I see different pictures: a) debutante Panama in Russia 2018 (qualified as last in its region). Who celebrated Panama's 6-1 loss to England? Panama's coach asked his English counterpart to slow down its attack. Panama fans were excited about their goal, scored after England complied with Panama's request for mercy. How does that add value to a world tournament? b) Costa Rica. Debut in 1990, while Mexico was banned. Concacaf had 2 WC slots then. After 1998 expansion, Costa Rica showed up regularly: 4 times in 6 tournaments. Costa Rica had a memorable run in Brazil 2014, reaching QF stage. Costa Rica had qualified as Concacaf champ. No minnow at all. It was expected to do well at Brazil 2014. Most fans chose to look at its name, instead of its competitive form. Somehow, fans were surprised that the Concacaf champ was winning games in Brazil. If someone can show that a true minnow excelled at a world tournament, then I could get behind a 48-team expansion. Mo' minnows, mo' problems.
Dang, forget what I said then I was convinced that CRC had qualified as top Concacaf rep for 2014. I still think that "minnows bring excitement to the WC" is a cop-out for FIFA expansion plans.
I think 64 is better than 48 just because three team groups is unstable. It's also "World" Cup so having more of the "World" play is fun. Even if the teams may not be that great having their fans there adds a lot. Just don't go to 128 teams but you know it's coming once we have nations on Mars and the Moon.
They had qualified as first in CONCACAF back in the 2002 cycle, so clearly they were capable of it. In the 2014 cycle, they came in 2nd, but if our home game against them hadn't been in the middle of a snowstorm, I think there's a pretty good chance they would have finished first that year as well.
in international soccer, and soccer in general for that matter, there is a strong tendency to not have odd numbered groups in tournaments if it can be at all avoided. With odd numbered groups there are days where some teams play and others rest and it is perceived that that can, and often does, produce unfair advantages. I think that no matter what FIFA should stick with 4 team groups even if it means some 3rd place teams advance. The inequities of 3rd places advancing are more than offset by the overall balance that 4 team groups produce. Of course it is my belief that the World Cup should remain at 32. However I do recognize that greed may well dictate otherwise.
Eh...if our home game against them hadn't been in the middle of a snowstorm, I'm not sure they would've even qualified. They had been dismal by their standards in the semifinal round, and there were already rumblings of discontent between Jorge Luis Pinto and the players (which, as we remember, exploded after the WC finals). The injustice perceived with the game in Colorado galvanized the team, staff and fans, treating the rest of their campaign as a vendetta against FIFA.
Joel Campbell's red card earning flop was the biggest injustice in qualifications. Our players had no special experience playing in a snow storm.
I didn't meant to reopen old disputes about past injustices. (Personally, I have no problem with the way things played out there.) I just meant that Costa Rica came within one game of winning the Hex that year, and that game was a close one involving extreme weather conditions, without which things may very well have turned out differently. It's a pretty narrow counter-factual, and certainly doesn't rely on as many leaps and inferences as it would take to imagine Panama ever winning the Hex. Thus, I was agreeing with the original poster that Costa Rica in 2014 is probably not a fair comparison to the typical weaker nations that are being discussed here (and which an expanded tournament would be intended to accommodate).
Also, some teams play at elevation, otherwise when and where it's really hot (Honduras), we played where it was really cold and Denver in March isn't exactly guaranteed to have a snowstorm. CR was just whining because they lost, not because they had an actual point.
32 is perfect IMO. Big enough field to give most half-decent teams a legit shot at getting in while minimizing the number of teams that are completely non-competitive (usually at most 1-2 per tournament), and the format of the tournament itself is nice and neat at 32. I don't like formats like 24 or the old 12-team Gold Cup that allow teams to advance out of the group stage without finishing in the top half of their group.
I agree, but I think 32 teams strikes the best balance in the current football landscape. 48 teams would cheapen the accomplishment. Perhaps, if more countries became more competitive, then 48 teams might be more justifiable. There are 211 FIFA members - of them, I'd say less than 90 have the investment and fanbase to compete in international football. So 32 strikes a good balance between "teams who want to win it all" and "teams who aim to make it in". I don't think the 32 teams are evenly distributed, however. In 2018, Europe and South America, with 65 member nations combined, received 17.5 berths (+1 with Russia as hosts). The rest of the world, with 146 nations combined, got 13.5. This means that more than 1 in 4 teams in Europe+SA got into the World Cup. And the rest of the world: not even 1 in 10. Yes, there is a gap in quality, certainly, but the representation isn't exactly fair. No nation outside of Europe and South America has ever made the final in a World Cup - but in 2018, they started out with 18 of the 32 berths on the table. Sheer probability already gives them the edge - on top of their other advantages. So for CONCACAF, CAF, AFC, and OFC, they want more tickets to the big dance. Problem is, UEFA and CONMEBOL would sooner chop their dicks off than give up any of their berths to those peasants. Consequently, the only way the rest of the world can get any more spots would be either (a) stage an armed coup at the next FIFA conference or (b) expand the tournament. And they chose the latter.
I'd probably outright say "more is more." From a neutral point of view the early group stage is my favorite part of the World Cup. Feels like a massive global celebration when all the teams are still alive in the tourament and there are multiple games every day. So fun.
I know it’s way too early to think about this, but when we’re not the hosts for 2030 will FIFA still rely on its rankings to determine top seeds? Qualifying for 2030 and on will be far easier, but if we have something more to play for like a top seed spot (there should be more than 8 with 48 teams) it would make qualifying nearly as interesting as the Hex.
Except when they expand to 48 they'll have to screw with the format and it will likely result in fewer first round games for each team. More games overall maybe, but not as many of them will be interesting (other than the sheer novelty of seeing a game between the United Arab Emirates and Paraguay).
...except that even if top seeds were in sight, it would be hard for us to angle for one if we have a format with multiple groups in the final round, i.e. missing out on games against the top seed in the other group(s). Same reason that Asian sides have never come close to getting a seed, outside of hosting in '02: Japan could be in dominant form, but with the format meaning that they're not going to play all of South Korea, Iran and Australia, it's practically impossible for them to earn a top seed.
Long live the Hex, I guess. This is just further evidence that Qatar was the wrong decision to host this World Cup.