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

I don't know. You have to be careful not to put too much weight on recent competitive matches. I mean, the Netherlands has been terrible in the past 12 months but would you rank them below Albania? I think not. If you base rankings on a longer time period, you'll get more realistic rankings.

 

I'm conditionally OK with this idea as it creates more World Cup mania and frankly, while it is about the "pinnacle" of football it can be something to be used to bring the world together in a way, despite all of the conflicts between nations. An expansion would give more chances for nations to be included, especially fringe ones. While some (India) really have no business being included despite their massive population in their current form, others on the cusp of not being complete embarrassments (Egypt, China, one of the lower UEFA teams, Peru who would do decently but regularly miss out) should get a better shot of being represented on the world stage. The Olympics features all 200+ countries...what's so bad about 8 more?

Anyhow, my support strongly rests on how allocations would be redistributed. If it's all going to prop up more AFC, CAF and CONCACAF teams, I'm firmly in the same camp as OP... a resounding NO. I actually think there are too few UEFA/CONMEBOL teams as it is.

Something like the following I can get behind:

UEFA: 17 (+4)
CONMEBOL: 6 (+1.5)
CONCACAF: 4 (+0.5)
CAF: 5.5 (+0.5)
AFC: 5.5 (+1.5)
OFC: 1 (+0.5)
CAF-AFC Playoff: 1
Host: 1

According to current ELO ratings, this would give us this field:

UEFA
1 Germany
4 Spain
7 England
8 France
10 Belgium
11 Portugal
14 Netherlands
15 Italy
16 Ukraine
17 Croatia
18 Switzerland
20 Turkey
21 Austria
23 Poland
24 Russia (Host)
26 Ireland
27 Sweden
29 Czech Republic

CONMEBOL
2 Brazil
3 Argentina
5 Chile
6 Colombia
9 Uruguay
12 Ecuador

AFC
19 South Korea
30 Japan
34 Iran
39 Australia
48 Uzbekistan
51 United Arab Emirates (or Egypt)

CONCACAF
13 Mexico
22 Costa Rica
28 United States
34 Panama

CAF
31 Ivory Coast
43 Algeria
44 Senegal
47 Ghana
49 Nigeria
50 Egypt (or United Arab Emirates)

OFC
74 New Zealand


Teams gained by moving from 32 to 40 format

UEFA
Poland
Ireland
Sweden
Czech Republic

CONMEBOL
Guarantee for Uruguay
Ecuador

AFC
Guaranteed for Uzbekistan
Possibility of United Arab Emirates

CONCACAF
Guaranteed for Panama

CAF
Possibility of Egypt

OFC
Guaranteed for New Zealand

A lot of fairly decent countries that would be in as a result of 8 more places. I'd be all for it, and it would also give some really long shots with vast football-frenzied populations some hope of making qualification, and making their country's participation in their lifetimes not a resolute impossibility.

 

http://resources.fifa.com/mm/Docume...2015.11.27Annexe4_Neutral.pdf?t=1449143282551

 

Ugh you just killed my "well researched" attempt. Those are horrible allocations and I think my idea is better. We'll see what plays out, but whether we like it or not I think come 2022 WC 40 teams is in serious play given the discussions (and I doubt FIFA ceases to become an entity). I hope UEFA manages to push back and at least get 15 or 16 spots.

 

There is no reason why UEFA should get more slots. They have consistently underperformed for 2 tournaments now.

Secondly: The only reason a 40 team World Cup is being discussed in the first place is that CAF, AFC and CONCACAF want more slots, so the only way UEFA doesn't lose their current allocation is by EXPANDING the tournament. You can make wishes all you want but thats the sole reason behind this move: preserving UEFA's allocation while satisfying the other confeds aspirations.

You could say this is a dirty compromise. I honestly think the 32 team World Cup is optimal and if anything I would prefer more intercontinental playoffs for slots.

 

@zahzah - why do you always troll these topics?

 

Both of those competitions were held outside Europe though.

If you take the four WCs between 2006 and 2018 - two of which will have been held in Europe - I am confident you will see UEFA's allocation is justified.

Just like with the expanded EURO, all these conversations about possible 40-team formats are really pointless given that a 32-team competition is optimal.

 

CONCACAF would need to make a group with more than 6 teams or two groups in the final round.

 

The CONCACAF format was set to change for 2014 qualifying when CONCACAF thought they were getting a full 4 spots. The hex was only brought back when this fell through.

If CONCACAF gets 5 it'll likely be a double hex with a cross-over. Maybe a mega group of 10 like south America. But the single hex would be gone for sure.

 

Of course there won't be no more hex. 2 groups of 4 seem like sure bet as there's no need and it ain't good to make drastic changes by adding more than two teams into final round - top two progress, third-placed teams go to playoff for last spot.

 

There would be huge opposition from Television Networks (Univision and Telemundo) here in the states.
The two Mexico-USA matches in the Hexagonal bring in huge ratings and millions of dollars in advertising revenue.

 

No, no, no, a million times no. The competition has to be a power of 2, so that groups can be formed neatly, and teams can neatly qualify for the next round.

Eight groups of five teams each means the last day one of the teams is not even going to play. We're much more likely to have meaningless games that way.

And any other arrangement is going to need picking the best 2nd places or best 3rd places. Which makes for a very ugly tournament.

I'd prefer if the WC stayed this way, or went back to 16 teams. Heck, I'd even prefer expanding it to 64 teams if they must increase the number of participants.

But 40? Psht.

 

China also haven't even gotten close to qualifying for a WC in a long time. They would still fail to qualify even if you gave AFC 10-12 spots, unless they improve.

Not sure what you are talking about in relation to the Olympics. There are only 16 teams in the men's Olympic football tournament.

 

There's no reason not to draw them together.

 

Agreed. I don't think they'll ever go to having two groups for that reason. An "OCT" (i.e. 8 team group) could work although if 5 teams qualify that is still a bit tedious. If they get 4.5 spots, an OCT would work well.

 

I can see the headlines on The Guardian now... "Suriname just managed to qualify as the 64th team for the 2030 world cup in the intercontinental playoff against New Caledonia"

 

Sounds good to me. I'd watch.

 

Just increase the number of play-offs then.

Host.
UEFA = 10 + 6 to IC play-off
CONMEBOL = 3 + 3 to IC play-off
CAF = 3 + 4 to IC play-off
CONCACAF = 2 + 3 to IC play-off
AFC = 3 + 3 to IC play-off
OFC = 1 to IC play-off

That way Africa, Asia and North America have a shot at having 7, 6 and 5 teams in the WC. But they have to earn it.

Europe, S. America and Oceania would be in the same pot (little help for OFC, so they can get one in once in a while).

 

Yeah, 64 would be nuts! I'd rather it stay at 32 also, but 40 doesn't completely ruin everything. 64 would.

 

If there were two groups with the top two countries automatically separated, most of the time USA and Mexico would be the top two in CONCACAF in the FIFA Rankings and couldn't be drawn together. Alternatively, each group could get two of the top four. Either way could create unbalanced groups because CONCACAF has a big gap between third and fourth. If there was a group of six that qualified two countries and had two of USA, Mexico, and Costa Rica, it would be hard for Jamaica, Canada, Panama, Trinidad and Tobago, etc. to qualify.

 

My take on this is that it may be okay depending on the allocation of the spots. If these 8 extra teams are quality sides (i.e. mainly from UEFA/CONMEBOL), the tournament need not suffer for it. On the other hand, if this proposal makes way for the likes of Iraq, Jordan, and Burkina Faso, then no thank you. No need to dilute the tournament.

The one other consideration is the format. With 32, the math works out neatly. With 40, we'd have probably 10 groups with the group winners and six best third-placed teams advancing to the round of 16. Messy, although it might encourage attacking football if teams know that second might not be good enough.

Really though, I'm perfectly happy with 32 and for the most part the current allocation is okay, except for maybe some slight changes that could be made to the intercontinental playoffs. Now, if it's between UEFA losing spots and a 40-team tournament, I'd choose the latter over the former any day of the week. And this is coming from an Indian living in the United States, so there's no Euro bias here. I just think, objectively speaking, European teams are, on the whole, better than teams from all the other confederations bar CONMEBOL. I think the current setup is just about right in terms of balancing footballing quality with some degree of global representation.

 

yeah, and all second placed teams get tickets home...

 

Oh yeah lol. The six best second-placed teams, of course.

 

I think I like that idea proposed by Every Four Years. 10 Groups of 4 with only 6 second place teams advancing.

It would force teams to score and go all out to win a Group instead of playing defensive and settling for draws.

Heck, I'd take it a step further and say take the best 8 Group winners based on Points and Goals and just have them go into a Round of 8 after the Group Stage.
That could really open things up and punish those who play anti-futbol.