Subject: UEFA Euro 2016

I don't think it is that bad that in the future they will play the games (probably) in already existing stadiums in big cities with football tradition.

For example even for the 2006 World Cup in Germany there was at least one stadium built that has had no revenue since then. Thats just 30 Mio € built somewhere in the countryside for nothing. Standing there as a monument of wrong spending. So if that happens in Germany where there are probably 30 professional football teams with an average attendance of 15.000 or more every gameday, what is happening with the stadiums in Ukraine, Brasil (Manaus), Katar :D. That is just spending money and destroying nature then.
(edited)

Group F looks.. well, ugly.

How come? For once we had a bit of luck in the draw, but you can't really say that your group is much tougher (if any). You've seemed to be really lucky with the draws for a long long time.. :)

In your group there isn't even one very good team for their seeding...:)

Thank god, finally we might have a chance.. ;) But there isn't much difference with the teams from pots 3-6 when you compare groups E & F

E: San Marino, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovenia
F: Faroe Islands, Northern Ireland, Finland, Romania

Plus we have Greece who won the games just 10 years ago. What has England won in the recent 48 years or so?! ;p

If I wasn't Swiss I'd find our group ugly, too :p

I'd be happy if Finland would make it.

looking forward to matches on Euro like Romania-Bosnia or Switzerland-Greece, not to mention those teams from 3rd places, yawning loud already

Well, compared to the incredibly awesome football Poland showed at last Euro, it will be boring indeed :(

but E has England and Switzerland...;p

Hehe yeah, Poland will be another amazing contestant at next Euro. :D

although we might not make it through the qualifications, so have high hopes :D

Let's be hones, Euro is a great tournament, but Euro qualifying phase is a disaster: the only way in which it can be interesting at all is by some serious aberrations when seeding teams :P

Maaaaybe you would still have some suspense about who is 1st and who is 2nd in some (only some) groups, but you still have to endure several matches vs Malta and Feroe to get to the actually decisive matches. Rather wake me up in 2016 :P

But there are lot of weaker teams for which that phase is important, it's only time when they have some emotions and only stage when they can play official games (for Poland it's like that most of the time :P). But now, when 24 team are going to play it seems more real even for weaker teams.

That also means even more uninteresting matches during the first stages of the euro cup.
Group phases will be rather easy for top teams and even the first knock out rounds might end up with weak match ups. I don't see the point there.

Easy, money... More games to see, more stadiums full, more media used...

But it's the same in Champions League. We don't have actual champions but weaker teams from 3rd or 4th places, it's boring, I would rather see true Champions League not random European Cup. And instead of Europa League put those teams from 2-4 places there. I don't give a shit about 5-6 places and EL at all. Fuck that and make three tournaments: CL, EC and eventually Cup Winners Cup. No need to make tournament for average teams, because now I can say, well... if 5-6 places have their own cup why not 2nd league Champions Cup, lol?

CL group: Barcelona, Chelsea, Juventus, PSG
EL group: Real, City, Napoli, Monaco

pretty nice, right? of course there are champions from weaker nations, but hey... there are actual champions and they can always make qualifications for that as well

CL group: Barcelona, Chelsea, Juventus, PSG

No way you would ever get such a group (because of seeding). Or you might (without seeding), but then you might end with such a group as well:

Vardar Skopje, FK Ventspils, Sheriff Tiraspol, Győri ETO

Pretty nice, right?

Edit: I prefer a competition between the best teams in Europe.
(edited)

Best teams in Europe aren't 3-4 places, but actual champions. Change the name CL into European Cup and I won't bother. You will still have "best" teams in new Europa League, which would be much more interesting than current one.

And no Vardar Skopje, FK Ventspils, Sheriff Tiraspol, Győri ETO, because:

8 best leagues will have seeds and 8 slots from qualifications (so we will probably see teams like Basel, Olympiakos or Celtic, not bad!)

That's how it used to be. And it certainly was far more interesting, at least in the initial stages, and UEFA cup was really worth watching. Now CL is boring until 1/4 except for a few 1/8 matches, and Europa League is simply irrelevant - a tournament you can only win if your bad enough to participate in.
Maybe 2 teams per country at most would still work, but I wouldn't mind having the original setup.

But, froma business perspective, the current format is more profitable, and that's all that counts. I mean, at least for UEFA and CL teams. Europa League can hardly generate as much money as old UEFA cup, but it's still something, and is still better than nothing for the mediocre teams playing it. What these teams may be failing to see is that, although they get some extra money if they manage to advance enough rounds, the gap with CL teams also widens compared to the old system, and national leagues keep getting more and more boring.

Best teams in Europe aren't 3-4 places, but actual champions.

Well, you can believe that, but that won't change the fact that this is obviously untrue. It happens now and then that a team like Olympiakos can beat a team like Manchester United (because they are in terrible form). But still, the team that ends up third in England will most of the time be a better team than the champion of countries like Greece, Belgium, or even the Netherlands. You can deny this, but then again, you can also deny that gravity exists.

8 best leagues will have seeds and 8 slots from qualifications

So only 16 teams?