The Solution to All WC Problems

[halfnelson31]

If the 48 team final came true MLS(the only league i truly care about);) would be screwed. In this sceniro the finals would be about 2 weeks longer eating into even more of mls's schedule. I like the idea of 48 teams but make the tournment shorter some how

[empennage]

Originally posted by RichardL
I have to confess to not knowing about all the stadia that have been built in the US since 94, but I'm pretty sure that I read that not a single one of the stadia used in 94 actually met the stadia criteria imposed on Italy in 1990 (there's a lot more to it than just capacity). Normally they were sub-standard on lack of covered seating (I know summer rain is not that common in the US, but is it in Italy either?) but most often on field size, which counts not only the actual playing area but the area around the field also. Most pitches in 94 looked like they'd been shoe-horned in. The US was allowed to get away with it purely because FIFA were trying to sell the game over there. Whether they'd be allowed to ignore rules that all other bidding countries have to adhere to is unlikely - so if none of the 94 stadia can be used are you still able to hold that 48 team WC next month?

There are a bunch of NFL stadiums that have been built since 1994, and a bunch more that are going to be built. All of these stadiums are being built with soccer field dimensions in mind. They are also being built with soccer sight lines as well. Trust me there are more than enough stadiums in this country to host a 48 team tournament. Afterall, all of the NFL stadiums have 50,000+ capacirty and there are 30 or so football teams. And then there are all of the college stadiums that are large as well.

Here's a link to site about NFL stadiums:
http://www.sfo.com/~csuppes/NFL/misc/index.htm

[photar74]

Originally posted by RichardL
Most of the TV money is going to come from Europe. They are not going to pay much for matches starting after 6pm eastern time. Also, without being disrespectful to those sides, matches between third and fourth seeded teams aren't very appealing. Nobody was desperate to get to the pub to watch Mexico v Ecuador. Under your system rather than having one "unattractive" match (out of 6) per group you'll now have 6 (out of 15), e.g. all the matches between Mexico, Ecuador, Egypt and Bulgaria instead. That would be nearly half of the group games only having limited appeal.

6 weeks is just too long for a tournament. Also with a lot of leagues starting early August and not ending until late May player fatigue could be a big factor as well. Not so much physically, but mentally.


Although in your post you said that you meant no disrespect, your comments about Mexico are absurd at best, offensive at worst. Mexico, one of the two teams you anecdotally single out as not attracting a large TV audience in English pubs (wow, now there's a convincing argument--I should just give up all my research right now), has a GNI MORE THAN TWICE as large as every European nation except Germany, the UK, France and Italy (and by 2014, at the current rate, it will pass England (though not the UK), Italy and France), and is every bit as football mad. Not only does Mexico surpass almost every European nation in terms of both current and future market possibilities, on the field Mexico owns UEFA. Over the past four WCs, Mexico has gone 4-6-2 against teams from UEFA--top five on the planet against UEFA (only Italy, Germany, Brazil and Argentina are better agains UEFA since '86).

Want to keep talking TV money? South Korea, now probably as football mad as any nation on Earth, is larger than all but five UEFA economies. Japan, now certain to follow the WC diehard, is more than 2.5 times larger than any UEFA economy. Oh yeah, and Brazil is larger than all but four UEFA economies. Argentina is larger than all but six. China, already larger than any UEFA economy save Germany, seems to be both getting better at football and richer all the time. Australia (17th largest economy in the world) is larger than all but five UEFA economies, and follows the socceroos die-hard. This is of course not even to mention the enormous market possibilities in the USA (30% of the world economy). If the USA keeps on its current curve, it will be one of the world's most lucrative football market in only a decade or two. Other major market possibilities include Canada (8th largest economy on Earth) and India (14th largest economy on earth and growing all the time). In fact, of the 18 best market possibilities for football on Earth, UEFA only has seven. UEFA even only has 6 of the current 12 best. By 2014, it is quite possible that less than 40% of worldwide soccer income will be coming from Europe. Here's another way to look at it:

Current Confed GNI
CONCACAF: $12T
UEFA: $9.5T
AFC: $8.5T
CONMEBOL: $1.2T
CAF: $0.75T
OFC: $0.6T

Remember, we're talking 12 years in the future for a 48-team WC, when these numbers are going to skew even further against UEFA.

Most of the TV money from UEFA? If that is even true now, it won't be for very long. Mexico isn't an example of football quality high enough to watch? Even when they are playing the #2 qualifer out of CONMEBOL (Ecuador) for the top space in their group? A statement like that may be the very definition of European snobbery. If you presume to speak for Western Europe's opinion of Mexican football against a top opponent, I'll go ahead and speak for the rest of the world--we all know better than to ever consider El Tri an underdog, no matter who they are playing.

I'm sorry if this post was harsh, but your primarily rhetorical, anecdotal argument / statement, especially the parts concerning Mexico (the main part), really pissed me off.

[Bauser]

Photar, you seem to be more interested in the World Cup as a cashcow rather than as a first class football tournament and that is a sad view as I see it.

I couldn't care less if Japan has the second largest economy in the world. If their team can't occupy one of the four or five spots available from Asia, then they should stay home. The TV-rights will be sold successfully in Japan anyway and the big dollars will flow into FIFA's big Swiss account. Unlike most other sports where people only care about their own national team, soccer - especially the WC - has global appeal and people will watch an awful lot of games between other nations anyway. TV-rights will be sold no matter if their country qualifies.

It's not a make-or-break for FIFA economically to expand to 48 teams. You create more problems than you solve with your idea.

...and about Mexico, they are respected around the world, but I do believe their game against Ecuador at bad hours didn't bring out the masses to English pubs. There is no disrespect intended in that.

[photar74]

I just want to make the follwing comment to anyone who really believes that a 48-team WC would actually somehow generate less TV money that a 32 team WC:

144 total matches vs 64 total matches = 125% increase in total programming that can be sold.

48 teams vs. 32 teams: 50% increase in the number of qualifer nations that have TV companies to whom FIFA can sell their 125% greater amount of programming.

5 groups tage matches vs 3 group stage matches: 67% increase in the number of guaranteed matches for each of the 50% increased qaulifer nations with a TV companies to whom FIFA can sell their 125% amount of increased progamming.

Av. 9 hours daily programming during group stages vs. Av. 6 hours of daily progamming during group stages: 50% increase in good time-slots, when taking worldwide timezones into account, for whom a 67% increase in the number of guanteed matches for the 50% increased amount of qualifer nations to whom a 125% of programming can be sold.

We are potentially talking about increasing worldwide TV revenue eight-fold. Let's break down some of the complaints:

Complaint one (from Bauser): With a 48-team WC, a far smaller number of viewers would be able to watch every WC match.

Answer: This may upset diehards, but why should FIFA care about that? FIFA aims only to increase the number of matches that current viewers would watch, and to increase the total number of viewers. With a 48-team WC, very few current viewers would watch all 144 games, but most current viewers would watch more matches than they cuirrently do. Further, with more nations, you would vastly increase the total number of viewers. These two pillars are the true business goals, not making sure a few million crazies can watch every single match.

Complaint Two (from multiple posters): Extending the WC another two weeks would result in fan exhaustion, thereby reducing potential TV revenue.

Answer: I'm going to resist my urge to use rhetoric as an answer, argue by analogy and/or simply call this nonsense. Wait, no I'm not--do you seriously think that adding two weeks to a tournament that takes places every four years would bore you? Do seriously think that adding another two weeks to a tournament that happens once every four eyars would bore the football public at large? Would you really be bored with a 3.5 week group stage every four years? Would it really bore you to see your nation play five teams in the WC instead of three? This is a nonsensical complaint, based on no evidence whatsoever. I don't even know where someone would get this idea--WC football is the most popular type of soccer on the planet. Six weeks of football doesn't bore the football public at large, and I have decades--even centuries--of evidence to back me up on this. If this were true, than every league on Earth would fold, immediately. If six weeks of the most popular football would try fans patience, than the sport is doomed.

[photar74]

Complaint #3: The USA can't host in 2014! I am offended by your bizarre notion that the USA would be able to host a 48 team tournament easier than anyone else (several posters):

Look, by 2014, the twenty-five largest metro areas in the USA (all with 2M+ population) will all have 65,000-80,000 seat stadiums that meet current FIFA requirements for field size. Further, all of these cities will have hotel space for over three-hundred thousand people--each. I'm sorry if this doesn't meet your requirments.

And besides, I just threw the in USA 2014 as the first 48-team WC because , like it or not, the USA is bidding to host the 2014 games, and 2014 is the first time that a 48-team finals in possible. I want the USA to host in 2014, but that is ultimately irrelevant to a 48-team WC. So, for the purpose of discussion of the viability of a 48-team WC, let's assume that I believe the USA should never host a WC again, ever, period. They don't deserve it, CONCACAF has gotten it way too many times, they don't have adequite stadia, they have no football culture, America is an instant gratification soceity, Americans don't understand the beauty of soccer, they use the word soccer, whatever. I agree with you. Let's give the first five 48-team WCs to UEFA, and three of those to England. Fine. Can we move on now?

Complaint four (from Bauser): Its the WC FINALS, not hte WC participation tournament.

Answer. This is not a real argument, its pure rhetoric. 197 nations participated in the last WC, which I guess does in fact make it the WC participation tournament. Somehow by capitalizing the word finals does not lead one to the conclusion that 48 teams is too many for the final round, whereas 32 is not. It could just as easily said that its the WORLD Cup Finals, not the European-South American Circle Jerk Finals. Over the past three WCs, there have been 30 different nations from Europe and South America, and only 15 from the entire rest of the world. With a 48-team WC, you would have 22 participants from outside Europe and S.America every time, almost as many as have ever been granted exalted and divine permission to compete in the WC (25 all-time total--three less than the UEFA and CONMEBOL total since '98) by the UEFA-CONMEBOL junta. In fact, it is only with a 48-team WC that you can use the term "World" with a straight face.

Besides, a 48-team WC would not in anyway increase the number of teams in the WC. All it would do is consolidate some of the final qualifying rounds with the finals. Heck, this could even be sen as more fair to UEFA and CONMEBOL than anyone else--if they really are so much better, than a longer group stage against weaker teams from weaker confeds will certainly mean more teams from UEFA and CONMEBOL in the knockout stages. I mean, wouldn't it?

Complaint Five (RichardL): European TV companies would pay less for rights to a 48-team WC in the Americas than a 32-team WC, because some matches would kcik off at around midnight.

Answer. This hasn't been a problem before ('62, '70, '78, '86, '94). Also, I simply cannot accept the notion that European TV companies wouldn't shell over vastly more money for 100 matches that would take place in the early or late evening Central European Time plus around 40 that would take place after midnight CET time than for the current 64 match setup. Maybe we're not talking eight-fold, but we are still talking a huge increase in TV money, even with this "detraction."

Complaint Six (from Bauser): Increasing the number of teams would reduce the romance of qualifying.

Answer: This is a pure aesthetic difference on our parts. Besides, as the number of high-quality soccer nations continues to increase, inevitably the romance of qualifying, as you see it, would return in full force. Besides, why allow the romance of qualifying to continue to increase as more nations become good at soccer, rather than allowing the romance of the WC Finals to increase? As more nations become strong at soccer, why simply allow qualifying to become harder and harder, when you could allow the Finals to be more participatory?

[photar74]

Please remember that I am basing much of this entire thread on the belief that in 2014, as a result of many recent developments, there will be at least 10 more strong soccer nations in the world, and that at least half of those will be in the top 15 of world GNI.

Please also remember that, while I thought this was the best idea I have posted on bigsoccer, and while it came to me only after several months of research in related areas, I still believed that it would be picked apart by the posters at bigsoccer, who I respect very much.

However, so far on this thread I have actually become more, rather than less, convinced about the viability of a 48-team WC. I have already provided a revision in match scheduling in response to what I believed was a very strong argument that pointed out a clear deficiency in my original proposal (from Bauser and others). However, so far everything else has been utterly unconvicning.

Right now, as far as I can see, a 48-team WC, starting in 2014, would be a helluva lot better for soccer world-wide than keeping the current 32-team setup in 2014 or beyond.

[Bauser]

Originally posted by photar74
Complaint Two (from multiple posters): Extending the WC another two weeks would result in fan exhaustion, thereby reducing potential TV revenue.

Answer: I'm going to resist my urge to use rhetoric as an answer, argue by analogy and/or simply call this nonsense. Wait, no I'm not--do you seriously think that adding two weeks to a tournament that takes places every four years would bore you? Do seriously think that adding another two weeks to a tournament that happens once every four eyars would bore the football public at large? Would you really be bored with a 3.5 week group stage every four years? Would it really bore you to see your nation play five teams in the WC instead of three? This is a nonsensical complaint, based on no evidence whatsoever. I don't even know where someone would get this idea--WC football is the most popular type of soccer on the planet. Six weeks of football doesn't bore the football public at large, and I have decades--even centuries--of evidence to back me up on this. If this were true, than every league on Earth would fold, immediately. If six weeks of the most popular football would try fans patience, than the sport is doomed.

I'm not gonna go into details with the economical issues of expanding to 48 teams because they are just theories of yours and can't be proven. They might be wrong, they might be correct. No one knows.

First, we must not fool ourselves into thinking the World Cup revenues is what keeps the footballing circus alive. Club football and everything involved with that is what makes the big bucks - not the national team tournaments.

FIFA knows this very well and therefore tries everything they can to squeeze the World Cup into one month. It's always been about fitting the whole thing into one month. Even Sepp Blatter has stated publicly how important it is to stage the whole thing within a month. It's been a month long since 1982 when they expanded to 24 teams and remained a month long - though with more matches per day of course - when expanded further to 32 for France 1998.

The clubs pay the wages. They want their players back home in good time before pre-season starts in July. The players must have some time off as well between seasons. There is simply not enough weeks left on the calendar for further expansion of the World Cup. One month is the limit. 48 teams with your schedule won't work under this timeframe unless you use a very tight and unfriendly TV schedule that will hurt TV-viewers.

If the basis of starting this whole thread was to get countries with big economies (though weak on the field) into the World Cup, then I think you love the game for the wrong reasons.

[RichardL]

In respone to various points

Insulting Mexico - I'm sorry but however huge Mexico might be in CONCACAF they aren't regarded as a big draw in other parts of the world. They aren't small but they are no more attractive (in terms of pulling in TV viewers) than the likes of Uruguay or Belgium. Maybe that is a European view but I can't imagine viewers in Africa, South America, Asia or Australia setting their alarm clocks so they don't miss the big Mexico match either.

If 6 weeks is too long then leagues around the world would fold - there's a big difference between getting geared up to watch one or two matches a week for six weeks and watching 6 matches a day, every day, for six weeks, especially if as I said before a lot of the first round matches would be less than mouth-watering. Also with larger groups the number of meaningless matches towards the end of the group stage (due to teams already being through/out) is only likely in increase.

TV Revenue - maybe someone could go and find something to say how much each confederation paid this year, rather than speculating. The fact that in 1994 and 2002 kick-off times were set for the convenience of European viewing schedules must indicate something.
The 62 world cup almost certainly wasn't shown live on TV (a distinct lack of TV satellites back then). None of the other world cups were showing football over a 12 hour period and consequently the matches were not shown in the middle of the night (I think at latest they kicked off at 11pm GMT).

Suitablity of US stadia - I've mentioned this before and every time the US red mist descends and the point I'm making has been ignored. Does the US have an 80000 seat covered stadium with a FIFA size field that actually fits properly (i.e. not like soldier field or meadowlands where players are practically in the crowd when they try to take a corner). If not then the US doesn't have a venue for the final. You may say that it's sunny in the US, so you don't need the cover, but that's missing the point that those guidelines are set down for every other bidding nation and the US surely wouldn't be allowed the excemptions in got away with in 94.
Also, please don't fall into the trap of assuming that everyone in Europe wants every world cup to be held in Europe. That is not, and never has been, the case.

The move from 24 to 32 teams was just down to wanting more teams involved, it was due to the awkwardness of the first round phase where 16 from 24 qualified (having rejected the second group staged used in Spain 82).

[empennage]

Originally posted by RichardL
Suitablity of US stadia - I've mentioned this before and every time the US red mist descends and the point I'm making has been ignored. Does the US have an 80000 seat covered stadium with a FIFA size field that actually fits properly (i.e. not like soldier field or meadowlands where players are practically in the crowd when they try to take a corner). If not then the US doesn't have a venue for the final. You may say that it's sunny in the US, so you don't need the cover, but that's missing the point that those guidelines are set down for every other bidding nation and the US surely wouldn't be allowed the excemptions in got away with in 94.
Also, please don't fall into the trap of assuming that everyone in Europe wants every world cup to be held in Europe. That is not, and never has been, the case.
First, roofs over fans will not be a deal breaker for FIFA.

Second, there are a ton of new stadiums being/have been built. There's the stadium in Seattle(with roof) built with FIFA standards in mind, the new stadium in Boston, Phoenix is getting a new stadium(with roof). Hundreds of millions of dollars are currnetly being spent at Soldier field for a renovation. LA will probably have a new football stadium by 2014. Trust us when we say that all of these stadiums that are being built, have been built with soccer in mind. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the 2014 WC was in the US there would not be a single stadium that was the same in 1994.

[RichardL]

Originally posted by empennage

First, roofs over fans will not be a deal breaker for FIFA.

Second, there are a ton of new stadiums being/have been built. There's the stadium in Seattle(with roof) built with FIFA standards in mind, the new stadium in Boston, Phoenix is getting a new stadium(with roof). Hundreds of millions of dollars are currnetly being spent at Soldier field for a renovation. LA will probably have a new football stadium by 2014. Trust us when we say that all of these stadiums that are being built, have been built with soccer in mind. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the 2014 WC was in the US there would not be a single stadium that was the same in 1994.

Nice too see seattle finally got finished (I walked past the construction site 2 years ago). Boston is nice, but completely open, as is I believe will be the new soldier field. No 80,000 seat covered stadium at the moment, or indeed planned, so contrary to the earlier report, the US couldn't host a tournament next month. To be honest if the US has a good batch of 65000 capacity stadiums I can't see FIFA turning them down unless a better bid came in. On the other hand if there were better bids I can't see any city building a brand new venue "just for soccer". I'm not sure if Wembley will have been rebuilt by 2014, but hopefully we'll at least have started demolishing he old one.

[empennage]

Originally posted by RichardL
I'm not sure if Wembley will have been rebuilt by 2014, but hopefully we'll at least have started demolishing he old one.

LOL!! :D

I disagree with you on the covered seat requirements though. I really can't see this being used as the determination between a good bid and a bad one.

[photar74]

I'm sorry to everyone for getting so aggressive. It was inappropriate and not the kind of persona I want to project on this board.

I still believe that in the somewhat distant future, a 48-team WC will solve many of the problems that are only now beginning to emerge from the current 32-team setup.

Anyway, much of my desire for a 48-team WC comes from wanting group stage with 6 teams in each group. Although I built a large facade to cover it up and to show that such a setup could be workable, I did so basically because I want a longer group stage (and because I couldn't figure out the approriate number of allocations for a 32-team WC). I really don't like seeing some teams eliminated only hours after others have played their first game. I also really don't like seeing teams that went 1-1-1 in three matches going out, and that being that.

Also, I just thought that the following allocations to a 48-team WC would be more fun than the original ones I posted:

UEFA: 20.0
CAF: 8.0
AFC: 6.5
CONMEBOL: 6.0
CONCACAF: 5.0
OFC: 1.5
Host: 1.0

This would lead to a pretty groovy situation where there is an African team in every group, and Asian / Oceanian team in every group, an Americas team in every group, and two European teams in every group (the sixth team in each group would either be a second Americas team or a third European team). Every group would be like a mini-WC! :)

I also think that in my effort to try and be thorough, I forgot to mention just how fun I think a 48-team WC would be. There is no first division soccer in my city (well, the Charge play a very short schedule out on the Main Line)--or much soccer of any sort, really. As a result, I enjoy country competitions more than club ones.

And this WC was so short! I don't have cable, my Spanish is shaky, my friends who have cable either don't like soccer or live too far away (or don't want me up all night in their apartment), bars in Philly close at 2:00 a.m., the Dark Horse only shows matches with "powerhouse nations," Univision barely comes in on my TV and I'm not terribly familiar with the cafes in certain sections of the city that showed the WC to large immigrant populations. Not to mention that staying up from 2:25 am-9:30 am was really difficult to do on a regular basis.

And the 2003 WWC is in China! And the USA might not even make Copa America 2004 (or even accept a bid if they are offered one)! Why can't soccer be easier to watch in America!? Arrgghh!

Anyway, that's that. I just wanted to show that there was more than just an analystical / financial side to my proposal.

[RichardL]

Originally posted by empennage


LOL!! :D

I disagree with you on the covered seat requirements though. I really can't see this being used as the determination between a good bid and a bad one.

I think Japan got away with a 75,000 seat covered stadium for the final. The thing is if bidding for the 2014 cup starts in 2008 then FIFA will have to say to those bidding "to get the cup you must have stadia that meet x,y & z specifications". What they can't do is, if for example England, Spain, Brazil & Argentina were also bidding,is say "well England, Spain, Brazil & Argentina, you've all got to meet x,y & z or you won't be considered, but America you've only got to meet x as we can be flexible for you on y and don't bother with z".

[mr magoo]

Were all driffting away from the point of the world cup. Its to bring the best teams from the world together to see which is the best if they carnt get past the qualifiers as they are at the minute they dont deserve to be there at all.

Towards the end of this world cup most people were suffering from football burn out. its just not right sitting on your arse watching 3 matches a day drinking beers eating pizza/kebab/fish and chips and getting obese. T

There is no way that 6 matches a day would be good for Fifa. New people may be attracted to the game but you will be driving away alot of fans that are getting bored of watching games such as Peru V Belgium or Egypt V Saudi Arebia. No offense to these teams but they dont have much marketing appeal outside of there own countries and with more teams i the cup you will get more matches of this calibre.

Personaly i was happy with France98 tournamet schedule were there were only 2 games a day. one kicked off at 4pm(uk time) and another 8pm (uk time) this was good bcause after the first match you could go down your local field and have a kick about for a few hours and then come back home and watch an good evening match. This world cup was ok i didnt mind the early kick off's as I am up early anyway but having 3 wasn't enjoyable it got tedius faster than a gibbon on speed.

Having 6 games like i said would turn away the most avid football fan and teh only type of fan you would have left is the fat one who sits down and watches tv all day and has no social life what so ever.

[photar74]

Originally posted by mr magoo
Towards the end of this world cup most people were suffering from football burn out. its just not right sitting on your arse watching 3 matches a day drinking beers eating pizza/kebab/fish and chips and getting obese. T

There is no way that 6 matches a day would be good for Fifa. New people may be attracted to the game but you will be driving away alot of fans that are getting bored of watching games such as Peru V Belgium or Egypt V Saudi Arebia. No offense to these teams but they dont have much marketing appeal outside of there own countries and with more teams i the cup you will get more matches of this calibre.

Personaly i was happy with France98 tournamet schedule were there were only 2 games a day. one kicked off at 4pm(uk time) and another 8pm (uk time) this was good bcause after the first match you could go down your local field and have a kick about for a few hours and then come back home and watch an good evening match. This world cup was ok i didnt mind the early kick off's as I am up early anyway but having 3 wasn't enjoyable it got tedius faster than a gibbon on speed.

Like I said, you don't have to watch every game (its crazy to do that now), and with the new shcedule I came up with there would be 5 matches a day, at most, rather than six. Even with this in mind, if it does increase the amount of matches you wouldn't want to watch then you ample free time to relax between games you do want to watch.

Right now, there are not enough strong soccer nations in the world to fill a 48-team WC with quality sides. However, in 1986 there certainly weren't enough strong soccer nations in the world to fill a 32-team WC with quality sides. However, several nations have emerged since that time: Korea, Japan, USA, Turkey, Ireland, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Nigeria, Senegal, Cameroon, Columbia, South Africa. In the next decade, its possible that China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Wales, Ukraine, Israel, Greece, Hungary, Tunisia, Cote d'ivore, Anolga, Egypt, Venezuela, Honduras, Canada, Jamaica, Australia and, who knows, maybe even India will all either emerge, continue to improve, or regain their former glory as strong soccer nations.

Yes, a 48-team WC is unwieldy, but we are talking about the future, not about now. Just wait until the battle over allocations this December at the FIFA executive committee, then decide if adding teams to the WC isn't a more feasible solution.

[desertfox2]

Oh I just love a good World Cup debate! Photar74, you bring some interesting ideas to the table. You've obviously put a lot of time into it. However, there are some points that I have to disagree with.

Overall, I don't think a 48 team World Cup would work, either now or in 2014. Now, I understand that more nations in the world are becoming much better at football, which is your logics for a 48 team World Cup. However, even with that being the case, you are turning the Qualifying Round into "Round 1" if you may of the World Cup tournament. What I mean by that is that the Qualifying Round will lose it's value as more teams will be qualifying. If 48 teams qualify for the Finals, who's gonna care about the Qualifying Round? Basically, only nations that are on the border of qualifying. All the big name nations will qualify almost definitely. Plus, making the Finals will be too easy for smaller nations thus lowering the prestige of the Finals. Making the Finals should be a huge achievement, not just advancing to a so-called "Round 2".

Now, you are correct when you say that increasing the amount of allocations of spots for each zone would shut them all up. However, in that scenario, there would be too many non-deserving nations making the Finals. Although there is much bickering between regions over spots, it must stay that way. I mean, it's that way for a reason, cause that's about how many teams can compete at a World Cup from each zone.

I also have to agree with the people who are posting that there would be too many meaningless matches. I mean, that's what the Qualifying Round is for; which is to sort out this mess before the big show.

Now, I'm a huge World Cup fan (and that's putting it lightly), but watching 5 or 6 matches a day is insane. I mean, I watched all 64 matches of the 2002 World Cup Finals live and taped them all (yes, I'm obsessed), but let me tell you, it was no easy task especially since the games were in the middle of the night. I remember watching 4 matches straight on June 2nd from 1:30am-9:30am and I barely made it. I was literally splashing water in my face every 5 minutes just to stay awake for the Spain-Slovenia match which was the last of them that day. I couldn't imagine ever watching 5 matches in a row at night for every day in the tournament. Now, I know you mentioned that you don't have to watch every match, but then again you don't know me lol. I HAVE to watch every match as I am completely obsessed. But doing that is just insane if there is 144 matches in 6 weeks.

Plus, having 16 more nations would make life very difficult for me as I would have to write my analysis on 16 more teams (I did an analysis on the 32 teams this past World Cup and that took me about 3 months!).

Also something that has not been mentioned yet is the traffic and other problems in the host nation. Now I know this isn't as big a problem, but it still will be there. 16 more nations means 16 more nations' fans. I've heard stories of very bad traffic this past World Cup and that was with only 32 teams. This must too be considered.

Well, now I'm ranting. I'll stop now lol. I mean, some of the things you say do make sense, but i just can't see FIFA doing something like this. However, I like your speculation cause it does throw something out there to think about.

[mr magoo]

It all comes down to this.

"If your Good enough for the world cup you will qualify for the world cup"

You carnt go around offering extra places just because some country feels its getting screwed out of a place. The bottom line is if your good you will get in if your bad you wont. I know countries are getting better and i say good on them but the world cup is for the elite from every continent and offering more places means your going to get relitevly strong nations from a continent getting mauled in the world cup.

[photar74]

I was just glancing at the schedule setup for France '98, something which I admit I did not do when originally proposing my idea. I should have done it, however, because without having to worry about the rainy season, the schedule borders on perfection:

-At least three days rest for every team at every stage of the competition.
-No more than three matches any day, except for the four simultaneous kick-off days during the final set of group stage matches.
-Only six days even had three match times per day.
-33 days total, starting on the second Wednesday of June.

Sweet, beautiful, nearly perfectly symetrical stuff.

Not only was the scheduling in France excellent, it can be fairly well assumed that any 32-team Finals not held in a country or countries with wild weather swings during early summer will have equally attractive scheuling. With this in mind, some pretty major cracks--much bigger than the ones I already pointed out--are going to have to appear in the current system for expansion to 48 to become a more attractive option than the current 32-team setup.

Besides, I should have also realized that there are other ways to expand the size of the WC Finals without going beyond a 32-team finals. That sounds like an oxymoron, but removing the holder's spot has already shown one way this can be done. Thus, FIFA has found a way to expand the 2006 WC without actually expanding beyond a 32-team Finals.

This, of course, is only temporary, but for 2010 yet another ways can be found. For example, one way to appease confederations and FIFA alike in 2010 would be to replace the Confed Cup with a small, interconfederational, final round of qualifying the November before the Finals. For example, in November 2009, instead of having UEFA 14 vs AFC 5 or AFC 1 vs CONMEBOL 5 as in the current system, eight teams from the six confederations could be drawn into two groups. Then, they could play round robin in the host nation, with the top two nations in each group advancing to the finals. Thus, in 2010 allocations could look like this:

UEFA: 1st-12th auto, 13th and 14th in playoff
CAF: Host, 1st-4th auto, 5th in playoff
AFC: 1st-4th auto, 5th and 6th sin playoff
CONMEBOL: 1st-3rd auto, 4th and 5th in playoff
CONCACAF: 1st-3rd auto, 4th in playoff
OFC: 1st auto

So, there are certainly a number of bandaids that can be applied even to a 32-team finals for a number of years, even with the large problems that are certain to one day appear in it (eventually, everything changes). In fact, temporary solutions could be found to such problems to the point of not making a 48-team finals the more attractive option until 2018, 2022, or even 2026.

However, if by some miracle this board is still around in 2015 or so and we are all still posting when FIFA does in fact decide to adopt my system, don't say I didn't tell ya' so. :)

[mr magoo]

I like your way of thinking hopefully the France98 schedual will be the one used for Germany06 as it is much more viewer friendly than KoPan02.

And on the Four days where there were three games kicking off one after the other the first game of the day was always the one that nobody wanted to see for example i think of the first friday the 1:30pm(uk time) kick off was BulgariaVParaguay and then the more high profile matches where put on at Prime Time to get the most amout of viewers.