Nations League: from “unnecessary” to a tournament Spain already wins

From “unnecessary competition” to a trophy Spain already wins

In September 2018 UEFA launched the Nations League and it was met by a chorus of criticism. Four divisions —A, B, C and D— split into groups, promotions and relegations of four teams per league, and a final four among the champions of the top tier. The first image of Group A1 left France top with 4 points, Germany on 1 and the Netherlands on 0. In A4, Spain led after winning 1-2 in England and Croatia awaited its debut in Elche. The goal UEFA sold was simple: fewer friendlies and more matches with something real at stake.

Over the years, the diagnosis has changed for part of the fanbase. Some argue that Spain is the best national team right now and arrives as European champion and reigning champion of the competition. What was born as a disputed idea has settled into the calendar, although the debate over its usefulness remains alive.

What the Nations League is and how the groups are divided

The competition organizes European national teams into closed leagues according to their coefficient and pits them against each other home and away among peers. The winners of each League A group fight for the June final four; the bottom team of each group is relegated and the top teams are promoted between divisions. The initial split was not done by eye: it was set with UEFA’s October 2017 rankings, so the World Cup in Russia did not count for placing anyone. That detail explains why Iceland or Poland appeared in the top tier while other teams with a better World Cup showing were left out.

The doubt about the promotion and relegation system took little time to resolve. Four go up and four go down, not one, so that every match has consequences. Without that incentive, the invention would have been a tour of friendlies with a pompous name. And there is the paradox: a tournament many branded as dispensable was designed, precisely, so that there would no longer be dispensable matches.

“The most unnecessary competition of all time”

The start was marked by rejection. Some called it the most unnecessary and forgettable competition ever created, and some predicted that only in thirty years could it gain any prestige. The most repeated comparison was with minor tournaments that left bad memories, among them the Confederations Cup, whose trophy came to be considered cursed after injuries and the wear and tear of its finalists.

Against that, the defense of the format gained weight with the results. The central argument stands on its own: a Spain-Croatia or England-Spain with something at stake is appealing; a friendly against a distant national team is not. The promise was that the good would play the good and the weak would play the weak, without lopsided matchups until the final knockout rounds. To see thrashings by the big teams against smaller ones there was already the domestic league, the convinced would say.

The first big wake-up call came on the pitch. After the 1-2 at Wembley, Spain crushed Croatia in Elche with a 3-0 run, with headed goals and a brace from Asensio. According to a forum user, two matches were enough to have the group almost decided: they could lose one of the next two and still finish first. That is when the narrative began to change.

The final against France and the VAR that still lingers

The episode that has used the most ink in the tournament’s entire life was not a group match, but a final. Spain fell to France, whom a forum user described as the best attack in the world, in a duel that a large part of the fans consider marked by a controversial refereeing decision. The key play: a pass toward a forward who started in an offside position, a Spanish defender who touches the ball and a goal that ends up being allowed. The interpretation of offside by intervention of the defender is what is being discussed.

For part of the stands, there was a goal in an irregular position and the result was tainted. Another, more technical current argues that the rule allows the play to be allowed because the defender intervened deliberately when trying to clear. The unsettling conclusion some draw is textbook: if the pass goes toward someone in an offside position, it is almost better to let the ball pass than to try to cut it out, because touching it enables the referee to interpret. Be that as it may, the episode left a residue of grievance that time has not erased.

It is worth separating the anger from the cold reading. Spain competed toe to toe against top-level rivals and showed it can beat Italy and France when the serious moment arrives. The bitterness over the final does not hide that the project has delivered. And that is the fact that survives any refereeing controversy.

The new generation: Lamine, Huijsen and the debate in defense

Over the years, the tournament’s focus shifted from form to substance: who plays and who does not. The liveliest discussion is the defense. The emergence of young center-backs has peine a fight between those asking for patience and those denouncing a lack of level. One center-back is criticized for a lack of height; another, for a lack of strength and concentration in marking. The classic: what for some is room for improvement, for others is a burden paid on every aerial ball.

The national team has conceded decisive goals from the air, including in the last major tournament, and that pattern feeds the murmuring about the ideal center-back pairing. Some call for specific names and argue that the starting duo should be different; others respond that the young players are years away from their ceiling and that burning them now would be the mistake. The emergence of a teenage winger who scored in the first minute, by contrast, admits no debate: he is the player silencing the critics and the one sustaining the hopes of an entire country.

The bench does not escape either. The national team coach has delivered in terms of results, but his model —long spaces, players ahead of the ball, risks in areas where they should not be taken— generates tactical doubts even among those who recognize the numbers. And some put the focus on the neighbor: the mess of Deschamps’s France, with all the talent in the world, which at times plays like nothing.

RTVE, the broadcast and the stands controversy

The tournament has an open-air owner: the full rights are in the hands of RTVE. That makes it the only national showcase and, by the way, the target of all complaints about the broadcast. People criticize the madness of the minute, the lack of silence on the goal, the clumsy handling of player names and the feeling that the commentary is heard more than the match itself. Some would rather watch it on any foreign feed than swallow the national one.

Along with complaints about the level of commentary, some remarks led to personal insults toward the commentators, a territory best not entered. More substantial, because verifiable, is the episode of a commentator who took it upon himself to comment on a flag displayed in the stands. His words generated immediate rejection among those who consider that such judgments have no place in a sports broadcast.

Where the tournament is heading

The present already looks toward World Cup qualification, with Spain placed in a group in which, according to a forum user, if they beat Czechia at home and draw in Croatia, qualification would be practically done. The Nations League thus appears as what it wanted to be: a competitive filter that orders national teams and gives meaning to every international window.

One question remains open, and it is the usual one: whether this tournament is as strong as its defenders claim or whether, in the end, it will only be remembered for the final that was lost amid controversy. With these ingredients, the debate is served for the next appointment.

---

The full format, promotion criteria and qualification scenarios are detailed in the original conversation.