2014 World Cup : 40 teams ?

I think 32 teams in the World Cup and 16 in the Euro is a good amount. Has UEFA commented on Euro 2012 having more than 16 teams?

 

Not 2012, but for 2016.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gjKe2pfpOjI0hCvnZ32KTLfMxbsw

32 teams is fine for the World Cup. Personally, I think 16 is fine for the Euros, too. The fact that some decent teams don't make it is part of what makes the qualifying stage interesting and challenging.

 

40 seems way too big for the World Cup.

 

I think 40 teams would make the thing a bit unrealistic for logistical purposes, even though it would be great.

I still think that the World Cup should work in a similar way to the DAvis Cup or the Champions League/Uefa. I mean, there could the major tournament, but before hand some sort of sub-tournament that will allow other teams to play home-away games. Or maybe qualifying should be like this. I don't know.

 

I really wouldn't mind a sub-tournament. Or at least more intercontinental qualifying games. I really think having teams battle each other for WC spots across confederations is exciting.

 

I agree with that in principle, but I can't think of a good and practical way to work that out. Of course, I put in all of about 60 seconds of thought into this. Perhaps you could try to think this out, to see if you can come up with a format that might work.

 

Well, one format I came up with a year ago was to have 5 European wild cards face a wild card from each of the other confederations. So automatic spots would be dished out like this.

Host: 1
Europe: 11 (+5 wild cards)
Africa: 4 (+1)
Asia: 4 (+1)
South America: 4 (+1)
North America: 3 (+1)
Oceania: 0 (+1)

I came up with this when people were arguing that Europe deserved more spots, and thought this was a compromise.

 

Hell no. 32 is perfect.

 

This.

There are already several borderline useless/bottomfeeder teams in every World Cup, why take the realistic chance of adding more?

I MIGHT support an extra 3 or 4 teams, but 8 more is too many. And if they add 3 or 4 more they should make them useful ones like 2 more Euro teams and 1 more South American team etc.

 

If it 'aint broke, don't fix it.

 

You are right, a 36 team WC with:

1. UEFA - 16 Spots
2. CSF - 5
3. CAF - 5
4. AFC+OFC - 5
5. CONCACAF - 4
6. Plus a playoff between the Confed of the last WC winner and the Confed of the WC host. (If the WC winner failed to qualify they get the playoff spot)

will not increase the number of "borderline useless/bottomfeeder teams". Even better, from the above, take a spot from CONCACAF and AFC+OFC and have these team play the next team from UEFA and CSF.

And yes, a 36 teams WC can be made to work logistically without adding any more days to the WC.

 

But not without making a format from hell. There is no way to cut 36 down to 16 without incorporating strange and unfair methods like having 7 of 9 group seconds qualify.

 

32 teams max. Unless you decide to change the whole tournament format. And there is no need to change it.

 

10 groups with 4 teams is too uneven. The gap between the four teams would make the outcome much more predictable than it has been with 6 groups of 4.

there won`t be any decision on having groups with uneven number like 3 or 5 as it is unfair to the one team who has the last matchday no match.

the only thinkable enhancement is a 36 team world cup with 6x6 team. Would mean a lot of more games but very intense groups.

 

Another possability for 36 teams:
9 groups of 4, winners advance.
3 groups of 3, winners advance.
Final group of 3, group winner is champion.

This would take 6*9 + 3*4 = 66 games, compared to the current format of 6*8 + 16 = 64 games. Not a large increase.

And this method would avoid the penalty kick issue.

Though 6 groups of 6 is intriguing. How many would you advance from each group? A group of 6 takes 15 games, so you're already at 90 games. If you advance the minimum of 6 group winners, you have either 105 games [if you do one final group stage] or 96 [if you do 3 knock outs, followed by a group stage]. That's a BIG step in number of games.

 

I have a feeling the World Cup Final is quite popular, so I think FIFA will stick with that; no return to 1950 standards. And I see many other bad things with such a format. The second group stage will be similar to the second group stage in 1982, which was unfortunate for a lot of reasons, among them having an idle team on the final match day. The problem with the first group stage is that it is too hard to progress, so lots of teams won't have anything to play for on the last match day. Besides, losing 27 of 36 teams after three games is way too many imo.

And finally, despite the almost unchanged number of total games, the tournament will be very long; We get to see the same teams all the time after the initial group stage and we need to allow time for rest days between matches. The winner will have to play 8 matches in addition to two bye days, so it's very unlikely that a tournament with this format can be played in less than 40 days, which is too extended, I think.

 

36 teams is perfect. Why would you want to change it?

 

its 32 teams right now... and yea it really is fine adding more would just make for more useless teams to go and be embarrassed.

 

A finals tournament of one knockout stage with 64 teams will be the same amount of games as the current format. Just a thought even though some groups is needed so you can support your team for a few games at least. 32 is perfect the way it is is perfect. If the finals format is ever changed it will just prove that the way it is now was perfect.

i would like to see fifa have a sort of fa cup style cup as a one of for the crack. eg the 208 teams are ranked then teams ranked 49-208 play a first round draw at random this narrows teams to 128 then a further 7 rounds to find the winner with draws open so anyone can play anyone then first team drawn plays at home games over one leg. Maybe final or later stages held neutrally.

Just for the fun of it.

 

Welcome to EURO 60-64! A format like that can create some very interesting match ups and have some weak teams go very far because of a lucky draw. The best example of this is the epic three match series between Denmark and Luxembourg for a place in the final tournament (last 4 teams). Denmark started out by beating Malta twice while Luxembourg received a bye. In the next round, Denmark eliminated Albania who had a walk over win in the first round because Greece refused to play them. Meanwhile Luxembourg eliminated Holland!!!

In the third round (=quarter finals), Denmark and Luxembourg clashed drawing the two matches 3-3 and 2-2 respectively. That resulted in a play off at a neutral venue and Denmark won it 1-0, Ole Madsen scoring all 6 Danish goals in the series. And suddenly, Denmark was one of the four best teams in Europe by beating Malta, Albania and Luxembourg.

The idea is very interesting and could produce some interesting match ups, but it can't be carried out. We need match days to play it and imagine Vanuatu drawing USVI away, winning that match and then going to Iceland in the next round. I think we could safely say good bye to the Vanuatuan FA after having to finance two such trips.

Makes a very interesting mock tournament, however.

 

These were the 60-ies?

Yes, I remember when asked one of my uncles about Holland before Cruyff and the following great generations, he told me something like: Holland, who? They were nowhere, like today San Marino, only useful to help to improve goal difference.

The Netherlands entered football in 1974 with a big bang, before that, there was almost no Dutch football.

To come back to the original question: 32 teams in a WC is too few. We've only in Europe at least 10 teams who have real chances to win such a tournament and just 13 being allowed to qualify is not enough. UEFA should get 20 spots and the others also 20: 6 South American and African and 4 North American and Asian. So 40 is a good idea.

 

40 teams in wc 2014. Hmmmmmmmm I like it.

 

Like Lusankya, I don't think it would be good to change the format.

First option: 8 groups of 5, first 2 advance to the round of 16
disadvantages:
- group stages will have 5 matchdays instead of 3, that means the world cup would be at least a week longer
- on each group stage match date, one team per group would have a bye, which is kind of messy, especially for the last matchday (the team with a bye on the last md might have a tactical disadvantage)
- it is way more likely that the the bottom teams fail early and have nothing to play for anymore on the last 1 or more mds (due to more games and a lower percentage of qualifying teams)

second option: 10 groups of 4, winners and 6 of 10 runner-ups qualify for the round of 16
disadvantages:
- comparing runner-ups between groups is messy imho, basically because it won't factor in the relative strength of a group. of course you can say that about the current system, too (in the last WC, Ivory Coast did not survive gs, Ghana did), but still... I just don't think it should be a stronger disadvantage to get drawn into a tough and even group than it already is
- if a group winner is lucky, he'll play a runner-up in the next round, if not another group winner. no nice system imho, especially since you might have 2 of the best teams of the group stage already meet in the round of 16 (depending a bit on how you determine which group winners will play each other)

Any option that does not include a proper final will not happen, any option with 2 group stages don't seem likely to me since that would usually include too many matchdays, any option with