You have used a point that I have advanced to support my argument (re: population) and somewhat simplistically (or disingenuously) frameworked that as the sole basis for my argument. For the avoidance of doubt, my point in relation to population was illustrative and not literal, as that would be somewhat anomalous to the present system, which I am broadly (and manifestly) supportive of. Perhaps it is you that needs to think things through.
Your contention that ‘only the very best qualified’ by dint of them being champions of their respective leagues is also simplistic, plainly wrong, as well as being a circular argument. The notion that the champions of Denmark are better than the second placed team in Germany or Spain (for example) is absurd, and so your argument is then reduced to a personal preference about the format. Fair enough, and fully understandable, but your responses to my original post have conspicuously failed to address my original point that the present format best represents the spread of talent across Europe, which I maintain it does, certainly far more effectively that the previous format; which, as you state, was a more ‘simple concept’. The most simple concepts are rarely the fairest; FPTP being an example of this (imo). It might provide stronger government and more decisive results in general elections, but it is unrepresentative of the votes cast nationally and therefore could not be described as objectively and relatively ‘fair’ (imo). Eddie the Eagle was the best ski jumper from these shores in the late 80’s, but it doesn’t mean he could readily be described as ‘only the very best’ in his sport, irrespective of his commendable achievements, palpable bravery and the associated warm narrative. Presumably you would describe his exclusion from the Calgary Olympics in 1988 on the grounds of him simply not being good enough as ‘convoluted bollocks’.
For those reasons I (broadly) support the present format, with the caveat that I previously supplied.
