World Cup Expansion to 48 Teams (Update: FIFA Council Agrees 2026 Slot Allocation)

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by shizzle787, Dec 4, 2015.

  1. Paul Calixte

    Paul Calixte Moderator
    Staff Member

    Orlando City SC
    Apr 30, 2009
    Miami, FL
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That could leave a bunch of pointless games at the end, which the Caribbean wants to avoid - hence the change from the WC14 qualifying format with the first group stage and only one team moving on to the Wc18 one with all playoffs before the semifinal round.

    I presume this would mean only one Gold Cup per cycle...which may happen anyways, as anything in football beyond 2022 is a toss-up at this point. But considering Montagliani's comments about getting the smaller teams in CONCACAF more games, I don't see a giant single-group final round happening.

    Highly doubt this ever happens, as it would be disastrous for them economically.

    If this were to happen, then: poor, poor Belize... :D
     
  2. Footsatt

    Footsatt Member+

    Apr 8, 2008
    Michigan
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This was when there was 3.5 spots out of 6 teams advancing... in 2026 WCQ the Caribbean teams could have a chance with 6.5 teams out of 12 teams making it. 5 teams will play a lot of games and not make it, but the bottom 23 teams in the region will be out already. The losing 23 only play 4 games... this should appease the weaker teams of not playing to many games.
     
  3. Blondo

    Blondo Member+

    Sep 21, 2013
    African nations want 10 places at expanded competition - bbc.com

    That's CAF +100% ... to compare Uefa seeks +23% and Conmebol +33% (it's 20% really as the interconfed play-off usually goes their way)
     
  4. JLSA

    JLSA Member

    Nov 11, 2003
    Regardless of the "fairness" or "deservedness", you have to admit that the following split (based on taking the 1/2 places from Asia and Concacaf and adding them to CAF's earlier 9 to give)
    UEFA 16 - CAF 10 - AFC 8 - Conmebol 6 - Concacaf 6 - OFC 1 - Host 1
    would be far easier to arrange in terms of final round qual groups in confederations
    CAF - 5 groups of 4, AFC 4 groups of 4, Concacaf 3 groups of 4
    9, 8.5 and 6.5 seem really awkward to me in terms of how you structure without multiple play-offs at the end (which pushes the earlier matches - and hence competitive fixtures for teams that do qualify relatively easily - further away from the finals tournament)
    Clearly this point is irrelevant for South America and Oceania. UEFA could go 10 groups, winners + 2 best 2nds + 4 playoff winnners.

    J
     
  5. almango

    almango Member+

    Sydney FC
    Australia
    Nov 29, 2004
    Bulli, Australia
    Club:
    Sydney FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Australia
    I'm surprised UEFA has kept its bid for extra spots so low. Maybe they will soon expand the Euro to 32 teams as compensation. I would rather see a 32 team Euro than a 24 team one. The average quality of teams will drop but that will be made up for by the fact you cant draw (and bore) your way to the knockout round with any confidence.
     
  6. Blondo

    Blondo Member+

    Sep 21, 2013
    In case of a 32 team Euro you could as well invite the best sides from around the world (sorry Scotland you still won't get in) ... I'm betting it would be better than Infantino's 48 team nonsense ... I'd prefer that Ceferin restores the 16 team Euros though ... Nations League looks promising ... especially as it will replace meaningless friendlies ... some changes are for the better and I can get behind the Nations League one ... a 16x3 WC still disgusts me and I'll probably end up watching a lot less of it.
     
  7. Datderfranny

    Datderfranny Member

    Apr 1, 2015
    Detroit, MI
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    COMMEBOL should get at least 7 in a 48 team world cup and frankly it’s silly that they only get 4.5 in the current format. The average COMMEBOL nation is FAR better than the average nation from any other federation, including UEFA. And no, the whole argument of “cheapening” the COMMEBOL World Cup Qualifying stage is not enough justification to short justifiable allocation for the federation.

    Hopefully it looks something like this:

    UEFA 16

    CAF 9.5

    COMMEBOL 7.5

    Oceania 1

    CONCACAF 5.5

    AFC 6.5

    1 Host

    In the case of two hosts, which I think will happen more frequently (and should), I would think that the hosting confederation should relinquish at least a half spot, or a even one whole spot. What I mean is, only the first spot is free when there are two hosts. So example, if the US and Canada dual host 2026, Concacaf would only get 4.5 in addition to the US and Canada, not 5.5 + the 2 hosts, which would still be a nice boon for the confederation.

    EDIT: Throughout this argument, I’ve been a proponent for the expansion of the world cup, but I am not a big fan of 3 team groups, mainly because two games is too short a group stage for me. At this point, I hope they move up to a 64 team world cup rather quickly, and make 2 and even 3 host nation cups mandatory.
     
  8. Footsatt

    Footsatt Member+

    Apr 8, 2008
    Michigan
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #2583 Footsatt, Feb 23, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2017
    It looks like FIFA wants co-hosts for 2026. They mention to ideally have 3-4 hosts for each WC. How will they handle the allocation?...

    My guess is the host Confed will get 1 extra spot for hosting. The host countries will have to take spots from their allocation for the other 2 or 3 spots. For example, lets say CONCACAF is host and usually gets 6 spots, then if they were host they get 7.

    It could look like this...

    MEX - Host
    USA - Host
    CAN - Host
    4 extra spots for the rest of CONCACAF to battle over.

    These numbers are obviously hypothetical, but I just cant see any region getting 3 or 4 extra spots when hosting.
     
  9. Footsatt

    Footsatt Member+

    Apr 8, 2008
    Michigan
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Here is the article...
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-soccer-africa-idUSKBN16126T

    It seems they are still negotiating allocation spots, but this what the article states.

    10 for Africa (was 5)
    16 for Euro (was 13) - they hope to have 1 Euro team in each of the 16, 3 team groups.
    8 or 9 for Asia (was 4.5)
    6 for S. America (was 4.5)
    6.5 for CONCACAF (was 3.5)
    1 for Oceania (was .5)
    1 for Host

    The math in the article does not add up. The total is 48.5 to 49.5.

    My guess is more like this...
    9.5 for Africa
    15.5 for Euro
    8.5 for Asia
    6.5 for S. America
    5.5 for CONCACAF
    1.5 for Oceania
    1 for Host

    This equals 48 and it keeps the half spots for playoffs.
     
  10. Blondo

    Blondo Member+

    Sep 21, 2013
    Africa demands 10 but they'll probably settle for 9 or 8.5 (AFC being handed 9 if CAF receive 8.5) and I doubt that OFC gets 1.5 (have to wait and see) ... it could be:

    9 for Africa (was 5)
    16 for Euro (was 13)
    8.5 for Asia (was 4.5)
    6 for S. America (was 4.5)
    6.5 for CONCACAF (was 3.5)
    1 for Oceania (was .5)
    1 for Host

    Conmebol with less spots than Concacaf ... really should merge, at least the Qs.
     
  11. Pipiolo

    Pipiolo Member+

    Jul 19, 2008
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Ridiculous that Concacaf should have more spots than Conmebol. Political correctness gone astray.
     
  12. dinamo_zagreb

    dinamo_zagreb Member+

    Jun 27, 2010
    San Jose, CA / Zagreb, Croatia
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    Croatia
    Africa has disgraceful success since last expansion. I really love African football, but their performances are disgraceful and they don't even deserve 5 spots in 32-team format.

    26 appearances, 20 eliminations in group stage (1998-2014), two times reached quarters. 17 wins, 24 draws, 45 defeats in 86 matches.

    FIFA is killing the game. :geek:
     
  13. Paul Calixte

    Paul Calixte Moderator
    Staff Member

    Orlando City SC
    Apr 30, 2009
    Miami, FL
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not the term I would use...politics over football is more like it.
     
    Pipiolo repped this.
  14. Footsatt

    Footsatt Member+

    Apr 8, 2008
    Michigan
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I just don't see how this new format will kill the game...

    More teams from the weaker regions and the better regions will go to the WC now, allowing more countries to watch and celebrate. But the groups should be easier now too, with 2 teams out of 3 from each group advancing. This new format should eliminate all the weak teams in the group stage and more of the better teams will advance to the knockouts. If one of these bottom 16 teams do advance then they are advancing past a top 32 team (in theory anyway).

    Lets assume this hypothetical allocation...
    16 for Euro
    9 for CAF
    8 for AFC
    7 for CONMEBOL
    7 for CONCACAF (+1 for the host)
    1 for Oceania

    The hypothetical top 32...
    All 16 of Euro, 7 of CONMEBOL, 3 from CONCACAF, 3 from CAF and 2 from AFC, 1 for Oceania
    The above teams should be the teams that advance to the knockouts. Assuming Euro teams cant face Euros and CONMEBOL teams cant face each other either in the group stage.

    The bottom 16 teams that are hypothetical eliminated in the group are...
    4 from CONCACAF, 6 from CAF, 6 from AFC
     
  15. almango

    almango Member+

    Sydney FC
    Australia
    Nov 29, 2004
    Bulli, Australia
    Club:
    Sydney FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Australia
    Whilst you wont be too far off I would be very surprised if all European teams advanced. Not because I think they are weak, but that with so many teams and the time gap between qualifying and the tournament there will be one or two who will drop off performance wise in that time. Look what happened to Leicester City in 12 months.
     
  16. Footsatt

    Footsatt Member+

    Apr 8, 2008
    Michigan
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I agree. There will be some upsets, but the quality teams will advance most of the time. And with 2 out of 3 advancing there will be less quality sides not advancing like Spain or Italy in 2014.
     
  17. JLSA

    JLSA Member

    Nov 11, 2003
    But that is advancing to the last 32 - which is where Spain and Italy did get to in 2014. After that it's just knock-out, so (assuming knock-out is more volatile that groups of 4) you might expect more quality sides to fail to make the last 16 than in the current set-up.

    J
     
    AlbertCamus and Pipiolo repped this.
  18. msilverstein47

    msilverstein47 Member+

    Jan 11, 1999
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    http://www.socceramerica.com/article/72417/plenty-of-berths-in-expanded-world-cup-will-keep-e.html

    The Confederation of African Football is holding a summit in Johannesburg, where the primary topic of conversation is the upcoming CAF election that could unseat longtime president Issa Hayatou, but Africa leaders are also pressing Infantino on the issue of the World Cup.

    “All associations back the idea to expand the World Cup," South African Danny Jordaan told Reuters, "and there is the hope that Africa can have 10 places in future."
     
  19. Footsatt

    Footsatt Member+

    Apr 8, 2008
    Michigan
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #2594 Footsatt, Feb 24, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2017
    No, Spain and Italy didn't advance to the last 16 in 2014. The knockouts currently only have 16.

    The new system, the knockouts will have 32. 16 groups with second and first place advancing equals 32 teams in the knockouts.

    Why will it be more volatile then groups of 4? 2 out of 3 teams will advance, opposed to 2 out of 4. And there will be 16 more teams that are weaker which will round out the groups and make all the groups slightly weaker then the current system.

    Every 3 team group should have at least 1 team like this in it...
    AFC:
    Uzbekistan
    UAE
    Australia
    Japan
    Saudi Arabia
    China
    CONCACAF:
    Honduras
    Trinidad & Tobago
    Panama
    CAF:
    Guinea
    Nigeria
    Senegal
    Cape Verde
    Tunisia
    Congo
    CONMEBOL:
    Peru

    Spain or Italy wont face a group like 2014 anymore, and if they cant beat out the teams in this list then maybe they just aren't that good.


    Edit: I think I read your post wrong... ignore the part above this.
    Yes, knockouts are more volatile, but the best teams will rise to the top. There will be some upsets, just like in the groups now (see Italy and Spain), but it is very hard in a tournament system for a team to continue to upset better teams. And in this format a weaker team would need to go on a long run of upsets to get far.

    A weaker team will need 4 upset victories in a row to get to the final.
     
  20. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    or a very "doubtful" draw
     
  21. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    I don't think time is such a big issue though except in UEFA (since they only have a 14-month window to complete all of their WC qualifying). So for me fairness and "deservedness" easily outweighs the somewhat inefficient nature of the playoffs held at the end of qualifying.

    Also I think more competitive matches is beneficial to mid-size nations. So while groups of 4 in AFC and CONCACAF may sound neat-'n-tidy, I don't necessarily think its a good thing in the long term.
     
  22. Footsatt

    Footsatt Member+

    Apr 8, 2008
    Michigan
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I am wondering with so many teams getting in now. That maybe they eliminate the .5 game playoffs. With limited spots the playoff makes since, but they are not as necessary anymore. Maybe OFC could still use a playoff with one other confed. For example, give OFC 1.5 spots and a playoff against another confed.

    I think the group stage almost becomes the playoff now.
     
    NaBUru38 repped this.
  23. Hideo

    Hideo Member

    Newcastle United and Shimizu S-Pulse
    Apr 30, 2010
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    If only they had chosen a global playoff ahead of a 32 team tournament rather than doing it in the World Cup itself...
    It would have rewarded those who could achieve the required standard on merit while giving greater opportunity to more teams.

    Personally I felt that after a batch of teams qualify from each region the next batch should have gone into global groups of 4 played on a home and away basis. This would have given a chance to qualify for more African/Asian/CONCACAF teams if they could earn it, as well as giving the chance to play home and away against the likes of say, Portugal, Sweden, Mexico, Chile etc. You could have had a global playoff group containing for instance, Gabon, China, Portugal and Jamaica, with one or perhaps two places available in the World Cup. (Yes I know I'm light on the specifics here...) To me that would have made for a great spectacle without destroying the Finals themselves.

    But what do I know...
     
  24. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    I see the logic behind eliminating the .5 spots/playoffs, even though from a fan's POV it would be kind of fun to have one qualifying week with 6-8 inter-confederation playoffs going on all around the globe.
    But if there's only going to be 1 playoff, involving OFC makes the least amount of sense, imo, since the second-best team in OFC wouldn't be competitive with another NT from any other region (except maybe once every 40 years when NZ is that second-place team).
     
  25. Footsatt

    Footsatt Member+

    Apr 8, 2008
    Michigan
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #2600 Footsatt, Feb 27, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2017
    Eventually, even with a forgiving draw a weak team will run into quality teams. It happens now in the round of 16 and the better sides usually advance.

    Lets look at the round of 16 stats (fifa rank May of 2014):
    2014
    Brazil (rank 4) v Chile (rank 13) – Brazil advanced on penalties
    Uruguay (rank 6) v Colombia (rank 5) – Colombia won
    Netherlands (rank 15) v Mexico (rank 19) – Netherlands won
    Costa Rica (rank 34) v Greece (rank 10) – CR advanced on penalties UPSET
    France (rank 16) v Nigeria (rank 44) – France won
    Germany (rank 2) v Algeria (rank 25) – Germany won
    Argentina (rank 7) v Switzerland (rank 8) – Argentina won
    Belgium (rank 12) v USA (rank 14) – Belgium won

    There was one true upset with Costa Rica beating Greece. The rest of the games the better ranked team won or the two teams were considered fairly even by the Fifa rank.

    2010 (fifa rank May of 2010)
    Uruguay (rank 16) v S. Korea (rank 47) – Uruguay won
    USA (rank 14) v Ghana (rank 32) – Ghana won UPEST
    Germany (rank 6) v England (rank 8) – Germany won
    Argentina (rank 7) v Mexico (rank 17) – Argentina won
    Netherlands (rank 4) v Slovakia (rank 34) – Netherlands won
    Brazil (rank 1) v Chile (rank 18) – Brazil won
    Paraguay (rank 31) v Japan (rank 45) – Paraguay advanced on penalties
    Spain (rank 2) v Portugal (rank 3) – Spain won

    Again - there was 1 upset, but Ghana and the US are typically evenly matched.

    I bet in the new 2026 format there will be 1 or 2 upsets in the round of 32 and 1 in the round of 16...but the best teams should succeed as usual.
     

Share This Page