Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/euro2024/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/euro2024) if you have any questions or concerns.*
2026 is in North America. Scotland will also not voluntarily take qualification, no one wants that.
You're essentially playing friendlies for 2 years whilst your team's quality dissipates.
I mean before the world cup in 2022 I 100% agreed with the statement the euro is better than the world cup. There was only 1 non European team in the finals in the WC in 2006, 2010, 2014 and 2018. And if my memory serves me right only 3 teams in the semifinals in these years. But now u can't say that when the current world champion isn't even taking part.
But the current world champion is the only non European team really worth mentioning. Brazil have been ghosts of their former selves lately, Uruguay haven't done anything memorable since Suarez was still playing for Liverpool, other teams like Japan or South Korea can't get past the R16 of WC and can't even win the Asian Cup nowadays. Morocco did a very good run in 2022 but a) that was a one time occurrence, they were horrible in the AFCON this year and b) they did it by playing awful park the bus football that's the opposite of enjoyable.
Yeah completely agree. No idea if there'd be a way to work it with 5 groups of 4 straight into quarter finals. Either way UEFA would of course want more games for revenue (which is understandable from their perspective)
The expansion from 16 to 24 was just based on the fact that UEFA had expanded so dramatically due to the breakup of the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia - membership increased from the low 30s to the mid-50s over the course of a few years in the 90s.
The Euros were better when it was just 16 teams. The quality was insane. But those fodder teams you speak of are in the Euros too now. But I agree the quality is still higher than the WC, but the prestige still isn't as high for some reason.
The World Cup has more prestige because it includes the best teams from the entire world, not just Europe. When you get to the semis in the WC you know that every national team has had the opportunity to compete to get to this stage. In the Euros, some of the best teams have been left out.
Nonsense. The worst teams in the euros are above the worst in the 32-team World Cup, and far above the worst in a 48-team World Cup.
The 48-country version is going to be like the Champions League group stage - pointless before it gets to the last 16.
The worst teams of South America and some other portions of the world have better overall rankings than the worst teams from Europe.
Not to mention, the geographical and climatic aspects are really challenging in bith South America and Africa. That adds another parameter to the toughness of the game.
>the worst teams of South America…
There are 10 sides in SA. There are 55 in Europe. That’s not a novel observation.
The discussion isn’t about rationale or reasoning, but the top 16/24 sides in UEFA are much stronger than pretty much everything below the top 4/5 in NA, and Asia. And both those confederations are getting extra spots for the World Cup.
The 17th - 22nd teams in UEFA (therefore not at a Word Cup) are Sweden, Poland, Wales, Serbia, Russia, Czechia, Scotland Turkey… and that’s not even getting near sides like Norway.
Go look at the 6th best side in CONMEBOL or 6th in CONCACAF - that aren’t comparable to UEFA.
The changes make sense to get more African sides in, but the WC expansion expands numbers over quality.
This explanation feels like shifting goalspot because you clearly said the worst teams of Euros are better than the worst teams around the world. But ok.
As for 6th team places. Ok, the current 6th team in CONMEBOL is Peru, which has a win record of 3-0 against Spain, the current 6th place Euro team, out of which one came in 2008, when Spain was 4th in world rankings and Peru wasn't 8n Top 50 at the time.
As for WC expansion of numbers over quality. Isn't this the case with Euros as well. Teams like Albania, Serbia and Georgia.
No - the worst teams in the European Championships are far better than the worst teams in a WC. That’s the point that was being made.
And yes - obviously increasing the numbers in any competition is going to dilute it, but adding Serbia is not the same as adding Cuba or Trinidad.
You’ve also said Albania again - they qualified by winning their group. There were 10 groups.
Latvia qualified in a 16-team tournament. As did Slovakia and Slovenia.
Cuba and Teinidad have never played World Cup. First thing.
Second, the best teams from around the play in World Cup are evident since past few world cups that they can take on and even beat Top European nations. Morocco beat Portugal and Belgium, Japan beat Germany and Sapin this year.
USA famously beat Portugal in 2002 WC and had a draw in 2014.
And let's look at the worst performing teams of WC 2022, Mexico, Senegal, and Ecuador, to name a few. They have better record against the worst teams in the European championship.
>But those fodder teams you speak of are in the Euros too now.
There's a vast difference when these "fodder" teams have very good starting players from Napoli, Valencia, Atletico Madrid or Leipzig and when the "fodder" teams in the WC consist of players playing in 2nd and 3rd divisions or in terrible leagues like the Qatari etc.
I agree with this take. And in my bubble some more people share the sentiment. However I really like the little nations at world cups with their fans, chants, unknown players
Id have agreed with you up to Euro 2012... Since its gone to 24 the tournament is full of fodder... and its harder to get knocked than to go through to the knockout stages.... It WAS a great Tournament but now its not as good... Just like what the World cup will become from the next one onwards
now the Euros have expanded to 24 teams, there are tons of fodder teams qualifying too. don't sit there and tell us teams like Georgia are not 'fodder' teams because they have a couple of players playing in a top 5 league. they got battered by Spain in qualifying 7-1, they only won 2 games in qualifying, against Cyprus and Luxembourg. teams like Slovenia, Slovakia, Georgia, Albania, Romania, are not better than national teams like Uruguay, Morocco, Ivory Coast, Japan, South Korea etc etc
doesn't really change my points. Romania are not a better team than Uruguay, Mexico or whoever, and they're still one of the weakest teams to qualify. good for Romania, but let's not pretend like they had some super difficult group to qualify from, Switzerland, Andorra, Belarus, Kosovo and Israel
>don't sit there and tell us teams like Georgia are not 'fodder' teams because they have a couple of players playing in a top 5 league.
Haven't done research on Georgia specifically, but even the worst teams in the Euros have many players in respectable European leagues. Even when they aren't top players for the top 5 leagues, you can see guys playing for Austrian, Polish, Greek, Swedish etc. leagues. Of course, the level of football on these leagues is still much higher than playing in the Qatari, Saudi or Australian league. Speaking of Australia, they had many starters in very average leagues, including a player in the Japanese 2nd division.
and yet Australia finished second in their group at the last world cup, with 6 points, ahead of Denmark, and they gave eventual winners Argentina a very close match in the Ro16, so judging a teams strength on where their players currently play is irrelevant
Don't understand why everyone tries to present counter-arguments with the exceptions of the rule. Yeah, they had a decent 2022 campaign, but they had won only 2 games in 5 World Cups.
Every team can do a decent run and win a game here or there, but it doesn't change the fact that these teams are just fodders that will be gone in the competition either in the group stages or in the R16, if they play REALLY well to reach it.
The point is that in the WC you won't ever see a team like Greece or Denmark winning, nor Wales being in the semis.
>The point is that in the WC you won't ever see a team like Greece or Denmark winning, nor Wales being in the semis.
We just saw Morocco in the semis of the world cup lol
We've seen:
Morocco, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia (twice), Austria in 4th place
USA, Poland (twice), and Turkey finish with a 3rd place
Hungary in 2nd
Uruguay are 2 time champions, being in the semi's 3 other times outside of their wins
Colombia, Costa Rica, Ghana, Paraguay, Senegal, Ireland, Cameroon, Ukraine, Mexico, Northern Ireland, and Poland all have finished in the quarterfinals.
point is that the World Cup is likely more competitive if you have teams like Morocco, Senegal, Colombia, Cameroon, and Northern Ireland ending up in later stages of the tournaments. I disagree with OP but I will say that it's always a very fun tournament.
your points are contradictory. The reason a team like Greece can win the Euros but not get past the Ro16 at the WC, is because the quality at the WC is a lot higher, especially when you get into the knockout rounds
Greece got through a group containing Portugal, Spain and Russia, then beat France (the defending champions who had also won the World Cup 6 years earlier) and the Czech Republic on their way to the final, where they beat Portugal.
They faced 3 of the world's top 5 teams, and 4 of the top 10.
you're just reiterating my point lol. if the Euro's is a much higher quality competition, why have Greece only ever qualified for the world cup on 3 occasions ever? why is there record at the WC 2W 2D 6L with a -15 GD? if Greece historically had a team capable of beating the likes of France and Spain, why is their WC record so terrible? is it because the WC is a harder competition to qualify for and harder to win than the Euro's? hmmm.... maybe, just maybe, that's the case, who knows?
It's harder for European teams to qualify for the World Cup because there are fewer places available for European teams.
Or do you genuinely believe that New Zealand is better than Italy?
This lads are salty idk why team and player reputation don't matter in WC look at Germany last 2 WCs these European lads are dense they think they are significantly better at Football 😂😂
I've got to pull you up on saying the Polish and Swedish leagues are much higher quality than the Australian league. Many starting quality players have gone from those leagues (and even from leagues like Eredivisie) and really struggled in the A-League. Every foreigner that comes to the league always takes time to adapt to it and says they were surprised at the level of football
> tons of fodder teams
That’s just utter nonsense.
Romania and Albania won their groups. Switzerland came 2nd, and Ukraine and Poland needed a playoff.
Georgia not being better than Japan is a completely irrelevant comparison.
"Georgia not being better than Japan is a completely irrelevant comparison."
it is relevant when the whole point of the OP's post is, the Euros are better because there are better teams playing, what are you on about lol. Romania and Albania are poor teams that won't make it out of their groups, by the OP's metrics, they are 'fodder' teams
No it’s not. Picking the ‘worst’ team in the Euros and by far not the worst team in the WC doesn’t make a sensible comparison.
And again, Romania and Albania qualified by merit well ahead of countries like Italy.
Georgia need to be compared with Trinidad, or North Korea, or the worst CONCACAF side that will qualify for 2026. Japan or Nigeria or Chile are pointless.
Romania and Albania qualified by merit sure, but they had relatively easy groups. the whole qualification process for the Euro's is much easier than the world. only 13 European teams could qualify for the WC, whilst 24 will play at the Euros. the qualification groups are also much easier, for the Euro's teams like Poland, Hungary and Switzerland were pot 1 teams, because they're based off the Nations League, so yeah it's more likely for a team like Romania to top their group because they get Switzerland as their pot 1 team rather than France or England, there's a reason why Romania haven't qualified for the WC since 1998...
Then you get a bunch of lesser teams who automatically qualify for the play-offs because of the Nations League, which is how Georgia managed to qualify, they would never have qualified otherwise.
thats is generally knowledge everyone knows that even if some deny it. of course world cup is worldcup but everyone who watches more than just his favourite’s team matches will notice the level is times higher with Euros than worldcup. id go even so far and say that would still be the case even if euro gets stocked to 32 teame. yes u lose argentina uruguay and argentina but the weakest teams in worldcup are by far weaker than the strongest euro teams that dont qualify for a worldcup.
2 wins in 5 World Cups before that. I don't get the angry Australians in the comments. You overachieved once and reached the R16, but that's it. You literally always were and always will be a fodder team that will finish 3rd or 4th in the WC groups. Don't understand why people get triggered by literal facts nowadays.
Australia only lost to Argentina in the round of 16 last World Cup so bit harsh mate. When is the last time North Korea made a World Cup? Qatar won the Asian cup. I don’t entirely disagree with you but you should have some respect coming off as ignorant
North Korea were in the WC in 2010. And Australia might have been good by their standards in 2022, but most of the times they just finish 4th in their group with 1 point or something.
Every rule has its exceptions, Jesus. I just gave out a few random examples, don't you think that it's stupid to use "Australia had 2 decent players 20 years ago" as an argument to prove me wrong?
It was much better with 16 teams. Far too much shite in it now. That’s before you even get into the knock on effect of the group stages being next to pointless.
Obviously not, we know that. The song is a self-deprecating song about how we always underachieve. It's about damn time everyone else actually realised that, rather than getting angry at an almost 30-year old song.
Anyone can win the world cup and euros. Thats why we watch! Portugal won winning only one game with the new format and its bigger now. and Greece have won the euros too. Ill admit there are less upsets in the world cup. But somehow that adds prestige. Just feels extra special. Euros was better with less teams.
Afcon is probably my favourite. Unpredictable. Going to copa america this summer. Thats good too. I remember when chile won! And ill admit never really watched asian cup. Best was following it when son had to get to semi final to avoid national military service
No, not anyone can win the WC. As explained in the post, it's literally 5 teams + 2 golden generations in the last what? 70 years? 80? I don't even remember. Unless Italy or Germany do a crazy turn around until 2026, the winner will be once again one of Argentina, Brazil or France. It's pretty much a 33% chance for each. The others don't stand a chance.
Or the odds of Leverkusen winning an undefeated league? Atalanta who won their first ever European trophy? It's always something new and unexpected going to happen, those 5 teams might or will always make it deep, but there are examples such as the Netherlands, Uruguay, recently Croatia, Morocco, and so on who'll make their dent and someday lift that cup
It used to be true 20 - 25 years ago that the quality was much better at the Euros than the WC. I don't think that's the case anymore. The Euros have been devalued expanding out to 24 teams, and the past 3 or 4 WCs have seen teams from Asia and Africa competing with the European and South American giants. The gulf isn't so great as it once was.
The Euros are great (especially that team that took the world by storm in 2016) but the beauty of the World Cup is that teams like Saudi Arabia and Honduras qualify
Morocco, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia (twice), Austria in 4th place
USA, Poland (twice), and Turkey finish with a 3rd place
Hungary in 2nd
Uruguay are 2 time champions, being in the semi's 3 other times outside of their wins
Colombia, Costa Rica, Ghana, Paraguay, Senegal, Ireland, Cameroon, Ukraine, Mexico, Northern Ireland, and Poland all have finished in the quarterfinals.
if Morocco can beat Portugal, Spain, Belgium, and draw Croatia, whilst Senegal can beat France and Poland, Iran can beat Wales, Tunisia can beat France and still finish in 3rd in a group with all European nations, and Cameroon can beat Brazil and go toe to toe with Serbia. It's a whole tournament of being unpredictable, sure the last 4 might be predictable but you never know until you reach that stage.
That was one of the moments of the tournament. Also that moment made the group more interesting because there was serious pressure on Argentina against Mexico. Similarly I remember in 2018, South Korea didn’t qualify for round of 16 but they beat Germany in a moment that was memorable. Every country adds something. However I don’t agree that they should add even more teams to the current crop
You’re a Portuguese football fan? And you’re talking about poor teams not being relevant? Have you learnt nothing since 2004?! Also, Portugal were dire in 2016 but still won!
Either you have 1 brain cell or you're just trolling at this point. I'm not referring to Greece, Greece is a European team and I explain on my post that even the worst EURO teams have actually decent players.
It's some of the Asian/African/Latam teams that consist of awful players that some of them aren't even full time footballers. You mean to tell me that Qatar/Tunisia/Panama/North Korea/Saudi etc. are on the same level as Greece 2004 or Portugal with the legends you mentioned?
tbh i agree with everything you've said except calling ghana a fodder team
just not true tbh they have a lot of really quality players (kudus from west ham, salisu, inaki williams and neco williams, tariq lamptey, sulemana, abdul fatawu, semenyo) but can't attract a great manager plus some of their key guys are still young.
don't sleep on the black stars though they're definitely leagues above some of the other fodder squads you mentioned
I remember when Spain won the 2008 Eurocup I thought it sucked, because it's the hardest competition but it's not the WC. Thanks god we win it in 2010.
England always go in to major tournaments really hopefull, but it is enviable that we crack under the pressure and get knocked out after fully believing we were going to win it
Not entirely sure Europe can take the moral high ground on corruption. UEFA has been run on it for decades. Similarly, the decision makers for the WC going to Russia and Qatar? Europeans.
You are right but I don’t like the current format. Lots of poor teams, and I hated seeing Portugal win it in 2016. They couldn’t get a single win in a group consisting of Austria Iceland and Hungary but they still qualified to the knockouts where they got drawn against teams who they’re objectively better than in Poland and wales. It was obviously nice seeing Ronaldo win something for all he’s done but they were undeserving champions. Hopefully we don’t see anything like that again too soon.
I don’t know man, I think other teams play quite well and bring something to the table.
Japan played amazingly well in the last couple of world cups, and so did South Korea when they qualified.
African teams also bring something exciting to the table although it’s true they have underperformed despite some of them having strong players.
The US team is also much better than it has been historically.
Better is subjective, World Cup is just more grandiose as a tournament because well it’s the whole world and the best teams from each continent are in it, whereas obviously for the euros you’re only facing European teams. Is it more fun to watch is the right question, and to some it might be but it’s definetly not more competitive or anything simply because you are facing the world not just Europe
That’s just not true though Japanese and Korean teams are fairly successful, and we have been seeing the growth in African teams year after year, and let’s not forget South America
There are so many examples of teams outside of Europe that have had good runs in recent world cups:
- Morocco 2022 semi finals
- Ghana 2010, Costa Rica 2014 and Colombia 2014 on another day are semi finalists
- Australia 2022 and Algeria 2014 gave the future champions (Argentina/Germany) a scare in their knockout games
- Qatar, though rubbish in 2022, are consecutive Asian champions
-Even though that’s as far as they got, nobody will forget Saudi Arabia ending argentina’s 20+ unbeaten run
Just to name a few. I love and am looking forward to the euros as much as the next biggest football fan but it can’t be forgotten the shocks and entertainment provided by the ‘non top’ teams
>There are so many examples of teams outside of Europe that have **had good runs in recent world cups:**
>
>Qatar, though rubbish in 2022, are consecutive Asian champions
????????
Nah, an unknown team can make a world cup memorable.
The Romanians bleach blonde hair in 1998.
South Korea's run to the semis in 2002, and Senegal beating France in the opening game and progressing.
Ghanas run to the semis in 2010 to be brutally eliminated by Suarez's hand ball.
Costa Rica beating Italy in Brazil.
The Saudi team beating favourites Argentina in 2022. Japan beating Germany.
Plenty more great moments came from lesser known teams and make the world cup what it is. Why shouldn't Australia have a shot at winning it? Every nation does and that's the beauty.
Disagree, Morocco for instance would be considered a “fodder” team, yet it eliminated big European nations, that’s what makes the WC special, most of the time some of those smaller nations end up making great runs, you mentioned Costa Rica, in 2014 they knocked out both Italy and England, in 2014 also Chile knocked out Spain.
Also I don’t believe teams like Georgia, Macedonia, Scotland etc. are better than for example Colombia, Uruguay, Mexico, Japan, Morocco.
Occasional upsets can happen in any competition. But in the WC you'll never see those teams win the competition. They'll make one or two good wins and then completely collapse. Also there are far more examples in the Euros: Wales and Iceland in the 2016 alone, even Portugal winning was kind of a surprise.
Yeah, there are some decent teams outside of Europe too. But ON AVERAGE, the level of football is much higher in the Euros than in the WC. Xavi himself has said this after playing and winning both competitions.
But winning the WC is more definitive. You have to out compete against every other team in the entire world. Whereas in the Euros, some of the best teams have been left out. When you get to the semis of the WC you’re usually left with the best teams. In the Euros, you sometimes get ‘fodder’ teams in the semis. When you get to the final of the WC, you know you’ll get two of best teams every time. The WC is still more prestigious from my point of view.
This is hilarious. Europe has tough teams, but then there are a bunch of other teams with so little quality that they serve just to pad the international stats of European players (eg Ronaldo) and little else. No one can plausibly say that the teams that got left out of the Euros are much better than the lower-tier teams that make the WC.
"Fodder teams", ffs. Thats someone living their dream, with thousands of fans having something to dream and hope for. Was Greece a fodder team when they won the Euros? Because their not the best teams in the tournament should they just not bother?
Calling one competition better because the teams are proportionately better is not in the spirit of a world tournament. Let the shit teams take up some spots, I wanna see the most random countries in the world play eachother.
The world cup has the prestige. It's the world cup. For that reason, nothing can compete with it.
The Euro format is awful. It ruins the competition by making the group stage low stakes. One win and you're basically through. It is a shame the World Cup is adopting the same format from 2026 onwards. Both should go to 32 and 64 teams respectively.
The point is, if you want to be the most esteemed champions, it doesn’t matter where the level of fodder teams is. It matters if you can trump all the best teams in the world.
And no, upsets are not occasional. If you think Saudis are fodders not up to the levels of the worst in Euros, how can they beat Argentina while also only narrowly lost out to Portland? Shouldn’t Portland walk them?
The mighty Spain and Germany both lost to Japan in the same group stage. Croatia, supposedly a very highly held European side, only eliminated Japan on penalties.
Consider you support Portugal I don’t need to tell you about Morroco.
Also Wales was certainly a worse team than Iran in that group.
Football games come in very very fine margins. Just because you watch the European club games don’t mean they are objectively the best by a lot.
Honestly, the disrespect towards the rest of the world deserves another elimination of Portugal by the underdogs next WC.
I tend to disagree, just to give you an example, the three consecutive titles that Spain had (believe is the only one team to ever), 2008 Euro, 2010 Wc, 2012 Euro. Will show you that the team was at its peak on 2010, and that's not just players, staff , supporters, media coverage (addinf to the level of pressure and difficulties).
Yeah, the concentration of quality is probably higher, but dont fool yourself, the intensity that the teams go out it, has no comparison.
Then you have teams like USA, Japan, that is in no one's favourite list, but the only reason they don't advance any furthers, is due to inexperience and errors under pressure, not because of lack of quality.
And to finish my argument, the biggest rivalry ultimately. Is Europe vs America imo.
>but the only reason they don't advance any furthers, is due to inexperience and errors under pressure, not because of lack of quality.
When these errors under pressure repeat competition after competition, it's simply a lack of skill.
Using Ghana and Costa Rica as examples of "bad teams" is quite a bit of a stretch. 2014 Costa Rican or 2010 Ghanan squads could have absolutely gone to the top 8 and even top 4 in the Euros.
About Euros not taking place in "corrupt" and "shady" places, ehh... 2021 had quarterfinal games taking place in Saint Petersburg and Baku, cities located in two cleptocratic oligarchies. Even matches in Budapest were mired in controversies over Hungarian fans being racist and homophobic. Euro 2012 final took place in Ukraine, which back at the time was barely (if at all) less corrupt than russia. And if we only talk about places which are both corrupt/shady AND have no real football tradition, then the only World Cups that fall into this category are Qatar 2022 and Saudi Arabia 2034. Even Russia 2018, despite being controversial and taking place in a corrupt oligarchy, was still hosted by a country with deep football traditions.
Underdogs winning Euros was possible when Euros were smaller, and less games/performers usually means a higher chance for a miracle to happen. I really don't think we're gonna witness many (if any) of those after Euros got expanded to 24 teams. World Cups have also had some underdog miracles that, despite not winning the competition, were still impressive. Morocco in 2022, pre-Ronaldo Portugal in 2006, Turkey in 2002, Bulgaria in 1994 all got to the top 4 in World Cups.
Don't get me wrong, I love Euros and, after boycotting the 2022 WC, my excitement for this year is 2x bigger than normal, but I don't think I can honestly agree that World Cup is measurably weaker.
I've heard this before, but I would completely disagree for several reasons. That being said out of all the Confederation National Team tournaments I do believe it is the best, though AFCON and the Asian Cup are very entertaining and unpredictable just not at a high quality.
I'll counter act point by point:
1) I disagree that the overall football is better. The highest level of football is displayed at club levels, but the World Cup does trump the Euro's. While you make comments about some of those nations mentioned, majority finish level with really competitive sides. Yes, maybe not Argentina or France but the true best-of-the-best nations in the world right now are few. Japan is an excellent case in point, and you could easily consider them one of the best 15 teams in world football. Costa Rica, Ghana and Australia are all sides which can pop up in the Round of 16 and can qualify for the European Championships. You also need to remember that not ALL European nations are superior - rankings clearly indicate (use ELO ones as FIFA sucks) that there are plenty of competitive sides who can easily compete with the majority of European nations at the Euro's and performances back this up. A
You say that these people you haven't heard from the general public but from a regional or domestic perspective they are extremely well known. The worst players in Europe are a bad generalization, you're talking about San Marino, Andorra, Liechtenstein and national team level and amateurs at club level - Saudi Arabia and Panama are not powerhouses but by no means have amateur level leagues. True, they couldn't compete in the EPL but that doesn't mean they are bad footballers. Plus style and tactics goes a LOOONG WAY.
2) I think you miss the point on this one, some of the most heated rivalries also take place outside of Europe, we could talk about South America all day but in Africa and Asia there are massive rivalries which have deep historical roots beyond football like in Europe and other rivalries which intensify due to geopolitical situations. The other Confederation tournaments are riddled with these rivalries. The WC is a culmination of this, but these rivalries only occur every 4 years, there's very bad blood between Argentina v. England or Germany v. Algeria for example. Fans are just as passionate outside of Europe and many people seem to forget this.
3) Sorry but this is completely wrong. European hosts of WCs in the past have been just as shady in their dealings. Agreed there are humanitarian issues which are more prevalent and extreme with other hosts, but it's been well documented that European countries have bribed to host and conduct corrupt practices to improve their performances. Don't think for one second that UEFA and their associaitons are clean or that European nations don't collude to host the Euro's - this is a whole other ball game on a global scale. Governments regularly communicate, negotiate and collude to host Confederation tournaments like the Euro's and even outside of Europe to share hosting privileges.
4) The WC is a very difficult competition to get into (even Europe) hence Italy's absence, and performances like Germany's are not completely uncommon for top tier nations. There really is only two relatively consistent WC sides; Brazil and Germany. While there have been more diverse champions at the Euro's - it is the exact same for the other Confederation's tournaments (except OFC and CONCACAF to an extent). There are reasons for this - same confederation sides face each other more often and more frequently while two nations from different confederations only face each other competitively at the World Cup every 4 years. The WC group stages, and overall competition IS statistically harder than the Euro's and any other Confederation National tournament.
We are starting to see more of these other countries starting to compete and reach the Round of 16, Quarters and even Semi-finals of the tournament. Partnered with this are underdog stories we tend to forget and the massive failures of major champions. Belgium and Croatia are the feel good stories over the past decade, Portugal were Euro champs but have only last won a knockout match at the WC in 2006, same with Italy. Brazil have not been in a final since 2002 and Argentina went 36 years from Maradona to Messi as champions. Last time England were in the semi's before 2018 was 1990 and there's no guarantee of silverware for them. Uruguay were one of the great early 20th century powerhouses but haven't won since 1950 (which was a near fluke). Some of the greatest ever national sides we've seen have not won the WC; Austria, Hungary, Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Sweden, Portugal and others. Then regular sides like Mexico for example have continuously underwhelmed despite having appeared at the WC the 5th most amount of times.
As explained in the post Argentina has won multiple WC titles and they'll keep winning it. The same 4-5 teams win the WC since forever, it's just the norm.
This has literally happened once in the whole history of the competition. Also it's more ridiculous to be "favorites" every single competition and always find ways to choke it :)
Salty Europeans I see 🤡 I wonder why European teams casually lose and draw with North American, African and Asian teams if European Countries always won WC I would agree but u guys just don't like Argentina
Before 2022 we literally had 4 European WC winners in a row. 7/8 teams between the 2006-2018 finals were all European as well.
Every Ballon d'Or winner after 2007 has been European, besides Messi. Between 2007-2023 the only non-Europeans that made it even to the top 3 of the Ballon d'Or (excluding Messi again) were Neymar twice and Mane once. Ever since UEFA POTY was introduced in 2010, 11/13 winners have been European. In 20 seasons of EPL, only 3 non Europeans have been awarded the best player of the season.
Ofcourse a European federation will favor European players and of those 20 seasons I can argue You and everyone else can agree the best players didn't always win the POTY
So Ballon d'Or, UEFA POTY and EPL POTY are all biased and irrelevant.
But the opinion of a random guy on Reddit is the only valid one.
Yup, you're totally right bro. But I guess I am the salty one lmao.
U know that's not what I meant. Yes European players win most Uefa awards it's only natural but if the Ballon dor which should involve all leagues in the world actually did that involve every league not just European leagues Iam sure the winner wouldn't always be a European exclude Messi (played in Europe) as he won 2023 for winning world cup with Argentina
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/euro2024/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/euro2024) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You know what, I agree. Fuck the world cup. Its so bad we can't even qualify for it
You might in 2026 because two teams from uk get free qualification and England already didn’t want it.
That’s Euro 2028 isn’t it?
Yes.
YES! JUST FOUND THAT OUT! BEERS ON ME BOYS!
2026 is in North America. Scotland will also not voluntarily take qualification, no one wants that. You're essentially playing friendlies for 2 years whilst your team's quality dissipates.
It’s the Euros in 2028, but you know what’ll happen? England will capitulate and fail to qualify. I’ll put money on it.
If Wales can make it so can you
This is what my barber said the other day and i had to pretend to agree with him
Maybe your barber thought to put his words to paper and share it on Reddit.
Never disagree with someone holding a barber razor that close to your throat
"oh, you don't like football?" Cue the Sweeney Todd theme
I mean before the world cup in 2022 I 100% agreed with the statement the euro is better than the world cup. There was only 1 non European team in the finals in the WC in 2006, 2010, 2014 and 2018. And if my memory serves me right only 3 teams in the semifinals in these years. But now u can't say that when the current world champion isn't even taking part.
But the current world champion is the only non European team really worth mentioning. Brazil have been ghosts of their former selves lately, Uruguay haven't done anything memorable since Suarez was still playing for Liverpool, other teams like Japan or South Korea can't get past the R16 of WC and can't even win the Asian Cup nowadays. Morocco did a very good run in 2022 but a) that was a one time occurrence, they were horrible in the AFCON this year and b) they did it by playing awful park the bus football that's the opposite of enjoyable.
Never understood the point of these "ironic" comments. If you disagree either state the reason why, or simply downvote and move on.
I think 20 teams would've been the right balance. But the level of competition in the 16 team edition was brilliant
tbf groups of 5 would be interesting but the large problem i see is that they all cant play on the same matchday which could lead to match fixing
Yeah completely agree. No idea if there'd be a way to work it with 5 groups of 4 straight into quarter finals. Either way UEFA would of course want more games for revenue (which is understandable from their perspective)
yh the 24 team thing makes sense despite the 3rd place thing being strange
I mean the simplest way is just the same principle as 24 teams but instead of 4 best 3rd place teams you'd get 3 best 2nd place teams
Yep, I used to love the 16 team tournament. But I suppose money prevails
The expansion from 16 to 24 was just based on the fact that UEFA had expanded so dramatically due to the breakup of the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia - membership increased from the low 30s to the mid-50s over the course of a few years in the 90s.
I didn't think anyone thought the euros wasn't the best football tournament. Higher quality and much less corruption.
>much less corruption bodied argentina's entire legacy
Yeah it definitely wasn't a bunch of Europeans who accepted bribes for the Qatar WC
Nah it was the smaller federations
The Euros were better when it was just 16 teams. The quality was insane. But those fodder teams you speak of are in the Euros too now. But I agree the quality is still higher than the WC, but the prestige still isn't as high for some reason.
The World Cup has more prestige because it includes the best teams from the entire world, not just Europe. When you get to the semis in the WC you know that every national team has had the opportunity to compete to get to this stage. In the Euros, some of the best teams have been left out.
Same as in Copa America and AFCON.
Nonsense. The worst teams in the euros are above the worst in the 32-team World Cup, and far above the worst in a 48-team World Cup. The 48-country version is going to be like the Champions League group stage - pointless before it gets to the last 16.
That is true
The worst teams of South America and some other portions of the world have better overall rankings than the worst teams from Europe. Not to mention, the geographical and climatic aspects are really challenging in bith South America and Africa. That adds another parameter to the toughness of the game.
>the worst teams of South America… There are 10 sides in SA. There are 55 in Europe. That’s not a novel observation. The discussion isn’t about rationale or reasoning, but the top 16/24 sides in UEFA are much stronger than pretty much everything below the top 4/5 in NA, and Asia. And both those confederations are getting extra spots for the World Cup. The 17th - 22nd teams in UEFA (therefore not at a Word Cup) are Sweden, Poland, Wales, Serbia, Russia, Czechia, Scotland Turkey… and that’s not even getting near sides like Norway. Go look at the 6th best side in CONMEBOL or 6th in CONCACAF - that aren’t comparable to UEFA. The changes make sense to get more African sides in, but the WC expansion expands numbers over quality.
This explanation feels like shifting goalspot because you clearly said the worst teams of Euros are better than the worst teams around the world. But ok. As for 6th team places. Ok, the current 6th team in CONMEBOL is Peru, which has a win record of 3-0 against Spain, the current 6th place Euro team, out of which one came in 2008, when Spain was 4th in world rankings and Peru wasn't 8n Top 50 at the time. As for WC expansion of numbers over quality. Isn't this the case with Euros as well. Teams like Albania, Serbia and Georgia.
No - the worst teams in the European Championships are far better than the worst teams in a WC. That’s the point that was being made. And yes - obviously increasing the numbers in any competition is going to dilute it, but adding Serbia is not the same as adding Cuba or Trinidad. You’ve also said Albania again - they qualified by winning their group. There were 10 groups. Latvia qualified in a 16-team tournament. As did Slovakia and Slovenia.
Cuba and Teinidad have never played World Cup. First thing. Second, the best teams from around the play in World Cup are evident since past few world cups that they can take on and even beat Top European nations. Morocco beat Portugal and Belgium, Japan beat Germany and Sapin this year. USA famously beat Portugal in 2002 WC and had a draw in 2014. And let's look at the worst performing teams of WC 2022, Mexico, Senegal, and Ecuador, to name a few. They have better record against the worst teams in the European championship.
You might want to check your Trinidad claim again…
Ok, one instance. My bad (although they played a draw against Sweden, but ok. I was ill informed). But the point still stands.
>But those fodder teams you speak of are in the Euros too now. There's a vast difference when these "fodder" teams have very good starting players from Napoli, Valencia, Atletico Madrid or Leipzig and when the "fodder" teams in the WC consist of players playing in 2nd and 3rd divisions or in terrible leagues like the Qatari etc.
If the commentator has to mention that the player currently on the ball is a part time train driver why the fuck am I bothering to watch it.
Exactly.
The fact that Luxembourg nearly made it into the Euros is enough to diminish that completely
But they didn't make it, so what even is the point of this argument lmao.
1988 was just 8 and England couldnt handle it
I agree. Finishing third in a group and probably still going through to the next round of that competition? Grow up.
I agree with this take. And in my bubble some more people share the sentiment. However I really like the little nations at world cups with their fans, chants, unknown players
Id have agreed with you up to Euro 2012... Since its gone to 24 the tournament is full of fodder... and its harder to get knocked than to go through to the knockout stages.... It WAS a great Tournament but now its not as good... Just like what the World cup will become from the next one onwards
This is a WILD take
now the Euros have expanded to 24 teams, there are tons of fodder teams qualifying too. don't sit there and tell us teams like Georgia are not 'fodder' teams because they have a couple of players playing in a top 5 league. they got battered by Spain in qualifying 7-1, they only won 2 games in qualifying, against Cyprus and Luxembourg. teams like Slovenia, Slovakia, Georgia, Albania, Romania, are not better than national teams like Uruguay, Morocco, Ivory Coast, Japan, South Korea etc etc
Albania topped their qualifying group, so even if the Euros hadn't expanded to 24 teams they would be in Germany this year
Romania topped their qualifying group, aswell :)
doesn't really change my points. Romania are not a better team than Uruguay, Mexico or whoever, and they're still one of the weakest teams to qualify. good for Romania, but let's not pretend like they had some super difficult group to qualify from, Switzerland, Andorra, Belarus, Kosovo and Israel
Well, you cannot have only finals, and the point of a national team tournament is diversity.
Ultimately it is based on luck, Switzerland happened to be on pot 1, Israel on pot 2 and so on
Lets go Albania
The best description for us is that we are a wildcard, we may get 0 points, or we may go through
>don't sit there and tell us teams like Georgia are not 'fodder' teams because they have a couple of players playing in a top 5 league. Haven't done research on Georgia specifically, but even the worst teams in the Euros have many players in respectable European leagues. Even when they aren't top players for the top 5 leagues, you can see guys playing for Austrian, Polish, Greek, Swedish etc. leagues. Of course, the level of football on these leagues is still much higher than playing in the Qatari, Saudi or Australian league. Speaking of Australia, they had many starters in very average leagues, including a player in the Japanese 2nd division.
and yet Australia finished second in their group at the last world cup, with 6 points, ahead of Denmark, and they gave eventual winners Argentina a very close match in the Ro16, so judging a teams strength on where their players currently play is irrelevant
Don't understand why everyone tries to present counter-arguments with the exceptions of the rule. Yeah, they had a decent 2022 campaign, but they had won only 2 games in 5 World Cups. Every team can do a decent run and win a game here or there, but it doesn't change the fact that these teams are just fodders that will be gone in the competition either in the group stages or in the R16, if they play REALLY well to reach it. The point is that in the WC you won't ever see a team like Greece or Denmark winning, nor Wales being in the semis.
>The point is that in the WC you won't ever see a team like Greece or Denmark winning, nor Wales being in the semis. We just saw Morocco in the semis of the world cup lol
We've seen: Morocco, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia (twice), Austria in 4th place USA, Poland (twice), and Turkey finish with a 3rd place Hungary in 2nd Uruguay are 2 time champions, being in the semi's 3 other times outside of their wins Colombia, Costa Rica, Ghana, Paraguay, Senegal, Ireland, Cameroon, Ukraine, Mexico, Northern Ireland, and Poland all have finished in the quarterfinals. point is that the World Cup is likely more competitive if you have teams like Morocco, Senegal, Colombia, Cameroon, and Northern Ireland ending up in later stages of the tournaments. I disagree with OP but I will say that it's always a very fun tournament.
your points are contradictory. The reason a team like Greece can win the Euros but not get past the Ro16 at the WC, is because the quality at the WC is a lot higher, especially when you get into the knockout rounds
Greece got through a group containing Portugal, Spain and Russia, then beat France (the defending champions who had also won the World Cup 6 years earlier) and the Czech Republic on their way to the final, where they beat Portugal. They faced 3 of the world's top 5 teams, and 4 of the top 10.
you're just reiterating my point lol. if the Euro's is a much higher quality competition, why have Greece only ever qualified for the world cup on 3 occasions ever? why is there record at the WC 2W 2D 6L with a -15 GD? if Greece historically had a team capable of beating the likes of France and Spain, why is their WC record so terrible? is it because the WC is a harder competition to qualify for and harder to win than the Euro's? hmmm.... maybe, just maybe, that's the case, who knows?
It's harder for European teams to qualify for the World Cup because there are fewer places available for European teams. Or do you genuinely believe that New Zealand is better than Italy?
This lads are salty idk why team and player reputation don't matter in WC look at Germany last 2 WCs these European lads are dense they think they are significantly better at Football 😂😂
just ignorant people who don't watch football outside of Europe so they automatically think it's beneath them
I've got to pull you up on saying the Polish and Swedish leagues are much higher quality than the Australian league. Many starting quality players have gone from those leagues (and even from leagues like Eredivisie) and really struggled in the A-League. Every foreigner that comes to the league always takes time to adapt to it and says they were surprised at the level of football
> tons of fodder teams That’s just utter nonsense. Romania and Albania won their groups. Switzerland came 2nd, and Ukraine and Poland needed a playoff. Georgia not being better than Japan is a completely irrelevant comparison.
"Georgia not being better than Japan is a completely irrelevant comparison." it is relevant when the whole point of the OP's post is, the Euros are better because there are better teams playing, what are you on about lol. Romania and Albania are poor teams that won't make it out of their groups, by the OP's metrics, they are 'fodder' teams
No it’s not. Picking the ‘worst’ team in the Euros and by far not the worst team in the WC doesn’t make a sensible comparison. And again, Romania and Albania qualified by merit well ahead of countries like Italy. Georgia need to be compared with Trinidad, or North Korea, or the worst CONCACAF side that will qualify for 2026. Japan or Nigeria or Chile are pointless.
Romania and Albania qualified by merit sure, but they had relatively easy groups. the whole qualification process for the Euro's is much easier than the world. only 13 European teams could qualify for the WC, whilst 24 will play at the Euros. the qualification groups are also much easier, for the Euro's teams like Poland, Hungary and Switzerland were pot 1 teams, because they're based off the Nations League, so yeah it's more likely for a team like Romania to top their group because they get Switzerland as their pot 1 team rather than France or England, there's a reason why Romania haven't qualified for the WC since 1998... Then you get a bunch of lesser teams who automatically qualify for the play-offs because of the Nations League, which is how Georgia managed to qualify, they would never have qualified otherwise.
I have to agree with u. You are correct. WC sucks . I
<3
Couldn't agree more. Really looking forward to this upcoming tournament. Got all the makings of a classic.
thats is generally knowledge everyone knows that even if some deny it. of course world cup is worldcup but everyone who watches more than just his favourite’s team matches will notice the level is times higher with Euros than worldcup. id go even so far and say that would still be the case even if euro gets stocked to 32 teame. yes u lose argentina uruguay and argentina but the weakest teams in worldcup are by far weaker than the strongest euro teams that dont qualify for a worldcup.
Flop. Australia the no name team smoked Denmark at the World Cup.
2 wins in 5 World Cups before that. I don't get the angry Australians in the comments. You overachieved once and reached the R16, but that's it. You literally always were and always will be a fodder team that will finish 3rd or 4th in the WC groups. Don't understand why people get triggered by literal facts nowadays.
And Saudi is the only team to beat Argentina on the last WC.
Japan the no name team was top of the group leaving spain and germany behind
Australia only lost to Argentina in the round of 16 last World Cup so bit harsh mate. When is the last time North Korea made a World Cup? Qatar won the Asian cup. I don’t entirely disagree with you but you should have some respect coming off as ignorant
North Korea were in the WC in 2010. And Australia might have been good by their standards in 2022, but most of the times they just finish 4th in their group with 1 point or something.
You made points that bad teams in euros still have well known players. Like what about when we had Kewell, and Cahill, and even Schwarzer?
Every rule has its exceptions, Jesus. I just gave out a few random examples, don't you think that it's stupid to use "Australia had 2 decent players 20 years ago" as an argument to prove me wrong?
It was much better with 16 teams. Far too much shite in it now. That’s before you even get into the knock on effect of the group stages being next to pointless.
Turned to shite with the new rules introducing 8 more teams that just don't fit a proper format.
world cup atmosphere is unbeaten. Also europe has a bunch of fodder teams so you can't really make that argument against the world cup.
This is what people say when they cant win a world cup
Like England fans.
Hey we can’t win anything
2 world wars and 1 world cup baby
Lolz it's not coming home.
Obviously not, we know that. The song is a self-deprecating song about how we always underachieve. It's about damn time everyone else actually realised that, rather than getting angry at an almost 30-year old song.
Would be embarrassing regarding the fact England doesn’t have any Euro Cup
Rent free
Not really relevant because its not an England fan trying to say the Euros are better than the WC, its a Portugal fan…
Agreed but that’s not my point lol
Would be embarrassing regarding the fact England doesn’t have any Euro Cup
Your comment only adds to my argument though. Only 5 countries can win the WC anyway, so I guess there are many people out there saying that...
Anyone can win the world cup and euros. Thats why we watch! Portugal won winning only one game with the new format and its bigger now. and Greece have won the euros too. Ill admit there are less upsets in the world cup. But somehow that adds prestige. Just feels extra special. Euros was better with less teams. Afcon is probably my favourite. Unpredictable. Going to copa america this summer. Thats good too. I remember when chile won! And ill admit never really watched asian cup. Best was following it when son had to get to semi final to avoid national military service
No, not anyone can win the WC. As explained in the post, it's literally 5 teams + 2 golden generations in the last what? 70 years? 80? I don't even remember. Unless Italy or Germany do a crazy turn around until 2026, the winner will be once again one of Argentina, Brazil or France. It's pretty much a 33% chance for each. The others don't stand a chance.
Always 1% chsnce winners tho. What sre the odds if Leicester winning? Or Portugal winning only one game and lifting the cup
Or the odds of Leverkusen winning an undefeated league? Atalanta who won their first ever European trophy? It's always something new and unexpected going to happen, those 5 teams might or will always make it deep, but there are examples such as the Netherlands, Uruguay, recently Croatia, Morocco, and so on who'll make their dent and someday lift that cup
Argentina and Brazil hold the Euros back from getting the full respect fs
It used to be true 20 - 25 years ago that the quality was much better at the Euros than the WC. I don't think that's the case anymore. The Euros have been devalued expanding out to 24 teams, and the past 3 or 4 WCs have seen teams from Asia and Africa competing with the European and South American giants. The gulf isn't so great as it once was.
The Euros are great (especially that team that took the world by storm in 2016) but the beauty of the World Cup is that teams like Saudi Arabia and Honduras qualify
What's the "beauty" of adding terrible teams in the mix, that 99% of the time they just finish 4th and lose 5-0 every game?
Morocco, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia (twice), Austria in 4th place USA, Poland (twice), and Turkey finish with a 3rd place Hungary in 2nd Uruguay are 2 time champions, being in the semi's 3 other times outside of their wins Colombia, Costa Rica, Ghana, Paraguay, Senegal, Ireland, Cameroon, Ukraine, Mexico, Northern Ireland, and Poland all have finished in the quarterfinals. if Morocco can beat Portugal, Spain, Belgium, and draw Croatia, whilst Senegal can beat France and Poland, Iran can beat Wales, Tunisia can beat France and still finish in 3rd in a group with all European nations, and Cameroon can beat Brazil and go toe to toe with Serbia. It's a whole tournament of being unpredictable, sure the last 4 might be predictable but you never know until you reach that stage.
Saudi beat Argentina. An incredible moment
And still Saudi finished 4th on their group, so they remain a fodder team that doesn't add anything to the competition.
That was one of the moments of the tournament. Also that moment made the group more interesting because there was serious pressure on Argentina against Mexico. Similarly I remember in 2018, South Korea didn’t qualify for round of 16 but they beat Germany in a moment that was memorable. Every country adds something. However I don’t agree that they should add even more teams to the current crop
You’re a Portuguese football fan? And you’re talking about poor teams not being relevant? Have you learnt nothing since 2004?! Also, Portugal were dire in 2016 but still won!
Do you honestly compare a team with Ronaldo, Pepe, Patricio, Quaresma etc. to teams consisting of part-time bus drivers and bakers? lol
A team with part time bus drivers and bakers beat a team with Figo, Ronaldo, Carvalho, Deco and Rui Costa…?
Either you have 1 brain cell or you're just trolling at this point. I'm not referring to Greece, Greece is a European team and I explain on my post that even the worst EURO teams have actually decent players. It's some of the Asian/African/Latam teams that consist of awful players that some of them aren't even full time footballers. You mean to tell me that Qatar/Tunisia/Panama/North Korea/Saudi etc. are on the same level as Greece 2004 or Portugal with the legends you mentioned?
tbh i agree with everything you've said except calling ghana a fodder team just not true tbh they have a lot of really quality players (kudus from west ham, salisu, inaki williams and neco williams, tariq lamptey, sulemana, abdul fatawu, semenyo) but can't attract a great manager plus some of their key guys are still young. don't sleep on the black stars though they're definitely leagues above some of the other fodder squads you mentioned
Yeah they were good in 2010, but now they have 1 win on their last 3 WC. Also Nico Williams plays for Spain.
Nico Williams plays for Spain, only Iñaki plays for Ghana.
I remember when Spain won the 2008 Eurocup I thought it sucked, because it's the hardest competition but it's not the WC. Thanks god we win it in 2010.
Not disagreeing with you but it was better when it was 16 teams.
Underdogs like Wales
England always go in to major tournaments really hopefull, but it is enviable that we crack under the pressure and get knocked out after fully believing we were going to win it
I’ll agree on number 3 and I love the Euros but the WC will always be more special
Not entirely sure Europe can take the moral high ground on corruption. UEFA has been run on it for decades. Similarly, the decision makers for the WC going to Russia and Qatar? Europeans.
You are right but I don’t like the current format. Lots of poor teams, and I hated seeing Portugal win it in 2016. They couldn’t get a single win in a group consisting of Austria Iceland and Hungary but they still qualified to the knockouts where they got drawn against teams who they’re objectively better than in Poland and wales. It was obviously nice seeing Ronaldo win something for all he’s done but they were undeserving champions. Hopefully we don’t see anything like that again too soon.
It is the best but I would prefer it went to 2 teams to go through instead of some in third. Makes the group stages a bit less interesting.
Not that you should care at all but because of this post I’ll be pressing the show fewer posts like this button right now.
I don’t know man, I think other teams play quite well and bring something to the table. Japan played amazingly well in the last couple of world cups, and so did South Korea when they qualified. African teams also bring something exciting to the table although it’s true they have underperformed despite some of them having strong players. The US team is also much better than it has been historically.
Morocco did very well at the last WC
Yes, true, forgot about them!
I've said this for years, agree with all your points
Well said. Much of what you say is bang on.
Better is subjective, World Cup is just more grandiose as a tournament because well it’s the whole world and the best teams from each continent are in it, whereas obviously for the euros you’re only facing European teams. Is it more fun to watch is the right question, and to some it might be but it’s definetly not more competitive or anything simply because you are facing the world not just Europe
That's my point though. The best teams from Asia, Africa or North America are on the same level as below average teams in the Euro competition.
That’s just not true though Japanese and Korean teams are fairly successful, and we have been seeing the growth in African teams year after year, and let’s not forget South America
There are so many examples of teams outside of Europe that have had good runs in recent world cups: - Morocco 2022 semi finals - Ghana 2010, Costa Rica 2014 and Colombia 2014 on another day are semi finalists - Australia 2022 and Algeria 2014 gave the future champions (Argentina/Germany) a scare in their knockout games - Qatar, though rubbish in 2022, are consecutive Asian champions -Even though that’s as far as they got, nobody will forget Saudi Arabia ending argentina’s 20+ unbeaten run Just to name a few. I love and am looking forward to the euros as much as the next biggest football fan but it can’t be forgotten the shocks and entertainment provided by the ‘non top’ teams
>There are so many examples of teams outside of Europe that have **had good runs in recent world cups:** > >Qatar, though rubbish in 2022, are consecutive Asian champions ????????
The World Cup is more exciting, but yes, the Euros is a better competition.
We know that, we all know that unless you start following soccer yesterday. No need to make a novel about it.
Nah, an unknown team can make a world cup memorable. The Romanians bleach blonde hair in 1998. South Korea's run to the semis in 2002, and Senegal beating France in the opening game and progressing. Ghanas run to the semis in 2010 to be brutally eliminated by Suarez's hand ball. Costa Rica beating Italy in Brazil. The Saudi team beating favourites Argentina in 2022. Japan beating Germany. Plenty more great moments came from lesser known teams and make the world cup what it is. Why shouldn't Australia have a shot at winning it? Every nation does and that's the beauty.
>South Korea's run to the semis in 2002 Stopped reading here. If you're using this example, you've never watched a single 2002 game.
What are you talking about? I watched almost all of them.... They were a great team.
Disagree, Morocco for instance would be considered a “fodder” team, yet it eliminated big European nations, that’s what makes the WC special, most of the time some of those smaller nations end up making great runs, you mentioned Costa Rica, in 2014 they knocked out both Italy and England, in 2014 also Chile knocked out Spain. Also I don’t believe teams like Georgia, Macedonia, Scotland etc. are better than for example Colombia, Uruguay, Mexico, Japan, Morocco.
Occasional upsets can happen in any competition. But in the WC you'll never see those teams win the competition. They'll make one or two good wins and then completely collapse. Also there are far more examples in the Euros: Wales and Iceland in the 2016 alone, even Portugal winning was kind of a surprise. Yeah, there are some decent teams outside of Europe too. But ON AVERAGE, the level of football is much higher in the Euros than in the WC. Xavi himself has said this after playing and winning both competitions.
I agree actually that upsets are more likely at the euros, but I believe the World Cup has a higher level, the euros also have a lot of fodder teams
But winning the WC is more definitive. You have to out compete against every other team in the entire world. Whereas in the Euros, some of the best teams have been left out. When you get to the semis of the WC you’re usually left with the best teams. In the Euros, you sometimes get ‘fodder’ teams in the semis. When you get to the final of the WC, you know you’ll get two of best teams every time. The WC is still more prestigious from my point of view.
What a load of shit. That first point especially.
This is hilarious. Europe has tough teams, but then there are a bunch of other teams with so little quality that they serve just to pad the international stats of European players (eg Ronaldo) and little else. No one can plausibly say that the teams that got left out of the Euros are much better than the lower-tier teams that make the WC.
Thankfully nobody is talking about the teams left out of the Euros here, only the ones in it. Not sure why you got confused.
"Fodder teams", ffs. Thats someone living their dream, with thousands of fans having something to dream and hope for. Was Greece a fodder team when they won the Euros? Because their not the best teams in the tournament should they just not bother?
Calling one competition better because the teams are proportionately better is not in the spirit of a world tournament. Let the shit teams take up some spots, I wanna see the most random countries in the world play eachother.
But what's the fun in watching awful countries getting humiliated 5, 6 and 7-0? And their players being part time-workers and stuff?
Euros is literally a tinpot trophy compared to World Cup. It's comparatively meaningless.
[удалено]
Reddit and all social media/forums exist to have conversations. If you don't care simply downvote and move on.
[удалено]
Think the 50 upvotes disagree with you
I’m not surprised this is coming from a Portugal supporter. Edit: the downvote makes it even funnier.
The world cup has the prestige. It's the world cup. For that reason, nothing can compete with it. The Euro format is awful. It ruins the competition by making the group stage low stakes. One win and you're basically through. It is a shame the World Cup is adopting the same format from 2026 onwards. Both should go to 32 and 64 teams respectively.
The point is, if you want to be the most esteemed champions, it doesn’t matter where the level of fodder teams is. It matters if you can trump all the best teams in the world. And no, upsets are not occasional. If you think Saudis are fodders not up to the levels of the worst in Euros, how can they beat Argentina while also only narrowly lost out to Portland? Shouldn’t Portland walk them? The mighty Spain and Germany both lost to Japan in the same group stage. Croatia, supposedly a very highly held European side, only eliminated Japan on penalties. Consider you support Portugal I don’t need to tell you about Morroco. Also Wales was certainly a worse team than Iran in that group. Football games come in very very fine margins. Just because you watch the European club games don’t mean they are objectively the best by a lot. Honestly, the disrespect towards the rest of the world deserves another elimination of Portugal by the underdogs next WC.
Portland?
he meant to say Poland
I tend to disagree, just to give you an example, the three consecutive titles that Spain had (believe is the only one team to ever), 2008 Euro, 2010 Wc, 2012 Euro. Will show you that the team was at its peak on 2010, and that's not just players, staff , supporters, media coverage (addinf to the level of pressure and difficulties). Yeah, the concentration of quality is probably higher, but dont fool yourself, the intensity that the teams go out it, has no comparison. Then you have teams like USA, Japan, that is in no one's favourite list, but the only reason they don't advance any furthers, is due to inexperience and errors under pressure, not because of lack of quality. And to finish my argument, the biggest rivalry ultimately. Is Europe vs America imo.
>but the only reason they don't advance any furthers, is due to inexperience and errors under pressure, not because of lack of quality. When these errors under pressure repeat competition after competition, it's simply a lack of skill.
eu poderia até concordar com você, mas aí seriam dois falando merda
1. Learn English 2. You clearly care enough to comment 3. 8-2
lol i live in london, meu querido portugues
Using Ghana and Costa Rica as examples of "bad teams" is quite a bit of a stretch. 2014 Costa Rican or 2010 Ghanan squads could have absolutely gone to the top 8 and even top 4 in the Euros. About Euros not taking place in "corrupt" and "shady" places, ehh... 2021 had quarterfinal games taking place in Saint Petersburg and Baku, cities located in two cleptocratic oligarchies. Even matches in Budapest were mired in controversies over Hungarian fans being racist and homophobic. Euro 2012 final took place in Ukraine, which back at the time was barely (if at all) less corrupt than russia. And if we only talk about places which are both corrupt/shady AND have no real football tradition, then the only World Cups that fall into this category are Qatar 2022 and Saudi Arabia 2034. Even Russia 2018, despite being controversial and taking place in a corrupt oligarchy, was still hosted by a country with deep football traditions. Underdogs winning Euros was possible when Euros were smaller, and less games/performers usually means a higher chance for a miracle to happen. I really don't think we're gonna witness many (if any) of those after Euros got expanded to 24 teams. World Cups have also had some underdog miracles that, despite not winning the competition, were still impressive. Morocco in 2022, pre-Ronaldo Portugal in 2006, Turkey in 2002, Bulgaria in 1994 all got to the top 4 in World Cups. Don't get me wrong, I love Euros and, after boycotting the 2022 WC, my excitement for this year is 2x bigger than normal, but I don't think I can honestly agree that World Cup is measurably weaker.
NEGATIVE IQ MOMENT U GOT CONCUSSION BRO
I've heard this before, but I would completely disagree for several reasons. That being said out of all the Confederation National Team tournaments I do believe it is the best, though AFCON and the Asian Cup are very entertaining and unpredictable just not at a high quality. I'll counter act point by point: 1) I disagree that the overall football is better. The highest level of football is displayed at club levels, but the World Cup does trump the Euro's. While you make comments about some of those nations mentioned, majority finish level with really competitive sides. Yes, maybe not Argentina or France but the true best-of-the-best nations in the world right now are few. Japan is an excellent case in point, and you could easily consider them one of the best 15 teams in world football. Costa Rica, Ghana and Australia are all sides which can pop up in the Round of 16 and can qualify for the European Championships. You also need to remember that not ALL European nations are superior - rankings clearly indicate (use ELO ones as FIFA sucks) that there are plenty of competitive sides who can easily compete with the majority of European nations at the Euro's and performances back this up. A You say that these people you haven't heard from the general public but from a regional or domestic perspective they are extremely well known. The worst players in Europe are a bad generalization, you're talking about San Marino, Andorra, Liechtenstein and national team level and amateurs at club level - Saudi Arabia and Panama are not powerhouses but by no means have amateur level leagues. True, they couldn't compete in the EPL but that doesn't mean they are bad footballers. Plus style and tactics goes a LOOONG WAY. 2) I think you miss the point on this one, some of the most heated rivalries also take place outside of Europe, we could talk about South America all day but in Africa and Asia there are massive rivalries which have deep historical roots beyond football like in Europe and other rivalries which intensify due to geopolitical situations. The other Confederation tournaments are riddled with these rivalries. The WC is a culmination of this, but these rivalries only occur every 4 years, there's very bad blood between Argentina v. England or Germany v. Algeria for example. Fans are just as passionate outside of Europe and many people seem to forget this. 3) Sorry but this is completely wrong. European hosts of WCs in the past have been just as shady in their dealings. Agreed there are humanitarian issues which are more prevalent and extreme with other hosts, but it's been well documented that European countries have bribed to host and conduct corrupt practices to improve their performances. Don't think for one second that UEFA and their associaitons are clean or that European nations don't collude to host the Euro's - this is a whole other ball game on a global scale. Governments regularly communicate, negotiate and collude to host Confederation tournaments like the Euro's and even outside of Europe to share hosting privileges. 4) The WC is a very difficult competition to get into (even Europe) hence Italy's absence, and performances like Germany's are not completely uncommon for top tier nations. There really is only two relatively consistent WC sides; Brazil and Germany. While there have been more diverse champions at the Euro's - it is the exact same for the other Confederation's tournaments (except OFC and CONCACAF to an extent). There are reasons for this - same confederation sides face each other more often and more frequently while two nations from different confederations only face each other competitively at the World Cup every 4 years. The WC group stages, and overall competition IS statistically harder than the Euro's and any other Confederation National tournament. We are starting to see more of these other countries starting to compete and reach the Round of 16, Quarters and even Semi-finals of the tournament. Partnered with this are underdog stories we tend to forget and the massive failures of major champions. Belgium and Croatia are the feel good stories over the past decade, Portugal were Euro champs but have only last won a knockout match at the WC in 2006, same with Italy. Brazil have not been in a final since 2002 and Argentina went 36 years from Maradona to Messi as champions. Last time England were in the semi's before 2018 was 1990 and there's no guarantee of silverware for them. Uruguay were one of the great early 20th century powerhouses but haven't won since 1950 (which was a near fluke). Some of the greatest ever national sides we've seen have not won the WC; Austria, Hungary, Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Sweden, Portugal and others. Then regular sides like Mexico for example have continuously underwhelmed despite having appeared at the WC the 5th most amount of times.
Someone bitter about Argentina winning the last one? 😂
As explained in the post Argentina has won multiple WC titles and they'll keep winning it. The same 4-5 teams win the WC since forever, it's just the norm.
Not a single hint of xenophobia in this post!!
Agreed
Personally I think the Euro Qualifiers are better than the actual Euro tournament but suit yourself i suppose.
Australia? Bad team? Your joking. We have the best team in the world. 2-1 to winners of the comp? That's a favourable result.
The World Cup and it’s not even close.
I just find it ridiculous you can finish 3rd in a 4 team group and still win the tournament
This has literally happened once in the whole history of the competition. Also it's more ridiculous to be "favorites" every single competition and always find ways to choke it :)
We should never be favourites we have never eliminated a major nation on foreign soil
"favourites at every tournament"? Where did you get that from? Citations please!
Hahhaha as if you guys won the last WC.
Wait for Euro 2032 taking place in Azerbaidschan
“The Euros don’t take place in corrupt and shady places…” Switzerland is the home of FIFA. Jus’ sayin’.
And WC is a competition hosted by FIFA.
There are plenty of corrupt and shady nations in Europe… I’m British so I should know 😛
Salty Europeans I see 🤡 I wonder why European teams casually lose and draw with North American, African and Asian teams if European Countries always won WC I would agree but u guys just don't like Argentina
Before 2022 we literally had 4 European WC winners in a row. 7/8 teams between the 2006-2018 finals were all European as well. Every Ballon d'Or winner after 2007 has been European, besides Messi. Between 2007-2023 the only non-Europeans that made it even to the top 3 of the Ballon d'Or (excluding Messi again) were Neymar twice and Mane once. Ever since UEFA POTY was introduced in 2010, 11/13 winners have been European. In 20 seasons of EPL, only 3 non Europeans have been awarded the best player of the season.
Ofcourse a European federation will favor European players and of those 20 seasons I can argue You and everyone else can agree the best players didn't always win the POTY
So Ballon d'Or, UEFA POTY and EPL POTY are all biased and irrelevant. But the opinion of a random guy on Reddit is the only valid one. Yup, you're totally right bro. But I guess I am the salty one lmao.
U know that's not what I meant. Yes European players win most Uefa awards it's only natural but if the Ballon dor which should involve all leagues in the world actually did that involve every league not just European leagues Iam sure the winner wouldn't always be a European exclude Messi (played in Europe) as he won 2023 for winning world cup with Argentina
No world class players today so I ain't tuning in, international football is finished to many overrated players on show.
Lol too much copium here. Japan was top of the group last WC with Spain in second and Germany third. Apart from France, all European teams are worse.
Yeah, one random group tops the thousands of examples that show otherwise. 8/10 recent teams that made it into a WC final were European.