Euro 2016: France is the Best Choice

   
France, Italy, Turkey: the three candidates for hosting the Euro 2016.  Many Italians are outraged that Italy received the least amount of votes, and mutter that Michel Platini influenced the choice; but out of the three possibilities, I believe that France is the best choice.  Although a part of me wanted to see it go to Turkey- a nation that has never hosted the competition, a nation who's football has been up and coming over the past decade- another part of me is relieved that it didn't go there, as Turkey does not uphold those certain human rights that keep it out of the European Union.  This is purely political reasoning, but political motivations figure into making decisions. 

  

  Italians should not be surprised that that they got the least amount of votes.  For years, the Italian football world has deplored its own state: corrupt managers, dodgy refereeing, betting scandals, false passports, out-of-date stadiums, fan violence.  These last two issues in particular illustrate why France is hosting the 2016 Euro and not Italy.  While I do not follow French and Turkish soccer as closely as the Italian league, I can't recall any significant problems with fans and stadiums in these two countries.  While Turkish fans have a reputation of being occasionally violent, nothing as grave as the more recent incidents in Italy (fans and a police officer killed in rioting and clashes) have happened.  If the Italians bemoan the state of their national sport, how can they expect the rest of the football world to disagree?

  

  Italians really need to prove that they can host a safe and brilliant Euro tournament.  Safety is a top priority, yet two years after those deadly clashes, the Italian Federation is still trying to figure out how to make the stadiums safer, such as introducing the fan identity card.  This is a strategy that has worked brilliantly in England to rein in the Hooligans, infamous world-wide for their violence.  England's violent fan reputation is now a thing of history.  Yet in Italy, many still balk at the idea of fans having to carry a card (i.e. Daniele De Rossi's recent statements against this policy).  They believe it is a conspiracy, a Big Brother way of keeping tabs on the average Joe.  If that is so, then why haven't civil liberties in England been curtailed?

  

Stadiums are another important issue.  Over the past decade, Italians have expressed more and more dissatisfaction over their current state in Italy.  Many stadiums still have barriers that separate the fans from the field and from each other.  Many also are "Olympic" stadiums: they are multi-functional, mostly for track and field competitions, and have a track that goes around the pitch.  This forces the stands to be build even further away from the sidelines and significantly lowers the overall quality of viewing.  England and France have done away with this type of stadium.

  France is the best choice.  It has excellent stadiums, and its fans do not have a notorious record, either domestically or internationally.  Italy, on the other hand, is the exact opposite.  Turkey also would have been a good choice, but I would like to see them host the European Cup when they get their human rights issues straightened out and enter into the European Union.