UEFA (the Union of European Football Associations) has announced that the 2020 European Championships will, for the first time, be hosted across the continent. The decision to go for a one-off ‘Euro for Europe’ to celebrate the competition’s 60th anniversary was announced on Thursday afternoon by UEFA President, Michel Platini, and immediately provoked sharp criticism in some quarters.
The tournament, which began in 1960, has already undergone a number of changes in recent years. In 1996, it expanded from 8 to 16 sides competing at the finals, largely to reflect the expansion of European states resulting from the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. In 2016, it is set to expand once again to 24 sides. The exact details of how this format will work are yet to be agreed, but it will necessarily lead to greater logistical demands on the host nation, France.
It is partly in response to this expansion in participants that the new plans have come about. Thursday’s announcement constitutes a sharp break from the traditional procedure of holding the tournament in one or, more recently, two host nation(s). The potential pitfalls of hosting an expanded competition were exposed in the build-up to Euro 2012, with Poland and Ukraine struggling to meet the required stadium and infrastructure renovations to host the 31 matches. Under the 24-team format, there could be up to 51 games taking place, with all the additional logistical and financial pressures this brings, including transport investment, accommodation of fans and additional policing. UEFA’s decision to ignore the three tabled bids—from Turkey, Georgia-Azerbaijan, and Scotland-Wales-Ireland—reflects these concerns.
Critics have argued that a ‘Euro for Europe’ will be bad for fans, and will serve only the interests of the tournament’s multinational sponsors. Arguments include the increased travel costs for those wanting to follow their side’s progress, and the lack of a central focus of the tournament impacting negatively on atmosphere. These responses have been provoked by Platini’s suggestion that matches could be held across as many as thirteen nations. One idea has been that the twelve highest-seeded nations would host matches in their home cities. This would be a step backward: it would concentrate the tournament in Western Europe; would be unfair on those qualifiers forced to play ‘away’ games, and would likely involve increased travel for fans (for example, if Russia and Portugal were drawn in the same group).
UEFA’s proposal has the greatest potential to work if the competition is regionalised, with perhaps one or two groups being based in cities separated by relatively short-distances (though potentially spanning state borders), yet connected by well-established transport links. One advantage of a widened competition could be to provide opportunities for Europe’s smaller and newer states to share in the celebration that these tournaments can bring, whilst removing the requirement for ten or twelve high-class stadiums to be constructed. Georgia, one of the original bidders, has already voiced its support for the concept. Group games could be shared, for example, amongst the Baltic states, former Yugoslavs republics, or other nations which could not hope to host the entire tournament on their own, such as Wales. This need not preclude the possibility for more established footballing nations to be involved either: Spain and Portugal could share a group, for example, whilst Wembley has already been touted as a potential stadium for the final. By focusing sections of the tournament in different areas, travel costs would be reduced, whilst fan-bases could be established in a variety of localities, with no necessary reduction in atmosphere.
From a political perspective, the hosting of the Championships across the continent is evidently aimed to cultivate a greater sense of European unity: a notion which underpins UEFA itself. This may be considered a positive or a negative depending on your standpoint. However, the potential for cross-border sporting events to bring peoples together and address long-held animosities is clear for all to see. This idea lay (at least in part) behind FIFA’s decision to award the hosting of the 2002 World Cup jointly to Japan and South Korea. The ‘Euro for Europe’ concept might also contribute to a similar process of reconciliation in the Balkans.
Ultimately, Euro 2012 was hailed as a success, providing the opportunity for Poland and Ukraine to showcase their capabilities as modern nation-states and reverse many previously-held stereotypes, despite controversies over racism and violence in the build-up. Until final plans are announced, there is no reason why Euro 2020 could not offer similar advantages.
Of course, as a previous article on the IPF argued, it would be naïve to suggest that some of Europe’s most deep-rooted political problems could be solved by sport alone. But as a focal point for building collective pride and common identity, the hosting of an international tournament could certainly help.
About the Author
