40 teams in the future of the World Cup

[napolisoccer]

Football is always more the most important sport in the whole world.It is growing also where isn't the number one sport:USA, CANADA, AUSTRALIA, INDIA .... The World Cup is in absolute the greatest televisive event on the earth and in my opinion is necessary to organize a World Cup with 40 teams and to do the divisions by 5 teams indeed 4. Are you agree?

[schmuckatelli]

When the number of participant increases, there is always the concern that the competition becomes "watered down." This was the concern when the World Cup went from 16 to 24 teams, and more recently from 24 to 32 teams. Of course, there is always the element of surprise, but you have to wonder what the other 8 teams would bring to the party. Would they be only marginal participants, or would they truly add spice?

The other problem that your suggestion creates is a logistics problem. With 5 teams in each group, it would add days to the group phase of a competition that is already lengthy, because one team must be idle while the other four play.

If it were my decision, I would not increase the number of teams involved.

[leonidas]

I wouldnt increase it either.

Personally, I think the World Cup is fine the way it is. One thing that makes the World Cup one of the best tournaments in the world is its level of play. Really, it can't be matched. Of the 32 teams in there, you could probably say that really only 2 or 3 dont deserve to be there. That in itself is amazing. Each team will have a star player and some other quality players. All FIFA really needs to do is draw comparisons with the leagues here in the US. One just need look at some of the World Cup groups from 2002, in particular, France's, which also featured Uruguay, Senegal, and Denmark. By drawing comparisons with various leagues in the US, we can see how over-expansion hurts the level of play and general appeal of the league. The NFL, the American football league, is crap in my opinion at the moment. Really, there are only about 3 or 4 excellent teams out of the whole lot... The NFL of today is no where near as good as the NFL of even 5 years ago. Hockey and baseball have also been hurt by over-expansion. Both leagues in particular have discussed in recent years the contraction, or elimination of several teams. The MLS has already had to deal with overexpansion when they eliminated both of the teams in Florida. Only now is the MLS capable of expanding, and to be honest, I'd be careful.

The increase from 24 to 32 teams in 1998 was a good move by FIFA. But now, I"m not so sure if it's a wise idea to expand beyond that. First, there is the problem with the knock-out stage itself. 16 teams going to the next round works. It's mathematically even with the top two teams in each group moving on. Adding more teams wiill be a problem. Do we want to end up just like Asia and Africa, where in particular group stages, only the top team goes on? Or will we have it that maybe the two best teams overall do not play in the second round and only begin play in the quarter finals? Or will we have 40 teams and 8 groups of 5? That could work, but I think asking teams to play an extra game is a problem. We might end up seeing good teams such as Brazil or England resting some of their top players if they have to play a "meaningless" game against some minnow team. If I were a paying fan and I didnt get to see the likes of Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Owen, and Lampard, I'd be pissed. And I guess more importantly is the financial factor. We can look to Korea/Japan for the World Cup and Greece for the Olympics. These nations invested billions of dollars in constructing and organzing these events. What do we see in Korea and Japan? Well, some of these stadiums are rarely used now. And I guess it's important to look at Greece especially. The country isnt one of the wealthiest and is in significant debt right now after the Olympics. A lot of the fascilities are gathering dust as we speak. With the current continental World Cup host rotation, can we expect poorer nations like South Africa and Brazil to construct or modify stadiums to fit more teams? Does a game featuring Qatar and Togo or something have an appeal to local fans, especially ones who can maybe only afford to watch a top game? I'm gonna say no on this one. Just look at Korea/Japan again, where I remember several of the lower-key matches that had a fair amount of empty seats. These fans could likely have afforded to go to the match. The same can't be said of South Africa and Brazil. As much of a football fan that I am, I can't say I'd be willing to spend even $60 to go to a game such as this one. I'd probably watch it if it were on television, but then again, can we say that most people would? Probably not. And the fact that there is a small audience for a particular game will affect advertising revenues and whatnot.

This issue definitely won't be put to rest. I remember a few weeks ago after the qualifications were complete, the AFC president was clammoring for more spots already. I think it's inevitable that we will see some sort of increase. I'm not for it. I would still rather see some of the top teams who failed to qualify than Bahrain and Uzbekistan, even in a 40 team tournament. These arguments have been beaten to death already though. hah.

[MoRado]

32 teams are fine

[IASocFan]

32 teams are fine

Absolutely. 40 is a messy number. How about 64 teams. Or 208 teams and we can do away with qualifying!

[Zviggy]

Should stay 32 teams. Its fine the way it is.

[robby241]

32 teams is a solid number. i think it fairly ensures that we are getting an excellent competition that produces a worthy champion. where would you propose allocating another 8 places to?

[Timanfaya]

...is necessary to organize a World Cup with 40 teams and to do the divisions by 5 teams indeed 4. Are you agree?

No. 16 is a great number for a tournament, but that would just exclude too many worthy teams. 32 already produces too many matches, but we try our best to watch them all and remember what's been happening. It's only every 4 years so we can make the effort.

40 teams? When would we go to work or eat?

[USAClash]

The further you increase the number of teams, the more difficult it becomes for countries to be able to host the event. I think pretty much everyone is in agreement that the even is great as it is. If any changes are made, they should probably be done to the qualifying procedure, which is pretty good how it is anyway.

[ursula]

No. 16 is a great number for a tournament, but that would just exclude too many worthy teams. 32 already produces too many matches, but we try our best to watch them all and remember what's been happening. It's only every 4 years so we can make the effort.

40 teams? When would we go to work or eat?


Can't be much of a fan if you worry about such petty things as sleeping or eating. :)


Seriously, I can imagine expanding to 40 teams.... eventually. Right now though the quality would suffer too much. We are already seeing teams such as China in 02 who shouldn't have been there and that will continue for awhile longer. But eventually (a few decades at least) the quality of soccer in various countries will go up ebnough that 40 teams would be doable from a quality standpoint.

[scaryice]

32 is the perfect number. It works out perfectly with 2/4 teams advancing to the final 16, and all teams in a group playing on the final day. Plus, there are plenty of weaker teams in the tournament now, so let's not invite any more.

[glennaldo_sf]

32 is a magic number. We have a nice blend of world class giants, decent up and coming teams, plus a couple of possible cinderella stories. It is also, more importantly, a number that lies in the multiplication sequence of 2 - so the 32 teams can turn into 2 finalists by eliminating half of the other teams left after each round ;) . This way we avoid the stupid scenario of third placed group teams reaching the final - as did happen in 90 and 94. Forty teams is not only too many teams but also too many games. The world cup is long enough as it is. Keep it as it is.

[spaolo]

I liked it better when there was 24. Remember half the joy of the WC are the qualifiers. If you increase to too many teams then you make the qualifiers that more meaningless.

[Jegao Paraiba]

The World Cup already has something on the order of 205 teams in a 2+ tear tournament.

32 teams in the finals is a good number. What we're discussing is whether you should eliminate 173 or 165 teams before the big show.

It's perfedtly fine to eliminate 173.

Where I would make the adjustment is in the way (some) continental zones (UEFA) conducts their qualification for the finals spots they are allocated.