Hi everyone, since the 2016 Euro will have 24 Teams including a Round of 16, I believe that I would not be that hard to include 32 Teams for the 2020 or 2024 Euro. This would only mean 12 more games and the Euro could be co-hosted by two or even three countries (for example Germany/Netherlands, Spain/Portugal or Sweden/Denmark/Norway). It would not even cause top teams having to play more games as in the 24 team 2016 Euro, since the finalists also play 7 games anyways. Plus, the format would be much "cleaner", since all the 8 group winners and 8 group runners go through to the knockout stage. Also, it would give many smaller countries like my beautiful Norway some time in the spotlight So my idea is to keep the World Cup for the "Big Boys" but make the Euro for all Europeans! What do you think?
in term of marketing and fan base point of view, good idea .. in term of quality ... hmmm I guess your NT gotta do better, as Turkey, Belgium, Switzeland or Greece could do
16 is perfect for the euro, but I'd rather have 32 than 24. 24 is just such an awkward number for the tournament, and it doesn't really take any longer to play a 32 team tournament. They should have stayed at 16 though.
I like having 24 teams though it's a clumsy number. I don't think a regional championship should be has had to qualify for as the World Cup, which was my issue with 16.
32 teams is more than half of UEFA, and if there were 31 qualifiers and a host then the top three in each qualifying group and some fourth place teams would qualify. Some of the best national teams might not use their best players in later qualifiers after they had already clinched qualification.
You'd have to have ten groups with top 3 advancing. So actually this idea would result probably in fewer matches than the 24-team version.
Agreed with the previous post, 32 is too much, more than half the continent's teams (is it what, 55 countries now after Kosovo?). On the other hand, 16 is too small a number since there are many good teams in Europe (i.e. more than 16) and oftentimes many good teams (like your beautiful Norway and my beautiful country Turkey ) are not able to make it to Euros. So, 24 is good.
Rightly so ,... QUALITY over quantity ... Unless people want: - more money and advertising (more games longer competition) - lastly ... so that Faroe Island and San Mario would have a chance? LOL
There isn't really a big drop in quality from the 16th-best to the 24th-best UEFA team. Many teams outside the top 16 in UEFA are fully qualified to make it to the World Cup knockout stage (e.g. Turkey, Belgium, Bosnia, Slovakia, Switzerland...). That's partly why I will hold-off judgement of the 24-team Euros until I see it in action. For all we know it could be better.
I believe I heard Platini or another UEFA administrator try to justify expansion of the Euro tournament by saying expansion would ensure teams like Norway and Scotland wouldn't be excluded as they were in 2012. Yeah, I really missed seeing Norway and Scotland play. The new format will enable me to spend less time watching the Euros, as I can skip much of the group stage, involving teams #14-#24.
Not 16, not 24, not even 32... they should make it 20 teams. 20 is the perfect number. 4 groups of 5 teams each. That's an extra game in the group stage per team, not a big deal. Then all 1st place finishers qualify for the quarter finals directly. All 2nd and 3rd place teams from each group play a Quarter-Final play-off to determine the other 4 quarter finalists (2nd from A vs 3rd from B, 2nd from B vs 3rd from A, 2nd from C vs 3rd from D and 2nd from D vs 3rd from C). This gives 1st place finishers a bit of an extra break + they get to basically skip a round. OR Simply make it the top 2 from each group qualify without the extra "quarter final play-off game" but there is more to play for if UEFA does use the play-off game and it will be exciting until the end of the group stage. Qualification would be easy too. The host qualifies automatically, unless the new system of playing across the continent stays. If it's hosted across the continent then 20 teams need to qualify. 10 groups of 5 teams each, top 2 make it. Small, compact groups with a lot to play for until the end. Or again, make it that all 1st places qualify and 2nd and 3rd places play a play-off to determine who else advances. This would be such a good system, I can't see anybody disagreeing.
Actually it would be 2 extra match-days. It would take 20 days to complete the group-stage instead of 12 days. That's way too long. So it is a big deal.
I disagree.. anything more than 16 teams the quality would drop way too much. It would be like the group stages of the Champion's League. It would be good for TV and the hosting nation I guess, sell more tickets, flights, hotel rooms etc. But that's about it. Big difference in quality from the top 5 teams in UEFA to the next 10 on that list, Imagine to the next 15!
Sixteen was perfect, big enough to be a major tournament, but small enough to be short and intense. Every group was difficult, there was hardly any dross there at all. Why do bureaucrats have to ******** around with things just for the sake of it? Twatini has made such a mess of it he can't even find a willing host for it anymore.