We aren't going back to smaller tournaments, and I can't stand the 48 team format. That said, I do like the idea of making the tournament more exclusionary, but the problem with this is that qualifying form =/= WC finals form due to the time lag. Stuff happens in the interim and teams that look good on paper in the tournament fall apart while others that miss out would likely add quality. Given the long term trends of expansion, I think the best sustainable option is 64 teams with a format that is essentially two tournaments in one. Rough allocation: East+South Asia/Oceania: 6 Middle East/North Africa: 8 Subsaharan Africa: 8 Americas: 16 UEFA: 26. No extra host allocations. Those can be deducted from the confed allocation. First stage: 16 groups of 4. All teams play three matches, with the top two pots in each group playing in the third round. 2 teams advance. This stage is more or less an interconfed playoff round involving all teams to cull the field down to the current 32. There'd be some dud matches, but also some teams with advancement opportunities that could rightfully claim to be top 32 caliber teams. Second stage: consolidate two groups into one. The top two teams in each group from the first stage combine with another group. The results between the two teams from the same group advancing together carry over from the first stage, so each team advancing this far would only need to play two more matches. Example Group 1 Prelim would have teams from pots 1, 3, 6, 8. The group 2 prelim would have teams from pots 2, 4, 5, and 7. One team would advance from the second stage to a knockout quarterfinal stage. Advantages: 1) with more teams in, confeds could streamline the process and shorten things up. For example, UEFA could run a small prelim qualifier for the lowest ranked teams not in UEFA and then run a simple 13 groups of 4 with the top 2 going through...or 9 groups of 4 with 27 going through. This shortens quals but only adds 1 extra match for the final tournament. 2) fewer matches where teams 1 and 2 are content to play low effort draws having already advanced. In the first group stage, that match would matter for second stage group pts. In the second group, only 1 team is going through. 3) the second 32 team group stage would have better quality top to bottom, so even though only one team advances, groups would be sufficiently tight to ensure that 2-3 teams would have a shot going into the final group match. The 32 team group stage would have roughly 6 non-UEFA/CONMEBOL teams, and nothing is wrong with that. 4) no reason to grumble about allocations. Any team with a reasonable shot of advancing to the old R16 should be able to qualify into a 64 team tournament. 5) fans know where their team will be playing with greater precision from Day 1 of the tournament. Initial group set of 3 matches known (as before). All three potential knockout matches are known going in because you don't need to know if you're going to the top/bottom of the bracket if you finish 1st/2nd. The only questions would be for group match dates 4 and 5 (second group stage), which would depend upon a 1st/2nd place finish in the initial group stage (two options). 6) any team getting through two group stages for a QF slot will be a prospective champion. In the current format, a few teams can sort of back their way into the QF w/ 2nd place group finish + a fortuitous R16 pairing. knockouts would be purely an "in form contender only affair".
Egypt, Nigeria and Senegal played reasonably well at the 2018 World Cup, even if some finished at the bottom. I don't remember having watched Tunisia or Morocco. Japan qualified to the playoffs, and South Korea defeated Germany. Iran drew Portugal, Australia drew Denmark, and Saudi Arabia wasn t too bad versus Uruguay. I can say that Africans or Asians were better overall. Neither was pathetic at all.
No teams were pathetic overall other than Panama to be honest. They were the only team clearly out of their depths. And even at that so what. Every 4 years we hear the same argument. Its usually buthurt fans of teams who didn't qualify going on about how their team failed and deserved to be there. Instead of going after other confederations they should talk about teams from their own confederation who "didn't deserve to be there" Well 48 teams comming soon, no excuses.
FIFA politics. Outside of South America and Europe there's only 8 combined nations to reach the quarters or better, three in North America, three in Africa and two in Asia. The US and Mexico are the only ones of those eight to do it twice(and Mexico was hosting both times they did it). Asia in particular the weak link outside of Oceania(which shouldn't really be a confederation and shouldn't be getting a guaranteed spot in the World Cup, though it will be starting in 2026) has the weakest resume of those, with one of their two quarterfinalists being the host nation, South Korea and the other being North Korea. Japan is a consistent face in the knockout stages and while they've performed well they've still never made the quarters. Anyway outside of Japan and Korea there is no one in Asia who historically ever performed at the World Cup. Say what you want about Africa's world cup resume it is considerably better than this. So the current set up is heavily skewed against Europe and South America. At least with South America there's not so many countries so usually the best countries will make it especially in the 48 team format but Europe doesn't get enough slots and you're always going to have prominent absences.
Awesome - NOW the best measure of the best 32 teams is how often you make it to the last 8. It just gets better and better. J
I mean that's being more generous than if you were to use the last four or the last two. In terms of the last 16 for much of the tournament's existence 16 was the entire field. But regardless even if we use top 16 like I said for Asia that really only adds Japan. Also weren't talking about the best 32 talking about fair or not fair confederation representation is and if there's only two or three teams in a huge confederation's history to ever get to the final eight one of which is an international pariah that is not a good sign and Asia is not deserving of the additional slots it will be receiving in the 2026 World Cup and all subsequent editions.
Euro only wants 16. They don’t want to be part of the intercontinental playoff either because if they win then they would have 17. 16 spots is plenty for one confed. With 14 spots Uefa still had Poland, Iceland and Germany all finish last in thier groups. And Serbia only got the 1 win over an over aged Costa Rica. Uefa is to blame for just 16, don’t blame FIFA for this one. 6 is good for Conmebol too, any more and thier qualifying will be pointless. They can get 7 with the playoff. That leaves 22 spots to go to the other 4 confeds. These 22 spots have to go somewhere.
I mean according to FIFA rankings they do deserve more. If they asked for less slots then that is their fault. Germany were the defending champs and you're cherry picking with the whole Iceland and Poland thing. I am inclined to agree with you in regards to South America. 6 or 7 is fine but that's because there's so few countries. That last spot was always the one that tended to kick out a somewhat deserving country. 22 spots is too much for the other four confederations. If one thinks CONCOCAF deserves another slot just look at Panama, us not making it was an anomaly. Asia again already had too many spots based on history, they don't need more(who from Asia who deserves to be at the World Cup on a regular basis except Korea and Japan? One or two extra spots in addition to that should be fine). Oceania isn't even based on a real continent since Australia left and should have been dissolved and you're basically giving New Zealand a semi automatic spot in the world cup. They don't need a guaranteed spot. I mean just look at the list of countries in that confederation. Africa it can be argued deserves one more spot give how Ghana or Egypt is always left out in the cold and there's a lot of countries in Africa that are okay in soccer/value soccer(while in Asia ping pong and cricket are huge in the usual suspects). Other than that though the extra spots for the other confeds is largely watering down the product. I'll take your word for it with the UEFA thing but I can't see why UEFA would argue for policies that make it harder for their members to qualify. Did their membership really support that? There's a large share of their membership for which qualifying for the world cup has either never happened or is a once in a lifetime event(look at Scotland, Wales and co) while a handful of countries almost always make it and even they can easy be out if they just trip up. Can't see federations like Ireland that seem to always get shafted arguing in favor of limiting spots. I think using the FIFA rankings might have been the best way to go here and it would be more geographically diverse than doing it based on the top 32.
Poland has also been to the world cup semi's as many times as Asia, Africa, North America and Oceania combined.
Not since the 80s... the WC has changed a bit since then. Both Japan and Korea have been more successful in the 32 team WC format. From the bbc... “World Cup 2026: Uefa will ask for 16 places for European teams” https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/38918984
"Uefa will also request that the European teams who do qualify are kept apart in the first stage." Ah. This explains it. Guess that's where they're really after. Got to give some to get some I guess.
Cherry picking? The results are there. UEFA sent 3 teams who finished last, more than any other confederation. An interesting Tournament for UEFA teams. Six of the top eight spots, and three of the bottom eight. Clearly they deserve the number of spots they have based on the top end of results, but then the number of teams in the bottom eight strongly suggest they don't need more spots (at least in a 32 team tournament).
Here I disagree, the same goes with the following I can say Poland has also been to the world cup semi's as many times as Portugal, Denmark, Switzerland, Romania, Greece, Ireland and Scotland combined. I can also say Poland has also been to the world cup semi's as many times as Chile, Paraguay, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Venezuela combined. Now it becomes so clear that everybody noticed how awkward this statement. You make it sound like Polish football is far greater than all these countries. It doesn't work that way.
The point I was trying to make is how Europe deserves more qualification spots and Poland was being used as an example of how Europe gets too many. You are right that is an awkward statement but I'm not naming random European and South American countries I'm naming entire continents .
Poland was in the group of death, with the best Asian country and the best African country and Columbia. Germany hasn't been out since 1938 and Iceland is a weird anomaly. It's cherry picking because you're picking results that contradict the overall picture which is that Europe outperforms the other continents except South America by a very wide margin(6 of 8 quarterfinalists in 2018 2014 and 2010 were weaker years for Europe likely the worst they've had in tournament history and they still fielded half the quarterfinalists). Why don't we look at all bottom eight's not just this one? Not all groups are created equal.
Poland certainly was not in the GOD. It was actually the group where almost every team was judged to have an equal chance to go through. I don't agree Senegal was the best African team. I think both Nigeria and Morocco were better, and only had less points because they were in much tougher groups. Frankly Senegal messed up what was CAFs best chance to make the knockouts. I believe either Nigeria or Morocco would have qualified from that group relatively comfortably. It certainly is not cherry picking to mention Poland, Iceland, and Germany because those are teams that finished LAST in their group. If you want to make a case that your confederation deserves more spots, your confederation shouldn't be sending more last place finishers than other confederations.
His argument, like most of those around how, is effectively the same as: "If New Zealand had a good run in the World Cup in 1930, I would be saying that we should ensure Oceania had enough spots to help American Samoa make the 2022 World Cup as they would clearly be a fabulous team as a result" J
At the top end yes, but at the bottom end this is pretty normal for Europe. That's why I think the cherry picking comment on last placed teams is a bit unfair. Since we have had the current structure UEFA teams have come last in the groups 13 times, an average of over 2 per tournament. This is only exceeded by my own confederation where teams have achieved this 14 times. For interest CAF have done it 12 times, CONCACAF 7 times and CONMEBOL only once. OFC teams have never come last if they can get through the playoffs (nor have the teams that knocked them out in the playoffs).This tells me that if any regions are under represented its the Americas, not UEFA, however politics dictates that Africa and Asia get the biggest boost in the expansion when on results it should be elsewhere. Not sure why UEFA agreed to 16 though. A proportional increase (which I would be OK with) would have seen them on 19.5 spots out of 48.
Going way back that was the original definition of a group of death, however on these forums it has turned into whichever group the USA was in.
I disagree and I guess I would consider your second sentence to be the definition of a group of death. Well we disagree on best African team. I think Senegal had the best shot at making a deep run by far. Senegal didn't really do anything wrong they were ousted on fair play points. Again I think it's cherry picking because you're just using this tournament and you're just taking random last place finishes. Germany also had political reasons for coming in last. Iceland didn't perform terribly either they drew Argentina and only lost 2-1 to the runners ups. Those last place finishes don't all say the same thing.
Lasts aren't all created equal though. Also how many times are the teams beating them in those groups non Euro or South American rather than European teams beating other European teams? In terms of the America's I disagree strongly there's not many SA teams and the 2026 proposal honestly for them makes the most sense, there's just not that many countries and if the top 6 or 7 make it that's enough even with the current system you really never had more than one or maybe two country's who should be in who missed. If you were to give South America more of a boost we'd be heading towards 2/3's representation. In North America if you take away the USA, Canada and Mexico it's basically like Oceania just a bunch of islands mostly and while these islands are actually historically better than their Oceanic counterparts, don't really think North America is misrepresented. Panama didn't just come in last Panama performed terribly, last places don't always mean a team is terrible, Panama really didn't belong though and it shows. Yes I realize this is insulting the US, but what can I say US really didn't earn it this time around and Mexico the traditional power has done terribly in the knockout stages and has performed worse on a more consistent basis than any other country because they keep qualifying given their path. For the Europe point, that press release further up the thread explains UEFA's reasoning for conceding so easily. It didn't make sense to me at first either. They want every UEFA team to get their own group basically skewing the tournament heavily in their favor and to do that they are willing to take less spots than they deserve, which will make the confederations taking more spots more willing to accept that. I disagree with this, sure some UEFA confederations disagree with this too given their history, UEFA performs well enough they don't need the tournament skewed in their favor they should have taken the qualification spots. For the traditional powers who usually make it though UEFA's demands made a lot of sense.
2026 will certainly be interesting. I wouldn't mind it as a one off, and if it is successful continue, but if it is a disaster I quite like the 32 team format. Well I saw group of death as the group with the best combination of 4 teams overall, where you were most likely to see a top quality side fail to advance. Or put another way, where even the weakest side was pretty highly ranked or rated. You could theoretically have a group with 4 even poor sides, and that has never been considered a GOD. The Poland group was the group of "equality" You had 4 sides of roughly similar strength however no super powers, so it couldn't really be considered a GOD. Poland couldn't have been considered the GOD, because the group they were in gave them close to the best chance of advancing. Perhaps only the Russia group would have been any easier for them being a top seed. Id say Croatia, Argentina, Nigeria, Iceland was the GOD.
No I'm not cherry picking anything, and it isn't just this tournament. Almango just posted that since the 32 team format other than Asia, Europe has sent the most last placed sides. This means there are just as many "weak" European sides as there are "weak" sides from other confederations. As a matter of fact Europe sends more "weak" sides than CAF or concacaf, and this isn't cherrypicking, its a cold hard fact. And I have "weak" in quotations because I'm using a last place finish to define "weak". Of course I know last place finishes don't tell the whole story as all groups arent equal and there are other factors as well but you cant use this only to defend Uefa sides, you can use that to defend last place sides from other confederations as well.