Obviously there is no chance of it being reduced back to 16 - or the glory days of 8 - so is there now a good claim for it to be extended to 32.
It would bring back the jeopardy of only 2 through in a group of 4, and 50% of teams being eliminated instead of a third.
The big downside would be quality, and the chances of a group with Spain and Italy, for example, would be lessened.
The "smaller" national sides have done okay. Georgia gave a good display in one of the best games so far, while Albania, Slovenia and Scotland have both picked up draws. Even moreso, Slovakia beat Belgium in the biggest gap in coefficients win seen in a Euros.
Would 8 extra teams harm the quality? Some of the nations not in Germany are Norway (with Haaland, Odegaard, Bobb etc), recent semi-finalists Wales, Iceland, Finland, North Macedonia ( all who have put in decent Euro performances recently), former winners Greece, Northern Ireland and Ireland.
It would mean an extra 12 games - although with 2 going through it would open it up for more dead-rubbers.
It would also mean around 60% of European nations would qualify - which I don't think is a bad thing. Considering the future looks like multiple host nations every tournament we may as well expand.
Should Euros be extended to 32 teams?
posted on 20/6/24
One day, but no time soon, people will begin to realise less is more. In the current format of 24, it would actually be more exciting to have 8 groups of 3 and then every game would have a consequence.
But until there is genuine action, rather than words, about player welfare and not just milking the money cow until it runs dry, then we will just have more and more games.
However, there will always be upsets at tourneys, regardless of the number of teams there
posted on 20/6/24
it would actually be more exciting to have 8 groups of 3 and then every game would have a consequence.
====
The problem with that format, which was put forward for the 48 team world cup, is the final game will be in isolation and up for Germany/Austria type shenanigans.
posted on 20/6/24
Should thr euros have no qualifiers in other words?
posted on 20/6/24
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 17 seconds ago
Should thr euros have no qualifiers in other words?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still need to get rid of 21 to 23 nations (depending on who is banned)
posted on 20/6/24
There comes a tipping point when you advocate for more teams where the quality diminishes. I think where we are now is perfectly fine. It's not as big a tournament as the World Cup so having one less round makes sense to me.
In terms of the whole 'dead rubber' thing, you have to look at it with a broader mindset. If every single game and minute counted then what you'd see is diminished returns in the latter stages of the tournaments. Dead rubber 'third game' fixtures allow nations to rotate and rest their best players and give the squad a chance to stake their claim. That rest means better quality in the knockout stages.
posted on 20/6/24
Could do it like the Snooker. Top 16 automatic plus 16 qualifiers
posted on 20/6/24
Personally, I’d love fewer qualifiers, 32 teams in the finals, and a straight knockout competition.
(Which is obviously never going to happen.)
posted on 20/6/24
Yeah the qualifiers is a boring distraction during the league season, have less qualifiers if it means a few extra teams in the finals
posted on 20/6/24
30 years ago there probably wasn't even 32 countries in the whole of Old Yurop
posted on 20/6/24
32 would be better than 24. three out of four progressing in a group is an absolutely horrific format.