Uefa set to expand European Championships

djpbarry

Anybody else think this is a bit daft?

Irish Times wrote:

Uefa are set to rubber-stamp an expansion of the European Championship finals from 16 to 24 teams this week, in a move that will limit the number of countries able to host the tournament.

The decision, to be taken by Uefa's executive committee at their meeting in Bordeaux tomorrow and Friday, follows a proposal by the FAI and the Scottish FA last year.

It will take effect from the 2016 finals and has drawn virtually unanimous support from the 53 member countries, but Scottish FA chief executive Gordon Smith admits it will be a double-edged sword.

Scotland would not have the required facilities to stage an expanded championship.

"I think the expansion will be better for the game — more teams will have the chance of qualifying and the excitement of the groups will go on for longer," Smith said today.

"It is disappointing in that it means we will not be able to stage the tournament in the future, and we recognise that will be the case.

"It was a trade-off between trying to stage it or open up the qualification process and we have decided to look at something that helps everybody."

Smith said the proposal had not been an attempt merely to make it easier for Scotland to qualify for a major finals.

He added: "It will make it easier but it will make it easier for other countries such as England who failed to qualify for Euro 2008. We didn't do it specifically for that purpose, however."

http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/soccer/2008/0924/1222207738991.html

So from 2016 onwards, 24 of the 53 UEFA nations will be represented in the "finals"; seems like they're devaluing the tournament to me. I thought they had it spot on at 16.

mike65

Disaster for quality, good for Ireland and England.

Mike

leninbenjamin

not sure on this one either. It'll lead to less upsets anyway that's for sure, but yeah it'll probably water down the whole thing. no more groups of death.

though from an Irish point of view we should be hailing this decision as it gives us a greater chance of qualifying and giving our footballers the chance to play in a big tournament.

gimmick

mike65 wrote: »

Disaster for quality, good for Ireland and England.

Mike

Agree on disaster for quality. Disagree that it is good for the likes of Ireland etc. Basically now Ireland and the likes do not have to strive being part of the top 16, but will accpet being part of the top 24. The impetus to better yourself dramatically is now virtually gone.

This is nothing but a money making excersize. Why not disband the qualification process altogether if almost half of the entrants will qualify anyway.

EURO 2008 was a quality tournament because of the majority of sides were quality teams, who qualified through tough groups.

This is a sad day for football.

Mr. Presentable

gimmick wrote: »

This is nothing but a money making excersize. Why not disband the qualification process altogether if almost half of the entrants will qualify anyway.



This is a sad day for football.

Turning it into a CL for nations by letting any old tosh qualify. For the last twenty years football has been about nothing but money, so no change there.

I wonder if it's to accomodate all the new countries that have been created in the last years?

gimmick

^ No, its frig all to do with them, they do not create any TV revenue. This is to make sure that big supported teams like England do not miss out anymore. And of course for the money.

Nalz

mike65 wrote: »

and England.

haha got a good chuckle from that. It is true tho

djpbarry

nipplenuts wrote: »

I wonder if it's to accomodate all the new countries that have been created in the last years?

Nah, there are only 5 more countries in UEFA now compared to 12 years ago.

Green Giant

Just feckin leave it at 16, it's a nice number of teams to deal with. Go bringing in 24 and you'll have either four second-place sides going out early (I'm working on the assumption of six groups of four) like the Champions League in 97-98 and 98-99 or four third-placed teams getting into the knockout rounds like the first two World Cups that Ireland played in.

The World Cup contains twice as many teams as the current Euro format.
FIFA has four times as many teams as UEFA.
If the European Championships became a 24-team thing, almost half of the UEFA teams would be in the finals. The World Cup accomodates less than a sixth of countries in FIFA.

Pepe LeFrits

Meh. It means teams like Denmark, Norway, Israel, Scotland, Slovakia and so on will qualify more often. Don't really care.

Green Giant wrote: »

The World Cup accomodates less than a sixth of countries in FIFA.

Most of the countries in FIFA are complete minnows though.

_blank_

It will dilute the standard of the best international competition.

That is a bad thing.

UEFA Bureaucratic assholes.

pesireland

16 imo was prefect, if you can't be in the top 16 teams in europe then you don't deserve to be there, Hopefully Trappas lads can make it anyway

Pigman II

You could see in Euro 2008 that there was a handful of teams in there that just weren't at the races (eg Austria, Switzerland and Poland). Making the tournament 24 teams will mean another 8 crap teams on that level (eg Ireland) qualify making for an extra 18 or so crappy games to watch.

If anything UEFA should reduce the competition to 12 teams.

Pigman II

Green Giant wrote: »

Just feckin leave it at 16, it's a nice number of teams to deal with. Go bringing in 24 and you'll have either four second-place sides going out early (I'm working on the assumption of six groups of four) like the Champions League in 97-98 and 98-99 or four third-placed teams getting into the knockout rounds like the first two World Cups that Ireland played in.

.

They'd probably work it like the system for the World Cups of 86-94 where there were also 24 teams going onto a straight Knock-out tournament. Now there was an arseways way of choosing 3rd place qualifiers if ever I saw one.

yahoo_moe

leninbenjamin wrote: »

though from an Irish point of view we should be hailing this decision as it gives us a greater chance of qualifying and giving our footballers the chance to play in a big tournament.

But the tournament is now less 'big' (in the prestigious sense) by virtue of it being bigger (numerically).

Personally I find the World Cup group stages incredibly boring for the most part - at 16 teams, the Euro group stages were certainly less so but I guess that'll change now.

zAbbo

More games, more money, so minnows like ourselves can feel like we've accomplished something just by qualifying - brining our unique charm & colour with the 'best fans in the world", our overhyped highly paid British based players can enjoy a nice summer jolly, and go home before the competition gets serious - getting spanked along the way and earning an amazing 0-0 moral victory against some random country that wasn't even on the map when I went to school.

I think it's a great idea, if only to wheel out Joxers van, changing the words of all our Italia '90 songs, and dance around in the streets like the peasants we were 20 years ago

death1234567

Yeah its rubbish. 6 groups of 4, top 2 get out and best 4 3rd places? That would be terrible, better off having top 1 out with the 2 best second places.

pesireland

Pigman II wrote: »

You could see in Euro 2008 that there was a handful of teams in there that just weren't at the races (eg Austria, Switzerland and Poland). Making the tournament 24 teams will mean another 8 crap teams on that level (eg Ireland) qualify making for an extra 18 or so crappy games to watch.

If anything UEFA should reduce the competition to 12 teams.

Maybe they should cut it back to 8 teams, like in euro 88, won't happen though as to much money involved these days, but in all fairness in europe there are probarbly only about 10 good teams anyway.

not in any order

1. France
2. Italy
3. Germany
4. Croatia
5. Holland
6. Portugal
7. Cezh Rep
8. Spain
9. England
10.Russia

Then the rest are not far off each other. Home Nations/Eastern European Teams/Norway/Sweden etc.

Mr. Presentable

death1234567 wrote: »

Yeah its rubbish. 6 groups of 4, top 2 get out and best 4 3rd places? That would be terrible, better off having top 1 out with the 2 best second places.

What about eight groups of three, top team only to go through? You'd have a nice natural knockout progression from that.

Trampas

Basically making sure all the big fa's get in.

France struggling now. What country is the head man of UEFA from :rolleyes:

ArmaniJeanss

Always hated the Top2+4best3rd places that they used in 1990 and 1994 WorldCups.

Hows about sticking with top 2 in each group = 12 teams.
The best 4 group winners go though to quarter finals.
Other 8 teams play an extra knockout match to reach the quarter finals.

pesireland wrote: »

in europe there are probarbly only about 10 good teams anyway.

not in any order

1. France
2. Italy
3. Germany
4. Croatia
5. Holland
6. Portugal
7. Cezh Rep
8. Spain
9. England
10.Russia

Then the rest are not far off each other. Home Nations/Eastern European Teams/Norway/Sweden etc.

Bit harsh on Greece, Ukraine and Turkey.

djpbarry

Trampas wrote: »

Basically making sure all the big fa's get in.

Also means only the big guys will be able to host it.

Dun laoire

I wonder are they thinking by having 24 teams they can keep all the decent teams away from each other in the first round therefore making the 2nd round onwards attractive to follow?? :pac:

estebancambias

LOL Czech Republic good!!! They are ****e. We have better first team than Russia IMO or at least on a par, and don't say I don't know Russias players, I know them very very well, and I would feel our first 11 is at least on a par.

Croatia are also limited and have been a success because of good organisation, nothing that Trapattoni can't bring to the Ireland setup.

We are more than good enough to be among the elite of European football. Also this will generate more money for grassroots.

estebancambias

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Always hated the Top2+4best3rd places that they used in 1990 and 1994 WorldCups.

Hows about sticking with top 2 in each group = 12 teams.
The best 4 group winners go though to quarter finals.
Other 8 teams play an extra knockout match to reach the quarter finals.




Bit harsh on Greece, Ukraine and Turkey.

Why harsh on Ukraine and not on Scotland, Ireland and Serbia?

shane86

tbh there are alot more new nations thann in the past. Only makes sense that they expand the places. And re non deserving countries getting through, France and Italy hardly deserved to go ahead of Scotland. They did, and played the most horrific football of a great tournamernt.

Only bad thing about this is England will never fail to qualify Maybe make it 20 teams, have a play off system to get the extra 4 odd places.

_blank_

shane86 wrote: »

France and Italy hardly deserved to go ahead of Scotland.

Bizarre statement by you.

Italy and France qualified from a qualifying group.

Scotland did not.

The countries that qualify do so on merit, and deserve to be there.

Countries who don't qualify, don't deserve to be there.

How can you say a team that failed to get enough to qualify deserve their place more than a country that did?

It's ridiculous to even suggest it.

prendy

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Hows about sticking with top 2 in each group = 12 teams.
The best 4 group winners go though to quarter finals.
Other 8 teams play an extra knockout match to reach the quarter finals.
QUOTE]

i like this scenario although with the extra round of games fatigue will become a problem.like the GAA qualifiers.

the last Euro's were brilliant, i see no reason for this other than money and as was already said it keeps the big associations happy.
At the moment to qualify Ireland know they have to improve and beat a team that more than likely qualified last time. In the new system we will be good enough to qualify as it is. this can only harm the national team IMO.

estebancambias

i dont understand how its bad for the national team. its not like we are a country that actively produces players to make them future internationals unlike france or england.

ArmaniJeanss

estebancambias wrote: »

Why harsh on Ukraine and not on Scotland, Ireland and Serbia?

persireland had mentioned the Home Nations in his post as being not far behind the top10, so I didnt see the need to mention Scotland or Ireland again. Forgot about Serbia.

******

Looking at the always reliable FIFA rankings the Top 10 are.
Spain, Italy, Germany, Holland, Croatia, Czechs, Portual, Turkey, France, Russia.

The next 6 to bring it up to 16 are.
Romania, England, Scotland, Bulgaria, Greece and Israel.

And the extra 8 who benefit by the increase to 24 are
Ukraine, Poland, Sweden, NornIron, Serbia, Norway, Denmark and ROI (sneaking in 24th place).

Obviously it won't pan out like that.

Rankings.
http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/lastranking/gender=m/fullranking.html

whatawaster

How about:

1) 3 groups of eight play each other in round robin.
2) The top 5 in each group, plus the best 6th place side go into the second stage, with 4 groups of 4.
3) No teams are actually knocked out at stage 2, it's merely to determine seedings for stage 3, the knockout stage - last 16, Quarter Finals, 5th/6th/7th/8th place mini-cup, semi finals, 3rd/4th place playoff, final.

91 games in all. A glorious summer.

ArmaniJeanss

whatawaster wrote: »

How about:

1) 3 groups of eight play each other in round robin.
2) The top 5 in each group, plus the best 6th place side go into the second stage, with 4 groups of 4.
3) No teams are actually knocked out at stage 2, it's merely to determine seedings for stage 3, the knockout stage - last 16, Quarter Finals, 5th/6th/7th/8th place mini-cup, semi finals, 3rd/4th place playoff, final.

91 games in all. A glorious summer.

Brilliant. I'd love to see the look on Fergies face when they tell him.

Reckon its a lot more than 91 games though, there are 28 games alone in each of the Phase1 groups

leninbenjamin

Mihir Bose's blog on the bbc site blames the smaller nations of UEFA for pushing this through, rather than UEFA itself just looking to cash in.

Also, as expected, Euro 2016 will be expanded to 24 teams despite the fact that the bigger countries such as England, Italy and Germany have doubts about how they will attract crowds to additional fixtures which may be meaningless, or even get much more television revenue for them.

But this is what the great majority of Uefa's member countries want and for all the success of the 16-team format, come 2016 it will be 24.

SantryRed

To anyone who's in favour, I would like to point out that if this had of been in for 2008, Steve Staunton would have got us into the Championships.

Shows how deluded this idea is.

estebancambias

that is a fair point.

Guy:Incognito

I like it. The more games and smaller gaps between seasons the better imo. Theres already too many months in the year without football (this is not an invitation for the EL mafia to dive in)

If I had my way all the internationals would be during the summer ( no stupid international breaks for the league, all games can get done in a couple of months etc) .

jesus_thats_gre

I like this move. Haven't thought about the consequences too much but I think it is good.

Daysha

How bout 6 groups of 4, with only the 1st placed teams and 2 best 2nd place teams qualifying for the quarters? That's probably the most logical option, since the excitement of having only 1 from each group qualfying should cancel out the lack of excitement from the piss poor teams.

Either way, having 3rd placed teams qualify like 1994 is just crazy. No team that doesn't win a match in the group deserves to progress (yeah even you Big Jack!)

Guy:Incognito

deise59 wrote: »

No team that doesn't win a match in the group deserves to progress (yeah even you Big Jack!)

What hapens if all the games in a group end in draws? Chuck all four teams out?

Bubs101

In all fairness, although everybody is complaining now, come the next championships when Ireland actually qualify it will be far more interesting and fun for us. We aren't always going to get an easy group like our current one.

Another plus is that it gives the smaller nations who over achieve in qualifying but just don't have the quality to make it in the current system a chance and a just reward for their efforts

pablomakaveli

The FAI and the SFA were the ones who proposed the increase.

I think it will lower the quality of the competition.

Sure it will mean we are more likely to qualify but i think if we don't qualify from the qualifiers anyway we probably don't deserve to be there.

shane86

Des wrote: »

Bizarre statement by you.

Italy and France qualified from a qualifying group.

Scotland did not.

The countries that qualify do so on merit, and deserve to be there.

Countries who don't qualify, don't deserve to be there.

How can you say a team that failed to get enough to qualify deserve their place more than a country that did?

It's ridiculous to even suggest it.

If, by some miracle, the Czechs had lost all three of their final games and we had managed to beat a poor Wales team, beat the Cypriots in an awful match that gifted us a Cypriot OG, and beat the Germans on a single conceded penalty, would you say we had deserved to qualify?

Of course not. Stan would still be in charge and we would have got mauled in our Euro group.


Same with the French/Italians. The Scots lost in a Georgia match with questionable reffing, then lost at the very last against the Italians thanks to a bizarre foul called. The Italians and French progressed and proceded to play some god awful football. I am confident the Scots would have got out of their group in a prettier fashion than the Italians.

Unearthly

SantryRed wrote: »

To anyone who's in favour, I would like to point out that if this had of been in for 2008, Steve Staunton would have got us into the Championships.

Shows how deluded this idea is.

lol fair play

I was kinda 50/50 on this but that comment sums up perfectly why I think it's a bad idea now

PHB

I don't see it as that bad for quality to be honest. The groups are always pretty uninteresting bar the group of death. It'll just add an extra poor team. If anything, it will ensure more good teams are in the knock out stages.

Good for Ireland though, very good.

Third_Echelon

Good news for Ireland... Looks like it wont be every 8 years we get to a tournament now..

..but for the actual competition itself, I think its a bad thing. The quality of the games during the summer were very high... Throwing in another 8 teams at the level of Sweden or Austria would de-value the tournament too much IMO.

_blank_

Throwing in teams at the level of Ireland would make a complete mockery of the tournament.

The World Cup is already full to the brim with no-mark poxy little countries just there to make up the numbers, and we know the quality suffers.

How any right-minded football-thinking person thinks this could be good for the game is beyond me.

Guy:Incognito

Des wrote: »

The World Cup is already full to the brim with no-mark poxy little countries just there to make up the numbers, and we know the quality suffers.

.

Without those crappy teams its just a Europe Vs South America competition. Not really Fifa's fault other continents are crap.

_blank_

Stekelly wrote: »

Without those crappy teams its just a Europe Vs South America competition. Not really Fifa's fault other continents are crap.

It IS FIFA's fault that they increased the numbers of shíte teams allowed in though.

There were 24 teams in Italia 90 and USA 94, and since France 98 there has been 32 teams.

That's 8 more shíte teams being admitted to the WORLD cup, and now people are saying that the same number should be admitted to what is, and should be, a smaller competition.

It's a farce.

Daysha

Des wrote: »

It IS FIFA's fault that they increased the numbers of shíte teams allowed in though.

There were 24 teams in Italia 90 and USA 94, and since France 98 there has been 32 teams.

That's 8 more shíte teams being admitted to the WORLD cup, and now people are saying that the same number should be admitted to what is, and should be, a smaller competition.

It's a farce.

Well if the biggest football tournament in the world is such a mess, give us an alternative.

_blank_

deise59 wrote: »

Well if the biggest football tournament in the world is such a mess, give us an alternative.

A smaller tournament with only quality teams in it.

Go back to a 24, or even 16 team WC and an 8 team EC.

The standard of football in such tournaments would be much higher with every game imposible to call.

The standard of football in flagship tournaments has been diluted beyond all recognition in the name of money, and it's an absolute disgrace.

Fourth placed teams playing in the "champions" league. Give me a break.

Poxy teams from the arsehole of nowhere playing in the WC or EC, it's a joke tbh. And it's one of the reasons I've turned my back on International football.

You know, people will take pride in qualifying for this new expanded EC, and they'll forget that the only reason crap teams are in it in the first place is because FIFA/UEFA wanted to milk some money from them.

You have to hand it to them though, their marketing machine is working a charm.

Mr.Nice Guy

I think it's a great idea. More football and a better chance to see our national team in action.

I couldn't give a toss about 'quality'. The cream rises to the top anyway. Well done to all concerned.

Here's to Celtic Cup holders Ireland winning the 2016 European Championship. :cool: