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

Just make it 64 teams, single elimination, seeded by FIFA rankings. Higher seed advances in the first two rounds if there is a scoreless draw so it will make the lower seed try and score instead of bunker.

Would be nerve-racking and crazy but must see TV for sure.

 

Oh and since people talk about the fan experience and would feel bad for the teams that lose on day one....
.... They can do a Losers Bracket so fans can stay and watch their team if they want and not just have a one day in- and- out sorta thing.

Winner of the Losers Bracket get's an Automatic playoff spot for the next World Cup or something silly like that

Winner of the World Cup goes back to getting an Automatic slot in the World Cup..

 

Could do double elimination.

 

The WC is already must-see TV. In fact, the group stage generally produces better matches. Knockout stage is more cagey.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

There's just way too much money, too many people who want a piece of the action,,and too many nations that want to be invited to the party
Expansion is inevitable. Might as well embrace it.

 

I refuse to embrace it, but I will say there is a potential issue with the straight R64 idea. They would have to schedule about 6 matches per day in order to get the first 32 matches completed in a reasonable time-frame.
And I agree with @barroldinho that double-elimination would be essential if the group stage is ever removed. Four years of build-up and having it be all over after 1 match is a bit silly IMO. Plus you don't want to create any disincentives for fans to travel - that's where most of the WC revenue is generated for the host countries. Although double-elimination would mean playing 64 matches in a span of, what, like 11-12 days(?)

 

Well, qualifying will be a bit of a joke in CONMEBOL anyway, once the expansion to 48 teams happens. It's one of the things I'll miss most about the 32-team WC.

If those 4 countries host, I guess qualifying would be a group of 6 with top 3 earning births to the WC. Still tougher to qualify than in Concacaf currently, mind you.

 

Might as well do everything in your power to get the bid.

One of Infantino's main objectives during his presidential run was to make the World Cup regional with more cities and countries being involved.
It does not hurt at all to play up to the president's prejudices .

 

Yeah, just URU and ARG as hosts would be a bit of a stretch too in terms of having the required infrastructure and minimum number cities for a 48 team WC. Even if each of PAR, CHI and URU only have one venue each that would be enough to get to 10 total venues (Buenos Aires could/should have at least 2).

On the negative side, flying between South American countries is relatively expensive. And ARG/CHI border is not an easy crossing, especially in the westbound direction.

 

Seriously doubt this will win, best to stick at most to two co-hosts.

 

Under the current regime two may not be enough.

 

If IIRC, CONMEBOL is getting 6 full spots plus one spot in the intercontinental playoff tournament. Plus, the host confederation gets an extra playoff spot...

Which basically means everyone except Bolivia and one other team qualifies.

 

Ah, I thought it was 7.5 not 6.5. All 7 teams they send will be strong teams though...

 

This is KEY.
Way too many people like to have it both ways and say that South America has too many representatives while at the same time complain about over -saturation of a tournament with weak teams.

The way I see it the More South American quality teams in the tournament the better the tournament will become based on recent history. Other Confederations like CONCACAF, Asia and Africa just simply do not have the same pizazz and competitiveness.

I know people say that it should be the World Cup and not a "European vs. South American Cup" but if the best teams in the World are currently from those regions then they should be a part of the dance.

 

I think most of the complaints about CONMEBOL having 7 or 8 teams at the WC have to less do with the specific merits of CONMEBOL deserving those spots and more to do with the conceptual bizarreness of running a qualification system which effectively looks like a league with two or three teams being relegated at the end.

Although, that is more just a "48-team tournament" problem than a problem with the allocations that were made afterwards.

EDIT: Speaking of which, to make things more interesting, why not just call CONMEBOL qualifiers (assuming they keep the single table) the "CONMEBOL Nations League" and award a trophy and medals at the end? Fans could then look forward to a potential title even if their teams qualify well in advance.

 

True, which is why I think they will have to change the qualifying format in CONMEBOL, sadly.
Probably two groups of 5, top 3 in each group qualify directly, 4th place teams playoff.

 

I think most of us would come to the conclusion that the best way to resolve it is to have more intercontinental playoffs. But FIFA does not like that idea.

 

I don't think the sixth through eighth CONMEBOL teams would be worried about playoffs, especially with lesser confederations getting more spots than in a 32 team World Cup.

 

Well I was implying UEFA teams being involved in the playoffs too.

 

The top 4 in CONMEBOL qualifying could be given #1 seeds for the WC draw. But that would require a political decision not to use the FIFA rankings to seed teams for the WC.
Also not sure 'seeding' is enough to make games notably more meaningful for the average person.

 

If the playoffs were seeded, most or all of the UEFA and CONMEBOL teams could play teams from other confederations.

 

Yup.