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

The main reason for the expansion is that the lesser confeds want more slots, so whatever the end allocation it will benefit CAF, CONCACAF, AFC and OFC more than UEFA, CONMEBOL.

 

An increase of about 60 % of their former allocation is perfectly fine. If they really want more than that, they must justify their claims by bringing some quality into the pitch (at least to the point where they can beat some of those Uefa or Conmebol teams which are going to be left behind, whom deserves it lots more than them, as at least many of them, as a diference to many of those teams from the weaker confeds whom only drain FIFA's resources, they do bring with them huge amounts of money and prestige to the table, for FIFA to distribute it better).

For whatever issue, that increase due to the expanssion, will still be lots bigger for the weaker confeds than whatever the stronger confeds are going to get out of it. What you can't pretend though, is put them at their same level, as in no way, the weak confeds bring as much to the development of the game, as what the stronger confeds do on their share of the whole deal.

Fact is, that without the teams from the stronger confeds, there wouldn't be a WC at all. While at the same time (on a diferent scenario, that is), if by any chance there wouldn't be any teams from the weaker confeds at the WC, almost no one would miss them that much, and the WC would be almost as equally as succesful.

 

I think it would be a bit ridiculous though if UEFA only gets 16 spots. So countries like Spain, Italy, Netherlands, etc. will have to fight and claw to qualify while Japan, US, Korea, New Zealand, etc. absolutely coast in? How does that make sense on any level?

People have argued that CONMEBOL shouldn't get more than 6.5 spots otherwise their qualifying will become a joke, but it will be just as big of a joke in every other region except UEFA.

 

Whatever your opinion is the fact is the expansion isn't being done for Europe. It's being done because the rest of the world (minus CONMEBOL) have disproportionately less slots than UEFA. UEFA either would lose slots or agree on an expansion. With 16 UEFA would still have 3 extra slots.

 

Firstly, I fixed your post.

Secondly, while you're correct about the main reason behind expansion, that doesn't automatically mean that UEFA should only get 3 more spots. If UEFA got, say, 4 or 5 more spots expansion would still benefit the ROW more (because that leaves 11 spots for them).

 

Having two UEFA teams in three team groups would be counterproductive for the tournament. That's why even UEFA agrees it that 16 is the optimal number.

 

Groups of 3 are counterproductive for the World Cup period. I'd rather have Turkey and Belgium in the same 3 team group than Thailand and New Zealand. But to each their own I guess...

 

Look.
If I'm not mistaken we're going to have 16 groups with 3 teams whether we like it or not. So I'm not going to discuss the merits of this. With the 48 team World Cup this seems to be the best option.

So if we have 16 3-team groups one UEFA team per group is optimal.
Most likely we will have 16 seeds based on the host nation + FIFA rankings.
Hard to say how pot 2 would be organised, but I suggest all pots to be according to rankings.
That would mean the best UEFA teams would have one decent second tier side and one outlier, while the second tier UEFA sides would have one strong CONMEBOL side, possibly the top CAF side, Mexico or USA and one outlier. This would make 16 relatively evenly spread out groups with one group favorite, one group contender and one dark horse / weak team. Naturally with the stupidity that is FIFA ranking you never know, but this seems like the optimal setup that responds via consensus to the needs / expectations of all CONFEDs.

Your proposal does none of that, just overrepresents an already overrepresented UEFA.

 

It is not certain by any means.

 

What other options are being discussed?
12 groups x 4, top two qualify + 8 third best teams (terrible, as bad as the 24 team format - hate it)?
Preliminary round to cut it down to 32 (terrible for the team that plays one game and is out, also undercyts the whole point of an expansion)?
Anything else?

 

You just wrote a long post about the beautiful balance that would exist across the groups if there were 16 UEFA teams. Of course, if there were 18 UEFA teams the balance actually gets better because you close the gap between the best and weakest team in each group.

So your point doesn't coincide with reality, unfortunately....

 

You forgot the worst of all, which is 2 teams playing the last match-date in the group, with both knowing the result that they need so both go through, while one team will not play that last match-date, so they can't do nothing if the other 2 teams, simply go for that desired result, that favours both of them.

Tell me honestly, do you want to see another Algeria 1982 ?
well 16 groups of 3 teams each, is potentially 16 cases of Algeria-1982.

Just think about that, and afterwards you can tell us how terrible are the other options.....

 

Right now teams 17 and 18 are Bosnia and Hungary.
Teams 8, 9, 10 of CAF are Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire and Morocco (all likely better teams than Bosnia and Hungary).
Teams 7, 8, 9 of AFC are Qatar, UAE and China, all teams which are not necessarily a downgrade from Bosnia or Hungary
Teams 5,6,7 of CONCACAF are Haiti, St Kitts & Nevis and Curacao... OK, admitedly a problem... CONCACAF has no quality in depth.
CONMEBOL goes without saying.

The advantage of having more UEFA teams over 16 is close to zero.

 

Using FIFA rankings? hmmm...

It just so happens that at this particular moment, the NTs that fall into #8-10 in CAF are strong sounding teams because Ghana and CIV have been among Africa's best in the past decade or so. Which makes your argument seem to have more substance than it really does.

On the flip side, it just so happens that the UEFA nations that fall into #17 and 18 in FIFA rankings are small nations. In real-life, expanding UEFA's allocation to 18 would bring-in all those teams that finish second in their qualifying group which are currently set-up to meet in a playoff where losers don't qualify. This group is shaping-up to include the likes of Italy, Portugal, Holland, Wales, Slovakia in the current cycle.
In any event, even Bosnia and Hungary are a big notch above Qatar and UAE. Your anti-UEFA bias is showing...

 

i hope they dont decide to only put always one uefa team in each of the 16 groups of 3. clashes like spain-netherlands are interesting to watch

 

If we expand I don't see why everyone shouldn't expand proportionately. However its UEFA that said they want 16 spots rather than the 19 or 20 that a proportionate expansion would deliver them.

 

well, to see that sort of "clash", you'll have to watch the WC from the second round, as during the group phase that's preciselly what FIFA pretends to do (only one Uefa team in each group).

 

Well... FIFA did use them for seeding last time around.

Sure, but you have teams like Senegal and Egypt as 1 and 2, both of which did not play in 2014.

Northern Ireland, Macedonia... 16 from UEFA is just fine. Just like the Euros with 16 teams were just fine.

As for Holland... not much of an argument as they have never been as weak as in the past two years...

I wouldn't be so sure... AFC's drop is larger than CAF's but not as large as CONCACAF's.

 

lol, this member, zahzah, nigerian guy who pretends to be serbian, is still being biased and still upset from the france vs nigeria match in which france dominated nigeria and went through. he still has the same avatar. you dont see me putting avatar of argentinian player tackling our player and the ref not calling a penalty. you gotta get over it man, it is bad for your health. your anti-europe bias is showing mate. bosnia is definitely better than any of those asian teams. hungary is definitely better than qatar, and would beat uae/china on most days, although it will be close. concacaf you already admitted. as for africa, as bocafan already said, those countries, you are using their name to ride their previous success. bottom line is that if they actually finish 8-10 in africa, then in their current form they would be weaker than 2nd tier euro teams. even though my team is in AFC i dont think confederations such as AFC or CONCACAF or even CAF should be getting spots to fill up the WC with weak teams while teams like bosnia and sweden and iceland sit out. if that actually happens, then it would be a..

.

 

Russia (Europe second tier, a Euro 2016 team) just decisively lost at home to a weakened Cote d'Ivoire side. UEFA's second tier isn't all that.

 

When was that ?
they've only played once in their life time, and it was a draw (2012)


There's not a single african team, whom can say on their behalf that they have a positive record vs. Russia. At most, there are a few of them, whom have had draws, but no one from Africa has defeated them yet.

http://www.11v11.com/teams/russia/tab/opposingTeams/opposition/Ivory Coast/


At the same time, many Asian teams have done that, and hold positive records against them (Iran, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia)

.......talking about depth in Africa
(yup, depth in how they lose to others may be)

 

Just watched it! Russia were dire. Both Cote d'Ivoire goals were nice though.

J

 

yeah, me wrong (was yesterday, and I wasn't aware about it).

Well congrats to Ivory Coast for being the first african team to beat Russia. (hope wasn't just a fluke)

 

Bosnia and Hungary are better than Cote d'Ivoire, Morocco, UAE, China, Qatar, Haiti, and you can also add the bottom two of the Conmebol table teams Bolivia and Venezuela.
But those games will be close, except of course against St Kitts & Nevis and Curacao.
Only Ghana are comfortably better than both.

 

Not verifiable. But given Cote d'Ivoire comfortably whacked Russia in Moscow without several key players, I say they would be favorites ahead of Bosnia and Hungary. Cote d'Ivoire isn't doing that badly at rebuilding its squad and arguably have a better defence then they ever had in the Drogba era.

Morocco obviously have the players to contend with Bosnia and Hungary: Benatia, Ziyech, Belhanda, Dirar, etc.