Euro expansion to 24 teams!?!??

[thetrooper37]

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

I think it'll be for the better

 

[yoyo913]

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

 

[theo]

more football =

 

[Tosiek]

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

My thoughts exactly.

 

[pede54]

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 =

 

[Tom]

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

 

[Zlatan]

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.

 

[Tom]

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

 

[Rocky]

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

 

[yoyo913]

Maybe England will make it now






someone had to

 

[pede54]

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.

 

[Tom]

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.

 

[newbie original]

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.

 

[RobbieD_PL]

Hopefully they would expand the tournament for 2012 but oh well

 

[Johnny_Big]

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.

 

[Sevillista]

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?

 

[$teauA]

Good move

 

[thetrooper37]

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.

 

[MaestroZidane]

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

 

[lucacalciatore]

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