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

You can get away with a two day break in soccer, that would not work in the NFL.

 

One extra rest time day, may not be that much of advantage, but 4 or more extra rest time days is an eternity, and of course, highly unfair and in many ways, not sport any longer.

One of the basic principles in any sport competition, is to have all opponents play each other on equal conditions. once they get to the point that conditions are diferent for the teams involved it's no longer sport.

 

The additional match also increases possibility of the team losing a key player to injury or suspension which the other team did not risk as much.

 

The Oceanian merger would be much more easily forced than it would in the Americas. FIFA would still have to want it, however, as would the AFC.

Because, as you note later on in this post, a united Copa is plausible even without a merger and the cost of getting to this truly united Copa in your scenario is the elimination of any chance these nations had of becoming regular WC qualifiers. The CFU would be exchanging guaranteed placement of at least one (quite probably 2) nations in every single WC for the chance to play doormat in CONCABOL while getting a few berths in a united Copa America that they could've had while independent anyway. That's just too poor of a deal for the CFU to take; it goes entirely against their interests (unless the merger comes with guaranteed CFU berths to the WC - that would change things).

And sure, there are important things aside from the World Cup, but you'll have a much easier time convincing these nations to consider those things at the expense of the World Cup when these nations have regular experience in the WC.
The WC is worth more than just about all of the other things you've put on the table, and the prestige/intangible benefits it offers are invaluable. The Caribbean isn't going to give that up in return for the chance to play CONCABOL punching bag with a few token Copa berths. If the choice is regular WC representation OR Copa berths, WC representation is going to win (especially since, as we've both already noted, they can get those Copa berths without a merger).

There is quite literally nothing you can offer the CFU to make giving up the chance to independently maintain up to 2 permanent WC berths (and effectively foreclosing any odds they had of becoming regular WC qualifiers) worth the chance to play CONCABOL doormats UNLESS the merger comes with guaranteed WC berths for the CFU (again, that could definitely change the equation and get the CFU on board). Anything short of that is an absolute no go - they will not support it. It really is this simple.

There's one way around this: eliminate the second Gold Cup and replace it with the combined Copa, to be held quadrennially. Copa Americas and Gold Cups take place same year, then combined Copas come 2 years after. So in 2019, for example, we'd have both a Gold Cup and a Copa America. In 2021, we have a combined Copa. In 2023, we have another GC and CA.
This helps to clean up the calendar and space out the tournaments.

Do you see now why we cannot get rid of the OFC? It brings people together!

 

You have clearly never played American football and you clearly don't watch it. All of this is total nonsense and you sound like someone who knows nothing about American football.

American football is one of the most physically and athletically demanding sports in existence. The demands it makes are simply different from the demands made by world football/soccer. One requires tremendous aerobic conditioning and stamina. The other requires tremendous anaerobic conditioning and stamina. Neither demand is more easily met than the other - these are different types of athleticism that require different athletes training to hone different aspects of their physical/athletic ability.

 

hahah... Way O/T now. all sports are difficult to excel in, but not the same in terms of stamina. Both sports might've started -out similar like you say, but as more-and-more TV timeouts get added to one, it makes it easier physically to cope with the pace.

Imagine if we inserted 5 minute breaks every 15 minutes to a soccer match. It would obviously make it easier in terms of endurance/stamina, right? Then imagine they shorted a match to 45 minutes. Even less stamina is required then!

 

I prefer to call it "Gridiron or North american footbal", because back there is the only part where they play it. American football, is the king of sports and the one we play at almost the whole rest of the world, but back there at the North, they call it soccer (whatever, they can call it as they wish).

I played it for one year at college, after which I got bored doing so and quit, despite how much the coach begged me to not do so. But that type of football wasn't really my thing.

All I had to do was kicking the ball, when required to do so, in which I was pretty good at it. I was never required to run a single yard. Most of my team mates were world champions in the art of eating huge quantities of food and drinking beer, an issue I was pretty good at, as well. About them players being strong and fit for hard work, no doubts about it, but about them being "athletic", that's highly debatable and also depends on your own meaning of the word.

In any case, Sam, I don't need to convince you on anything and least of all on whatever I have done or not in my past life. And as @BocaFan told you, that's off topic.

 

Getting back on topic

To avoid exceeding a limit of 32 days to complete the World Cup (yet add 24 kick-offs) ... Fifa squeezed a lot of matches, increased to a grueling rate of 4 per day, into the first 20 days ... 16 days for the group stage plus RO32 and, instead of rest days, the KO stages start without a breather ... quite a lot of fans watched every game of a perfect 32 team World Cup, but with so many poor quality matches in this 16x3 nonsense that won't be the case any longer ... SMH.

On top of the major collusion problems ... many many many biscotti like 1982 Germany+Austria (in 3 team groups manipulation and matchfixing are highly likely) ... dead rubbers, tiebreaker headaches, teams needing a mathematician more than a manager, ...

... an unequal match schedule ... when you get extra rest, from sitting out a game, it should never be such a decisive factor for advancing ... there will be some playing their first match on day 8-9 while others will finish their last group match on that day ... SMH

... extra-time + penalty shoot-outs (= PSO) in case of draws in the group stage was already a poor suggestion and Infantino is considering another bad idea, using the Fifa ranking (should never have this much impact but Fifa could look to extract more from the fizzy drink sponsor) ... win, lose or draw ... in football the play matters most ... while PSOs are a necessary evil in the KO matches, no need for it in the group stage

... high ranking sides only seldomly face each other in competitive ties and the 16x3 nonsense will worsen this situation with many unattractive matches that bring viewership down (lower absolute quality than the perfect 32 team World Cup according to Fifa themselves) ... also, we'll be confronted with devalued qualifiers

... as groups are more likely to result in the best teams advancing compared to one-legged KO games, it will be less likely that the world's best team becomes World Champion

... guaranteed to kill play ... too many teams advancing from a group of 3 (67%), after only 2 matches (3 used to be the bare minimum), with a PSO incentive and ill-matched opponents ... even the list of managers in charge of top sides is a joke and unlike clubs they have very little time to work with their players and forge the automatisms needed to break down packed defenses ... the diluted EUROs produced several tedious and instantly forgettable games. The more limited teams have become adept at defensive tactics designed to frustrate more talented opposition and that can produce stultifying games. Watching a team soaking up pressure, hoping to pounce on the break, is not ideal when trying to attract and retain TV viewers.

... adding teams with players that earn f a makes matchfixing a bigger worry

... co-hosting could very much increase travel, players already have less days for rest and recovery, games will be coming thick and fast (with a lot more going into extra-time + penalty shoot-outs), more ill-judged/rash actions when playing weaker opponents, pitches will be overused which can cause more injuries (when it's no more than 12 venues), etc. ... will priority be given to player-centered considerations or creative scheduling?

Haha ... a power-of-two World Cup ... are you having a laugh mate ... what a disgusting lack of fantasy ... only politics and commerce matter ... SMH ... a quick overview from one of my older posts:

Fifa members close to consensus on distribution of new World Cup places - final decision on that likely in May pic.twitter.com/h4MhRpIpQZ

— Martyn Ziegler (@martynziegler) January 10, 2017

Due to the bad format, it's a matter of time before WC will grow to 64-teams (30%). Probably by 2038 https://t.co/9JdXGj4043

— Leandro Shara (@LeandroShara) January 10, 2017

I was guessing it would be similar to the 24 team mistake ... 2038, after only three of these 48 team mistakes was sooner than expected ... yet bringing back the perfect 32 team, even a new-look one, or going for a 64 team World Cup could be on before a World Cup in China.

 

If this is such a gigantic massive advantage that having it is unfair and comparable to an extra man or goal, then wouldn't it make sense for every team who's assured of qualification to rest all of their starters the last game instead of trying to win the group? That way, they get the same advantage for the next round and we're just deprived of a competitive football match.

 

@iggymcfly ... it happens ... in Brazil we won our first 2 matches and we're (almost) nailed on to win the group ... IIRC only 1, maybe 2 field players from the previous game played the final group match ... after winning the first 2 we had the choice and decided it was better to have well-rested players and avoid suspension due to card accumulation ... conserving lots of energy for the match against the US which was very draining (Vertonghen who puked his guts out did play the previous one).

Haha ... group of 3 ... everybody was declared a winner ... participation ribbons for all!

 

Neither AFC or OFC currently want to combine. AFC thinks its large enough as it is and doesn't want a confederation spanning half the globe, they are happy just covering a 3rd of it. Its adds a fair bit to costs of their international competitions. OFC are reasonably happy where they are. They now get two teams to the FIFA youth Tournaments, and 1 team in the Olympics. New Zealand are probably happy with the World Cup expansion. I think they are the only nation that would benefit by merging with Asia, but they suddenly go from a big fish in a little pond to having virtually no influence at all and some of their officials may not like that. FIFA could force things, but I'm not sure they care enough to do that. I'm pretty sure they don't want to upset the AFC because of its large voting bloc.

 

This is about anaerobic vs. aerobic athleticism.

There are multiple types of stamina. Gridiron players lack the aerobic stamina of footballers. Footballers lack anaerobic endurance (the ability to burst to a very high level for a short time and to do so repeatedly over a relatively constrained period of time).

Gridiron players (at least at the skill positions) are sprinters - Gridiron is the 100 meter dash. Primarily Anaerobic.
Footballers are runners - Football is a 1500 meter run. Primarily Aerobic.

Both require athleticism and stamina of different kinds. It is wrong to claim that one or the other is not athletic.

I get that this is off topic so I'll leave it at this, but folks need to get their facts straight before they put these kinds of arguments out here.

 

If an obese juggernaut clashing against another is just "a different type" of athleticism, I wonder if there's a kind of athleticism name for my remote control finger skills while sitting on the couch. I don't know... zappingrobic or something...

 

I intended to be done with this tangent, but I can't ignore this post. You're just like the Americans who argue that soccer players aren't athletes because they fall down too easily and aren't very big.
Soccer players aren't just "small pansies chasing a ball", and gridiron players aren't just "obese juggernauts clashing". When you make an effort to look beyond these derogatory stereotypes and actually try to understand the sports in question (something Americans consistently refuse to do with soccer and non-Americans consistently refuse to do with gridiron football), you get different conclusions.

So you're basing your evaluation of the overall athleticism of all athletes in that sport on the slobs you had on your team?
So if I played on a university soccer team filled with really weak, slow, small players with no toughness at all, could I then conclude that soccer players weren't athletes but just small, weak, soft dudes chasing a ball?
That wouldn't be a fair or accurate conclusion for me to make, would it?

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...the-true-killer-for-football-players-6188767/

 

Wonder how much money China is giving to the FIFA honchos for this.

 

Probably nothing, as their mindset is not focused on China paying them anything, but on how much they can get from their market instead. A market with more than a thousand million people, not mattering if they are rich or poor, is not something anyone can overlook so lightly. It's full of money, just waiting for someone to go and pick it (and that's what they want to do : go to pick it).

 

I don't know. Those FIFA guys are sneaky, I don't see why they wouldn't try to get a few bucks even for doing what they wanted to do anyway.

 

You think those FIFA guys are sneaky ?

Well the one thing they will learn, and probably the hard way, is that China is also full of sneaky people, and when you get yourself involved with those sort of guys, at the end you'll have to pay the consequences. Wouldn't be so unlikely that in no time FIFA's headquarters end, deep in China with some oriental guy replacing Infantino, as well....

 

http://www.nflcdn.com/photoessays/0ap3000000483888

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...yron-jones-leads-nine-most-athletic-prospects

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/07/odell-beckham-jr-sports-new-york-giants-football-soccer-nfl

http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap3000000671265

 

I'm in the minority who actually would seem to like a 48 team World Cup.
1. I don't believe the World Cup would be worse by adding 16 additional weaker teams. If I ask Tennis fans if they prefer to watch Wimbledon/Roland Garros/US Open/Australian Open or Indian Wells/Italian Open/Miami/Shanghai I bet most will chose the former. The they are both similar from a top player quality except than the Grand Slams also have added a bunch of lower ranked players -- no different than a 48 team WC vs 32 team.

2. I don't mind groups of 3 from a game quality perspective. We will still have a few very good groups. Given current ranking you could have Brazil, Netherlands, Ivory Coast, for example. (assuming top 16 are heads...) Top two advancing is fine too for groups like the above. Whatever the result on your first game, you only depend on yourself to qualify... I'm sure that there would still be surprises.

3. I like having better chances to qualify for the world cup. That is true for all countries.

I do see some disadvantages though.
1. More chances of teams playing for a result that favors both on the third game of the group. Playing first & third game of a group is better than playing 1&2 or 2&3.
2. How to resolve more frequent ties. Don't like a coin toss. I'd prefer something like having the third team at the stadium and any ties would be resolve by penalties between the involved parties -- a 3-way penalty shootout could be cool!?
3. Qualifiers in South America would be a little less interesting... Today, a team could have a bad couple weeks and move from solid qualifying position (let's say second) to not qualifying... Every game is tough. Maybe some of that would be lost.

 

They would prefer Wimbledon/Roland Garros/US Open etc. because they are more important & prestigious tournaments. Just like people prefer the FA Cup over the Capital One cup in England (or whatever its called nowadays). If you added an extra round to Roland Garros (with the prestige of winning it remaining the same) I don't think people would like it more.

A better analogy would be adding 10 teams from the second division of Spain to LaLiga resulting in a 30-team monstrosity. They actually did that in Argentina recently and nobody that I know of likes it.

 

The issue I have isn't with expansion but with the 3 team groups. Would 8 groups of 6 teams be a viable solution? Top two teams move on to the round of 16 like the current format. All three final group games could be played at the same time. Would the group stage just take too long?

 

It's my understanding that FIFA is considering penalty shoot outs in all group stage matches that end in a tie to keep teams from colluding. This way there is only a few possible out comes for each team in the group phase.

A team can win 2 games, win 1 game and lose 1 game, or lose 2 games.

You win 2 and you are through
Win 1 and there is a good chance you are through unless the other 2 teams win 1 too (result is a 3 way tie)
You lose 2 and you are out.

If all teams win 1 and lose 1 then there is a 3 way tie. Hopefully a regulation win (3 points) will be worth more then a penalty shoot out win (maybe 1.5 points).

Something like this...
Game 1: Brazil beats Netherlands in PSO (0 -0 regulation time)
Game 2:Netherlands beats Ivory Coast 2 - 1 in regulation
Game 3: Ivory Coast beats Brazil in PSO (2 - 2 regulation time)

Group Results
3 points Netherlands (regulation win) +1 GD
1.5 points Brazil (PSO win) +0 GD gives Brazil second place
1.5 points Ivory Coast (PSO win) -2 GD

FIFA will have to figure out the tie breakers with these 3 team groups, and there could be some coin flip scenarios. I think I read somewhere that FIFA rank might be consider as a tie breaker. Hopefully they use this to only replace the coin flip as a last resort tie breaker.

 

Another group stage tie scenario.

Lets say all 3 teams win 1 and lose 1 with the same score line of 1 - 0.

Something like this...
Game 1: Brazil beats Netherlands 1 - 0
Game 2: Netherlands beats Ivory Coast 1 - 0
Game 3: Ivory Coast beats Brazil 1 - 0

Group Results
3 points Brazil (regulation win) +0 GD, FIFA rank 2
3 points Netherlands(regulation win) +0 GD, FIFA rank 22
3 points Ivory Coast (regulation win) +0 GD, FIFA rank 34

All 3 are tied and based on current tie breaker rules the teams would draw lots (flip coins) or they could use FIFA rank.


Current FIFA group tie breakers:
1. Greatest number of points obtained in all group matches.
2. Goal difference in all group matches.
3. Greatest number of goals scored in all group matches.
4. Greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned.
5. Goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned.
6. Greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned.
7. Drawing of lots by the FIFA Organizing Committee. (maybe replace with FIFA Rank)