And the host nation for Euro 2020 is... Nobody?

[bflefc]

To be fair the travelling times between London Paris Amsterdam Milan and Munich wont be that dissimilar to that of polish public transport, and probably far easier than Ukrainian. It took me over 5 hours to get from Krakow to Lviv, an equivalent journey in western Europe would have taken no more than 2 hours.

I still think its a bad idea but travelling from one city to another wont be that bad, unless they chuck in Moscow

But one of the main contributing factors to such low travelling fan numbers during Euro 2012 was the logistical nightmare. Long distances and a choice between extortionate air fares, or laborious train/road journeys put huge swathes of usual fans off.

So, what have the illustrious powerbrokers decided to remedy this? Make it even more widespread. It beggars belief. At least when travelling between Donetsk and Kyiv, for example, fans could stop-off en route and be in a town or city that, too, was embracing the Euro 2012 party, even if it wasn't a host city (many cities out here in Ukraine had Fan Zones even if they weren't a host city). So, you could stop off in Poltava or Dnipropetrovsk, stay the night to break your journey up, and mingle with other nations' fans in the fan zones whilst watching games of giant screens. I just don't see that being the case in this proposed format, as it'll be spread too far and wide.

And as for Moscow - I'd bet a month's salary that they'll be included.

 

[EFCNIK]

Oh look Brennan, everyone agrees with you.

 

[EFCNIK]

And reading everyone elses opinions on why its such a bad idea is making me even more gutted about it.

It really is an appalling idea.

 

[wandyr79]

have you ever been to a tournament? I can't believe you've posted that nonsense, sorry.

So you want to pitch up in Paris, Barcelona, Munich et al to see England v Finland. None of the locals interested, apart from the corporate johnnies. No real buzz about the place as there's no identity attached to it as its spread too far and wide.

The real fun in a tournament is mooching around - AT EASE - the different host cities and grounds, blimping all the hot birds from the various nations and also the hosts going out of their way to make it feel like one, long football and fanny fest.

The first knock-out round venues won't be known until the group stages are over, as they are to be played at neutral venues. So, we've then got no idea whatsoever where we'll be playing next, and we'll all have to get online to try and nail decent flights.

And if anyone thinks the airlines will be charitable enough to put on "decent offers" for travelling fans, then you really are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Can't disagree with any of that or anything else you said to be honest, one of the first things I thought was the knockout stages and how they would work.

Imagine having to fly back and forth from your own country to 2,3,4,5 over the course of 3 weeks trying to find the best 'deals' more or less as soon as you get back to home. Unless you can afford to stay extra days in hotels at short notice I very much doubt the logisitics will suit the average fan who would normally be able to sort everything in one go dependent on the set plan devised before a ball is even kicked.

Awful idea unless there is a miracle and they can sort it, but I very much doubt that UEFA will be able to plan this so it is easier for fans to get around and watch some football.

 

[ArtetaMagic]

Not really sure what the problem is with this tbh. If we're talking major cities then travel plans will actually be made easier. Sure, it might be more expensive, but you can guarantee airlines will run deals which allow the hardcore fans to see all of the games.

Could be good, bit stupid bashing it before the proper plans have even come out. I'd much rather go to Paris, Barcelona and Munich to watch group games than three matches in Poland.

Cant agree, I was in Poland this year for 3 games and it was f***ing immense. Plus I got to see places I wouldnt normally

 

[billycopper]

There did seem to be some sensible reasons behind it:

1. The tournament is expanding to 24 teams and few countries have the facilities to host that many sides.
2. Because of the global recession it would be too much to ask one nation to pay for the competition.
3. There are major European cities that would never be able to host a game otherwise because their country is too small.
4. It is the 60th year of the Euros and is one way to include as many countries as possible.

If they left it as it is it would keep cycling between the same handful of nations. The idea of the competition is to be as inclusive as possible and to introduce football to new people. As an experiment I don't have a problem with it.

 

[Allezfan]

If they left it as it is it would keep cycling between the same handful of nations.

The 14 tournaments so far have had 15 different hosts and two more countries who hosted world cups have been overlooked. But do go on.

(And yes it's different because they're expanding it to 24 teams. That's one more reson not to expand it to 24 teams then isn't it.)

 

[billycopper]

The 14 tournaments so far have had 15 different hosts and two more countries who hosted world cups have been overlooked. But do go on.

(And yes it's different because they're expanding it to 24 teams. That's one more reson not to expand it to 24 teams then isn't it.)

Host nations:

1960 France- No problem with them hosting it again, I expect.
1964 Spain- Ditto
1968 Italy- Fine
1972 Belgium- They'd have to do it jointly again.
1976 Yugoslavia- I can't see Serbia or Croatia holding a joint tournament.
1980 Italy- No problems.
1984 France- Again.
1988 (West) Germany- Fine.
1992 Sweden- Maybe a joint bid needed with Denmark or Norway?
1996 England- Sorted.
2000 Belgium & Holland- Fine.
2004 Portugal- Fine, I expect.
2008 Austria & Switzerland- Maybe a bit stretched?
2012 Poland & Ukraine- Same?

I think Turkey and Greece are about the only two countries who haven't had it who feasibly could. Places like Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Czech Republic, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovakia probably have a national stadium that is up to standard and possibly a couple of other venues at a push. The likes of Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bosnia, Albania and Macedonia would have no chance.

There isn't anywhere near the same money involved with the Euros as there is with the World Cup, so countries can't just start building stadia and infrastructure. And it would get a bit ridiculous if you had to start clustering countries together.

If they can have 24 teams in the finals most countries will get to experience it and there will be less need for qualifying games, which will mean less arduous schedules for players. There are plenty of reasons to consider it.

 

[billycopper]

So the top 24 ranked European countries are:

Spain, Germany, Portugal, Italy, England, Netherlands, Russia, Croatia, Greece, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Czech Republic, Norway, Hungary, Bosnia, Montenegro, Republic of Ireland, Romania, Turkey, Bulgaria and Serbia.

Nations below the cut off include:

Slovakia, Slovenia, Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Wales, Scotland, Albania, Austria, Armenia, Macedonia, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Northern Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Malta, Liechtenstein, Faroe Islands, Andorra, Belarus, Gibraltar, Israel and San Marino.

It probably will be a logistical nightmare but there's enough good footballing nations on our continent to be able to expand the tournament without diluting the quality.

 

[Allezfan]

Given that there were only four good teams at euro 2012, I have my doubts. We had four complete walkovers in the quarters.

A 24 team tournament removes the drama from the qualifiers, it removes the drama from the groups and it means the logistics are so much more complicated that half the countries in europe can't host it anymore so we're having a tournament with none of the actual advantages of a tournament.

 

[Allezfan]

Oh and gibraltar will lose the vote in 2013. They're never going to become a member of UEFA.

 

[peteblue]

I fancy Gibraltar for 2020........

 

[billycopper]

Given that there were only four good teams at euro 2012, I have my doubts. We had four complete walkovers in the quarters.

A 24 team tournament removes the drama from the qualifiers, it removes the drama from the groups and it means the logistics are so much more complicated that half the countries in europe can't host it anymore so we're having a tournament with none of the actual advantages of a tournament.

Europe has 8 of the 10 highest-ranked countries in the world and there are a further 9 in the top 30.

There are around 54 UEFA countries. There were 9 qualifying groups for Euro 2012. The winner and the best overall runner-up went through and a further 4 places were contested by play-offs. The change will most likely see the top 2 in each group going through and then 4 of the 9 third placed teams, presuming that the tournament is co-hosted.

I'd like to see as many deserving teams as possible make it to the finals and I see qualification as a way of keeping numbers to a manageable level rather than a competition in itself.

I think it is too harsh at the moment. For example Belgium would have needed to beat Germany and Turkey to top spot to guarantee qualification. Norway had a group containing Denmark and Portugal, whilst Scotland had Spain and the Czech Republic to contend with. Even if the Jocks could have managed one result against a top nation they're never going to be able to sustain it over 8-11 matches. The way it's set up at the moment the smaller (and even some of the medium-sized) countries must be thinking 'why bother?'

 

[Allezfan]

The ranking system is biased in favour of europe, though because you get more points for beating people already high in the rankings so it perputates an elite. Anyone who honestly thinks 8 out of the 10 best countries in the world are european needs to explain why only 3 of the last 8 in 2012 were european.

And as for qualification being too harsh. Well, the likes of norway will go from being dumped out in qualifying to being dumped out in the group stages. The best will get through regardless, why does it matter which stage it happens.