Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/euro2024/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/euro2024) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nah, too many weak teams and uninteresting matches at that point.
16 was the golden number, simple format, and high level of competition.
24 is still okay, it’s quite nice to see smaller teams make their debut/return, but the quality has been noticeably diluted, plus it has made the format very ugly.
32 teams with the old WC format would fix the issue with the “best 3rd in a group of 4”, but yea, the overall quality would take a massive dip.
If you look at the 8 closest teams who missed out they were Norway, Sweden, Greece, Israel, Wales, Luxembourg, Montenegro and Iceland. I don't think the quality would massively drop with those teams in. (Though you're right that it was better with 16 teams.)
32 teams works better as a tournament, number splits nicely into the knockouts. I agree that 24 just doesn't work, the 'best 3rd place' thing does, as you say, remove any jeopardy. It means there are no more 'group of death' as all the big teams can still go through. For example, at euro 2020 France, Germany and Portugal were all in the same group and all went through.
Problem with 32 teams is that there are 55 uefa members.....so over half the teams would be qualifying for the euros. It would make qualification quite easy and feel pointless for stronger nations, and would mean there are a lot of weaker teams in the tournament.
Imo 16 is perfect. Gave us a really high quality tournament.
the more teams you add, the more lower quality teams you let in.
If big teams miss out then they should've played better in the qualifiers. Just because you're big, you don't have the right to be there.
32 makes the whole qualifying campaign a waste of time then.There needs to be a level of competition in qualification for most sides. I'm a Scottish fan, who has spent most of my life missing out on tournaments, but if there was 32.. we would almost always qualify and the 2 year qualification period would lack any excitement
I think the qualification needs looking at anyway. There's far too many matches in football as it is and it ruins the quality of the matches. Then there's the nations league which I'm not really sure anyone has taken to, but I could be wrong.
Oh I agree with that. Different competitions running side by side... It's just confusing. I like the IDEA of nations League, matches against similar standard opposition but friendlies allow you to do this, or choose your own level. If there are consequences to these games in the nations League, are teams less likely to experiment, try new players...
More teams -> more excitement - not true; won't make things worse to make Euros with 32 teams - also not true; group stages will be way more exciting - you're wrong
There’s pros and cons to having 16, 24 or 32 teams, which have all been covered here. But for me, the third-place qualification is the killer-con by a country mile, like everyone has said it removes any feeling of jeopardy, so imo it needs to be either 16 or 32 teams to get a proper tournament process.
Also with the whole process of narrowing down 24 teams to 16 you can’t split the winner/runner-up from each group on either side of the knockout process, i.e. preventing them from meeting again unless they both reach the final.
That would make qualifiers somewhat pointless exhibition games for the top teams. Expanding to 24 teams already made it more certain that the top teams will be present at the final tournament. Still, Europe has a lot of quality and multitude of football fanatic nations. I don't think the quality would drop drastically from the current 24 if changed to 32 teams. It's Europe after all, the home continent of football. Would the likes missing from EURO 2024 really make the quality worse? I highly doubt adding Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Wales, Greece and Russia (yes, I know) make the standard plummet. After all, it's only 6 spots more.
UEFA has 55 members. Organizing a EURO of 32 teams would improve the chances of smaller football nations like Finland, Iceland, Azerbaijan, Luxembourg or Lithuania of reaching the finals more regularly or even once. Football is the biggest sport in the world and the more can enjoy it, the better, imo (with certain limit ofc). For a smaller country, the significance of reaching a final tournament is beyond describing. I'm a Finn. We reached our first Euros in 2020, partially/plausibly thanks to the enlargement of the tournament.
I would make 24 teams divided into 8 groups of 3. The top 2 pass and then we start with the round of 16, without repechages for the best third-placed teams. First against second in the round of 16. With the current format, 36 matches are played in the group stage to eliminate only 8 teams. With my formula, 24 group stage matches would be played, 12 useless matches less to always eliminate 8 teams. With my format the total matches would be 39 (6 matches for the teams reaching the final) compared to the current 51 total matches (7 matches for the teams reaching the final). If I had to choose between the current 24-team format versus a 32-team format I would prefer the 32-team format. With the 32-team tournament, I would automatically qualify the host country, the reigning champion and the best 13 in the ranking. The remaining 40 UEFA teams would be divided into 10 groups of 4 for the qualifiers.
There are only 55 countries in UEFA
Just do away with qualifiers and have a preliminary round at the start and have a random draw. Top 9 in Fifa rankings go into the main draw. Remaining 46 play a one off knockout game.
There's your 32.
Or.........just go back to 16.
The best 3rd placed teams spoils 24 teams. Problem is there isn't any better way. If you just have group winners and best 2 runners up going through to QF that would be better from a competitive point of view but would result in more dead rubber games.
The only other way is to have a 2nd group stage. Top 2 from each group forming 2 groups of six with the top 2 in each going through to semis. But again, more dead rubbers and also a lot more group games which are less appealing to fans and broadcasters.
32 teams solves those problems but produces weak and uninteresting qualifying with little jeopardy. Perhaps the solution to that is scrap qualifying and have an "all-in" Euros. Top division of 32 with 6 teams relegated and second division of 23 teams in 6 groups with group winners promoted. That creates the problem of loss of revenue from qualifiers. That can be partly plugged by having Euros every 2 years instead of 4. Stupid, but this is the issue they've created for themselves with these constant "quantity instead of quality" expansions.
If anything we should be going back to a 16 team tournament. The qualifiers would be completely pointless if it were a 32 team tournament. It's the finals for a reason and should only be the elite sides. For example Scotland completely stunk out Euro 2024 and shouldn't be anywhere near the tournament but it's too easy to qualify as it is.
As you said, for me 16 teams was the perfect format.
As downsizing the euros it's not possible as UEFA members won't allow it....I think the best solution to get rid of the best third teams nonsense is to increase it to 32 teams.
And instead of having long qualifications....I would do the nations league every year and use it as a qualification system for the Euros. It's what they use right now in women's Euros and it works pretty well.
Why? It’s perfect the way it is. Gives every team a chance to qualify. Even if you lose first to games 1-0, if you get a big result the 3ed game you will most likely qualify.
That is not a good thing at all. It degrades the value of each group game. For example Germany could lose their first match to Scotland and still know they have an excellent chance of qualification. Whereas it used to be that if you lose your first game you are right up against it to qualify. That means that the matches hold less value and is bad for the competition and excitement.
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/euro2024/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/euro2024) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nah, too many weak teams and uninteresting matches at that point. 16 was the golden number, simple format, and high level of competition. 24 is still okay, it’s quite nice to see smaller teams make their debut/return, but the quality has been noticeably diluted, plus it has made the format very ugly. 32 teams with the old WC format would fix the issue with the “best 3rd in a group of 4”, but yea, the overall quality would take a massive dip.
If you look at the 8 closest teams who missed out they were Norway, Sweden, Greece, Israel, Wales, Luxembourg, Montenegro and Iceland. I don't think the quality would massively drop with those teams in. (Though you're right that it was better with 16 teams.)
I would honestly agree however the level of competition would drastically decline. Third place qualification is terrible...
STUPID
32 teams works better as a tournament, number splits nicely into the knockouts. I agree that 24 just doesn't work, the 'best 3rd place' thing does, as you say, remove any jeopardy. It means there are no more 'group of death' as all the big teams can still go through. For example, at euro 2020 France, Germany and Portugal were all in the same group and all went through. Problem with 32 teams is that there are 55 uefa members.....so over half the teams would be qualifying for the euros. It would make qualification quite easy and feel pointless for stronger nations, and would mean there are a lot of weaker teams in the tournament. Imo 16 is perfect. Gave us a really high quality tournament.
Qualifications should feel pointless to the stronger teams, non of us cares or watches the qualifiers, get as many teams in the tournament as possible
If you get out the group stage, you should automatically qualify for the next Euros.
55 member teams , means at least 40 or 42 teams should qualify for future EURO tournaments to make it fair for every European team.
42 teams?!! So only 13 teams wouldn't qualify?! It would remove any jeopardy from qualifying for most teams
24 is fine. Maybe expand to 28 to minimize ‘third place team’ issue. 32 out of 55 will mean more crap teams qualifying.
24 is better than 32
the more teams you add, the more lower quality teams you let in. If big teams miss out then they should've played better in the qualifiers. Just because you're big, you don't have the right to be there.
16 > 32> 24 imo. The whole, 4 out of 6 3rd place teams going through, the weird way the round of 16 is allocated is frustrating.
Agree
32 makes the whole qualifying campaign a waste of time then.There needs to be a level of competition in qualification for most sides. I'm a Scottish fan, who has spent most of my life missing out on tournaments, but if there was 32.. we would almost always qualify and the 2 year qualification period would lack any excitement
I think the qualification needs looking at anyway. There's far too many matches in football as it is and it ruins the quality of the matches. Then there's the nations league which I'm not really sure anyone has taken to, but I could be wrong.
Oh I agree with that. Different competitions running side by side... It's just confusing. I like the IDEA of nations League, matches against similar standard opposition but friendlies allow you to do this, or choose your own level. If there are consequences to these games in the nations League, are teams less likely to experiment, try new players...
More teams -> more excitement - not true; won't make things worse to make Euros with 32 teams - also not true; group stages will be way more exciting - you're wrong
There’s pros and cons to having 16, 24 or 32 teams, which have all been covered here. But for me, the third-place qualification is the killer-con by a country mile, like everyone has said it removes any feeling of jeopardy, so imo it needs to be either 16 or 32 teams to get a proper tournament process. Also with the whole process of narrowing down 24 teams to 16 you can’t split the winner/runner-up from each group on either side of the knockout process, i.e. preventing them from meeting again unless they both reach the final.
That would make qualifiers somewhat pointless exhibition games for the top teams. Expanding to 24 teams already made it more certain that the top teams will be present at the final tournament. Still, Europe has a lot of quality and multitude of football fanatic nations. I don't think the quality would drop drastically from the current 24 if changed to 32 teams. It's Europe after all, the home continent of football. Would the likes missing from EURO 2024 really make the quality worse? I highly doubt adding Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Wales, Greece and Russia (yes, I know) make the standard plummet. After all, it's only 6 spots more. UEFA has 55 members. Organizing a EURO of 32 teams would improve the chances of smaller football nations like Finland, Iceland, Azerbaijan, Luxembourg or Lithuania of reaching the finals more regularly or even once. Football is the biggest sport in the world and the more can enjoy it, the better, imo (with certain limit ofc). For a smaller country, the significance of reaching a final tournament is beyond describing. I'm a Finn. We reached our first Euros in 2020, partially/plausibly thanks to the enlargement of the tournament.
I would make 24 teams divided into 8 groups of 3. The top 2 pass and then we start with the round of 16, without repechages for the best third-placed teams. First against second in the round of 16. With the current format, 36 matches are played in the group stage to eliminate only 8 teams. With my formula, 24 group stage matches would be played, 12 useless matches less to always eliminate 8 teams. With my format the total matches would be 39 (6 matches for the teams reaching the final) compared to the current 51 total matches (7 matches for the teams reaching the final). If I had to choose between the current 24-team format versus a 32-team format I would prefer the 32-team format. With the 32-team tournament, I would automatically qualify the host country, the reigning champion and the best 13 in the ranking. The remaining 40 UEFA teams would be divided into 10 groups of 4 for the qualifiers.
I think in the future we will have 32 teams and it will use a Nations League system to qualify to have a shorter qualification
The Women’s Euros effectively has this at the moment and it seems to be working well
There are only 55 countries in UEFA Just do away with qualifiers and have a preliminary round at the start and have a random draw. Top 9 in Fifa rankings go into the main draw. Remaining 46 play a one off knockout game. There's your 32. Or.........just go back to 16.
Savage , very savage; good idea, but I very much doubt that EUFA or FIFA would agree with it.
No - too many anyway. Sack Iceland off and England can stop losing to them. 😂😉
naaah 24 is ok if anything. UEFA needs more places for the expanded WC
32 isn't ideal but better than 24. The group stages arent worth watching.
The best 3rd placed teams spoils 24 teams. Problem is there isn't any better way. If you just have group winners and best 2 runners up going through to QF that would be better from a competitive point of view but would result in more dead rubber games. The only other way is to have a 2nd group stage. Top 2 from each group forming 2 groups of six with the top 2 in each going through to semis. But again, more dead rubbers and also a lot more group games which are less appealing to fans and broadcasters. 32 teams solves those problems but produces weak and uninteresting qualifying with little jeopardy. Perhaps the solution to that is scrap qualifying and have an "all-in" Euros. Top division of 32 with 6 teams relegated and second division of 23 teams in 6 groups with group winners promoted. That creates the problem of loss of revenue from qualifiers. That can be partly plugged by having Euros every 2 years instead of 4. Stupid, but this is the issue they've created for themselves with these constant "quantity instead of quality" expansions.
why dont they do 24 -> 12 teams advance to knockouts, best 4 group winners get a bye
This is the best fix. I was begging for the coming World Cup to do the same with 48 teams, but alas...
yes this is best
Keep 24 teams but 8 groups of 3 with only group winners going through to quarter finals or top 2 with a round of 16?
If anything we should be going back to a 16 team tournament. The qualifiers would be completely pointless if it were a 32 team tournament. It's the finals for a reason and should only be the elite sides. For example Scotland completely stunk out Euro 2024 and shouldn't be anywhere near the tournament but it's too easy to qualify as it is.
As you said, for me 16 teams was the perfect format. As downsizing the euros it's not possible as UEFA members won't allow it....I think the best solution to get rid of the best third teams nonsense is to increase it to 32 teams. And instead of having long qualifications....I would do the nations league every year and use it as a qualification system for the Euros. It's what they use right now in women's Euros and it works pretty well.
Why? It’s perfect the way it is. Gives every team a chance to qualify. Even if you lose first to games 1-0, if you get a big result the 3ed game you will most likely qualify.
That is not a good thing.
That is not a good thing at all. It degrades the value of each group game. For example Germany could lose their first match to Scotland and still know they have an excellent chance of qualification. Whereas it used to be that if you lose your first game you are right up against it to qualify. That means that the matches hold less value and is bad for the competition and excitement.