For years, it could be argued that the European Championship was the toughest soccer tournament in the world.
With only 16 teams qualifying from soccer’s deepest and most decorated region, the Euros featured few easy games and constant competitiveness — unlike the World Cup, which always has a handful of overmatched representatives, particularly since it expanded to 24 and then 32 teams from across the globe. The previous Euros format also was one of appealing simplicity: The 16 teams formed a “perfect bracket,” a round robin played among four groups of four, with the top two from each moving on to single-elimination quarterfinals.
And so there is an undeniable awkwardness regarding Euro 2016, the first competition under a new 24-team setup, which will begin today with host France’s match against Romania. The wisdom of the expansion will get its first true test in the coming weeks.
When UEFA, European soccer’s governing body, voted in 2008 to expand the tournament, the increased opportunity to reap the financial and competitive rewards of qualifying for the event was too much to resist for most federations. Only three of 54 members at the time, including England and Germany, voted in opposition. But the change had plenty of critics outside of UEFA’s congress hall. One British newspaper described the switch as “mad.” Even last fall, then-German federation head Wolfgang Niersbach couldn’t resist making a jibe after his national team defeated Scotland, 3-2, in a Euro qualifying match.
“They are the ones, with Ireland and Finland, that wanted 24 European Championship spots, but they still won’t make it,” Niersbach said of the Scots. “I asked them if they’ll request 32 spots now.”
Feelings about the expansion shifted, though, toward the end of qualification, thanks to the drama of the final round in October and the playoffs the following month, as well as the delight for first-time qualifiers Albania, Iceland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Slovakia (although fans of the latter are quick to point out that Slovaks formed the majority of the Czechoslovakian team that won the 1976 Euro).
Public opinion might change again in the next month, however.
The new format, with 51 games instead of 31, means six groups instead of four and an additional round of 16 in the knockout stage. In effect, all the first two weeks of action will achieve is the elimination of the eight new spots in the tournament.
But because 16 teams need to emerge from those six groups, the simplicity of advancement to the knockout stage is lost. In addition to the top two teams from each group, four of the six third-place teams will move on based on points gained and, if needed, goal differential.
The problem with that format — as those who follow the CONCACAF Gold Cup or remember the 24-team World Cups from 1982 to 1994 will recall — is that a team can finish its final group game and not know for 24 hours or more whether its has advanced. Calculators may be required. That may be a drama of sorts, but it’s not the instantaneous kind that sport usually provides.
The system does provide a fall-back for favored teams. One shocking loss will no longer be catastrophic, as Italy showed in the 1994 World Cup when it was defeated by Ireland in its opening game and finished third in its group, but went on to reach the final.
Ultimately, though, the success of the tournament will come down to its entertainment value. Albania vs. Switzerland and Northern Ireland vs. Ukraine are hardly matchups that will tempt people to take time off work, regardless of the merit of former UEFA president Michel Platini’s claim, when he announced the new format, that the standard of play across the continent had risen to the point that expansion wouldn’t necessarily dilute quality.
It usually helps a great tournament if the host nation is a contender, and France certainly is. Coach Didier Deschamps has succeeded in eliminating the discord and locker-room unrest that have sabotaged some of France’s recent campaigns. He can also call on two players who could be the stars of the tournament: Juventus midfielder Paul Pogba and Atletico Madrid forward Antoine Griezmann.
Germany is the world champion, but there is a sense it has slipped a little since its triumph in Rio two years ago, with losses to Ireland, France, England and Slovakia in the past eight months. Even so, the Germans are masters of peaking when it matters.
Spain may no longer be quite the force it was when it won the past two Euros, with age having caught up with some key players, but La Roja still has impressive quality and depth and will surely be a contender to become the first nation to win three European titles in a row.
The impressive form of strikers Harry Kane and Jamie Vardy, along with some exciting youthful options, gives England some cause for optimism but its defense looks shaky and lacking in authority. Belgium appears on many lists of dark horses, but as with England, a lack of quality at the back could be harmful. A potential surprise team could be Russia, which has been transformed since Leonid Slutsky replaced Fabio Capello as coach.
The absence of a clear favorite and the new format, with the extra unpredictability of an additional knockout round, could produce plenty of surprises, maybe even a stunning winner in the fashion of Greece’s in 2004.
It still could be a fascinating tournament — albeit one that, given the format, may take some time to come to life.