UEFA’s drive to turn Euro 2020 into a multinational event, rather than a tournament put on by one or two host-countries, seems to have ushered in one of those periods when the structure of numerous elite football competitions is up for debate.
In recent weeks suggestions have surfaced for: non-European countries to be invited to the European championships; a super league of elite European clubs; and friendly internationals to be replaced by a European Nations League.
I have long thought a European club super league is inevitable, although the mechanisms that will bring it about seem as obscure as ever.
The most interesting idea of the recent crop, however, strikes me as the last of the three – the Nations League.
Under this concept, friendly internationals involving European teams would be replaced by a multi-divisional league competition involving UEFA’s 54 member-associations.
There would be promotion and relegation, and the top team in division one would be the Nations League champion, winning, no doubt, a hefty cash prize.
While it is tempting to come out unconditionally in favour of anything that would wipe the zombie-fied, travesties of sport that are friendly internationals from the face of the planet, I actually think this idea is so good it does not go far enough.
I would like to see it adopted by all continental confederations and for the leagues to replace, rather than complement, the current European championships, African Cup of Nations et al.
Why would I want to see the end of these admirable competitions, which have produced their share of great matches over the years?
Because such a structure would make room for a biennial World Cup – a prize which, in my view, is well worth making a few sacrifices for.
If you are going to create an annual Nations League championship, I would argue that it would inevitably undermine the kudos of the quadrennial European championship in any case.
Which team truly would be the champions of Europe?
Yes, I suppose you could have a quadrennial Super Cup in Monaco to find out.
But that would be made pointless if the same nation won both competitions.
Mostly, I think, the existence of both tournaments, in Europe or any other continent, would just sow confusion.
One of the beauties of the suggested Nations League format is that it would produce continent-wide rankings of great authority, since teams of similar merit would play each other home and away on an annual basis.
So, not only would it end pointless friendlies, it would render qualifying competitions redundant.
If each confederation introduced a Nations League, the World Cup qualifiers from each continent could simply be the top x countries from each league.
On a practical note, I think it far more likely that FIFA would be minded to back an innovation as far-reaching as the Nations League concept if there was demonstrably something in it for them.
A doubling of the frequency of its one and only cash cow would be a highly alluring incentive.
Let’s hope, then, both that this idea gathers momentum and that it is not confined to moneybags Europe.
Regular competitive international matches between teams of similar ability is a recipe that seems much more likely to raise standards and create excitement for fans than the lacklustre and/or embarrassingly one-sided fare that constitutes much international action under the present framework.
David Owen worked for 20 years for the Financial Times in the United States, Canada, France and the UK. He ended his FT career as sports editor after the 2006 World Cup and is now freelancing, including covering the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the 2010 World Cup and London 2012. Owen’s Twitter feed can be accessed at www.twitter.com/dodo938