Major Changes for Euro 2020

President of UEFA, Aleksander Ceferin, arrived in London last week to unveil the logo for Euro 2020, the 60th edition of the continental tournament. Not only was the branding announced, but UEFA confirmed the location of 13 host cities spread across Europe from Dublin in the west to Baku, Azerbaijan in the east. While many greeted the news with scepticism, it is not all be doom and gloom for Europe's most prestigious tournament.

For most of the cities, including Dublin, Glasgow and Baku, their respective nations are unlikely to ever have the infrastructure to host the major tournament, so this new format gives them an opportunity to immerse themselves in the competition, a privilege they would not have got if the structure remained untouched.

Unlike most tournaments, where the host qualifies automatically, everyone will have to fight for their spot in the tournament, which will be helped by additional qualification spots through the introduction of the UEFA Nations League. Ex-UEFA President, Michel Platini toyed with the idea of a revamped Euros with his successor, Ceferin putting the plan into action.

One criticism about the new structure, is the selection of locations. No matches are being played in France, presumably as they hosted the tournament in the summer, while Baku, Azerbaijan and St Petersburg, Russia are the furthest that anyone will have to travel. Both will be difficult to travel to, with no direct flights from London Heathrow and prices already totalling close to £300 for a one way ticket. St Petersburg is slightly cheaper with a one way ticket costing £107 out of London Gatwick. It is also good to put the World Cup into perspective, Brazil has an area of 3.288 million square miles,  just 700,000 less than Europe, while Russia is almost twice the size of Europe while USA is roughly similar.

All of the stadiums exceed a 50,000 capacity except Parken in Copenhagen which holds a modest 38,000, with destination of the Final, Wembley, holding the most at 90,000. As the majority of stadiums are already built - the Krestovsky Stadium in St Petersburg is due to be completed by the end of the year and the Puskas Ferenc Arena in Budapest will be opened in 2019 - all will have a purpose once the tournament and costs will be low for each host city.

Travel links between each of the cities in Europe are extensive, and with a bit of patience an appropriate deal at a cost effective price can be found. It is possible that €200 could cover your travel expenses for the group stages, with an Interrail global pass being one of your many ways to travel on a budget. Rome, Munich, Budapest, Copahagen, Brussels and Bucharest are all popular interrailing destinations so rail travel between the cities should not be a problem.

The recently elected UEFA President believes that the tournament will be a success, commenting, "There is great pleasure in being able to see football acting as a bridge between nations, and to carry the competition closer to the fans who are the essential lifeblood of the game." After the hooliganism and terror threats that plagued Euro 2016, the controversial World Cup bids from Russia and Qatar and the deaths and protests that marred Brazil 2014, I'm willing to give the new format a chance.

Explaining the UEFA Nations League

About two years ago, the brains at UEFA sat down at a conference in Switzerland to devise a plan to revamp international football for European sides. What they came up with was the UEFA Nations League.

As we endure the first instalment of international warm up matches for the European Championships in the summer, will the scheduled introduction of the new tournament in 2018 be a better alternative to the current method of international friendlies? Firstly, I'm under no illusions, not everyone is a fan of friendly matches or international football in general and, whether you like it or not, club football takes precedence over international matches.

The UEFA Nations League is an attempt by Europe's footballing governing body to restore prestige and to effectively bring the interest back into international football. You can just tell there is no interest from the players in taking to the field for friendlies, they are almost like tick box exercises that have to be done. The matches are often played at a slow tempo with either side more concerned with not getting any injuries rather than scoring goals. Below is the structural concept of what the first competition, starting in September 2018, will look like.

The groups will be decided on the strength on each national side, with the likes of Germany being drawn into League A, while the lower ranked sides will be put into League D. Each side has the aim of progressing to League A, before making it to the 'Final Four' competition that will take place in the summer. The 'group stages' will take place every even year, while the finals will always take place every odd year.

The new competition will also revamp the qualifying for the European Championships in 2020. Instead of the 'top' sides qualifying, there is one space allocated for teams in each League in the competition. There still will be a separate qualifying for sides but it will be a lot less complicated with the top two teams from ten groups automatically qualifying. In short, Euro 2020 will consist of 24 teams, made up of 20 teams from the qualifying campaign and the other 4 teams from the Euro Nations League. Complicated yes, but this graphic from UEFA should explain it better.

Not everyone is happy with the new motion. Many believe it is just another ploy by the higher powers to make the higher nations richer by getting the top sides playing against each other more often. Admittedly, it would be like UEFA or FIFA to try and line the pockets of the organisation bosses. Also, they believe that it effectively gives sides a second chance of qualifying through the play offs. Are UEFA really concerned about the smaller sides, or do they want to decrease the likelihood of the bigger sides being left out?

It may undermine the notion that the smaller sides will miss out on lucrative ties against the sides of higher reputation, but it will give the sides a chance to test themselves against sides of similar quality, instead of the likes of San Marino rolling up to France or Germany and expecting to get pumped. There's more of a chance that they will play with more heart in a match that there is a possibility of getting something from it.

I'm looking forward to see what this tournament provides. It is a very interesting proposal and one that will rejuvenate a bit of interest in the international front. While it may still be in its infant steps, it is looking like a progressive idea that will benefit everyone as well as pleasing the chiefs that look to line their pockets. My only problem with it is that the play off stage to qualify for UEFA's European Championships in 2020 will take place 16 months after the event. Is it necessary to have the play offs so far after the event or would that decrease the importance for the sides that reach them?

Sky Sports were quick on the draw to secure the viewing rights for England matches in the Nations League. Ben Rumsby reported in The Telegraph that Sky will be exclusively showing the English Nation League matches, ending the free-to-air status of England matches. The contract will last for the first two editions of the tournament and I would be surprised if they didn't extend it, however it is believed that ITV will retain the rights to England's qualifiers for the World Cup and European Championship. This completes the package for Sky as they are expected to retain exclusive rights to the rest of the Home Nations as well as the Republic of Ireland.

It is an intriguing, yet complicated concept but one that I'mm looking forward to being put into action. If you have any questions please feel free to ask and as ever, I'd like to hear your opinions on the revamp to international football.