I think Euro is harder because there are more high-level teams that can challenge for the title. On average, the level of the teams that make it past the group stage is higher (in my opinion).
What do you guys think?
Keep it civil please :)
I think Euro is harder because there are more high-level teams that can challenge for the title. On average, the level of the teams that make it past the group stage is higher (in my opinion).
What do you guys think?
Keep it civil please :)
Why would you not compare those numbers with the number of uefa and conmebol teams that participated? There is always more than double uefa teams than conmebol in world cups
The World Cup is not a lottery. The number of participants doesn’t correlate linearly to the success record.
50% of CONMEBOL teams enter the World Cup (70% from the next one!). I don’t think that if you brought Venezuela and Bolivia for Denmark and Serbia, the stats would have changed much.
Every Copa America, there are two great teams, plus one or two good teams (Uruguay, sometimes. Chile, for a second. Colombia for a moment), two or three average ones, and the rest are garbage.
Every Euro, there are 4-6 great teams (right now, France, Spain, Portugal, England) on par with Brazil or Argentina, and much deeper. Then there are 4-6 good teams, at least as good as Uruguay and Colombia (right now, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Italy). There are 10 more teams better than Peru, Paraguay, Venezuela, and such.
If FIFA didn’t gift Argentina 5 laughable penalties in 7 matches, there would not have been a non-European World Champion since 2002.
Both France and Argentina scored the same amount of penalties? Not to mention Argentina scored one of their pens (vs Saudi Arabia) in a loss.