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

If it were up to me I would keep the two 15 minute halves and do something wacky.

Maybe play two more five minute periods with no Keepers.
That would be a sight to see.

 

Or maybe split the 30 into 3 periods. The first 10min is full team no Golden Goal. The second 10 could be Golden Goal with 10 men per side. The last 10min could be Golden Goal with 9 on each side. Still tied then go to PKs.

 

Now you are talking my language.

 

Maybe we can have the presidents' daughters of each respective team's Confederation take penalty kicks.

Best off both worlds.

 

Fwiw, I believe 1986 was the last time a full on replay would have been used if the World Cup final had ended level after extra-time. The replay would have been played two days later, on the Tuesday following the Sunday final.

 

Bikini kicks?

 

That was always a silly format if you ask me. The outcome of the semifinals and even the quarterfinals can have a direct impact on the outcome of the final (and thus the main outcome of the tournament). If PKs are good enough for the semis, which determines who plays in the final, then its logically good enough for a final itself (by mathematical induction).

Copa Libertadores still uses a similarly flawed format where they apply away goals rule in every knockout round until the final. All of a sudden when they get to the final, a rule that has been in effect for the entirely of the tournament is deemed no longer good enough. Just doesn't make sense.

 

And how will Qatar take it?

 

The contingency for the final used to be a replay that would be played a few days later. It never came to that. I think they only did away with that contingency in the '80's.

 

That option is not viable in 2017.

 

No. Probably not. I like penalties so for me there is no problem.

 

The indefensible allocations aside, the real problem with the proposed 48-team WC is the format
(16 three team groups), which is absolutely horrible for several reasons.

#1 - It will allow teams to advance to the knockout stages with two draws, i.e. without winning a match.

#2 - It will give an unfair advantage in the knockout stages to whichever team gets the 3rd match date in the groups stage off.

#3 - Teams will be guaranteed only two matches, which would make it less likely that fans would travel to the WC.

A much better format would be 12 four team groups. The twelve group winners would advance, along with the four best second place teams. Not only would the scheduling work much better, but each team would be guaranteed three matches. And because only the four best 2nd-place teams would advance, you'd get much better group stage matches, since teams would have to try and get 5-6 points, instead of settling for 4 points.

 

Good luck trying to convince people of this proposal.
It is basically the same premise as the 40 team Word Cup plan I liked that was not too popular around here.

I like rewarding teams for winning Groups.

 

It's worse than that. Teams will be able to advance with a single draw (and a loss). In fact, it is very likely to happen. For example, imagine a group with Germany, Japan, and Cameroon (just picking teams at random).

Match 1: Germany 1, Japan 0
Match 2: Germany 2, Cameroon 0
Match 3: Japan can play for a 0-0 draw and advance. 1 draw, 1 loss, no goals scored, and they advance. Any draw will do for them.

 

The main knock against this format that has been often mentioned in this thread is the number of dead rubber (meaningless) matches that would be taking place on the third match date.

 

They are floating around the idea of no draws though. It has been proposed to have shootouts.

 

Perhaps. But that would be more than balanced by the fact that there would be much more attacking soccer in all the other matches. Why? Because with only 25% of 2nd place teams advancing, it would take either 6 points with a strong goal differential or 7 points to guarantee a second place team advancement (i.e. a minimum of two wins).

I did some quick analysis while watching the Confederations Cup this morning of all tournaments in the 3-pts-for-a-win era featuring four team groups with only the top two advancing. In those tournaments, 40% of all teams finishing second in their groups did so with six or more points. So not only are more teams going to be forced to go for wins, leading to more wide open play, but teams are also going to be encouraged to attack more in order to improve their goal differential. Because not only are you going to need to get to six points to advance, but you're going to need to do so with a strong goal differential as well.

So if the trade-off for more wide-open attacking soccer in five group matches is a couple more meaningless matches between mediocre teams on the last match day, so be it. I'll make that trade-off without a second thought...

 

The U-21 Euros are going on right now and they have a similar format, albeit with a much smaller tournament: 12 teams in three groups of four, best second place team advances to semi-finals with three group winners.

Group A ended this past Thursday and saw Slovakia finish second in the group following a 3-0 victory over Sweden. Slovakia had 6 points with a +3 goal differential (6 scored, 3 allowed).

On Friday Portugal kicked off knowing they needed to beat Macedonia by three goals (as long as the scoreline finished 4-1 or higher) to overtake Slovakia as best second place team. They 'only' won 4-2 but dominated the action.

Yesterday in Group C the day began with Germany on 6 points, Czech Republic and Italy on 3 pts each. (Denmark out of the running with no points).
While the Czechs lost 4-2 to Denmark, Italy led Germany 1-0 since the 31st minute and the longer the game went, both teams knew that 1-0 would put both teams through to the semis. Slovakia could only sit and watch on TV.

Semi-finals on Tuesday:
England v Germany
Spain v Italy

 

Slovakian prime minister hits out on "farce" result.
Slovakia coach talks of Italy-Germany "shame".

Confirmation that any tournament that features a "best second place teams advancing" format would be a disaster.
Imagine the uproar if this had happened at a major senior tournament.
@mfw13

 

The benefits are this... it will be easier to advance. So it's true 1 out of the 3 teams will not advance, and this one team will be knocked out while only playing 2 games compared to the 3 in the current 32 team format. It will be easier to advance (a team can advance with just a draw). So the 3rd game for, a knockout game, will be more exciting for the the teams that do make the knockouts.

There is a saying, that the tournament doesn't really start until the knockouts. This makes the groups stage smaller and the knockout phase longer... and it allows more teams into the knockout phase. 16 more teams will make the knockouts compared to the current format.

A lot of people are focusing on whats wrong with the group phase, and ignoring the benefits of the bigger knockout phase.

FIFA has yet to announce the rules for the group phase. Nobody knows if there will be draws or penalties, and nobody knows what the tie breaking rules will be.

I am one of the few that thinks this format could work well... I think having a shorter group stage to eliminate the one weak team is a positive, and having a bigger knockout phase is also a positive. It all depends of course on whether FIFA can get the group stage rules right.

 

Actually its a disadvantage to have the 3rd matchday off since the 2 teams that are playing could play to a result that benefits them both while screwing the idle team.

But yeah... I still agree with your overall point.