When browsing the Guardian website, one often stumbles on the most interesting titbits of information, such as the precise age of 'Vastu Shasta' (As old as your house, apparently) or why the Tories are all scum. Today, however, I discovered something much more interesting, and at least a little bit more useful. Our Euro 2012 hosts have, between them, qualified for the tournament once. That was Poland in 2008.
So is it right that these countries should be hosting the tournament, and, perhaps more importantly, be placed in the first group of seeds with Spain and Holland?
I'm not arguing that hosts should not get automatic qualification, but rather, perhaps the success of a nation should be taken in to consideration. Of course, it great to see UEFA spreading the profit around a bit, but there needs to be a clear set of guidelines for choosing a country; an unsuccessful nation such as, say, Finland or even some tiny places like San Marino or Andorra are just as qualified as our hosts next summer.
Further, placing Poland and Ukraine in Pot 1 is, frankly, nonsensical. Pot 2 I could have understood, but in pot 1? There is a possibility that next year we could see a super-group containing Spain, Germany, Portugal and France (who have been placed in the bottom pot) while another group is made up of Poland, Russia, Greece and Ireland. With respect to all those teams in the second group, this distorts the competition somewhat. The point of seeding is to prevent the best teams meeting very early. There is a very real possibility that the best 4 teams in Europe right now are Spain, Germany and Portugal from that group, plus Holland. Clearly this makes a mockery of the idea of seeding.
So how would I change it? I'm not advocating anything like making the last winner stage the competition; this would only concentrate the profits into the hands of wealthy nations further. What I am suggesting, however, is that a nation that has never qualified for the Euros is not a suitable host. Even if Ukraine has only been a country for 20 years, it doesn't seem right to me. The same applies to South Africa and even more so to Qatar.
I'm quite aware plenty of people will argue that this competition will improve infrastructure in Ukraine and Poland, as well as the quality of the footballing facilities, but these nations are not poor, and often such benefits are overplayed. Take, for example, the World Cup in South Africa. This has not helped the vast majority of South Africans, or even South African footballers. FIFA's profits have been well-documented. The nations that should be getting competitions to host are those on the periphery - they qualify, but perhaps are still not that strong. This would be countries such as Sweden, Denmark or Russia. I believe that these kind of hosts would give the tournament more meaning, and prevent disparities such as within the 'group of death' and the 'group of boredom'.
PS. Sorry about the length, it was this or doing University Coursework...
So is it right that these countries should be hosting the tournament, and, perhaps more importantly, be placed in the first group of seeds with Spain and Holland?
I'm not arguing that hosts should not get automatic qualification, but rather, perhaps the success of a nation should be taken in to consideration. Of course, it great to see UEFA spreading the profit around a bit, but there needs to be a clear set of guidelines for choosing a country; an unsuccessful nation such as, say, Finland or even some tiny places like San Marino or Andorra are just as qualified as our hosts next summer.
Further, placing Poland and Ukraine in Pot 1 is, frankly, nonsensical. Pot 2 I could have understood, but in pot 1? There is a possibility that next year we could see a super-group containing Spain, Germany, Portugal and France (who have been placed in the bottom pot) while another group is made up of Poland, Russia, Greece and Ireland. With respect to all those teams in the second group, this distorts the competition somewhat. The point of seeding is to prevent the best teams meeting very early. There is a very real possibility that the best 4 teams in Europe right now are Spain, Germany and Portugal from that group, plus Holland. Clearly this makes a mockery of the idea of seeding.
So how would I change it? I'm not advocating anything like making the last winner stage the competition; this would only concentrate the profits into the hands of wealthy nations further. What I am suggesting, however, is that a nation that has never qualified for the Euros is not a suitable host. Even if Ukraine has only been a country for 20 years, it doesn't seem right to me. The same applies to South Africa and even more so to Qatar.
I'm quite aware plenty of people will argue that this competition will improve infrastructure in Ukraine and Poland, as well as the quality of the footballing facilities, but these nations are not poor, and often such benefits are overplayed. Take, for example, the World Cup in South Africa. This has not helped the vast majority of South Africans, or even South African footballers. FIFA's profits have been well-documented. The nations that should be getting competitions to host are those on the periphery - they qualify, but perhaps are still not that strong. This would be countries such as Sweden, Denmark or Russia. I believe that these kind of hosts would give the tournament more meaning, and prevent disparities such as within the 'group of death' and the 'group of boredom'.
PS. Sorry about the length, it was this or doing University Coursework...
