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

Well, I never disagreed with that so lets agree to agree with that bit.

Except many teams will know before the last day that they can't qualify. If you have 1 or 2 points after two matches, you're not going to catch a team that already has 6 points. Thus, its meaningless.

 

That does not mean their games are meaningless though. Those teams can be spoilers just like in any other World Cup in which a team is eliminated and finds a way to get a point. In fact I would argue that a team already eliminated would play harder knowing they are the team that could keep a Germany or a Brazil from going to the next round.
In the current format you get bench players against teams with no hope of advancing which to me is much more meaningless.

 

You did not refute it.

You made up an argument that did not exist.

 

Teams with 1 or 2 points after two matches usually don't go on long World Cup runs anyway.
Since you love to Bring up World Cup 2014 so much take a look at who was still alive in my scenario. IT would be about the same amount of teams as it is under the current scenario after two match days.
They just would have to focus on winning instead of draws or 2nd place.

 

"spoiler" by definition means they have nothing to play for. It's just another way of saying the game is meaningless for them.

That's just not true. Only 4 teams were eliminated in 2014 using the existing format (England, Spain, Australia, Cameroon).

11 would have been eliminated under your proposal.

 

It would not be meaningless to the tournament and advancing since first place teams would still have to go for victories.


But which one of those 11 went on to do something in the World Cup knockout rounds? I am cutting out the middle man.
That is why I said teams with 1 or 2 points usually don't go far anyway. So even though they were mathematically alive we all saw how things turned out. They were not realistically alive.

 

Dude, that's a different argument. I mean, I could also say that none of the 8 additional teams have a realistic shot at reaching the World Cup final so this whole expansion idea is bad if we use that argument. Even teams as good as Mexico aren't going to win it all, but that doesn't mean they don't add to the flavor and excitement of the tournament by participating.

Guess we'll agree to disagree.

 

The whole expansion idea is not bad as long as you reward teams for winning and scoring in my book.
That is why I said I liked the 10 Group winners and 6 best second place teams idea. I then went on to say I would go further with my (outside of the box) idea but I know realistically that won't happen.

 

When will there be the official decision about this 4o teams expansion ?

 

I think FIFA is otherwise occupied at the moment.

 

I can't really see why there are so many who strongly oppose this idea. I really don't see much downside and plenty of upside.

1. I don't see the level of the competition declining with the 8 additional teams. You can argue that these 8 teams won't dramatically raise the quality of the competition and you may have a case, but I think there are more than 8 teams on the planet who could be added to a World Cup without decreasing the quality of play. The 8 teams added will be good enough to allow us to enjoy an expanded World Cup group stage without having to watch less quality on the pitch. The knockout stages would also have the same quality they have always had.

2. Exclusivity declines, sure, but we're not exactly talking about opening the floodgates here. Even under this expanded format, less than 20% of all FIFA member associations would qualify.

3. The financial upside is obvious enough that I shouldn't even really have to explain it. The world cup is already a massively profitable event. Increase its size and representation and that potential only goes up. This is obviously good news for every team involved.

4. Fans get more football. Given how enjoyable the World Cup is for so many, I can't see how this is anything but a positive.

5. It increases global representation, an objective whose importance is highly underrated by a lot of observers here. The goal of the World Cup is to get the best teams in one place, yes, but it also has a representative aspect that is of crucial political, cultural, and financial value. The world cup isn't merely a grouping of the best teams in the world, it is a grouping of the best from every corner of the world. It is that globally inclusive aspect that makes the world cup so unique in sports (matched perhaps only by the Olympics). I don't see anything wrong with increasing the representative aspect of the tournament, so long as it is done within reason and doesn't come at the expense of quality. Here, I think those qualifications are met: the proposed expansion is not excessive and the number of added teams not enough to decrease quality. With increased global representation, FIFA can promote the spread and growth of the game in a larger number of nations (whose football development would be greatly aided by WC qualifications that may not have happened without expansion). That's good for everyone.

Obviously there are political realities to consider here. Here are the percentages of teams from each confederation who qualify from each federation at the moment:

UEFA: 26%
OFC: 0-9%
AFC: 9% to 11%
CAF: 9%
CONCACAF: 8.5% to 11%
CONMEBOL: 40% to 50%

Nobody with sense is going to argue that UEFA and CONMEBOL do not deserve disproportionate representation relative to other confederations. They're obviously deeper, so obviously a larger percentage of their teams should qualify. What the rest of the world is upset about, however, is just how low their own percentages are. Nobody is asking for equality, just additional representation.
Can you blame these federations for asking for a bit more than they're getting? They thing they are under-represented, and that's probably fair. They're obviously not going to roll over and just accept the status-quo and they cannot just be ignored, so we have two options here:
1. Increase the size of the tournament.
2. Take spots from UEFA and give them to other confederations.

The second suggestion seems impracticable to me because it would quite likely decrease the quality of the tournament and remove more representation from a UEFA that has already ceded a few spots in recent cycles and doesn't need to lose more. That leaves option 1.

With expansion and the proposed allocation released already (and posted earlier in this thread), the percentages would look like this (not accounting for the undecided place since we don't know how that might be split):

UEFA: 26%
OFC: 9%
AFC: 13%
CAF: 13%
CONCACAF: 14%
CONMEBOL: 50%

CONMEBOL and UEFA still occupy their rightful places atop the heap. Everyone else gets a little bit more of a foothold that, while still rightfully smaller than the ones CONMEBOL and CONCACAF have, is bigger than what they had before and arguably much more reasonable.
Does this look unfair to people? UEFA still has twice the representation of Africa, which seems like a not-unreasonable representation of the gap in quality between the two confederation. CONCACAF is good and gets a boost, but still can only qualify teams at less than a third of the rate that CONMEBOL does. Is that an unfair representation of CONMEBOL's quality relative to CONCACAF's?

What I'm seeing is a proposal in which the less established confederations get the increased representation they want without a) upsetting the natural balance that should have the best confederations qualifying at a disproportionate rate and without b) decreasing the actual quality of the competition by adding too many teams or trying to take UEFA sides out of the tournament to increase everyone else's representation.

This gives fair voice and resolution to the concerns of less prestigious federations that represent most of the planet, improves financial outcomes for everybody (broadcasters, sponsors, FIFA itself, federations, players, teams, etc), gets fans more football, and gives more nations around the world a chance to get exposure on the biggest stage (to the delight of their fans who'd otherwise never see them there).

So why not support this?

 

Because the objective should be to increase the quality of the competition, not maintain it, which this proposal probably won't do anyway because 32 teams is already a stretch in terms of quality.

For those who want inter-continental play-offs involving UEFA teams, I suspect UEFA would not object to it but other confederations would because it is improbable that their best teams would eliminate some of the best teams in UEFA over two games.

The focus of AFC and CAF should be on improving the quality of their national teams which they can demonstate at the World Cup and then the 32 places can be distributed differently to reflect changes in the balance of quality between the confederations.

 

Quintessential European answer, might as well drop the WC to 8 teams. Germany, Spain, Italy, France, England, Netherlands and might as well let Brazil and Argentina play too right. That's the only way to get the best of the best every cycle.

The cream will always rise to the top regardless of tournament size.

 

They wouldn't be playing the best teams in Europe, they would be playing teams that came second in their group. Then again, the best teams from AFC, CAF and CONCACAF wouldn't be in the playoffs either. More intercontinental playoffs just determine whcih teams will be making up the numbers. I'm in favour of more playoffs, simply because it eliminates the argument about more spots. Everyone can get more spots if their teams are good enough.

 

1. That is not the objective, it is one objective. If that was the only objective, we would simply take the World Cup down to 16 teams and be done with it (I doubt you'd be opposed to that). We don't do that because there is another objective you and others who think like you insist on ignoring: global representation. It is a World Cup. The aim is to involve the world and spread the game in doing so. That requires reasonable representation for every portion of the world (not just Europe), which we cannot have under the current system. You can't simply ignore this objective - it is valid, and it isn't going to go away.

2. This proposal would maintain quality. 32 teams is not a stretch - the quality at these most recent World Cups was good and there are definitely more than 8 teams with enough ability to play at that level and maintain such quality.

UEFA would object to any proposal that calls for the decrease in allocation of World Cup berths to UEFA teams. That is exactly what your proposal does, so it won't find any support in UEFA. They have 13 guaranteed places now and they're not going to be content to surrender any of them. To do so would be against their own interest, and it would also arguably undermine the quality of the tournament.

Other confederations will oppose it because they see it for what it is: an underhanded and artful evasion designed to avoid giving fair voice and resolution to their concerns regarding representation.

The focus of the AFC, CAF, and CONCACAF is already on improving the quality of their national teams. That was the focus before, it is the focus now, and it will remain the focus in the future.
What will also remain a focus is fair representation. Fair representation is crucial to the economic and political state of affairs in these confederations. It is also important to their competitive future: the improvements in quality they are working for mean very little if they are not given fair opportunity to display them on the world stage. They are under-represented now, so they are not getting that fair opportunity. The AFC, CAF, OFC, and CONCACAF are quite right to hold their under-representation as a legitimate concern, and these confederations should not be expected to drop said concerns in order to roll over and acquiesce to the interests of UEFA.

The costs of giving fair voice and resolution to the concerns of these confederations is so low that opposition to it is mind boggling. The expanded world cup costs nothing in quality on the pitch, offers tremendous financial benefits to everyone involved, addresses longstanding political concerns, gets fans more football, and increases opportunities to grow the game around the world.

Those who oppose this expansion have absolutely nothing to lose in the event of its going forward (and, in fact, stand to gain given the fact that UEFA's representation would go up), which leads me to wonder if there isn't something more intangible and subjective behind their opposition to it.

 

What is England doing in this list?

 

I needed 6 European teams and I was hoping no one would notice.

 

Put Uruguay instead, much more likely to pass unnoticed.

 

So you really think a team with no chance of qualifying will try harder than a team with a chance of qualifying?

I think the expression "wishful thinking" springs to mind.

A team that's made the last 8 only once in the last 11 world cups?

 

A team that has more World Cups than England and has been better over the past ten years (WC semifinalists too).

 

The Top 2 confederations, UEFA and CONMEBOL, produced 22 out of the 32 Round of 16 teams at the last two World Cups yet are only given 17.5 combined World Cup spots, with 18.5 this time including Russia. CONCACAF may not be the third best confederation overall, but it is the third best confederation in terms of rate of advancing countries to the Round of 16 (which it has done at a higher rate than UEFA over the last two World Cups although I acknowledge UEFA is better). CONCACAF has had 5 Round of 16 teams at the last two World Cups from 7 entrants. AFC (2 Round of 16 teams), CAF (3 Round of 16 teams), and OFC (no Round of 16 teams) have combined to have only 5 of the last 32 Round of 16 teams from 19 entrants., but they get 10 combined spots per World Cup, so I don't feel sorry for AFC, CAF, and OFC about how many World Cup spots they get. Furthermore, the last two World Cups have had four groups with a CONCACAF team and a CAF team, and the CONCACAF team has finished ahead all four times. Ghana did get a Round of 16 win over USA in World Cup 2010.

 

They probably wouldn't be playing the best teams in Europe. But they might. The UEFA qualifiers don't exactly do a great job of separating the best teams from the 2nd-tier. I mean, one bad match out of 10 could drop a powerhouse into second place...

 

Whilst that's true, I wouldn't expect more than one or two at the most of the true top team to miss out this way. In any case, even though my nation plays in one of the weaker confederations, I would be happy for us to have one less guaranteed spot in return for two more playoffs. I suspect UEFA teams would jump at the chance as well.

 

Take England out of the equation entirely, it's incredibly hard to deny that Uruguay's world cup record - one tournament apart - has been at best mediocre since the world cup stopped being broadcast in black & white.