What are some observations about the formats of World Cups and European Championships?

All of my observations are GENERALLY SPEAKING. There is a basic rubric of a tournament, including group games, and then the top two of those groups go forwards to form the knock out rounds. Sometimes, the total number of teams involved in a World Cup or European Championship, doesn't allow for a smooth division of teams for a knock out stage, so the best third-placed teams are also included, to ensure a half, and half again number (2, 4, 8 and 16).

Tournaments have been criticised in the past for being rigged to favour the major sides, but really, the only rigging that happens, is to favour the host nation and cash in on that. It is deemed economically profitable for the host nation to be kept in a tournament for as long as possible (big crowds and TV audiences, the continued interest of the host country) so they are always seeded, and often get the benefit of refereeing decisions. For example, in 1966 England benefitted from a red card in the quarter finals and an iffy goal in the final. In Euro 2000, Holland were awarded two penalties in their semi final against Italy. In 2004, England had a winning goal chalked off against hosts Portugal. Sometimes this works (England were winners in 1966) and sometimes it doesn't (Austria and Switzerland in Euro 2008).

A World Cup currently consists of 32 nations, and a European Championship of 24, and I think this is the right number for both. Anything smaller, and they become something of a closed shop with only the top teams qualifying each time. Anything larger, and the quality and the competitiveness and of the football gets diminished, by too many lesser teams getting beaten badly, or by playing defensively so as not to get beaten badly.

Last summer's European Championship in France was the first to involve 24 teams, and the format has been blamed for it being a comparatively poor tournament. For those very reasons, too many teams have been blamed for the increase in defensive play at the cost of quality football, but the likes of Wales certainly didn't diminish the quality on show, and the likes of Iceland created shocks. By increasing the number of teams in this way, we also saw a number of first-ever qualifiers for a tournament (Iceland, Albania) as well as teams who hadn't qualified in a long time (Wales and Northern Ireland). The increase also enabled the tournament to last for four knock-out rounds and a three-round group phase, or a whole month of football to watch: the same as a World Cup, but I think it should now be left at 24 teams. Part of this meant that the four best third-placed teams in each group qualified for the group stage, which was criticised, but it also meant that nobody was knocked out with one game to go. This in turn meant that the final group games all had something riding on them, and weren't dead-rubbers as you can get in a World Cup where only the top two from each group, go through.

I also don't believe that the change in format was responsible for how poor the tournament was. True, there were comparatively few goals and great games, but this was also the case in the negative 1990 World Cup. It was sandwiched between the 1986 and 1994 World Cups (same format) and those were goal fests. The next tournament in 2020 will probably be better.

By and large, a 24 or 32 team tournament will have around 12 venues in a chosen host nation, and a geographical spread is required. As many regions as possible have to have involvement. In certain well-developed countries (England, Spain, France, Italy etc) this is possible. In other, larger countries (South Africa, Russia, Brazil etc) it is less so because of where the majority of the population live. In Brazil, most live on the east coast rather than in the interior. In South Africa, there is a cluster around the north east, but far fewer elsewhere. And in Russia, the world's largest nation, the venues are all located in the most populous European third. Having large countries as hosts has drawn criticism because of the amount of travel between games, but when you look at something like the 2014 World Cup, you see most games taking place in the east of Brazil, cutting down the world's 5th largest nation by half.

The only real way geography is rigged to favour teams is again, with the host nation. They will draw the biggest crowds, and thus, usually have their games scheduled for the biggest stadia. England in Euro 96 for instance, played all their games at Wembley. France last year, played in Paris, Marseille and Lyon, their three largest venues. Just about everything else is left to chance. Sometimes this produces some happy outcomes, such as Ireland and Italy playing in New York in the 1994 World Cup (a city which has sizeable populations from both of those countries) and sometimes it doesn't. Last year in France for instance, England played Russia in Marseille, and organisers were criticised for letting two countries with hooligan firms play in a volatile city. But organisers don't know this in advance. The only part of the draw that is known in advance is that the host nation is in position A1. Everything else is anonymous (ie B1 play B3 in such and such a place on such and such a date) and only gets known when the draw is made.

There is a little bit of organising for some of the games. Logically, the largest stadium hosts the final, but it is generally the case that the 2nd largest hosts the opening ceremony and game, which will feature the host nation. The 2nd and 3rd largest grounds host the semi finals, and the 3rd place game can be a bit random. Euro 2016 bucked this trend, but the 2006 World Cup didn't (Munich had the opening game, Berlin had the final, and Munich and Dortmund had both semis). (Dortmund's ground having a reduced capacity for the finals). If a tournament is jointly hosted, this generally stays the same. The largest stadium gets the final, and the other country will get the 2nd largest stadium and the opening ceremony.

An international football tournament usually takes place in June and into July, during the close season of the major European leagues. It kicks off sometime around 10th June and finishes sometimes around 10th July, depending on the number of games. Occasionally, climatic considerations necessitate earlier scheduling, such as the 2002 World Cup starting on 31st May and finishing on 30th June, to avoid the far eastern rainy season and high humidity.

The most successful qualifiers over the previous few years, and the hosts, are always seeded so that they are kept apart, and group draws are done according to geography. A pot for seeds, a pot for Europe, a pot for the Americas, and one for the rest of the world. Sometimes though, you can get two big nations in the same group, usually a South American and a European (ie England and Argentina in 2002; Brazil and Portugal in 2010). This is because the European team won't have won enough games and gained enough coefficient points to be classed as a seed, and is then placed in the secondary European pot.

That is basically the formatting of international tournaments explained. A basic rubric with certain rigging in favour of the host nation. Everything else (winner, losers, surprise package teams etc) is left to the magic of tournament football.

World Cup qualifying for well over a 100 countries and 6 continents and federations for 32 spots in the world cup.

Champions League starts out with qualifying with major top flight leagues getting from 1 to four spots by winning the league or a top position or a playoff spot. Or a team Sevilla winning the Europa League earned them a Champions league spot automatically.

the teams that don't make in the playoff system qualify for the Europa League.

.

duno

The competitions have grown too large so that the qualifying games are undermining the leagues from which the players earn their livings.