32 team Euro?
- Thread starter Man-United
- Start date
Probably will, money talks, even if it weakens the product from an entertainment standpoint.
32 would be better than 24, the group stages are naff when most 3rd place teams qualify anyway.
Probably need to make the qualification process shorter though, as 32 teams qualifying would lead to a lot of dud games if it was a similar format to how it is currently.
Probably need to make the qualification process shorter though, as 32 teams qualifying would lead to a lot of dud games if it was a similar format to how it is currently.
16>32>24
I mean I’m against it on principle, but I quite happily watched North Macedonia vs Austria a couple of weeks ago, so I’ll be loving the extra matches when it comes to it.
This. But it's not going back to 16, so 32 is the lesser of two evils.
The third placed teams qualifying is dumb and to be fair some of the smaller nations have provided some great games.
Pros and cons.
You'll have a more structure, as the 3rd place teams going through is utter nonsense.
You'll also give more chance to world minnows like North Macdeonia, San Marino, Falkland Islands, Scotland, and the like getting to a rare tournament.
But it makes the qualifiers an even sillier procession for a lot of teams.
Who can remember when we had the likes of Italy in our group, and it wasn't a given that both would go through?
When was the last time we had a qualifying group we wouldn't storm through? Doesn't happen anymore.
You'll have a more structure, as the 3rd place teams going through is utter nonsense.
You'll also give more chance to world minnows like North Macdeonia, San Marino, Falkland Islands, Scotland, and the like getting to a rare tournament.
But it makes the qualifiers an even sillier procession for a lot of teams.
Who can remember when we had the likes of Italy in our group, and it wasn't a given that both would go through?
When was the last time we had a qualifying group we wouldn't storm through? Doesn't happen anymore.
If we're having a last 16 anyway, then 32 makes more sense to me than 3rd placed teams going through, but it does then mean that you've got more teams qualifying than not, which ruins the special feel of an international tournament somewhat. We're almost at half of UEFA's members qualifying anyway, so I suppose a few more doesn't matter.
16 was the sweet spot for the Euros. Same with 32 for the World Cup. 48 team World Cup will be a farce with 2 teams from a group of 3 progressing. May as well have gone to 64 so we could at least stick to groups of 4.
16 was the sweet spot for the Euros. Same with 32 for the World Cup. 48 team World Cup will be a farce with 2 teams from a group of 3 progressing. May as well have gone to 64 so we could at least stick to groups of 4.
They will eventually expand it to 55 teams and insist they still have to play qualifiers where the top 8 teams in a group of 8 qualify.
Yes a thousand times. Purely because it gets rid of this best 3rd place nonsense. It probably will make qualifiers almost redundant as 32 of the 55 uefa members would qualify but feck it. Although the downside is we’ll regularly have to put with with the shite, Wales @Cascarino and Scotland @Mr Pigeon etc. Maybe they can play pre-pre qualifiers or something.
I’d be all for it if they reduced the number of qualifiers. I love the international tournaments, whereas I couldn’t give a shit about the qualifying games.
The one thing I would say a 24 team Euro has over a 32 team Euro is there are no dead group games.
With 32 or 16 team competitions, there are always teams that can't qualify going into the last group game, like England in World Cup 2014. It's not a rare occurrence either, just looking at that World Cup:
Group A, Cameroon couldn't qualify after 2 games.
Group B, both Spain and Australia couldn't qualify after 2 games.
Group E, Hondurus couldn't qualify after 2 games.
And of course England couldn't qualify in Group D
This is made worse in UEFA competitions where head-to-head is used before goal difference, meaning that often, if a team has 1 point after two group games, and they can still match a team on 4 points, they may not be able to qualify past them as they may have lost to them earlier on.
I think a 24 team Euros is fine, but I'd prefer that,
- The four best group winners are placed in positions 1-4. (Teams from lowest letter group placed in 1, Teams from highest letter group placed in 4)
- The two other group winners, and the next two best runners up are placed in position 5-8 (Teams from lowest letter group placed in 5, Teams from highest letter group placed in 8)
- The other four group runner up, are placed in positions 9-12 (Teams from highest letter group placed in 9, Teams from lowest letter group placed in 12)
- The four best third based teams are placed in positions 13-16 (Teams from highest letter group placed in 13, Teams from lowest letter group placed in 16)
In the below bracket.
This should even out the Euros knockouts a lot better and stop one side having all the good teams.
With 32 or 16 team competitions, there are always teams that can't qualify going into the last group game, like England in World Cup 2014. It's not a rare occurrence either, just looking at that World Cup:
Group A, Cameroon couldn't qualify after 2 games.
Group B, both Spain and Australia couldn't qualify after 2 games.
Group E, Hondurus couldn't qualify after 2 games.
And of course England couldn't qualify in Group D
This is made worse in UEFA competitions where head-to-head is used before goal difference, meaning that often, if a team has 1 point after two group games, and they can still match a team on 4 points, they may not be able to qualify past them as they may have lost to them earlier on.
I think a 24 team Euros is fine, but I'd prefer that,
- The four best group winners are placed in positions 1-4. (Teams from lowest letter group placed in 1, Teams from highest letter group placed in 4)
- The two other group winners, and the next two best runners up are placed in position 5-8 (Teams from lowest letter group placed in 5, Teams from highest letter group placed in 8)
- The other four group runner up, are placed in positions 9-12 (Teams from highest letter group placed in 9, Teams from lowest letter group placed in 12)
- The four best third based teams are placed in positions 13-16 (Teams from highest letter group placed in 13, Teams from lowest letter group placed in 16)
In the below bracket.
This should even out the Euros knockouts a lot better and stop one side having all the good teams.
Last edited:
They could do away with qualifying and base it purely off the nations league tables, which could also free the schedule up a bit. Keep qualifying for the World Cup where it is still worth something.
Loving the sly Scotland dig.
Good idea.
We can't sit through loads of these strolls through terrible teams that wouldn't compete in league 1, and watch Kane end up with 200 goals etc.
There has to be some point to it.
It always feels a right hassle when we have to stop for internationals and it stops the premier league as it is.
It was even worse last year as a Wycombe fan as well. We'd have this totally pointless empty 2 weeker, and send off our ONE international!
At least in usual seasons I have my Wycombe to watch instead of United.
24 teams makes the group stage quite interesting to be honest.
Please god no. There were some crap teams in the Euro - Finland, Wales, Macedonia, Scotland, etc. There is really no need to add more.
We'll still find a way not to qualify.
That’s harsh on Wales, they came second in a group of Italy, the Swiss and Turkey. Turkey were heavily touted before the tourney started, the Swiss beat France, as Italy are in the final! There’s also getting to the semi final in the last tournament.
It’s harsh on all smaller teams. Similar would have been said about Denmark a couple of months ago.
Just looked at the tables, and it'd just be Groups A and B. This year only North Macedonia from C made it so it's pretty fair. Maybe a playoff between top of C and bottom of B.
Good idea.
We can't sit through loads of these strolls through terrible teams that wouldn't compete in league 1, and watch Kane end up with 200 goals etc.
There has to be some point to it.
It always feels a right hassle when we have to stop for internationals and it stops the premier league as it is.
It was even worse last year as a Wycombe fan as well. We'd have this totally pointless empty 2 weeker, and send off our ONE international!
At least in usual seasons I have my Wycombe to watch instead of United.
Absolutely hate the pointless international breaks, especially that one like 3 weeks into the season. On the bright side you'll have Wycombe to watch next season! (Pending Derby ofc).
Aye that’s fair. In the last two tourneys, Denmark haven’t qualified and have hit the semis, Wales have hit the semis, and in the other they qualified and got out of tricky group.
I mean this Wales team is a bit shite but it’s weird to hear that kind of talk from a Danish supporter
I like seeing a wide range of teams anyway, and it’s always great to see the traditionally weaker sides do well. So I have no problem with a lot of teams being able to qualify
Nah Derby have already weaseled their way out of it.
Probably a good thing, as we've sold our best two forwards, and lost the 3 quality loanees we had.
So while keeper/defence/mid will be quality in league 1, we're lacking goal threat for that level, let alone the champ!
ps yes that 3 week one is an absolute menace. I think everyone would swap so that it's before it all starts instead, and once the league is up, let it continue.
Sounds more expensive for the hosting nation(s). Could mean only a handful could really host it or requiring 3 nations outside of the 4-5 major ones? Previous joint hosts for 16 teams were Belgium Netherlands, Swiss Austria, Poland Ukraine, I guess they would struggle with 32?
Olympics and World Cups can be a burden so expanding the Euros again is approaching that level.
Olympics and World Cups can be a burden so expanding the Euros again is approaching that level.
Right, just for that remark I'm supporting Italy.
And even then Norway wouldn't qualify!
It’s a good point. Also you have too many low key matches, and you lose interest from the home nation, too many matches won’t be at capacity.
I suppose if players like Haaland are to feature, it has to happen.
The right decision because
1) UEFA should be happy with that too because "More matches = More money".
2) The boring qualification with 10-12 matches will be cancelled.
3) The drop of quality wouldn't be much.
For example......
Group A
France
Russia
Serbia
Northern Ireland
Group B
Germany
Poland
Czech Republic
Slovenia
Group C
Belgium
Austria
Turkey
Norway
Group D
Netherlands
Croatia
Iceland
Greece
Group E
England
Sweden
Ireland
Hungary
Group F
Italy
Switzerland
Finland
Romania
Group G
Portugal
Denmark
Slovakia
Scotland
Group H
Spain
Ukraine
Wales
North Macedonia
1) UEFA should be happy with that too because "More matches = More money".
2) The boring qualification with 10-12 matches will be cancelled.
3) The drop of quality wouldn't be much.
For example......
Group A
France
Russia
Serbia
Northern Ireland
Germany
Poland
Czech Republic
Slovenia
Group C
Belgium
Austria
Turkey
Norway
Group D
Netherlands
Croatia
Iceland
Greece
Group E
England
Sweden
Ireland
Hungary
Group F
Italy
Switzerland
Finland
Romania
Group G
Portugal
Denmark
Slovakia
Scotland
Group H
Spain
Ukraine
Wales
North Macedonia
28 teams with 7 groupes of 4. Top 2 advances and only best two teams from 3th place advances to make the last 16. I think this system is better then the current one where 4 teams out of 6 from 3th place advances.
Meh. I liked the 16-team Euro and the 32-team World Cup. It's supposed to be difficult to qualify for the tournament, and difficult to advance from the group. Playing three games to knock out one team (in most of the groups) is a bit redudant imo. I ended up not watching much until the knockouts started.
Agree. 16 teams for Euros and 32 for WC is the perfect format
Spot on.