24 teams next time

[daylight]

So 8 more teams to be added.

Turkey,Belgium,Bosnia,Israel,Switzerland,Scotland,Serbia,Slovenia lets say would not add anything to the competition?

I think it will make for some good games and a few upsets,then again though I do enjoy watching football.

[deerokus]

I enjoy the World Cup much, much more than the Euros, never understood why so many people say the Euros are better. The weaker teams are sometimes much more fun to watch than teams like Portugal, Spain or Holland - lots of mistakes and weaknesses which lead to more open, exciting games. I also like big upsets, at the Euros there's really not much of a quality gap between most of the teams, so there are no real upsets.

Besides - more matches = better. If it was down to me every team would be at the tournament!

[robbert_o154]

Besides - more matches = better. If it was down to me every team would be at the tournament!

I'd watch Vanuatu - Bhutan.

[Leppard]

So 8 more teams to be added.

Turkey,Belgium,Bosnia,Israel,Switzerland,Scotland,Serbia,Slovenia lets say would not add anything to the competition?

I think it will make for some good games and a few upsets,then again though I do enjoy watching football.

Would it add more to the competition than, say, keeping it at 16 teams? I'd say no.

[Nørbæk]

I'm sure this has already been commented on, but it's going to really devalue not only the actual competition, but qualifying as well. In the tournament proper, almost certainly no more groups of death, 3 out of 4 going through in some groups and in qualifying 2 or 3 going through out of 5, which will render meaningless a lot of the final games. Ok, it will give some of the smaller nations a chance to qualify but that's about the only positive.

Terrible new structure. I still remember the World Cups with 24 teams. Awful.

I guess money talks, though.

[Klimowicz]

I found this out on FM a few weeks ago... Finished third in my group and decided to resign from Holland after the final was played, but ended up getting tanked in the knock out stage having blasted the team for their performance in game 3, as I always do for a final game loss

[daylight]

Would it add more to the competition than, say, keeping it at 16 teams? I'd say no.

Then why complain if it goes to 24 teams you just get more football match's to watch,I'm pretty sure the better teams would end up meeting each other in the latter rounds(I think there would be the odd shock)so all you are getting is more games and some of those games might end up the best in the competition.

The plus for me is more games,there is no minus as the 8 teams I mentioned would make for some good games against the teams that were in this years competition.

Can't understand why any football fan would be against having 24 teams,there is more to football than just watching Spain play Germany

[FaceCrusher]

I have no problem with more teams at the Euros, it's just the 3rd team in a group of 4 being able to qualify that seems pretty pointless to me. 6 matches to eliminate 1 team...

[Select_screen_name:]

More teams would make it more interesting as we get to see teams we wouldn't usually. Plus, it's more football over summer, so stop moaning.

[PMLF]

Instead of 6 groups of 4, they should make 4 groups of 6 with top 2 advancing to quarter-finals.

[SeanNUFC]

Instead of 6 groups of 4, they should make 4 groups of 6 with top 2 advancing to quarter-finals.

Groups of 6 would look weird but i'd take that over a 3rd place team going through.

[Leppard]

I don't know why people seem to think more football = good. I rather not watch football if it's dour crap. Not saying it will be dour if the number of teams are expanded but it certainly doesn't mean it'll be more entertaining.

[RBKalle]

So 8 more teams to be added.

Turkey,Belgium,Bosnia,Israel,Switzerland,Scotland,Serbia,Slovenia lets say would not add anything to the competition?

I think it will make for some good games and a few upsets,then again though I do enjoy watching football.

I do enjoy watching football as much as the next guy, but the Euros should be the pinnacle of Europan Football, therefore I see no reason to have HALF of the continent represented in the finals

Sure some of the aforementioned nations would have provided decent matches and some upsets, but in fairness they would have just been ok filler, or worse.

Basically what at least a couple of nations ALREADY DO in the 16 teams format...

We'd get some more "Ukraines" and a few "Irelands" as well... Nothing we could live perfectly fine without.

Let's be honest, the 8 teams format worked almost perfectly and qualifiers still meant a lot. With every other nation qualifying, is there even a point in playing 10 games to choose the "best 24", when UEFA's bottom 9 wouldn't qualify even facing youth sides of stronger nations?

[Golaxi]

ahh this years group stages have been so exciting! why change it!

[Rafalution]

Belgium, Norway, Switzerland, Bosnia, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Turkey

none of them are worse than Czech, Ireland, Poland etc... so I don't mind expanding to 24 teams

it has annoyed me how I've heard multiple journos/pundits/whoever describe it as '8 more teams worse than Ireland'. Belgium and Switzerland are good to watch, and I'd rather watch Turkey, Serbia or Montenegro over Ireland

[CaptainPlanet]

Have San Marino actually ever won a game?

[Doc Gonzo]

So there will be 8 additional teams sitting deep and don't even try to attack most of the time?! Yaaay

[Benjani'sBootCleaner]

ahh this years group stages have been so exciting! why change it!

Apart from Group A tbf.

[Benjani'sBootCleaner]

I think we've got to a point where there are 4 maybe 5 teams that really should be at the Euros and it needs expanding. Belgium, Serbia, Turkey and maybe Wales (by the time 2016 rolls around) are good enough to be at the tournament. They aren't going to win it, but they can hold their own and produce a shock. What's devalued is 2 Quarter Finals where it's just one team steam rolling another. Germany rested 3 of their front men, in a knock out game.

It would make Qualifying a bit pointless, but having more teams gaining tournament experience is better for them and better for us. It would of been good to see Hazard, Kompany, Lukaku, Bale and Dzeko etc etc at these finals, certainly would improve the competition.

And also there being more games...

[Doc Gonzo]

Belgium could only win 4 out of 10 games during qualification. I don't think they would have qualified even if there had been 24 starters this year. Talented players don't make automatically a good team

[Lermon]

I do enjoy watching football as much as the next guy, but the Euros should be the pinnacle of Europan Football, therefore I see no reason to have HALF of the continent represented in the finals

Sure some of the aforementioned nations would have provided decent matches and some upsets, but in fairness they would have just been ok filler, or worse.

Basically what at least a couple of nations ALREADY DO in the 16 teams format...

We'd get some more "Ukraines" and a few "Irelands" as well... Nothing we could live perfectly fine without.

Let's be honest, the 8 teams format worked almost perfectly and qualifiers still meant a lot. With every other nation qualifying, is there even a point in playing 10 games to choose the "best 24", when UEFA's bottom 9 wouldn't qualify even facing youth sides of stronger nations?

Yeah but there's so many Europe teams. Why should only a very restricted minority of countries get to see their country play at the Euros? I definitely agree with upping the number.

[Select_screen_name:]

I don't know why people seem to think more football = good. I rather not watch football if it's dour crap. Not saying it will be dour if the number of teams are expanded but it certainly doesn't mean it'll be more entertaining.

Because the choice of more football is always best. If you don't want to watch it, then don't.

[georginho_juventusygr]

The Netherlands will have more chance if they choke.

Italy will have more chance if they find themselves again in the same situation.

[Leppard]

I think we've got to a point where there are 4 maybe 5 teams that really should be at the Euros and it needs expanding. Belgium' date=' Serbia, Turkey and maybe Wales (by the time 2016 rolls around) are good enough to be at the tournament. They aren't going to win it, but they can hold their own and produce a shock. What's devalued is 2 Quarter Finals where it's just one team steam rolling another. [b']Germany rested 3 of their front men, in a knock out game.[/b]

It would make Qualifying a bit pointless, but having more teams gaining tournament experience is better for them and better for us. It would of been good to see Hazard, Kompany, Lukaku, Bale and Dzeko etc etc at these finals, certainly would improve the competition.

And also there being more games...

I'd say 'dropped'. Just shows the quality of Germany. If Spain don't play one of their midfielders today, does that mean they've rested them too?

Belgium could only win 4 out of 10 games during qualification. I don't think they would have qualified even if there had been 24 starters this year. Talented players don't make automatically a good team

And I agree with this. With the current format, you know you're getting the best teams (+ the hosts). With 24, you also get the not-so-good teams, who wouldn't have been good enough to qualify otherwise.

Also, almost half of Europe will be the Europeans FINALS.

[noikeee]

I'm divided on this, on one hand we get more football and that's great for me. I've never been one to complain for example when Champions League was expanded to more teams, and more teams from big countries as that meant more great matches on telly. We're also going to get twice as many dramatic all-or-nothing knockout matches (from the current 7 knockout matches we're gonna get 15).

On the other hand I understand that the quality will be diluted, and I really don't enjoy the mathematical complications of the 24-team format.

[englandmanager]

euro 2016 could well see the likes of moldova and lithuania

any team could quite easily sneak into a 3rd spot

look how well bosnia did this year missing out with a point, and estonia

[Mr Wallin]

Instead of 6 groups of 4, they should make 4 groups of 6 with top 2 advancing to quarter-finals.

I looked at that and I wouldn't mind the matches but it would increase the groups from 6 to 15 matches and the tournament in total from 31 to 67 matches and I'm pretty sure that's a bit much for both UEFAs and the clubs taste.

Apart from Group A tbf.

Group A might have had a bit less quality but I don't think you can fault the excitement tbh.

Yeah but there's so many Europe teams. Why should only a very restricted minority of countries get to see their country play at the Euros? I definitely agree with upping the number.

It's not that restricted actually, 30% of the teams gets to play in the finals.

[The Guy From The Sunny Place]

Cyprus Cyprus Cyprus

We will make it at some point.

[RBKalle]

Yeah but there's so many Europe teams. Why should only a very restricted minority of countries get to see their country play at the Euros?

For the same reason 10th placed clubs don't qualify for European Cups, playoffs etc... it's the FINALS, not a charity tournament.

With 24 nations out of 53, is there even a point in having the Top Nations to qualify? Qualifiers are more often than not a formality as they're NOW, let alone with even the 3rd spot being good enough to advance.

The bottom 10 nations barely win a match

The 10 above them usually win only against said no-hopers and little more

That would leave about 30 nations, but once again, excluding the Top Ones and the "reliable filler", all you'd get would be 10 middle-of-the-road nations fighting for a spot in the finals while having defeated only minnows and semi-minnows.

Had Euro2012 been a 24 teams version, we'd have had the likes of Estonia (who lost to the Faroe, almost twice in fact) or Scotland (who didn't even make full pot against Lithuania).

So while, say, Bosnia and even 3rd placed Norway could have "deserved" to be in the finals, letting in a handful of "lucky losers" just for the sake of it would and will devalue the finals.

[bluebirds4life]

We might seem to be good enough on paper but I still highly doubt we'll make it even if it's a 24 man tournie Coleman out

[gunner4eva]

Yeah but there's so many Europe teams. Why should only a very restricted minority of countries get to see their country play at the Euros? I definitely agree with upping the number.

Because it's the European 'finals', it should be the very best countries competing against each other, not just letting all sorts of rubbish in. It really devalues the competition imo and ultimately is an awful idea.

Gonna end up with some truly dreadful games in future Euro's, probably like Estonia v Lithuania or something, at a finals tournament .

[PMLF]

I looked at that and I wouldn't mind the matches but it would increase the groups from 6 to 15 matches and the tournament in total from 31 to 67 matches and I'm pretty sure that's a bit much for both UEFAs and the clubs taste.

Yes, no doubt about that but I think it would be better for the tournament than letting 3rd placed teams advance.

[deerokus]

Have San Marino actually ever won a game?

They beat Liechtenstein in 2004. I think they drew with somebody half-decent like Turkey about 20 years ago?

[Razzler]

I'm hoping a crappy team gets into the Euros next time like San Marino or Moldova.

Well, Estonia were in the play offs this time around so they could have made it had it been 24 teams

[Razzler]

It's the worst idea ever and been saying that since it was announced. Ok, when it was 8 teams and went to 16 everyone thought the same but countries divided up, it made more sense. Playing 2 years of quals to get into an 8 was harsh. 16 is just about right.

It's not only going to ruin the tournament but also the qualifying where the 'major' nations are going to have to fail spectacularly to not make it. The group stages which brought us England/France and Germany vs Holland and Portugal and even in the 'worst' groups had competitive games against closely matched teams (Russians, Czechs, Greece doing their thing).

We're not gonna see any of those games until the 1/4 finals. Maybe last 16 if the groups fall right otherwise it'll be winner of this vs runner up of that ... less likely to get those top seeds facing each other there.

Extended group stage just to eliminate 8 teams ... hardly worth it. 3rd placed teams making it through (a la World Cup 1986) it's going to be absolute rubbish. I always find it more enjoyable than the World Cup in some respects. Group stage a little shorter so you get into the meat of it quicker but not with this, going to be a distant 2nd unless the World Cup does something equally stupid like expands to 40 teams and tbh I would not put that past them

[TeeWee]

Having almost half the UEFA members qualify is insane for a final round. It makes the concept of the qualifying tournament completely pointless for the bigger countries. Is this truly what you want, that the qualifiers have no more excitement to them than a simple friendly?

And 24 teams is just a poor number inviting crap formats. third-place potentially going through is simply insane and just bloats the tournament with meaningless matches. So not only the qualifiers get bloated with meaningless matches, group stage matches also get bloated. More matches is only fun if the matches are meaningful. Lots of upgraded "friendlies" is just bloat.

[Guv'nor]

6 groups of 4 teams, top two through, four best runners up...Pathetic. If you didn't compete in your group, you shouldn't get through, simple.

Only other format one can think of that wouldn't compromise the competitiveness as much, would be, four groups of six, top two through and play-offs with remaining 16 to qualify for round of 16...But, in truth, it will f*ck up a decent format for want of more shiny gold coins.

[IMT]

At least England will get to the knockout stage again then

[Evilyoshi]

Qualifying: Would OVERALL massively improve imo, yes of course it make things “easier” for the big teams but I think that is worth it to make the rest of the group more open. I’m sick of seeing loads of world cup qualifying/Euro qualifying groups which by the time they reach the half way stage you have the “big” team running away with it and 2 teams playing for one playoff place with the other 4/5 essentially already out and having nothing to play for. It’s only qualifying so who really cares if it makes it easier for the big teams to qualify and in exchange not essentially knocking out 2/3s of the group after the first 4 games.

Group stages: This I think this gets hit the hardest for reasons largely already said; it’s a lot of games to knock out very few teams. Also I think it’s a little too easy to get through them, having run allot of simulations on FM (which follows the exact same format ofc) 4 points is enough to virtually guarantee progression and it’s also very possible to qualify with as little as 2 points, this happened with 3 teams in the 3 finals I saw.

Knockouts: Abit unsure on these, when you have group winners facing 3rd place teams who probably only got 2/3 points there is potential for a lot of one sided ties which nobody would want, then again we are talking one off, one game cup ties at this point. People may call injustice when inevitably a team who got 9 pts got knocked out by a team who got 2 but I don’t buy that. On the other side you could argue that because bigger teams get an easier ride through qualifying and the grps they would all congregate here and produce allot of big name matches.

It’s an awkward situation, UEFAs nations are different in that they have nations at pretty much all levels, whereas say north America have USA and Mexico but then have a big drop and South America have traditionally been similar with Brazil and Argentina (obv not currently after the rise of Uruguay). I think I largely agree with the format other than the grp stage which I think needs to change to be abit less forgiving but exactly how this would be implemented I don’t know.

That’s my 2 cents, p.s sorry for crap spelling/grammer

[dafuge]

Looks like the number of teams isn't the ony thing that could change. UEFA are considering holding Euro 2020 in 'at least a dozen cities across Europe'.

[SeanNUFC]

Looks like the number of teams isn't the ony thing that could change. UEFA are considering holding Euro 2020 in 'at least a dozen cities across Europe'.

Yeah, erm, don't see how that could work at all. Are UEFA high on something or what atm?

[Razzler]

Stupid. Platini just talking for the sake of talking.

It'll be like taking it back to how it was, 2 legged matches before going into a final 4 or something. Maybe even they're sick of taking back handers. Guarantee this won't happen but maybe reflects the useless state of hosts especially as Turkey may be going for the Olympics or something to may not even be super keen on 2020 (?)

Countries have to do a little dance before bestowing the 'privilege' on them or telling them what to do with stadia, etc. Maybe they realise now that you can't really do that in Europe. Perhaps with this hopeless 24 team thing they can now do a silly 4-team co-host thing. Wouldn't be surprised

[Rob1981]

Sorry, what has Platini said exactly? :confused: We can have 12 different hosts, each doing a handful of games each? How would that even work.

[dafuge]

Sorry, what has Platini said exactly? :confused: We can have 12 different hosts, each doing a handful of games each? How would that even work.

There's a few quotes in here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18657633

[hardeepR]

Actually multiple host countries could work. Lets say there are 6 groups. (I think,) from memory in past world cups and euros the top seed in a group played all their group games in the same stadium.

You could apply the same principle whereas after qualification and the drawing of groups the top seed in each group gets to host the group. Not too sure about the knockout stages - neutral venues for R16 and quarters with a single country for the semis and final? (I'm not in favour just speculating.)

Having said the above I see no reason to expand beyond the current 16 team format - like most have said 24 out of 50ish will just devalue it. If they want more teams why not have a parallel tournament of 8 teams where the winner and runnerup earns the right to be a top and second seed in the next qualification?

[georginho_juventusygr]

We can have European Union 2020. 12 venues around the EU members.

[Confused Clarity]

I think playing across a bunch of host cities rather than a host nation could be a good thing tbh. I do understand that people are used to & like the current format, but we're at a point where we either have to have it in developed nations rotating around each other all the time, or multiple host countries.

This way, you could ensure that countries &/or football clubs aren't bankrupting themselves &/or creating white elephant stadiums in a desperate hope to host the tournament.

[Rob1981]

Going up to 24 teams, you could reasonably have 3 or even 4 countries jointly hosting and all automatically qualifying. But a big leap from that to what Platini seems to be suggesting if he is on about UEFA cherry picking a dozen stadiums rather than letting countries bid in the usual way.

UEFA are really stuck though - don't want to give it Turkey if Turkey get the Olympics, the Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland bid is suspect, the Georgia/Azerbaijan bid is laughable.

[McMaster#28]

Was ther much uproar when in went from 8 to 16 teams?

[Rob1981]

Not really the same though, by the early 90's you had 12 or 13 European countries qualifying for the World Cup and only 7 qualifying spots for UEFA's own tournament. So it was a no-brainer to make the Euros bigger. Can't really say that now.