The Solution to All WC Problems

[photar74]

Originally posted by 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.

I was wondering things along this line--would it be possible to shcedule the matches in '06 so that they fit, time-wise, into the TV viewing schedule of the nations involved. For example:

-CONCACAF and CONMEBOL nations are always given the night time slot in Germany, when its late morning or early afternoon in the Americas.

-AFC, OFC and Russia are always given the afternoon slot in Germany, when its late evening (or at least before midnight) in East Asia.

It could probably be worked out because CAF and UEFA nations, whcih combine for more than half of all nations in the WC, would be very flexible TV time-wise.

I think this would be a nice thing to do for the fans across the world.

[SJJ]

Originally posted by photar74
I was wondering things along this line--would it be possible to shcedule the matches in '06 so that they fit, time-wise, into the TV viewing schedule of the nations involved.

It could probably be worked out because CAF and UEFA nations, whcih combine for more than half of all nations in the WC, would be very flexible TV time-wise.

Not exactly sure what you are asking (did you mean to schedule the games with teams from the Americas and Africa/Asia in their prime times, because the Europeans would be more flexible?)

Anyway, remember that match logistics (including sattelite time, travel considerations, etc.) are scheduled much in the future of the event. Very little movement can occur. In Ja/Ko 2K2, wasn't there only two or (at most) four games time-shifted?

It may mean that confederations would be pre-slotted in their groups. So, the 8 (or so) teams from the Americas would be given group slot 1, the 8 (or so) Africa/Asia teams would be given slot 2, and the 16 (or so) European teams would be given slots 3 and 4.

So the draw becomes who-is-in-which-group, rather then the current who-is-in-which-group-and-what-is-their-position-in-that-group.

[Chicago76]

Fixture congestion and calendar problems aside, more fixtures may or may not mean more money.

1- 6 team groups could lead to a lot of meaningless games if the group is already decided. Four team groups seem to be a magic number. Photar mentioned not liking to see a side effectively out after their first two games. What about when 2 teams run away with a group after 3-4 rounds of group play and six more matches in a group have yet to be played for nothing?

2- How can supporters stay away from work for 6 full weeks to watch their team play? Teams with devout supporters like Brazil, Argentina and many Euros can expect that many of their travelling supporters to follow an entire tournament now, but how many people have 6 weeks of vacation? Even for those who have 6 full weeks, how many would be willing to use all of their days on the World Cup and forego the chance to take a week trip or extend family time over the holidays? Most likely we would see spotty attendance among supporters for group matches because supporters could not attend the full complement of games.

3-I realize locals could pick up some of the slack, but with so many fixture offerings would you not expect a dilution of interest on a per match basis?

Then of course there are competition issues. The World Cup is first and foremost a competition to determine the best team in the world.

What would adding teams 33-48 really accomplish? Would it change the outcome of the event? Maybe, because we could see goal difference coming into play when a mid tier team can pound the #6 Asian team by 7 goals while another only wins by 5 goals. It didn't affect the outcome of group play with Saudi Arabia and China, but would adding 16, and effectively even worse sides, to the mix increase the chances? Absolutely. As a fan, I don't want to see this affect who deserves to advance. Would this format do a better job of determining a true champion? No.

This doesn't even begin to address the Finals' effects on the qualifying process. Add 16 more places and how many does Europe get? Half probably. You expand the field this much and why even have England, Germany, Italy, Holland et al qualify? Why not give them lifetime passes? How many spots does CONMEBOL get? Two more maybe. So the number 7 CONMEBOL team now gets a playoff vs. Asia/Oceania #7? Even if you combine the Americas, with 3 more spots, who would qualify that could compete against the best? There was a pretty big drop off in talent below Honduras this time around in CONCACAF and a "lucrative" market like Canada couldn't even qualify for the hexagonal.


From a strictly economic standpoint:

Cost to Clubs and Players from Calendar Congestion + Increased Costs from Additional WC Fixtures > Additional Revenue from Additional WC Fixtures + Benefit of Marketing the Game on a Finals Stage to 16 More Nations

...You've hit the top of your utility curve at 32. The cost (at least until more of the world becomes competitive) exceeds the benefit of adding another team.

With all of these factors pointing to why the finals should not be expanded, I think in this case less is more.

We can try to make it easy and make the pie bigger to appease everyone, but we risk ruining the pie. Every other time we've had this problem, we've had the luxury or making the Finals bigger--8, 16, 24, 32. There are too many problems in making this thing any larger. It is not going to be easy to tell CONCACAF they only get 3 or 3.5 places and Asia they're crazy to even ask for 5, but it must be done.

[ferx203]

There is a simple, if seemingly excessive, solution to all of these problems: a 48 team WC. The format would become eight groups of six, round robin, as opposed to the current eight groups of four, round robin. The top team in every group would advance to the 1/8-finals. The 2nd and 3rd place teams in every group would advance to a 16-team knockout stage, the winners of which would advance to the 1/8 finals. While the tournament would last 43 days, as opposed to the current 31, we shall see that this increase would not matter and not be a bother to any of the involved parties. This is because a 48 team WC would solve everyone’s problems. Let’s break it down:

1. FIFA would be rolling in money with a 48 team WC.
2. Every confederation would have more than enough allocations.
3. A 48 team WC would require either 9 or 10 matches for the finalists and semifinalists, thereby irritating clubs. However, with 48 teams in the finals, the amount of qualifiers would be significantly reduced.
4. Small nations would be far better off, and not just because it would be easier for them to qualify.
5. Teams can recover from bad starts to the tournament.

Best of all, we could stop arguing about allocations, about bad qualifying draws, about club managers that won’t release their players, etc.,


----
Some ideas about that.

1. FIFA would be rolling in money with a 48 team WC.
- A group of 3 teams with 2 qualified to next round is the better system because you don´t have irrelevant games, every game means something.
- First Round with 16 groups of 3. First and second advance. Every game is important for 1º, 2º or 3º place.
- Next Rounds with knockout stages (32-16-8-4-2-1).
- 16 additional countries (and markets) increase the money for FIFA.
- 16 additional games (round of 32).

2. Every confederation would have more than enough allocations.
- First, you can merge AFC with OFC (Asia-Pacific) and Conmebol with Concacaf (Americas).
- Allocations : Asia-Pacific 8, Africa, 8, Europe 20, Americas 12.
- Host and Holder are included in these allocations.
- The confederations host the World Cup every 16 years.
- End of discussions about allocations and small confederations (Conmebol, OFC).

3. A 48 team WC would require either 9 or 10 matches for the finalists and semifinalists, thereby irritating clubs. However, with 48 teams in the finals, the amount of qualifiers would be significantly reduced.
- Europe : 10 groups of 5/6 teams. First and second qualify. 8/10 games.
- Americas : 2 Preliminary rounds for reduce to 24 teams. Final Round with 6 groups of 4. First and second qualify. 6/8/10 games.
- Asia-Pacific : 2 Preliminary rounds for reduce to 16 teams. Final Round with 4 groups of 4. First and second qualify. 6/8/10 games.
- Africa : 2 Preliminary rounds for reduce to 16 teams. Final Round with 4 groups of 4. First and second qualify. 6/8/10 games.

4. Small nations would be far better off, and not just because it would be easier for them to qualify.
- Middle/Small countries with chances for qualifying.
- Europe :Ukraine, Norway, Wales, Poland.
- Americas : Honduras, Chile, Peru, Trinidad, Jamaica.
- Asia-Pacific : Iran, Australia, New Zealand, Iraq, Uzbekistan.
- Africa : Ghana, Ivory Coast, Egypt, Zimbabwe.

5. Teams can recover from bad starts to the tournament.
- A group of 3 with 2 qualifying to next round. You can lose or draw the first game, but in the second game you win and qualify. Next rounds are knockouts.

[sdiyes]

There is a simple, if seemingly excessive, solution to all of these problems: a 48 team WC. The format would become eight groups of six, round robin, as opposed to the current eight groups of four, round robin. The top team in every group would advance to the 1/8-finals. The 2nd and 3rd place teams in every group would advance to a 16-team knockout stage, the winners of which would advance to the 1/8 finals. While the tournament would last 43 days, as opposed to the current 31, we shall see that this increase would not matter and not be a bother to any of the involved parties. This is because a 48 team WC would solve everyone’s problems. Let’s break it down:

1. FIFA would be rolling in money with a 48 team WC. First, it could open new markets all around the world. Second, a 48-team WC every four years would have more games than a two 32 team WCs every four years (144-128). Third, all forty-eight nations represented would have five guaranteed games--can you imagine the TV audience for the first round of matches? Overall, it would be such a cash cow for FIFA that FIFA probably wouldn’t even care that no one cares the World Club Championships or the Confederations Cup.

2. Every confederation would have more than enough allocations. A simple breakdown could be: UEFA 20.0, CAF 7.0, AFC 6.5, CONCACAF 6.0, CONMEBOL 6.0, OFC 1.5, Host 1.0 (If there is more than one host, simply subtract the number of hosts over 1.0 from the host confederation’s total allocations. An example would be: Japan and South Korea both from AFC = 1.0 more than 1.0, which means 5.5 for AFC plus hosts). It is hard to imagine any confederation complaining about these allocations (except, perhaps, AFC). Even if they did, it’s hard to imagine a situation where there wouldn’t be any easy compromise worked out. We’re talking about a huge number of allocations here.

3. A 48 team WC would require either 9 or 10 matches for the finalists and semifinalists, thereby irritating clubs. However, with 48 teams in the finals, the amount of qualifiers would be significantly reduced. This would be great for clubs, since qualifiers take place during the club season in most countries. In fact, qualifiers and friendlies are the real sticking points in the club vs. country struggle, not WC finals or continental finals. Clubs would actually get to keep their players for more time with a 48 team WC than with a 32 team WC because there would be fewer qualifiers in a 48 team WC than with a 32 team WC. In a WC year, the European season would need to end one week early and start three weeks late, but the time gained by clubs through reduced qualifiers would far outweigh this concession.

4. Small nations would be far better off, and not just because it would be easier for them to qualify. With 48 teams, who would really care if there were two hosts? Three hosts? Hell, why not have four hosts? Under this format, you would vastly increase the number of nations that could be WC hosts, simply because multiple hosting wouldn’t be a problem. The cool thing is that you would still only need twelve venues (twelve matches in each venue would be enough).

5. Teams can recover from bad starts to the tournament. I feel that this not only gives all teams more chances, but also it reduces the possibility of “fluke” wins or bad calls ruining a team’s WC run. This is, of course, not even to mention the vast amounts of money that can be wrought from having five group matches for each of the 48 qualifiers, instead of three matches for each of the 32 qualifiers.

Best of all, we could stop arguing about allocations, about bad qualifying draws, about club managers that won’t release their players, etc., and just sit back and enjoy the greatest six weeks every four years has to offer. Sure, qualifying would be easier, but it wouldn’t be a given, even for top nations (Netherlands and Yugoslavia would both still have not qualified, and the USA would have sweated a lot as the Barbados game would have been for all the marbles. Costa Rica would have worried even more).

A 48 team WC is to the benefit of everyone. If soccer is going to continue to expand worldwide, then its premier tournament also needs to expand. The current size of 32 has already proved to be too small (see the confederation struggle for more places as an example). Expand the game. Expand the World Cup.

I think your idea based on the reasons you stated a farily good one. For example in the Rugby World Cup they had four groups of 5 teams each and everyone got to play 4 matches. In this format everyone instead of having only 3 matches would get to play 5 and more players would get a taste of international experience. One of the few draw backs is that if expand to 48 teams would it end there or would it just keep going. The only changes from yours I would consider is if we consider the poor performance of Asian Teams except for South Korea at the last World Cup(granted Japan qualified for the knockout round but because they were a joint host they got put into the weakest bracket where they could not help but qualify) can not see how they even now can be justified getting more slots than CONCAF. Only difference I would suggest is reducing AFC to 6 and maybe UEFA to 19.5 and increasing CAF to 8.5 or 9 if OFC Reduced to 1. Overall think this is a good suggestion and maybe I have to much time on my hands or am overthinking but thought your proposal made some sense which is why FIFA who is more concerned about players high fiving fans or celebrating goals would not consider anything like you suggested

[SJJ]

Interesting reading this two-year-old post. Although I couldn't figure out if the Photar's purpose is to eliminate the "lose your first two games and you're out" situation, or to increase the TV slots or to fix inequeties in qualification.

Anyhow, I do kind of like the idea of 24 teams in the knockout rounds. It adds some drama in that finishing first over second gives you an advantage of having a "bye" in the round-of-24.

So I do like having eight groups, with three teams in each advancing, but it seems more managable with 40 teams instead of 48. The first round now becomes 80 games (currently 48, or 120 in the 6-groups-of-8 original proposal).

Yes, I know that one team in each group would be finished by the last day of group play. Hopefully, the "match fixing" of past years will remain in the past. (It helps that the first tie-breaker is now head-to-head, instead of overall goal differential.)

With the complaints of too many TV games on each day (somewhat corrected by Photar's second go-around), an 80-match schedule can be played in 20 days, having four matches on weekend days, and three on weekdays (two or four on the last matchday):

(sat) A-A-B-B [that means, two matches from group A, two from group B]; (sun) C-C-D-D; (mon) E-E-F; (tue) F-G-G; (wed) H-H-A; (thu) A-B-B; (fri) C-C-D;

(sat) D-E-E-F; (sun) F-G-G-H; (mon) H-A-A; (tue) B-B-C; (wed) C-D-D; (thu) E-E-F; (fri) F-G-G;

[at this point, we've played four matchdays, except for group H. the fifth needs the two matches from a group at the same time]

(sat) H-H-A-A; (sun) B-B-C-C; (mon) D-D; (tue) E-E; (wed) F-F-G-G; (thu) H-H; (fri) OFF

Each team get at least three off days (sometimes four) between games. Plus, each team will have one "extended" layaway when their "idle" date falls in the schedule.

Knockouts rounds:

(sat) four games in the round-of-24; (sun) four games R-24

I see the knockout rounds looking something like:

(1) B2-F3, winner plays A1
(2) D2-H3, winner plays C1
(3) F2-B3, winner plays E1
(4) H2-D3, winner plays G1
(5) A2-E3, winner plays B1
(6) C2-G3, winner plays D1
(7) E2-A3, winner plays F1
(8) G2-C3, winner plays H1

If you sketched this into a bracket linearly like I listed it, you'll get the QF, SF, and Final round matchups. [Example: (winner of 1) plays (2); (3) plays (4); one semi-final is (1-2) playing (3-4)]

If all the #2 teams beat the #3 teams in the second-round (R-24) game, then the tournament falls into the 16-team setup as now. A #1 and #2 team from the same group can't meet until the final. A #2 and #3 team from the same group can't meet until the semi-final.

(tue) (wed) (thu) Round of 16 games (three or two games each day)

(sat) (sun) Quarterfinals (two each day)

(wed) (thu) Semi-finals (one each day)

(sun) Third place, final

I count this as 37 calendar days. Not bad for increasing the whole tournament, and adding eight more teams to the knockout phase, while keeping the TV viewing somewhat managable for human beings.

[Power_of_foot]

48 teams are too little.
How about 64 teams in WC.
All they have to do is have just one more stage when two out of four teams qualify after the group stage.

Sounds great huh?

----
Some ideas about that.

1. FIFA would be rolling in money with a 48 team WC.
- A group of 3 teams with 2 qualified to next round is the better system because you don´t have irrelevant games, every game means something.
- First Round with 16 groups of 3. First and second advance. Every game is important for 1º, 2º or 3º place.
- Next Rounds with knockout stages (32-16-8-4-2-1).
- 16 additional countries (and markets) increase the money for FIFA.
- 16 additional games (round of 32).

2. Every confederation would have more than enough allocations.
- First, you can merge AFC with OFC (Asia-Pacific) and Conmebol with Concacaf (Americas).
- Allocations : Asia-Pacific 8, Africa, 8, Europe 20, Americas 12.
- Host and Holder are included in these allocations.
- The confederations host the World Cup every 16 years.
- End of discussions about allocations and small confederations (Conmebol, OFC).

3. A 48 team WC would require either 9 or 10 matches for the finalists and semifinalists, thereby irritating clubs. However, with 48 teams in the finals, the amount of qualifiers would be significantly reduced.
- Europe : 10 groups of 5/6 teams. First and second qualify. 8/10 games.
- Americas : 2 Preliminary rounds for reduce to 24 teams. Final Round with 6 groups of 4. First and second qualify. 6/8/10 games.
- Asia-Pacific : 2 Preliminary rounds for reduce to 16 teams. Final Round with 4 groups of 4. First and second qualify. 6/8/10 games.
- Africa : 2 Preliminary rounds for reduce to 16 teams. Final Round with 4 groups of 4. First and second qualify. 6/8/10 games.

4. Small nations would be far better off, and not just because it would be easier for them to qualify.
- Middle/Small countries with chances for qualifying.
- Europe :Ukraine, Norway, Wales, Poland.
- Americas : Honduras, Chile, Peru, Trinidad, Jamaica.
- Asia-Pacific : Iran, Australia, New Zealand, Iraq, Uzbekistan.
- Africa : Ghana, Ivory Coast, Egypt, Zimbabwe.

5. Teams can recover from bad starts to the tournament.
- A group of 3 with 2 qualifying to next round. You can lose or draw the first game, but in the second game you win and qualify. Next rounds are knockouts.

[SJJ]

I now realize that I messed up the arithmetic on my last post. I only had 8 games per group, when I should have had ten, in my 40-team setup. I'll have to go through the scheduling again; it should add another week to the calendar (about 44 days total).

[mfw13]

With all due respect to all the people who have posted detailed and intelligent threads on this topic, I have a simple question.....WHY?

Keep in mind that since the beginning of the modern era of the World Cup (1954, the first full 16-team tournament) exactly 10 countries have made it to the Final, and exactly 22 countries have made it to the Semifinals. In any given year, there are no more than 8-10 countries that are serious threats to win the tournament. So why would anyone want to expand the tournament beyond its current 32-team format (which one could argue is already too big)?

Host countries already have to give away tickets to less glamorous matches, a problem that would only increase if the tournament became bigger. Let's face reality here...there isn't going to be a lot of ticket demand for those thrilling Bolivia-Uzbekistan, Slovenia-Honduras, or Lativa-Ivory Coast matches.

The simple fact is that outside of UEFA and to a lesser extent South America, the depth is non-existent. In 2002, the 3rd and 4th best Asian teams (China & Saudi Arabia) combined to score 0 goals and allow 21. Africa has never gotten more than one team into the second round. No CONCACAF team other than Mexico and the USA has ever made the quarterfinals.

So why would anyone want to add even more teams that have no chance at winning the title than already make it in? Let's not forget, the purpose of the whole exercise is to determine a champion, not to have a party!

[SJJ]

Then, mfw13, you must love the Confederations Cup. Only the continental champions get in, plus two extra. You skip all that round of 32 and round of 16 stuff. You get right to only the teams who can realistically win the competition.

The World Cup is not only about who can win it, or who can make the finals. It's about the fourth-string countries who try to make one big belly flop to get into the World Cup ocean. It's about the third-string countries who try to get one toe into the WC pool. It's about the second-string countries who try to solidify their position as someone to watch in the starting blocks. THEN it's about the top tier countries who try for the Gold, Silver, and Bronze.

[Gordon EF]

Then, mfw13, you must love the Confederations Cup. Only the continental champions get in, plus two extra. You skip all that round of 32 and round of 16 stuff. You get right to only the teams who can realistically win the competition.

The World Cup is not only about who can win it, or who can make the finals. It's about the fourth-string countries who try to make one big belly flop to get into the World Cup ocean. It's about the third-string countries who try to get one toe into the WC pool. It's about the second-string countries who try to solidify their position as someone to watch in the starting blocks. THEN it's about the top tier countries who try for the Gold, Silver, and Bronze.

Exactly, so why devalue the tournament by letting in utter dross?

[mfw13]

SJJ...no, the Confedaeration Cup is crap, for more reasons than I care to talk about here.

My point is that once you get beyond 32 teams, you start to get "dross", as Gordon puts it; matches that have no possible bearing on who is going to win the tournament, and which no neutral fan is going to pay good money to see. I don't know if you have ever been to a World Cup (I've been to the last three), but host countries always have to give away tickets in order to fill up stadiums for the non-glamour matches. The Koreans and Japanese had to give away tickets for almost half the first round matches in order to make the stadiums look reasonably full. The simple fact is that for many World Cup matches there simply isn't enough demand to sell 35,000+ tickets, someting that would only get worse if the proportion of non-glamour matches was increased.

[Power_of_foot]

I liked 2002 better 1966 and 1974

England could easily cope with a 48 team World Cup. We are the only country in Europe that is continuing to build new stadia. Besides, the 2014 tournament would co-incide quite nicley with the 150th anniversary of the FA, and therefore football as we know it.

That said, I'm with you on every other point. It's only a natural progression to expand the World Cup as more and more nations improve. Who knows what the quality will be like in 12 years time? If someone had told you in 1990 that USA would reach the quarter finals and Korea and Turkey the semis then you would have had them sent to some sort of asylum.

[Trussy in Oz]

G'day One and All,

After hearing today that the South American confederation is considering changing it qualifying structure for 2010, to two groups of five with the top three progressing into a six team mini league then the fifth placed side, the one that would normally play Australia would be found out sooner, therefore the suggestion of a mini league between all of the half place teams begins to become a real possibility.
Australia plays home and away against Asia first two games meanwhile north and South America have their home and away fixtures.
Then we have the Americas in Asia/ Australia following the fifa Saturday and Tuesday format, followed by Asia and Australia in south/north America, or the other way round, personally I would prefer Australia to play away in south America first, your hardest fixture first, then you know what you have to do next to qualify.
Group of four half place teams, home and away, top two go direct to South Africa, which I have a feeling it will be a very special event, when Nelson Mandala, hands over the trophy to Brazil once again.

[SJJ]

My point is that once you get beyond 32 teams, you start to get "dross", as Gordon puts it; matches that have no possible bearing on who is going to win the tournament

But you are someone who is only concerened with the top-8 teams. Your original posting quoted statistics about the finalists, semi-finalists, and a bit of quarterfinalists. (That's why I posted the bit about the Confederations Cup, which IS a top-8 tournament.)

You may not care about every team, but there are followers of every team that does make it, and you can even root for your continent if your own team isn't in a certain game.

Another thing, if the WC doesn't have these teams in there, how are they ever going to play some top teams? They would never get scheduled as friendlies. (Would people ever talk about Cameroon if not for their Cup run? You probably wouldn't have wanted them there in the first play.)

OK, so EVERY match may not be so glamorous. Not every country would be able to fill a 3.5M ticket allotment (which would increase to about 5.0M+ in a 40-team tournament). What's really so bad about that? Do you need EVERY seat filled in EVERY game to call it a success?

[bobarino]

With all due respect to all the people who have posted detailed and intelligent threads on this topic, I have a simple question.....WHY?IMHO, the simple answer is money. FIFA and its members are also a business, and by expanding the product, they create more customers and marketing opportunities for the world's greatest tournament. Tickets are not the only source of revenue. Although tickets are one of the largest producers of cash for FIFA, they are only a one-time supply of funding. Marketing, licensing, broadcast and sponsorship agreements, with an expanded playing pool of countries, presents FIFA and its members with the gift of a growing cash source that keeps on giving.

[Power_of_foot]

WC 98 was memorable one too.
Esp, French performance was great.
Although, Guivarach was scoreless and Dugarry had only one single goal,
Frech achievement was miracle.
Most memorable game was against Italy and Brazil.
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. :)

[scaryice]

32 teams is perfect. Each continent gets several teams, and the level of competition is still pretty high; only a few of the teams in 2002 were pretty bad. Also, the 8 groups, 16 teams in the knockout phase, that is the perfect setup. Any expansion makes it complicated and requires byes or groups with different numbers of teams advancing, which makes the draw way too important. You could have a 40 team World Cup with 8 groups of 5, but then all teams couldn't play on the final day, and you would have more meaningless games (if only 2 teams advanced). Bottom line, keep it the way it is.

[Andy TAUS]

Each continent gets several teams, and the level of competition is still pretty highWrong, wrong, wrong.

I won't open up the crappy position of Oceania wrt this statement, other than to point out that it's rather stupid to generalise in this way, in order to support a factually incorrect & weak argument.

Post something that's not blatantly incorrect, then I might accept your position as credible !!!

:rolleyes:

[SJJ]

You could have a 40 team World Cup with 8 groups of 5, but then all teams couldn't play on the final day, and you would have more meaningless games (if only 2 teams advanced).

The "all teams not playing on the final day" is a deal-breaker for you? The original idea was to expand the WC to 48 teams; I tried to take the middle ground and scale it to 40. I did note that one team would have to sit on the final matchday, but hoped that everyone wasn't so up-tight to not consider it. (And you would still have four teams playing at the same time, unlike the old days where the two teams would know the standings of ALL other teams in their group.) And the new head-to-head tie-breaker format will cut down on the goal-gorging to try to sway the GD tie-breaker.

If you have three teams advance from a group, it would make more matches meaningful: the top teams would play for the second-round bye, and no-one is really eliminated if they lose their first two games.