Fun qualification is back on folks! https://www.si.com/soccer/2019/05/22/fifa-world-cup-2022-qatar-32-team-countries-tournament-field
I think that is a very good decision, We do not need a lot of crap team, remember Panama, at the World cup. It is bad enough that crap teas can still qualify from crap regions like CONCACAF without making it nearly a sure thing that several will. I almost think that dropping back to 24 might be good. It would make qualifying mean something again.
Agreed. I realize it all comes down to money, but the who idea of expansion is so dumb. It's like March Madness and NFL playoffs...if you have something basically perfect, stop messing with it. Haven't only 7 teams won the WC? Why on earth (yes, money) do we need more? If it's simply about money, why not just allow every single team that wants to enter a team? Then at least you'd add a bunch of good European/SA teams that missed out on qualifying...
Just recall as well though that 2014 saw 3 CONCACAF teams make it to the second round and one to the QFs (a team most of the the rest of the world would consider "crap").
I totally absolutely get the whole "less is more" concept of the World Cup but speaking solely from a fan/citzen of those less fortunate nations, this isn't just any sporting event; it's a tournament of nations and to have your country represented in that tournament when it happens every 4 years, it's an entirely different feeling of pride that comes along with it. For most people of these less fortunate nations, they grow up loving the sport but never see their country represented in the highest form of competition for that sport. Yes, I know... Wouldn't it mean much more for that person if their country qualifies once in their lifetime to that limited event? Yes, it would probably mean so much more but for some, their whole lives go through not ever seeing their country in that event and that feeling outweighs anything... so I think for the sake of human feelings/pride, increasing it wouldn't be that bad. And even if it's just 3 games or 2 games that their nation only plays, it's all worth it for the rest of their lives. We all know most of them need the distraction from what's going on their own political climate. Again, I'm just talking from a societal cultural phenomenon that is fútbol and how that affects the daily lives of many citizens of this world.
I guess the USMNT is no longer guaranteed a spot. We are back to sweating out results on cricket pitches and public park quality turf, just the way we like it.
I welcome this news. I wanted one more hex so we can redeem ourselves. Plus, I like the current qualifying format. It’s fun.
Can we just make the 32 team format permanent forever FIFA? It's fricking perfect in terms of the balance of competitive, representative, and logistical. At least we get a reprieve from the 48 team idiocy.
But then you have that rather awkward setup of several 3rd-placed teams advancing. A 32-team WC is perfect in that, after the first round, the number gets cut precisely in half. Yes, and most specifically it comes down to China; it's a massive market and FIFA desperately wants them involved in every tournament. But since they're not good enough to consistently qualify the plan is get them in by significantly increasing the numbers at the finals, which is going to mean too many games and a watering down of the quality. But money talks, obviously, and it's inevitable that we're all going to have to get used to it eventually.
I can see both sides of the argument. It is cool to see the excitement of fans from countries who don't qualify that often, and expanding the field would lead to more of that. However, I also think it's a drag to see blow outs or minnows bunkering for dear life in the first round (see the last Euros). I do wonder if the world will "grow into" the 48-team set up in the sense that underdeveloped areas (e.g., Africa and Southeast Asia) will keep growing economically and eventually be able to support the infrastructure to field reasonably competitive teams. I think that's kind of happened with the 32-team set-up. Initially, it seemed like there were lots of blow outs in the first round, but now it seems like the lesser teams still give the true contenders a good fight, even if the traditional powers still usually advance.
yes, and then team s from the Moon and Mars, and there will be huge debates on whether balls should be adjusted for different atmospheric pressures and gravity.
I count 9 of 21 cups. But you have to recognize Germany and West Germany as different political entities.
It's not as if Papua New Guinea and Tajikistan are going to start qualifying. Most of the extra teams are going to respectable sides who have made World Cups before. Plus I think having a completely overmatched team or two can actually add some entertainment. I enjoyed watching Tahiti at The Confederations Cup. My bigger gripe is the format. I'd honestly rather go to 64 if it meant keeping the 4 team groups
If you add 16 teams from the previous qualifying cycle, your extra teams would be... Uzbekistan Syria UAE Congo DR Ivory Coast Uganda Burkina Faso Chile New Zealand USA Honduras Trinidad Italy Greece Northern Ireland Plus 2 of China Iraq Solomon Islands Guatemala Paraguay Zambia There's nothing there that's too egregious 10 of those 14 automatic qualifiers have made a World Cup before, 6 made it to Brazil, and 3 made it to the knockout rounds in Brazil.
Isn't the proposed 48 team format 16 groups of 3 with only first place advancing? Or has that been changed again?
That is absolutely true! The argument that we should restrict/limit the teams to only those that have a good chance of winning or at least doing well is fine if you are a fan of one of those countries or if you are a neutral fan without a country but the World Cup is so much more than just a soccer tournament or even just the greatest/most important soccer tournament. It is an event like the olympics is an event (but the wc is more exclusive). those weaker/smaller soccer nations add to the tournament...especially when one makes an unexpected run. Our game against Italy after being destroyed in 1990 was pretty meaningless in the overall picture but I believe it added to the tournament. We went further than predicted in 2002, Camaroon has done it, Costa Rica and many others as well. While overexpanding the field might make it more like a participation trophy for some countries, cutting the field too much can take away much of the experience as well.
Here's another question regarding the expansion of the world cup. Would making it to the round of 16 be any less impressive it the tournament began with 64 teams than it would if the tournament began with 32? Getting to the world cup would have less value because that would be a less exclusive club but final 16 is still final 16. Winning the whole thing is still winning the whole thing.
I was thinking about this also. Our US side wouldnt have to worry as much about the chances of coming in last, or not advancing.
16 groups of 3, top two in each group advancing. And, based on the proposed 48-team schedule FIFA had in mind for 2022, the top seeds will sit out the last matchday in the group stage.