Don't know about you but part of the appeal of the European Championship for me has always been that it's been a compact and straightforward tournament; 16 teams in four groups of four, top two through to the quarter finals, then semis and final, with all 31 matches spread out and the whole thing done and dusted in three weeks.

However, that of course changes this time around with the first Euros to comprise 24 teams, which means an extra week, an extra 20 matches - and a fortnight-long first round stage which will only knock out a third of the teams in the tournament.

I didn't agree with the expansion when it was made and I don't agree with it now, particularly because it was introduced for anything but footballing reasons; the Scottish and Irish FAs proposed it to maximise their chances of qualifying, the vast majority of UEFA members voted it in to maximise their chances of qualifying, and Michel Platini gleefully accepted the decision to maximise his chances of being retained as UEFA's President.

Nevertheless, the bigger tournament is here now - but will it be able to maintain the quality, interest and elite status of previous Euros when it comprises 43% of all the nations in UEFA full stop?

When the World Cup expanded to 24 teams in 1982, it did make for a better tournament because the extra nations from the likes of Africa and the Americas were strong enough to compete with more illustrious opponents, but does the same strength in depth exist within European nations football?

We won't fully know, of course, until the championship is up and running, but perhaps the key lies in the performances of the eight teams in France who would not have qualified had it still been a 16 team competition, who - if you judge it on the eight teams with the poorest qualifying record - are:

Ukraine
Sweden
Republic of Ireland
Hungary
Turkey
Croatia
Albania
Wales

Also, as mentioned above, with so many games in the first round eliminating so few teams - with the added challenge of working out which third-placed finishers will qualify and which knockout tie each will play in - will the tournament become bogged down at an early stage with dull, cagey matches between the lower status teams anxious to keep themselves in the running when the groups get decided?

Any thoughts?

Hope I am wrong but I expect plenty of 'speculation' in the initial games ie. too many teams happy to settle for a draw and keep their qualifying options open. I remember similar scenario in 1990 W Cup when IRE, ENG & HOLL were in with Egypt in that tiresome group, recall that 'antifootball' was how the Spanish media labelled much of the early play, especially by Ireland and Egypt.

Worse for sure!

I'll see how it goes but I think increasing it to 24 teams is a mistake. To me it's just diluting the quality of the tournament.

I don't think it'll make much of a difference to be honest.

The presence of the home nations will make it interesting enough in the group stage, but I think we may see teams settling for a point more as not much will be needed to qualify. Then again all the groups should go to the wire with something to play for for most teams in the final match. The general quality will of course be diluted at the early stages. Into the knockouts and whilst I loved the old Euros format it felt like it was over very quickly once the group stage was done. This time we'll get a round of 16 so the knockouts will feel like more of an event. Overall I think there will be positives and negatives but I'm quite happy for it to be open to 24 teams. It certainly benefited the qualifying stage so hopefully we get a good finals too.

The biggest negative I suppose is playing 36 matches just to eliminate 8 nations but it did work well in Mexico '86 (still my favourite World Cup to date) and USA '94 (which many people rate highly, too). Although, maybe not so much in Italia '90 to be fair.

It gives us an extra knockout round which is a positive, plus I think the likes of Wales, NI, Iceland, Albania, Austria, Hungary will add an extra spice to proceedings as these nations only get to see tournament football on rare occasions (or not at all with some).

I'm really looking forward to it.

The extra knock out stage is the only positive I can see

The cricket ODI WC is an example of a competition that drags on for far too long and doesn't really start to get interesting until the KO stages. Same thing here I suspect.

16 or 32 is ideal, 24 doesn't really work.

Does anyone remember the 1982 World Cup? Was the second group stage better or worse than having round of 16/quarter finals?

Better for sure. All of this talk of the tournament being 'diluted' with 24 teams is nonsense. Standards have risen across the board in the last ten years and even the so called minnows are very competitive. I could see it being a great tournament.

I totally agree with the OP on paper, and have made much the same points on other boards. But at the back of mind is always the thought that my two favourite tournaments had 24 teams...
As you say, they were World Cups, so maybe a bigger talent pool can sustain a 24-team format.


That's one of the tournaments I had in mind. I didn't like the second round format of group games, and it turned out pretty tediously in England's group. On the other hand, Brazil vs. Italy in one of the other groups was an absolute classic. Though that was effectively a quarter-final, more or less.
I guess maybe it doesn't matter that much.

Brazil v Italy was only a classic because Brazil tried to win as they didn't know any other way of playing, but they only needed a draw to go through and any other team in their situation would surely have played for one.

In the case of England's group, West Germany played defensively to avoid defeat and gambled that they'd beat Spain by a bigger margin than England would, which is what happened.

If England had beaten Spain 2-1 in their final match, then lots would have had to be drawn to see whether they or the Germans went through, which was another drawback of that group system.


On the basis of the three World Cups run under this system, a team will realistically only need three points to qualify - providing their goal difference is even at worst.

It was also a classic because this was probably the best team of all time to not win a World Cup. I can't see any of the current European teams suddenly turning themselves into magicians

That's OK if you are a fan of one of the bigger teams. If you are Irish, Albanian, Welsh or Icelandic, you might think differently.

The best tournaments build and build to the final but if they go on too long the public start to lose interest. Also, by including more teams the quality level starts to drop and you have some very poor teams included. 24 teams should be the absolute limit.

Is it? The group clashes between the really big nations have often been the highlight of Euros tournaments in previous years. Often better than the knockout clashes which can produce more cagey affairs. That quite simply will be lost. The quality is diluted by a lack of early big head to heads. Whether the tournament as a whole will be less exciting as a result is up for debate.

I'm not sure if it'll work but I'm not sure about the decline in quality argument, for all the extra sides Holland are still sitting at home.

Depends if teams go for a win knowing one 3 pointer could see them through or they sit back and play for a point in 2 of the games hoping to win the other.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Round of 16 or even Quarters aren't all that and then they say it was due to tiredness/too many games?

That really was an achievement in itself

Yes, I don't really see the objection that "it was only a classic because <of some sub-optimal decision by someone>." What matters is that it was a classic! If we sit around waiting for classic games in which no one makes any mistakes, we're going to be disappointed by every tournament ever.

But basically, for all this talk of 24 teams and dilution of standards, if you look back at the tournaments that we remember as classics, it doesn't matter. I think that what makes a classic tournament is:
- must have at least one truly great team and/or player (1982, 1986, 2000)
- must have several other entertaining teams (the above, especially 1986 with Laudrup's Denmark, the USSR, a still pretty good Brazil)
- must have several great matches

And you can't predict this stuff. It can't be down to the format, because 1990, which had the same format at 1986, is widely regarded as a poor tournament. It was memorable for English fans for various reasons, but the actual football was not the best.

I agree. Look at the last World Cup. Costa Rica and Algeria both unexpectedly got out of their groups. Iran came bottom of their group but battled all the way to a 0-0 draw with Nigeria and only a 1-0 defeat to Argentina. Only Honduras and Cameroon (surprisingly) looked out of their depth in that tournament.

It's obvious that the so called minnows are going to cause shocks at this tournament, it's set up perfectly for it....I'm thinking of teams like Iceland, Slovakia, Albania, Hungary and the two Irelands. They may not all get out of their groups but they're all capable of getting points on the board.

Having seen a few games now, it's looking like a strong tournament. The smaller teams are battling all the way and many of the mid level teams look strong. The top seeds are going to have to fight all the way. Whoever wins will really have deserved it.

You are right. This tournament is set up to be the best Euros ever