I can only say that all these bookmakers can only continue to underestimate Croatia, because they have always done so regardless of the results that football team achieved. 2018 second in the world, 2022 third in the world, and in a month they will play the semi-finals of the Nations League - the only problem is that there are a lot of people for whom such results do not fit into their "plans".
It is very simple actually. A lot of people have difficulty in admitting that Croatia is in the same league as France and England. These same people would rate declining teams such as Germany, Danmark, Netherlands, Belgium and Sweden at the same level as France, but somehow they tend to underestimate smaller nations. Anyway, I hope that Euro 2024 will give a good level of clarity on the quality of teams within the UEFA confederation. If Germany is unable to perform, despite being the hosts, then a lot of questions will be raised.
But when you look at the roster differences, let me put it this way, the roster value of France is 1 billion euros, the same for England? 1.1 billion, now lets take a look at how much Croatia roster worths; 360 million. You can say whatever you want to say for the reason of it, it's just not the same and will never be the same at all.
How is Croatia the same level as France? I am all for everyone to express their opinions, but this is almost too far off to be accepted solely as an opinion. The team that France has right now is incredibly strong if you take their first 13 to 14 players. Croatia can't compete with that, but they can still win a single game of course. I thin it is better to assume that if the two teams were to play against each other 10 times, what would be the outcome? I think it would be something like 6 wins France, 2 draws and 2 wins for Croatia. But claiming that they are the same level is odd.
This is a strange argument. England and France are home to some of the richest football clubs in this planet and therefore the local players can expect to get good contracts. Croatian players on the other hand doesn't get noticed by these clubs very often. Around half of them play for Croatian clubs, such as Dinamo Zagreb. But that doesn't mean that these players are inferior when compared to players from England or France. And the contract values are not purely based on performance. Fan following also plays its part. England players can demand a higher contract value, since their fanbase is larger.
Imagine saying that players who play for Dinamo Zagreb could be better than players who are playing for City or PSG, does that make sense to you? If they were that good, then they would have been at big clubs as well, look at Modric, he is the sole winner of Ballon D'or during the period Messi and Ronaldo dominated the award, was he a bad player? Was he just at local league? Of course not, he was dominating the world at Real Madrid at that time and that is why he won.So all in all, I can easily say that playing for the domestic league is not a good answer, not all English clubs have English players only, and not all French ones have French players, they hire players from other nations and if Croatia was any good, they would be valued a lot higher and be bought by huge clubs. It is as valid argument as it gets.
When it is said that the fanbase is larger in England for England players, does that refer to "English" players or any players who play in England?
I did a little search and found this:
10. Gareth Bale – 50.2 Million Followers
9. James Rodríguez – 50.5 Million Followers
8. Sergio Ramos – 56.7 Million Followers
7. Paul Pogba – 57.3 Million Followers
6. Zlatan Ibrahimovic – 58.2 Million Followers
5. Marcelo – 62 Million Followers
4. Kylian Mbappe – 98.6 Million Followers
3. Neymar Jr. – 204 Million Followers
2. Lionel Messi – 433 Million Followers
1. Cristiano Ronaldo – 551 Million Followers
Not a single player of those with the largest following is English or playing in England.
There was also the point being made in this thread that the FIFA and UEFA are more interested in countries like Germany and England etc. to make it as far as possible in a tournament for financial reasons. thought about that but why would it be worse for the UEFA when an outsider makes it into the final? I doubt that this would significantly impact the total audience on TV. When the final was played in 2004 between Greece and Portugal, there was no single game that had a bigger audience during that tournament with national market share in Germany of close to 70%. I think both has its advantages. When you see a top game between two nations like England and Germany, it can be as interesting if you watch Greece vs. Portugal because it is sensational when a team like Greece wins such a tournament.
We are having a really interesting discussion here about Croatia and whether Croatia is on the same level as France.
Instead of guesses and speculations, let's look at concrete facts.
Croatia and France have played each other 3 times in the last 5 years and once France won, once Croatia and once their match ended in a draw.
Pure luck and coincidence, or a serious indication that Croatia may still be on the same level as France?
I want to remind you that last year Croatia beat the strongest team in France with Mbappe in Paris 1:0.
In the final of Russia 2018, we lost to France after a very dubious decision by the referee regarding the penalty and after a very unfortunate own goal by Mandjukić, in the first half in which we completely outplayed the French team.
Of course, everyone has the right to their opinion, but in the last 2 world cups, Croatia beat Argentina with Messi, England, Belgium and Brazil in a row. Have we really had crazy luck every time or is it still a matter of the great quality of the Croatian national team and the sad lack of respect for Croatia by others?