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

probably so, but till it happens, I'll continue enjoying the moment.

And when it's over, I might be dead by then (Im not preciselly very young now, together with being subject to many ailments that usually finish in death), so I wouldn't need to worry much about it any longer....

I would love to finish the road, with a WC championship under my sleeves, though.
If not, .......well, be ........

 

Even score 1 goal when the opponent needs only a tie to go through after the robbery of the opening game changes the whole configuration of the match in a tactical aspect.
Mexico scored after half time when Croatia had to open the game which they would not if they were not under pressure to win.
But fact is Mexico won and reached round 16 i agree.

You can repeat millions times how chile and colombia have been good losing against the weakest of world cup 2014 semi finalists. A semi finalist losing 7-1 in semi final and 3-0 in a 3rd place match. The worst semi finalist of all times!

Fact is Colombia did not go further than Belgium. And Chile did not go further than Swiss and Greece.
We can repeat it millions times i don't care.

About world cup 2018 we will see.
Among Portugal Belgium England Croatia Swiss Poland Serbia Russia and last teams qualified there will be 4-5 teams minimum in round 16. 2-3 in 1/4 and one in semis.
They are closer in level than you imagine.

Russia at home in world cup will be much tougher than what last world cups showed. If you think Russians are the kind to invest billion to be humiliated at home in front of the world you really dont know much about this country.

 

http://english.astroawani.com/sport...ca-will-have-6-5-places-2026-world-cup-140796

 

And your place is in a padded cell...hopefully you will get back your sanity in 14 months, when hopefully someone else sends Belgium back home from the WC. For your sake let's hope t's Germany, whom you Belgians readily bend over in football (and otherwise).

 

It IS absolutely true ... as a matter a fact ... that in almost a century Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, Paraguay and Bolivia have very little to show for their efforts ... the overrated SA fodder that got a mention in my post HARDLY have ANY QF finishes ... reaching the R16 is a low standard, SA dross is overrated, water is wet ... from UEFA 9 (nine) teams have reached the FINAL, around 20 (twenty) reached at least the SFs ... only surviving the group and getting knocked out immediately after, meh, but hey-ho each to his own ... clearly the bar is set much higher in Uefa*

Also, Colombia ... mediocrity for almost an entire century ... only that 1 (one) QF and a repeat isn't expected from Hames the bench-rotter. Chile's controversial WC1962 at home already got a mention before ... have been mediocre for almost a century as well ... early exits in recent WCs and highly likely to regress as Chile will very soon have to kiss Alexis and Vidal goodbye. Uruguay, despite the biting and handball, are living on WC finishes from a distant past (caveman times in football terms) ... again, in the last 5 (five) decades their results have been horribly underwhelming (not much except Suarez's handball WC). That leaves just 2 (two) sides that aren't throwaway bets ... one has been underperforming for quite some time now, since the 90s, and the other is carrying all of Conmelol ... I very much doubt things will look all that differently after the expansion but it's the future so who really knows.

*Unlike Bolivia, one of the worst teams in the history of the WC (i.e. Kuwait tier) ... a quarterfinalist is the worst ranked Uefa side ever at the WC ... excluding recently balkanised members that participated as part of a previous NT, some of which have reached QFs or SFs even though they only started competing in recent times, e.g. talent factory Croatia, while the likes of Ecuador have failed to reach at least a QF in almost a century. Conmelol is very much overrated.

 

Mods!

 

World cup should involve the best squads in the world or should be a charity competition?

I don't think it's about comparing the weakest commebol nations with some 30 000 people countries in europe.

I think it's about having the best in world cup as far as i am concerned.

And when it comes to the best squads there are 20 teams in europe that can challenge most of asians africans north americans and the 6th-7th team from south america.

Anyway...you will get that with the 48 teams tournament from 2026.
16 europeans 16 groups will mean more europeans teams seeded. And only one european by group so less chances for the 5th-16th european teams to face the best nations in the world from the first round.

Fifa opened the tournament to more teams but it will give even more advantage to uefa nations on the final rounds.

 

The ranking you use is travesty as well as after qualifications you will find 2 or 3 big european nations eliminated all the time.

France missed 90 and 94 before greet world cup in 98 and it was 24 teams tournament.

England missed 94 as well.

Portugal didnt play a world cup between 86 and 2002.

I think the 32 teams tournament was the best.

But we will see...

 

One thing not mentioned, in the past 2 EURO teams could be in the same group, making the odds of one of the EURO teams advancing greater.

For Example...
2014
Netherlands and Spain – Nehterlands advances
England & Italy – neither advanced (3rd time a EURO team didn't advance from a 2 team EURO group)
France & Switzerland – Both advanced
Germany & Portugal – Germany advanced
Belgium & Russia – Belgium advanced

2010
England & Slovenia – England advanced
Germany & Serbia – Germany advanced
Netherlands & Denmark – Netherlands advanced
Slovakia & Italy – Slovakia advanced
Spain & Switzerland – Spain advanced

2006
Germany & Poland – Germany advanced
England & Sweden – Both advanced
Netherlands & Serbia – Netherlands advanced
Italy & Cech Rep – Italy advanced
Switzerland & France – Both advanced
Spain & Ukraine – Both advanced

2002
Denmark & France – France advanced
Spain & Slovenia – Spain advanced
Portugal & Poland – neither advanced (2nd time a EURO team didn't advance from a 2 team EURO group)
Germany & Rep of Ireland – Both advanced
Sweden & England – both advanced
Italy & Croatia – Italy advanced
Belgium & Russia – Belgium advanced

1998
Norway & Scotland – Norway advanced
Italy & Austria – Italy advanced
France & Denmark – both advanced
Spain & Bulgaria – neither advanced (1rst time a EURO team didn't advance from a 2 team EURO group)
Netherlands & Belgium – Netherlands advanced
Germany & Yugoslavia – both advanced
Romania & England – both advanced


Only 3 times did a EURO team not advance when two EURO teams were in a group. You can view this 2 different ways...

1. EURO is dominant and their teams advance out of the group a lot.
----- or ---------
2. EURO teams have an advantage because they are the only region that have 2 teams in a group.

Only 1 of the 2 EURO teams needs to beat out 2 of the other teams to advance... compared to all other regions that need to beat out 3 teams to advance.

To bring this post back on topic. This new 48 team format, if EURO gets what they want, will eliminate the 2 EURO teams in 1 group situation. EURO wants one team in each of the 16 groups... now they only need to beat out 1 team to advance. I feel EURO teams will have a good chance to advance most of the time in this new format... same for 6 or 7 CONMEBOL teams.

 

16 groups also means 16 seeds! So more chances to be seeded means less big matchs from beginning for the 9th 16th teams.
And one european by group mean more chances to avoid the best europeans + brazil argentina for the europeans not seeded.

Beat only one team before round 32 means also more time to find rythm to adapt to local conditions and to play 3rd match at equal conditions! Not running after the points lost in first or second game.

So the middle and lower tier uefa will make more damages in knockout stages.

As i said the other time a team like portugal will be much more dangerous for the likes of USA in a round 32 than in a group stage.

 

I don't think 16 groups necessarily means 16 seeds. They have yet to determine the seeding process for this. Maybe some of the weaker EURO teams get a group with Brazil and a decent CAF or CONCACAF team.

Edit: Portugal has not done well against the USA in the WC. In 2002 and 2014 we advanced and Portugal did not. We beat them in 2002, 3-2. And tied in Brazil, but almost won the game.

 

I think there will be 16 seeds.
As Just as in any other football competition.
One group one seed.
Then there wont be 2 nations from same confederation in a group as we are in a world cup and there will be 16 groups for 16 european teams.

Uefa agreed to have only +2 +3 in a +16 competition but will never agree to have its lowest ranked nations disadvantaged for others confederations squads.

And the likes of chile colombia or uruguay wont want either that brazil or argentina got in advance the chance to play the likes of greece or bosnia when they got to play nigeria by example.

So both from commebol and uefa points of views what you said can't be fixed.

 

Maybe will be 3 hats.

1-16 seeds
17-32 middle tier
33-48 lower tier

And no teams from same confederation in a group.

Simple as that.

 

Yes, I misread your post... I thought you meant 16 EURO team seeds.

 

Seeds will be host + the 15 highest teams qualified in fifa ranking.

Right now taking the qualifiers and ranking situation
It would be:

Brazil
Argentina
Germany
Chile
Colombia
France
Belgium
Portugal
Swiss
Spain
Poland
Italia
England
Uruguay
Mexico
Croatia.

Something like that.
I spared wales and peru as they will hardly make it.

Then you add the 32 remaining nations with the only rule that 2 nations from a same confederation can't be in same group.

Or they make a second hat and 3rd hat with rankings and still no teams from same confederation in a group.

 

You guys are thinking like "sportsmen", while in modern days you should think like both "sportsmen" and "businessmen". It is not about making the event "elite" (reverting to 16 someone said, no 3rd place play off - why not, these games produced some great encounters throughout the years: Poland-France 82, Italy-England 90, Croatia-Holland 98, Germany-Portugal 06, Germany-Uruguay 10 - were all spectacular games, why to give away great product?), and not about making the event "absolutely best sporting quality". Nowadays it is about balancing right between sport quality and entertainment quality which can be sold to as many sponsors and viewers alike. The goal is to have as many people around the world emotionally involved, and therefore caring for the event. In the end, having less teams (and most from UEFA and COMNEBOL) will not make people from parts of the world which never had a slight chance of getting in (like Asia or Africa) so interested in the event. However, if they see a chance for their teams to get in, they will not only care more for the event itself, but also for qualifying games, which is obviously what sponsors want.

No matter who wins WC in the end (usually known powerhouses), the level of the game generally improved around the world, which means even smaller teams can cause some difficulties to the bigger teams during WC and provide for exciting match (Algeria-Germany, Ghana-Germany) - they can rise their game to the occasion. FIFA calculates, that almost as many Germans or Brazilians will watch their game at WC versus let's say Ethiopia, as they would v Holland or Argentina, but many more in countries like Ethiopia will watch their team v Germany, than would watch Germany v Brazil...

Also thinking that you are able to succeed and reach a realistic goal (making to the WC), will make you to work harder and with more enthusiasm towards achieving that goal (that is on developing the game in Asian or African countries further), rather that thinking "this is impossible, we will never make it, why to put resources and time into it, let's downsize it".

Strenght of Football is its "egalitarianism" and "inclusicveness" not its being "elite".

The same can be said about European Club Football - it is currently so strong, because it is "inclusive" to a certain degree. Smaller teams in weaker leagues (like Poland, Czech, Croatian, Danish) try to develop and remain popular, because they have realistic hope of making CL or EL and facing Real or Man UTD. The moment, in which Elite Club League would be organized, it will be a slow death to football in Europe. Finally, I want to see Legia Warsaw, or FC Kopenhagen, or Sparta Prague to play v Real, Dortmund, Man Utd, etc. and not constantly be involved versus Lech, Broendby, or Victoria PIlzno only. Facing your own constantly does not make you to improve. It is so exciting for smaller clubs, because they have a small, yet realistic hope of playing v the best ones (unlike American Professional Leagues, which are pure "business" and "little sport" - they ere "exclusive" and "elite" - and this is why these sports develop little around the world and have smaller market share than Football).

 

Hypothetical seeds and groups (using FIFA rank to keep it simple). The draw I am guessing would be more random, I just went in order. And I am not sure if they would seed 3 host teams...

1 - 16 Top Seeds
1 Mexico
2 USA
3 Canada
4 Brazil
5 Argentina
6 Germany
7 Chile
8 Colombia
9 France
10 Belgium
11 Portugal
12 Switzerland
13 Spain
14 Poland
15 Italy
16 Wales

17 - 32 Pot 2
17 England
18 Uruguay
19 Peru
20 Croatia
21 Egypt
22 Costa Rica
23 Iceland
24 Turkey
25 Slovakia
26 Ecuador
27 N Ireland
28 Rep of Ireland
29 Iran
30 Senegal
31 Cameroon
32 Burkina Faso

33 - 48 Pot 3
33 Nigeria
34 Congo
35 Tunisia
36 Korea Rep
37 Japan
38 Ghana
39 Cote d'ivoire
40 Australia
41 Saudia Arabia
42 Uzbekistan
43 Morocco
44 Panama
45 Uzbekistan
46 Haiti
47 United Arab Emirates
48 New Zealand

Group A: 1 Mexico 17 England 33 Nigeria

Group B: 2 USA 20 Croatia 34 Congo

Group C: 3 Canada 23 Iceland 35 Tunisia

Group D: 4 Brazil 24 Turkey 36 Korea Rep

Group E: 5 Argentina 25 Slovakia 37 Japan

Group F: 6 Germany 18 Uruguay 38 Ghana

Group G: 7 Chile 27 N Ireland 39 Cote d'ivoire

Group H: 8 Colombia 28 Rep of Ireland 40 Australia

Group I: 9 France 19 Peru 41 Saudia Arabia

Group J: 10 Belgium 21 Egypt 42 Uzbekistan

Group K: 11 Portugal 22 Costa Rica 43 Morocco

Group L: 12 Switzerland 26 Ecuador 44 Panama

Group M: 13 Spain 29 Iran 46 Haiti

Group N: 14 Poland 30 Senegal 45 Uzbekistan

Group O: 15 Italy 31 Cameroon 47 United Arab Emirates

Group P: 16 Wales 32 Burkina Faso 48 New Zealand

 

Germany, Uruguay and Ghana in one group, and Wales, Burkina Faso and NZ on another, another reason that this format sucks.

 

Like I said... the drawing would probably be more random. I went in order which obviously puts the weekest teams from each pot into the later groups.

Wales seeded 16th
Burkina Faso placed 32
and NZ placed 48

These 3 are the 3 weakest teams in each of the 3 groups. FIFA will make it a random drawing, and the odds of this happen are very slim.

FIFA typically does a random drawing... and like to make a production of it. I bet they do something similar. They will just have to make it so seeded teams (mainly EURO teams) don't have another EURO team drawn into it's group.

 

And we have an instant classic: Wales v NZ! What an ancient rivalry (and so what that in Rugby Union)! Almost everybody in Wales and NZ will watch this (in Burkina too), many in the UK and Australia will watch this, many in central Africa will watch this, some in Germany, Brazil, Iran, Chile, and India will watch this... It will not take away from Germany v Uruguay game, in fact will add to it, as the ones in Burkina and NZ will wonder how their Germany/Uruguay rival in next round will fare... People will enjoy this, cash will flow...