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

Fifa won't take the risk to have too many unbalanced groups at world cups and a top 32 in knock out stages that looks too weird...if the fifa ranking looks funny with their system they will either change it or find another more logic way to give the seeds for the tournament.

 

They fixed the system to s

This is listed as the 3rd benefit of the new system from FIFA...
“The Confederation weighting variables of the previous formula, which made rising in the standings more challenging for teams from Confederations other than Europe or South America, has been be removed. Teams will now have an equal chance to improve in the standings irrespective of their regional affiliation.”

This new system took 2 years to develope with extensive testing and discussions. The ranking will be drastically different after each team plays 20 games or so. Other confeds will move up the ranks.

 

Well, this is sort of true - the weighting didn't help but it really wasn't the main problem (the main problem for the best teams in other confeds was the need to play matches that lowered their ranking every when they won them - so that change is more of a benefit)

Questionable at best (or, true if you use the right definition of "equal"). Most matches will tend to be intraconfed - so you can only take points from the other teams in your area. If they don't have that many, then you can't go anywhere. The top teams in Asia (for example) won't get far by beating weak teams, and can really only trade points between them in the Asian Cup or WCQuals (in the Asian Cup the knock-out stage will be critical as that is where this is not so true)

I find this hard to believe given it's effectively an existing ranking system with a minor fudge. Two years!! Either that was a heck of a junket at FIFA's expense or they are very, very slow.

Well, we will see I suppose.

J

 

If a team consistently beats teams in its own confed then they will continue to advance. There will always be weaker and stronger teams in every confed... ranking will start to even out as more and more games are played.

In another thread a poster used this new system to recalculate 2014 to 2018 results. Here are some of the teams in the top 48 after 4 years of this new system...

8th Mexico (currently 16)
13th USA - without any 2018 WC results (currently 22)
19th Costa Rica (currently 32)
23 Iran (currently 32)
24 Egypt (currently 65)
28 Tunisia (currently 14)
29 Ghana (currently 50)
30 Senegal (currently 28)
31 Panama (currrently 55)
32 Serbia - put this here for a reference point (currently 35)
41 Japan (currently 60)
43 Ivory Coast (currently 69)
44 Algeria (currently 64)
45 Australia (currently 40)
48 Greece - Another reference point (currently 44)

6 of the teams above have moved from ranked over 48 to under 48. 2 of the teams they knocked out of the top 48 were CAF teams the other 4 were most likely UEFA teams.

 

Don't forget, if a team is ranked between 17-32 of the nations that qualify they will get a top 16 nation and a nation ranked from 33-48 in their group. Not only will two of three teams qualify, the groups will be on average weaker to accommodate the extra teams. Most of the teams that were in this last world cup would have been good enough to qualify for the knockouts if we had the 48 team format proposed.

 

Agree. If Yugoslavia still existed throughout the 90's they would have been a very formidable team capable of winning a Euro or a World Cup. I do remember that they qualified ahead of the eventual champions in 92 but were banned from the final tournament. Many of the former Yugoslav republics have done OK on their own in recent times.

 

You're focussing on the wrong thing. Sure its speculation, but only to a certain extent. We know some things. For instance, we know there will be 16 teams in the WC that aren't even good enough to qualify for the 32 team WC. So you won't have many groups, if any, where the weakest team is as good as South Korea or Nigeria.

 

To a point yes. The 2014 "starting" values may well have built in a lot of fat for the top AFC (etc) teams to grab (so, for the next couple of years we might expect quite a bit of movement under the new system), but that can really only continue for so long. Eventually the weak AFC teams will see their points drop away and there will be far fewer to take - hence the longer term gains will be minor.

That might be what you mean by "even out" but if they largely get stuck eventually then they aren't going to be measuring any type of change - just a whole set of largely independent rankings that just happen to pretend to measure the cross-confederation relativities.

J

 

Sure the top 16 should have an easier time advancing, but are 17 to 33 that much better then 34 to 48?

Upsets will happen in this new format. There is less room for error. 1 upset and a good team could be knocked out.

 

I think the question to ask is, is #6 in CONMEBOL and #14 to 16 in UEFA much better than NZ and the weakest 3 or 4 teams from CAF, AFC and CONCACAF?

I would argue the answer is Yes.

 

Damn right. Can you imagine NZ holding their own against any team from UEFA in a World Cup finals tournament. Surely they couldn't even draw.

And surely not twice in a week.

J

 

I am unsure if you are joking or not, but I give you the undefeated 2010 NZ WC team.

They tied Italy and Slovakia in 2010 WC finals.

 

I agree uefa and conmebol on paper should advance... but in reality there will be upsets, and like I said before it only takes one bad upset to potentially get knocked out. The 3 team group is much less forgiving then the 4 team group.

 

True (and Paraguay). They could've easily won at least one of those games too (can't remember if it was the Italy or Slovakia match).

Then again, maybe NZ were just better in 2010 than at any other time in their history. They did have to prove themselves in qualifying, after all. Most WCs they never make it so we never really see the average or bad NZ teams play against the world's best teams. The 0.5 spots allocated to OFC provided a filter. Starting in 2026 that filter is gone.

I agree. That's why I'm predicting about 20 CONMEBOL + UEFA teams to advance. That accounts for up to 3 upsets, because on quality alone all 23 should advance unless there is some big surprise qualifier like Bolivia or Latvia.

 

You mean - like twice in a week?

What are the freakin' odds

J

That was, of course, the whole point.

 

Not entirely true.

With the 48 team format, there will be lots more teams from the weaker confeds, but despite being a lower increased number, there would also be a few more teams from Uefa and Conmebol. Most likely that most teams in the 32 team format, coming from both Uefa and Conmebol, would still go through to the round of 32 in the 48 team format, but with absolute certainty, among those "extra" teams from both Conmebol and Uefa that would also be playing the WC, most will also go through taking away the spots of many of the teams from the weaker confeds in the current format, going through to the round of 32.

 

There may be four teams that would have missed out by being knocked out by a team that didn't make the 32. At worst six. I still think 26-28 out of 32 counts as most (I didn't say all).

 

All teams in the 17-32 range maybe not...
But the teams that are in the 14-25th range sure are.

 

Exactly my thought...the teams that are among the weakest in top 32 will have problems...the ones that are in balance between round 16 and 3rd place in group stage will have better chances...

On the other hand the teams that use to reach round 16 and not more will have more problems defending their top 16 status on a single k.o game.

 

The thing is, it's not really 17 to 32 and 33 to 48. Its 17 to 32 and 33 to 100 (roughly).

The 32 teams that qualify under the existing structure are more or less the best 32 teams in the world. Ok, there may be 3 or 4 outliers, but you get the point.

The new 16 teams to qualify aren't the next 16 best in the world because the slot allocation disproportionately favors the weaker confederations.

 

Agree. I would have been much more comfortable if we just proportionately increased the allocation. Doing a straight proportion and rounding mathematically gives us

UEFA 20
CONMEBOL 7
AFC 7
CAF 8
CONCACAF 5
OFC 1

The only region rounded down rather than up was CONCACAF. Everyone else had at least 0.5 on the maths so went up and we ended up with 48 teams. I would have been comfortable with this allocation. It would only have left two spots for CONCACAF in 2026 up for competition, But Mexico and USA are normal qualifiers over the last 20 years, so it doesn't change that much.

 

Well UEFA only wanted 16 so much so that they decided not to participate in the playoff.

CONMEBOL has 6 with the playoff they most likely will get 7. Their 7th just has to earn it, and most think they will. Besides most people want more intercontinental playoffs, I don’t get why you would want to get rid of the 6 team playoff. Also, having 7 qualify out of 10 from Conmebol will be silly... 6 might even ruin the qualifying process.

So the 4 from UEFA and the 1 from conmebol need to go somewhere.

 

I don't think 6 would ruin it. Its only 1 spot more than for 2014, which was highly entertaining. For 2018, there would've been a bunch of teams sweating-it-out even if 6.5 teams qualified (including Argentina and Chile).

Granted, the drama will be reduced but you could say that about CONCACAF and AFC too.

 

Well, even if 6 won't ruin it they still can get 7 with the playoff. Most people think they will win the playoff so they should have 7 anyway.

So, we are really talking about the 4 from UEFA, and they didn't want these 4 anyway.

 

Steering clear of an unwinnable battle isn't the same as UEFA only wanted 16 or not wanting extra spots.