http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8652_3750711,00.html

I think it'll be for the better

Nah I prefer it with 16, better quality teams... atleast its happening in 2016 right?

more football = (Y)

Nah I prefer it with 16, better quality teams...

My thoughts exactly.

The more the merrier. Quality won't be an issue if more teams participate. If a team is that bad they will go out during the group stages anyway.

If you are worried that the quality will be affected, well we have seen some crap football from some of the teams that made it to the finals this time around, so I don't see the point in that argument.

The competition will be opened up to a broader range of fans too, and from our point of view, as fans, should be welcomed. Unless you consider yourself or your National team to be some sort of elite, that are too "special" to play against teams you consider to be of a lesser calibre. That's football snobbery.

As Theo said, more football =(Y)

It's about bloody time. Totally agree with Pete and Theo.

(Y)(Y)(Y)

I don't know about this. I don't think that there are that many good teams in Europe. This is important IMO, because I find this Euro for example much more enjoyable than the WC 2006. The football is much better and I think this for an important part thanks to the fact that, with all do respect, country's like Trinidad & Tobago don't participate. Those teams play very defensive, which is understandable, but it does make matches more boring.

Think of the teams that missed out, there's definitely scope for 24 "good" teams in the tournament.

24 teams would mean that practically half of UEFA's members would make it to the tournament itself. No Thank you, 16 is fine.

Maybe England will make it now




(H)

someone had to

People were saying that 8 teams were enough when UEFA allowed 16 teams to participate in Euro '96, and that was a hugely successful competition.

If you are not willing to think of the teams that missed out, then think of the fans that missed out. Football has always supposed to have been "for the fans". That includes as many fans from as many countries as possible surely.

Well what do you guys prefer, the World Cup, which lasts longer, or the Euros, which are shorter?

I'd take a World Cup ANYDAY over the Euros, and it's not just for the sake of having Brazil in it.

Expansion will be good. More teams, more games....

Should have happened sooner....this year would have been ideal. 12 years with 16 teams is long enough.

Hopefully they would expand the tournament for 2012 but oh well :(

Yeah, let's hope Malta qualifies!

...

Please, 16 teams is enough. I think the World Cup is the one that needs an expansion, not the Euro.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We've just seen one of the best Euros of all time (footballwise). Why change it?

Good move (Y)

Yeah, let's hope Malta qualifies!

...

Please, 16 teams is enough. I think the World Cup is the one that needs an expansion, not the Euro.

this isn't about nations like Malta...they hardly ever get away from last spot in qualifying. It's about the nations that miss out because of a 1 point difference, or maybe even a goal difference. I think that all the countries Platini lists in that interview are capable of competing in the EURO. Here's the list:

England, Denmark, Scotland, Ireland, Belgium, Serbia, Ukraine and Bulgaria

Off the top of my head...I know that England and Bulgaria missed out by a point each... Scotland had Italy and France in their group so they were pretty much screwed from the beginning.

I would add Israel to that list.. They really competed hard in the qualifiers. Would have been great to see them qualify

I like this idea of 24 teams.
I hope that UEFA go thorugh with it.

Definitely a good thing. The more teams, the more quality you need to win it.
































Also maybe now we can get in. (H)

I think it's a good idea. The World Cup has far more teams, and games, and every time the Euros are on and we get to the final I can't help thinking how short its been. Doesn't seem right to have the quarters straight after a group stage.
The reason we had so few teams was really when there were less serious football nations in Europe. It's all changed now since the breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia going too. So, we really should have more than just the current 16 imo.
Would it happen in time for Poland/Ukraine though?

this isn't about nations like Malta...they hardly ever get away from last spot in qualifying. It's about the nations that miss out because of a 1 point difference, or maybe even a goal difference. I think that all the countries Platini lists in that interview are capable of competing in the EURO. Here's the list:

England, Denmark, Scotland, Ireland, Belgium, Serbia, Ukraine and Bulgaria

Off the top of my head...I know that England and Bulgaria missed out by a point each... Scotland had Italy and France in their group so they were pretty much screwed from the beginning.

If they couldn't qualify, it's their fault. Your point?

Getting it to 24 teams will also bring the same teams, FOREVER. It's not like San Marino or Andorra will pull amazing stuff in the next 50 years. Then the qualifying part is useless, right?

Trying to see my point?

If they couldn't qualify, it's their fault. Your point?

Getting it to 24 teams will also bring the same teams, FOREVER. It's not like San Marino or Andorra will pull amazing stuff in the next 50 years. Then the qualifying part is useless, right?

Trying to see my point?
My thoughts exactly :read:

Besides, we don't want teams like England mucking up the tournament ;)

^ (H) (H)

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if UEFA tried once doing it for 24 teams. But surely it would be a miss, and 4 years later it would come to the old fashion 16 teams.

It just doesn't make sense.

Just out of curiosity, how would the format go???
4x6? Top 2 qualify? or 6x4 with top 2 qualify and 2 best 3rd place ala USA '94?

^^ Yes, the only problem would be the format, actually (Y)





Come on you guys are arguing that it's not worth it because then the same teams would always qualify? Have you been watching football for the past 50 years? The same teams always qualify already, man.
And the argument that it would bring down quality is just stupid.

The last World Cup alone had 13 European teams, so when it's just Europe fighting for the trophy, why the hell should it be only three more? Nah, I say good move by UEFA, and that's something I don't get to say.....ever.

It would also encourage the smaller teams to improve so they can reach a major final. It'll be more accessible. The likes of Israel can get there (even though they ain't from Europe!) and you would have some of the best fans in Europe (Scottish, Irish, Welsh and English (apart from that stupid band)) making it a more colourful place.

Austria and Switzerland were in it this year as hosts, would they have qualified out of a group? Debatable. Quality won't be an issue.

24 teams would be good I think. More football, and if you think about it. We're 16 now, and if we add Serbia, Norway, Denmark, England, Ukraine, Scotland, Israel and Bosnia, we would have some other great teams in this competition too.

In 2016.. well, just one euro left then. And I hope UEFA give Norway/Sweden the Euro in 2016.

certainly good things for some teams who can't qualify this time around.

I like it. :redface:

Yeah, Norway vs Greece, what a great match to look forward to!

Then other teams should let Poland to win the WC in RSA because we've never won it. If it works like this I have anything against but if not then no.

Yeah, Norway vs Greece, what a great match to look forward to!

Well, Greece were champions. And I don't see any law saying only teams with that play fantastic football are allowed. Because then Germany wouldn't even be there.

Besides, we don't want teams like England mucking up the tournament ;)


Nah, you'll have to do better than that mate. Much too obvious.:D

Good Idea!

A 64 or 48 Team WC will be good, but it will make it boring ala Ruby and Cricket World Cups....

Oh come oooon nobody's talking about the world cup here

More teams means more football to watch, which is a good thing, but no team that finishes third in their group should ever move on to the knockout stages.

Oh come oooon nobody's talking about the world cup here

It was just a suggestion...Just thought right to talk abt the WC as well.....

I actually thought you were being sarcastic lol

maybe would be better if lasts more than 3 weeks or the currently ch'ship.

It would great for 'small' teams :)

for football, don't know, till I see it I cant say anything :)

Yeah, Norway vs Greece, what a great match to look forward to!

Well, if goals like this one (http://youtube.com/watch?v=sHaL9YSXtbY) show up, I don't see why Greece-Norway shouldn't be good.

More teams means more football to watch, which is a good thing, but no team that finishes third in their group should ever move on to the knockout stages.

why the hell not? How have people not learned that anything is possible in this sport? Let me remind you again, Greece were EUROPEAN CHAMPIONS.

What I'm saying is, what the hell is the point of the group stage, if only one team from a group doesn't make it out of it? Otherwise, just scrap that, and start with knockouts right away.

(I'm talking about the finals, not qualification)

More teams = more football is great and does look very attractive. But as pointed out earlier, this would mean that half the teams in europe would make it. Just making it to the EURO for teams is like a huge celebration and big priviledge because of how hard it is to finish in top 2. But with an extra spot in each qualifying group its gonna be easier to make it to the final and i feel that that feeling won't be as satisfying.


You want more football? We already get only a 1 month break from football in a whole year, if you are really desperate watch some Intertoto Cup for god's sake. Even though i should be supporting this because that would mean that Belarus might actually end up making it, i just don't see a reason in this apart from UEFA making more money and countries like Scotland actually finally making it to the competition. And how will the format go again? Don't complain that there is not enough football to watch, in 3-4 weeks the pre season friendlies will be underway in full swing.

More games = more revenue, so there's a huge plus point. Eight teams that came close to qualifying:

Scotland
Northern Ireland
Denmark
England
Norway
Bulgaria
Republic of Ireland(I think)
Ukraine(I think)

Malta who? If it does reduce the level of play, it will STILL be significantly higher than that of the World Cup. Personally, I'd like to see this tournament play out over an extra week so I don't have a problem with expansion.

Finland got close too. (Y)(H)

We somehow got close, even though we were extremely poor.

Hmm, as much as more football would be great, i can't help but think of the pointlessness of qualifying with half the confederation qualifying for a Finals of 24 teams.... Having teams like Ukraine in the fourth spot of a qualifying group would really screw around with teams who get there. Essentially it'd be the top three from each group (going on the format used for this EURO) (3x7=21) plus one or two very lucky fourth placers.

EDIT: Why doesn't UEFA admit some more members? Three that instantly spring to mind are Monaco, the Aland Islands, and maybe Greenland as well.
Also, the other 4 remaining stan countries that are in the AFC would make the total member assoc's = 60. I think that'd increase the competitive scope over more than just half of UEFA.

The more the merrier. Quality won't be an issue if more teams participate. If a team is that bad they will go out during the group stages anyway.

(Y)

Yeh like England. Then again the gap isnt that wide. Its just getting highly played players with egos to play together. Cant be that hard for Capello. 24 teams will be good. But I didnt really pay attention. I'm only interested in the world cup etc.

Apart from Spain and Italy and Holland many of the teams were playing poor anyway.

Yeh like England. Then again the gap isnt that wide. Its just getting highly played players with egos to play together. Cant be that hard for Capello. 24 teams will be good. But I didnt really pay attention. I'm only interested in the world cup etc.

Apart from Spain and Italy and Holland many of the teams were playing poor anyway.

You think Italy was playing good? :nape:

Yeh like England. Then again the gap isnt that wide.

Actually England have never failed to go through from the group stages. I think you must be getting confused between the "Group stages" and "Qualifying stages".

Its just getting highly played players with egos to play together. Cant be that hard for Capello.

Well it can't be hard for any decent coach to get the best out of them. Unfortunately McClaren was a particularly bad one, which was the reason we failed to qualify for Euro '08 and not the tabloid reason. Which is strangely enough, identical to your own reason.

24 teams will be good.

Ah at last, a relevant comment for the thread.

But I didnt really pay attention.

Yeah I noticed mate.

I'm only interested in the world cup etc.

etc?

Apart from Spain and Italy and Holland many of the teams were playing poor anyway.

Have you ever seen an International football tournament, where ALL the teams perform wonderfully? I never have. I do see teams that are beaten along the way, but that's rarely because they play "poor". It's usually because they play a better team.

Hmm, as much as more football would be great, i can't help but think of the pointlessness of qualifying with half the confederation qualifying for a Finals of 24 teams.... Having teams like Ukraine in the fourth spot of a qualifying group would really screw around with teams who get there. Essentially it'd be the top three from each group (going on the format used for this EURO) (3x7=21) plus one or two very lucky fourth placers.

EDIT: Why doesn't UEFA admit some more members? Three that instantly spring to mind are Monaco, the Aland Islands, and maybe Greenland as well.
Also, the other 4 remaining stan countries that are in the AFC would make the total member assoc's = 60. I think that'd increase the competitive scope over more than just half of UEFA.

Kosovo applied, but like Gibraltar they'll probably be blocked. Greenland will go to CONCACAF when admitted, it makes more sense for them.

Yeh like England. Then again the gap isnt that wide. Its just getting highly played players with egos to play together. Cant be that hard for Capello. 24 teams will be good. But I didnt really pay attention. I'm only interested in the world cup etc.

Apart from Spain and Italy and Holland many of the teams were playing poor anyway.

How long have you been watching football?

16 teams is enough IMO. Longer summer tournaments will also be bad for the clubs in the pre season. Look at the this Euro, I think it is a far better tourney than the WC 2006.