More Teams, More Drama: The Pros and Cons of EURO 2024’s Expanded Format

One of the big changes to the EURO format in recent years has been the expansion to include eight additional spots in the group stages, a move that has stirred controversy across the continent. 

While many fans support this change, which was introduced in 2016, the question remains: Does having more teams necessarily improve the competition? This opinion piece will delve into this complex issue.

The Charm of the Sixteen-Team Format

The extension to twenty-four teams adds excitement to the tournament by allowing the rise of multiple new teams.

With just sixteen teams, major European nations like France, England, Germany, Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands dominated the tournament, leading to a predictable and swift competition. For comparison, the Copa America still uses this sixteen-team format.

Having fewer teams made organization easier, requiring fewer stadiums and logistical arrangements. But at the same time, it also meant that the knock-out phase directly started with the quarterfinals, skipping the round of 16. 

Expanding to twenty-four teams has lengthened the tournament, introducing more thrilling knockout stages and giving smaller nations a chance to shine.

Expansion Issues: Quality vs. Quantity

While the expansion has introduced new faces to the tournament, such as Georgia making their debut and Slovenia returning after many decades, it also comes with its downsides.

One significant issue is the disparity in quality. There’s no denying that the skill gap between the top sixteen and the additional eight teams is noticeable. 

Although this tournament has been generally exciting, it has seen its fair share of lackluster matches. Group C is a prime example, featuring England, Serbia, Slovenia and Denmark. 

Fans witnessed a series of draws, with the exception of England and Serbia. The games, especially those involving the other teams, lacked excitement and were often criticized as being the most boring of the tournament.

The criticism is more than understandable, but it’s important to recognize that the potential for dull matches doesn’t necessarily stem from the expanded format itself.  Ultimately, it’s up to the teams to elevate their play and ensure the competition remains engaging.

Promotion Alert: As you gear up for the Quarter-Finals, don’t miss out on 22Bet’s UEFA Euro Cup 2024 promotion! Bet on Euro 2024 matches for a chance to win a share of the massive €150,000 prize pool. Join the promotion here.

The Upside of Having More Teams

More teams can mean more exciting football. Teams like Georgia and Ukraine, which might not have qualified without the playoffs, have brought unique playing styles and philosophies to the forefront. This variety has led to more intriguing matchups and a richer tapestry of footballing strategies.

Even third-placed teams have managed to produce thrilling games, despite lacking individual star power. This proves that the expanded format contributes to the tournament’s overall excitement.

On the other hand, the inclusion of twenty-four teams also introduces complexities that can confuse casual fans. In the previous sixteen-team format, understanding who advanced was straightforward: the top two teams from each group moved on, and the rest were eliminated.

With twenty-four teams, the situation becomes murkier. Some third teams qualify based on various factors such as points, goal difference, and UEFA rankings. This means that not all third-placed teams advance, and their fate depends on the performance of other third-placed teams. I have no doubts that the die-hard fans love it, but it complicates the qualification process for casual viewers.

For example, teams in a group with Belgium, Slovakia, Ukraine and Romania advanced with four points, while others required fewer points. It also means that some teams advanced despite not having won a single encounter, as was the case with Slovenia. 

This inconsistency can be frustrating and seems to reward less entertaining football. Nonetheless, it undeniably makes the tournament more interesting by giving smaller sides a chance to dream and compete. 

This was particularly evident in Group B, where Croatia failed to qualify, proving the expanded format can create unexpected drama and intrigue. While the ‘Group of Death’ becomes more captivating with the potential for third-place qualification, it can feel like a waste of time in less competitive groups.

The debate here isn’t just about the precise number of teams, but about the rationale behind the expansion. 

The Future of EURO: More Teams or Fewer?

Is this version of the tournament better or worse? I don’t know; it depends on what you’re looking for. If it’s quality, probably not. However, in terms of emotional investment and excitement, seeing new sides and countries harboring hope adds a compelling dimension that the previous format didn’t offer.

Many memorable moments from this tournament wouldn’t have occurred without the expansion. The question now is whether the tournament should expand to a more traditional number, such as 32, which could create a more logical progression with additional groups. Whether that is the smartest move is another question. 

Many fans, and rightly so, believe that including so many teams dilutes the tournament’s competitive essence, especially in the knock-out phase. 

There are worries, which I share, that the expansion was driven more by business interests (more games mean more revenue) rather than enhancing the sport. Only time will tell if this is true, but one thing is certain: the format is here to stay, so it’s best to adapt and enjoy the new structure.