When the euro's expand to 24?

[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 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.

[Charlie Darwin]

The problem the Heineken Cup faces with expansion is that there aren't enough teams, period. They can only expand into England and France really.

[legendz]

I don't think anyone is suggesting the H-Cup expand. It's grand as it is and the groups have more of an edge to win them that the CL. I'd only suggest regards runners-up, instead of the best 2 going through, that the best 4 runners-up play-off for the last two places.

[mypost]

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.

I'm for the move.

You will get that knockout scenario. 3 teams got out of our group in Italy 1990, yet the group situation was on a knife edge until 10 minutes left of the Ireland-Holland game. Holland settled for the draw and paid the price, getting a harder second round draw and duly losing to the Germans.

In the Euros last time, some teams didn't perform, and one team was eliminated after 5 days. You'll always get that, no matter what format you have.

[French Toasht]

I have always considered Ireland the perennial fallers at the last hurdle when it came to qualification, ie we are the team that if there were 14 qualification spots available, we would be the 15th or 16th best team in Europe. The stat the Ireland have been involved in more playoffs than any other country in the world prooves that. When the Euros expand, we should be comfortable qualifiers, and to be honest that will take the sense of achievement out of it. It will also dillute the standard of football at the championships by opening the tournament up to the third tier teams like Finland and Belerus.

Also I presume it will follow the Heineken Cup format of (6X4, best two runners up qualify), which will actually make getting out of the group harder. Imagine getting Spain in your group, it makes automatic qualification for the quarters almost impossible and the margin for error when it comes to getting a best second place, would be so minimal.

[mypost]

The top two and the 4 best placed 3rd placers qualify for the knockout rounds.

Opening up to "third tier teams" is a great chance for them to build a platform for the future. 20 years ago, Greece and Turkey were nowhere. Look at them now.

[legendz]

World Cups '86, '90 and '94 can be used a case study for the format being brought in. Ireland haven't always qualified for play-off easily. If that pattern continues, we'll be battling for the second place or else play-offs as opposed to play-off or no qualification. With few World Cup spots available, the euro's won't lose any attractions for some who might qualify a bit more easily.

[French Toasht]

The top two and the 4 best placed 3rd placers qualify for the knockout rounds.

Opening up to "third tier teams" is a great chance for them to build a platform for the future. 20 years ago, Greece and Turkey were nowhere. Look at them now.

That just constitutes a weak, uncompetitive group stage. Greece and Turkey climbed within the the framework that existed (yes the Euros used to be 8 teams but I think everyone would agree that was too small) and it wasn't the expansion that aided them, rather a talented generation of footballers. Gifted generations come in cycles, look at Hungary, once one of the power houses of Europe, haven't done a thing 30 years.

[legendz]

The Copa America has 3 groups of 4 with 8 going through. 6 groups of with 16 going through is obviously twice that format. Groups are still competitive. Over 3 games as it is it's workable. It'd be less so in the Champions League over 6 games.


The Euro's are only held every 4 years. Europe could see a tighter squeeze on it's number of World Cup spots so a tournament with 8 more teams every 4 years is going to take away from the competition. The 4 play-off losers could eaily have slotted into next years Euro's along with 4 third placed teams from the qualifiers without taking away from it. It's a long way down the road but I think have more knock-out games in the finals will be great.


Ireland could win a game and draw two in next years finals and be on the plane home before the quarter-finals. Results like that with best placed third placed teams going through won't take anything away from the competition under the format it'll take.

[SwanVsDalton]

It will also dillute the standard of football at the championships by opening the tournament up to the third tier teams like Finland and Belerus.

Weird examples and, even then, Belarus were quite close to topping their group this year. They wouldn't disgrace themselves at the Euros.

But anyway, I pointed out already on this thread some of the teams not involved in this tournament: Switzerland, Slovenia, Serbia, Slovakia, Turkey, Bosnia, Montenegro, Norway and Scotland.

First four went to the last World Cup, next three knocked out in play-off and the other two are decent sides. None of the above would disgrace themselves at next year's tournament.

Personally I would extend that list to Armenia (very good side as our group demonstrates), Belgium (excellent young team will come good in the next few years) and Romania (always a tough team to play). I'd almost add in Wales too just because they have some excellent young talent coming through.

That's 12-13 teams who would be tough teams to play in any tournament. Most of these lost out to qualification by a point or two, and it only goes to show how close European international football is. Fine margins. Any eight teams from that list would be a game for anyone, with no detrimental effect on the overall tournament. And no mention of Finland or Belarus.

But if they did manage to qualify, they'll be in by right.. There isn't a huge gap between the 'second tier' and 'third tier'. It's not like Ireland, Poland, Ukraine etc are much farther ahead than these guys.

Gifted generations come in cycles, look at Hungary, once one of the power houses of Europe, haven't done a thing 30 years.

We benefited with a second wave of talent emerging post 1990, no doubt influenced by the exploits of Jack's army (as attested by Keane, Dunne, Duff etc). If so called 'third tier' teams make it, then no reason why they can't benefit in the same way.

Also the Hungary example is misleading - that country was one of the progenitor's of the modern game for all sorts of sociological reasons, they were at the vanguard of football as it spread across the continent. It wasn't because they just happened to be talented crop of players.

In fact that's just the point - it's rare talented crops of players simply emerge out of thin air. There's often other factors, such as first time qualification for a major tournament, at work.

[mypost]

Personally I would extend that list to Armenia (very good side as our group demonstrates), Belgium (excellent young team will come good in the next few years) and Romania (always a tough team to play). I'd almost add in Wales too just because they have some excellent young talent coming through.

Wales were 6th seeds in the WC draw for a reason. There's a long way to go before their young talent comes through, if ever.

The quality of the tournament doesn't matter to me, you get good and bad games everywhere. My first interest is seeing Ireland qualify and do ourselves justice. My second interest is to see England go out. Expanding the Euros will greatly help Ireland make major tournaments, and that is something we should all welcome.