6 x 4 = (EURO) 24

Introduction

This summer in Germany, Euro 2024 will be the third European Championships to feature 24 teams, following an expansion from 16 teams for Euro 2016. There are two main reasons for this expansion, one more spoken than the other:

• Greater opportunities for qualification. 54 nations compete as part of UEFA: an increase from 16 to 24 teams at the European Championships represents an increase from just short of 30% to over 40%. This offers encouragement to more teams who historically may not have seen qualification for a major tournament as a realistic aim.
• A larger tournament with more matches which can therefore generate more money.

In each of these respects, the expansion has been successful. In the three tournaments since expansion, a total of 7 teams have qualified for the tournament for the first time; in the previous 3 tournament, there were 4 such teams (two of which qualified as hosts). According to Statista.com, the revenue generated by European Championships, having been fairly steady at €1.3-1.4 bn in 2008 and 2012, increased to about €1.9 bn for 2016 and 2020.

 

However, the structure of the 24-team tournament is not as clean as that for the 16-team tournament. In a 16-team tournament, the stages were:

• 4 groups of 4 teams, from each of which the top 2 teams progressed (8 in total)
• Quarter-finals (1^st-placed teams play against 2^nd-placed teams from other groups)
• Semi-finals
• Final

In a 24-team tournament:

• 6 groups of 4 teams, from each of which the top 2 teams progressed (12 in total) as well as the 4 3^rd-placed teams with the best record through the group stage
• 2^nd round (1^st-placed teams play against either 2^nd-placed or 3^rd-placed teams; 2^nd-placed teams play against either 1^st-placed or 2^nd-placed teams)
• Quarter-finals
• Semi-finals
• Final

Issues with the existing 24-team format

There are a number of ways in which the fairness or the tournament is compromised in the existing 24-team format in a way that it is not in a 16-team format.

 

4 1^st-placed teams will play teams that finished 3^rd in their groups. The other 2 1^st-placed teams will play teams that finished 2^nd in their groups. Which opponent you face is decided by the group were drawn into (i.e., random chance). In Euro 2024, the winners of Groups B, C, E and F will play 3^rd-placed teams while winners of the other groups will play 2^nd-placed teams. 2^nd-placed teams in Groups C and F will play 1^st-placed teams, with the other 2^nd-placed teams playing each other.

 

The 3^rd-placed teams to progress are often referred to as “the 4 best 3^rd placed teams” but this is not certain to be the case: no sure conclusions can be drawn about relative strength or even performance of two teams, based upon their record through 3 games with no common opponents. In Euro 2016, for example, Portugal finished below Hungary (ELO rating 1679 before the tournament) and Iceland (pre-tournament ELO 1666) in Group F but still progressed. Meanwhile Turkey finished behind Croatia (ELO 1818, and would reach the World Cup final 2 years later) and Spain (ELO 1993 and defending European Champions) in Group D. Portugal and Turkey each accrued 3 points from their respective group but there is a strong argument that Turkey’s 3 points were more impressive than Portugal's, given their opponents.

 

Whilst it is not possible to arrange tournaments so each team is granted exactly the same amount of rest between fixtures, this is exacerbated in the 24-team format used given the way 3^rd-placed teams are “slotted” into the 2^nd round fixtures. In the timetable for Euro 2024, for example:

• The winner of Group B will play a 3^rd-placed team from Group A, D, E or F on 30^th June. The final games in Group B are 24^th June, giving 6 days rest for the Group B winner. The rest for the 3^rd-placed team in this tie will be 4, 5 or 7 days, depending on which group they progress from.
• The winner of Group C will play a 3^rd-placed team from Group D, E or F on 30^th June. The final games in Group C are 25^th June, giving 5 days rest for the Group C winner. The rest for the 3^rd-placed team in this tie will be 4 or 5 days, depending on which group they progress from.
• The winner of Group E will play a 3^rd-placed team from Group A, B, C or D on 2^nd July. The final games in Group E are 26^th June, giving 6 days rest for the Group E winner. The rest for the 3^rd-placed team in this tie will be 7, 8 or 9 days, depending on which group they progress from.
• The winner of Group F will play a 3^rd-placed team from Group A, B or C on 1^st July. The final games in Group F are 26^th June, giving 5 days rest for the Group B winner. The rest for the 3^rd-placed team in this tie will be 6, 7 or 8 days, depending on which group they progress from.

 

In each of the paragraphs above, the progression of some, but not all, 3^rd-placed teams, leads to accommodations being made which could favour/harm teams based only upon the group they were drawn in.

 

As well as fairness, there are other shortcomings to the 24-team format currently used. Firstly, the group stage, with a total 36 matches, leads to elimination of only 8 teams out of 24. There are then a subsequent 15 matches to eliminate the remaining 15 teams to crown a champion. So more than two-thirds of the matches are used to eliminate the 8 worst teams, who despite qualifying should never have been expected to be a realistic contender to win the tournament. Meanwhile, once a team reaches the last 16, a single defeat is enough to eliminate them. Put another way: 36 matches are used to identify the 8 worst teams; only a further 8 matches are then used to identify the 8 best teams.

 

That 16 out of 24 teams will progress also leads to a reduction in peril of many group games. In Euro 2016 and Euro 2020, every team achieving 3 points and a goal difference of at least -1 across the three group games has progressed. In Euro 2012 (the last tournament where only the top 2 teams in each group could progress), Russia and Croatia were eliminated at the group stage despite each having 4 points and a positive goal difference. A lack of peril leads to a decrease in interest in the matches and, in cases where coaches respond with a change in gameplan, a decrease in excitement.

 

As well as this, the different permutations of 3^rd-placed teams progressing leads to increased complexity in working out which teams will feature in each 2^nd round match and for travelling fans who may try to calculate the different permutations for their teams: this summer, a team in Group A could find themselves playing in any of 5 (out of 8) 2^nd round matches; their opponents could emerge from any of Groups B, C, E or F: so the only teams they cannot meet are those from their own group and Group D.

Finally, teams can reach the end of their group games and remain uncertain about whether they have progressed. Teams in Group A finish their group fixtures 3 days before those in Groups E and F and could spend this time in uncertainty.

 

Problem statement

Given the success of the 24-team tournament as measured against the criteria in the Introduction, there is no prospect of reducing this back to 16 teams. However, the current 24-team format has substantial flaws. How should a 24-team tournament be structured? The aim is to overcome the challenges above whilst also:

• Maintaining the number of matches: Both in total and the maximum for a given team, this should be broadly aligned to the current 24-team structure (51 and 7, respectively).
• Aiming to result in the most deserving team winning the tournament. This means that more games should be used to discriminate between the best team with, consequently, fewer games used to eliminate those teams with no realistic claim to being the most deserving team.
• Simplifying the rules for progression so it is clear who has qualified as soon as the final games in a group have been played, and it is easy to work out potential (and actual, once group positions are finalised) opponents in the knockout stages.

 

Proposal

The proposed structure for a 24-team tournament is (mobile devices - table will display better in landscape mode):

Round	Description	Number of matches per team	Number of matches in total	Pros	Cons
Play-in round	Seeded knockout round	1	12	Immediately eliminates teams with no realistic chance to win, leaving more matches to discriminate between better teams.. Peril/excitement in every match.	Some teams will only play one game in the tournament.
Group stage	2 groups of 6, playing round-robin	5	30	Enough games to allow good discrimination between the 6 teams in each group.
Play-off	2nd-place teams in each group play 3rd-place teams in opposite group	1	2	Maintains interest in the group stage: finishing 1st is valuable as it gets you a bye, finishing 3rd still leads to progression, so although there are 5 group games each, there is a greater chance of having something to play for at the end.	1st-place teams have longer rest, but that has been earned (by finishing 1st) rather than being a consequence of random chance.
Semi-finals	Winners of play-offs play 1st-place teams	1	2		Potential for a rematch of a group game.
Final	Winner of semi-finals play each other	1	1	Showpiece final match.
Total		9 (maximum)	47

 

Taking the structure in order, it is clear that the key challenge to this structure is the immediate elimination of half the field. In tournaments such as this, there is an expectation that qualifiers should each play a minimum number of matches (usually 3), and this expectation is not met here. This could lead to disappointment for many fans who may have travelled to the tournament. However, this round contributes to meeting two of the criteria laid out:

• It allows more matches between teams with a realistic chance to win, therefore increasing the chance of the most deserving team winning the tournament.
• It increases the number of games with peril – while in most cases the favourite will prevail, there remains the opportunity for a famous upset or ignominious exit from the tournament.

 

The group stage allows a large volume of matches between what should theoretically be the 12 best teams in Europe. In groups of 6, there can be the potential for the qualification positions to be decided with matches remaining, leading to unentertaining matches with nothing riding on them. This has been tackled here by ensuring that 3 teams progress from each group, so it is likely that uncertainty over progression will remain leading into the later games. As well as that, there is a real benefit to finishing in 1^st place (a bye to the semi-finals) so while a team may have secured a top-3 place with matches remaining, they would often still have something to play for.

 

While this structure is not without flaws of its own, it is fairer than the existing structure, likely to result in more meaningful, entertaining games and is easier to understand and follow than the existing format.