Quote:
Originally Posted by KTown
Having no Euro 2008 without England, wasn't in exactly UEFA's back of tricks. A lot of lost revenue there in my opinion. It will also be nice to see other countries who are as good as the other 16 involved. I disagree that it will make it a water downed tournament.
It my opinion it makes it better.
Lets look at teams that made the world cup and didn't make Euro last time. Teams in Bold made Both
Euro2008
Portugal
Turkey
Czech Rep
Swiss (Host)
Holland
Italy
Romania
France
Croatia
Germany
Austria (Host)
Poland
Spain
Russia
Sweden
Greece
World Cup
Spain
France
Greece
England
Slovenia
Serbia
Germany
Holland
Denmark
Slovakia
Italy
Portugal
Swiss
How can you say a tournament needing to add 8 more teams will be watered down
When to that 16 above you add Denmark, Slovakia, Serbia, England, Slovenia. Making it now 21 teams. Now you only need 3 teams to choose from lets say Ukraine, Norway, Ireland, Montenagro, and Scotland
I think it opens it up nicely, because you have your elite 8 countries or so. Followed by the next 16 countries who are almost equally as strong as each other but fail to miss out because of a knockout home and home.
Revenue goes up, popularity in all the fringe countries will go up. Everything is a positive.
Not sure how they plan on doing the knockout stage though, 24 teams down to 12 with the first 4 having a bye? or do you stick with 8 out of 24 making it.
|
So adding 8 weaker teams doesn't water down the tournament?
The first round of the World Cup has a lot of less than steller matchups, not that it's not interesting, but I don't think I'd watch an Algeria-Slovenia game under any other circumstances. But look at Group C from Euro 08: France, Italy, Netherlands, Romania. You will never see a group like that in the Euro anymore because almost certainly the other two teams will be seated. I do agree that more teams equals more soccer which equals more entertainment, but you can't argue that it isn't watered down.