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

My guess is FIFA does something like this.

3 pots like posted above...
Pot 1. (seeds) 1 - 16
Pot 2. 17 - 32
Pot 3. 33 - 48

the 16 seeds split into the 16 groups. Groups A to P.

First round of drawing. Pull out all remaining Pot 2 EURO teams that were not seeds and randomly draw them into the groups without a EURO team... then randomly draw the rest into the reaming groups. No team can be randomly drawn into a group with another team from its region... if this happens then the team that is drawn will automatically bump down to the next group without a conflict.

Second round of drawing. If there are any EUROs left in Pot 3 then pull them out first and randomly draw them into the groups without a EURO team. Randomly draw the rest into each group. Like the first round no team can be randomly drawn into a group with another team from its region... if this happens then the team that is drawn will automatically bump down to the next group without a conflict.

Doing it this way will be more fair and will limit the chances of having a Wales, Burkina Faso & NZ group.

 

FIFA's drawing is anything but random. No more than two UEFA teams can be in any group, no two Conmebol/Concacaf/AFC/CAF teams can be in the same group. Same with a 48-team format, the drawing would have conditions to meet.

 

Yes I know... random with rules ( see post #3101, directly above your post ). The drawing will make it very rare for all 3 of the weakest teams from each pot to be drawn into 1 group.

 

@condor11 ... Nicola already provided answers ... and yes I agree with you that 48 teams is a travesty ... I've stressed that enough ITT, including that I prefer a 16 team final event with greater emphasis on qualifying ... maybe even the best of both worlds, "expansion" via added interconfed. play-offs or final 4 tournaments ... e.g. a 16 team final event: 1 host, 15 spots awarded to the winners of 15 final 4 tournamants (i.e. 60 teams, seeded draw and maintaining the principle of geographic separation) ... or if the 32 team final event had to be expanded, Fifa could have increased the amount of interconfed. play-offs.

Also, the WC track records of all teams are readily available, plenty of evidence ... have a look at the records of SA teams and you can't but acknowledge the mediocrity, the underwhelming track records of most NTs in Conmebol, anything else is a myth ... OTOH that 9 SA teams COMBINED have less titles and have less top four finishes than the one carrying them, Brazil, is fact ... Bolivia, one of the worst teams in WC history, is actually below Kuwait tier, another fact ... it isn't exactly Brazil that need help to get into the WC ... up to 8 spots means Bolivia can sneak in through the backdoor ... while 16 spots for Uefa (up to 17 when hosting) doesn't let the likes of Andorra in ... it still means that Wales, a WC quarterfinalist (= the worst ranked Uefa side ever at the WC), will have a very hard time to get in ... Holland, 3 times vice-champions, would have a hard time, they currently sit 17th on Uefa's ranking, yet they still trampled Brazil to claim a podium finish in the last WC.

Again, you could add more weak teams to Conmebol for all I care ... SA teams like Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, Falkland Islands ... for the 16x3 nonsense Conmebol could end up merging with Concacaf ... regardless if that happens or not, the Americas have about the same amount of members as Uefa, yet they have nowhere near Uefa's depth ... roughly 20 semifinalists from Uefa is about 4 times as many as what the Americas have ... 9 Uefa finalists v. 3 from the Americas ... in the last 3 WCs 5 different Uefa teams among the 6 finalists while you have to go back 4 WCs to find a 2nd finalist from the Americas ... every single one of Uefa's 9 finalists is more recent than the 3rd finalist from the Americas ... the 3rd one is ancient, catastrophes like both world wars, the great depression, Uruguay wins, ... sort of ancient ... TBH you could even make it Uefa v. rest of the world ... roughly 3x as many NTs as Uefa but it doesn't matter ... just point to the track records of Uefa sides and drop the mic.

 

One is much harder to argue than the other though ... even if one = rest of the world, still will require a lot of wishful thinking on the ROTW side of the fence. It doesn't matter really ... in the end every side has to fend for themselves, instead of the confed. they belong to ... again, the (individual) WC track records of every single team are readily available, plenty of evidence ... have a look at the records of SA teams and you can't but acknowledge the mediocrity, the underwhelming track records of most NTs in Conmebol, anything else is a myth.

 

@condor11 ... okay, so you agree with me ... despite Conmebol not having that luxury, i.e. Uefa's good fortunes, a filthy level of depth ... Fifa will sneak in shitters, like Bolivia, one of the biggest failures in WC history, via the backdoor ... as little will change for Uefa after the expansion, "the benefactors" will even include the likes of France (struggled in Uefa play-offs in the last 2 WCs) ... there will be a massive chasm between Uefa's play-offs where you have to face the likes of France, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc. and the ones for this 48 team travesty with the likes of Bolivia/Peru, Qatar/North Korea (best Korea), Haiti/Martinique, Tahiti/New Caledonia or other shitters.

Belgium are a top 15 side on the all-time table of the FIFA World Cup ... ahead of the likes of Chile (1962, seriously mate), Colombia or Peru ... in fact all those sides you mention are ranked below Belgium, Poland comes closest, not exactly a small country, a side that's on the up as well ... Belgians are modest about their record while roughly 200 sides are ranked below Belgium and quite a few of their fangirls aren't nearly as modest.

To qualify should mean something ... it's supposed to be hard ... it used to be cut-throat and a huge achievement to make your way to a final event where the world's best faced each other ... e.g. Holland's great team from 1974 needed GD to qualify from Uefa and a last minute bad call ... today, 32 teams already means a watered-down World Cup ... sides like Mexico get a free ride in "WCQs", just look at the last time they "qualified" ... you mention Portugal, contrary to Belgium, they found qualification from Uefa nearly impossible before the expansion to 32 teams ... again qualifying used to be much harder ... BETTER ... Portugal as well have a lot to be modest about ... consistently failing to qualify for nearly the entirety of the 20th century ... and in half of the apps from 2002 onwards Portugal failed to survive the group stage ... that's horribly underwhelming ... Belgium qualified much more often (twice as many apps at the World Cup as Portugal) ... from Uefa WCQs, only Germany, Italy, Spain, France and England had more success ... sure, Belgium went winless in the first 4 WCs, after playing only 1 game, haha, twice in those early WCs ... you're talking dark pages of history, especially Europe in the 30s, and many sides, including Belgium actually, weren't that interested (not much prestige either unless you buy into Fifa propaganda) ... still only once in WC history did Belgium finish outside the top 16 ... 11 out of 12 times Belgium were among the final 16 teams.

Also, catastrophes like both world wars, the great depression, Uruguay wins, ... are ancient... in the last five decades even Belgium have a better record than Uruguay (so do many more from Uefa TBH, a podium place already suffices) ... both made the semis (even though one was on the receiving end of bad calls facing a Maradona-led side and the other needed a handball to get past Ghana) ... Belgium reached the QFs in Brazil (gives Belgium the lead) ... also Belgium had better finishes in other apps (Belgium's lowest finish in its entire history was 19th, going home "undefeated" after drawing all group games, including against an insanely talented Holland in 1998, all other apps were at least top 16 finishes) ... Uruguay even has ended up as bottom dwellers ffs ... since Holland revolutionized the game and with the increasing professionalization of football (clubs dragging the international game with them) ... Uruguay have found modern football a bit more trying ... they still have top top players and I'll definitely respect that.

PS when Belgium won the 1920 Olympics, it was the most prestigious trophy in football ... back then there was no World Cup and football at the Olympics was an event for senior teams, not youth like it is now ... TBH, we don't even give a shit about it ... to their credit many Americans donot care that much about their best finish ever ... because it's ancient crap ... it's embarrassing that Uruguay do ... their crest what a joke.

 

How is that possible considering that Scotland took part 7 times to the WC and never managed to pass a round ? I don't think that you'll find a team from any other region that have as many tournament appearance without advancing once...

 

Again, it's Wales, they're the worst ranked side from Uefa ... Scotland have five final 16 finishes, 9th in 1974, facing some great sides in those days ... Brexit, not Europe ... like in the Olympics they should just participate as the UK ... Mexico, 15 apps, yet have never managed to finish as high as Scotland, 9th, when they weren't hosts (also Mexico hold awful WC records, like most losses) ... Bolivia's points average is only half of Kuwait's, Bolivia have never won a game at the WC, only scored a solitary goal and conceded 20, etc.

TBF Scotland can't qualify for a 24 team Euros, currently sit 4th in their WCQs group and won't qualify, not even a top 30 side ... a pertinent reminder that Uefa only get 16 spots (adding a play-off spot when hosting) ... Holland are currently 17th ... again, there will be a massive chasm between Uefa's play-offs where you have to face the likes of France, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc. and the ones for this 48 team travesty with the likes of Bolivia/Peru, Qatar/North Korea (best Korea), Haiti/Martinique, Tahiti/New Caledonia or other shitters.

 

I see you are cherry picking stats to make Euro look better...

Using the all time World Cup table Mexico has the 13th best points per game, and a few of these teams successes happened years ago. Only 9 Euro teams rank higher...
12th Serbia - Have not advanced out of group since 1998.
11th Russia - Since the brake up of of the Soviet Union, Russia has never made it out of the group (since 1994).
10th Sweden - DNQ in 2010 or 2014

They are also one of the very few nations to advance out of the group in the past 6 WCs or more (since 1994). Only these teams made it out of the group stage in more consecutive WCs then Mexico:

Germany - 15 WCs in a row (1954 to 2014)
Brazil - 12 WCs in a row (1970 to 2014)
Mexico - 6 WCs in a row (1994 to 2014)

Edit: Bringing this thread back on topic... with the 2026 expansion there is a very good chance these 3 teams will hold these records for a very long time to come. Assuming all 3 of these teams qualify for 2018 & 2022.

 

It works like this. Once a European team makes a round of 16, a quarter final or a semi final they are forever at that level. All other teams are only measured by their worst performance.

 

No cherry picked, friend, Wales are ranked where Wales are ranked ... and despite having the likes of Bale will struggle to make the WC ... a shitter like Bolivia can send 23 (twenty-three) complete 23 man squads and still not match Bale's market value ... Bolivia's record shows how bad they truly are, objectively, below Kuwait tier.

Uefa will only get 16 spots (adding a play-off spot when hosting), even if Wales can keep producing generations around the same quality level as the current one, they'll struggle to get a look in ... if they regress to Scotland tier, you don't need to worry that Wales will be allowed by Infantino, Mr. Inclusivity, to come anywhere near his 48 team social event.

Mexico DONOT have the 13th best points per game ... Mexico are ranked 13th because they participated 15 times, twice as hosts (their best finishes), they weren't great but not too poor either and collected 56 points in TOTAL ... after SO many tries their best finish is nothing more than QFs, which they only managed to reach as hosts ... TBH shouldn't they be further along their development by now, don't sides develop just by participating, that's natural law, no?

Nope ... Bolivia are measured by their entire track record ... it's just bloody awful, one of the worst teams in the history of the WC came from Conmelol, not once, not twice but 3 (three) times ... all Uefa sides have better track records ... even recently balkanised members that participated as part of a previous NT 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.

 

TL;DR ... UEFA the ONLY one > rest of the world ... Uefa wins lol

ROTW > OFC
ROTW > AFC
ROTW > CAF
ROTW > Concacaf
ROTW > Conmebol
UEFA > ROTW ... it's lonely at the top ... Uefa wins lol

Overall record

Top 8 (136) ... UEFA 94 > 42 ROTW ... Uefa wins QFs lol
Top 4 (80) ... UEFA 56 > 24 ROTW ... Uefa wins SFs lol
Top 2 (40) ... UEFA 26 > 14 ROTW ... Uefa wins Finals lol


*Top 16 ... UEFA 81 > 59 ROTW ... Uefa wins lol
1st place ... UEFA 11 > 9 ROTW ... Uefa wins lol
2nd place ... UEFA 15 > 5 ROTW ... Uefa wins lol
3rd place ... UEFA 16 > 4 ROTW ... Uefa wins lol
4th place ... UEFA 14 > 6 ROTW ... Uefa wins lol

 

My bad, you are correct. I read the chart wrong... Mexico's points per game is ranked 39th.

Although most of Mexico's' losses took place in 1966 or before. They had 1 win in the WC prior to 1966, with 3 draws and 13 losses. 1970 to 2014 their record is much better. 13W - 11D - 12L
This is a PPG of 1.38 since 1970.

Yes, I agree they should have done better in a WC by know, but they also are one of the most consistent WC teams and only 2 teams have shown more consistency by advancing out of group.

What I meant by cherry picking is, you are posting only the bad things about Mexico (like all the losses, that mostly took place 50 years ago), and not posting the good things... like this.

Germany - 15 WCs in a row advanced out of group (1954 to 2014)
Brazil - 12 WCs in a row advanced out of group (1970 to 2014)
Mexico - 6 WCs in a row advanced out of group (1994 to 2014) albeit they have yet to make quarters in this time frame. It's still an accomplishment only 3 countries can claim.

 

TBF the orignal "no cherries picked" post was quoted ... jogger had a closer look at Scotland, even though they're ranked higher than Wales, the quarterfinalist from my quote ... Mexico was brought up in that context ... again, WC track records of all teams are readily available, plenty of evidence, everything can be easily verified, if you like to add context, please do ... Mexico, Scotland, Wales: they ARE better than Bolivia, one of the worst teams in WC history (actually below Kuwait tier) ... the all time World Cup table only contains 9 Conmebol sides while up to 8 sides will be able to "qualify" after expansion ... another reminder that Uefa only get 16 spots, up to 17 when hosting, while the all time World Cup table contains many many many more sides from Uefa than 17 ... again, Scotland aren't even top 30, currently Holland sit 17th, their track record, wowsy ... also, not a shitter like Bolivia among all those Uefa sides

 

I don't think it's very fair to describe Pot 3 and the non-UEFA clubs in Pot 2 as "reaming groups". I'm sure some reaming will occur, but I think you do some of our less traditionally strong nations a disservice!

 

What a surprise, kiddo ... you can't even read ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_table_of_the_FIFA_World_Cup

Again, Bolivia's entire WC track record ... all of it ... it's just bloody awful ... one of the worst teams in the history of the WC came from Conmelol ... not one, not two but three outings and still among the bottom 10 (ten) ... Bolivia's points average is only half of Kuwait's, Bolivia have never won a game at the WC, only scored a solitary goal and conceded 20, etc. ... textbook example of a shitter.

 

Bolivia, as 1 of the 7 or 8 sides is definitely possible ... a reminder they were deducted points for 2 games this time round, finished 8th in 2014 (with Conmelol host, i.e. 7-1, that's close and Venezuela 6th ), 2002 as you said, etc. ... this without the incentive that "qualification" is achievable (we saw plenty of sides bunker down to grind out a ticket to France2016 after the expansion + as you admit Conmepoor WCQs will probably be retooled which could work to their advantage as well) ... 1994, the last time Bolivia shat the bed at the WC, they claimed 1 of only 3 direct spots ... after the 48 team expansion there will be 2x as many spots ... even Venezuela have a decent shot at a participation ribbon ... make no mistake, up to 8 out of 10 sides, relegation tier fodder will get in.

Great effort trying to give former yugos shit ... Croatia's top finish, like it or not, is part of their track record, their football is very easy on the eye unlike the ultra-defensive snoozefests or the horribly mismatched ties you'd like to see at the WC, also, let alone the classy players from ex-yugos, Norn Iron, just with George Best, are a bigger talent factory than some of Conmepoor's fodder ... for all former yugos you could downplay their track record as part of a previous NT ... you shouldn't though ... yet if you do then you'll have to add a massive caveat: only started competing very recently ... with that caveat in mind ... Croatia are producing massive talents, no end in sight to their production line as well, and a massive 3rd place the very first time competing as an independent member, already ranked higher than Colombia, wowsy ... Serbia already got a mention before ... Bosnia, still so young, are so "far" the weakest of the former yugos that have participated independently, only 1 (one) app though, Pjanic and Dzeko and even they have outperformed eternal embarrassment Bolivia (and no-show Venezuela) ... kekwador in ALL THAT TIME haven't even finished higher than 12th, a shitter like Peru hasn't been seen since 1982 ... here's another reminder, there's a massive caveat, former yugos are only just getting started/they were part of a previous NT ... again, Holland are currently ranked 17th in Uefa.

 

Quote me where I said that Yugoslavia will compete in world cups ... that's very rude of you ... also, no reason to forget about the caveat ... and despite only competing as independent members in very recent times they already have a better track record than Bolivia, the shitter, and Croatia is even ahead of Colombia ("mediocrity for almost an entire century ... only that 1 (one) QF and a repeat isn't expected from Hames the bench-rotter").