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

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by shizzle787, Dec 4, 2015.

  1. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    I must admit I never heard of that saying. In any case its certainly not true under the current format. Advancing past the 32-team group-stage is a considerable challenge for nearly every NT in the world.

    But all the options suck so ...

    Except the group stage won't be shorter. Its one less game played but teams will have an 8-day gap without playing, which is not great if you're a travelling fan paying $200-300 on a hotel per night. Time-wise the group stage will be just as long, while the KO stage will be longer.
     
  2. barroldinho

    barroldinho Member+

    Man Utd and LA Galaxy
    England
    Aug 13, 2007
    US/UK dual citizen in HB, CA
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    They used the MLS Jermaine Jones Allocation System?
     
    Paul Calixte repped this.
  3. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    That format works well for the U-21 due to the high degree of parity across all the teams in the tournament (although...again ...just having 16 teams would be way better). But I'm afraid the U21 format wouldn't work well for a 48 team WC. So many teams would already be eliminated before they play their final group match.
     
  4. unclesox

    unclesox BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 8, 2003
    209, California
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    For me, the World Cup doesn't start until the Round of 16, be it a 32 or 48 team tournament.
     
  5. JLSA

    JLSA Member

    Nov 11, 2003
    Looking at a three team group - to my mind there is really only one way to make it "fair" (excluding the option of "not doing three team groups").
    First you need to seed the teams into Seeds - 2nd seeds - 3rd seeds.
    MDs are then: MD 1 = 1 v 3, MD 2 = 2 v 3, MD 1 v 2.
    The underlying theory being.
    a) The "worst" collusions would see seeds being knocked out - this avoids that.
    b) Top seeds get "rewarded" by the break before their third match day - although after just 1 match it would be less of a help.
    c) But teams that are most likely to advance will all have played the match before the knockout stage (limiting that possible advantage)
    d) While playing all the "best" group games (1v2) all together sort of means that tournament doesn't really get going until the third matchday, at least we open with the top teams in the world - hopefully putting on a bit of a show against the newbies.

    With the combination of 16 groups (and 16 UEFA teams) its very easy to do both
    - seed into three groups; and
    - have the 1 team per confed rule; and
    - have a draw that can proceed without to much "we have to move them to group x to avoid a clash"
    so there is no reason not to seed the whole thing.

    J
     
  6. unclesox

    unclesox BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 8, 2003
    209, California
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    I would rather go the route used during the second round of the '82 World Cup, which featured three-team groups.
    The '82 schedule went as follows...

    MD1 = Team A -v- Team B
    MD2 = Team C -v- Loser of MD1 or Team A if MD1 ended in a draw.
    MD3 = Team C -v- Winner of MD1 or Team B if MD1 ended in a draw.

    Of course, the difference with 2026 is that 2/3 of the group will advance to the next round.
    In '82, only 1/3 advanced.
    Your proposed 'fixed' schedule could see more collusion play out on MD3 (imo).
    Assuming finishing first in your group benefits your position on who you'll meet in the Round of 32 KO stage (will all matchups be 1st place teams -v- second place teams?), using the '82 schedule for 2026 could see a lot MD3 games being played to decide who wins the group(s).

    Either way, grouping the field of 48 into three separate seeds seems to be a good idea.

    For MD1 ('82 format) I would have Seed 2 -v- Seed 3.
     
  7. JLSA

    JLSA Member

    Nov 11, 2003
    Most of this makes sense. I like the idea of differential draw but I don't think FIFA would go for that (1982 was another world)
    One thing I noted:



    these seem mutually exclusive. In fact, I think the 2nd is correct, and that's a deliberate choice (noted before). Also I think playing 1v3 first is better because 3 expects to lose that so they go into the other match where they expected to be - knowing they still have the "important" match to try and win, if they play 2 first and lose there is a risk they give up entirely against 1 and it just becomes (even more) silly. I fully expect tons of MD3 games to be between 2 teams already qualified for the KO stage - which means little scope for "collusion" but does run the risk of them not really trying too hard (and yes, I would assume all Ro32 matches would be 1stAv2ndB etc).

    Still, the more you think it through, the more you realise how great the current structure is. I know why they want more teams, but its going to be tricky to square that organisational circle.

    J
     
  8. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    I would be in favor of that as long as the seeds are determined solely based on WC qualifying performance. Otherwise why would you even want to "reward" seeds if seeding continues to be non merit-based?

    The other advantage of determining the 16 top seeds based on WC qualifying is that it makes the qualifying a bit more meaningful for the strong NTs. If say the top 7 UEFA nations, top 4 CONMEBOL and top team in other 3 continents got seeds then even teams that could expect to qualify easily will have something to target during the qualifying (the other 2 seeds would go to the host and defending champion).
     
  9. Footsatt

    Footsatt Member+

    Apr 8, 2008
    Michigan
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think seeding, and FIFA rank could be more meaningful for all the teams.

    Seed 1 (rank 1 - 15):
    11 UEFA
    4 CONMEBOL
    1 HOST (in this case CONCACAF)

    Seed 2 (rank 16 - 31):
    5 UEFA (assumes they are all top 31 teams) They automatically get drawn into the 5 remaining spots without a UEFA team.
    6 CAF
    2 CONMEBOL
    2 CONCACAF
    1 AFC

    Seed 3 (rank 32 - 47):
    7 AFC
    3 CONCACAF
    3 CAF
    1 OFC
    2 PLAYOFF SPOTS
     
  10. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    I fear that the groups would wind-up heavily uneven if the seeding is largely based on region like that. e.g. you could get Brasil, Italy, Mexico in one scenario, or if more lucky Brasil could get Burkina Faso and Thailand. :laugh: Well I guess it would be difficult to avoid such a variance under any system, but if pots 2 and 3 are just #17-32 and #33 to 48, respectively using a good ranking system (regardless of region) it might reduce the chances of two weak-ass teams in the same group.
     
  11. barroldinho

    barroldinho Member+

    Man Utd and LA Galaxy
    England
    Aug 13, 2007
    US/UK dual citizen in HB, CA
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Instead of drawing, you could just calculate groups. So the top seed gets the worst two of the other teams and the lowest ranked in pot 1, gets the best. It would actually make results more important because ranking doesn't just increase the odds of getting an easier draw, it defines your group.

    It would also add merit to the performance of an overachieving lower seed.
     
    Footsatt repped this.
  12. MNNumbers

    MNNumbers Member

    Jul 10, 2014
    #3287 MNNumbers, Jul 1, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2017
    I think they should seed for Russia. It's not complicated. It's actually easy to work out. I don't have the FIFA Rankings right at hand, but I believe Russia does NOT deserve a #1 seed.
    So, they should go in as a #4 seed, but have whatever schedule and stadia that the Organizing Commitee wants to give them.
    Then, choose your #1s according to World Rank. Place them by draw.
    Then, choose your #2s. Place them by draw, and at this time the only thing you would have to avoid is putting a UEFA team in the same group as Russia and a UEFA #1 (and Russia might not even BE with a UEFA #1), and putting the #5 CONMEBOL with another CONMEBOL team.
    Choose your #3s by World Rank. Now, you will have avoid putting USA and Costa Rica with Mexico (likely), and you have to avoid 3 UEFA teams together, but it can be done.
    Finally, the 4s.

    It's not hard. It keeps the groups fair. And, it can be done with separating the Confeds as you go.

    If it's easy with 4 team groups, it should be much easier with 3 team groups.

    But, you have to draw, rather than just calculating, because you want the confederations separate at all costs.

    And, in the case of 2026, you need to arrange the KO phase so that the Round of 32 doesn't have any intra-confed matches except UEFA.
     
    HomietheClown repped this.
  13. HomietheClown

    HomietheClown Member+

    Dusselheim FC 1971
    Sep 4, 2010
    Club:
    --other--
    I kinda like this idea.
    Sort of like how the Champions League sets up their knockout stage with no teams from the same League facing until a certain stage. Obviously Europe would have to be the exception since they have so many more teams within the competition.
     
  14. MNNumbers

    MNNumbers Member

    Jul 10, 2014
    #3289 MNNumbers, Jul 1, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2017
    From Current FIFA Rankings (so this is obviously just an example....)
    UEFA: 10 #1s and 6 #2s.
    CONMEBOL: The remaining 6 #1s.
    CAF: 3 #2s, and 6 #3s, including the current 49th overall
    AFC: 1 #2, and 7 #3s
    OFC: Only NZ, a #3.
    CONCACAF: 3 #2s, 2 #3s, + Canada as invited host (and as a #3).
    + Playoff....By World Rank, it would be CONMEBOL and CAF which qualified.

    So, for the knockout phase, it's actually impossible to set it up to GUARANTEE no intra-confed matchups in the round of 32, because there are 10 CAF teams as this turned out.

    But I would start the draw in this case by placing the USA, Mexico and Canada in their preferred spots. US, Mex would be #2 seeds, Canada #3 seed.

    Then, I would draw the CONMEBOL #1s such that no 2 of those groups played in the Round of 32.
    Then, I would draw the UEFA #1s, followed by the lone CONMEBOL playoff qualifier, which would be a 2 seed. There might be only a few choices left for that team, but I think it would work.
    Then, the UEFA #2s.
    Then, the remaining #2s.
    Then, the #3s, starting with CAF so as to limit the possibilities of CAF v CAF matchups to 2 in the Round of 32.
    Then, AFC, again seeking to limit such matchups (although I am pretty sure not very many AFC teams would go through).
    Then, CONCACAF.
    Finally, New Zealand.
     
  15. MNNumbers

    MNNumbers Member

    Jul 10, 2014
    KO bracket, no matter how they do the groups, is likely to be something like:
    1a v 2b//3a v 4b////5a v 6b//7a v 8b, etc, with the reverse on the other side of the bracket....

    So, as an example of the above, I ran bunch of random numbers and came up with:
    US goes first as A-2. Mexico goes as I-2. Canada as N-3. These are completely random in the case of Mex and Can, but just depend on what the sites for matches actually end up to be.

    Then....Choosing Randomly my number generator pulls 1..2..16..3..6..7..11.5..12..14..13..15..10..9..8..4.
    Choose the CONMEBOL #1s, first, because they are restricted, while UEFA is NOT.
    Now, the trickey part here is that UEFA has to get Groups A and I as a #1, because if those go to CONMEBOL, then UEFA has to go there as a #2 to spread UEFA around. Therefore, CONMEBOL gets:B-1, not A 2 because of the above, P-1, C-1, F-1, G-1 (which group plays H, not F), K-1. Then, UEFA gets the rest.
    #2s. UEFA gets the same groups that CONMEBOL got for #1s, in some new random order.
    Then, for the others: What's left are A, D, E,H, I, J, L, M, N, O
    A is for US. Mexico is I, so that leaves DEHJLMNO
    Let's pull a new randomization for these...M, J, H, N, E, O, D, L
    CONMEBOL: So, the 7th CONMEBOL team goes in group M, then...
    CAF: Groups J, H, N, E, O (I was wrong above. CAF actually gets 5 #2s. Sorry)
    CONCACAF: Groups A, I, of course and D
    AFC: Iran gets Group L.

    Then, the #3 seeds. A new randomization:
    H, K, E, B, M, A, N, G, O, F, L, D, J, C, P, I
    Canada, as host, goes into N.
    Then, we choose the rest.
    CAF gets 4 (to make 10 total): Not H...K, Not E..., B, M is allowed even though MvN in KO rounds because we can't avoid 2 such possibilities, A for the same reason, Not N, Not G now, O. Good. K, B, M, A, O
    CONCACAF:N for Canada, and then...Not H ( H v I in KO phase), E, not A, G...So, E, G, N
    Note that K is taken, so the K v L all AFC KO matchup is already not possible.
    So, we put the OFC rep in Group L.
    And, all the rest are AFC teams.....

    It's a little complicated, but it works...
     
  16. HomietheClown

    HomietheClown Member+

    Dusselheim FC 1971
    Sep 4, 2010
    Club:
    --other--
    This futuristic concept can help with people concerned about travel in a large tournament such as this:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-soccer-fifa-worldcup-idUSKBN19O0YB
    :p
    It sounds like something straight out of SCi-Fi movie but I am kind of intrigued.

    If I could just take a train to Soldier Field and watch holographic images of a World Cup being staged somewhere else it would be an experience of a life time.
    That said, I would not pay full price to see projected images on a grass field.
    Maybe half price of what the live people are paying but nothing more. :D
     
  17. Paul Calixte

    Paul Calixte Moderator
    Staff Member

    Orlando City SC
    Apr 30, 2009
    Miami, FL
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So does FIFA intervene if there is a pitch invasion in Marrakech during one of the games, endangering the holographic players' safety? :D
     
    AlbertCamus and HomietheClown repped this.
  18. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    It's not that easy. Sure you can say Russia doesn't deserve a #1 seed, but what about Brasil in 2014? How do you know if the host (who doesn't play any qualifying games in the years leading-up to the World Cup, remember) "deserves" to be seeded or not?

    Having a host like Brasil not a #1 seed would cause more unbalance across the groups than having a team like Russia seeded. Its easier just to make the host seeded as a standard practice.
     
  19. MNNumbers

    MNNumbers Member

    Jul 10, 2014
    A fairly easy way to adjudge such things would be a rule like:
    If the host country is ranked in the top 16 in the FIFA rankings 12 months prior to the start of the tournament, then they receive a #1 seed.

    While I appreciate your concept here, Boca, I would say that neither Qatar nor Russia should have a #1.

    And, following along, I don't think the USA should have a #1 in 2026, either, unless something really changes in their results in the next 7 years or so.

    And, generally, I disagree with your Brazil analysis.

    Russia is currently ranked 63rd worldwide. It's true that they have not played any Qualifying games. However, it's also true that UEFA has only played 6 games as it is, and Russia's likely results would not raise their ranking by a lot. They are, among the 32 teams playing in their WC next year, surely among the 25-32 range. Placing them among the #1s gives.....
    First, their group, which will have, likely Russia at #1 (but really 25 or 28 or something), another UEFA team (but NOT high ranked), so this team will be between 9-20. probably, a highly ranked CONMEBOL team or a CAF team (and, those confeds in the same pot is terrible planning), and a CONCACAF or AFC team (again, too much variation in the pot). That's awful....
    Seed the whole thing and you get:
    With Russia at a #1:
    Russia, + a 8-15 team, + a 16-23 team, plus another 24-32 team. This is CLEARLY a weak group. (It could be balanced slightly if the #8 team were drawn to it). The other groups would not be affected by Russia as a #1 any more than they are affected by the strangeness of the FIFA Rankings System already.
    Now, Brazil as a #2 (as you suggest???).
    The #1s would all be 1-9.
    Brazil and the other 10-16 would be the twos.
    The only thing out of skew is that Brazil's group will be harder than normal, because it will really have 2 #1 teams. But, here's the thing.....Both of those teams - Brazil and whoever would have been the #1 in the group, would Very Likely go through to the KO phase.

    So, it still seems to me that Russia (or Qatar, or even US in '26) as a #1 skews the matter worse.

    And, I still say that the host country can have it's group games on the dates it wants and the locations it wants. They just can't have an auto #1 unless they are in the Top 1/2 of the field a year before the tourney begins.
     
  20. TheAnswer1313

    TheAnswer1313 Member+

    Dec 12, 2007
    Charleston, WV
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Italy
    I agree.

    No reason the host should have an auto 1 seed.
     
  21. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    I generally agree with every thing that you're saying. I just don’t think it’s a huge issue since host teams will generally play a lot better at home than they otherwise would. South Africa was probably the weakest host nation ever and they still held their own in a pretty challenging group. Also I think if there is a bias then its better that the bias goes in this direction rather than setting things up such that the home team is likely to wind-up in the group of death.


    Of course if more tiny and/or weak footballing nations like Qatar host more often I might backtrack on everything I’ve said here. :D
     
  22. HomietheClown

    HomietheClown Member+

    Dusselheim FC 1971
    Sep 4, 2010
    Club:
    --other--
    No reason?

    Tradition is the reason.
    (It may not be a reason you agree with but it is a reason.)
     
  23. mfw13

    mfw13 Member+

    Jul 19, 2003
    Seattle
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Bigger than the uproar when a bunch of teams advance to the knockout stages with a loss and a draw (see post #3267 for this scenario)?

    Given how random knockout stage results can be (due to officiating errors and/or PK's), there's a pretty good chance that a team is going to make it to the round of 16 with a loss and a draw in the group stages, and a PK victory in the round of 32.
     
  24. unclesox

    unclesox BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 8, 2003
    209, California
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Yes.
    The supposed 'pact' between West Germany and Austria in '82 led to the change of simultaneous kickoffs during the last round of group stage matches.
    In '86 Bulgaria and Uruguay advanced with two draws and a defeat (no wins) and I don't recall much of an uproar at the time. Indeed, FIFA is allowing for potential controversy to happen again with this expansion to 48. With 16 groups in play, a team advancing without a victory is almost expected.
     
  25. Sebsasour

    Sebsasour Member+

    New Mexico United
    May 26, 2012
    Albuquerque NM
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There's certainly issues with the format, but isn't there a rumor swirling that every game is going to end on PK's with no ties? Wouldn't that prevent a repeat of the West Germany-Austria situation?
     

Share This Page