Crunch time for Platini
Michel Platini knows all about a footballer being as good as his last game. But he is discovering that this also applies when you become a football administrator.
Having presided over arguably the best ever European Championship he is this week coping with the possibility of having to move Euro 2012 from the hosts Poland and Ukraine.
This week Platini heads an eight-member Uefa delegation to Poland and Ukraine to judge whether these two countries can host the next Euros.
Platini's public position is that it depends on whether there are stadiums in Warsaw and Kiev.
That sounds simple enough. Even four years out host countries have had problems with stadiums.
The Swiss had a big issue with the venue in Zurich, where residents even had a vote on the stadium plans, but the problem was solved.
But this does not take into account the very different situation in Poland where infrastructure is still being developed and, even more so, in Ukraine which also has major infrastructure problems, a largely dysfunctional government and legal problems facing the construction of the stadium in Kiev.
Uefa confirmed to me this week that there is no Plan B.
This means if it does not work in these two countries Uefa will have to do what Fifa did in 1986 when Mexico stepped in to take over the World Cup finals from Colombia.
Fifa went to Mexico, which had hosted the 1970 tournament, knowing they had the facilities in place to stage the event. This suggests a previous host such as Italy, France, Spain or even England might be chosen if Poland and Ukraine cannot resolve the problems they still face.
I suspect it will not come to that.
But the good news for Uefa is that it has now cracked the question of how to host a tournament shared by two countries.
Football administrators were dead set against it after the experience in Euro 2000, in the Low Countries and World Cup 2002 in Japan and South Korea. Both of which ended up more like two separate competitions than one unified tournament.
But Euro 2008 has provided Uefa with much expertise on how to organise such tournaments with the governing body itself doing, as one Uefa source put it, much of the work.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions
This means the tournament if necessary could be moved almost anywhere with relatively little disruption, providing the facilities already exist.
Another footballing cliché with which Platini will be familiar is 'never change a winning team' but this September should also see the executive confirm that in 2016, 24 teams will take part in the Euros.
Why, ask critics, tinker with the system when Euro2008 showed how good a 16 team tournament can be?
But many of the smaller countries, particularly from eastern Europe are keen for such a change as are Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The only problem is how to conduct the qualifying competition for 2016.
Interestingly, when the issue was discussed informally by the 53 Uefa nations in Vienna on Saturday, two of the smallest countries Liechtenstein and Luxembourg raised the most fears.
They have no dreams of ever qualifying for the finals but they do want to be part of a qualifying group which has some big teams such as Italy, England, France, Spain, Germany. A match against England or Italy is their final.
They are worried about how the qualifying groups might be organised. They would not want a larger number of small groups of four or five teams.
I am told the formula being worked on is to have eight groups: four groups of seven and four groups of six teams, with the top two from each qualifying automatically.
The third-placed team would go into a play-off and, depending on whether Euro 2016 is hosted by a single country or two, a certain number of third-placed teams qualify to make up the 24 for Euro 2016.
Platini knows for all the success of Euro 2008, his handling of Euro 2012 and the expansion for Euro 2016 will mark his presidency.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~37~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Choosing Poland and Ukraine over countries like Italy was the heart overruling the head. I have a feeling the hosting of this competition will descend into farce.
South Africa 2010 too is on very shaky ground with all the problems next door in Zimbabwe and vigilantee attacks on refugees.
Complain about this comment
thanks for mentioning that michelle platini has already given scotland a heads up for hosting 2012 should they find poland and ukraine dissatisfactory.
if only i had some fancy blue underlined writing then i could be just as good a journalist as you...
Complain about this comment
700 words to tell us that the next European Championship Finals will probably be held where they are supposed to be held and that qualification for the tournament will be almost identical to the current process. Thank you, Mr. Bose, for another valuable contribution.
Complain about this comment
Platini was one of the best things to happen to football as a player and in proving to be so as a boss too. He is very focused on the principals of the game and while he is in charge I think we are in safe hands.
I would however be very dissapointed if the tournament was increased to 24 teams. Even though this would greatly increase the chances of my wonderful Wales qualifying, this decision is so transparently based on monetary rather than footballing reasons that it would feel rather hollow.
Complain about this comment
It's Michel not Michael Mihir.
Once again is it me or does Mihir Bose a) state the incredibly obvious
b) Give 'news' three days old c) try and give the impression that all these governing bodies and sportsman only talk to him.
Is it possible to get a Sprts Editor who actually comes up with news. Breaking News rather than this continued rubbish?
Complain about this comment
24 teams for the European Championships? Why not just scrap qualifications and let everyone play at the finals? In my opinion the numer of teams should be reduced to 8. No home country participating if they don't qualify. Any country with 2 stadia should be able to host the finals without all the fuss about infrustructure etc. The finals should be FINLS and Qualifications should be QUALIFICATIONS. Use the Champions league format with slight modification i.e QF, SM and F played in the last week in one country.
Complain about this comment
Another stunning piece. I didn't know any of that.
No, hang on, yes I did. Because it's all obvious to anyone who likes football.
Mihir, can you please start writing about something new, with an opinion rather than a serious of reported comments with no names and perhaps a little flair?
Please.
Complain about this comment
You say that UEFA now understand how to run a tournament in two countries and this valuable expertise means they can move the event, should they need to, to any country where the infrastructure exists. Well... are you going to tell us?
What has UEFA learned, specifically? What has been different to Euro 2000 in the Low Countries? How does this learning help UEFA should the event need to be moved, specifically?
This is the heart of your article, so will you please re-post in reply to this comment, and fill us in.
Thanks in anticipation...
Complain about this comment
It would be shame if the Euro was moved from Poland and Ukraine. I think UEFA truly believe that hosting the tournament could be a great help to both of those countries on an economic and social level.
Spain must surely be the favourites to host 2012 if it was moved though.
It's a shame that it seems that UEFA and the associations want to keep as big of qualifying system as they have now. Why couldn't we have more groups of 5 rather than 7? The sheer amount of qualifying games seems to more and more interupt the club season, there should be scope for reducing this, especially when the status quo is to reduce how many games the players play.
I can understand, however, that the smaller countries want to keep the games with the big countries. Why could they not be paired in the draw?
As for WC2010, if it were to be moved at this late stage, you are going to need to move to a host that could, more or less, host it right away if required. Germany, as previous hosts, and the United States, with their massive resources, seem to me to be the only candidates.
Complain about this comment
24 teams would be a disaster. It would lead to a more disjointed qualifying process and a lot of mismatches and a poorer quality of games in the actual tournament. I'm Scottish and so the new system would actually benefit us. However, I'd still rather see it kept at 16. It's quality not quantity that I'm after.
Complain about this comment
I think 16 teams is better. It will be too long if there are more teams involved. the best players in Europe would not have an off-season at all. makes no sense for them to start the new seasons tired or injured.
Well done to Spain, even though I was really disappointed with how Russia approached and ultimately played the game against them.
Come on the Blues!!!
Complain about this comment
Where is Mihir now?
A lot of people don't seem to rate your articles very highly!
Complain about this comment
Did anyone else find it obscene how Platini took as much of the limelight as possible during the presentation of the cup. Since when does the Uefa President need to carry it around as if he'd won the thing himself, with the players following like lap-dogs to the pre-fab stage? You're not a player now Platini.
Keep the competition to 16 - short, intense and top quality due to the tough qualification process.
Complain about this comment
Mr Bose,
I resent the suggestion that Euro2000 in the Low Countries was as divided a tournament as the 2002 World Cup.
The groups in Euro2000 were not organized in order to keep one set of teams in Belgium and the other in the Netherlands, as was the case in Korea and Japan which were divided by an ocean.
Belgium and the Netherlands had created a single organizing body for the event, unlike Korea and Japan.
Also, Belgium and Holland have a combined total area much, much smaller than that of Germany which hosted the 2006 World Cup. Travel distances for fans were negligible compared to tournaments in nations such as France or the US.
If anything, Euro2000 was a fine example of how to co-host a tournament, and the 2002 World Cup was the exact opposite.
Complain about this comment
I'd be interested to know how a 24 team tournament will work.
Presumaby they have thought about this, so could Mihir, who is obviously good friends with Michael (sic) Platini let us know.
8 groups of 3, with top in each group reaching the 1/4 final?
4 groups of 6 with top 2 going through.
Or the dreadfully messy 6 groups of 4 with the top 2 and the 3 best 3rd place teams getting into a final 16 knockout round
Complain about this comment
Don't see how 24 teams will help the tournament. The only way they could do it is 4 groups of 6, and still only 2 teams will go through. So the more interesting part, the knockout competition, will be the same length, Just the group stage will be longer.
No need for it really. Leave it at 16. If it's not broke, don't fix it, and as we saw this summer, it's obviously not broke
Complain about this comment
Its Michel! Please correct,
one wonders how mcuh research goes into these articles, and who actaully has the final say in printing it.
Complain about this comment
Watch out for Mihir's 'exclusive' next week - 'China to host 2008 Olympics'.
Complain about this comment
I have to totally agree with SandroFantora, the only reason UEFA awarded the 2008 and 2012 finals to shared hosts was the EURO2000 experience, so claiming it was not ok is strange, the more if you know that FIFA is considering a joint bid by Holland/Belgium for the 2018 finals as serious contenders, even after the 2002 problems.
Remarkable how little knowledge a sports editor needs to have.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Why all this Mihir bashing. Is there some long term agender at work here? Did I miss something? I know the article was nothing new or revelatory but come on guys.
Complain about this comment
"Uefa confirmed to me this week that there is no Plan B."
It is off the cuff remarks like the above that really annoy me about this kind of journalism. No names, no source - so how can we be sure of its genuity?
On the topic of the increase to 24 I agree with the majority of posters here - it should not happen. Even at 16 we have two or three teams that are no more than filler. As a Welshman it would increase the chances of my national team making it, but surely it is UEFA's duty to keep the integrity of the tournament.
For me that means quality not quantity. The former should not be reduced merely to satisfy the mediocre majority or to keep the money men happy.
I think length is also important to the integrity of the tournament. I always feel the Euros strike the best balance between quality and duration - the main problem of the World Cup is that it is about a week too long and has too many average teams (from all confederations).
Complain about this comment
I think it is a great idea about the expansion of the Euro competition for 2016. It is about time that the weaker teams were given a greater chance to cause more upsets. One of the reasons Euro 2008 was so entertaining was the upsets caused by Turkey, Russia and Croatia.
While the infrastructure in the Eastern European countries may not be sufficient enough to host a competition, but these countries can definately have a good go at winning the competition.
Complain about this comment
I'd like a little insight into Platini, his political motivations and his apparent distaste - nay, dislike - of things British. Or is it, specifically, English?
Whenever there is a hint of trouble with our fans, UEFA (pre-Platini) would rage that 'one more and we'll ban you' whilst Turkey, Italy, Croatia, Serbia and Holland have never - to my knowledge - received the same.
Debts used to be cited as something that would preclude teams from UEFA competition....until Madrid council / Spanish Royal Family bought Real's training ground and so wiped out the £100m odd debt. Now that Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea (etc) have foreign owners that appear able to borrow millions to buy a club and then say 'thanks for the loan, hedge fund, the club now owes you that' Platini descends into bilious rhetoric about 'cheating to win'.
Real tediously posture about Ronaldo (as does he, by the way) and United complain.....'no wrong doing' or the odious 'it is normal' from UEFA and their mouthpiece.
I don't like the simile, but the EPL is a good 'product' that pretty much fills grounds every week - yet all UEFA want to do is slaughter it's success.
Platini was quoted as saying that the Euro 2008 competition would not miss England. It many ways, rightly so, but why do I have the impression that he / they would happily block England and English clubs from UEFA? Am I paranoid, or are they just out to get me?!
Let's have some level of investigation into what drives Platini to despise those across La Manche - and a bit of insight into how this (perceived) wrong may be righted.
Complain about this comment
how does 24 teams work??? that means you are going to have to have either; 4 groups of 6 teams with two going through, or 8 groups of 3 with two going through. you cant just add 2 more groups of 4 to make it 6 in total, because it would result in 3 teams in the semi-final. Thats either too many or too fewer games to play.
The introduction of lesser nations will just reduce the credibility of the tournament, what would adding rubbish like San Marino, Latvia, Georgia, Lithuania and the likes into the competition bring to the European stage? Nothing!
Why try and fix something that's not broken. Platini is just trying to make a name for himslef like all these other men in suits and change things dramatically, its like with that ridiculous silver goal and the now farcical offside rule, JUST LEAVE IT ALONE!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
24 teams does NOT work.
it's as simple as that.
Complain about this comment
Platini is an arrogant fool, who is so blatant in his anti English diatribe its almost comical.
He should be removed from his position immediately - hes a total jockey
Complain about this comment
Euro 2008 was unified because the host nations were knocked out early. No one cared about the co-hosts after two games. What a waste of space they were.
Expanding the tournament would be a mistake. The Euros is not about giving lesser nations a chance, its about finding the best team in Europe. The qualifiers are there to filter out the rubbish.
We could have done without Poland, Austria, Switzerland, Romania agd Greece this year. There is a bigger case to reduce rather than expand.
Complain about this comment
Why do people keep making this frankly laugable claim that San Marino and such like would qualify for a 24 team tournament? Seems to me that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
If Euro 2008 had been a 24 team tournament, then the 8 extra teams who finished 3rd in qualifying groups would be the following: Serbia, Scotland, Norway, Republic of Ireland, England, Northern Ireland, Bulgaria.
To make my point:
* Serbia went undefeated against both Poland and Portugal in Group A, drawing home and away to both.
* Scotland beat France home and away, and came within 1 goal in the final game of qualifying AND knocking out world champions Italy in the process.
* Norway came within 1 point of qualifying above Turkey, including a draw in Turkey due to a last minute Altintop goal.
* ROI are admittedly the worst of the 3rd place finishers - 5-2 in Cyprus!
* England ARE a good team despite appearance, and blew several golden opportunites. Away to Russia and home to Croatia, they were in position where had the scored stayed the same they would have qualified.
* Northern Ireland are the last team to beat Spain, and only lost 1-0 to them away. Win and draw versus Sweden, they blew it in Iceland and Latvia. Change of manager was probably the primary reason for failure.
* Bulgaria finished 1 point behind Netherlands (although the Dutch didn't really turn up in a dead rubber in the last game vs Belarus). Beat already qualified Romania at home, but did draw away in Romania early on. Drew 1-1 at home with the Dutch.
I don't see a complete 'no-hoper' amongst them, and if anything all 8 of them would have been better than Switzerland, Austria and Greece.
And let us not forget that still leaves Ukraine, Israel and Denmark not qualifying - also good enough teams. Finland also had a very good run before the wheels fell off.
I agree that one of the primary reasons for expansion is money, but to say there isn't 24 decent teams in UEFA is just way-out there.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mr Bose
Please read comments 3,5,7 and 8. They sum up my thoughts on your piece and that of many others I suspect. I think Enland (I'm English by the way) would also like the no 24 as maybe we would qualify more often.
Constructively, presenting old news, without adding a new insight or novel analysis makes for a redundant piece (or editor). Must do better.
Complain about this comment
So Luxembourg and Lichenstein want games against the "big teams" like Italy, Spain, France, Germany or England...
England????
Mr. Bose you surely meant Netherlands, Croatia or perhaps Russia or even Turkey?
Or did you mean England because it gives Luxemburg and their ilk a fighting chance?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
There are 53 Uefa members in Europe so I think 24 countries enetering the finals is just about right. It would mean the host nations would have a better chance of qualiyfiying and more matches to watch! Although I'm not sure how the format would work.
As for Platini and his distaste for everything English it's all purely down to jealousy as French teams have little or no hope of ever winning the Champions League again.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The best stage of the Euros, or the World Cup, is undoubtedly the group stage - increasing the teams, and therefore the number of group matches, will improve the experience I feel
Obviously weigh this against the talent, have we got 24 good enough teams? ok so take austria out of the equation first (they have no chance outside of being hosts), that's 15 from this tournament who can win a place - then we need an extra 9 worthy teams - England are an obvious choice (insert witty put-down about how bad England are here), also Scotland, Ireland and even N. Ireland - be a lot better from the British Isles' perspective, other countries could be Denmark, Belgium, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Norway, Israel, also Finland and Serbia aren't bad - it would still be competitive with 24 of those teams, qualifying may lose some of its edge, although play-offs would help
also consider the world cup - Europe will get 13 berths in that - we barely have more teams in our own comp (16), it seems fair to lower the threshold a little bit for the lesser European teams
my only concern would be hosting, as scotland have pointed out 24 teams would restrict many countries ability, especially considering how small most European countries are, however with the schenden agreement and a proven joint hosting in 08 it may well be a better option now
Complain about this comment
How about we just make it like the World Cup and let 32 teams qualify?! That would the solve the "unsuitable number" conundrum and we could have a tournament of immense quality.... You never know - it might give the lower ranked nations such as England a chance to strut their stuff on the big stage too!!
Complain about this comment
Rabster wrote:
"So Luxembourg and Lichenstein want games against the "big teams" like Italy, Spain, France, Germany or England...
England????"
-------------------------------------------------------
Rabster, try reading the article again in the correct context - think you've misunderstood what is actually being said.
Complain about this comment
Liechtenstein with an e between the i and the c please Mihir. At least get your spelling right.
Complain about this comment
I hate all the self-depreciation over England - don't know whether it's foreign fans or just England-hating club fans (or just trolling) but really how fair is it?
England missed out on 2008 by a point - they failed to score against Macedonia at home, Russia got a dodgy penalty in Russia, we were hardly outclassed - McClaren was a fool's choice and everybody knew it before he even started, one look at his teamsheets will tell you how bad he was - the England-hate really is unjustified, at least give Capello (a decent manager) a chance - the Czech Rep and Croatia coming up, we'll see if we really are worse than Andorra then
Complain about this comment
Ha ha ha. Comments far more intresting than the writing.
Complain about this comment
koonie194 - "it would give lower ranked teams like England a chance"
England who were 9th in the world til yesterday? and now dropped to 15th because the inevitable 4-year tournament shift happened, they remain 12th in Europe, and that's one of their lowest rankings, funny how they still statistically should be in the finals of either tournament? but oh no, we should be in a mini-league with san marino and luxembourg
Complain about this comment
If the problem in Zimbabwe is a good reason for S. Africa not to host the 2010 WC then I think nothing should be hosted in Europe or the US where there are all inds of Terrorists atack on mass transit and public buildings.
That argument is so baseless. I believe that the Euro , CAN, WC etc should rotate and go more to those countries where they have never been before . It helps the economy and political climate positively
Complain about this comment
Impressive research Hard_to_beat.
As much as I like the compact 3 week Euros with 16 teams, I feel there is a strong case for adding 8 teams. The standard of those teams finishing 3rd in the qualifiers is not much lower than those who finished 2nd and qualified for the Championships. Indeed if the seeding goes awry (which it normally does), some of third placed teams are actually better.
The pluses - 24 teams would dilute the presence of low quality joint hosts. Anyone could host or co-host the tournament; in a '4 leagues of 6' format, it would still only be necessary for co-hosts to provide 4 venues each (each to be used every 4 days), though ideally perhaps 5. The tournament could last 4 weeks.
The minuses - even before the end of the group matches, there may be a number of dead rubbers (matches where the outcome is of no consequnce to either team) even in the 4th of the 5 rounds of matches.
My dread would be that we end up with 6 leagues of 4 and playing for 2 weeks just to reduce 24 to 16 using some spurious system of best 3rd placed teams. Three groups of 8 or eight groups of 3 wouldn't work. Nor would the second phase work with the dreaded format of 4 leagues of 3 (as in the 78 and 82 world cups) which was open to 'fixing'.
Complain about this comment
ZAO_ZAO wrote:
If the problem in Zimbabwe is a good reason for S. Africa not to host the 2010 WC then I think nothing should be hosted in Europe or the US where there are all inds of Terrorists atack on mass transit and public buildings.
----------------------------------------------------
Yeah, you're right ZAO. it should go to somewhere safe like the Middle East or something......not that death trap of a place they call Europe.
LOLOLOLOL
Complain about this comment
Cheers Lescott for a little walk - erhuhuh
24 teams is a funny number of teams, I'll grant you that though.
It can really only be 6 groups of 4 teams because 3 team groups means every team is only guaranteed 2 games. Everyone will want the minimum of 3 games. Anymore than 3 and you will definitely have dead rubbers.
So, 6 of 4 would lead to 2 solutions for a round of 16 entry; groups winners and runners-up plus 4 best 3rd place teams, OR some form of play-off system.
The '4 best' ranking is more straight-forward, but maybe UEFA might see an opportunity with an extra play-off round. The 2 best 3rd place automatically go through, and the 4 others have to go into play-off games. That might be a route they could go down.
Alternatively, and more radically, only the group winners are automatically through while any number of the runners-up and 3rd place teams play-off.
Complain about this comment
"previous hosts such as France....or even england may be chosen." Surely not when we have the London 2012 Olympics as well. Technically they aren't held at exactly the same time , but surely there would be an unavoidable clash?
Complain about this comment
Rabster, try reading the article again in the correct context - think you've misunderstood what is actually being said.
*************************
Trust me, I understand English pretty well.
My gripe is not with the entire article but rather that one passage that suggested England were still one of the "big" teams of European football. I understand that Luxemburg and Liechenstein may not wish to play in a "group of minnows" but to infer they are craving a match against England above Netherlands, Portugal, Croatia etc. is blatant chauvinism. It is no longer 1966, get over it.
Complain about this comment
Rabster wrote:
Trust me, I understand English pretty well.
My gripe is not with the entire article but rather that one passage that suggested England were still one of the "big" teams of European football. I understand that Luxemburg and Liechenstein may not wish to play in a "group of minnows" but to infer they are craving a match against England above Netherlands, Portugal, Croatia etc. is blatant chauvinism.
-------------------------------------------------------
Chauvinism??? is it?
Rabster, as reflected by the world rankings, England is still in the top 15 in the world, even taking into account our recent debacle.
I understand that being a scot you have an inbuilt grudge against England. I can accept that, I even get pleasure out of it if truth be told.
Good luck to Murray by the way.
Complain about this comment
Rabster
The fact is that playing England gets you more money than playing anyone else, ie gate, tv revenue, advertising. All much bigger than anyone else.
Complain about this comment
It was a good tournament.
Complain about this comment
Can anybody tell me why Poland and the Ukraine were chosen to host 2012 when most of the infrastructure problems were known already?
Complain about this comment
24 teams would be ridiculous. If they're struggling to ensure the Euro 2012 hosts have the stadia to cope with 16 teams, why on earth should it be expanded.
That basically rules out the lice of Switzerland and Austria and countries of that size from ever hosting again.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Good idea - 24. This years competition ended too soon. Miss it this week !
Complain about this comment
It would be interesting to see the plan B in operation but to even consider england as an option is laughable considering London would be a focal point and the olympic game following any major football tournament would be a shambles.
Complain about this comment
How to do a 24 team tournament (1982 World Cup style):
Group Stage (24):
6 groups of 4, top 2 from each qualify
Second Round (12):
4 groups of 3, top 1 from each qualify
Semi Finals (4)
Final (2)
Complain about this comment
sihowells
=========
you mean you actually sat through the whole article and counted 700 words. Wow you're quite the jobless one
Complain about this comment
I can understand the need to increase the number of teams in the Tournament considering the increasing UEFA membership but 24 is way to many.
If one is to avoid increasing the number of low quality games the number of teams should not exceed 20.
The Qualifying Rounds for Euro 2012 could then consist of 8 groups of 6 teams and one group of five. The Winner of each would qualify automatically with the Runner Ups with home advantage playing 3rd placed teams from another group in a one game play off. Giving 18 teams plus Poland and the Ukraine.
Similarly for the tournament itself there could be 4 Groups of 5 teams. In order to avoid more dead rubbers, only the top team would automatically qualify for the Quarter Finals. The other 4 Group Runners up would play 3rd placed teams from another group in a one game play off. From then on the tournament would remain as it does now.
Such a format would ensure smaller nations could still play qualifying games against larger ones and enlarge the tournament without decreasing the quality of football matches. Rather than just seeking to qualify, teams would have greater incentive to win all their matches and finish as high as they could, with the advantages of finishing top rather than coming 2nd or 3rd in their Groups.
A sensible compromise anyone?
Complain about this comment
For a future location, or an alternative back upfor Euro 2012 in Poland/Ukraine, how about Scotland and Wales with perhaps 2 high capacity English stadiums selected that are respectively the closest to the Scottish and Welsh Borders ?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
As someone for whom football is not the centre of my intellectual activity I found the article quite useful. The barbarians may choose to disagree.
Complain about this comment
Sorry to [put a dampener on this, but I can't see any way of making a tournament of 24 teams work.
Can't start with 6 groups of 4 with the best 3rd placed teams going through. Teams in the last group to play have an advantage knowing what they need to do to qualifyfor a 3rd spot
Also it really depends on the quality of the group (1986 both Bulgaria and Uraguay failed to win any of their first round matches - 2D and 1L but qualified ahead of Hungary who did at least chalk up one win. In any case Portugal finishing 4th in their group had a superior record to all of these teams)
If you have top 2 oly, then you can't have 4 groups of 3 - in previous world cups of 24 teams it showed serious flaws - the sides competing the last match knowing exactly what they had to achieve to go through whilst the other team sits it out. (1982 Poland playing out a 0-0 v Russia to get to the semis on goal difference)
A play off of 3rd placed teams is messy stretching the tournament to another week - possibly too long a break for the 1st and 2nd teams or exhausting the 3rd placed teams ...
Any other ideas ... 32 teams maybe
Complain about this comment
Lescott -
I don't see how the last group's team could have any significant advantage in knowning the outcome of the groups proceeding them and the ranking situation. More than likely they would need to win to be sure anyway and if all 4 teams were in with a chance (far more likely with 3 places up for grabs) then it would be a non-issue.
The WC86 comparision is irrelevant given that at the time it was only 2 points for a win. Hungary would have qualified had it been 3pts as it is now. Admittedly, Portugal would still be out in a 3-1-0 system, but you can still get such inbalance in the top 2 system.
If you only wanted 12 to advance (top 2), then 4 groups of 3 teams as a second round wouldn't be a complete waste of time even now, but I think it's unlikely.
Come to think of it though, that 2nd group phase wouldn't be completely out-of-the-question given UEFA's experiment with it in the Champions League AND it would spread out the knock-out stage further.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I heard about Poland and Ukraine possibly being the hosts for the 2012 Euro and was surprised straight away, I didn't think it was true and that they were just contenders to host it. They could be good hosts but need to convince many. Not two of the major footballing countries, I see venues are an issue already and what about travel and accomodation services. Can they achieve it financially? What about security, correct me if I'm wrong but haven't Poland had major issues with football related violence? Please UEFA can England be considered instead.....
Complain about this comment
first time ive read this guys column...........................never agin!!!!
Complain about this comment
Another boring blog by Mihr Bose.
Why do we have these blogs on the BBC Sports page? Like the Liverpool ownership article. Stating information that we all ready know.
Complain about this comment
Interesting that you have Scotland as a 'small country'. I'm guessing that's scale rather than results against England.
Last Scotland v England fixture (at Wembley)?
England 0 Scotland 1
Just a thought.
Complain about this comment
Platini and his people have done a fine job in terms of the organisation of the European Championships all the sides that participated were quality. I would say though it would be to deteriment of the strength of European football to expand the tournament further to 24 teams. Simply becuase there are not 24 quality European national sides. In comparison to the World Cup there were and are generally no "miss matches" in terms of football quality. Is this another drive for further greed in terms of money from Uefa or do they geuninely believe there were 8 other national sides at home over the last three weeks that could have added even more to the great spectacle that was Euro 20098
Complain about this comment
No matter how many teams play in EURO (16 - 20 - 24 or 32), the first thing UEFA needs to do is to reckognize KOSOVO as a UEFA member and that way UEFA would have 54 teams. This would simplyfy the group stages as you would have 9 Groups by 6 teams.
If you would like 24 teams in Euro than 1st and 2nd teams would progress (18) plus 3rd best team (19) plus the playoffs of the remaining 3rd teams (23) and one from the host country. (if there would have to be 2 host countries than the worst team from 3rd would go home and the rest would play playoffs).
As for 20 Teams than 1st and 2nd teams would go through (18) plus best 3rd and the host (if there are 2 hosts, only the 1st and 2nd teams would go through).
As for 32 i think it is way to many ... then there is no need to play group stages at all.... as almost all the teams of Europe will paly on EURO...
So all UEFA needs to do is to accept KOSOVO to its memebership....
Complain about this comment
I appear to be taking some gentle criticism from people assuming I am Scottish. It is true I was born and raised in Scotland with a Scottish father and *English* mother...so I fall into that derided category of being a pragmatist. In the current climate I feel *realist* is more appropriate. The article by Mr Bose is typical 'Londoncentric' journalise bias - throw in the name England to appeal to the "masses" somewhat similar to an earlier blog asking "does the rest of Europe miss us?" (Us of course meaning England.)
FIFA rankings are at best flawed and England along with all the other 'home' nations failed to qualify for Euro 2008.
Why cannot people accept that? My gripe is with Mihir Bose for citing England as a "big name" but somehow omitting the likes of Netherlands and Portugal not to mention Russia and Croatia who were in England's qualifying goup. Games that were played on the pitch not in FIFA's ranking system.
Complain about this comment
I must admit I thoroughly enjoyed Euro 2008, despite the best attempts of commentators and pundits to ruin it by mentioning England at least twice during each 45 minutes of play.
Not having the true 'perennial underachievers' (England not Spain!) present meant you could enjoy the actual football without unecessary distractions.
If the BBC or ITV for that matter broadcast only in England it would be understandable, but the rest of the UK is just a bit fed up with the royal 'we' at major sporting events where there is not a GB team.
I am also against extending the number of teams from 16 to 24 as I feel it will not only dilute the quality but become a bit tedious; the Euros are an improvement on the World Cup by virtue of having a game less.
If Scotland do manage to qualify for future finals I want them to do it entirely on merit and not because almost every other team can make it to the finals.
Complain about this comment
@65 - the 'barbarians' do know about football, so your sneering at them just points up your own ignorance. Which is apparently on a level with that of Mr Bose, who constantly recycles old news/rumours/opinions and expects us to believe that they are something new and fresh.
I am not happy that my licence fee pays for this!
Complain about this comment
How can any oe argue that Platini is anti-English ?
After all, with the enlargement from 16 to 24 participants even England might make it ...
Complain about this comment
these people taking fright at the prospect of 24 teams playing in the euros need to take on board a few things!
Firstly the tournament IS going to be increased to 24 teams! This is not a matter for debate - anyone unable to accept this should obviously do something else next time!
Secondly the claim that this will reduce the 'quality' is a complete red herring! In view of the dire performances of the likes of austria, poland and greece in no way can it seriously be argued that the likes of scotland, denmark, serbia and bulgaria would have reduced the quality of the football on display!
thirdly these people seem to forget - or maybe dont know - that the WC used to comprise 24 teams, and this worked perfectly satisfactorily until the number was increases to the present 32 teams. Indeed there is every prospect that in the future the euros may too have 32 teams as there tends to be anatural evolution to these things! Hey with 32 teams wales may even manage to qualify.
Complain about this comment
Re: ApeWHU, I understand what u mean when u say Croatia, Turkey and russia are weaker teams, compared to say spain, germany, italy ect, but im sure ud admit theres a smaller gap between those teams than between ur supposed weaker teams and Wales, IR, Lux, Malta, San Marino, Macadonia, Lich. I doubt any of those teams would reach the finals but would feel sorry for them if they did.
Does everyone remember Blatter banging on about having the World Cup every 2 years, its plain to see these idiot (FIFA and UEFA) are just trying to milk the competitions for as much $£ as possible, just the kind of attitude football needs more of :-/
It does feel like england are hard done by fifa and uefa, pray to god fifa gets a brit in charge again sometime soon
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Ah, the Bose-baiters are out in numbers again, it would seem.
Why the continual pointed criticism on the content of this blog, I wonder? No claim I can see as to it being a 'Hot News' feature, it just does what it says on the tin - one man's take on recent events.
Calm down, you knockers - the editor has flunkies out there for the detailed stuff.
Complain about this comment
I love it, such educated openess. Can you please explain how the Ukrainian Government is largely dysfunctional? To those of you who don't like Platini...just the best player of his time, and now having done a great job, seems like you are all jealous.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It won't come to it, but say 2012 did require England as a venue - Wembley is nowhere near the Olympic village and stadia. And even if that clash were a problem it's not like Old Trafford doesn't hold what now? Nearly 80,000.
Complain about this comment
'richie' comment 80
hey rich your being a bit harsh there putting wales in the same category as the likes of luxembourg, san marino and the like! Youve obviously paid no attention to the world rankings as if you did you'd know that wales are well ahead of footballing minnows like those!
In fact before the tournamant started wales were actually well ahead of hosts austria and only a couple of places behind co-hosts switzerland in the rankings!
Also how on earth can you say wales would never qualify? Wales reached the playoffs as recently as 2004 - only losing 1-0 to a russian side fielding a player who it transpired shouldnt even have been allowed to play!
While if the same qualification process had been in place in previous years as for this tournament ie the top 2 in the group qualify Wales would have reached the finals in 1992 and 1984 (wales of course did in fact reach the last 8 in 1976)
As for the statement that croatia and russia are weaker teams - weaker than who exactley? Russia played some of the best football seen in years, in the process outclassing a dutch side at their own passing game. Croatia outplayed every team they met - including turkey - and were desperately unlucky not to reach at least the semis. Both of course also eliminated england to qualify!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Shocking cencorship and it's worst.
Complain about this comment
Mihir Bose looks like Yoda from Star Wars.
Complain about this comment
kwinquark1 - no problem with 'one man's take on recent events', however making out he has insider knowledge is frankly laughable.
'Uefa confirmed to me this week that there is no Plan B.' Really?! Wasn't this reported in a press conference with Michel Platini 4 days ago??
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
re: 75 Rabster - You do seem a little deluded in your idea of a 'big' nation - yes Russia and Croatia played well in Euro 2008 and I have immense respect for Bilic and the Croatian team, and Hiddink too, but success does not indicate a 'big' team
Croatia is actually smaller than Scotland, Russia is a fairly unknown side - when one talks about big teams we mean big in terms of stature - Croatia are good, and certainly were better than England under Mcclaren - but England as a country holds over 10x the population and the richest and most watched football league in the world and the majority of champions' league players - when in a tournament it will also send one of the largest and most dominant groups of fans to a tournament
and in regards to the original point - for the minnows their big chance is playing at Wembley, a 90,000 seater stadium with all the glamour associated with the biggest of football venues and one of the largest tv audiences possible - Croatia cannot provide that, so when we think of big footballing countries - Germany, Spain, Italy, England and to some extent France come to mind - regardless of a recent patch of failure - i take your point that the Netherlands and Portugal are smaller but still should essentially be considered part of the big boys club, but Croatia will struggle to provide that sort of level, no matter how good their team and Russia whilst it has the population, requires a lot of work to be at a similar level
I do detect a slight hint of wanting to stick it to the english - we failed to qualify yes, and we performed poorly, but england remains one of the 'big' countries and will remain so unless it keeps that failure constant and english football essentially dies
Complain about this comment
Dear Mihir,
Do not be disheartened by some of the ignorant comments on your blog. There are those of us out there who understand the true value of the truth you report and have the abillity to read between the lines to see the real story. I realise at times it is not always possible for you to publish articles detailing the full level of corruption in proffesional sport, but this does not make your articles any less valuable.
Keep up the good work.
Complain about this comment
So success does not indicate a "big" team?
Apparently it is down to population so why not Russia (oops, they are "unknown")
Perchance Luxemburg should just play China every month? (Nah, they are "unknown" too)
How could Spain possibly have beaten Germany? (Approx. 37-40million vs. 80 million +)
And the final piece of 'logic' - the EPL is the biggest league in the world, just a pity that a BBC report informed us that almost 2/3 of players are non-English. I can just imagine these "Foreign" types wondering why Fabregas, Torres, Ballack et al are not playing.
Best wishes to Histon, my friend who lives there tells me your popn. is around 4,000 :)
Complain about this comment
The name 'Bose' is reknowned for good speakers.
Definately not for writers though :/
Complain about this comment
Liamhennessy, please learn to spell properly before accusing someone of being a poor writer. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry, I still don't see a solution for coping with 24 teams. If you have a best third place team system then it favours the weaker groups, possibly such as the ones where the top seed is the host country, or where one team gets absolutely drubbed by everyone else (think Heineken Cup). The second group stage idea does work mathematically, but as we saw when they had this for the Champions League, it's a bit of a tedious format.
And to check - on the number of countries, has Montenegro been counted as the separate identity it is now?
Complain about this comment
We will see the next 2 major championships relocated: Souh Africa will be replaced by USA, Poland/Ukraine will be altered to just Poland. This reflects the fact that morning-after realities will replace the emotional politics of the original selection processes. Good.
Complain about this comment
Moneyalwayscorrupts could you please explain what you mean by
"There are those of us out there who understand the true value of the truth you report and have the abillity to read between the lines to see the real story"
The reason many people including myself complain about articles like this one by Mihir Bose is because firstly the news involved is in most cases old news that anyone with access to a TV or internet would know about already, and secondly Mihir seems to have no personal views or opinions whatsoever on these old stories he writes meaning the reader is unable to engage with the writing and gain some kind of new understanding or view that the writer may have tried to convay. I personally feel that Mihir Bose's blog contains no interesting views or opinions either wrong or right and therefore I find his work a complete waste of my time and license fee. Whereas Martin Samuel for The Times on the other hand is the perfect example of a sports journalist who constantly writes a high quality of intersting articles that engage the reader and make you think and learn new thiings.
Complain about this comment
95 - an apparently obvious flaw that i saw when i wrote, and it was appropriately taken out of context, because i wasn't trying to say it is all about population - but that population is a factor, yes russia is obviously the largest country in europe - but it lacks the development and status in the football world, you really think there's a lot of prestige in playing russia?
the original point was the minnows will want to play a big team - that means playing in a big stadium in an established country with a lot of interest, the quality of the side is fairly academic - but go ahead, enjoy trying to deny the existence of england
Complain about this comment
Uefa have to make the right decision if the tournament sucks it's their fault.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS