Here's a thought: is winning the Euros ugly even winning the Euros at all? For example, remember when Greece won it playing like Pulis' Stoke? Sure, it means something to the fans of whichever nation wins it but does it go down as a timeless victory?
Of course, it's England that's got me thinking about this. I saw the news that Mount, Grealish and Foden could (I'm not sure how reliable David Ornstein is) all be benched and I thought to myself that Southgate is hell bent on shithouseing himself to victory. I'm probably sounding like a massive purist here but if England win the Euros in a shithouse manner, I feel like it wouldn't mean as much to me.
Greece's victory will always be remembered. People in the bigger countries might demean it, but Europe is mainly composed of numerous small states. Every football fan from Latvia to Belgium, from Albania to Finland will remember Greece, and Denmark, and Czechoslovakia and Portugal... Small countries rarely have the luxury of "playing with style". They make do with what they've got and they maximise it.
Besides, the success of Greece in 2004 - which was a fairytale - was as much down to the arrogant failure of bigger nations, particularly France. If England win the Euros, the vast majority of people will not care about the style they won it in. Let's face it, you won the World Cup in 66 thanks to a dodgy linesman and some very dubious refereeing against Portugal and Argentina. And you moved the semi-final out of Goodison - where Portugal had played - to Wembley, where they hadn't, at the last minute. Is this remembered in England? Nope. But it is abroad...