All good and valid points. And yeah I agree with sime of them and that some aspects may be more exciting.
However quality wise it's not an increasement. We're not going to see better football games than before. Bloating a tournament with more teams has never let into better quality of football in no competition. So if that's not the case I'm generally questioning why implementing a new system.
Tournaments like the Champions League or the Europeans have suffered quality wise from introducing more teams. I like those tournaments to be a "clash of the elites" and not a party where everyone with a half decent team can join. Watching Champions League should always be special also in the group stages, I really don't care about Ludogorets vs Basel or Kopenhagen vs FC Brügge or whatever in Champions League. I mean how can FC fucking Legia Warschau be part of the Champions League and the 4th of Serie A can't? I want every match to be a bummer. That's why I welcome those new changements to the CL because there will be less fodder teams participating.
If the question is viarity vs quality I'm always for quality.
If only 5 or 6 teams could come from Europe, this would stagnate the development of a lot of teams. You're talking about quality, but the current system ensures that some of the best teams (I think Africa is the one that gets the worst treatment under this system) never get to the World Cup because the qualification process is so cut-throat.
Look at Egypt. Between 2006 and 2010 they won every African Cup, but didn't qualify for the WC. It wasn't a lack of quality, it was them being literally tied with Algeria for the 2010 World Cup and had to go to an extra special game to see who would go in. For the 2006 cup, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, and Egypt were all in the same group. People who say Egypt weren't a worthy team forget that in the 2009 Confederations Cup, Egypt did very well. Sure, they did not progress, but they beat Italy, and they deserved to have beaten Brazil before a massive injury crisis led them to lose to a US team they should have beaten.
The comparison between nations and clubs isn't exactly accurate. International tournaments allow there to be exposure of players who wouldn't normally get attention. These teams don't get to practice every day, they are national teams. There are small teams that have improved, even on the club level.
Think of Mourinho's Porto, they
won the CL even though they did not have anywhere close to the budget or development of larger clubs. They went up against a Monaco team led by Morientes in the final. Last year in the EL, Molde, a tiny club, beat out Celtic, Ajax, and Fenerbache, which can't be overlooked. They were unlucky to have met Sevilla in the first knockout round, who went on to win the EL. The showing of Iceland in the Euros, also underlines the benefit of expanding the field. Albania's showing in those same Euros also showed that through proper team building and coaching (Biasi was named a candidate for Italy's job) can make teams do very well. Albania were unlucky to get knocked out in the group.
The major problem with the CL recently has been Italian absences of Milan and Inter, honestly. The destruction of Valencia hasn't helped Spain, with Atletico's rise seemingly hitting a snag as they are stuttering a bit.
The expansion doesn't mean that you're going to lose Italy or Brazil from Word Cups, is just giving more opportunities for others to get in. The CL has recognized that just having smaller teams without your big clubs ruins the product, and so they have changed the rules accordingly.