Two years ago, it looked odds-on that the 2020 European Championship would be staged in Turkey.

An impressive campaign for Euro 2016, in which the Turks were edged out by France, many thought unluckily, allied to a vibrant economy and the scale to cope with the tournament's expansion to 24 teams, left the strong impression that Ankara's claim to Euro 2020 (pictured below, logo) would be all but irresistible – if they decided that they wanted the competition.

Now, following UEFA boss Michel Platini's idea, aired over the weekend, that Euro 2020 could be hosted by a succession of cities across a range of European countries, the continent's footballing elite could be heading just about anywhere.

What has put the cat among the pigeons is Istanbul's emergence as a strongly-fancied candidate city for the 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

It would be out of the question for Turkey to stage both events during the same summer, so it is doubtless prudent for UEFA to craft a Plan B.

Although, having said that, the Olympic schedule – with the 2020 Summer Games host due to be chosen in September 2013 – ostensibly leaves enough time for UEFA's Turkish option to be pursued should Istanbul be thwarted by Tokyo or Madrid, its Olympic rivals.

UEFA will not, after all, make its decision on the host – or hosts – of Euro 2020 until May 2014.

But I don't know of anyone who was expecting Platini to float something so radical; in the political arena, it would be labelled 'blue-sky thinking'.


Since the dawn of international sports tournaments more than a century ago, the template has been basically the same: a host city, or country, is chosen; they gear up for the invasion; competitors congregate there at the appointed moment and set about their business until the champion, or champions, emerge.

Just about the biggest structural innovation over all this time has been to allow two countries – Japan/South Korea; Gabon/Equatorial Guinea; Belgium/Holland – to co-host.

Now, perhaps because of the sheer weight of demands placed on the hosts of the bigger sports tournaments, perhaps because of opportunities to drum up more revenues, new approaches are starting to be suggested.

One of these came up in 2010, during the race for the 2022 World Cup, won eventually by Qatar.

Japan, one of the Gulf state's rivals, suggested transmitting life-sized 3D images of World Cup matches in real time to audiences all over the world.


This would result in not just one nation hosting the World Cup but 208, enthused the country's bid chairman.

"Japan [would be] just the coordinator."

As many as 360 million people would be able to have a full-stadium experience of matches, it was claimed.

Assuming the technology worked, this type of innovation could certainly add a new, er, dimension to the experience of fans attempting to follow the matches from their home country.

The competition itself, though, would have proceeded in a single host country, much as usual.

Platini's (pictured above) idea, though for the moment seemingly light on detail, would do away with the whole notion of a host country for Euro 2020.

Instead, the most devoted fans would apparently be able to follow their teams on an odyssey from Baku to Stockholm to Barcelona, or whatever cities had won the right to stage tournament matches.

In this respect, I imagine fans' experience would be more akin to following their club side through a series of matches in one of the big European club competitions.

The concept raises all manner of questions: Would fans miss the distinctive tournament atmosphere that brews when an event is in a specific city or country? Would Platini's concept be more, or less, environmentally-friendly than a traditional tournament? Would teams with cities hosting the competition be able to play "home" games? And many more.

What, I must admit, most intrigues me is the timing of Platini's comments in the context of the rumbling Eurozone crisis.


I'm a benevolent being, so let's assume for now that the euro (the currency) survives – an outcome that, to be plausible, will seemingly entail a far greater degree of fiscal integration among the countries using it in coming years than exists at present.

Under such circumstances, Platini's concept of a Euro (the tournament) of the cities would fit in perfectly.

This is because, while the powers of national Governments would necessarily have to be very much truncated, the role of local authorities, urban and rural, would, I fancy, be augmented.

This would be to enhance people's sense of control over local affairs, while compensating for loss of influence over society's main economic levers, whose operators in Brussels and Frankfurt would appear impossibly remote.

If, though, in December or January, when UEFA bigwigs sit down to take their decision, the euro (the currency) remains under severe pressure, then I fear Platini's idea may have to be mothballed.

Why? Because we would have essentially no idea of what the economic, or even political, map of Europe would look like in 2020.

Imagine if you had sat down in 1985 and tried to predict how Europe would look in 1992.

Let's just say that you would have needed an impressively-proportioned crystal ball.


Well, if the Eurozone breaks up, it could be argued that we might be thrust into a comparable era of uncertainty.

I expect many Greeks think that we already have been.

Yes, football teams and their supporters continued to criss-cross the continent even while the Berlin wall was falling and the Balkans were in flames.

But I'm not convinced it would be the wisest course of action for UEFA to lay down plans to reshape one of its flagship tournaments so radically at a time when something as fundamental as the currency used by many of its most influential members was in question.

The wider the area the tournament is dispersed over in such circumstances, the greater you would have thought are the chances of it being somehow affected by the resulting tensions.

With interest from Azerbaijan/Georgia and Scotland/Ireland/Wales (pictured above, Hampden Park in Glasgow), other options for Euro 2020, besides Turkey and Platini's brainchild, seem likely to be available.

If, by the end of this year, Eurozone Governments have not soothed market worries about the outlook for their public finances, the UEFA President might do well to shelve his idea to await stabler times.

David Owen worked for 20 years for the Financial Times in the United States, Canada, France and the UK. He ended his FT career as sports editor after the 2006 World Cup and is now freelancing, including covering the 2008 Beijing Olympics and 2010 World Cup. Owen's Twitter feed can be accessed here.