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

Well, as you say it's just a rumor for now. I'm no fan of matches decided via penalties but I understand why it's used in knockout round games. If it can help prevent another situation like Gijón or '78 Argentina-Peru I would be all for it.

 

The thing is its very easy to prevent a certain bad scenario from repeating itself. e.g. You can just say the team with the most possession wins a tiebreak.
What's not so easy is finding a fair and sensible way to do that, which also doesn't turn the tournament upsidedown into a farce. Unfortunately having a PK shootout after every group stage match would check none of those boxes and make a total mockery of the tournament.

 

I agree that the 3 team group formula sucks, but as far as least bad options to go along with that go, I think penalties are the way to go.

Maybe a golden goal extra time period, but that has it's own issues and it'd have to be golden goal because you'd risk a repeat of the 1994 Caribbean Cup game

 

Even with the existence of penalties, there will still be ways of rigging the outcome of a group stage.

The whole abomination of 3 team groups, is that there will always be 2 teams playing the last match date, with a third team not being capable of doing anything if the other 2 teams decide to go for a result that favours them both.

For the only scenario that the penalties can help, is when the third team has already qualified to the next stage, by wining both of their 2 matches by the same score or by the same way, and that penalty definition would decide which other team goes through and which doesn't. For all other scenarios where the third team would get eliminated over a result in that last match date, it is highly probable that it will happen.

 

Rickdog,

I'm not arguing here. I'm trying to get clear in my mind what a problem scenario would look like....

Let's say that points are:
3- Reg Win
2- PK Win (No overtime in group play)
1- PK Loss
0- Reg Loss

Let's also say that the #1 seed plays the first 2 games.

Now, under what set of circumstances does the 3rd match become a potential farce?

Again,
Not complaining. Just trying to see what might happen here.

 

How about this:
#2 > #1 pk win..... #2 : 2pts / #1 : 1pt
#3 > #1 pk win... All have 2 pts each.

Assuming pk win is not factored into goal difference (and FIFA usually use goal difference as the first tiebreak).
#2 v #3 - Reg win for either would eliminate loser on '90 minute goal difference'.(#1 g.d. is at 0)
Thus, #2 v #3 can play to a 90 min draw and both would advance via points while #1 sits and watches.

 

Scenario 1 :
team A wins directly (3 p) vs. team B (0 p)
team B wins on pk (2 p) vs team C (1 p)
last match date (agreed for), team C wins directly (3 p) over team A (0 p).
final standings : 1° team C (4p); 2° team A (3 p); 3° team B (2p),

Scenario 2:
team A wins on pk (2 p) over team B (1 p)
team B wins on pk (2 p) over team C (1 p)
last match date, both teams agree on having team C win on pk (2 p) over team A (1p), but where they both agree on scoring more goals that last match than those scored by team B.
Final standings : All teams tied with 3 pts. each, but where both teams A and C, would have more goals scored on regular time, than all those scored by team B.

Scenario 3 :
team A wins directly (3 p) over team B (0 p), by 1-0
team B wins directly (3 p) over team C (0 p), by 1-0
last match date (agreed for) : team C wins directly (3 p) over team A (0 p), but as above, agree on a higher final score, for instance 2-1.
final standings : all teams tied on 3 pts each, but on goals scored both teams A and C, would have 2 goals scored, while team B would have only 1 goal scored, so tickets home for team B

 

Even if #1 wins one of those two shootouts it would still set-up a potential farce in the final game of the group:
#1: 3 points (2 matches played)
#2: 2 points (1 match played)
#3: 1 point (1 match played)

#2 and #3 could play out to a higher scoring draw which would benefit both.

 

A lot could happen.

 

You could also have FIFA adding the VAR as how it was used last Confed cup, and together with those potential odd scenarios, you can add another source of uncertainty so FIFA could rig the WC as however they wish it for...

 

Wait a minute.

I hate to be like detective Columbo coming into a crime scene and asking basic questions that get down to the natty- gritty, however...

...I thought that expansion to 48 was going to make it boring to watch with lopsided scores and teams getting blown out in the Group stage due to diluting the field,

How in the world are we going to have all these crazy close scenarios that seem exciting and nail-biting with uncertainty if for the most part there's going to be blowouts and boring games according to most people in this thread?
It does not compute in my world.

Riddle me this Batman.

 

You don't need the bat to answer that one for you.

All you need is a very lousy draw before the WC starts, having some groups with all teams in them, of a good level, while at the same time have some other groups full of crap in them.

To have more shitty teams, doesn't mean that necessarily they will be paired against top teams, as they could perfectly "put" most of them in the same groups. Only seeded teams, are currently based on rankings. For the rest of teams, there's nothing written on it.

 

People seem to want to have their cake and eat it too though.

They say that the Group Stage is not going to be worth watching because it is going to be too boring & predictable.

Now they say that there will be these secret pacts and close Group stage matches that go to shootouts and we can get some collusion that sends some Seeded teams packing if they have played their first two matches before the others.
That sounds a bit exciting to me.

Which is it?

 

Ask Batman, that one .....

 

Well, did you see the 2016 Euros? Of course, you did. I mean we all remember where we were the day Albania played Romania.

But seriously, even though that tournament was diluted by 50% there were still lots of boring, close matches (yes, a match can be both "boring" and "close"). And the scenarios we're laying out are not that "crazy", that's the problem. All we're talking about is a mere 2 games going a certain way for these dilemmas to be set-up. And with 16 groups they're not only not crazy, they're inevitable.

 

In a World Cup with various styles, various tactics, various formations and cultural differences I think it will be a bit different than the 2016 Euros.
A Euro I was pretty entertained by personally but I know so many people around here were not.
To each his own.

 

No one is saying "there will be".
We're simply pointing out that the possibility exists, especially with groups of three.

 

Possibility exists with Groups of 4 too.

 

Simultaneous kickoffs, when all four teams are playing, reduces the chances considerably.

 

Point being, someone asked for scenarios and they were provided.

 

A little bit.
But ask Italy about the 2004 Euro.
And ask Spain about Nigeria playing their B squad against Paraguay in '98.

Things happen in tournaments no matter what the Groups look like.

My opinion is if your team gets knocked out cause of other teams and their shenanigans then maybe you should have not put yourself into that position in the first place.

 

Agreed, especially in the case of Spain '98.
But in a 4 team group such as '82 who knows how Algeria would have reacted if they knew the scoreline of WGermany-Austria had the matches kicked off simultaneously.
3 team groups assures that one team will be sitting and watching on matchday 3. It's asking for trouble.

As for Italy and Euro 2004, the first tiebreak was head to head. Collusion is more likely to happen there than FIFA's preference of goal difference as first tiebreak.

 

A little bit? Come on dude. There are at least 3 things that make it more likely:
- there are only 2 matches played in each group before the final group match day (instead of 4);
- not all teams play on the final group day;
- there are twice as many groups.

The least important of those 3 factors is the last one, but even that doubles the likelihood of collusion happening compared to an 8 group tournament. Lets be conservative and say the other two factors triple the likelihood. That's 3*3*2 = 18 times more likely for a Euro 2004 scenario to play out.

 

I say a little bit because we don't know how penalties will be applied in this format or how winning your Group could give you a much easier opponent in the round of 32 depending on how that is decided..
But it is all hypothetical.