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

It can easily be both.

Firstly, there are 16 groups instead 8 and 3 matches per group instead of 6. That means mathematically the odds of 2 or more teams finishing with identical records increases many-fold (and same true about the odds for all teams in the group to finish tied).

Fact #2: its 48 teams instead of 32 so its watered-down. Sorry, but it just is.

Subjectively speaking, I would also argue if you had a group with these results...

France 3, Burkina Faso 0
France 3, Uzbekistan 0
Uzbekistan 1, Burkina Faso 1

...its both 'boring' and requiring, as you described it, an "unfair" tiebreaker. But of course boring is subjective.

 

It was also drawing of lots.
I remember at the time thinking Ecuador lost to Haiti? They do not deserve to advance.
I am sure the same mentality will apply in a 48 team World Cup. Managers all around the World will be saying if you cannot advance out of the Group stage in a "watered down" World Cup then you have no one to blame but yourselves for not doing enough to advance.

Conversely the Round of 32 will be so exciting to see. One more round of do-or-die nail biting matches will be fun for everyone to watch.

 

And there was another group where 2 teams finished with identical records in the same tournament! While 2002 seems like a long time ago, there will be as many 3 team groups in the WC as you had in 4 Gold Cup tournaments combined.

 

You are trying to have it both ways and double down on it .
That is fine.

I am saying that in reality a Group Stage will have people complaining no matter what as we saw with yellow cards being the tie breaker in Russia.
Teams adjust, Managers adjust and fans have to adjust to the rules given.

In the Three team Group of the World Cup there will be a mixture of excitement and controversy and blowouts just like any other World Cup or tournament.

It will not be boring if the tie breakers (like shootouts) are used in my opinion. And if they are not used then that usually means the good teams are rising to the top and doing what they are expected to do.... ....put many goals up on the minnows.

 

In this scenario I would be very excited if there is a shootout.
The winner of the shootout will go through to the round of 32 which is very exciting to me.
Much more exciting than seeing a draw and casting of lots or a team going out due to yellows.

 

"Having it both ways" is an expression that only applies to mutually exclusive things. I am not saying opposite/opposing things. The opposite of watered-down is elite-only, which is not what I am saying.

Whether the watering-down is good or bad a matter of opinion. Its fine if you think its good.

 

Having it both ways as in two things that I see as incompatible happening simultaneously. I can't see the tournament being boring with watered down teams while simultaneously having the odds of shootouts and tiebreakers being used go up.
In my world it will be more exciting with the shootouts and the more controversy due to the tie breakers probably means less blowouts.

 

The mere fact that shootouts are being discussed as something that may be needed is proof that the odds of needing tiebreakers will go up.

As for the watering-down, expanding a tournament to include teams that previously weren't good enough to partake is literally the definition of 'watering-down'.

 

It may be proof that the odds may go up but that won't be boring to me. It may be boring to you but I don't think I have ever heard someone say a shootout in a World Cup is boring.

As for the Watered down argument you are looking at it from last cycle to this cycle which is your prerogative.

I am looking at it from a different perspective. The FIFA perspective.

In 1982 we had about 27 percent of the Federations advance to the Finals out of the participating qualifying field.
In a 48 team tournament it will be roughly about the same percentage. To me that is not watered down. It is progress.

 

Ha

 

The first Gold Cup I watched was in 2005. The first World Cup Qualifiers I remember as they happened were for 2006. I followed the Hexagonal for 1998 and qualifying in every confederation starting with 2002, but I don't remember them. Anything before 2005 only know if I looked at standings. There are times when I go on Wikipedia and I'm disappointed that they don't have the tiebreakers for old competitions. I doubt CONCACAF has articles or Gold Cup regulations for 2002. I wonder if www.canadasoccer.com or the website from a Canadian newspaper can help.

 

Of course the shootout itself is not boring. But just because one game in a group went to a shootout doesn't mean the group games were riveting on-the-whole.

That's a bit of a red herring. If you take a country that qualified in 1982 and split that country into 6 pieces, none of the 6 countries are going to be as strong as the consolidated country.

Its not like another planet containing 50 countries became members of FIFA.

Not to mention the cherry-picking of 1982 - the last time the WC was expanded by 50%

In any case, I can live with the watering-down. Its the format change that sucks more IMO.

 

But this expansion provides us with the shootouts that are exciting.
Along with a "do or die" round of 32 that should be exciting.

No one is saying as a whole Group games will be riveting. I specifically said there will some exciting games, some blowouts some boring games, some controversy just like any tournament or any format provides..

 

I agree with the second part of this - what I don't agree with is the need for fake shoot-outs in the group stage to somehow avoid the possibility that the groups will end up tied just in case other results go a certain way.

1) They only partially solve the problem. In the case where all the groups games are equal draws (say all 0-0), then three shoot-outs will split the teams in 50% of the time (what if each team wins a shoot-out and loses a shoot-out - you've added three penalty shoot-out to the tournament and solved nothing - "and, now Mexico win the shoot-out, meaning we now go to drawing of lots"). And, this could lead to the horrendous situation I will outline below.
2) They aren't used at all in the case where all the group games are equal non-draws (say each team gets a 1-0 win and a 1-0 loss - you're now needing to tie-break). The point of rules surely is to deal equally with similar situations - this fails on this count.
3) You enter them (particularly in say - game one) not knowing if they are actually going to count - meaning how do you feel at the end - it's just weird.
4) As a result of 3, you are adding extra broadcast time that might mean nothing. Face it, this is not the Caribbean qualification stage for the Gold Cup where literally nobody is watching (no offence, but the fact they played a penalty shoot-out after Guadeloupe v Suriname is hardly on the same level as one between Argentina and Nigeria).
5) If you take the way they did that Caribbean tournament (really don't - the implementation did more to damage the results of the tournament - changing the order teams would finish compared to normal rules etc) , they actually played extra time - good luck scheduling 6 games across a day if they don't just take just under 2 hours (including HT), but might extend to closer to 3! Again, this is the World Cup.
6) The only case where it seems to make sense - and I would agree it would be nice to have the option in a sense - to have a shoot-out is where Team A (presumably seeds given other things) wins both their matches (say) 3-0 and then the other teams are heading for a draw. But then that's not a good rule to implement as you can't only apply in some situations and not others.
7) It eliminates part of football - the draw - for no reason. In a knock-out tie the alternatives (a replay, even more extra time etc) are, sadly, just not an option. But here we have the standard option of other tiebreakers that we are already using. It might not be perfect, nothing is under the right conditions, but it is better than changing something fundamental to the game.

The very worst case scenario is this:
Imagine we have shoot-outs a tie-breaker after each draw. Win a shoot-out and you get 2 pts, lose and you get 1 (those are the probable values - although they weren't what was used in the Caribbean results noted above - they used 3 and 0!!!! - but they are irrelevant to this scenario). Otherwise we assume normal tie-breakers, PTS, GD, GS and then (let's say) yellow cards.

Match 1 - Team A v Team B is 0-0, no yellow cards. Team A wins the shoot-out.
Match 2 - Team B v Team C is 0-0, no yellow cards. Team B wins the shoot-out.
Match 3 - Team C v Team A has ended 0-0, but team C has a 2 yellow cards and Team A has only one or two.

We now have to play the shootout (it's a draw and it's in the rules).

But Team C can't qualify if they win the shoot-out because we'll need to go to yellow cards - and they are the worst on that ranking.

And now you don't just have a problem - you have an unprecedented nightmare scenario. What is the point for Team C - how do you tell them to actually try - "Hey guys, you've just been tragically eliminated - please take some penalty kicks now - it' s of vital importance for the tournament as a whole to know who wins the shoot-out between you and Team A".. How do you explain that to the 2 billion people watching on TV - "And now, here comes the Team C captain, who announced that he would be retiring after the World Cup - his career already over, tears in his eyes, he now steps forward to take a penalty kick that means literally Sweet FA to him now".

(And note, that even though Team C are out Team A's position is uncertain - win the shoot-out and presumably they win the group on points, lose it and they finish 2nd if they have one yellow card and have to go to another tie-breaker if they have now. I don't even know which would be worse here, I'll leave that up to you).

Now you could argue that we already have situations on matchday 3 where a team that has already been eliminated has to play another team who really cares about the result - but surely the fact you are doing something that is not really part of the standard game (a shoot-out) straight after the emotional end to the actual match when they have given their all is putting this into a very different situation - one which can only make football look really, really stupid.

J

 

The penalty shootout between France and Brazil at WC86 was an absolute thriller in line with an all-time classic of a match.
The penalty shootout between Ukraine and Swiss at WC06 was just as forgettable rubbish as the match itself.

 

Very rarely in international competitions do we get three consecutive scores in a Group that are exactly the same. Especially in World Cups when you have such a difference in culture, team styles, pace of the game, different referees from around the world, different coaching strategies, etc.

And in a field of 48 teams I would venture to say we don't have to worry about it all that much.

Sure, there could be a Group with England-Chile-Cameroon and we get the same exact scoreline in each match with each team winning a shootout but as we have seen in 4 team Groups there's silly ways to differentiate who goes into the next round like yellow card accumulation.

Would it really be that much of a step backwards if we use Paul Calixte's tie breaker rule????

What about if we did something like teams with the best percentage of making their spot kicks in shootouts goes through? Would that really be much worse than yellow card tie breakers?

I think not.
FIFA can make up whatever tie breaker rule they want and people will live with it and move on.

 

Heck, they may even keep the fairplay card rule and use that as a tie breaker for all I know.

 

So if Team A is leading Team B 3-0 after three spot kicks, have both teams finish off their two remaining kicks even though the outcome of the match has been settled?
That just adds another monkey wrench into the entire equation.

 

And "people will live with it and move on".

 

I would still prefer that over a PK shootout. The team with more yellow cards tends to be the more negative one. Not always but usually. Plus the 'yellow-card' tiebreaker will always come after goal difference and goals scored.

What worries me about having PKs is they might decide to give the winner of the PK shootout 2 points and the loser get 1 point. Which would elevate the outcome of the shootout above goal difference as the first tiebreaker.