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

Then this is a case for CONCACAF to be more deserving of spots at the WC. If CR a WC caliber team can't qualify then more spots to CONCACAF is justified. They lost out to Hoduras in the 2009 HX, and for whatever reason Honduras has not had success at the WC. Maybe Panama's game is better suited for the WC.

 

Qatar might be more neutral, travel all the same, climates all the same, team camps all in the same area (as opposed to US which is expensive and some of theses corrupt FA's will base in crappy places).

Fans is hard one. Qatar won't have many fans at all, but, like most WC's, will favor rich high populations who can travel. Of course many won't go out of principal- worker rights and gay rights are a problem. The USA has immigrant populations, but is getting less immigrant friendly. The expanded WC will surely bring down ticket prices in the early rounds, but I don't know, FIFA, which is run by FA's, like money more than the game. The USA World Cup could have a great atmosphere, but I could see FIFA spoiling it.

Still, I think Qatar is more neutral. Sterile, but neutral.

 

More than they have or more than they are getting?

 

Naturally it didn't change much when CONCACAF only had 1 team in the WC. (0 or 1 advancing were the only options).

As for 2014, one event doesn't make a trend.

 

From 1982 to 2014 CONCACAF has had at least 2 teams.

 

I think what they are getting in 2026 is fair for our region.

 

Do not forget Women's Rights!!!

 

1982 was when the WC suffered its first expanssion from 16 teams to 24.
Concacaf, AFC and CAF all saw their allotments increased to 2 teams each (before at most was at most 1 for each). For Uefa the increase meant them more than half of all the extra new spots. Conmebol, got only half a spot.

1998 saw the second expanssion, which meant almost everyone, at least another extra spot.

A couple of unfair issues related to both previous expanssions (for the next expanssion, this issues suposedly will not happen) :

1.- The only confed that has never been considered getting a full spot in any expanssion, has been OFC.

2.- after each expanssion, the confed that has always been among the ones getting the biggest amount of "new" spots, has always been Uefa (although also true, that since 2002, and after each next WC, their numbers were being decreased, till it halt in 2010, with the figures we currently have)

 

Well, "Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get" Forrest Gump.
But it's not really always a big surprise, actually is mostly realistic about what happens on the field.
The media simply ignorant in that case, with their limited information they are failing to do their homework, so they had no chance, only "to make a big fuss" and laugh at the world.

You need to ask yourself the right question. What do YOU really know about these teams?
For example, what do you know about Cameroon football at the time?
Cameroon already had a good World Cup at first attempt. They were legendary NT side in the eighties by African standards, almost dominated the African football for a whole decade.

You don't have to wait for 1990, there's plenty of evidence out there BEFORE.
Cameroon against Italy which ended in a 1-1 draw (Italy's eventual winners). Cameroon were the better team for much of game, Italy were lucky to get that draw.
And why waiting nine years? In that same World Cup, Algeria beat West Germany 2-1 (West Germany's European Champions suffered their first competitive defeat for more than three years).
People in 1981! People in 1978 already saw Tunisia drawing 0-0 with holders West Germany and the football Tunisia played in that World Cup was absolutely high class as the top 'elite'.
Morocco-England match were held to a 0-0 tie. Morocco were clearly the better side and England were lucky to settle for a goalless draw.
The next game show, Morocco turned on the style with a 3-1 victory over Portugal (Portugal's the semi-finalists at the 1984 European Championship).
Argentina's the World Cup title holders lost their opening match to Cameroon in 1990, a well deserved defeat. Cameroon were better overall.
After that, Cameroon played one hell of a game against England (as one of the tournament's best) in what turned out to be one of the classic matches in World Cup finals history.
Egypt-Holland match in the 1-1 draw (Holland's European Champions). Egypt were the better team and should have won that game, while the Dutch were very fortunate with the draw.
So in conclusion, the Africans had several respectable World Cup tournaments BEFORE AND AFTER.

African football's traditional powerhouse nations (8 teams).
North (4): Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia
West & Central Africa (4); Nigeria, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Cameroon

Africa's elite can't compete for the actual trophy that's absolutely FULL FACTS (in many aspects). At the same time, the are capable of challenging any football team in the world and that's MOST OF THE TIMES.

As for South Korea, Yes. I'll give you that, this one belong to the 'complete surprise' category who plays in extreme home advantage condition.
The quality of the Asian Football is still pretty low at the time by world standards.
Japan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and China are all at the same level with South Korea and the Koreans were not any special among them. In fact, the four teams mentioned above had a better tournaments in the 2000 & 2004 Asian Cups.

Colombia's finest generation reached its peak at the 1994 World Cup, but Pele's pre-tournament hype (as one of the favorites to win the whole thing) killed them and the media took that quote SERIOUSLY! (reasonable verdict is quarters).
Take a look at what happens behind the scenes as well, like some stories were published saying that players constantly receive death threats by gamblers, so obviously their minds are off somewhere else.
USA improved greatly in the nineties, they proved that they are just as good enough before and after the 1994 World Cup tournament:
1993 US Cup (friendly tournament-almost competitive)
1995 Copa America
And of course, USA needed home advantage to beat a highly rated Colombia.

Costa Rica is the third force in CONCACAF soccer behind Mexico and USA.
What they had just achieved in the 2014 World Cup are surely unpredictable but after watching them playing you can gave them a thumbs up, they had an excellent World Cup run.
For the recent time, Mexico, USA and Costa Rica are better than the best teams from Africa, Asia and Oceania PLUS 85% of the European teams.

And don't make a big scene by saying we are prisoners!
Now, nearly a century and it's almost the same usual suspects who fight for a historic World Cup title.
Of course with a bunch of second tier's golden/silver/bronze generations who comes once in a while to join them.

 

What is going on here?
29 years & 59 years ago!
You know nothing about the Swedish football!
What are you doing here, anyway?
Sweden were already the European semi-finalists only two years earlier in 1992.

 

I think we need to keep in mind that we’re discussing a Cup tournament here. Surprises are inevitable. They’ve been occurring in the World Cup (and regional cups) since the very beginning. As such, they do not form the basis of a legitimate argument that a new trend or footballing landscape is upon us. Some real data with adequate sample size is required to get to such a conclusion.

 

Agree, but still the surprises is the exception rather than the rule.
There is also a basic lack of understanding of some people for example the surprise results of Cameroon!

 

The Point is the majority of people could not predict the specific teams or specific games that would be dire or boring heading into a tournament let alone 9 years before hand.

Predicting how a 2026 tournament is going to look like in 2017 is just not an accurate way to do it.
Most matches could be hard fought battles for all we know.

Another thing I would like to point out is that teams that qualify who would not have qualified under the old system may want to prove that they belong and have more incentive to play well. They do not want to just go there and play two silly matches and say well that was that. They are going to do everything in their power not to lose. Especially if the rumors of a shootout will come into play in the Group stage.

Could you imagine if say Trinidad and Tobago had a chance to get multiple points after that Sweden match in 2006? That may put more pressure on the favorites and less pressure on the teams who are underdogs who people think are "just happy to be there".

 

If this mentality would have been applied decades ago we would still have a 16 team tournament. (Which I know would make people very happy around here but that is besides the point.)

We are expanding to 48 teams in 2026 and I think it is great. Others should just give it a chance.

 

That was more for Bulgaria than the Sweden reference.

 

Noone is saying they predict the exact matches or which teams will fail miserably. We're just saying overall the group stage will have a lot of fodder.

 

I would like to see how it plays out before judging.

 

I'm just pointing out that there's no new footballing landscape. They can expand all they want, the same familiar nations will keep dominating the competition. Just like after the last expansion which also favored the 4 'smaller' confederations.

 

Dominating the competition is a different argument. I think everyone can come to the conclusion that the same teams pretty much dominate the competition.
What can be debated though is if expansion will provide excitement and competitive matches and I think it can.

 

See, for e.g., the Euro 2016 group stage. Awful! The 2026 WC expansion is quite similar in the sense that it'll also be a 50% expansion of # of teams, and a100% expansion on # of teams that advance to the KO stage (so again we will see teams with 0 wins advancing).

The worrisome part is that the group stage is the best part of the 32-team world cup (in terms of delivering high entertainment value).

 

We don't know how FIFA will handle the group stage... if they do penalties in group then some team has to win. If FIFA decides to allow ties... then there can be the dreaded 3 way tie. besides this scenario the minimum way a team can advance is with 2 ties. I don't think a team can advance with 1 tie and 1 loss.


Team A 1 - 0 Team B
Team C 1 - 1 Team B
Team C 1 - 1 Team A

Team A 3 pt
Team C 2 pt
Team B 1 pt

EUROS was different because 3 teams out of 4 advanced. 2 out of 3 will be a different dynamic, and losing teams will not advance. At the very minimum a team needs 2 ties.

 

No matter how you look at it, winning a shootout is not winning the match (goes in the record book as a draw, its not 3 points, etc.). Its inevitable that teams will advance without winning a game.