The venues for Euro 2028 and Euro 2032 are set, with the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland hosting the former, and Italy and Turkey the latter. UEFA’s recent announcement was largely expected, a formality resulting from a pre-arranged agreement. However, the real conversation should not be about host countries, but about the number of teams participating in these prestigious tournaments.
Since Euro 2016, the European Championship has expanded to 24 teams. While expansion may seem positive, this format has led to an awkward and arguably illogical structure. The increase from 16 teams diluted the intense competition that characterized earlier Euros. Interestingly, having expanded to 24 teams, the next logical step of expanding further to 32 teams becomes increasingly compelling and makes more sense than sticking with the current, somewhat cumbersome, format.
When considering knockout tournaments, multiples of two naturally emerge as ideal team numbers. Think of 2, 4, 8, 16, 32. These numbers allow for straightforward knockout progression, halving the competition at each stage until the final two teams remain. This elegant simplicity is often overlooked in international football, where tournaments like the European Championship, the Asian Cup, and the Africa Cup of Nations persist with 24 teams. Even the Copa America, though often featuring 12 teams, has experimented with 16.
Euro 2016 marked the debut of the 24-team format, changing the tournament's dynamics.
One can appreciate the challenges faced by confederations like South America’s CONMEBOL, dealing with a slightly unusual number of member nations when structuring their tournaments. However, in many cases, the 24-team format appears to be a result of suboptimal decision-making, leading to less compelling tournaments.
The core issue with 24 teams is its indivisibility by two when aiming for a balanced knockout structure. Reducing from 24 directly to 8 is too drastic. The current compromise involves including third-placed teams from the group stage, ranked by their performance, which introduces inconsistencies. These teams often face opponents of varying strengths and motivations, especially in the final group matches.
Problems with the 24-Team Euro Format
The 24-team structure introduces several significant problems:
- Diluted Group Stage Significance: With four out of six third-placed teams advancing, accumulating just three points offers a good chance of progression. This significantly reduces the stakes of many group stage matches, as there’s considerable leeway for error. Consequently, the knockout stages can include teams that performed poorly in their groups. A 32-team tournament, while still featuring a round of 16, would ensure that qualifying teams have demonstrated stronger group stage performances.
- Complicated Knockout Stage Bracket: Pairing teams in the second round becomes unnecessarily complex, requiring convoluted charts. For instance, winning Group B in Euro 2024 could mean facing runners-up from Groups A, D, E, or F, depending on which third-placed teams qualify. This complexity creates logistical headaches for fans and teams trying to plan travel and accommodation for the knockout rounds.
- Unfair and Unbalanced Matchups: The system lacks fairness. At Euro 2024, a Group A winner plays the runner-up of Group C, while a Group B winner might face a third-placed team. This inconsistency extends to runners-up, some of whom will face group winners, while others play fellow runners-up – an uneven playing field for a major tournament.
- Information Advantage in Later Groups: Teams in Groups E and F, playing their final matches later, gain an unfair advantage. They are aware of the points required to qualify as one of the best third-placed teams. This was evident in Euro 2020, where the final group games felt anticlimactic, with results lacking definitive meaning until the entire group stage concluded.
- Bloated Group Stage: The group stage is simply too long. It takes 36 matches to narrow down 24 teams to 16. Remarkably, a 24-team tournament’s group stage has more matches than a complete 16-team tournament. While games like Germany’s 4-2 victory over Portugal at Euro 2020 were entertaining, their overall significance was diminished by the high probability of Portugal still qualifying.
Comparing the game counts in tournaments of different sizes (8, 12, 16, 24, and 32 teams), the expansion from 16 to 24 teams represents the most substantial increase in the total number of matches.
| Teams | Rounds | Group Games | Knockout Games | Total Games |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 5 | 12 | 3 | 15 |
| 12 | 6 | 18 | 7 | 25 |
| 16 | 6 | 24 | 7 | 31 |
| 24 | 7 | 36 | 15 | 51 |
| 32 | 7 | 48 | 15 | 63 |
Euro '96, a 16-team tournament, exemplified a more streamlined and intensely competitive format.
Moving to Euros 32: A More Logical Solution
Is reverting to 16 teams the answer? While appealing to purists, it’s politically improbable. Therefore, the more realistic and beneficial solution is expanding from 24 to 32 teams. While concerns exist, counter-arguments address the main objections.
Addressing Concerns About a 32-Team Euros
- Diluted Quality? While a slight dilution is possible, the quality gap between the 24th and 32nd best European teams is marginal compared to the difference between the 16th and 24th. The major quality adjustment occurred with the initial expansion to 24. Currently, several competitive teams, such as Poland, Norway, Sweden, Republic of Ireland, Greece, Ukraine, Finland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Iceland, often miss out on Euros qualification. Expanding to 32 wouldn’t suddenly include footballing minnows.
- Player Overload? The tournament structure ensures top teams play the same number of games. Finalists would still play seven matches, semi-finalists six, quarter-finalists five, and round of 16 participants four. More players would participate in three group games instead of none, a manageable increase in workload.
- Host Nation Capacity? Qatar successfully hosted a 32-team World Cup with just eight stadiums. Infrastructure might require adjustments for more fans and training facilities, but for hosts like the UK and Ireland, or Italy and Turkey, this is well within their capabilities.
- Too Many Games to Watch? While a 16-team tournament offered the charm of watching every game, the major expansion to 24 has already altered this. A 32-team tournament adds only 12 more games compared to the current 24-team format (63 vs. 51), a relatively minor increase. Furthermore, viewers can choose which matches to watch.
- Boring Qualification? Qualification might become less dramatic, but the current system isn’t always thrilling. A streamlined qualification process, possibly integrated with the Nations League, could be designed.
While expanding further from an already expanded format might seem counterintuitive, the advantages of a 32-team Euros outweigh the disadvantages. The Euros can learn from the successful 32-team Women’s World Cup, which maintained quality, made group matches more meaningful, and was widely considered a triumph. The European Championship should follow this progressive model.
[
GO DEEPER
Qatar urged to reconsider World Cup worker bonuses](https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5002065/2023/10/27/world-cup-2022-worker-bonuses/)*(Top photo: BSR Agency/Getty Images)*
