Euro 2028

All the hosts will have the same advantages. Just the way the draw worked out in 2021.

Your opinion was that the final should be somewhere else other than Wembley because England had a run of home games to a final in a recent tournament but they will do anyway, regardless of where the final is played. Unless I’ve missed your point and you mean England should play some games away from Wembley?

I’d actually like to see England play a couple of their group games away from Wembley, maybe Liverpool and Newcastle.

 

everyone would, never happen though.

 

Tbh I've never understood the "fixation" that England home matches have to be played in Wembley.

Thank God we don't have this in Germany. I'd hate it when every Germany match would be played only in Berlin in the Olympiastadion (aside from it that it is not a football only stadium). But we're more used to it being a federal republic maybe?

e.g I love it when Germany plays in Hamburg in the Volkspark. Nothing is better than to see your country playing in "your" stadium, especially when there are maybe even players from your club in the lineup (ok, HSV player for Germany didn't happen for a long time now but you know what I mean )

 

It's a money thing, don't think the English public want it at Wembley all the time at all.

 

Yep, as above its all about money.

 

I'm still really hoping that Wembley will be sold to an NFL franchise. Get England games on tour again and only use Wembley for domestic cup finals, not semis.

 

The FA Cup semi finals being at Wembley are the problem for me and are clearly only about money. But when it comes to England games, they've always been played at Wembley so it's not a modern money driven thing. Apart from those few years when Wembley was being rebuilt, England internationals have pretty much always been played at Wembley for almost a century.

If a country has a national stadium, like the Stade de France and Hampden Park, the national team games are always played there so it's perfectly normal. England games are the main reason for it's existence, it's England's home ground essentially. There's probably an argument for bringing some of the lower key friendlies around the country, and I think they sometimes do that. But since we have a national stadium then the big games will always be played there and rightly so. Otherwise why bother having a national stadium?

I don't think the same problems that happened in 2021 would happen again if England got to another Wembley final. That was a unique set of circumstances as we were transitioning out of the pandemic and although fans were allowed into the stadium, it was common knowledge that there were thousands of deliberately empty seats as a result of pandemic restrictions. These dickheads tried to take advantage of that situation and use mob rule to force their way into the ground, hoping that there would be too many of them for the authorities to deal with and throw out and they'd end up being left there to watch the match.

There was also pent up frustration in the public in general and a sense of national trauma after 18 months or so of lockdowns and isolation with no public entertainment. Which has caused lots of mental health and behavioural issues which we're still dealing with to an extent today and I think a lot of what happened was linked to the lack of any permitted social gatherings for so long.

Were England to reach another home final in 2028 with a fully sold out ground and 7 years of normal society behind us I don't think the same problems would happen again. There would obviously be ticketless fans gathering in the area but that would happen anywhere the match was played. I don't think we'd see the same mass disturbances again and people trying to force their way in. And the authorities would definitely be much more prepared for it now anyway.

 

They should have knocked it down, sold the land for housing and then built a new one for a fraction of the cost somewhere that isn’t a total ball-ache to get to for the vast majority of supporters. A missed opportunity in my opinion, but we’re stuck with it now and have to use it due to the absurd amount of money that it cost.

 

This I'd agree with, in principle. But I do suspect it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

It's likely that a new stadium built elsewhere would be in some souless out of town location near to a motorway or something with a load of plastic pubs and other 'entertainment' built to serve the stadium. Inner city locations close to established pubs and restaurants etc and established public transport links would be too expensive and there probably wouldn't be enough space. So the FA would get accused of selling the game's soul and history to maximise the profit from the sale of the Wembley land. With the stadium criticised for being souless and sterile, in the middle of nowhere and crap for public transport. Basically the same criticism that almost all new build, edge of town stadiums face like our own Bet365 Stadium.

Wembley has its drawbacks such as the congested road network and it's southern location. But at least it has access to London's extensive public transport network. Loads of established pubs and other businesses nearby. And of course the history of the site. It's a grind to get to by car, but then again most major staidums are. I suspect that if we'd had a new build stadium built somewhere more central there would be loads of people moaning about how dreadful the match day experience is and how the FA sold out the history of Wembley for a sterile, plastic bowl in the middle of nowhere.

 

I get that argument, and I guess you’re not going to please everyone. Certainly for a club side, I much prefer stadiums like ours which are in the town. Mostly local people attending, the history, the local economy benefits, etc.. For me though Wembley is different. Most people only go occasionally, and most go by car or coach due to cost and the difficulty in getting home again on public transport, certainly for later games. To use the transport links you basically have to go into London and then spend ages going most of the way out again. Just for comparison, the Stade de France cost under 400 million to build, in an expensive place like Paris, the Berlin one just under 300 million. Wembley, 800 million. For the extra money you could have built modern transport links, fit for purpose, properly organised parking, and the mother of all entertainment/leisure complexes with god knows what on site to cater for everyone. It wouldn’t necessarily have to be horrible and soulless if done correctly, and definitely not plonked in the middle of nowhere. A lot of the punters are families and visitors who would appreciate the convenience and choice of stuff to do, places to eat and whatever. It’s not quite like a club stadium in my opinion, it’s a different animal. I dunno. Just seems weird to stick it somewhere that is so far away for so many. And it’s not like your average football fan doesn’t get plenty of opportunities for a day out in London over the course of a season with all the clubs based there anyway.

 

I think a lot of it has to do with the British property and construction industries and how expensive they are. The cost of everything construction wise rocketed after the turn of the century which is when Wembley was built. And has rocketed even more since. I suspect Wembley exactly as it is would cost more than double that £800m now. The Stade de France was built in the mid 90s when construction was far cheaper than the early-mid 2000s in Britain. The French government and society is also a lot more left wing and socialist than Britain with their major utilities and infrastructure still publicly owned, so it's far easier to get these kinds of public infrastructure projects done in a timely fashion for a reasonable cost. There are less legal hurdles and endless challenges and nimbyism.

I agree that if you were to choose to build a national stadium from scratch without one having ever existed before, you wouldn't choose London and you wouldn't choose the Wembley area. You would go with somewhere central and more easily accessible to the whole country, with cheaper construction costs and land prices. It was done primarily for the history and with so much history getting bulldozed these days I find it hard to criticise it too much. Even if it could have been better executed. Particularly that loathsome Club Wembley section by the half way line which is always half empty just before and just after half time while the posh gits go and enjoy the hospitality. It spoils the aesthetics of the stadium on TV and it should have been put somewhere else where it's not so visible to the cameras.

 

So glad that doesnt just annoy me, every game i watch on TV that area just bugs the heck out of me, give me the old wembley any day, but we've got this one forever.

 

The old Wembley was a complete shit hole that needed knocking down. I went there 3 times so have experienced it first hand. The sight lines were terrible, the stands were miles away from the pitch behind both goals and there were loads of seats bolted onto old terracing which meant there was hardly any leg room and the steps were too shallow for seating so you couldn't see very well over the people sat in front of you. You could visibly see it crumbling and falling down and there was hardly any hospitality facilities for such an important stadium. The only good thing about it were the twin towers which were a genuinely iconic piece of architecture and it was a shame that they couldn't be incorporated into the new stadium. But besides that, the new Wembley is far better as a visiting experience.

It's just a shame they f*cked up so badly with the Club Wembley thing. The vast majority of the time that anyone watches a game at Wembley is on TV, so this kind of aesthetic consideration matters and it really gives a poor impression in some matches.

 

Looks like all five British Isles nations will be made to qualify for Euro 2028 despite all five countries hosting it.

England may not play at Euro 2028 even if they host the tournament under new plans

Two automatic places will be reserved for the best two teams who fail to qualify. So if none, one or two teams qualify, the best two non qualifiers will get the reserve places. For all five teams to be present in the tournament, a minimum of three need to qualify through the regular qualification process then the remaining two non qualifiers will take the bonus two places.

Probably makes sense, having five automatic qualifiers seems a bit unfair to the other nations. Especially when four of those countries are historically pretty weak and are only sporadic qualifiers. It keeps consistency with the past where the maximum number of automatic places that have ever been given is two. And it could weaken the tournament having lots of really weak teams being given automatic qualification with stronger countries from elsewhere in Europe missing out who would normally have qualified.

From an England point of view it probably makes no practical difference. We're highly likely to qualify anyway, and even if we don't then it's almost certain that we'll be one of the best two non qualifiers. It could actually be a benefit having to play two years of competitive qualifiers against teams who have something to play for. One of the drawbacks of hosting is only having two years of friendlies in the build up to the tournament.

 

I went numerous times as well, and liked it everytime, I'm not saying we didnt need a new stadium but the one we have is as bland as they come and given the choice of old and new I'll take the old wembley everyday of the week.

 

Yeah apart from England it's a real lottery for the rest. Scotland are in the ascendancy right now but who knows how long that will last for. I also think their results are better than the real quality of the team and there was quite a bit of luck in the important wins against Spain and Norway which have put them in this commanding position. Norway away in particular they were second best and losing for the majority of the match and the two goals that tuned it around and won them the game came from absolutely nowhere.

Republic of Ireland were probably the best of the rest for 25 years or so from the early 90s till the mid 2010s, but are nowhere now and are probably the second worst. Wales had a fantastic purple patch from around 2014 till last year, but that generation have retired now and the new generation looks like they're going to be of Wales' historical 3rd or 4th place group stage standard. And Northern Ireland are another team that have come off the back of a purple patch and are now back to their historical standard of being near the bottom of the groups.

Who knows who will be in the ascendancy come qualification time in 2026? The Republic probably have the most promising up and coming player in Evan Ferguson who has the potential to provide the real top class goalscoring power up front that Robbie Keane used to give them in the 2000s. And goalscoring has been their real Achilles heel ever since Keane retired and is a big reason for their decline. It's all just potential now though, who knows if he'll develop into the player people think he will, or if he's able to transfer his Premier League performances to the national team with lower quality team mates around him?

 

Fair enough really, not like they've changed the rules none of the hosts in 2020 automatically qualified.

 

If we do get to the final and they were smart about it they'd hire out other London stadiums to put the game on big screens so people had plenty of places to congregate.