Euro Debate: UEFA's Wise Decision To Increase Euro 2016 To 24 Competitors

UEFA's figures, in terms of turnover and profit, for the last edition of the championships, in 2008, are astronomical. A cursory check of the company's Euro 2008 economic review reveals that a doughty €250 million net profit was achieved through the tournament. The evolution of income, from the eight-team edition in Sweden in 1992 to the 16-team tournament of two summers ago, leaves little doubt that a 24-team beano would send UEFA's bank balances even further into the stratosphere. Euro 92 generated a €41m turnover and England in 1996 reached €147m. The Netherlands and Belgium generated €230m in 2000 and the figure had risen to €852m in Portugal in 2004. Most recently though, an astonishing €1.3 billion was banked in Austria - Switzerland. 

The bucks manifested themselves in a variety of guises, from corporate hospitality and VIP packages (27,000 in 2004/80,000 in 2008) to match tickets, advertising and media rights. The disparity in numbers between Portugal and Austria - Switzerland is vast and can only have had the UEFA drones licking their chops at the prospect of even further profit from an extended tournament.

Furthermore, the host nations receive a significant slice of the pie; Austria and Switzerland both accrued around €360m each for hosting the event while Mastercard estimated that Vienna enjoyed a boom of around €100m for hosting the final alone. Additionally, UEFA revealed that the average spend of a football fan at Euro 2008 was €1,155.

Participating nations usually enjoy an economic pick-me-up too, once qualification is assured; indeed, England's World Cup quarter-finals appearance in 2006 was thought to be worth as much as €2.26bn to the local British economy. Plus, there's the gambling aspect to be factored in. With the advent of internet betting, the sky truly is the limit for sharks seeking a fortune at an international football tournament.

Clubs may complain that more games mean more stresses on their players but UEFA has long since reached a financial blow-softener with them. In line with the Per Player Per Day policy, clubs are entitled to a substantial windfall once representatives are summoned for national duty. For Euro 2008, Werder Bremen, Olympique Lyonnais and Bayern Munich all received in excess of €1m for their troubles.

Once the maths are done, there is still the matter of a month-long football tournament to be considered. The quality on show in an elongated event will not be compromised, assures UEFA President, Michel Platini.

"One can give a considerable number of reasons [for an expanded European Championships]," he says. "I'm sure that it will not change the technical level. In addition to the 16 qualifiers, there are eight other teams just as good."

His colleague, the General Secretary David Taylor agrees. "It's a natural development in European football in my view, when we see the popularity of national-team competitions. National-team football is unbeatable in terms of TV rankings and the interest that it generates – why not increase the number of teams?"

"National associations will benefit, and football will benefit. One thing we have also seen which gives us comfort is that there are now at least 24 teams of the required strength to compete effectively in a final tournament. Perhaps that wasn't the case 20 years ago, but we have the numbers to make a 24-team tournament a success in Europe."

And perhaps they have a point. Geopolitically, Europe is a very different place now than it was in 1960. That year's final match was contested by the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Members of both squads were supplied by regions now known as Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, all FIFA member nations, as well as Kosovo.

So why shouldn't players from now independent countries be afforded a decent chance to play at a tournament under their own flag? With a swollen Europe, and with it, more teams, it seems somewhat of a natural progression to open the doors of Euro 2016 to more competitors. Only 27 countries have ever played on this stage and that number has a good chance of increasing in the coming decades, without diminishing the standards on show. 

Indeed, the European Championships, since its conception by the Frenchman Henri Delaunay, has been in a constant state of flux. From four teams in 1968, the tournament grew to eight in 1980. The finals doubled in size in 1996, since when the tournament has risen to become the world's third most popular sporting event, after the World Cup and the Olympic Games. A thirst for the competition cannot be slaked in the current format, so following on from the next competition, there will be major changes.

Poland and Ukraine are currently setting their stalls out to host the 2012 edition while the finishing touches are being put to the 2016 contenders' bids. France, Italy and Turkey have been short-listed to host the event. The process, from here on in, develops rapidly; bid dossiers are due in from the competitors by February 15 this year while UEFA inspectors will visit the sites from March. A final decision is expected by May. Each of the bidders must take into account the additional requirements for hosting an additional eight teams and have at least nine stadiums available for use through 51 matches.

Under the new regulations for the European Championships, UEFA seem to promise that everyone will be a winner. Fans see more football, mid-rank nations have a better chance of qualifying and clubs receive ample remuneration. Not to mention, European football's governing body stands to break all sorts of profit records.