrive.

My main gripe with the H-Cup is the 6 groups with 8 qualifiers (is that right?). I hate the arbitrary door that lack of symmetry opens.

[legendz]

Symmetry can be bad thing as well though and too perfect in some respects, if there can be such a thing? If all competition had the same groups of 4 etc., tournaments would lack a bit of character.
It's 6 groups of 4 alright with 8 qualifiers. If they had any room for slight manoeuvre they could possibly have the 4 best placed runner-up playing off for the last 2 quarter-final places, with the two losers going to the Amlin Challenge along with the winner of a play-off between the 5th v 6th placed runner-up.

In groups of 4 in 86' to '94 world cups and the euro's in 2016, the groups can be relatively competitive even with 3 teams getting through. On a home and away basis with twice as many games, the H-Cup has the edge on the CL with winning the group being more important. Finish outside the top 2, there are no safety nets either.