http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11095_3750872,00.html

I think its fine as it is.

With 16, the best teams in the continent are there playing against each other.

24 teams and we'll have mediocre crap such as England, Denmark, Scotland etc qualifying and their dull brand of football wont help the tournaments cause.

I think having 16 teams is a major factor in why the European Championships is harder to win than the World Cup.

You dont get to face easy teams in them as you do in the world cup such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Australia etc

How will that even work?

8 groups of 3? Top in each qualifies for quarters?

I'm all for more teams but I think 32 is too much. 24 sounds about right I wonder how they'll organise it.

I really think the "if it ain't broke" adage applies here

I assume this is all about raking in more moola

It's good enough at the moment, let it be.

Groups of 4 with the top 2 from each group then the best qualifiers I believe.

Its all money motivated and the perfect idea to ruin a compact, nicely run stream lined tournament. The reason why there are so many duff games in most World Cups is because of the length of the competition.

6 groups of 4

Top 2 go through in each group as do the 4 best 3rd placed teams.

Its how the world cup was in 1990 and 1994

Fine as it is, filters out the dross.

Adds some more excitement I guess

Not really.

It means mediocrity wins

Agreed