Should the Euros be in one country?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- Should the Euros be in one country?
Try The Athletic for FREE for 30 days: www.theathleti...
Subscribe: bit.ly/TifoSubs... | 🔔Make sure to enable all push notifications!🔔
Watch the most recent videos: • Most Recent Videos | T...
This year’s European Championships are being held across the continent. Aside from the pandemic, is hosting a large sporting event in multiple countries a good idea?
Seb Stafford-Bloor looks at what the economic benefits are of hosting an international tournament, what the costs are, and whether EURO2020 is likely to have any lasting impact on the host nations.
Illustrated by Henry Cooke.
Follow Tifo Football:
Twitter: / tifofootball_
Facebook: / tifofootball
Instagram: / tifofootball_
Listen to the Tifo Football podcast:
The Athletic UK: bit.ly/TifoPodC...
Podfollow: podfollow.com/...
Acast: bit.ly/TifoAcas...
Apple Podcasts: bit.ly/TifoFootPod
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Watch more Tifo Football:
Tactics Explained: • Tactics Explained | Ti...
Finances & Laws: • Finances & Laws | Tifo...
Tifo Football Podcast: • Tifo Football Podcast
Most Recent Videos: • Most Recent Videos | T...
Popular Videos: • Popular Videos | Tifo ...
Produced by Tifo Studios: Taking an illustrated look into the beautiful game.
Music sourced from epidemicsound.com
Additional footage sourced from freestockfootagearchive.com
About Tifo Football:
Tifo loves football. We create In-depth tactical, historical and geopolitical breakdowns of the beautiful game.
We know there’s an appetite for thoughtful, intelligent content. For stuff that makes the complicated simple.
We provide analysis on the Premier League, Champions League, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, World Cup and more.
Our podcasts interview some of the game’s leading figures. And our editorial covers football with depth and insight.
Founded in 2017 and became a part of The Athletic in 2020. For business inquiries, reach out to tifo@theathletic.com.
We also make bespoke videos.
#EURO2020
Yes. Teams having to travel up to 3 times during the group stage while others in the group can stay at home is absolutely ridiculous.
The stats for Wales was crazy Denmark travel 360mile in the whole thing Wales travelled 5300miles. It's unfair to have a travelling team and a home team(other than a single host)
@@rhyswilliams4893 If one or two countries have to organize everything (hotels for players and tourists, stadiums, etc) I have no problem with them having a home advantage, but not like this.
Additionally, no one has to travel anymore as soon as they are in the host country.
Poland travelled 9k kilometers (Russia-Spain-Russia)
Switzerland had to travel the most of any country. They went Baku > Rome > Baku > Bucharest. No wonder they played horribly against italy, meanwhile italy played two home games
all these travel choices were made not forced, eufa allowed teams to stay and train where they will be playing but for reasons like comfort or privacy most teams chose to travel
Whichever format provides more profit is what UEFA will choose to do.
Soo.. Euros in Qatar and China
@@azek009 in Kazakhstan if possible.
Well.. it’s a business..
That's capitalism for you
As it should be. They are just trying to serve the customers and make the customers happy
Yes it should. Too much comfort for too many countries. What makes international tournaments so special is that feeling of tenseness away from home, even though you’re watching it in your local pub.
2 countries is good aswell
For is Asians if the tournament is only held in England for example we will have to travel a lot but if it's held in Baku and multiple cities we get to attend games easily without facing problem
@@parovozrufclm I actually think 2 neighbors holding it is perfect.
I think the world Cup should be held on every continent on Earth, with the final being played in Antarctica.
considering FIFA constant efforts to destroy the World Cup we might see that at some point lol (a WC on every continent, not the final in Antarctica)
The current format is ridiculous. Some teams clearly have an advantage. Wales travelled to Baku, England haven’t left Wembley lol
Luckily England play in Rome on Saturday.
They say there’s no official host nation this time, but we all know that’s complete bs
@@TheOriginalEwan and your fav stadium is in the country you're hating on 🙍
How about holding it within different regions? Scandinavian, Balkan, Iberian etc.... Seems to get the best from both options then.
I second that.
Yeah that would be much better, will give smaller countries a chance to host a few games
Agreed. All the Nordic Countries have plans to make a Nordic bid for Euro 2028. That would be amazing!
100% agree. It makes no sense that your team’s next game can be in Sevilla, Baku or St Petersburg, when they are so far away from each other
@@BananaXtreme16 yeah. Poland has been treated unfairly. Their first vs Slovakia in Saint Petersburg, their second vs Spain in Sevilla and then their final game vs Sweden in Saint Petersburg again! Meanwhile Spain get to play all their games in Sevilla. You gotta feel sad for Poland finishing last in group E
Yes! Euro this year was a disaster. Germany, Italy and England always playing home during group phase is so ridiculous
For England if they reach the semis...all are home games which is ridiculous
@@asaltedpeanut2138 England are so desperate to win a trophy that they're willing to buy for it, well...
@@ultimatemachine457 cry you lost to Belgium
@@ultimatemachine457 no way, Germany will thrash England
@@AgnishBeck yeah that's for sure
Yes, definitely. It is unfair that England, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Denmark didn’t have to travel and that they played all their group matches at home while the competitors had to travel all the time from Sevilla to St.Petersburg..and to make it even worse? The fans from Croatia, Czech Republic were in fact not even allowed to travel to the UK…not even with a negative Covid-19 test. Everyone had to go into a 10 days quarantine…despite being tested negative on COVID-19 . This has nothing to do with fair play.
I forgot Italy among the countries with an unfair advantage of playing all their group matches at home …without any travelling
@@antekovac5644 Not to mention that some of the games were hold in Baku, Aerbaidjan, many hours travelling from London, Sevilla or Rome
If England wins it will be another asterisk for their collection
@@bigguyCIA4u of course. People would be desperate to find excuses if they would win
@@thomassinikangas bodied him
The most unfair EURO ever. Engineered hosting nations, game paths, discrimination of opposite fans not being allowed to travel to the UK to support their teams etc etc etc
That's not the UK's fault. Plenty of European countries have banned UK nationals entering their territory as well. There is a global pandemic on after all.... In theory a good idea just a wrong time to try it out.
History has provided the answer: yes
But not in russia.
@@reksiohundson8706 or Qatar
@@gwkiv1458 agree , choice to "give" them WG was misstake , that was pure corruption .
How conservative is this
… what?
We should make it multi country, but the countries should be close. For example , travelling to Baku and Rome for games is dumb, but Rome and Paris isn't
Yeah Azerbaijan didn’t even qualify for the euros lol.
@@arkarnanhtike1379 ya wales had to travel 5000 kms this whole tournament
Europe is small tho
@@ignaciocamporro920 take countries in groups of 3 to host: Portugal, Spain and England.
France, Italy and Greece.
Germany, Holland and Belgium.
Etc
Ikr I mean there's so many possibilities! You could do Iberia, UK, Scandinavia, Balkans, Eastern Europe, Central Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, maybe get Switzerland involved as well)
No.. The Tournament will lose it's identity.. This one like those Anniversary tournaments are fine, otherwise it should be a max 2 or 3 countries.. We need to remember every tournament very differently.. That's why we love these tournaments..
I wouldn't set a hard limit of 2 countries. For countries with smaller domestic leagues 3 to 4 neighboring countries might also be okay (thinking about Greece, North Macedonia, Bulgaria, just to name an example. Or the baltic states). But either than that, I agree.
@@lonestarr1490 Yeah, that's fine.. Countries who share borders which even if 4 are okay..
@@lonestarr1490 for me the limit should be in size and in number of countries. Like max 4 countries and x square km of area. 4 to limit the automatic qualifications, and an area, so that a bid with, for example, 4 neighboring small countries can make sense
i like the tournaments when 2-4 smaller regional countries, who otherwise wouldn't be able to on their own, get together and host. Benelux or Poland-Ukraine for example.
3-4 is the max for me, this year i dont even know every host country its just too much
Wales had to travel 1/5 of the distance around the world during this tournament and played with fewer than 1000 Welsh fans across all our games.
Other teams had legitimate home fixtures, some had multiple home fixtures with fans.
We shouldn’t do another Pan-European Euros.
Should only ever be in one country or dual hosting.... The whole point of a tournament is that the selected host puts on a show for the rest Europe to remember and massive boost to their respective economy... They welcome all the qualified teams and we all enjoy visiting the cities 👌👍.... This one has been great so far on the pitch, but lots of teams have had many home advantages to help them, yet some of the countries had no home game.. Travelled thousands of miles and barely anyone allowed in! That wales vs Denmark match was bizarre as Dutch banned UK fans from entering the country due to covid restraints etc, yet Danes were allowed to.visit, yet if Holland had progressed further into the competition they would been allowed onto the UK to play at Wembley!!! What's the difference??
That's European union's matter but for us Asians it's really difficult to go in games at France Portugal or Spain 👍
That's not the competition formats fault, though. That's each country's law blocking the fans. I agree that single nation tournaments are better, but you can't use the pandemic as a reason to dismiss this format.
we're all forgetting that this format was supposed to be a one-off celebration of the 60th anniversary of the tournament. Wembley was only supposed to host the semifinal/final but Ireland's venue was revoked.
Yeah but that's not how it actually works places like Brazil have had massive problems from hosting the tournament where spreading it across a number of countries which already have stadiums
Yes, or at the very least, one cluster of nations (though not sure how they could work that to have teams auto-qualify for the tournament) such as Scandinavia, Czech-Slovak, Belgium/Netherlands or Spain/Portugal
Both 2008 and 2012 were like that with Austria + Switzerland and Poland + Ukraine. I'd say the first option was a bit better because both countries' size combined is less than half of Poland.
Czechia and Slovakia, are unbelievably far from having the infrastructure. The Nordic countries aren't really close either
@@HMDHEGD The problem is Cold...But you think they can't afford to build big stadiums...You are wrong.
3-4 countries as host is feasable which are close especially eastern eurpoean countries beacuse those counties will have it tough to invest new for ifra. So this model works not for the big 5 but the rest.
Yes it should.
It brings a strong sense of national identity to the host country which is embraced by all the competing teams.
No it should be multi countries because then more fans can visit it from different parts you Europeans can easily go to countries there but for us in aisa it's really hard so it should be multipli countries due to the wide range of fans that can attend 😅
a lot of people (in my country at least) call Euros and World Cups not by the year they were held but the country so its the Euro in France or World Cup in Russia its just easier to identify one from the other and this years i have no ide how people will remember it, maybe it will be mainy because it was so different
@@mateyv I don't have seen it but you have a point maybe it just should be likr 3 nations with knockouts at one
I was about to say "how about making it home-away two leg instead"...
Then I realized they do it already with nations cup
Even without the Nations League, that would be a terrible idea. I mean, look at England. As it is, they're already on their last legs after a long season with 60 or more matches. And they will have next to no break afterwards before the preseason starts. And you want to double the length of the tournament and the number of matches in it?
Yes absolutely maybe two countries share tournament
Portugal travelled to Hungary( Budapest) and then to Germany ( Munich ) and then back to Hungary in the group stages. Meanwhile Germany stayed at home in Munich the whole time.
Without including travel , Portugal had 2 days fewer than Belgium to prepare for the round of 16
Switzerland had to travel the most of any country. They went Baku > Rome > Baku > Bucharest. No wonder they played horribly against italy, meanwhile italy played two home games
Budapest to Munich is a smaller distance than Paris to marseille and similar to London to Glasgow. When you're flying in private jets that sort of distance is only an hour or so in the air anyway.
The second one always would happen anyway, The time difference was due to Belgium being in a different group to Portugal, who played the last set of group games
@@bane9109 And so why they played so well against France in Bucharest that is way farer than Rome?
@@branc2658 Not taking anything away from switzerland but france were too complacent and poor defensively. I knew france would be out soon when I saw their performances vs hungary and portugal. Also there were two extra days of rest in the knockout stages compared to group stages for all teams. Also france and switzerland was played in neutral ground while italy had mostly home fans in their stadium
Make a video about why England gets to play all of its games in wembley.
Forgot to mention teams like Wales having to travel all over the joint with basically no fans as support like England, Germany, Italy etc. Fans are the 12th man you can't have smaller nations at an even larger disadvantage...
You also failed to mention that part of the group stage draw was already predetermined, making it one more reason why this year's format isn't good.
Yes, and in a perfect world, in a country where no one has true homefield advantage.
England having home field for nearly all their games so far, and for the one today against Germany, is absurd. If they do the same format as this year again, they should try making sure no team plays at home...
There’s another option. Hold group stage as pan-continental and knockout stages in a single host country.
I like this idea, but I also think each group should be played in one country (e.g. Munich & Nuremberg or Rome & Naples) or two otherwise close cities (e.g. Copenhagen & Malmö or Amsterdam & Brussels).
It still means the identity of each tournament would be blurred, I don't want this at all
This is the format the Eurobasket is run
4 groups in 4 cities around the continent and the knockouts in one city
@@TheWolfXCIX I get it, but this could be best of both world. And honestly, if it keeps giving us an exciting tournament like this? I'm happy. The football has been incredible!
@@irthamepali interesting! seems like there's a lot football can learn from basketball 😬
This format is trash and unfair to some teams for example Portugal played against Hungary in Budapest and Germany in Munich, tornements must be held in single countrys or example Scandinavian country's,Iberia, great Britain and Ireland,Slav nations, Mediterranean country's,central European countries, turkey Azerbaijan....etc you get the point
4 games and they had to travel to every single one, from Budapest to Munich to Budapest to Seville
Yes and the group stage strategically gave advantages this year by giving each group 2 teams that basically played at home or locations where large amounts of fans would attend. That’s unfair
Clearly unfair if one team is in their capital - while others are travelling across the continent twice a week 🤣
What to say about a 11 host nation competition during a pandemic?? Knowing that travelling is one of the key risks. A massive advantage for the hosting nations and a massive massive disadvantage for those countries who had to travel to each of their matches (Croatia, Belgium, Portugal, Czechs) . One other aspect showing the irregular conditions of this completely unfair Euro 2021 : just imagine a final with a positive COVID-19 case or severel cases in one of the teams…literally the other team would win the title without the need to play the final.
The home advantage gifted to certain teams is ridiculous. England and Scotland got all home games, whilst Wales had to fly out to Baku where Turkey had significant support and then to Rome for a full stadium supporting Italy. It's completely unfair. The only way this format would be less ridiculous is if teams weren't able to play games at a home venue meaning each venue was neutral, however, this negates the whole point of the format, of making it easily accessible for fans to watch their teams. Ostensibly tformatsuperior.
Well the case for the single-country is exactly why it Euros should stay in one country (or maybe 2)
-Better for the players (less travel, less climate change, no timezone difference)
-Better for the fans to follow their team throughout the tournament as it is less expensive
-Better for the economy of smaller cities, rather than letting only big cities grow
-Better for the history of the sport, as we usually remember an event for its location, which makes it unique.
This tournament format would have been fair if it was dispersed between smaller countries who couldn’t feasibly host a tournament on their own.
Instead you have the biggest footballing countries playing most of their games at home leading to situations like Wales travelling 5000 miles more than Denmark which has a clear impact on the pitch with tiredness and jet lag as well as off it with it being inaccessible for supporters and more costly on travel and hotels.
Fully agree
Personally I loved the venues being at different places. However, the teams of a group should have played all their games at only two venues, close to each other.
Also, Baku as venue is stupid. Every other place is ATLEAST 1500 kms from that Far East place.
Having said that, Its mostly the fans from bigger nations not wanting the Hosting rights to be shared.
Why is Azerbaijan doing hosting it anyway? It's an Asian country not a European one.
Lets be honest, this format is rank, constant traveling takes a hit in on pitch performance and doesn’t provide real euro atmosphere.
1:05 - casually showing the World Cup in a Euros video 😂
The 2020 format is soulless, I've pretty much lost interest already and England haven't even lost to Germany on penalties yet.
Worst case : two host countries as a maximum
for me the limit should be in size and in number of countries. Like max 4 countries and x square km of area. 4 to limit the automatic qualifications, and an area, so that a bid with, for example, 4 neighboring small countries can make sense
Yes. Full stop. I'm surprised you didn't mention the competetive advantage of home fans for more than 1 team. It's absolutely ridiculous that multiple teams are playing nearly every game in their home country while others are traveling thousands of miles.
Yes! I’m a wales fan and I was fuming and in my opinion it wasn’t fair!
I don't think UEFA wanted Wales to go far this year like they did in 2016
As some one from a small country(Ireland) I like the multiple hosts idea and was so disappointed when we couldn’t host due to covid.
In theory I think it's a fantastic idea. It spreads the cost of hosting, it allows fans to experience different cities/countries all in one tournament. Unfortunately at the moment it's not really worked due to Covid and the various travel restrictions and also I don't think having certain teams being able to play most of their games at home is fair, it should have been all randomised out of a hat. Maybe if we were in a Covid free world it'd have worked as intended.
0:38 wow, great drawing of the French crowd
I like the idea of a 50/50 game split between one of the top 5 leagues’ nations and one much smaller nation like Poland, Serbia, or Norway. Every other tournament, they have the final in the smaller country. Half the groups play in one country, and try to match those teams in the Ro16.
Yes, this set up has been a joke
its because of covid
@@kukunase1686 how? Granted covid has made it worse but it was set up this way regardless
@@kukunase1686 no. this money grabbing idiocy was imposed by UEFA like 10 years ago
my country has never been able to host a euro game along with many others so cant complain
24 teams doesn't work. FIFA realised this with the 1994 World Cup. Either you have 16 or 32 and then everyone knows how to get out of the group and where they stand. I think Italy finished third in their group in 94 and ended up losing on penalties in the final. Portugal drew a load of matches in Euro 2016 and ended up winning it which made a bit of a mockery of the 24 team format when you think about it.
It might just be because I’m too used to the single host format but I think it should remain that way. This year was pretty fun doing something different but I don’t think the multi national hosting should stay. It’s an international tournament, not a champions league campaign. There’s no better feeling in international football as a fan than you bring a part of multiple nations coming together in the same country to watch your team compete while mingling with multiple different cultures. This wasn’t feasible this year of course but in future, I don’t want the usual format to change.
Shared has been horrendous, with huge home side benefits to some clubs, especially with the pandemic. Keep it to 1 or 2 countries
Eufa really went ahead with a cross continental tournament in the middle of a global pandemic, to me this is a sign that there is only more to come
In their defence, this Euros is an anniversary special. It'll probably never happen again until maybe the 100th.
Make it like the Champions League: one of the teams is assigned 'home' status for each fixture, and it's played in that country. This option minimizes travel, which is what we need to do if we want a planet to keep playing football on.
Disappointed you missed one very important factor for a single nation tourement you only get one team with home field advantage not many some teams have to travel all the time whereas England is basically at Wembley this introduces a fairness issue one team you can live with but that many no single country tourements are better
I'd like to see a UK and Ireland tournament, with games held in Dublin, Glasgow and Cardiff, and the rest in a variety of English cities.
As a fan, I find it much more interesting to travel to a single country and enjoy the atmosphere of various fan groups intermingling. I haven't been to any football tournaments, but I saw 12 games at the 2014 Basketball World Cup in Spain and I enjoyed traveling around the country by bus and train and meeting people from all over the world.
I can see an obvious discrimination of smaller countries with less influential Football Associations from eastern and Southern Europe during this Euro 2021 tournament. And how about you?
Leave it how it is . As a fan it's cool to visit different country and learn the culture and by playing in different venues will help the organisation and nations financially
We didn't see any upset in the group stage because almost all the big teams played at home... Once they moved out, they struggled like Italy and Netherlands. At home even the likes of Denmark and Hungary have overperformed. Just shows how big the return of fans is for a football team. England are the only team who will be playing R16 game at home and if they win that and the QF, they will play the SF and F at home as well...
A bit sad that Tifo didn't mention the impact for some nations to play "at home" during the competition, while others won't. Germany vs Hungary could've easily went in Hungary's favour had the latter played at home, and thus the sporting integrity and fairness of the competition diminish.
Many measures could've been adopted to compensate the monopoly of income of competitions being hosted by one or two nations... but as any measure would've brought the burden of an additional debate, UEFA had no problem skewing the sportive sid eof the Euros to avoid finding a solution for a more balanced distribution of revenue between all participating nations.
The Pan-Continental hosting was a nice idea, albeit a very complicated one in practice. And the pandemic sure made matters worse.
All things considered I think it would be best to go back to single host countries or, as someone has suggested in the comments, regional hosting (eg: Scandinavia, Iberia, Lowlands, Alps, etc.)
Here's another bizzare (on paper) format used in European basketball and volleyball tournaments - 4 hosts which are spread out. Here're the men's tournaments for volleyball and basketball:
Volleyball: Hosts are Poland, Czech Republic, Estonia and Finland. Each group will have all of its matches in one of the host nations (or cities to be exact) - Group A will be in Krakow, Group B in Ostrava, Group C in Tampere and Group D in Talinn. The Round of 16 and Quarterfinals will be held in Ostrava and Gdansk and the Final Four will be in Katowice. Good Idea to have each group in individual host nation/city, but I think the Round of 16 should've been held in Ostrava and the 1/4 Finals in Gdansk (or the other way round, IDRC)
Basketball (will be held in 2022): The Hosts are Italy (OK), Germany (Good), Czech Republic (Also good) and Georgia (wait, what?). Though Georgia are the odd ones out, unlike Euro 2020, in Georgia (Tbilisi) will be played all matches from Group A. Group B will be in Cologne, Group C in Milan and Group D in Prague. Unlike Eurovolley, all knockout matches from Eurobasket will be played in Berlin.
Another thing I'd like to point out is that the European volleyball and basketball touraments also use the 24-team layout. But unlike their football counterpart, which uses the 6 groups with 4 teams format and the 3rd place gymnastics, those tournaments (as you may've found out) have 4 groups with 6 teams each. The best 4 teams in each group advances to the knockout phase - no complicated gymnastics required. UEFA can learn a lot from CEV and FIBA Europe in that regard
This reminds me of the olympics, the next one in Paris in 2024 will be the last one to be hosted in a single city. The cost of hosting these events is really high.
Even with all the games at Wembley, as an Englishman, I am actually a little bored with it.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the tournament so far, but when it comes to Euros, World Cups, Olympic Games, I love seeing all the different arenas and cities a country has to offer, it’s the whole feel of it which is why I am eagerly anticipating Tokyo 2020.
Now if the tournament was awarded to England, that would be fine too, as of course, different cities, stadiums, still keeps things fresh.
I personally hope this special anniversary edition of the Euros is just a one off.
All teams in the sane group should be in the same city / nation. Less travel inequality.
I'm really surprised this video didn't talk at all about the environmental impact this tournament is going to have. While it's obviously understandable that you want to spread the wealth of a tournament like this, having teams and fans travel all the way to places like Baku means that each Swiss fan travelled about 13,000km just to watch all three group stage matches.
Yes, it absolutely should be IMO - the experience as a fan is unsurpassable for basing yourself in one country or region and sharing the experience with fans of other countries - as a Wales fan, being based in France for 3 weeks was a once-in-a-lifetime experience - not just seeing Wales, but I went to all games I could find cheap tickets to and the atmosphere was superb everywhere. Euro 2020 being this way hasn't been as big a problem because Covid restrictions means travelling wasn't going to be an option (though this wasn't the reason for it being done this way obviously) but I absolutely wouldn't want to deprive future fans of that experience.
I'm all for single country hosts, but UEFA have decided that they want 5 star environment aimed at corporate and UEFA's own image rather than putting football and fans first. It's all down to money and profit, the hosts spend the money and UEFA make a bigger profit.
Yes you look at England will only have to play one game outside London provided they get to the final whereas you look at Wales having to travel back and forth to Baku.
Yes, 11 countries is too Messed Up, benefiting big teams like England and Italy who Play most of their Games in Homes which is Quite Unfair for the Underdogs
The main reason for the 2020/2021 format was the 100-year anniversary of UEFA. It was and will be a one-off. Next tournament will be back to one country host or two adjoining country hosts to cut costs.
It doesn’t make sense to organize the Euro as a pan-European competition with several hosts in order to give the smaller nations a chance to host some Euro matches and then to end up in a situation where the rich Big 5 countries do host 90% of the matches. Completely pointless .
Definitely, either play at home and away or all in one place. It's unfair that some teams play at home every game and others travel 5000 miles away.
In one or in a few clumped together surely
If Azerbaijan is in Europe I'm a dutchman
I finally want to see a Euro with host cities Zagreb, Warsaw, Porto, Brussels, Stockholm, Dublin, Oslo, Belgrade, Athens, Istanbul, Prague!! And not as usual France, England, Italy, Germany,Spain.
Whats the European continent equivalent of a Qatar cash grab? Because UEFA logic.
Arzebaijan
What is your problem? Someone has to pay the wages.
Why should any footballer play for free?
Yes. Netherlands, Italy, Germany, England, Hungary, Spain, Russia, Denmark and Scotland have played group matches with their own crowd. Of course some of them played without full capacity but it's an advantage anyway because they were in home. I think this gave a huge boost to the teams which played at home. 9 countries. This number is huge. There is no neccesary to share the competition with 11 countries.
People are talking about home advantage but barely any Euros were won by the hosting country. Even France didn't win in 2016 despite being at home
I think the pan-continental tournament was a decent idea that deserved a try but its clear that single/joint (or at most, regional) tournaments are better.
Its a given that big countries like England, France, Germany etc. can host the tournament and id like to see tournaments between one such host and groups of smaller nations, like Scandinavian, Balkan or Celtic hosted tournament.
Austria and Switzerland hosted in 2008 and Poland and Ukraine in 2012
The format that makes Ceferin the most money would be the best for football.
This tournament , catered for the bigger nations, Switzerland, Sweden and Wales rack up more air miles as Euro 2020
No. I like this concept a lot. It provides a big chance for smaller countries to host games. Romania, Denmark and others would have probably a very hard time to get a Euro on itself
It should be Shared aslong as it doesnt mean that one country gets only home games, while another gets only away games. Its ridiculous and unfair
I see few countries in Europe to host euro as a lone host. Like Only England, Spain, France, Germany, Italy and Russia has like 10-12 or more world class stadiums to host the tournament as only host.
I don’t think Spain could. Outside of Madrid, Barcelona, Bilbao and Sevilla a lot of their stadiums are quite old now and not up to top UEFA standards. Same with Italy they haven’t built a lot of stadium infrastructure since the 1990 World Cup.
That’s the irony of course of it all. Germany, France and Russia only have world class stadia cos they recently redeveloped them all for recent tournaments (Euro 16 for France, World Cup 18 for Russia and World Cup 06 for Germany) England is the only country in the routine habit of redeveloping and building tournament ready stadia because of the money in the PL
@@nope2dat I did not know that about Spain! I take your point in the second paragraph about those nations but it could be argued that England may have been in a similar position to Italy had it not been for the Taylor report (which was early 90s) and, to a lesser extent, Euro 96 as a large number of grounds were either old, in poor condition or both. Obviously the PL played a big role as well so it's probably a number of factors.
@@nope2dat I would say that the point of England is a little inaccurate as the Stadium of Light. Stadium MK and the Riverside, weren't developed due to PL money. Sunderland and Middlesbrough were both in the prem but their stadiums were built before any massive amount of money came into the game. Pride Park is another top quality stadium that can meet UEFA standards too. But your point is true with clubs like Tottenham and Arsenal.
Portugal can easily host with the 04 stadiums.
@@paulom8804 I believe 4 stadiums aren't enough to host a 24 team tournament
I think the limit should be 3 host countries. The idea of Denmark, Sweden and Norway hosting a World Cup or Euro has randomly popped up in my brain lately which sounds kinda cool. Would that be too much travelling though? Would appreciate a reply :)
Yes, the Euros should be hosted by one developed country. I'm from Bucharest and I didn't care about the city being a host just because Romania didn't qualify for the tournament, and most locals have felt the same.
Poland and Switzerland had to travel 8000 km in the group stage słone. Thats pretty messed up
I believe they should be. You can make the case for smaller, more regional, national or continental competitions and events like the Invictus Games here in Canada being held in multiple locations, but large events that are reputable and won't ever have a lack of interest in host nations don't need to rely on that format. Of course, if UEFA is earning higher profits through this format, then that's all the case you truly need. But large events don't need to rely on that to make their event profitable and successful.
The pan-continental tournament is rather a good idea in my opinion, especially during pandemic when not all people can travel. That said, i still prefer older format.
Absolutely. I agree with all the arguments mentioned in the video to which I'd add environmental cons as well. Fans had to travel via planes which are far worst than a car journey or one flight with return to a host country. Most radical distances from this tournament really show it: Baku-Rome-Baku or St. Petersburg-Sevilla-St. Petersburg. Makes a plane trip pretty much a necessity. But UEFA will look at money ofc
Yes. Its tiring for the players
Most teams are travelling less distance than either Russia or Brazil World Cups
I think accidently this is better in covid times. Imagine fans from at least 16 different countries converging into one host country at the moment
I don’t know, I kind of like the cultural vibe from hosting international tournaments in one country.
We have to keep in mind that the only reason this format was chosen for Euro 2020 was because the only bids to host were from Turkey and Azerbaijan. If UEFA doesn't want to host the tournament in a dictatorship, then returning to this format is the only option.
Yes! Spain should have hosted it coz they've not hosted any soccer tournaments since the 1992 Olympics nor the Euros since 1964! And they're truly soccer savvy and have amazing stadiums such as Camp Nou, Santiago Bernabeu, Wanda Metropolitana, Estadio Mestalla and San Mames! 🇪🇦🇪🇦🇪🇦
They could host it by region with a few countries hosting a group each, then there's less travel for fans and climate would be relatively similar across the tournament. One year it could be in western Europe, England/ScotlandWales/France/Belgium/Nederland/Germany, then southern Europe four years later in Portugal/Spain/Italy/Croatia/Greece/Turkey, then eastern Europe four years after that in Poland/Czechia/Slovakia/Hungary/Ukraine/Russia, and then northern Europe in Norway/Sweden/Denmark/Finland/Iceland.
I love the multi-country format. Many teams playing home games lend some great atmosphere to the games. It also allows countries that could never host a tournament host some games. This is beneficial to football.
I would go so far as to say that the World Cup should also do this, with the proviso that the multi-country hosts are within one continent. So for example FIFA would would determine that in 2030, they award the World Cup to South America. And the games would happen in the various countries in CONMEBOL. I think that that would improve the World Cup immensely and avoid fiascos like Brazil in 2014 and the night mare that is Qatar in 2022.
Football is all about the fans; we've been saying that for years. How is it fair for a Welsh fan (take away COVID) to fly to Baku, Rome & Amsterdam to watch there national team? A joint bid is the closest it should be to a multi-hosted event. Getting countries like Portugal/Spain, The UK, Norway/Sweden/Denmark, things of that nature is a better idea. Fans come first; staying in one region is feasible; this tournament idea is not
You guys were at least allowed to support your team and to travel to these cities…we Croats were‘not even allowed to travel to the UK to support Croatia against England and Scotland despite being vaccinated and despite having a negative Covid-19 test. the UK demanded a MANDATORY 10 days quarantine!!!? Just imagine that Italy, Azerbaidjan, Netherlands had demanded the same from UK supporters. Double standards and no fair play at all
@@antekovac5644 The Netherlands and Italy also required Wales supporters to quarantine as they aren't within the EU anymore. However; that's not the point I'm giving, I'm saying a tournament like this isn't in the fans interest. Say Turkey was in that group instead of Scotland, that would require you to go to Baku, Edinburgh and London. It's not feasible for the average fan. The reason I mentioned Wales is because they had to Travel 5000km! That's beyond a joke.
This Euros has been one of the worst I've seen in 40 years, largely because of how disjointed it feels. It doesn't feel like a cohesive tournament, it's more like a series of loosely connected friendlies. It's not going to be memorable like Euro 96, Italia 90, the World Cup in USA in 94 or South Africa in 2010. Those competitions had an identity and a vibe to them. This one just feels........weird.
My biggest problem with it is the fact that some teams had the advantage of playing at home all 3 group games while others played none.
I feel you undercut the argument against spreading the tournament around. It makes the tournament logistics more expensive; it forces more travel for players, fans, and journalists; and it creates sporting imbalances where multiple nations get streaks as the home team while the opposition get none.
This isn't likely to be a factor in the future, but multiple host nations is a lot more difficult during COVID times.
What about the carbon emissions of dozens of plans constantly flying around Europe just for a football match? Keep it in one country, reduce emissions.