24 countries in the next Euro

[Eddiespearritt]

Michel Platini paying back the little countries who helped vote him in as President - but really the fans don't need Euro to last longer than it already does. Seems like greed, and more games for players who over-play already.

With 53 or so countries in Europe - if you eliminate the no-hopers (San Marino, Faroes, Liechtenstein, Andorra etc) basically the qualifying groups are a joke - you only really need to play one knock-out game to get through (but there will still be a full blown ridiculous qualifying competition.

And the first 24 country tournament with lots more games in lots more cities will be filling the coffers of not only UEFA but of course......France.

Forgive me for being cynical but this is when sport takes a firm second place to politics and money.

The good news - Scotland and Wales might qualify.

 

[Beach Hut]

Stupid idea in my view and just earns UEFA more money

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I thought from the title we were going to see a new multi-state currency.

For football, 16 teams is enough for the Euros - it's not the world cup.

 

[Timbo]

The competition has been amazing so far as there has been something riding on every game, and our games have just been 4 days apart. Loads more teams will just mean more dull meaningless games and waiting a week between games. Shame, but when have UEFA ever been interested in making it better for the fans.

 

[W.C.]

Was 1996 the first time the euros have had 16 teams? Anyway, has been a fantastic competition since then. Should keep it as it is.

 

[beorhthelm]

it does seem a bit daft, and the cup tournement just gets filled with loads of shit teams to be steam rollered.

but that bit about making the French money, you lost me there

 

[Triggaaar]

Daft idea. Still, they'll need to up the number a few more times before Scotland have a chance of qualifying.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Daft idea. Still, they'll need to up the number a few more times before Scotland have a chance of qualifying.

192 teams in the tournament, and they'd still struggle to qualify !

 

[big nuts]

The only way I would extend the tournaments would be to open it up to 32 teams. Seeded knockout first round with the winners going into a 16 team group stage. It would give a chance to lesser teams but only give them the opportunity of one game unless they pull of an upset. It would also add the excitement of knockout football early in the tournament.

 

[brunswick]

no need to change it - it is good quality unlike the world cup which is naff until the quarters.

to have 24 teams is just about money.

i have always said get rid of the tournaments and have a 10 division league, one home and away game EVERY month (regardless of summer or winter breaks - deal with it).....and promotion / relegation / play offs. no regional groupings, just who is best rises to the top division over time.

 

[StonehamPark]

but that bit about making the French money, you lost me there

The next tournament is in France

 

[DTES]

To answer my own question, if you look at the world rankings, the best European team not at Euro 2012 is Switzerland. I know it's only guesswork, but if you said the eight teams highest in the world rankings not to qualify for this tournament will be the ones making up a 24, this is what would be added to the party:

Switzerland
Norway
Bosnia
Slovenia
Hungary
Turkey
Serbia
Wales

What is the point of any of them?

I'm going to speak up for Bosnia actually - they were fantastic in qualifying, and were only a penalty away from being in Ukraine at France's expense.

Having said that... I do agree with the main point... it doesn't need 24 teams. However, more importantly, how is it going to work? 6 groups of 4, with some bizarre kind of 'best third placed teams' going through (a rule that gives teams in the later groups a potentially significant advantage, knowing what they need) or 8 quick-fire groups of 3, so it's very nearly knock-out all the way? Either seems odd.

 

[Frutos]

However, more importantly, how is it going to work? 6 groups of 4, with some bizarre kind of 'best third placed teams' going through (a rule that gives teams in the later groups a potentially significant advantage, knowing what they need) or 8 quick-fire groups of 3, so it's very nearly knock-out all the way? Either seems odd.

I would assume the former, simply on the grounds that that's how it worked when the World Cup had 24 teams in it.

 

[Paris]

Belgium have a tidy team on paper.

 

[Frutos]

Belgium have a tidy team on paper.

Indeed they do, very under-rated side.

Courtois, Mignolet, Vermaelen, Vertonghen, Defour, Witsel, De Bruyne, Lukaku....all decent players.

 

[Wozza]

Belgium have a tidy team on paper.

Sadly for them, the game is played on grass.

 

[Flavor Flav]

Indeed they do, very under-rated side.

Courtois, Mignolet, Vermaelen, Vertonghen, Defour, Witsel, De Bruyne, Lukaku....all decent players.

Plus Fellani and Hazard.