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

I don't think that's a real problem, at least for the Mexican team coverage. They always sell out their stadiums and get high TV ratings regardless of the opponent they face. There's a devoted fan base if I ever saw one.

 

Two of the highest rated matches of each cycle usually are the Hexagonal matches between the two teams.
What happens in other matches is not really the focus here. Univision and Telemundo will fight tooth and mail to keep things the way they are and influence the CONCACAF as much as they can.

 

I don't think Univision and Telemundo have enough power to do that. If anything the Mexican TV network Televisa calls more of the shots in that area. But my knowledge isn't all that great in this particular case.

 

Univision and Telemundo have a lot of influence on the CONCACAF and Tournaments. Maybe not as much now that many CONCACAF officials have been arrested but there is a reason CONCACAF conducts much of it's business in Miami and not in Mexico city. And Univision is one of the main reasons we have Two Gold Cups per cycle and we are having a Copa America here on US soil.

Their money talks.

 

The play-offs can be one 2 legged round, using the international dates that are already used for them (and the UEFA play-offs) in late November before the draw. If this play-off was random draw, it would be really exciting. And it would improve qualifying evert where. Take CONCACAF, the top two from the Hex would still go through, but you really want to avoid being in the next three. You might get a relatively easy draw, but you might get a good European or CONMEBOL team. Europe can have 8 groups, group winners qualify, and all second places are into a play-off. I'd tweak the numbers a bit to make sure Africa keeps it places though.

 

That's going too far, imo. Remember the groups are far from being even. And having more teams and more groups means they will be even more uneven than now. So you're not encouraging teams to open up, you're just punishing those that have tougher groups. For e.g. Getting 7 points and a +5 goal difference in group A could be more impressive than getting 7 points and a +10 goal difference in Group B, if group B has a really weak team in it which loses to everyone by 5-6 goals.

 

In a 40 team World Cup you can be sure there will be more than one Group with 'weak teams". I think it can be sorted out in such a way in which all the Groups get a "weak" team...
... So it evens out in my mind.
Especially if the proposed format and spot allocations are favoring to bring in more Asian and African teams (sorry those of you who root for those teams but the truth is those teams usually are the weakest).

 

Oh yeah, for sure -- there will be more than 1 group with a very weak team. But there's a difference if South Korea is the weakest team in your group compared to, say, Bahrain. Or Burkina Faso compared to Ghana. And since the groups are arranged by region, this is the kind of difference you will see. And that's completely unfair in a system where just getting 3 points is not enough (i.e. you have to win by 3,4 goals to compete with the winners of weaker groups).

We can use the 2014 world cup to illustrate. The "worst" first place teams based on points and goals were: Costa Rica, Brasil and ..... yup, WC champions Germany.

 

When you change rules and the way Groups are formated...
... strategies will also change and the way teams approach groups will change. You won't see teams resting their best players on the Final match days anymore because they will no longer think they have already gone through. You will have teams attacking and playing to win the Group, score a lot of goals and not settle for draws.

Within a 40 team World Cup you would have less chances for Groups of deaths if there was an emphasis on FIFA rankings and less about Group regional diversity.

I think these chnges would make for a much more entertaining tournament.

 

even though this would practically ensure that Iran qualifies for every single edition, i am against it. it would lower the quality and, overall value, of the tournament. plus, i much rather my country qualifies instead of being given a free pass every time, as is the case with certain countries who have to "qualify" every 4 years in a confederation whos last syllable rhymes with laugh, no pun intended.

 

People who say they are against it would still watch. Let's not kid ourselves here.

I know this, you know this and FIFA knows this.

 

We'd watch because there's no alternative.
i.e. there's no other World Cup tournament to watch.
Similar to the people who are against Qatar hosting the World Cup. They'll likely still watch it.

 

I see these as two different issues here. Adding additional teams you can disagree with but that in itself is not intrinsically corrupt in nature.

Qatar on the other hand seems to be all about corruption and hundreds of people are dying because of it.
And Personally I am leaning towards not watching a World Cup in Qatar and stick with my convictions on that.

 

lol FIFA rankings. A quick check of the current FIFA rankings shows me that if you seeded based on them you could still have Chile (#5), Italy (15), France (25), Sweden (35) all in the same group in a 10-group World Cup.

fyi...Germany fielded an "A" side in their final group game of 2014.

So yeah... I totally don't get the point of trying to go straight from the group-stage to a round of 8. You're trying to fix a problem that simply doesn't exist. The group-stage games are already relatively attack-minded and exciting, probably because teams know that a high-scoring win is way more valuable than a 0-0 draw (3 times as many points and goal difference is the first tiebreaker). Its the knockout stage where defensive football often takes hold and the matches become very cagey.

 

I have seen way too many Group stages over the years in which teams settle for draws near the end of matches instead of going for wins.

Under my proposal that would not happen as much. Teams would adjust and adapt and try to win as often as possible and push for scoring. Not only focusing on winning but also focus on winning each match comfortably.
And I would not feel bad for the last two Group stage winners left out whoever they may be because there are eight extra teams who would not have even made it in the first place.
It deludes the field.

 

It is a simple point really.
Teams will push to win a Group and score goals if they know they have to win the Group to advance. And even winning the Group may not be enough, so you have to focus on attacking.

 

Not sure you have much proof that your conclusion is correct. I suspect you're imagining a particular situation which probably doesn't happen often in reality.

What does happen a lot in reality is teams lose their first match. Under your proposal, their next 2 matches are basically meaningless because a group-winner with 6 points will almost always be one of the worst first-place teams. You're worried about matches fizzling out in the last 10 minutes, try watching a match where the entire 90 minutes is pointless.

That's great for those 8 teams. Wouldn't have done Germany much good if none of those 8 teams land in their group and they fail to advance because they have one of the worst first-place records, like in 2014, despite not playing anti-football at all.

 

dont get me wrong, i use every discussion of qhutt'r 2022 to bash qhutt'r and the 2022 decision, however, not watching qhutt'r 2022 is not going to change corruption or migrant deaths in qhutt'r. a country like qhutt'r is structurally built on corruption, hypocrisy, death, and destruction. "not watching" qhutt'r 2022 is not going to change anything. it would just be a meaningless and fruitless act of showing that one has a moral sense of superiority.

 

Why is it when a confederation does well in a World Cup it always claims it deserves more places in the next one yet when it does poorly it never offers to give any back?

 

I wish a 4o teams WC in 2022 in USA !!!!

 

This is not true.
Odds are there will be many groups with teams that lose the first game. So those teams will look at the other Group standings and still think they are alive. So that would force those losing teams to work doubly as hard to win and not just defend for a point to keep them alive for the final round as we have seen with defensive minded teams in the past who are happy with second place.

Remember only the bottom two Group champions will be eliminated. I am sure that out of 10 Groups a few will be able to advance with 6 because as you astutely pointed out some Groups will be more competitive than others.

You keep on bringing up Germany but that was within an eight Group World Cup with only 32 teams. So it is not applicable to my hypothetical scenario.


As I said in my original post If we go to a 40 team World Cup I like the idea of 10 Group champions and 6 best second places.
I would personally take it further and more extreme but I know that idea probably won't happen.

 

You are making up an imaginary argument that does not exist.
No one said that not watching would change corruption.

I just personally do not want to watch a World Cup like that and want no part of it.

 

Nah.

Fact is, whether you agree or not about teams being eliminated after the first game, it is a mathematical certainty that teams will get eliminated more quickly than now. Thus there will be more meaningless games towards the end of the group stage.

 

I believe coaches and players would adjust and approach things differently. We agree to disagree.

I don't see more games being meaningless if teams don't know if they are going to qualify until the last day. Even if they are in First with 6 points they still would have to go out and win.

It is all moot anyway. I believe the 10 Group winners and 6 best 2nd places would be more likely due to money and logistics.

 

your post implied that your potential avoidance of said world cup will be due to moral reasons, and i refuted that. no need to comment further on this matter.