UEFA Nations League 2024-25

[Sagy]

You are arguing for nothing, this kind of draft mechanism it is just not something that UEFA does... Not impossible, but it needs to be done in order of points or something, just too complicated, and really for nothing... It would make more sense to do this kind of draft in CL for example instead of a draw.
Also, what if a team chooses the NL path, then now a 3rd place also qualifies to PO? So a team will know if it qualified or not just after this draft? Again, not impossible to implement, just too weird.

Fair.

To answer the question, the team that would have played in the NL will go to the EQ PO path. Third place team in EQ should not be part of the consideration.

So there is basically no real EQ path, if NL teams can be transferred there if there is no room for them in NL path, then why bother with that distinction to begin with?

EQ path is vs one team, NL you need to beat two teams. I don’t think that teams will choose to drop from EQ PO to NL PO. The only reason I suggested it is because someone said that the NL path for a League C team might be easier. If a team thinks it is, let them choose it.

[amirbachar]

Fair.

To answer the question, the team that would have played in the NL will go to the EQ PO path. Third place team in EQ should not be part of the consideration.

So there is basically no real EQ path, if NL teams can be transferred there if there is no room for them in NL path, then why bother with that distinction to begin with?

EQ path is vs one team, NL you need to beat two teams. I don’t think that teams will choose to drop from EQ PO to NL PO. The only reason I suggested it is because someone said that the NL path for a League C team might be easier. If a team thinks it is, let them choose it.

NL path should be easier for unseeded League B teams too.

[TommyChat]

Fair.

To answer the question, the team that would have played in the NL will go to the EQ PO path. Third place team in EQ should not be part of the consideration.

So there is basically no real EQ path, if NL teams can be transferred there if there is no room for them in NL path, then why bother with that distinction to begin with?

EQ path is vs one team, NL you need to beat two teams. I don’t think that teams will choose to drop from EQ PO to NL PO. The only reason I suggested it is because someone said that the NL path for a League C team might be easier. If a team thinks it is, let them choose it.

If you take a look for example teams ranked 15-24 in this EQ overall ranking Greece and Ukraine chances are bigger vs the two teams in their path compared to vs one team amongst the 15-24.

[Sagy]

So there is basically no real EQ path, if NL teams can be transferred there if there is no room for them in NL path, then why bother with that distinction to begin with?

EQ path is vs one team, NL you need to beat two teams. I don’t think that teams will choose to drop from EQ PO to NL PO. The only reason I suggested it is because someone said that the NL path for a League C team might be easier. If a team thinks it is, let them choose it.

If you take a look for example teams ranked 15-24 in this EQ overall ranking Greece and Ukraine chances are bigger vs the two teams in their path compared to vs one team amongst the 15-24.

First, they didn’t finish second so they will not be given the opportunity.

Second, Ukraine, even if they would have finished second, they would not been given a choice since they didn’t win their NL group.

If they would have won the NL group and they would have finished second in EQ group and would have been outside the second place finishers that auto qualified, then and only than they would have the option to pick the NL path. They would have to do so before the draw for the match ups takes place. I’m not sure how any team can manipulate this unfairly.

[TommyChat]

EQ path is vs one team, NL you need to beat two teams. I don’t think that teams will choose to drop from EQ PO to NL PO. The only reason I suggested it is because someone said that the NL path for a League C team might be easier. If a team thinks it is, let them choose it.

If you take a look for example teams ranked 15-24 in this EQ overall ranking Greece and Ukraine chances are bigger vs the two teams in their path compared to vs one team amongst the 15-24.

First, they didn’t finish second so they will not be given the opportunity.

Second, Ukraine, even if they would have finished second, they would not been given a choice since they didn’t win their NL group.

If they would have won the NL group and they would have finished second in EQ group and would have been outside the second place finishers that auto qualified, then and only than they would have the option to pick the NL path. They would have to do so before the draw for the match ups takes place. I’m not sure how any team can manipulate this unfairly.

They didn't finish 2nd in a 10-group format. I included best 4 3rd placed teams as possible runners-up in a 12-group format.

The no choice for a NL best runner-up who would end up to NL play-offs still gives a potential disadvantage to a worse-ranked NL team who will finish third or lower.

Your point agrees that it would be a disadvantage for Ukraine if they finished second instead of third.

[Jackson Harrison]

No, if team X is in the EQ path, they have no idea they will be drawn against the team with the option. Why would they bribe them?

If team X is in the NL path the team that they bribed will be replaced by someone else and they still have to beat some other team. Not an attractive proposition for team X.

In neither case team X can be assured to qualify. We didn’t even looked at the likelihood of a team willing to take a bribe in order to miss qualification.

Right. If team chooses EQ path then team Y takes position in NL but if they choose NL team X gets vacant slot in EQ po. They would effective,y choose between 2 teams to get into PO, that's unfair and open to corruption.

How? Are you claiming that a team will choose a harder path to the Euro because of a bribe that was paid them by a team that wants to get to the playoffs but is unlikely to qualify for the finals. Basically both teams lose. If that happens I’m all for it since this is a case where bribery punished both side even before it was exposed.

A corrupt FA would only see the , not the sporting benefit. Letting teams choose things like this is unfair IMO.

[TommyChat]

UEFA seems to like 4 team paths anyways. It could be something simpler like:
2 hosts + 12 group winners + 5 best runners up qualify.
7 other runners up + 4 league A + 4 league B + 4 league C + best D to playoffs. (20 teams for 5 places)
You can still form a path C with group winners of League C whether they qualify for playoffs as runners-up or as highest ranked League C teams.

If you don't want to give 5 best runners up such and advantage to the other 7 runners-up it could be something that may sound a bit too much but I like it and perfectly fits the current 54 entrants.

2 hosts + 12 group winners qualify.
EVERY ONE ELSE (40 teams) to playoffs for the last 10 places.

It can be adjusted to 12 runners-up + 8 NL teams to 2 legged playoffs.

[Sagy]

Right. If team chooses EQ path then team Y takes position in NL but if they choose NL team X gets vacant slot in EQ po. They would effective,y choose between 2 teams to get into PO, that's unfair and open to corruption.

How? Are you claiming that a team will choose a harder path to the Euro because of a bribe that was paid them by a team that wants to get to the playoffs but is unlikely to qualify for the finals. Basically both teams lose. If that happens I’m all for it since this is a case where bribery punished both side even before it was exposed.

A corrupt FA would only see the , not the sporting benefit. Letting teams choose things like this is unfair IMO.

Use the Euro 2024 as an example. Let’s sagy that pot 1 and 2 teams are the 12 group winners, the rest of the qualified teams plus Ukraine, Greece, and Wales are the second place teams in Euro 2028 qualifying.

We have the same pot 1 & 2, Scotland and Wales qualify as hosts and are in put 3. We are left with 7 spots for the 10 remaining runner ups. So top 4 runner ups (Netherlands, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia) qualify and are in pot 3 as well.

In the EQ playoffs we have Czech Rep, Italy, Serbia as seeded teams and Switzerland, Ukraine, Greece as unseeded. NL path are:
Path A: *, Poland, x, y, Estonia
Path B: Israel, Bosnia, *, (Finland, Iceland, Norway, Ireland)
Path C: Georgia, *, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, (Azerbaijan)

Italy, Serbia, and Greece have the option to drop down to NL PO. Each one makes the call on its own.

Italy needs to decide between playing against one of Switzerland (one of the league B non group winners if Serbia drop), Ukraine, Greece (Azerbaijan, if Greece drop) Or Estonia and Poland if they choose to drop.

Serbia has to decide between playing against one of Switzerland (one of the league B non group winners if Italy drop), Ukraine, Greece (Azerbaijan, if Greece drop) Or at Bosnia and the winner of Israel and one of the league B non-group winners.

Greece has to decide between Czech Rep, Italy, Serbia (Switzerland, if one team drop), (Ukraine, if both Italy and Serbia drop).

The teams have to make their decision before any draw takes place. If Italy drops, the team in position Y above became unseeded in EQ PO. If Serbia drops, the lowest remaining team (after 2 teams were drawn into path A) will be unseeded in EQ PO.

How is that unfair? Who do you think will bribe who in your opinion? How will they benefit?

[Sagy]

If you take a look for example teams ranked 15-24 in this EQ overall ranking Greece and Ukraine chances are bigger vs the two teams in their path compared to vs one team amongst the 15-24.

First, they didn’t finish second so they will not be given the opportunity.

Second, Ukraine, even if they would have finished second, they would not been given a choice since they didn’t win their NL group.

If they would have won the NL group and they would have finished second in EQ group and would have been outside the second place finishers that auto qualified, then and only than they would have the option to pick the NL path. They would have to do so before the draw for the match ups takes place. I’m not sure how any team can manipulate this unfairly.

They didn't finish 2nd in a 10-group format. I included best 4 3rd placed teams as possible runners-up in a 12-group format.

The no choice for a NL best runner-up who would end up to NL play-offs still gives a potential disadvantage to a worse-ranked NL team who will finish third or lower.

Your point agrees that it would be a disadvantage for Ukraine if they finished second instead of third.

Please explain the “disadvantage” to “a worse-ranked NL team who will finish third or lower” and “Ukraine if they finished second instead of third.”. You might have a point, but I don’t understand it.

[Overgame]

First, they didn’t finish second so they will not be given the opportunity.

Second, Ukraine, even if they would have finished second, they would not been given a choice since they didn’t win their NL group.

If they would have won the NL group and they would have finished second in EQ group and would have been outside the second place finishers that auto qualified, then and only than they would have the option to pick the NL path. They would have to do so before the draw for the match ups takes place. I’m not sure how any team can manipulate this unfairly.

They didn't finish 2nd in a 10-group format. I included best 4 3rd placed teams as possible runners-up in a 12-group format.

The no choice for a NL best runner-up who would end up to NL play-offs still gives a potential disadvantage to a worse-ranked NL team who will finish third or lower.

Your point agrees that it would be a disadvantage for Ukraine if they finished second instead of third.

Please explain the “disadvantage” to “a worse-ranked NL team who will finish third or lower” and “Ukraine if they finished second instead of third.”. You might have a point, but I don’t understand it.

Dude, he is taking he current teams in the playoffs as an example. If your only argument is "they didn't finish second", then you don't have any.

[Sagy]

They didn't finish 2nd in a 10-group format. I included best 4 3rd placed teams as possible runners-up in a 12-group format.

The no choice for a NL best runner-up who would end up to NL play-offs still gives a potential disadvantage to a worse-ranked NL team who will finish third or lower.

Your point agrees that it would be a disadvantage for Ukraine if they finished second instead of third.

Please explain the “disadvantage” to “a worse-ranked NL team who will finish third or lower” and “Ukraine if they finished second instead of third.”. You might have a point, but I don’t understand it.

Dude, he is taking he current teams in the playoffs as an example. If your only argument is "they didn't finish second", then you don't have any.

Please read what I said, it is not my only argument. I was asking what disadvantage he is talking about.

[TommyChat]

Please explain the “disadvantage” to “a worse-ranked NL team who will finish third or lower” and “Ukraine if they finished second instead of third.”. You might have a point, but I don’t understand it.

Dude, he is taking he current teams in the playoffs as an example. If your only argument is "they didn't finish second", then you don't have any.

Please read what I said, it is not my only argument. I was asking what disadvantage he is talking about.

That they have to go in EQ path while they would qualify for NL path if they finished third.

I don't get get why an NL best runner up (with an NL group winner of the same league qualified automatically) shouldn't have a choice if they think the NL path will be easier for them.

[Sagy]

Dude, he is taking he current teams in the playoffs as an example. If your only argument is "they didn't finish second", then you don't have any.

Please read what I said, it is not my only argument. I was asking what disadvantage he is talking about.

That they have to go in EQ path while they would qualify for NL path if they finished third.

I don't get get why an NL best runner up (with an NL group winner of the same league qualified automatically) shouldn't have a choice if they think the NL path will be easier for them.

Thanks for clarifying.

The initial reason was my own bias against teams dropping to NP PO. If you look at the example with 2024 qualifying teams, if UKR choose to drop they run the risk of ending up in path A and will have to face Poland in the second game. If Italy choose to drop (Ukraine has no idea if they would or not) they will have a 1/3 chance of facing Poland away and Italy in the second game. On the other hand if they don’t drop and Italy and Serbia do drop they will be drawn (as a seed team) vs Greece (Azerbaijan if Greece drop) or one of two league B non-group winners. It’s not clear to me that dropping is advantageous.

If the key is to allow any EQ PO team to drop to NL PO, then we have to figure out how to determine the teams for the teams for the various draws (I’m sure there is a solution, I just don’t have it right now).

The way I see the process is:
1) each EQ PO team that is also a NL group winner submits it’s choice (unraveled).
2) draw to fill League A path (in the example two of Finland, Iceland, Norway, Ireland)
3) the NL group winners (from 1) is revealed and adjustments made (in the example, if Italy drop, team Y moves to EQ PO, team X will have to play an away game in League A path. If Serbia drop, the lowest from the teams drawn to League B path goes to EQ PO and the 3rd team in League B will play at Israel, Serbia will play at Bosnia).

If a non-group winner (might be in one of two different league path) I’m not sure how we do step 2 and how we handle step 3 if multiple teams choose to drop.

[amenina]

The draw and fixture list procedure for the 2024/25 UEFA Nations League were approved, with the draw to take place at Maison de la Mutualité in Paris on 8 February 2024.

Draw procedure: https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/02 ... ure_en.pdf

Russia are excluded from entering League C, so the top two last placed teams of League C are spared relegation: Cyprus and Belarus (ironic, isn't it). The other two teams, Lithuania and Gibraltar, will play two-legged relegation play-outs to see who stays in League C and who gets relegated to League D. And there will be only six teams in League D, drawn into two groups of three (and the top runner-up of League D, Moldova, will play again in League D).

Fixture list procedure: https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/02 ... 111749.pdf

[Jackson Harrison]

@amenina the regulations are now out! https://documents.uefa.com/r/Regulation ... tem-Online

Interestingly the League C RPO are abolished.

Equally interesting is that the A/B and B/C P/R matches are in March 2025 with the C/D matches in March 2026. Weird.

Additionally they've adapted the stupid system used in WNL where the host of each SF is drawn and not a certralised host.
Probably makes more money as more local interest but also unfair - if they're gunna have a host for each match at least seed it 1v4 and 2v3 like NL PO for Euro repêchage slots.