comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
UEFA with the Euro's has probably calculated the decline in interest in England,
========
Is there?????
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Busby suggested extending the tournament makes it less exciting. For a fan of England I agree, we'd be less interested or excited about a group game between two of the smaller nations. However for UEFA its bums on seats and exciting for nations who don't usually qualify so evens out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I suspect it's simpler than this and just about the total product and market. More matches + more countries involved = more revenue. I doubt that revenue from the English market is reduced by increasing the size of the tournament, even if our fans think they prefer fewer teams and don't tune into all the games.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed - all about maximising the $ - rapacious greed.

My one hope is that all this greed coming on top of all the corruption eventually leads to the destruction of FIFA & UEFA. They are doing no favours to the players and clubs with expensive assets. If the catalyst is the Saudis or the Americans I don't really care the game needs a shake up. Yes, every stakeholder has their own selfish interests at heart but there still seems plenty room for expansion if it is done more controlled which needs everyone to give a bit.

So, sure, that last bit means it is unlikely but the global market is such that the incentive is still there. I could prattle on with ideas but the first thing happens is small minded fans shoot down change 'cos wiv bin doin this fine last hundred years, mate'.

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

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.

Should thr euros have no qualifiers in other words?

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)

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.

Could do it like the Snooker. Top 16 automatic plus 16 qualifiers

Personally, I’d love fewer qualifiers, 32 teams in the finals, and a straight knockout competition.

(Which is obviously never going to happen.)

Yeah the qualifiers is a boring distraction during the league season, have less qualifiers if it means a few extra teams in the finals

30 years ago there probably wasn't even 32 countries in the whole of Old Yurop

32 would be better than 24. three out of four progressing in a group is an absolutely horrific format.