View Full Version : Should FIFA expand U-20 WC to 32 teams?
pc4th
07 Jul 2007, 02:56 AM
Should FIFA expand U-20 WC to 32 teams for 2011 U-20 WC and beyond? (2009 is too late since the 4 cities and their 6 stadiums were already picked)
For the last 6 World Cups (since Malaysia 1997) there has been 24 teams. Do you think it should be expanded to 32 teams for the 2011 WC?
Participants in 2007 U-20 WC:
Europe: 6
South America: 4
CONCACAF: 4
Asia: 4
Africa: 4
Oceania: 1
Host 1
8 spots available: give South America, CONCACAF, Asia, Africa 1 additional spot and Europe 4 additional spots. Oceania will stay at 1 (probably New Zealand)
pc4th
08 Jul 2007, 07:06 AM
Here are the teams:
Asia: North Korea, Japan, South Korea and Jordan.
Africa: Congo, Nigeria, Gambia, and Zambia.
Concacaf: U.S.A., Panama, Costa Rica, and Mexico.
Conmebol: Brasil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile.
Oceania: New Zealand.
Europe: Spain, Scotland, Portugal, Czech Republic, Poland, and Austria.
Host:Canada.
Big teams not participating like England, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, France.
I think FIFA will expand this tournament to 32 teams in the near future. Not if but when. If not 2011 then 2013 or 2015.
glennaldo_sf
08 Jul 2007, 07:15 AM
I say definitely YES!
I hate this "best third place team" getting out of the group stage and going on deep in the tourney. It really devalues the group stages. Why not 32 teams? It will not mean any extra matches for the teams involved and will simply add more teams and emerging talent to the pool - this sort of experience is excellent for developing football in regions throughout the world.
shinzui
08 Jul 2007, 09:32 AM
No, this cup should not be expanded. This tournament has been an opportunity for smaller nations to host. It only requires 4 to 6 modern stadiums, and they don't all need to be huge like the World Cup. In addition to Canada this tournament has also been hosted by the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia. The U-20s is a tournament that allows nations without the ability to host the World Cup an opportunity to put on a major tournament.
Gibraldo
08 Jul 2007, 11:25 AM
It is strange, but I really like the 24 team format with the best 4 thrid placed teams very much.
It will mean, that one single loss would not mean elimination and even a team that draws three times does not deserve to go home IMHO.
pc4th
08 Jul 2007, 09:11 PM
No, this cup should not be expanded. This tournament has been an opportunity for smaller nations to host. It only requires 4 to 6 modern stadiums, and they don't all need to be huge like the World Cup. In addition to Canada this tournament has also been hosted by the United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia. The U-20s is a tournament that allows nations without the ability to host the World Cup an opportunity to put on a major tournament.
All you need is 8 stadiums that are 10,000+ to host the tournament. Quite doable for many countries including the nations you mentioned above United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Canada.
Egypt is hosting 2009 U-20 WC. Egypt bid for 2010 World Cup, surely they have 8 stadiums.
Also, any countries that do not have the required 8 stadiums (10.000+ capacity) can build them. Their domestic soccer league could use such stadiums.
Sagy
09 Jul 2007, 01:06 AM
All you need is 8 stadiums that are 10,000+ to host the tournament. Quite doable for many countries including the nations you mentioned above United Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Canada.
Egypt is hosting 2009 U-20 WC. Egypt bid for 2010 World Cup, surely they have 8 stadiums.
Also, any countries that do not have the required 8 stadiums (10.000+ capacity) can build them. Their domestic soccer league could use such stadiums.
Good idea and good reasoning.
This would help the countries you are talking about. Will lead to overall a higher quality WC, and as an added bonus, will eliminate 3rd place team from advancing to the round of 16.
glennaldo_sf
09 Jul 2007, 09:01 AM
Another thing is this... games at this level are seldom sold out ... especially at the opening group games... games could easily be played as double headers.. they don't need to be these grandoise affairs that World Cup matches are ... you don't need that many cities like u do in tha real world cup.
flashguy
09 Jul 2007, 10:52 AM
Not necessarily, the matches in Canada are practically all Sold Out, at the exception of the games in Edmonton. Games such as North Korea and Panama had at least 20K. Nations that are starved for soccer (NOT Europe and South America) will definitely fill the stadiums. In Europe, there's world class soccer every year while countries who don't fit the prestige or capacity will only see competitive soccer once every 10-20 years Therefore regardless of how small or big the stadium, Venues for this event should always be places in Asia, North America, and Africa, Australia as well.
Another thing is this... games at this level are seldom sold out ... especially at the opening group games... games could easily be played as double headers.. they don't need to be these grandoise affairs that World Cup matches are ... you don't need that many cities like u do in tha real world cup.
JoeSoccerFan
09 Jul 2007, 02:10 PM
no, already too many bad teams. leave it the way it is.
Dwbakke
09 Jul 2007, 02:40 PM
no, already too many bad teams. leave it the way it is.
Really? Too many bad teams? I think this has been a pretty competitive tournament. Scotland, Panama, Canada and New Zealand were the only teams that were a little out of their depth, which is fewer than in a lot of senior world cups. And even New Zealand kept every game respectable, and Panama got a draw. And Canada had to be here, because they were the hosts. There were no S. Arabia '02 teams, though, or Honduras' from 05 in Holland.
I think if you add eight more, you've got to be smart where you add them from. No more from CONCACAF. Four is probably too many already. Europe should get more, though it would help if more countries there would take it seriously. Africa, definitely, could get more and there would be no more bad teams. The next four teams in Africa are at about the same level as the four that qualified, and there are a couple others as well at that level. You could add another from S. America as well. I don't think the quality of the tournament would be compromised too much by adding eight more, though.
Tigerpunk
09 Jul 2007, 05:39 PM
Only if Europe starts treating their U-20 squads the way they now treat their U-21 squads. Otherwise, not worth it.
Dwbakke
09 Jul 2007, 06:20 PM
Only if Europe starts treating their U-20 squads the way they now treat their U-21 squads. Otherwise, not worth it.
It's hard now that the U-21 championship is the same year as the U-20 World Cup. It used to be in alternate years but they switched it. So that will get most of the attention for the top teams in Europe. The U-19 championships also overlap with the U20 world cup in odd years. With so many tournaments, the best young players in Europe are spread out. It's too bad they can't find some way to get all the best players and teams at the U-20 World Cup, because I think this is the best setting to see all the world's best young players together.
So, yeah, I guess I agree with you.
napolisoccer
10 Jul 2007, 03:41 PM
Yes, 32 in World Cup Under 20 and 40 ( 8 groups with 5 teams ) in Fifa World Cup in 2014. In this way will aren't there catched again teams like Brazil after 2 defeats !!!
El_Bulla
10 Jul 2007, 10:03 PM
Change the number to 32 and make the stadium be at least 20,000. Spain and brazil shouldn't play in a 10,000 seat stadium.
leg_breaker
12 Jul 2007, 07:22 AM
Nah, make it smaller. 16 teams is about right.
MRschizoid21
12 Jul 2007, 04:54 PM
I misvoted, in a momentary lapse.
This setup is perfect. 24 teams, about equal representation from all confederations, some 3rd places qualify, knockout rounds from 16 on...
Plus, its held in some places that will probably never host the real thing (Canada, Netherlands).
JAIME CHILE
15 Jul 2007, 11:50 PM
Nah, make it smaller. 16 teams is about right.
I agree with you:cool:
pc4th
16 Jul 2007, 07:00 PM
I misvoted, in a momentary lapse.
This setup is perfect. 24 teams, about equal representation from all confederations, some 3rd places qualify, knockout rounds from 16 on...
Plus, its held in some places that will probably never host the real thing (Canada, Netherlands).
But in order to make the U-20 World Cup more popular, it needs more European teams. Some powerhouses like England, Germany, France, Italy are not in it. With 10 spots instead of 6 for UEFA, the U-20 World Cup will become more popular.
But in order to make the U-20 World Cup more popular, it needs more European teams. Some powerhouses like England, Germany, France, Italy are not in it. With 10 spots instead of 6 for UEFA, the U-20 World Cup will become more popular.
I doubt it for a couple of reasons. Firstly, Europe takes it's U21 tournament more seriously, particularly now it's played in odd years from the WC and EC. Secondly, the very top young European players don't tend to play for age-limited teams once they've graduated to the senior team. For example, Rooney never played for the England U20 or U21 team and several other of the major European nations seem to follow a similar policy.