How Euro 2016 unfairly favours France
The first 24 team European Championships, and a format that is flawed and inherently biased even before a single team is drawn on Saturday. Flawed and biased might seem a bit strong, but it’s true. UEFA had years to come up with something half decent after they decided to expand from the beautiful symmetry of the 16 team Euros to the mess that is the new beast. And they failed.
The problem that has sat there since FIFA’s Mexico ’86 World Cup is still sitting there. FIFA then made their own problem worse for the World Cup in 1990, where Italy were the beneficiaries, then USA got the advantage in 1994. From there, World Cups went to 32 teams and back to a lovely symmetrical bracket where order is king.
Perhaps there was somebody in UEFA whose job it was to decide the competition structure…
“Is that ready yet?”
Almost there, boss.
“You’ve said it’s a masterpiece; it had better be. You’ve been working on that and nothing else for years now”
Here you go, boss.
*presents exact same format used by FIFA for three World Cups, the last of which was completed 22 years before Euro 2016*
Maybe it’s us who are the gullible morons. I only started looking at the UEFA regulationsi after somebody mentioned Ireland’s performances in 24-team World Cups. But it seems like we should have copped onto this a little before that. In fact, I’d convinced myself after sending in my copy that Euro2016’s flaws were so obvious, and the bias so clearly in favour of France, that my thinking must have been itself fundamentally flawed.
Two’s Company
After my piece was published in the Irish Times I received a note from Sebastian Wolsingii. He’d published a paper (Euro 2016 – The Group E Effect) that had come to the same conclusion that I had.
“UEFA is switching to having 24 teams in the EURO cup, and it’s noticable that they haven’t thought the mathematics through.”
Sebastian Wolsing
Being but an ignorant hack my calculation tools of choice for this operation had been as follows:
- 1 x PDF of UEFA’s competition rules for Euro 2016
- 1 x pocket notebook
- 5 x post-its (yellow)
- 1 x biro (blue)
- 2 x highlighters (yellow, pink)
This (surprisingly neat) operation satisfied that my initial gut feeling of “Holy Fuck, What The Fuck Have These Fuckers Done?” was based on something solid. But only after going through it twice, then winding back the clock through the World Cups in 1994, 1990 and 1986iii. Then sweating. And rethinking. And doubting. And going through it all again just in case I’d had an impossibly bad brain cramp.
Wolsing’s approach, however, had been slightly differentiv. It involved running thousands of computer simulations of the competition based on higher-ranked teams having a higher probability of beating lower-ranked teams than vice versa.
From that he approximated the likelihood of teams emerging to quarter-finals from particular groups given the various quarter-final pairings. Those pairings, you see, are fixed in stone by the organisers. Some see group winners guaranteed to play third-placed teams while some runners-up play fellow runners-up.
Source Credit: “Euro 2016 – The Group E Effect” (Sebastian Wolsing)
He then went a step further, showing visually what my little scratchings had also shown me: the difference between being drawn in Group Av and Group Evi when it comes to securing a semi-final place.
Source Credit: “Euro 2016 – The Group E Effect” (Sebastian Wolsing)
Short version: you really, really want to be in Group A. If you win it, you get to face a third placed team in the second round followed by a runner-up in the QF. Even if you come second, you face a runner-up in the second round. No other group has this combined luxury.
If you’re in Group E, you’re starting with a bit of a handicap: winner plays a runner-up while runner-up plays a group winner. According to Wolsing, that adds up to a handicap of about 28% relative to group A.
From Dumb to Dumber
Look, this is all theoretical. Once you add actual sides – real teams with real humans and real luck – then things get a bit more messy and complicated.
But to deliberately set up a competition format like this is just dumb.
Having said that, there is at least a certain nobility in dumb. And in luck. Y’know, the sort of thing where you say “screw it – we know it’s broken but at least we can leave who gets the good groups to the football gods”. But UEFA have already named host nation France as the top seed in Group A.
While it’s natural to want to plan the group stages to ensure that the hosts play in big stadiums in that country, doing so in the knowledge that they’ll also have an advantage when it comes to going deep in the tournament is plain wrong.
Dear UEFA…
What did UEFA say to this? Well, I asked them first about talking to somebody about the competition structure.
And they sent me a bunch of press releases.
We kindly refer you to relevant information about the final tournament as published on our website:
http://www.uefa.org/news/newsid=1837508.html
http://www.uefa.org/about-uefa/news/newsid=754190.html
http://www.uefa.org/about-uefa/news/newsid=2295108.html
http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/finals/about-euro/format/
So I asked again, this time specifically about the fairness of Group A vs Group E. This time they sent me a link to the PDF of the tournament rules.
That would be the same PDF from which I’d made my determination that all was not well in the state of Denmark.
So, still not useful.
Please find here below the regulations of the UEFA European Championship 2014-16 as approved by the UEFA Executive Committee prior to the beginning of the qualifying competition:
(See Articles 16-18 of the regulations for more details on group formation and match system for the final tournament)
So I asked again. Twice.
No dice.
And so, to my piece for the Irish Times. Published in the print edition of Wednesday December 9th, 2015.
In spring the chief executive of World Rugby said he hoped England would not exit the Rugby World Cup at the pool stage. Some took umbrage: even the perception of a team being favoured in tournament play can bridle.
What, then, of the host team at Euro 2016 being handed its best possible position?
On May 12th, 1985 at New York’s Waldorf Astoria hotel seven sealed envelopes, each containing the name of an NBA team, were placed in a transparent plastic sphere. The “Frozen Envelope” conspiracy theory alleges the envelope with the New York Knicks in it had been placed in a freezer beforehand, or creased, or in some other way specially treated.
Why? So the number one pick in the draft would go to the Madison Square Garden franchise, along with the right to pick Georgetown college basketball star Patrick Ewing. The theory holds that the NBA would smile upon this; the draft’s most valuable commodity heading to a market badly in need of a superstar. And Ewing would indeed become a Knick.
Chris Ballard, in a superb piece for Sports Illustrated 30 years later, called the draft lottery footage “the Zapruder film of sports, watched and re-watched on YouTube and dissected by conspiracy theorists”.
Ahead of the 1994 World Cup, might Fifa’s draw engineer a favourable group for the USA in an effort to keep the hosts involved for as long as possible? It would not have been an entirely mad thought. After all, for the 1990 tournament Fifa had openly placed each seeded team in a specific group in advance of the main finals draw. England – and their fans – were placed in offshore Cagliari. Italy would play in Rome and, importantly, in Group A. We’ll come back to that.
Broadening the European championships from 16 to 24 teams did not just dilute the sporting quality of the event, it also set a challenge of finding a finals structure that would ensure fairness. Sixteen teams makes for simple maths: four groups of four, followed by four group winners playing four runners-up in the quarter finals. With 24 teams things are not so clean.
Fifa ran four 24-team World Cups from 1982 to 1994. The first, in Spain, had the second round and quarter-finals merged into a round-robin affair. The one in 1986 heralded the arrival of the now-familiar “Round of 16”, but the structure has a flaw: it is inherently biased towards Group A.
Euro 2016 will follow that same structure: six groups with all first- and second-placed sides qualifying for the second round along with the four highest-ranked third-placed teams. Take a closer look at the routes to a semi-final, however, and things seem a little off.The winners of groups A, B, C and D are all guaranteed to face third-placed sides in the second round while the top teams in E and F will play runners-up (and not even the lowest-ranked runners-up). Move through the scenarios and the inequality compounds itself.
One result is that Group E is a bum draw: no third-placed opponent for the winner while the runner-up plays the winner of Group F (a group notable in perhaps having no real incentive to finish top as both the first- and second-placed side will face a runner-up).
Group A is at the more insulated end of the scale where the winner, like that of Group D, is guaranteed to play a third-placed team in the second round followed by a runner-up in a quarter-final (see Italy’s route in 1990). A misfiring top seed will also have a further cushion as Group A’s runner-up will play a fellow runner-up in the second round.
All part of the quirks of the competition, you might say. And that would be correct were all those seeded slots left to the luck of the draw. The inconvenient truth is that, when it comes to the top slot in the best-positioned group for competition progress, Uefa has asked Lady Luck to step aside. Slot A1 has been designated to the hosts, France.With the symmetry of the 16-team tournament lost it is doubly sad to see a draw where the odds of progressing deep into the competition can be affected simply by the letter of the group. Uefa, when asked by The Irish Times about the fairness of Euro 2016’s structure, declined to comment.
In these times of football’s administrative unravelling it’s not unusual to consider that a major football tournament has been set up in a manner that seems oddly beholden to a particular nation. This time, however, it has nothing to do with Sepp Blatter. Uefa had since 2008 to figure out a better way for Euro 2016 – and failed.
Bonne chance, mes amis!
The unfairness is being over-exaggerated.
1986: Runners-up of Group E Germany made the World Cup final!
1990: 3rd in Group E Italy won the World Cup!
The final round of group games takes place as follows:
1. Group A June 19th 21:00 CET
2. Group B June 20th 21:00 CET
3. Group C June 21st 18:00 CET
4. Group D June 21st 21:00 CET
5. Group F June 22nd 18:00 CET
6. Group E June 22nd 21:00 CET
The 4 best third placed teams enter the Round of 16. The later a group has it’s final group game, it has the advantage of knowing what it takes to finish as one of the best 3rd teams. Group E will have this advantage. A and B are at a disadvantage.
While the group winners of A and D have easier routes to the semi-finals, they have a 2/4 chance of a group winner as semi-final opponent. Group winners of B, C, E and F have a 1/4 chance of a group winner as a semi-final opponent.
The group runners-up of D and E have the tougher route to the semi-finals compared to the other runners-up. Runners-up of D and E in a semi-final however have a 1/4 chance of a group winner as opponent. All other group runners-up have 2/4 chance of a group winner as opponent.
While 6 groups of 4 is not ideal, the advantages and disadvantage by in large cancel each other out.
The group winner and group runner-up of Group F have the same level of difficulty of making the semi-finals. Group F winner has a 1/4 chance of a group winner in the semi-finals. Group F runner-up has a 2/4 chance of a group winner in the semi-finals.
Please see some rough calculations of fairness below. Apologies I am not in a position to make charts to back up my point.
A1: R16: CDE3 QF: B2/F2 SF: C1/ABF3/E1/D2
B1: R16: ACD3 QF: F1/E2 SF: A2/C2/D1/BEF3
C1: R16: ABF3 QF: E1/D2 SF: A1/CDE3/B2/F2
D1: R16: BEF3 QF: A2/C2 SF: B1/ACD3/F1/E2
E1: R16: D2 QF: C1/ABF3 SF: A1/CDE3/B2/F2
F1: R16: F2 QF: B1/ACD3 SF: A2/C2/D1/BEF3
A2: R16: C2 QF: D1/BEF3 SF: B1/ACD3/F1/E2
B2: R16: F2 QF: A1/CDE3 SF: C1/ABF3/E1/D2
C2: R16: A2 QF: D1/BEF3 SF: B1/ACD3/F1/E2
D2: R16: E1 QF: C1/ABF3 SF: A1/CDE3/B2/F2
E2: R16: F1 QF: B1/ACD3 SF: A2/C2/D1/BEF3
F2: R16: B2 QF: A1/CDE3 SF: C1/ABF3/E1/D2
A1: SF Route Difficulty: 3.2 SF Route Difficulty Score: 5 SF v Group Winner: 2 in 4
B1: SF Route Difficulty: 3.1 SF Route Difficulty Score: 4 SF v Group Winner: 1 in 4
C1: SF Route Difficulty: 3.1 SF Route Difficulty Score: 4 SF v Group Winner: 1 in 4
D1: SF Route Difficulty: 3.2 SF Route Difficulty Score: 5 SF v Group Winner: 2 in 4
E1: SF Route Difficulty: 2.1 SF Route Difficulty Score: 3 SF v Group Winner: 1 in 4
F1: SF Route Difficulty: 2.1 SF Route Difficulty Score: 3 SF v Group Winner: 1 in 4
A2: SF Route Difficulty: 2.1 SF Route Difficulty Score: 3 SF v Group Winner: 2 in 4
B2: SF Route Difficulty: 2.1 SF Route Difficulty Score: 3 SF v Group Winner: 2 in 4
C2: SF Route Difficulty: 2.1 SF Route Difficulty Score: 3 SF v Group Winner: 2 in 4
D2: SF Route Difficulty: 1.1 SF Route Difficulty Score: 2 SF v Group Winner: 1 in 4
E2: SF Route Difficulty: 1.1 SF Route Difficulty Score: 2 SF v Group Winner: 1 in 4
F2: SF Route Difficulty: 2.1 SF Route Difficulty Score: 3 SF v Group Winner: 2 in 4
3rd group E won which world cup now? Since Italy won it 82, the World Cup had AL WAYS been won by a group winner in the 24 team format. And always by lower groups. 82: Italy ( group 1). 86: Argentina (Group A). 90: W.Germany(Group D). 94: brazil (Group B)
Sorry, got ahead of myself! Italy were runners-up in ’94. How did I forget Roberto Baggio’s missed penalty!
HA! I remember that final well.. boring final to a great tournament! The english don’t rate this tournament (I wonder why?!). It really was our moment (as Irishmen) in the sun!!
On the main subject of fairness for group winners, the following should be the criteria:
1) If a group winner has a 3rd placed team in the Round of 16, they should have a group winner in the quarter-finals.
2) If a group winner has a runner-up in the Round of 16, they should also have a runner-up in the quarter-finals.
This way a group winner’s path to the semi-finals is either against a 3rd placed team and a group winner or against two runners-up. That averages an equal level of difficulty for making the final.
This is how the Euro draw could have had more fairness:
Round of 16:
A1 v BDEF3
C1 v BDEF3
E1 v D2
B2 v F2
B1 v ACEF3
D1 v ACEF3
F1 v E2
A2 v C2
Quarter-finals:
M1. A1/BDEF3 v C1/BDEF3
M2.E1/D2 v B2/F2
M3. B1/ACEF3 v D1/ACEF3
M4. F1/E2 v A2/C2
Semi-finals:
Winner M1 v Winner M2
Winner M3 v Winner M4
Combinations of possible specific match-ups involving the third-placed teams depend on which four third-placed teams qualify for the round of 16:
Best ranked 3rd: A B C D: Winner Group A v B3 – Winner Group B v A3 – Winner Group C v D3 – Winner Group D v C3
Best ranked 3rd: A B C E: Winner Group A v B3 – Winner Group B v A3 – Winner Group C v E3 – Winner Group D v C3
Best ranked 3rd: A B C F: Winner Group A v B3 – Winner Group B v A3 – Winner Group C v F3 – Winner Group D v C3
Best ranked 3rd: A B D E: Winner Group A v B3 – Winner Group B v A3 – Winner Group C v D3 – Winner Group D v E3
Best ranked 3rd: A B D F: Winner Group A v B3 – Winner Group B v A3 – Winner Group C v D3 – Winner Group D v F3
Best ranked 3rd: A B E F: Winner Group A v B3 – Winner Group B v A3 – Winner Group C v E3 – Winner Group D v F3
Best ranked 3rd: A C D E: Winner Group A v D3 – Winner Group B v A3 – Winner Group C v E3 – Winner Group D v C3
Best ranked 3rd: A C D F: Winner Group A v D3 – Winner Group B v A3 – Winner Group C v F3 – Winner Group D v C3
Best ranked 3rd: A C E F: Winner Group A v E3 – Winner Group B v A3 – Winner Group C v F3 – Winner Group D v C3
Best ranked 3rd: A D E F: Winner Group A v D3 – Winner Group B v A3 – Winner Group C v F3 – Winner Group D v E3
Best ranked 3rd: B C D E: Winner Group A v B3 – Winner Group B v C3 – Winner Group C v D3 – Winner Group D v E3
Best ranked 3rd: B C D F: Winner Group A v B3 – Winner Group B v C3 – Winner Group C v D3 – Winner Group D v F3
Best ranked 3rd: B C E F: Winner Group A v B3 – Winner Group B v C3 – Winner Group C v E3 – Winner Group D v F3
Best ranked 3rd: B D E F: Winner Group A v B3 – Winner Group B v E3 – Winner Group C v D3 – Winner Group D v F3
Best ranked 3rd: C D E F: Winner Group A v D3 – Winner Group B v C3 – Winner Group C v E3 – Winner Group D v F3
Or what about something like this??
WA RA
WB RB NO THIRD PLACE QUALIFIERS!!!
WC RC
WD RD
WE RE
WF RF
FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE:
WA
WB 4 BEST GROUP WINNERS
WC
WD
WE
WF 2 REMAINING GROUP WINNERS
SO….
WA, WB, WC, WD ADVANCE DIRECTLY TO Q FINALS…
BEFORE THE QUARTE FINALS…
BEST OF REMAINING GR WINNER V WORST RUNNER UP(R6) TIE A
WORST OF GR WINNER V 5TH BEST R UP(R5) TIE B
BEST RUNNER UP(R1) V 4TH BEST R UP(R4) TIE C
SECOND BEST RUNNER UP(R2) V 3RD BEST R UP(R3) TIE D
NOW!
Our deserving group winners have had a few extra days off, another incentive to
Win your group ( Group E or Group F current format anyone!)
QUARTER FINALS
Now here it gets a little bit out there… because as far as I can see there is no real way of keeping teams who met in the groups away from each other until at least the semi-final stage like usually.
But overall I still think it’s a fair way to go?
Anyone see any problems with it?
Anyone wanna take it further to the Semis?
And one other thing, it means 4 games less. Maybe not ideal for Uefa??
I like the idea of the best 3rd placed teams going through. Usually the 3rd placed teams either go through their group unbeaten with 3 draws or they win a game and draw a game. I have enjoyed the tournament so far.
In the Champions League and Europa League, I think the 4 best 3rd placed teams from the Champions League should be drawn against the 4 best 3rd placed teams from the Europa League in the Europa League Round of 32. It would leave the EL group winners to be drawn against the EL group runners-up. Some teams are finishing 3rd in their Champions League group with a low points total. A standard should be set within the CL 3rd place teams that only the best 4 of the 8 get to enter the EL final 32. It would mean 1/2 CL 3rd place teams and 1/3 EL 3rd place teams enter the final 32.
I too don’t really have an issue with third place being in with a shout. Especially because let’s be honest, these world cup/euro draws are inherently flawed anyway.
But isn’t this all part of the drama? Like is anyone calling a penalty shootout fair?
Yet we have had two(correct me if I’m wrong) WC finals decided on these. Luckily the best team won in 1994.. But either Italy or France in 06 in my opinion were worthy.(Zidane headbutt notwithstanding).
But these draws to me are like democracy… it doesn’t necessarily have to always work, as to be SEEN to be working. It’s all very well to say losing on penalties is unfair, or else that complaining of a tough group is ridiculous when as Sven Goran Eriksonn I think it was in WC02 said of England’s Group Of Death: “well,we have to beat the big teams eventually anyway”. But the deck should be dealt fairly.
A good first step would be to do away with this hoopla of the host in Group A. Seed them of course, but wherever they end up, why not AFTER the draw is made just swap the dates of their group with group A:
Russia(?? Maybe??) 2018
Group A: Germany, Slovakia, South Africa, Australia
Group D: Russia, Denmark, Iran, Cameroon.
Why not after this draw is completed, just swap the dates, but not the corresponding fixtures, of the groups, so Russia can still kick off the tournament.
I realize that the World Cup is sort of set up in regards to TV broadcasts and host nation participation to allow not only a relatively easier passage to the later rounds for the host, and that messing with the dates of particular groups might have repurcussions for teams in the later rounds in regard to dates of matches and sufficient break times. The easier group thing for big teams and hosts is obviously what we are talking about here. But I can see where FIFA and UEFA are coming from in regards to keeping hosts in a tournament to generate local interest. It is in my opinion a positive.(USA 94. South Korea, and to a lesser extent Japan in 2002). This doesn’t have the same effect at the Euros, which was always a bit more elitist anyway.
I do think these conversations should be given more weight especially now with the integrity of FIFA and Uefa being called into question.
BTW I do like your ideas for the Champions League.. I think those teams in The Europa League deserve more respect. I’m not 100% sure of the format, but I think those third place teams should just get kicked out and that’s it…
I will say one thing, England V Slovakia last night, 0-0 after 60 minutes… turned into a snooze fest because I think both sides were thinking: Sure why bother, we’re both basically true anyway!
Also, Albania, they (and more so their fans) are now wandering around France wondering to which city they should book tickets to or just go home! In a way it does add a bit more excitement, but not necessarily fairly.
Food for thought
Sorry if my message sounds disjointed, but I’ve been coming back and forward to it while I’m supposed to be working!!
Alot of work, well done! But it does seem fairer. It does mean though as a third place team, you beat a group winner in the next round, and you are thanked with playing another possible group winner?
In my own humble opinion I think it is fairer that 3rd placed teams will have a tougher task ahead of them. It is healthier for the competition and extra motivation for finishing in the top 2 in the group.
Cracking article, right up my street.
I know I’m a couple of years late replying to this but it’s something I’ve become conscious of since recently seeing the format for Euro 2020. In 2016 there was definitely a Group A winner’s advantage in getting a 3rd placed team in the 2nd round followed by a runner up in the QF, whereas E and F have to play a runner-up if they top their group, made worse for E by, as you say, playing a winner if you finish second. However, the Group A advantage could be explained away as a host’s benefit (they get to play at home, so why not have a favourable run-in in the knockout stages as well?); the Group E thing can be explained away by saying that it’s the last group to conclude so it helps the teams know exactly what they need to do to guarantee being one of the top four 3rd placed finishers. Similarly, Group F, with its second worse ranking, is the penultimate group to finish so has an advantage of ‘knowing what needs to be done’ to reach the knockout stages. This isn’t an issue in 32 or 16 team tournaments as the results of teams in other groups don’t directly impact teams in the same way. So, you could say that the 2016 format kiind of seemed fair, with the exception of Group A’s advantage.
I recently saw how 2020 will work and they’ve improved it. There are two groups with France’s benefit (3rd place then 2nd place in knockout rounds), two are akin to groups B-D in 2016 (3rd place then winner) and two groups with runners up followed by winners but a 2nd round runner-up if finishing second (like 2016’s Group F). Nothing as bad as Group E. It’s improved, but the downside is that teams from the same group can meet as early as the QFs rather than SFs.
My solution is similar to yours in the comments above but tweaked slightly:
A1
CDE3
B1
CDF3
C2
D2
E1
F2
C1
ABE3
D1
ABF3
A2
B2
F1
E2
As you say, this means a group winner getting a 3rd place has to play another winner in the QF, whereas a winner getting a runner-up at least gets another runner-up in the QF. It’s kind of 3+1=2+2.
What I like about this format is that it neatly pairs groups (like in 32 team tournaments where we see A1 v B2 & A2 v B1 etc.). Basically, the runners-up from A&B meet in the last 16, and the winners will meet each other once they’ve dispatched their 3rd placed opponents. Same for C&D. E&F have a 32-team tourney-style pairing of E1 v F2 and F1 v E2. They’re the two worst groups but they’re the last two to conclude, so have an advantage to balance it.
I wanted to email UEFA with this but there’s no email address on their site anywhere! Then I found your site and was excited to see you’d had the same thought about those with a tough last getting an easier QF.
Lots of love,
Jamie
Sorry, I’ve got myself a bit confused here. I thought the author had written the comments so I addressed everything to the same person. What a bimbo. I’ve realised Andy wrote the article and Patrick wrote the comments.