UEFA to decide whether to expand European Championship to 24 teams

[ZFR]

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/...-Expansion.php

VIENNA, Austria: UEFA will decide in September whether to expand the European Championship to 24 teams from the current 16, president Michel Platini said Saturday. Expanding the competition would increase the revenue for UEFA and allow eight more federations to seek better funding and sponsorship deals because of their participation. Increasing the tournament to 24 teams, though, would make for a convoluted and complicated competition calendar instead of the simple four-group system now. "I always said, 'Let's wait and see what the Euro will be like.' When you are president of UEFA you have to consider the quality of the game, the number of teams, the number of stadiums," Platini said. It has left Platini caught in two minds. "There are teams that could be at the Euro and even enhance the quality of the Euro," Platini said. Too many teams though could dilute the competition, he said. "It's not certain that, with 16, it's better with 24 or 32 or 54," he said. UEFA started a feasibility study on expansion more than one year ago. It will discuss the possibilities with the national federations this weekend. The expansion could theoretically apply to 2012, but the general assumption is that it would not be introduced ahead of Euro 2016.

I'm rather against this. 16 teams seems optimal. Basically 4 groups of death from which any 2 teams can qualify.

Expanding it would mean lowering the overall level of matches + more tired players.

[Ivelliis]

Raising it would mean we have a better chance to qualify

[Kakero]

My theory :

24 teams = More teams = More matches = More tv revenue = More $$ coming into UEFA pocket.

24 teams = More chances for England to actually qualify = More people watching Euro as people especially Asians are more exposed to english primere league and will naturally support England = More tv revenue = More $$ coming into UEFA pocket.

[Yorick]

Do it! The more the merrier.

[johnny]

Bad idea, the overall quality will drop. Noone is waiting for matches like Latvia vs Finland, just to give one example. The qualifying rounds should be more than enough to seperate the men from the boys. Matter of fact, 8 teams on the actual final rounds is more than enough, two groups of 4 teams, the two groupwinners decide who is king of the hill for the next 4 years. That's how they used to do it, and that's how they should do it again. There's simply not enough quality teams in Europe to create a tournament of 24 nations that will actually keep the people entertained.

It's obvious that the UEFA is not acting in the interrest of football itself, but purely acts on commercial interrests. The rotten and corrupt setup of the CL is more than enough proof of that.

[Yorick]

I disagree Johnny. There's more quality than people realise. Consider the unfancied Turks, the "unknown" Russians, who played some of the most entertaining football to beat teams much more fancied than themselves.

Heck, consider Greece last time. Latvia could win the Euro cup if someone like Greece can. More teams mean more upsets!

So if less teams we get more matches like the last Spain vs Italy (zzzzzz then penalties!), and more teams means we get Czech vs Turkey (winners come back from 2-0 down), bring on more teams PLEASE!

[ZFR]

Originally Posted by Yorick Latvia could win the Euro cup if someone like Greece can.

And who's stopping them from winning the 16-team Euro cup???? Let them qualify and win. Are you saying a team can be good enough to make an upset and win the finals but this same team which supposedly can win the finals can't make it through the qualifying rounds if only 8 or 16 teams qualify?

The reason the "unfancied Turks and the unknown Russians" as you put it did so well is because there are only 16 teams!!! So they Turks and Russians actually had to play well in order to qualify.

I wouldn't mind a Latvia vs Finland match in a 16 or 8 team Euro. If they managed to qualify it means they are good. In a 24 team tourney the quality WILL drop.

I agree with johnny. There's simply not enough quality teams in Europe to create a tournament of 24 nations that will actually keep the people entertained.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by ZFR And who's stopping them from winning the 16-team Euro cup???? Let them qualify and win. .

Ah... they did ZFR, that was my point. Greece won last Euro. Anyone can win out of 16, so "lowering the quality" is a moot point. It's not like having 16 teams ensures that the best team always gets to the final.

[ZFR]

Originally Posted by Yorick Anyone can win out of 16, so "lowering the quality" is a moot point.

It's not a moot point. Having more teams means bigger chance of weak team sneaking in means bigger chance of low quality match, means on average quality of matches *will* be lower.
And it's the quality of the matches that it's all about. You complained about the quality of Spain vs Italy match. But increasing the number of teams to 24 will increase the chance of having more matches like these.

There will be some low-quality matches in 16-teams championships, but there will be a much bigger chance of having them in championships where teams which couldn't finish in the top 2 of a 6-team qualifying group still qualify.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by ZFR It's not a moot point. Having more teams means bigger chance of weak team sneaking in means bigger chance of low quality match, means on average quality of matches *will* be lower. And it's the quality of the matches that it's all about. You complained about the quality of Spain vs Italy match. But increasing the number of teams to 24 will increase the chance of having more matches like these. There will be some low-quality matches in 16-teams championships, but there will be a much bigger chance of having them in championships where teams which couldn't finish in the top 2 of a 6-team qualifying group still qualify.

The Spain vs Italy match was the World champions against the European champions. You couldn't have better quality on paper, yet it was a boring, tedious nil all draw.

By contrast, the lesser teams Russia and Turkey played entertaining, match-winning football. Last time, the little known Greeks won the whole thing.

The point being, put in little known teams of "lesser quality" and upsets happen. They have less to lose and risk more. They play with spirit and gusto, not just professional experience. (Witness South Korea, Cameroon etc in past world cups too) Thus as evidenced by the above, we see better games, compared to the cynical professionalism of the World Champs.

What I'm saying is that expanding the team would bring in more "lesser quality" teams and thus raise the standard of play.

It would seem like an oxymoron, but actually makes perfect sense given the reasons I'm explaining.