Football FanCast columnist Alex Dimond looks at the proposed expansion of the Euro Championship and is clearly not a fan.

So, the 13th European Championships are finally concluded, and to everyone's satisfaction now that Spain have been crowned champions. Deserved winners (and how often can that be said?) the Spaniards ended a staggering 44 years of hurt. So, by that reckoning, England should be nailed on for the 2010 World Cup. Well, one can dream...

I could go on to blog about my player of the tournament (Sergio Ramos, in case you are interested), my team of the tournament or any assortment of spurious awards. But I won't. What I want to talk about is how perfect the tournament was. It had everything - drama, underdog victories, emerging superstars and fading veterans. Not quite on the grand scale of the World Cup,the depth of competition and consistently close matches ensured that the Henri Delaunay trophy remains a prestigious prize. Naturally, considering all of this, UEFA are keen to tinker with the format.

Yes, according to UEFA President Michel Platini et al, Euro 2008 will be one of the last 16-team tournaments. From the 2016 incarnation, 24 teams will be invited to the big party, a staggering 45% of all eligible teams. The qualification process alone would be a joke - a total of 294 games would be played to remove just 28 teams. On the flip side, even Steve Mclaren could lead England to the finals, and the odds suggest at least one other home nation would reach the main tournament - which is interesting, when you consider that the initial idea for an expanded tournament came from the Scottish FA. The same Scotland; who of course would have qualified for Euro 2008, if the proposed change was already in place, as they finished third in their group.

Senior officials from all 53 member nations, voting last Friday, unanimously agreed upon their expansion idea. For the 28 countries who missed out this year, the reasoning behind their approval is pretty obvious - they want a better chance of playing in the main event. For the heavyweight nations (finals regulars - France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Holland ...England) perhaps the need to appease the smaller nations in return for votes in future hosting bids (and similar bureaucracy) influenced their decision.

Alternatively, it could have been financial considerations. As the Scottish FA chief executive Gordon Smith noted, "There was no downside in terms of revenue... there is an appetite for [the expansion] and everyone appreciates the advantages". This, of course, means that UEFA believes it can make more money by having more teams involved - a not unreasonable conclusion. But, as European football's governing body, surely its responsibility is to protect the integrity of the sport, rather than trying to maximize profits for its member states? Michel Platini regularly criticizes the increased money in England's domestic football, is his view so different when it comes to the international scene?

Expanding the tournament to 24 teams creates a whole host of problems. If making money is the objective, then the first knockout round will contain 16 teams - much like the World Cup - as an extra round means more games, more ticket receipts and more TV money. This means there are two obvious options for the group stage format. The first is 4 groups of 6 teams, where only the bottom 2 are eliminated. This is similar to the ridiculous UEFA Cup group system - so lets not put it past Platini and his bigwigs to opt for it. Creating two extra games for every team, it would extend the tournament to nearly a month long. This might prove problematic in the notoriously short footballing summer.

The second (seemingly more likely) option is 6 groups of 4 teams - where the top 2 from each group go through, along with the 4 best third place finishers. But is this system any better? The current system is simple - it rewards those who do well against their opponents in the group. It is a level playing field. Rewarding ‘best losers' - pits third-placed teams against one another -an intrinsically unfair system, as they will not have played the same teams! For example, it would be quite conceivable that, under this format, Sweden could go out of a tournament having lost to Italy and Spain while beating Ireland - having been beaten to a ‘lucky loser' spot by a team like Bulgaria that has lost to Poland and Serbia, but demolishedMacedonia! Would that be fair?

This brings us to another point - the quality of competition. Much has been made of Switzerland and Austria's inability to compete this year - and as a result whether future hosts should receive automatic qualification. The irony then, is that under this new system it is highly likely that one, if not both, would qualify by right - along with many similarly limited teams. The beauty of the current system is that there are few mismatches - even the unfancied Romanians were more than a match for Italy and France. Could the same be said of Estonia? The World Cup always throws up a few whitewashes (remember Germany demolishing Saudi Arabia in 2002?) that detract from the competition - does the European Championships deserve that?

Platini makes the point that the first ever European Championship had just 4 teams, and everytime it has been expanded the decision was criticised. Euro 96 was the first 16-team tournament - it andsubsequent tournaments have been very successful. But there must a limit - we cannot keep going until every team automatically qualifies for the finals! For one thing, who will host subsequent tournaments? 16 team tournaments have introduced the concept of ‘co-hosts' as countries like Austria and Switzerland cannot cope on their own - will 24 teams mean some tournaments have three hosts? Or will they simply be confined to the countries that can cope with such a big event - England, Germany, France, Spain and Italy?

I feel I had better stop now, as this article is becoming dangerously close to a rant. But the point remains, in light of one of the most successful tournaments ever, does the format really need changing? Regardless of how it affects England's qualification hopes - is that what the fans really want? Indeed, is it what European football really needs?

Both Alex Dimond and Mark Bryans are competing in our Euro Bloggers semi final - so if you can take the time to read both articles and give a subsequent vote as to which article you felt was of greater style, quality and content, it would be greatly appreciated.

Click Here to read Mark Bryans' article