Euros vs World Cup

The debate that rages every four years is one that will, most likely, continue to divide football fans until the world ends or Sepp Blatter retires-whichever comes first.

By definition the World Cup is normally considered the ultimate prize in football and, when one considers that a staggering 700 million people around the globe were estimated to have watched the 2010 final, that argument would seem to have some grounding. Whether it be the skills of Pele or Maradona, the flamboyance of Zico and Ardiles or the goals of Romario, Kempes or Roger Milla the World Cup has provided people with lasting memories since its inception in the 1930s. Clearly none of the players mentioned above were eligible to play in the European Championships so, without such players, how can UEFA's flagship competition compare to that of FIFA?

The traditional argument has always centred on the strength on depth of the Euros as compared to the World Cup. With only sixteen teams qualifying (since Euro '96) it is very rare to be drawn in a easy group. This year the weakest group would appear to be Group A containing the Czech Republic, Russia, Poland and Greece even though three of the four have actually won the competition in some shape or form. However whilst the group is missing one of the more fashionable or elite sides such as Spain or France, it could be argued that this group is as much a 'Group of Death' as any other bearing in mind the similar standard of each nation. Russia may even be dark horses for the title whilst there is very little to choose between the other three. Compare that to some of the groups from recent World Cups and the difficulty of extending a competition to thirty two teams becomes clear. In 2010, for example, Italy were drawn against the footballing giants of Paraguay, Slovakia and New Zealand. Four years earlier the French had faced an slightly tougher assignment of Switzerland, South Korea and Togo and there have been countless other examples over the years.

But the question remains; does this mean that the World Cup is 'easier' to win than the Euros? I'll put my neck on the line in a few minutes but it is worth noting at this point (I'm sure the anoraks have already started to shout with regard to my examples above!) that I chose to mention the Italians and French on purpose. In both of the examples I provided the 'elite' team didn't, as predicted,  sweep majestically into the knockouts stages. In 2006 the French squeezed through their group by virtue of an uncomfortable victory over Togo in the final match before gaining the momentum which took them all the way to the final. It was, of course, the Italians who prevented them from winning a second title eight years, in a match more famous for Zidane's headbutt than the football, but fours years later the World Champions had a summer to forget. After a 1-1 draw against Paraguay, Lippi's ageing team were expected to get back on track against the All Whites, whose squad contained a dozen players from Australia's A-League, but were lucky to scrape another draw. Needing a victory in their final match they were outplayed by the Slovaks and a 3-2 defeat meant an early flight home for the four time winners.

So what does this mean? The problem with football for lots of supporters is viewing things as black or white. Football just doesn't work like that; there are very few absolutes and it angers me when people fail to see this. Just because a player doesn't play well at a club doesn't automatically mean he is useless; there are always mitigating circumstances and, quite often, fans are completely unaware of what these are. As a result, for me, it is impossible to make a sweeping statement claiming one competition as easier than the other. However I will say this. If a strong nation is given an 'easy' group it can provide useful momentum in mounting a challenge for the title. Players out of form can suddenly find their feet and blossom - take Alan Shearer in Euro 96 who was without an international goal in over a year before taking England to the brink of the final. A better Italy side in 2010 - one perhaps with a striker and a creative midfielder under the age of fifty - could have used Group F to find their stride. I agree that few groups in the Euros are ever easy but critics can, justifiably, point to the lack of a South American superpower to play down the tournaments significance.

Anyway that's just my opinion and football is certainly all about opinion. Feel free to share your own thoughts here and show that we are all students of this great game.