Is it easier to win the Euro or the World Cup?

A question on the SoccerLens Forum recently asked whether it would be harder for teams to win the European Football Championships or the World Cup. A friendly argument ensued:
The discussion ignored the number of games that the winner needs to play at each tournaments - 7 at World Cup as opposed to 6 at the Euros - or the rest period between games - 3 days for the Euros as opposed to 4 or 5 at the World Cup. It focused primarily on the type of opposition that is met in each of the two tournaments.
The main question was whether the diversity of nations: Cameroon, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Australia provide a challenge as opposed to being an obstacle.
In 2002, Germany’s first game was against Saudi Arabia. It was a game which they won be a scoreline of eight goals to nil. In effect, it was a victory in hand for the Germans from minute 1 and they only needed another 3 points to progress from their group. As shown in recent European Championships, there are no such guaranteed victories for any of the nations. At Euro 2004, Latvia held Germany to a 0-0 draw - a result which cost the Germans qualification from the group stage.
But then there is the possibility of a nation outside Europe, for it is about these nations that we discussed, to pose serious problems to the heavyweights of football. Going back to 2002, Senegal shocked the world when they beat a Zidane-less France in the opening match. The African nation went on to prove that their victory over the reigning World Champions was no fluke as they made their way to the quarter-finals where they lost to Turkey after extra time.
Then, of course there is the ominous presence of Brazil and Argentina. The South American nations have been football powerhouses for nearly as long as football has existed. Between them, they have won 3 of the past 6 World Cups. But then Germany and Italy have represented Europe nearly as well. Between 1962 and 1994, there was not a single World Cup which did not feature either one of the two in the semi-finals. And, on top of that three different European nations have won three of the past four World Cups.
Judging from this you might come to the conclusion that European teams are generally the better than the rest, or at least that more European nations have good national teams.
But then, how do you explain the phenomenons of Greece four years ago and of Denmark in 1992? How did they manage to become the best in Europe? Was their success indicative of a lack of quality in European football? Not necessarily.
Such successes can seen every couple of years. Nearly every tournament, a team manages to make a surprise run to the quarter-finals or semi-finals. In 1998 it was Croatia, in 2000 Romania progressed from the group stage ahead of England and Germany, in 2002 Turkey and South Korea made it to the semi-finals. It just so happened that Greece and Denmark pushed their luck over the limit.
The fact that the European Championships have had more winners than the World Cup might again tilt the argument in favour of the latter tournament. But it could also work in favour of the former. For example, only European teams manage to stop the likes of Germany and Italy from steam-rolling through the summer.
So what do you think? Is it easier to win the European Championships or the World Cup?
Latest Articles
- Former Juventus player beaten up by rival fans
- Liverpool start without style but at least have 3 points in the bag
- Is it time to panic yet?
- Everton and Middlesbrough suffered from bad referee decisions
- Soccerlens Site Update
Discussion - 4 Responses
Add Your Comment
Comments are moderated (our comments policy).







Does the fact that England have won the world Cup and not the Euros help the arguement?????
“And, on top of that three different European nations have won three of the past four World Cups.”
2006 - Italy
2002 - Brazil
1998 - France
1994 - Brazil
Brazil == Europe
Seriously speaking, in my opinion -
Quality wise - EURO
Passion level - World Cup
the world cup is much harder then the euro you just dont know what to expect, it shows players from all over the world and lets take last world cup for example italy only went through against australia because of a bad descion giving a penalty which was cleraly a dive then italy went to win the world cup and who held the italians, u.s.a a non-europe team.
i really thing you should separate the competitions, not in two, but in three different ones.
1) European Championship
2) World Cup (in Europe)
3) World Cup (not in Europe)
it’s not a coincidence that there has never been a Wold Cup winner coming from Europe when the event takes place either in America (North or South) or Asia. So being, it’s not only a matter of different types of football being played, but also a matter of different enviroments.
THE HARDEST - winning a World Cup held in South America/North America/Africa/Asia - it has never been done
THE SECOND HARDEST - i really think that winning a European Championship and a World Cup (held in Europe), is equaly as hard. I really can’t decide if one is harder than the other.
why the Euro might be harder:
- there’s a higher percentage of good teams than in the world cup.
why the WC (held in Europe) might be harder:
- you have to adapt to playing againts non-european styles of playing