| |
|
| Saturday 5 July, 2008 |
| Blog: Size doesn't matter |
| In his final word on the European Championship, Steve Wilson dismisses plans to expand the event - even if that move may ultimately benefit Italy |
 |
 |
|
Once again the powers that be at UEFA have chosen to meddle with a winning formula. Just as the traditional straight knock-out version of the UEFA Cup complemented the group format of the Champions League, the 16-team European Championship was the perfect accompaniment to the larger 32-team World Cup. But not any more, as from Euro 2016 there is set to be 24 competitors.
The tinkering with the UEFA Cup has made it a bloated and ugly cousin of the grander Champions League and I believe the ratification of the plan to include eight more teams will be detrimental to the continental competition. It has been almost universally agreed that this was the best edition of the event in a long while, yet still the bigwigs had to go and meddle.
The reasons why I oppose this move are many. Firstly it removes the danger factor. There are 53 nations in Europe, so with 24 qualifying for the Finals that means only around half of those will miss out - and we will almost certainly never see the likes of the Azzurri fail to qualify again. Qualification will become a pointless charade, only serving to determine which minnows progress.
Once at the tournament the first round will see six groups, most likely with the top two and the four best third-placed teams moving forward. That means we will have 36 matches and at the end only a quarter of the teams eliminated. Compare that to the current format, where the first week sees 24 games and half the nations going home. More games won't provide quality, just more dead rubber matches.
At Euro 2008 we had several final group matches that were effectively last 16 games. Turkey v Czech Republic and Russia v Sweden were decisive battles for a spot in the last eight, but in 2016 we won't see excitement like that again. With extra small nations involved, the groups will be less challenging and it will be rare to see a giant nation like France exit at the first hurdle.
The increase in the number of games will also mean more top-class stadiums needed by a host nation. Consequently we will only really have a handful of countries able to host the show on their own - Italy being one of them. This means we will see more events co-hosted, and how long before we get a trio of organising nations? Lithuania-Latvia-Estonia 2020 anybody?
The idea was originally put forward by the Scottish and Irish FA, and as much as I'd like to see my own Tartan Army at a major tournament they, and other lower-ranked nations, must qualify on merit - not after lobbying a change to the format. The final stages of the European Championship should be reserved for the elite who have earned the right to be there, not any Tom, Dick or Hamish.
Can you really name eight nations not present this summer who would have improved the action we saw? I certainly can't, but when have the views of a fan ever mattered? More nations involved means more cash in UEFA's coffers and less chance of a big, financially attractive nation like England ever missing out again - as usual the root of the decision is revealed to be money.
|
|
|
|
|
I completely agree. Although on the whole Euro 2008 was exciting there were still enough moments where my attention drifted from the matches. There was more than enough boring matches at the tournament and increasing the number of teams participating will only serve to increase the number of dead, boring matches. It seems football is being run by a bunch of idiots.
Jason Hayward
I couldn't agree more with you. I think this was one of the best European Championship Finals I've seen for a long time and I think it was even better without England. It was nice for once not to have them in the competion, then we didn't have bias commentators. I think the amount of teams we have is just right and not too long on TV either, and I agree with you that teams should get there on merit, not because of who they are. If they want the little teams in then they should just put them into the same group or 2 groups seperately from the others then the top of their groups go through and play off between them like they do for the Asia group of the World Cup, then they might get a lesser team in.
Gino
This is just typical of UEFA, they are totally incapable of sticking with anything that works. First they ruined European club football by getting rid of the Cup Winners Cup, turning the UEFA Cup into a joke and making the so called Champions League into a decaffeinated farce. I really have given up caring anymore about international club or country tournaments.
Perhaps somebody can tell me what the purpose of UEFA and FIFA? I always thought they were supposed to help make football better for all by being more accessible and exciting. Instead they are the problem with the game at the moment, there are numerous occasions where they have made stupid rules and bad decisions on pretty much every matter. All they care about is making more money at the expense of the fans and the tournaments. It is a total disgrace, and as long as they are in charge of the game it will only get worse.
Rodney
I totally agree with the article. Euro 2008 was good because the nations there were high quality - bad teams didn't qualify and rightly so. Look at the 32 team World Cup where weak teams from Africa, Asia and South America qualify and play dreadful football, either losing heavily or defending hard so they can get a 0-0. It is awful to watch. These tournaments should be for the elite, and if a 'big' nation isn't good enough, too bad. It wasn't so long ago that the World Cup had only 16 teams - and in those days the quality and entertainment were higher. I'd love to see Scotland and Ireland competing again, but only if they are good. It is a shame for football that this 24 team joke will go ahead. More money for UEFA and FIFA and less entertainment for the fans - sooner or later people will just switch off and they will have to revert to smaller tournaments.
Chris Ziffo
I again agree with your article Steve (you make sense unlike any "anti-Inter" Susy Campanale).
And the question is simple - why change something that works just for the sake of making change? The last three EURO's (2000, 2004 & 2008) have overall been fantastic tournaments. So UEFA why change?
You can't help but think that, like Sepp Blatter, Platini has a hidden "agenda" and this proposal is only just the start...
Daniel, Auckland, NZ
|
| |
| |
