UEFA Nations League

Anybody care to explain the benefits of this new format?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Nations_League

It looks like it will be even easier for England to qualify than normal but other than that I'm stumped.

I think the concept of having short world cups and euros in one place is a bit dated. But we have them, if we started again from scratch we probably wouldn't. It stems from the early part of the 20th century when travel was difficult so putting everyone in one place for a month made sense.

This is a third tournament in addition to the world cups and euros which bridges the gap. So rather than play friendlies, we will play other teams in our "group" and there would always be something to play for. It's a bit like the Davis Cup in tennis.

I like meaningful games. I rarely watch England friendlies except just before the major tournaments, because there is nothing to play for. So it gets the thumbs up from me!

No idea really. I suppose when England finish bottom of the group in the first round it’ll give the media a good week or so of articles about root and branch reform of English football.

Quoted from GrimRob

I think the concept of having short world cups and euros in one place is a bit dated. But we have them, if we started again from scratch we probably wouldn't.

Like the next Euros!

Quoted from Abdul19

Like the next Euros!

Good point we are getting there! They still are all lumped together in one intensive "tournament" of a few weeks. Ultimately I'd expect it to be like the Champions League with World Cup/Euro fixtures interspersed with the regular season (like the Davis Cup). Maybe that will happen, and this new tournament is the guinea pig.

Quoted from GrimRob

I think the concept of having short world cups and euros in one place is a bit dated. But we have them, if we started again from scratch we probably wouldn't. It stems from the early part of the 20th century when travel was difficult so putting everyone in one place for a month made sense.

This is a third tournament in addition to the world cups and euros which bridges the gap. So rather than play friendlies, we will play other teams in our "group" and there would always be something to play for. It's a bit like the Davis Cup in tennis.

I like meaningful games. I rarely watch England friendlies except just before the major tournaments, because there is nothing to play for. So it gets the thumbs up from me!

I slightly disagree with you there. Attendances and interest in World Cup and European Championship games are still massive and I think most of (whatever people say) still look forward to a International Tournament Football. If you removed that element of the international game then you might as well disband it altogether. It's like the ICC wanting to introduce Test Cricket Championships which is a laughable idea. It works very well as it does so I see no reason to change it.

Quoted from Mariner_09

I slightly disagree with you there. Attendances and interest in World Cup and European Championship games are still massive and I think most of (whatever people say) still look forward to a International Tournament Football. If you removed that element of the international game then you might as well disband it altogether. It's like the ICC wanting to introduce Test Cricket Championships which is a laughable idea. It works very well as it does so I see no reason to change it.

Does it work that well though? There are too many games to watch them all and a lot are shown in front of largely neutral crowds. A lot of countries are too small and poor to ever host a tournament but everyone has at least one good ground. If every (group) game was played at the home of one of the nations there would be packed stadia filled with fans who supported the two nations. The games could be spaced apart so that it would be possible to watch more without having to sit through multiple games a day like you have to do now. I think the format is wrong too. Far too many games are decided by penalties now, so weak teams play too defensively hoping to end in a shoot out. I think a lot could be improved on what we have now, and increase viewing figures, attendances and tv income. You could still have a tournament for the latter stages, just prolong the qualification format to include the tournament proper a bit more.

Quoted from Mariner_09

I slightly disagree with you there. Attendances and interest in World Cup and European Championship games are still massive and I think most of (whatever people say) still look forward to a International Tournament Football. If you removed that element of the international game then you might as well disband it altogether. It's like the ICC wanting to introduce Test Cricket Championships which is a laughable idea. It works very well as it does so I see no reason to change it.

I think most people will disagree with you around the world. Test cricket is dying around the world, it is only in England were attendances are holding up (  and in Aus for the Ashes) the rest of the world interest is fading very quickly

Quoted from Mariner_09

I slightly disagree with you there. Attendances and interest in World Cup and European Championship games are still massive and I think most of (whatever people say) still look forward to a International Tournament Football. If you removed that element of the international game then you might as well disband it altogether.

Agreed, summers would be terrible without World Cups and Euros! (I can handle a year without them)

International football is a summer thing really (who prefers qualifiers to club football?), an almost constant league system of it would surely die on its arse.

Also, tournaments are good for backhanders.

Quoted from Abdul19

Also, tournaments are good for backhanders.

Certainly a nice earner for somebody.

When I went to Euro 2004 we bought tickets for a few games off touts in the street and these were tickets which had been allocated to the Greek and Danish FAs!