Surely I've made British Home Championship equivalent to 4 years. I know the level of competition wasn't equal pre-war tournaments (sometimes by far with only 4 teams as you mentioned above) but we simply have to make a decision, I had to choose as the same, e.g. Uruguay's two World Cup titles to France 2 World Cups (equal). Do you think we should underestimate the importance of GB achievements, Uruguay WCs, Italy 30s, USSR EC60, the Copas Peru'39 and Bolivia'63 etc, if so, how much degrees on this scale has to be?
^ My take on the whole, they had no responsibility whatsoever for the standard of competitions. On top of that, some was around the dominance and some teams have had success era at the time/brilliant teams. There's something primal about any sport, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter, you can only play against who's on the other side of front, we're not stealing anything from their accomplishments. Let's take the example of the UEFA Champions League, the general level of competition today is so high compared to year 1955, yet treated as the same on winning the trophy is considered equal.
Wait, are you genuinely ranking England higher because it won the British Home Championship, a discontinued domestic tournament in which no-UK nations weren't even allowed to participate? Don't you think it's slightly biased to count restricted tournaments like that? I don't want to sound chauvinistic, but France won 2 world cups, 2 euros and 2 confederations cup. That's just 1 world cup, 2 euros and 2 confederations cup more than England. And same goes for Spain which has won 1 world cup and 3 euros, which means 3 euros more than England. You can only compare European nations in considering tournaments open to all European countries, otherwise it just doesn't make sense.
I absolutely understand your points which is a reasonable measurement and I agree with you 100%, but you may notice that the tournament had stopped counted basically after the FIFA World Cup started the year 1930, it had not slipped my mind when the rest of the world could participate 'equally' on the world stage shouldn't the British teams take 'that' advantage anymore. There is nothing biased at all, I had put France ahead of England at the original list it was dependence on the tournaments from 1884 to 1908, only this a re-evaluation of the list to consider England amateurs and Great Britain are still winning the Olympics football tournaments at that time as an absolute dominate. The British Home Championship are included here to be clear it's my subjective opinion by looking at the UK nations its the home of world football, now the question should we really discredit their superiority as the game being played before FIFA which was founded in 1904? It was the only major tournament until the Olympics has began. The list needs to be done carefully and the data points detailed is kind of proven, but that doesn't mean it's wrong or right I genuinely do not see it this way, they're welcome to very detailed opinion that could be a key on winning a very fair and logical system on condition putting aside our nationalism biases. Having said that, I can understand France situation that France have performed respectably better than England as a combination of World Cups, Euros and Confederations Cup, England excelled mainly because of BHC tournaments pre-WC30. While France internationally are greater than Spain on historically accurate, I fail to see why England should be standing beneath Spain because Spain has 3 euros that's only argument being brought up over and over which that's points already were given and awarded to Spain's achievements in the Euros and it shows that Spain are ranked in second place at European Championship history. A common mistake that most people discounted a major important factor such as consistency, despite being underachievers England have done so much better than Spain over the time, while needless to say Spain has been anything but consistent.
Just found this thread and applaud you for the effort. But referring to the above quote... you can't state that something isn't "right or wrong" and then state you simply don't see it that way. One statement implies there is no objective truth, and you're following and justifying it with entirely subjective reason. "There is no right or wrong because I don't see it that way" isn't how things work. And I don't mean this offensively, but your methodology resembles someone that had no knowledge of this sport and was tasked to create a ranking of these teams. Giving weights to results or tournaments that probably shouldn't even be factored into the calculation. And all this can be revised pretty easily by a simple eye-test. For example, you rated in the most recent ranking Scotland ahead of Portugal. This is a ranking of European tems and, on top of Portugal having been European Champions, they have, as you noted, one of the best performance records in the history of the European Championship. They've also reached two World Cup semi-finals and won 3rd place. Scotland has never made it past the first round of either tournament. These two tournaments are by far the most important tournaments in European football nations' history. So far more important, there is no other tournament that can be discussed in reference to those two. This is an objective fact. If you were working in any statistical modeling professionally, you'd have taken one look at those results and realized your model/methodology was definitely and objectively incorrect and you needed to revise it. Ranking Scotland ahead of Portugal in football history is objectively incorrect. In all the ways possible that one can subjectively rank such teams, there is one method out of all of those that approaches the Truth as best as possible. And again, I appreciate the effort, but your ranking isn't that.