# EUROPE - UEFA Nations League



## Rover030 (Dec 6, 2016)

stewe1981 said:


> Can you give me one reason why a team should not lose intentionally in order to participate in a lower division for the next tournament? And if they lose intentional during an opponent which is going for the first place? The relegation and promotion is stupid and eliminates the ranking, so teams will not care about individual matches but for their overall appearance, which in some cases will mean that having zero points will be much better than even having 10. The target for many teams will be to lose...


Alright I'll give you some reasons.

1: If you win many games, you can win your division and reach qualification or win the final four.

2: If you win games, your rank on the FIFA coefficient list improves, which makes qualifying for international tournaments easier as you are placed in higher pots.

3: If you relegate on purpose, you play worse countries in the next editions, which will mean fewer spectators and less money.

4: These games replace friendlies. The idea of friendlies is to prepare your team for important games. Losing games on purpose doesn't help you with that. If you relegate, you will play worse teams and that will make your preperation for the qualification cycle after the next Nations League less optimal.

5: Football players are people. People want to win. Sure, the will to win won't be as strong as with normal qualification matches, but they aren't going to want to lose on purpose.

I'm actually surprised about the negative responses here. Almost everyone I've spoken to in real life and on other forums (Reddit for instance) is positive about this idea.


----------



## stewe1981 (Dec 20, 2013)

^^
Imagine a Group with Spain, Germany, Wales and Iceland. All these countries are now at the top 12. We are at the final round and the matches are Iceland-Spain and Wales-Germany. If Spain wins, the will finish 1st and if Iceland loses they will finish 4rth. Iceland knows that is very difficult for them, even during the next tournament, to finish 1st. So, what are the chances that the coach of Iceland will play this game with many substitutes from the youth team and with players who do not play a lot? Maybe 99.99%?

Let's take your answers one by one:
1 and 2) This is just one game. It will not affect your overall ranking if you don't win.
3) Trust me, for example, a game between Azerbaijan versus Malta can have tens of thousands of Azeris if they know that by winning they qualify to the final.
4) Exactly. These games replace friendlies, so no one will blame the coach of Iceland if he choose to compete against Spain with 11 players who never played before in the national team. It is just a test, right?
5) You don't have to say to your players to loose intentionally. You just don't choose the best.

Just to be clear, I am not negative with the whole idea. I am negative with the promotion/relegation because it is almost 100% sure that teams will choose to loose during the last 1-2 rounds, especially in divisions B,C and D. The divisions should be arranged by the ranking in every tournament.

And I will make you a simple question and tell me if I am right or wrong. Ask a guy from Cyprus what he prefers. His team in the 20th position in division B or in the 40th position in division D? We are talking about nations that is a dream for them to compete in a Euro tournament and if they have the change to achieve that by relegating their team by losing one-two games, they will do it.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Red85 said:


> More games, more games, less quality.
> 
> More money.


Actually, the move that was 100% a move for money was the creation of the "Week Of Football", the staggering of the matches of the international break in two or three consecutive slots in six consecutive days (from Thursday to Tuesday). The idea was to have as many independently broadcastable matches as possible, but it backfired spectacularly, as it only went to expose the abysmal quality of non-tournament European international matches, and the level to which the current format for them is outdated. Before, when the matches were all at the same time, at least the problem wasn't being noticed as everybody tuned in for the same match, the good one. 

Basically, the average international break has one excellent match if we're lucky (like Spain-Italy last time), a handful of good meaningful qualifiers between lower-profile countries that won't entice international viewers to look them up on TV (fixtures like, say, Czech Republic - Turkey ot Ukraine - Iceland), and will be mainly watched by the people from those respective countries. Finally that leaves a large majority of matches that are meaningless in several ways: 
- the mismatch between big team and small team is just too important
- the teams are more evenly match but are too lacking in genuine quality
- the teams are playing for nothing because they have already faded out of the race for the one and a half qualifying spot available for a group of six, after the first few matchdays have passed.
Very often the latter two at the same time! Think of the eternally repeating Georgia - Belarus or Norway - Azerbaidjan type of matches from midway through the qualifiers... Sometimes, out of masochism probably, I would leave the TV open on such a match, but they're just too soul-destroying. 

The new format has the chance to inject life into European internationals by getting read of this sort of matches and of friendlies (into which I won't even be getting) and by making the pairings more evenly matched and with more at stake, so more meaningful and attractive.


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2017)

Everything is motivated by money but that doesnt make it a bad thing. The broadcasters in big rich nations want better matchups between the major powers, and theyll get more of that with the NL. Meanwhile, every nation plays against their level and if theyre god enough theyll climb higher. It's so ideal that it is a shame it wasnt done much sooner


----------



## Ioannes_ (Jun 12, 2016)

Stupid competition that coaches should oppose.


----------



## Red85 (Jan 23, 2007)

alexandru.mircea said:


> Actually, the move that was 100% a move for money was the creation of the "Week Of Football", the staggering of the matches of the international break in two or three consecutive slots in six consecutive days (from Thursday to Tuesday). The idea was to have as many independently broadcastable matches as possible, but it backfired spectacularly, as it only went to expose the abysmal quality of non-tournament European international matches, and the level to which the current format for them is outdated. Before, when the matches were all at the same time, at least the problem wasn't being noticed as everybody tuned in for the same match, the good one.
> 
> Basically, the average international break has one excellent match if we're lucky (like Spain-Italy last time), a handful of good meaningful qualifiers between lower-profile countries that won't entice international viewers to look them up on TV (fixtures like, say, Czech Republic - Turkey ot Ukraine - Iceland), and will be mainly watched by the people from those respective countries. Finally that leaves a large majority of matches that are meaningless in several ways:
> - the mismatch between big team and small team is just too important
> ...


The midseason friendlies where not popular because they don't add value, are risk at injuries and where plain boring. You know why? Because they are in the middle of the club season and players have different things om their minds. 
Clubs are exposed to huge risks because they pay those players. And now what do we do? We add games and stakes... People from the game are complaining there are to many matches and this is one reason. So what does uefa do? Not get rid of those idiotic midseason bullcrap, but simply adds this bollocks competition. Dude?


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Friendlies are bad simply because they're bad. People don't care anymore. It's not about when they're played. It's about them lacking any sort of meaning and being, like you say, plain boring. 

I get that you don't like too much international football and you'd rather see the club game protected to the detriment of international football, but I, like many others, still love international football and would rather see a new healthy format that injects life into it. TBH internationall football at its best is still my favourite kind of football, even more than Champions League.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

By far the most controversial part of this is the fact one team from the bottom division will get to qualify for Euro 2020.


----------



## Guest (Sep 24, 2017)

JYDA said:


> By far the most controversial part of this is the fact one team from the bottom division will get to qualify for Euro 2020.


I wonder how itll work for 2024. If it goes back to single host, that means only 3 spots available. Does that mean 4th division misses out?


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

5portsF4n said:


> I wonder how itll work for 2024. If it goes back to single host, that means only 3 spots available. Does that mean 4th division misses out?


And further complications for the 2020 Nations League. This is scheduled to happen every two years but how will this fit together with 2022 World Cup qualifying? There surely needs to be more common sense when the qualifying berths are much more scarce.


----------



## endrity (Jun 20, 2009)

The idea that international football needed more games throughout the season is kind of ridiculous. And I say this as a fan of it. If anything, top players are already overextended. Just like the Champions League moved away from the two group project, the others should follow suit. National leagues should follow Germany's example and have no more than 18 teams. There should also be one cup competition. This should allow for a proper rest for some players.


----------



## Rover030 (Dec 6, 2016)

These games replace friendlies. There won't be any additional games. In my opinion club football should be reduced, not international football. It's only 10 games a year anyway.


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2017)

endrity said:


> The idea that international football needed more games throughout the season is kind of ridiculous. And I say this as a fan of it. If anything, top players are already overextended. Just like the Champions League moved away from the two group project, the others should follow suit. National leagues should follow Germany's example and have no more than 18 teams. There should also be one cup competition. This should allow for a proper rest for some players.


Will this mean more demands on players and clubs?

No: the UEFA Nations League and European Qualifiers will adhere to the existing agreed international match calendar. UEFA is always keen to preserve the balance between club and international football. The new competition should, in fact, reduce demands on players and clubs with less travel envisaged for friendly games while national teams will be playing more consistently at their own level. With double-header matchweeks, players will even go back to their clubs earlier than is currently the case.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Rover030 said:


> In my opinion club football should be reduced, not international football.


I agree with your general point - let's not cry crocodile tears on the shoulder of the club game, which is stronger than it has ever been. The top clubs, which are the ones enlisting the majority of the significant national team players and are playing the most matches (because they're steaming through most of their opposition) do not need more help, on the contrary, for the good of the game, they need holding back. The game at the top has become so exclusive, that it's actually injuries and suspensions that can keep things somewhat open and interesting. See for example what's happening now with Real Madrid. I love sporting excellence, but it would be nice if it was more shared... Another positive aspect of suspensions and injuries is that this can be the only occasion for the young talent these clubs hoard for their benches to get some playing time, see again Real Madrid with the (finally!) emergence of Isco as the star we knew he could be (after years of languishing on the Real bench) during Gareth Bale's injury.

This is also the reason why I am a fan of the League Cup in England and France. With league, European competition and two domestic cups, there are simply too many matches for even the strongest clubs to keep going at them at 100% all the time, and thank **** for that, as it leaves some breathing space for smaller clubs, who can achieve (or at least go for) a bit of glory this way.


----------



## gazzaa2 (Mar 22, 2014)

There's already too much international football. The Euros has already been ruined with the expanded tournament to 24 teams and now this further dilutes it with an extra tournament when there's already too much football and too much international football.

Everyone likes the World Cup but the rest of international football is a pain.

I'd set aside June to August for international football, including all the qualifiers and tournaments. No international football or breaks from September till May.


----------



## endrity (Jun 20, 2009)

5portsF4n said:


> Will this mean more demands on players and clubs?
> 
> No: the UEFA Nations League and European Qualifiers will adhere to the existing agreed international match calendar. UEFA is always keen to preserve the balance between club and international football. The new competition should, in fact, reduce demands on players and clubs with less travel envisaged for friendly games while national teams will be playing more consistently at their own level. With double-header matchweeks, players will even go back to their clubs earlier than is currently the case.


But most of those friendly games are boring, low-intensity affairs which few top players take seriously or even skip at times. Now you are asking them to play a few other games at their top level. I think you'll see a lot of the top nations treat this tournament as a friendly too, by testing new players and giving the stars a break.


----------



## Gombos (Feb 6, 2011)

too much stress but of course that the international friendlies are more important than club "exhibitions". I don't know what to say but my country is champion of the friendlies, beating Spain, Germany, Chile and Belgium, and drawinng against Argentina, Uruguay, Italy etc. so I guess we will also be losers here.


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2017)

endrity said:


> But most of those friendly games are boring, low-intensity affairs which few top players take seriously or even skip at times. Now you are asking them to play a few other games at their top level. I think you'll see a lot of the top nations treat this tournament as a friendly too, by testing new players and giving the stars a break.


Possibly yes. But if teams can field weaker teams and still remain in their division, then that may be the goal of some. Others will be competitive every game. The final four concept in particular is very attractive to the top tier nations I imagine. Quite frankly, and I'm being selfish, but really all I care about is that first division. We want to see games between the biggest european nations, and this will allow it. What happens in tiers 2, 3, 4 etc isn't what this is motivated by in my opinion. It seems like this entire concept was based around the idea of ensuring more competitive games against the biggest nations (which is what broadcasters want, and currently don't get in the existing qualifying/friendly schedule, and what leads to most moneymaking).


----------



## copa olympic (Jul 9, 2012)

--



> *Confirmed: How the UEFA Nations League will line up*
> Wednesday 11 October 2017
> _The four leagues for the UEFA Nations League have been confirmed, with the Netherlands snatching a League A spot from Wales at the last.
> _
> ...


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2017)

Horrible logo, but can't wait


----------



## shasshito (Jul 11, 2014)

*Italy, Poland, Portugal express interest in hosting Nations League Finals*

_Italy, Poland and Portugal have expressed interest in hosting the UEFA Nations League Finals in June 2019 with the eventual venue to be confirmed in December.
_

The semi-finals will be played on 5 and 6 June 2019, with the third-place match and final, crowning the first ever UEFA Nations League winner, on 9 June.

*The finals will be held in two stadiums with a net seating capacity of at least 30,000, ideally located in the same host city or approximately 150km apart. The venues will be confirmed with the submission of the bid dossiers.*

https://www.uefa.com/uefanationsleague/news/newsid=2543176.html


My favorite candidate is italy: Juventus Stadium (41K),Torino and Stadio Luigi Ferraris (36k), Genova or Stadio Giuseppe Meazza (80k), Milano. (Torino - Milano, 141 km// Torino - Genoa 171 km )


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

So, *Portugal* is it then, winner of Group A3 and because of the stated interest beforehand the likeliest host of the first final four of this tournament.

Portugal hosted finals of various UEFA club competitions in the past as well as the unforgettable Euro 2004. Portugal, or shall I be more precise Lisbon, would be a worthy host and deserves it not least because the country missed out on hosting games of the Euro 2020.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

I correct myself. The Nations League final four will be played in Porto and Guimarães and not in Lisbon.


----------



## Tobermaury (Jul 20, 2013)

flierfy said:


> I correct myself. The Nations League final four will be played in Porto and Guimarães and not in Lisbon.


Nice choice. I hope if England puts in a bid for the next one it's Newcastle/Sunderland or Villa/Wolves and not Wembley/+1


----------



## copa olympic (Jul 9, 2012)

--


> *Portugal 1-0 Netherlands: Nations League final at a glance*
> Sunday 9 June 2019 by John Atkin at Estádio do Dragão
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Tobermaury said:


> Nice choice. I hope if England puts in a bid for the next one it's Newcastle/Sunderland or Villa/Wolves and not Wembley/+1


I agree that would be nice. But knowing the FA, it would be Wembley holding all 4 games.

I also suspect that Euro 2020, being spread around Europe, will just feel like the nations league did this year. No tournament atmosphere at all.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2019)

Leedsrule said:


> I agree that would be nice. But knowing the FA, it would be Wembley holding all 4 games.
> 
> I also suspect that Euro 2020, being spread around Europe, will just feel like the nations league did this year. No tournament atmosphere at all.


Hard to create a tournament atmosphere with 4 games, 1 of which is a useless third place playoff, especially in a tournament which has no history.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Not a criticism of the Nations league, but a criticism of Euro 2020, which will feel like qualifying rounds before an actual tournament of just 4 teams.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2019)

But doesnt the party atmosphere only really apply to people attending? For me, watching on TV, the party atmosphere comes from watching 3 games a day for a week or two during the group stage. Just having that steady stream of games from one day to the next gives it that sense of festivity, even if the games are played nowhere near eachother.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Well as someone who went to Euro 2016 in France, I think the atmosphere in the country is fantastic for fans and players. But I also think that spills back to the people at home, though online posts (of friends at the tournament, or showing fans congregating in cities/fanzones) and the media coverage. With games being held from Baku to Glasgow, very few fans will travel and those that do will go to fewer games and only games of their own team- so i suspect the stadiums will lack atmosphere for many games where neither side is at home. I could be wrong, of course, but I expect even for the fans who usually stay at home, it will generate less of a buzz than previous years.

Its actually something that will be interesting in 2022. I still think Qatar holding the WC is a joke, but for the fans on the ground it could actually be really good- far better than 2026. Every stadium within ̶w̶̶a̶̶l̶̶k̶̶i̶̶n̶̶g̶ driving distance, a huge concentration of different nationalities in one place, packed bars and streets, and I expect more available tickets , with fewer locals attending.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2019)

Yeah Qatar is crazy. 5,000 square miles. 11 times smaller than state of NY, 21 time smaller than UK.

The mixing of fans will be good, but too many ultras/hooligans in the one place could produce interesting outcomes


----------



## Laurence2011 (Mar 4, 2011)

My brother was at the England semi and the final, and the atmosphere looked electric! At least from the England fans lol


----------



## Eurostallion1 (Jul 7, 2015)

5portsF4n said:


> Yeah Qatar is crazy. 5,000 square miles. 11 times smaller than state of NY, 21 time smaller than UK.
> 
> The mixing of fans will be good, but too many ultras/hooligans in the one place could produce interesting outcomes




I seriously doubt there’ll be any issues with hooligans in Qatar. There are a number of reasons why I think this.

1. Qatar has full control of its own immigration and the country has very few entry points. This will make it hard for known troublemakers to get in. 

2. Alcohol is not easily available and very expensive. You can really only get it in hotels and I can’t see riots breaking out there. I don’t think you’ll see people drinking in the street. 

3. It’s not a place where people hang out in the street much anyway. People travel from one air conditioned building to another in their air conditioned cars. I know it won’t be so hot in December but this culture seems to stick all year. 

4. The police and authorities don’t really care too much about human rights and judicial processes and the theoretical punishments are harsh. While I doubt we’ll see fans having their hands chopped off for minor offences, the threat of it will deter all but the most moronic foreign visitors.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

Leedsrule said:


> Well as someone who went to Euro 2016 in France, I think the atmosphere in the country is fantastic for fans and players. But I also think that spills back to the people at home, though online posts (of friends at the tournament, or showing fans congregating in cities/fanzones) and the media coverage. With games being held from Baku to Glasgow, very few fans will travel and those that do will go to fewer games and only games of their own team- so i suspect the stadiums will lack atmosphere for many games where neither side is at home. I could be wrong, of course, but I expect even for the fans who usually stay at home, it will generate less of a buzz than previous years.
> 
> Its actually something that will be interesting in 2022. I still think Qatar holding the WC is a joke, but for the fans on the ground it could actually be really good- far better than 2026. Every stadium within ̶w̶̶a̶̶l̶̶k̶̶i̶̶n̶̶g̶ driving distance, a huge concentration of different nationalities in one place, packed bars and streets, and I expect more available tickets , with fewer locals attending.


there is only one problem .. there are no bars there. actually there is nothing there! I am still very curious how they’re going to acommodate all those people!

apart from those “small problems”, yes, world cup in an area not much bigger than moscow, just to name last hosts capital, would mean huge party with everyone at one spot! we saw how great that was last year during opening weekend in moscow .... whole nikolskaya street was one huge party and moscow was full of fans, that was awesome and decision to go there for those few days was best possible! but qatar has serious flaws, so IMHO no chance for that in 2022 .... unfortunately!


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

Eurostallion1 said:


> ......
> 4. The police and authorities don’t really care too much about human rights and judicial processes and the theoretical punishments are harsh. While I doubt we’ll see fans having their hands chopped off for minor offences, the threat of it will deter all but the most moronic foreign visitors.


well ..... you know what they say about russian police and you wouldn‘t believe how helpful and friendly they were last summer  with a little bit of good will and with appropriate orders from above anything is possible :cheers:


----------



## Eurostallion1 (Jul 7, 2015)

ElvisBC said:


> well ..... you know what they say about russian police and you wouldn‘t believe how helpful and friendly they were last summer  with a little bit of good will and with appropriate orders from above anything is possible :cheers:




Well, the point I was trying to make is that the fear of what the Police might do to you that should deter troublemakers. 

I was in Russia last year, I found the number of ID checks and searches excessive. I doubt you’d get away with that in a Western European country. The fact that fans had to wear an ID all the time was a bit much too.


----------



## copa olympic (Jul 9, 2012)

--


> *Format change for 2020/21 UEFA Nations League*
> Tuesday 24 September 2019
> 
> The UEFA Executive Committee met today in Ljubljana, Slovenia and took decisions covering a wide range of topics.
> ...


----------



## copa olympic (Jul 9, 2012)

--


> *How the 2020/21 UEFA Nations League will line up*
> Tuesday 24 September 2019
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Sep 25, 2019)

The change to 4 teams ensures the big nations will almost certainly never be relegated. The 3 team thing was a bit too risque. I don't mind it.


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

Everything to save Germany's face...


----------

