- 6 Jun 08, 11:15 AM
London
Appropriately for the nation where Sigmund Freud spent much of his working life, Austria is displaying a complex psychological response to the task of co-hosting Euro 2008 with Switzerland.
For all those fans seemingly delighted to be staging the event there are plenty more naysayers anguishing about the right of Austria, 92nd in the Fifa rankings, to stage the tournament.
An online petition has even urged Austria's national side to withdraw from the tournament, arguing that "it cannot be denied: the performance of the Austrian team is an insult to your sense of aesthetics as well as to what you expect from this sport".
Austrian graphic designer Stefanie Schoeffmann has also produced a range of clothing bearing the slogan "hosted by losers", a less than upbeat take on the official "hosted by friends" tournament theme.
But isn't it time that, in the 21st century, the hosts of major tournaments should be made to qualify like everyone else? And I say that in the knowledge that England are bidding to stage the World Cup in 2018.
France were the last host nation to win a European Championship in 1984, though Euro 2004 hosts Portugal reached the final before losing to Greece.
Gary Lineker thinks the Darwinian view of hosts having to qualify is nothing short of heresy and put me right in no uncertain terms when I interviewed him, telling me that big competitions need the guaranteed participation of host countries, arguing that their involvement gives these tournaments an extra special ingredient.
Far from me to disagree with an England legend, but I remain unconvinced that interest in Euro 2008 would have been diluted should Switzerland and Austria not have been taking part.
More to the point, I don't think Swiss and Austrian fans would have been deterred from buying tickets to watch some of the world's best players just because their own teams had missed out.
It is estimated some six million fans will descend on Switzerland and Austria over the next few weeks, a further indication of the huge demand for these tournaments and why the Swiss and Austrian economies will enjoy a welcome filip through tourism.
Given Austria's lowly Fifa ranking, below those football powerhouses of Guatemala and Mozambique, their enforced two-year competitive sabbatical could be viewed as nothing short of disastrous as far as their hopes go. In 2007, they endured a nine-game winless streak. Would that have been the case had they been playing competitive football rather than friendly matches?
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions
I spoke to Dr Simon Chadwick, professor of Sport Business Strategy and Marketing at Coventry University, about the idea of mandatory qualification.
While agreeing with Lineker's view that hosts should be allowed to qualify automatically, he suggested an even more radical solution to the idea of democratising international football.
He would like to see nations like England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain excluded from hosting future tournaments, with these competitions awarded to smaller countries or co-hosted by nations like Latvia and Lithuania.
And if countries are unable financially to host European Championships, Uefa and the bigger nations should subsidise them.
That's not all, Professor Chadwick also feels the bigger nations should play each other more in the qualification process, thereby allowing allowing smaller ones to progress to the finals.
It's an interesting idea, but what do you think?
BBC Sport Euro 2008
Who are you supporting in Austria and Switzerland? Share your thoughts on all things Euro 2008 with our BBC Sport experts.
Fletch's view of Euro 2008
Recent Comments
- vikrulz on You Are The Ref #13
- vikrulz on You Are The Ref #13
- swampeemarsh on You Are The Ref #13
- BlueStarIT on You Are The Ref #13
- goalie_up_front on You Are The Ref #13
Teams
Latest Photos
Clicking on any of these photos will take you to an external site.
Podcast
Download or subscribe to this programme's podcast
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Comments
MORE smaller teams in the finals?
We have enough of Leichtenstien v Azerbaijan in the qualifications, who wants that in the tournament proper. Someone needs to grow up.
Complain about this comment
So many points of comment in this blog!
Let's start with the auto-qualify thing first!
I think that the host nation should continue to get automatic qualification as it allows diversity of involvement, where, teams such as Austria would never have other-wise qualified.
In addition to the view that it encourages local interest and therefore involvement from the host nations fans, I think this can only be a positive thing.
Professor Chadwick is obviously not a football fan...
Who wants to see a Germany v Austria Final?
If there were to be an (unfair) selection process then I think most footballing fand would rather see the reverse of his suggestion; rather relishing the prospect of a Germany v Italy final.
But no, the group selection process can only be done in a random way to promote fairness and interest amongst both clubs and fans.
Complain about this comment
Of course you need to have the hosts in the tournament Austria must be the only team not ot want to be in the tournament and this seams to have raised the an issue that has never come up before. I know its a different tournament but the 2002 world cup shows you just how important host naitons participating are. S Korea surprised everyone if th ewhol Austrian nation got behind the team then they could actually get through the group.
Its ridiculus to suggest that a tournament shouldn't have the hosts in you don't invite people to your party and then not turn up yourself.
This is as bad as all the people who say the world cup should involve europe plus Brazil and Argentina arguing this would make it a better tournament. Yet often the worst games are when two big teams meet as they just cancel each other out the best games often involve one if not two "lesser" teams who go for it.
Complain about this comment
I agree with GL that the host nation should get automatic qualification (imagine Euro96 without England) when there is only one host. However when more than one country co-hosts the tournament this dilutes the number of possibly stronger teams qualifying. Co-hosts should playoff for one host place, the loser having to qualify along with other teams, balancing the pro- and anti- host automatic qualification arguments.
Complain about this comment
Host nations should not have to qualify. Neither do I think the current holders of the trophy should have to qualify.
One way of reducing the number of lower ranked teams getting a free entry would be to stop this stupid idea of giving the tournament to more than one country. If a country does not have enough stadiums then they should not apply to host in the first place.
Also, why can UEFA not extent the tournament to 32 teams? It would only mean 1 extra game but would allow all major teams to compete. Free entry for hosts would then not be so contraversial they would not be there at the expense of a good team to the same extent as now with just 16 places.
Complain about this comment
I think you really have to have the host nation there. Great analogy by Czechmate - why invite people to your party but not turn up yourself?!
I believe the number of teams in the finals will increase soon, so lesser teams will qualify anyway due to there being more spaces.
I think it's naive to think making qualification for lesser nations easier would result in Azerbaijan reaching the finals. The likes of Serbia, or maybe even those perennial no-hopers England, would be welcome additions. All the Bs too - Belgium, Bosnia, Belarus, Bulgaria...
I remember just a few years ago how everyone saw Czech Republic and Romania as no-hopers, but now they are in the top 20 teams. Did anyone who doesn't follow the domestic league there, 12 months ago, think Russia were any good?
I also think the more teams there are, the more chance there is of seeing some attacking football. And the likes of Alek Hleb, Dimi Berbatov etc playing in finals - when do we ever usually get to see them play for their countries?
That's what I love about the World Cup, and it's what I wish there was more of in the Euros.
Complain about this comment
I think having two hosts in a tournament of 16 teams is too much. I like Artic Robin's idea of co-hosts having a play-off to see who has to qualify.
Alternatively, Uefa could say that there should only be one host. If the country is unable to host all the games, then it is acceptable that games could be played in neighbouring countries, but these countries would not be officially classed at hosts. This happened last year when France hosted the Rugby World Cup but some games were played in Wales and Scotland.
Complain about this comment
I think host nations should be there as it will always generate a lot of interest. However, to accommodate England and a few other middling nations you could have 24 in the tourno. 8 groups of 3, two qualify for round of last 16. Same number of games, no 'dead rubber' group games (maybe France v Italy in this one which would be a pity), extra knockout round should make it more exciting. Something similar has been done before in the World Cup (except then there was an extra group phase I wouldn't have). This would allow 2 host teams without too much complaint.
Complain about this comment
Lineker is right....
You only have to look at the mediocre interest and how hard the BBC have had to work to drum up interest. Most people I speak to haven't know until this week exactly when it was starting; basically, withdraw the hosts from the tournament and you lose the soul of interest - for the country hosting failing to qualify would feel like waiting for an invasion of fans while having no interest whatsoever in their presence.
Although the scenario of Champions League and UEFA Cup finals are not an exact reflection, I am sure that irrespective of any trouble the final in Manchester paints a picture of this.
Although hosting any major tournament is good for the economy of a country[, surely that is not a good enough reason for hosting it -
ALL tournaments need host participation.
Complain about this comment
It's nice to have the host nations involved, even if they may be whipping boys.
There again, host nations sometimes get a lot of dodgy decisions go their way... see Japan.
Makes for fun.
Who said this was all about the competition anyway... :)
Complain about this comment
Why not do the same as the Eurovision Song Contest (and I don't mean awarding 'nul points' to British teams)? The winner of the tournament hosts the next one. That way you get both automatic qualification of the champions and a strong contender as the host.
The downside to this is that the next host country has less time to prepare, but this is surely an incentive to ensure that stadia and infrastructure are kept up to scratch. If UEFA need to subsidise this, then fair enough.
From a fan's point of view, "small" countries are difficult and expensive to get to and are unlikely to have sufficient tourist infrastructure to cope with the influx of supporters.
I realise UEFA want to develop football across Europe, but I'm sure there are more practical ways they can lend their support that won't inconvenience the fans and spoil the quality of the finals.
Complain about this comment
Host nations should automatically quality. Think of Euro 96, France 98 and Japan/South Korea 02 as excellent examples of how much extra excitement can be generated by having the country at large holding the event really add value in all sorts of ways. Anyway, who is to say Austria or Switzerland will not do well this time around once the tournament is up and running? I'm not so much of a believer in the holders automatically gaining a finals berth. To defend the trophy should mean having to qualify on merit next time around. One thing I would like to see for Euro and WC qualifying is the 2 lowest ranked tier of teams (i.e. the ones that would be in pot 6 and 7 come qualifying draw time) play off in a pre-qualification round of fixtures, ultimately resulting in a couple of them reaching the main qualifying stage. This would reduce the number of relatively meaningless fixtures involving the likes of San Marino, et al in the main qualifying stage (not to say the Italian principality wouldn't make it through the pre-qualifying). Does anybody at UEFA/FIFA want to give me a job?
Complain about this comment
Of course the host nation should get automatic qualification. It's silly to suggest otherwise. However, the issue of dual hosts is something that needs resolving. I believe that we should not allow it. If you don't have the required amount of stadiums then you shouldn't be hosting a major international tournament. One of the criteria determing your bid is that you have adequate infrastructure and I believe that although they might get away with it this tournament its clear that it cant continue, what with the situation with Poland and Ukraine at the moment.
Complain about this comment
It's a ridiculous idea, could you imagine what Euro '96 would have been like without England in it? It gets the whole host nation united and there wouldn't be as much interest in the tournament if the home nation wasn't involved as there wouldn't be as much of a 'carnival' atmosphere.
Complain about this comment
no. of course they should not have to qualify.
next question?
Complain about this comment
Surely a simple solution would be to bring in an element of footballing prowess to the selection process. This could be based on countries having to be inside FIFA's top 50 before being allowed to bid for hosting a tournament. This would then do away with the nonsense of Austria's participation and you could then justify automatic qualification.
Complain about this comment
Quite disappointing that a senior broadcast journalist for the BBC would even consider this an "interesting idea" little alone a Dr. of Sport Business Strategy and Marketing.
He thinks small nations should host the Euro and World Cups???? And in what stadiums would he be planning to watch these football matches. In the one stadium in Lichtenstein that has a capacity of 20,000?
Athens played host to the Champions League final in 2007 in a state of the art Olympic stadium, and the venue failed miserably in successfully hosting this event. Ticket allocations were too few (and the stadium fits 60,000), directing spectators into the stadium was a shambles and there weren't even turn stiles to measure the number of spectators who entered the stadium.... and we haven't even started about the fake tickets.
Such tournaments should be played in the biggest and best Football stadiums and these all happen to be in the "biggest" football nations. Funny that.
If Lichtenstein wants to host such a tournament, by all means let it... so long as it has 5 Stadiums over at least 40,000 one stadium at least 70,000 and a transport network capable of channeling the influx of 6 million fans.
Dr. Simon Chadwick.... wherever you got your Doctorate from should seriously look into either a) revoking yours or b) changing their whole "business strategy"
Complain about this comment
I'm all for the host nation qualifying automatically, but the whole selection process should be fairer.
Whilst I understand Dr Chadwicks view of levelling the playing field, and UEFA susidising smaller nations to host a tournament - the bigger nations should not be excluded from hosting. This would also be unfair. A random selection from any expressed interests would be fairer, and excluded all the politics and potential for corruption.
I do however object to winners automatically qualifying. As tournaments are 4 years apart - it can hardly be argued that the same team is being rewarded for its success. There will be a whole different squad of players, and probably manager, competing in the tournament - they should have to qualify just like everyone else!
Whilst Greece's triumph in 2004 was a great success for their national team, only 10 of the 23 man squad is the same for this tournament. 4 years is a long time in football!
Complain about this comment
So Professor Chadwick thinks that countries with outstanding infrastructure, including superb football stadiums, huge populations passionate about football, with all the necessary experience in tourism, policing and medical care for huge groups of visitors, SHOULDN'T host tournaments?!
Hmm. Interesting idea.
Complain about this comment
Im fairly sure that the only reason that this subject has been brought up, is because Mr Lineker feels that England should "rightfully" be taking up one of the two host spots.
This issue would NEVER have arisen if England were there.
But they arent, so who cares...
Complain about this comment
Qualification for hosts is a no brainer. It's ludicrous, as the atmosphere at these tournaments is created by members of the public of the host nation interacting with the fans. No host nation, and the public don't care, and the atmosphere is rubbish.
The Greek Olympics minister said that Londoners have to get behind the games, but can you imagine if no British athletes took part? Stupid idea.
I do however, think that the hosting should be limited to one nation. I know this is likely to exclude the smaller guys, but it would solve the problem of two slots being taken by non qualified teams in a small tournament anyway. At least the situation will improve when the Euros expand after 2012.
Complain about this comment
The hosts should get an automatic qualification because them missing out would hurt atmosphere and local interest in the early round matches. I do think that if there's co-hosts, only one should give them an automatic bid. Have them decide who gets the automatic bid over two legs and send the other one into qualifying.
Complain about this comment
Referring to your comment about the lack of competitive games for the hosts. I can see that it's a weakness for some teams but it wasn't for England in 1996, Holland in 2000 or Portugal in 2004. So, I think your argument is weak.
As for tiny nations hosting and the bigger ones (England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain) being excluded from hosting. I think they are the only teams that should host it. The bigger countries put on the best show and can accommodate the most fans. The big countries should have it on a rota system in my opinion.
As for teams joint hosting. It's not so bad in the World Cup when there are 24 teams, but when there are only 16 teams, it's crazy to have 2 rubbish teams automatically included and just waters down the whole competition. We should encourage the smaller nations but they have to earn their way there.
Complain about this comment
In really to post 11 -- don't they do that already, or and I mixing my Father Ted with reality once more...
Complain about this comment
Of course, really should read reply.
Complain about this comment
Pah -- that's what you mean.
Forget my ramblings.
Friday...
Work...
Sunshine...
Coffee...
Complain about this comment
The host nation should always qualify, but I am in agreement that to have two hosts is not a good idea, and that it should be held in one country. The next euros are being split between Poland and the Ukraine so once again two teams will automatically qualify albeit both teams are better than Austria. But yet again this means one less qualifying spot and actually gives less chance to some of smaller countries of qualifying. So goes against FIFA/UEFA's hope for smaller countries to get a better chance.
If like the world cup there is 32 teams or even 24 teams then this would not be so bad, however the puropose of the tornament is to find the best nation in Europe, so by stopping a team from qualifying due to dual hosts, makes a mokery of this.
Complain about this comment
Maybe the issue here is that there's two places from a small pool (16) taken up by the hosts as opposed to the usual one. Perhaps before qualification begun Austria and Switzerland should have held a play-off for the right to get an automatic 'hosts' spot, with the loser then falling into a regular qualification group as per every other nation...
Maybe something that should happen in future co-hosting situations?
Complain about this comment
Forcing the hosts to qualify for a major tournament is a ludicrous suggestion. I still don't particularly like the fact that winners don't automatically qualify but taking it away from the hosts is a step too far.
Can you imagine what it would be like in England if we were hosting a major tournament and weren't actually involved? Most of the foreign fans would spend their time avoiding irate England fans for fear of being beaten up by them simply because they had nothing better to do. I don't believe that people would just adopt another nation as they have/are in this tournament because the fact that we hadn't qualified would just be exacerbated by the fact that we were hosting it.
Complain about this comment
I had to do a double take to make sure this wasn't April Foools Day.
In case you haven't got this from the comments so far this absurd idea is a total non starter.
Why should someone host the tournament that they are not in, frankly its laughable.
Imagine England had been this time's hosts, but they had to qualify and as we know they failed to qualify. Then you would have Euro 2008 in England without England. do you really think that would be acceptable even for a microsecond.
I assume you have put this blog up just to be controversial, if you really believe in it pity help you.
Complain about this comment
Dr Chadwick is clueless!!
Possibly the worst idea i've ever heard - i'd literally prefer 'extra time multi-ball' (remember that advert?)
I think it is absolutely right that the host nation should be involved in the tournament, at worst it is only 2 crap teams in the competition - good for a laugh really!!
Crap teams are fun. Remember in World Cup 2002 when Germany beat Saudi Arabia 9-0?
That was great entertainment!!
Complain about this comment
Here in England we apparently have the 'Best League in the World' with the most players represented at Euro 08, loads of top stadia, the - ahem - best fans in the world. So the finals should just be hosted by England every time.
With the hosts qualifying automatically of course.
Complain about this comment
Chelseaaces (comment 11),
Wilst I respect all the opinions of others, I have to dissagree with your suggestion for a 'eurovision'-like selection process for host.
Unlike the song contest, where a song is judged on it's merits - not influenced by a home crowd or familliar teritory - in football, hosting the event is considered an advantage (for aforementioned reasons).
This prevents your suggestion from being a reality, as it would spark far to much argument and discontent.
This would also further narrow the 'selection pool' of hosting nations as countries like Austria would never be host.
Complain about this comment
It's kind of arrogant to suggest the Swiss are rubbish as they qualified in their own right for the last Euro and the last World Cup (in which they won their group and only lost their last 16 game to Ukraine on penalties).
In both cases England only lasted one round longer...so.
The Swiss will not win, but they will put up a fight and will not be a pushover.
Can't comment on the Austrians.
Complain about this comment
This entire blog is insane for all the aforementioned reasons. Host Countries have to compete.
As for the comments of the "Dr of Sport", I have never heard so much rubbish.
The top Countries can't host and we play games in e.g. Estonia with their high level of Stadia. Absurd!
Complain about this comment
I disagree with the joint-hosts arrangement and therefore BOTH Austria and Switzerland pre-qualifying.
What next, a Baltic hosted competition and Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia avoiding qualification.
Perhaps the former Yugoslavia can host a tournament and then Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia/Herzegovina and FYROM can all qualify?
In a European Championship we want to see the top teams competing, if too many "minnows" can get in without qualifying it dilutes the tournament as a whole
Complain about this comment
@Justanotherspursfan - I'm not sure the Eurovision song contest has ever been judged on merit.
Complain about this comment
I think that the host nations should automatically qualify because if they didn't it could cause problems in the crowd and it wouldn't be the same without them. In saying that, they should have a decent country host a competition, for example, they are only eligable to host a competition if they are in the top 20 European Rankings or top 25 World Rankings. Just a suggestion.
Complain about this comment
mnewboult... haha, I realised the irony after I posted, but you get the jist - in theory anyway!
Complain about this comment
I do think Host Nations should get automatic qualification.
However, there is a problem when two nations host it jointly. I do not think both should get it.
Why not have these two teams play-off for such a right?
Austria vs Switzerland - best of 7 matches or something (Similar to American sports - NHL/Basketball first to 4). They know well in advance who is going to be hosting it. Both teams are close geographically so they can occur in a short space of time (otherwise they wouldn't be jointly bidding!).
These playoffs can give the winner a spot in the tournament, the other either does not get a spot OR has to be put into the normal qualifying process. A spot can even be saved for these teams.
For example, Group A has the following teams:
- England
- Russia
- Moldova
- Swiss/Austria
- Croatia
The playoffs occur well before the qualifying begins. It makes it a little fairer I feel. The host nations aren't short-changed, as both teams get two chances to play at the tournament, rather than the usual one for all other nations.
The only example I can see of this being bad is Belgium/Netherlands hosting it jointly a few years back. Where Belgium, arguably, wouldn't stand a chance of getting that auto-qualification process from Holland. However, this can be looked at when bids are originally made. Do the two teams present a fair chance for the other side to gain automatic qualification? Another example, how good would the host nation playoff games be if Spain and Portugal won the right to host a Euro Championships jointly?
/remove oar...
Complain about this comment
It sounds very much like Prof. Chadwick has never been to a football match in his life and wouldn't know the offside rule if it slapped him around the face and called him Susan.
More minnow teams in the Championships? Oh yes, people will really pay good money to watch Nonetitistein v Noweheresburg.
The opposite should happen; all the minnow teams should play in a separate pre-qualifying group, the winner earning the right to enter the qualifying stage proper.
As far as the host nation is concerned, I agree with the previous comment that two host nations automatically qualifying is a little unfair. What next? Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Bosnia all want to co-host it? One nation yes; maybe the two hosts battle it out to see who qualifies automatically. Serbia and Croatia would do that literally!
Complain about this comment
Of course the hosts should automatically qualify. Why would you want to stage something you had no interest in?
Complain about this comment
Lot of good points - however let's not confuse the issue !!! The fact that UEFA allow 2 countries to host is purely commercial !!!
Let's make it simple ......
Reigning Champs Qualify ..... they won it for goodness sake !
Hosts Qualify - but "there can be only one !!" As a famous Egyptian Scotsman named Ramirez once said ! Let's not allow dual hosting ! Either keep the competition simple to 16 teams - or make it 32 and reduce the number of potential hosts !
The rest - play for it - it's a big tournament !
If for whatever ridiculous reason UEFA want to allow a dual bid - then make it a one-off play off for one qualifier - but no chance for the loser to then qualify thro the Qual Groups ! That'll reduce the interest in ludicrous pairings of countries to host ...... e.g. Poland / Ukraine !
Mind you - I am assuming that UEFA is a sporting organisation ...... which let's face it - it's not - it's commercial - like it's big brother FIFA !!!
Sad but true - good luck Switzerland and Austria - but I really would prefer that you prove my point - and let's return to real competitions......
Complain about this comment
Just when we were losing the will to live along came Euro 2008 to shorten the tedious hours before the real sport begins in August. But on the negative side, we have Lineker, Hansen and whoever their sidekick will be on BBC, and the muppets on Sky Sport. The cliches and banalities dribble out of their mouths and down their chins into a puddle of meaningless cheer leading disguised as soccer punditry. Having
been left with no options but to listen to the above on occasions I am convinced that if you put a gun against their heads and demanded that they come up with one original thought that they wouldn't survive
Complain about this comment
Mixed views.....the home teams have a massive 'home field' advantage as it is, so on that basis they should have to qualify.
On the other hand, the absence of the home country from the tournament would leave it more than a little flat.
Complain about this comment
Why don't we have Eurovision style voting from UEFA countries on who should play in the finals......
Complain about this comment
Dr Simon Chadwick is Professor of Sport Business Strategy and Marketing at Coventry Business School, which is perhaps the academic equivalent of being on the bench for Guatemala....
Let's put two bad ideas together and create one terrible idea. Throw the hosts out and make it easier for low-ranked teams to qualify. Then see whether the Austrians and Swiss can muster a full stadium to watch Latvia v FYROM. And, indeed, whether Gary Lineker can talk us all into tuning in for it.
Complain about this comment
Not being horrible, but pofessor Chadwick is a kn*b
Complain about this comment
The country's hosting the tournament and allowing people from all over to visit (blah blah, increased tourism, blah blah), so I think the least it deserves is for its team to be allowed to take part automatically. It's not like they're getting a bye into the knockout stages, which would be unacceptable.
Complain about this comment
The host nations should be in the finals. Just the seedings of this finals are awful.
They should be there but should not be 1st seedings. The seedings should be according to their rankings with defending champ. Greece as 1st seedings. That will be more fair and will not have Group C like that. Three big favours in the same group.
Complain about this comment
Dr Chadwick is an idiot.
Hosts having to qualify? I see where you came up with the idea John but as people have said, it would put a dampner on the atmosphere.
One way to get round the "dud hosts" theory though is to not select the hosts untill after the qualifiers.
Yes this means the host country has to be ready at very short notice(and getting tickets could be insane) but it garuntees that theoretically the teams competiting in the competition are the best in Europe/the world!
Complain about this comment
:) seems like Dr. S. Chadwick is gettin a lot of stick here.
Just intrigued as to how many of his detractors are from the best country never to have won anything away from home - England :) :)
I'm guessin a significant proportion ?
Please prove me wrong ?
Complain about this comment
bernard1000000000000
turn the sound down then.
or, go make a cup of tea at half time.
Complain about this comment
Lineker's comments on the 2 host nations?? Austria are weak at the moment and would never have qualified for the championships but Switzerland qualified for the 2006 world cup and nearly ahead of France in the qualifying. They have a number of high profile players playing in atleast 3 of the top european leagues. Gary should do a bit more research on this subject. As an english fan I'm gutted and still can't understand how we didn't manage to qualify with all our talent but the sad fact is we are playing a very negative and unimaginative national game and every man and his dog fancies his chances against us.
Complain about this comment
For reasons simply of tournament viability, it is essential that the host nation takes part, In addition it is only fair that the previous winner automatically qualifies. After that the draw etc. should be completely open and transparent and all countries sould be subject to the same element of chance regardless of their status; if they qualify, for the finals of any tournament. I do not see the neccesity of expanding the numbers, quite frankly if your not good enough to qualify a la the so-called Home mations then you do not deserve your place in the sun.
Complain about this comment
Sounds like this Prof Chadwick is looking for a communist approach to tournaments...
Make everyone equal, no matter how good they are...
Next he'll suggest better teams should start with 10 players, a bigger goal or have to give a 2 game start....
Seems like a form of politically correct nonsense to me.
Hosts qualifying is fine by me... the buy in of the local population helps... However, countries should be of a sufficiently high rank to qualify as hosts.
Also only 1 host should qualify automatically - in the event of shared hosting, a play-off between the hosts for the automatic spot seems right.
Otherwise it removes a place in the finals for teams qualifying by merit.
Complain about this comment
How are the 'smaller' european teams going to get better if all they do is get lumped in a group with 2 or the 'big boys' and 1 other good side for qualification just to get no-where? the whole format needs to be changed for the euro's, and i'd like to see the best 15 european teams in 3 groups of 5 for qualification, the usual 2 matches home and away with the bottom 2 in each group 'playing off' against 6 of the best of the rest of europe based on their own set of qualifying groups. this would mean that it would be highly likely that the top 15 teams would make it the competition that decides the champions of europe, but also means that some of the improving teams still can get there through the play off. The hosts would still auto qualify, but only one. this would hopefully mean that the smaller sides see more games that they have a chance of winning and qualifying would have much more excitement.
Dr Chadwick is obviously trying to make the smaller nations bigger, but why should the big nations subsidise that? he is dreaming.
Complain about this comment
Easy enough saying hosts should have to qualify in their own right as everyone else. So what if today is 12 years on! England hosting world cup, but not participating?
I somehow think we'd be looking to backtrack on this fickle suggestion and we should be considered 'special circumstances' to get in at a minnows expense who have earned their right to be there!
Complain about this comment
Many thanks for all your comments. I'd like to come to professor Simon Chadwick's defence because I think his idea some merit. In England's qualifying group they played four matches of any real significance and for that matter interest - two against Croatia and two against Russia. That's not much football to sustain the soul of two 18 months. I also fail to understand what Andorra currently get out of the qualifying system. Are they getting any better by thumped 5-0 each game? I don't think so.....
Complain about this comment
Football competitions should stop seeding teams. In the F.A cup anyone can play any other team in any round. This makes the Cup special so any team has a chance of winning. Just look at this years F.A cup, Portsmouth, Cardiff, West Brom and Bristol in the last four.
Complain about this comment
, John S - BBC Sport
The Macedonia result was also significant!
I don't see how the issues in qualifying in any way support the bizarre academic ideas...
In fact perhaps the lesser teams should pre-qualify - playing each other, thus having more equal games and involving only the best of them in the main qualifying.
toffee2096
The notion of removing seedings is interesting - although in the FA cup there is an element of seeding stemming from clubs entering the competition at different stages.
Complain about this comment
Hosts should not qualify but I think that joint hosting is stretching it.
UEFA should relax their criteria if they want smaller countries to host. Wales, with a possible 4 eligible grounds in a couple of years' time, could potentially host a Euro 20XX tournament with a little investment in new grounds to get the required 8.
However, it's likely we'd have to rely on several stadiums in Cardiff to do this. I think the 'no more than two grounds in a city and only one city is allowed to do this' rule is a little silly and prohibits small countries from hosting tournaments.
I 100% agree with a poster above who said seeding should be scrapped - and it should be scrapped in qualifying too. That way, you will get a better spread of teams qualifying and a few surprise early exits in the qualifiers.
Complain about this comment
The hosts *must* have an automatic qualification - but there must be only one.
When a tornament has co-hosts, they should be made to play-off over a 3 or 5 game series, and the losing side must then be made to qualify like anyone else.
It's completely wrong that 2 teams from just 16 loose out this time, not just one. Unacceptable, particularly as both hosts have very little chance of a major impact.
Complain about this comment
The host should qualify. But the co-host thing is a bit dodgy. What if five little countries get together and want to co-host? Where do you draw the line?
I think the chap from Coventry has one good point.. that lesser footballing nations should host. I don't like the idea that a country ranked in the top 5 gets home advantage. Better to play somewhere where the hosts are a long shot. Like England for example.
Complain about this comment
48. At 3:43 pm on 06 Jun 2008, Hibee1985 wrote:
Not being horrible, but pofessor Chadwick is a kn*b
----------------------------------------------
That pretty much sums up what I was thinking when I read Professor Chadwick's idea.
Complain about this comment
wot a stupid question!!!
Of course host nations should qualify! it is like having a party at your turf but you are not there!!! This is probably one of the most ridiculous questions ever raised!
This has never raised an issue before, how come it's raised now?
Complain about this comment
Keep the seeding and make sure it's done on sensible grounds! France, Italy and Nehelands should not have wound up in the same Euro 2008 group!
The aim of seeding is to make sure the best teams compete in the latter stages of the tournament. A theoretical qualifying group involving France, England, Italy, Spain and Germany wouldn't help anyone.
How does this sound for a future Euro seeding system though?
Eight qualifying groups including:
One quarter finalist from the previous Euro tournament
One team knocked out of previous Euro group stages
Previous Euro non qualifiers drawn out of big pot untill there's none left.
Host not decided till after qualification though countries may submit "provisional" bids beforehand.
Which gives extra incentives to past and future qualifiers not to screw up!
Complain about this comment
The debate should not be whether austria and switzerland should have had to qualify, but whether they should have been chosen to host the competition in the first place. Neither country deserves it on footballing merit, and there seems to be little public interest. I agree that the host should not have to qualify, but should still have some footballing right to compete.
The known footballing superpowers of England (?), Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, Germany and Holland, will always host the majority of european champs, but it is understandably important to occasionally take the experience to other countries as well. Surely it would be better to award successful sides, such as Turkey, Russia, Czech Republic, Greece or Sweden, rather than taking the competition to nations with little chance of competing. Obviously the host must prove capable of running such an event, but I could see Russia being more than capable, as would joint hosts Sweden/Denmark. All these nations would stand a good chance of qualifying anyway.
Complain about this comment
I agree with the people saying that only one team should qualify as host. It almost seems a bit insulting that Austria get to play in this tournament and England don't. Why should two teams qualify as hosts? Especially when there are only 16 places. Austria will probably lose all their games, though upsets do happen. UEFA and FIFA should just allow one host country for these tournaments. If small teams want to be part of it then they should improve!
Complain about this comment
Agree with a lot of the comments on here.
The hosts should always automatically get into the tournament in my opinion but as for this duel host thing; it is not fair that 2 spots are taken especially when both nations are lower in the rankings.
That being said, they are both the hosts so what can you do?
Complain about this comment
It's probably an unfair approach to say lesser teams (in this case the host nations)shouldn't be allowed to play in the Euros.
Saying the top 16 ranked teams in the UEFA rankings qualify would be the simplest way to eliminate the problem and obviously this is extremely unfair
England do not deserve to be in the Euros because we had numerous chances and didn't capitalise. I for one hope this has been a wake-up call for English football and as long as people look for excuses based on other countries like Austria we will not learn that it is us (the FA) that needs to change and not UEFA
Have the Austrian team earnt the right to play in the Euros? Probably not, but if the hosts did not play in the tournament, not only would it probably be less well organised due to lack of pride but also it would be the same teams playing each other in every competition and there would be few shocks as everyone would be about the same world class standard. Taking out the underdogs (who may not have been able to qualify and be consistent world beaters over several months) are given the chance to cause upsets, and that dramatic unpredictability is what football's really about.
If Austria beat Germany in a 4-3 thriller pessimists could well change their minds!
Complain about this comment
yes the host nation should be allowed in without qualifying...but having joint hosts is too cheeky....after all Europe has got bigger and bigger with Russia splitting up etc...there is room i think to have a 24 team Euro championship at least?...
In future I would like to see a list of say 20 countries who have the infrastructure and the stadiums to host the competition either put in a hat and drawn or rotated so that we dont have a situation where the final decision rests on political motives for Eufa or Fifa..
Also it would save countries millions by not having to make bids and satisfy the fat cats of football.
It makes me angry that some will say the small countries dont have a chance because England is a small country on an Island and we managed to move foward so the likes of Austria or Switzerland should try harder in my opinon..
Complain about this comment
Why do all people think that the hosts of the EC 2008 are that rubbish?
Switzerland has some very interesting young players in the starting line-up tomorrow such as Gelson Fernandes (Man City), Senderos (Arsenal), Barnetta (Leverkusen) or the goalkeeper Benaglio (Wolfsburg)!
And I tell you: some of you here will be very surprised by the way Switzerland will play... Surley they will play better than England did against Croatia.
I don't want to say much about the Austrians because as a Swiss i don't like them really...
Complain about this comment
Whoever says Switzerland should not be qualified for Euro 2008 should be reminded of the World Championships 2006, where they qualified, advanced to the quarter finals and didn't even receive one goal in the whole tournament, something nobody else achieved (they lost against Ukraine in penalty shooting).
Furthermore, it is nonsense of thinking of a European Championship with "weak" teams and of one with "good" ones as the qualification to several Championship have shown in the past. The fact that England didn't qualify for the Euro 2008 is the best argument against it. Obviously, as a team, they just weren't good enough...
I understand critics against co-hosts (Belgium-Netherlands, Switzerland-Austria, Ukraine-Poland etc.). But for small countries it's the only way to be the host of such an amazing event, as it definitely wouldn't make sense to build half a dozen giant new stadiums that would be needed for three matches and then stay empty for the rest of their time (as seen with stadium built for the Euro 2004 in Portugal).
Complain about this comment
I believe the format should stay as it is.
Host nations invariably always do well. I was very surprised how well Japan and S Korea performed in WC 2002 as joint host nations. The form book would have made them 'also rans', but that certainly wasn't the case.
Qualifying games should be seeded. The finals need to be a spectacle of the best teams; without seeding some of the most competitive games of the whole competition will be in the qualifying stage. There is no merit in watching lesser teams just because a number of stronger teams failed to qualify because they had to play each other.
Complain about this comment
I heartily agree that host nations should have to qualify.
And what's more, I believe that all previous World Cup winners who did not undergo a qualifying stage should be stripped of their trophies, as they really did not do enough to deserve them.
Allow me to be the first to offer my congratulations to Germany - World Cup Winners 1966.
Complain about this comment
It's just a shame that Scotland and Ireland didn't get there act together earlier. Having applied for Euro 2008 they really should have put a better bid forward. Scotland have somehow, thankfully, dragged themselves back to respectability and would hopefully be able to beat both hosts. I find it really annoying that having done so well in a group with France, Italy and the Ukraine that we are not there, being replaced by Austria and Switzerland. Of course the hosts should be there, but it's frustrating sometimes.
On the other hand, we thought the same about South Korea and Japan in world cup, look how well that went. Who knows? Anything can happen in football.
Complain about this comment
I don't agree that the tournament should be enlarged. I actually enjoy the Euros more than the World Cup because all of the teams who have qualified desrve to be there and have had to come through tough qualifying groups to get here. The tournament itself is greater in quality, without the stupid games between minnows like at the World Cup, such as Angola vs Iran for example.
The tournament is also better for the neutrals, because we have games such as Holland vs France in the group stage. Also, jow that England haven't qualified, we can all enjoy the tournament rather than worry about the usual rubbish drummed up about us having a chance, although at Euro 2004 we could have won had we beaten Portugal...
I think the hosts shouldn't have to qualify, but they should only give the tournaments to countries who have a genuine chance of doing well and would have qualified anyway and although this does limit the places available, it would stop the argument that is going on now.
Complain about this comment
Should the hosts be made to qualify? No.
England would never have won the world cup if that had been the rule in 1966.
Should be BBC have found a better design company for the 2008 titles? Yes. They are dreadful.
Complain about this comment
Iran are asia champions?...are you saying they are minnows big trout?
Complain about this comment
Iraq are asia champions...my aplogies
Complain about this comment
1] Allow any country to Host it. However, also figure out a way to have more teams in the Euro.
2] Host nation(s) should be allowed to play in competitive games (not friendlies) to keep them "match sharp".
3] Idea is to have more countries (fans, teams) at the World's Best Party.
Complain about this comment
In the new world order of globalization and equilibrium, it's still not fair for the smaller, poorer nations, no matter what happens or who says a Host nation should be made to qualify -
simply because you wouldn't stage a competition as large as the Euro solely in a very small country in a poor economic state - because the rich and powerful nations that represent the things that are good in the world need their silly creature comforts of good hotels, good food, good beer, good overall facilities at safe and secure locations.
That is all.
Complain about this comment
you mean like in South Africa hosting the next world cup?...safe and secure?
Complain about this comment
I've long held the belief that the European Championships and its qualification needs a total overhaul. It's a nonsense that the best teams spend two years playing minnows like Malta and Andorra, and only play each other during a couple of weeks every other summer. Example: England have not played the Czech Republic in a competitive match EVER. Not since Czechoslovakia existed, anyway. This sort of thing doesn't happen in other continents.
I think the summer tournament format should be disbanded in favour of a divisional, or even Davis Cup-style, format that could allow the best teams to play each other regularly, and award the European trophy more often (might also do something to take back interest from the Champions League, which Lineker mentioned). You do away with friendlies to allow more competitive games, and also it would form the basis of World Cup qualification. As long as you allow the possibility of any nation to scale the divisions in the four years between each World Cup it would be fair.
That would at a stroke do away with any complaints about host nations for Euros. The issue isn't just a matter of the host(s) being good enogh to compete in the tournament, but also it forces them to play meaningless friendy matches for two whole years beforehand: bad for fans, and players who may be in their prime at that point.
Complain about this comment
I think that idea is a good one, but how would you do the matches? It also wouldn't help the developement of countries like Belarus who could become a better side in years to come, because they would undoubtably be put into a bad division and are stuck playing teams like Andorra for a year.
How would you decide who the top teams are as well? If you do it by FIFA ranking then England and Scotland would be at the 'top table' so to speak, and I don't think that is right at this current time.
Complain about this comment
If teams like Belarus and Andorra played each other, they'd actually get the chance to have some competitive games, rather than being thrashed 8-0 by Holland or whoever, and it might improve them.
The current situation is a bit like Man U, Arsenal and Chelsea having to 'qualify' for the Premier league by playing against Forest Green Rovers and Woking.
Complain about this comment
Host nations should undoubtedly qualify automatically. The question is whether they should be automatically seeded for the draw. What a farce to have Austria seeded and then end up with a group with Italy, France, Netherlands and Romania!
Complain about this comment
"Host nations should be made to qualify"
This, coming from the BBC, might already be my favorite quote of the EURO! I understand that it is frustrating being English at the moment, but the great thing about the EURO is the fact that (compared to the Champions League) everybody has to qualify, and yes, from time to time it might be a "big" nation failing to do so. Compared to the World Cup, it is a small tournament with the best teams in the world, and really, expanding spots avilable for non-hosts from 14 to 16, will not affect the quality of the tournament.
Other comments said enough on how important it is to have the hosts. And why is it that somehting tells me the Austrians might just turn out to be more than "the poorest team ever to play a EURO"? (And no, I'm not Austrian)
Complain about this comment
Are you saying that Belarus are of the same standard as Andorra?? I reckon they will give England a run for their money in Minsk and that they are massively underrated
Complain about this comment
I can see that there is need to look at it again in terms of hosts getting a place automatically. I would suggest that host team if not in the top 30 teams in Europe then they should not get automatic spot.
People have said that England would have not got to the world cup in 1966 if they were not hosts? They had been to the world cup in 1962 , 1958, 1954 and 1950 i would think they would have been in the top 16 teams in the world in 1966.
While Austria (43 UEFA rank) would not be in the top 20 teams in Europe today. However Switzerland (28 in uefa) I think they deserve the automatic place.
Yes I know not many nations out side of the top 30 would be able to co host with another nation.
Complain about this comment
the hosts should qualify as the atmosphere in and around the grounds would be silent bar the foreign fans, there would be more passion if the hosts are involved and more people about! the host country wouldnt benefit much from hosting it otherwise.
Complain about this comment
who cares?
Complain about this comment
Should host nations qualify? Yes.
Should TWO host nations qualify? No.
I believe Austria and Switzerland should've had a playoff for the automatic qualification spot, with the losers going into the normal qualifying stages.
Complain about this comment
Think small teams in the final make it for a better spectacle, even though it irritate the bigger nations.
Football may be a lot about the winning but there is still the fact that sport is not life and death, and there is a lot to be said for the taking part. For some teams just getting there is the achievement.
I thought the example of "the other world cup final" that took the two lowest ranked teams in the world and played them against each other was an excellent example.
How about a competition for the runners up in qualification groups for the world cup, and call it the world plate or something. Maybe have a few plates so that more teams can enter without increasing the number of games. Then smaller teams would get to take part and the fans and players experience the occassion.
In all other levels of football there are competitions aimed at different abilities. Why is international football different?
Complain about this comment
to 59 John S
your arrogance is astonishing
didn't Andorra only lose 1-0 to Russia in the last game and wasn't the goal only scored near the end of the game. And if they had held out wouldn't England have gone through? I think they would. Also their average goals against is 3.5.
Only four games of any real interest, didn't we draw against Israel and Macedonia?
I'm sure your comment was only designed to wind people up, in which it succeeded, didn't it?
Complain about this comment
Okay, to start off I've got to state that I'm half English and supporter of the three lions, but I'm an Austrian and live near Klagenfurt (where group B is playing).
Yep, I can understand people who say that host should be made ot qualify. I think it can be a bit annoying when weaker nations (especially when there's two of them - like Switzerland and Austria) take a spot that nations like England would have needed so desperately and would maybe be more worthy off. But I think making the hosts qualify wouldn't do the tournament and the sport any good.
I mean I've got the EURO at my front door at the moment and I'm absolutely amazed at what I see happening! A country - that normally isn't that much into international football and really not that much behind their national team - is suddenly football-crazy! I mean people are really supportive, they've got flags on their cars, buy shirts, etc. etc. and suddenly they really stand behind their team as one man.
Austria might not have a lot of chances during this Euro, but they'll fight and the whole of our small country is behind them! And even though there might only be 8 millions of us, - we can still make a lot of noise!
On the other hand: if Austria wouldn't have been allowed to take part (as they certainly wouldn't have managed ot qualify,...) nobody would have cared about the Euro. Of course people would still have bought tickets to see other teams play, but they wouldn't have created an atmosphere. Oh Yes, Austrians are really good at not caring and at ignoring what's going on around them. I think that if you host a big tournament in a country whose national team does not take part, then you risk the whole tournament.
Complain about this comment
I completely agree with veli4maris - would be such a shame if Austria weren't there - ludicrous seems to be an apt word to describe it. But, when there are only 16 teams it is also crazy to have both host nations in, especially when they are as weak as Switzerland and Austria. I'm not saying England deserve that place, because they don't - they were poor in qualifying.
I think the solutions are either to stop having joint bids, although this would be a shame because it allows "smaller" nations like Austria, Switzerland and Japan/Korea in WC2002, to host major tournaments. So the only other viable option would be to increase to 24 teams. 32 like the World Cup might be too many - there'd be some very weak teams in the finals then, but 24, with a format like World Cup 90 (6 groups of 4, then top 2 + best 4 third places into a round of 16) would be ideal. More teams, more football, 2 hosts out of 24 is much more acceptable. UEFA should make it happen soon.
Complain about this comment
Well, I am Austrian and I don't really know if it's ok that my country should take part in Euro 2008 although we are co-hosting (with that strange little toblerone- and cheese-eating country in the west - lol). On the one hand the last years have been a disaster for Austrian fooball, (a country that has a football tradition with a 3rd and 4th place in the World Cup history), and therefore, according to FIFA ranking Austria should only be watching this Euro 2008 as some have pointed out. Fair enough. I think the main reason is the lack of investment in the game in the past decades. On the other hand therefore, it will do Austrian football really good to be a part of these Euro 2008 games. Stadiums have been built and modified and the Austrian Football Association are hoping to raise more interest for young people to play football. Yesterday I watched a programme where organisers said, Austria's idea to host the Euro 2008 with Switzerland was also to motivate the government to invest more in football and sport than they have been doing till now.
So all in all it is a good idea to host this great event and whatever Austria's result in the matches, it will at least be positive for the future of Austrian football.
And another thing: who ever would have thought that Denmark would win 1992 and Greece 2004? :-)))) Tournaments always bring surprises, so why not Austria?
IMMER WIEDER ÖSTERREICH!!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS