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

Yeah, I think UEFA would jump at any opportunity that gives them a chance to have at least 14 teams in the WC finals. The current allocation of 13 is a very awkward number as it leads to the direct elimination of the "worst second-place team" in the group stage, which is basically equivalent to the 9 runners-up playing Russian roulette.

 

I would give them the opportunity to have up to 17 teams, with each of the current 8 playoff teams involved in playoffs against other confederations. I don't see the need for 40 teams myself. I would just use the following

Host 1
UEFA 9 + 8 playoffs (13)
CONMEBOL 3 + 3 playoffs (4.5)
CONCACAF 2 + 3 (3.5)
CAF 3 + 4 (5)
AFC 3 + 3 (4.5)
OFC 0 + 1 (0.5)

No allocations change if you count the playoffs as a half spot, but everyone except OFC can increase spots if their fringe teams are good enough. Only CAF currently doesn't use a system where the teams qualifying directly and qualifying for playoffs can easily be decided. No one else needs to change a thing.

 

They have two semifinals in that span of time, better than anyone aside Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy, France and Netherlands. If the poster wanted to make a point about eight teams only, it should be those plus Spain and Uruguay.

 

Same could be said on regards to Poland, whom also has 2 semifinals in that lapse of time, both times being third : 1974 and 1982.
Which btw, is still lots more than whatever England has achieved since broadcast started being in color.

 

1970 was apparently mainly broadcast around the world in black & white. We just remember it being in colour because it was also filmed, and it is the film footage we "remember".

If you wish to include 1970 then England made the final 8, something I'd consider a reasonable yardstick for being a team consistently in the best 8, six times to Uruguay's two.

And, of course, I didn't even consider pushing the time period back a year further.

As the comment about Poland shows, the odd semi final appearance does very little to indicate consistency, as it's not uncommon for a nation to have a very good out-of-character team for a few years, and go deeper into the world cup. It is a "cup" after all.

 

The only reasonable yardstick, to be considered a top team, is to be capable to make it all the way through, playing the maximum amount of matches that any team can play in any given tournament. The most times a team achieves it, the more consistency a team has.

And here, England "flops" over and over again, almost never reaching the top 4.
Only 2 times among the top 4, in all the WC history (since 1930), is not precisely something anyone can consider as to have consistency. And more so, if we consider that they were whom invented the game.
The only consistency that England shows, is that for one reason or for other, they will not reach semi's.
.
.
Now, on regard to Poland, I wouldn't consider them so lightly, as actually it was them who took England's spot for the 1974 WC, eliminating them at the Uefa qualifiers for that WC....

 

Well, that's your yardstick but we could change "color TV" to "smart TV" too . My standard is the entire history of the World Cup, where Uruguay should rank ahead of England. Two WC wins and three other semifinal appearances. And they beat and eliminated England from the last WC to boot.

 

How is getting to the semis "getting all the way through"?

If you want to measure consistency, you really need to look at how a team usually does, not the "flash in the pan" outliers.

Of course, if your motivation is driven by a dislike of a certain team, then your rationale will invariably change.

Taking just the extremely good outcomes, and ignoring the fact that teams are usually nowhere normally, is the very definition of a team being inconsistent.

If you want to see which teams are consistent semi-finalists after 1970 (a period I chose despite despite it ruling favourable England results out of my earlier calculations) then you don't have many candidates. Germany (8), Brazil (6), Netherlands (5), Italy (5), France (4) and Argentina (4).

Nobody else comes close.

I don't think anyone, not even people from Poland, would say that Poland have been a consistently strong team over the last 11 tournaments, despite them having the 7th best record in semi-final finishes in that spell.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

Historically, when talking about the great clubs of English football, we should count Preston North End and triple-winners Huddersfield Town above the likes of Nottingham Forest or Spurs. We perhaps wouldn't assume they are still great today because such teams were good around 90 years ago though.

But like I said, if your motivation is to discredit England, that's fine. I even ruled them out myself. I just pointed out that Uruguay's good world cup years have been far an few between in living memory, and their last semi-final appearance was somewhat tainted by them reaching it due to a pretty despicable bit of cheating.

There probably have been other occasions where a team has progressed to a semi final thanks to a disgraceful handball, but none spring to mind for some reason.

 

Then of course there is the 2010 World Cup knockout stage bracket to consider. Uruguay were joined in a quadrant by USA, Ghana and South Korea. If we're going to count this World Cup more than everything that happened in the previous 40 years, lets at least keep the achievement of reaching the semis through such a quadrant in perspective. Whichever nation got through that quadrant would have had a better last 40 years in the World Cup than the other 3.

It doesn't help Uruguay's case that after reaching the semis, it was quite evident that they were the 4th-best team out of the remaining 4.

 

Oh, so now calling out some facts over any given team, means you dislike them
Very strange logic.

That's exactly where England is.
Since 1970, they've only made it to semi's, once (1990), which means that normally they aren't a top 4 finishing team. So their 1990 percformance was nothing more than a "fluke" performance (by your own definition of inconsistency, that is).

Sure, and the one who preciselly comes closest to them, is Poland, with 2 semi's for that same period.

And I would add that actually being champion of at least one WC during that lapse of time, is an achievement that for most can be only considered as a "wet dream" come true, so no matter how bad they could have done in the other tournaments for that lapse of time, that "one" win, still puts them among the very top teams, specially if that win happened not so long ago, so at least for me, Spain also belongs to the top, together with the 6 (six) other teams you mentioned.

As for England and/or Uruguay, for that lapse of time (not including 1970), they are at the same level of South Korea...
Important ?......., yes, but in no way puts them among the very top teams of the WC.

I never said that Poland was a top team.

What I said is that even they, have been lots more succesful than what England has, for that lapse of time (which is something completely diferent).

 

In terms of how of how each confederation could have to change its qualifying to do that:

UEFA, CONMEBOL, and OFC wouldn't have to change.

It wouldn't make sense for CONCACAF to have a Hexagonal that eliminated one team, so they would need a final group of eight or two final groups.

AFC could continue to have two final groups. The two second place teams could play each other with the winner getting the third spot and the loser going to the playoffs. Another possibility would be three final groups with each group getting one qualifier and one playoff team.

CAF likes having groups of four in the final round. If all the group winners got automatic spots, there could only be 12 teams in the final round unless the groups expanded. I would be fine with three groups of six, but it would require four more matchdays than groups of four and CAF has two confederational tournaments every four years. With three groups, each group would get one automatic team, one playoff team, and one third place team would go to the playoffs also. With three groups there wouldn't be a simple way of having the third place teams competing with each other to see who got the playoff spot, so you could just take the best third place team by points and ignore the fact that the groups may not be equally difficult.

 

There are only 20 WCs played, so every one of them matters. Can you point to me where in the forum's terms of service it says that you get to decide what counts or not for the World Cup?

You ruled out England because you have no leg to stand on to include them alongside their betters Argentina, or the other true powerhouses mentioned.

As for Uruguay's route to the semifinals, the entire incident came off a dive. Suarez was appropriately punished and Ghana were given a penalty in the last second of the match. Up to them to actually make it count.

 

What is worse, there was a past WC champion whom won at home their only WC trophee, basicly thanks to a goal given by a ball that never went in...

 

Yeah, Suarez cares more about winning than what people who he will never even meet in life think of him. Can't really blame him too much for that. Once put in that spot, blocking the shot with his hands was the best move to help his team win.

The fact that there was another player trying to block the same shot with his hands also tells us that Suarez is not alone in his thinking.

 

Why no complaints over the inclusion of Spain, if your (or his) measure of consistency is key?

They also only have one semi-final in that time frame (and only two ever).

Yes, they rarely manage to get into the real business end of tournaments, but they are usually pretty solid performers. 2014 was their first group stage exit for 56 years, and they usually make the quarters.

That's really what consistency is about - how well you expect a team to do, typically.

They are strong now, but no, there's no way you could suggest they've been consistent title challengers, because they haven't been.

Anyone who says that over that last 40 years or so, England and South Korea have consistently been at the same level, is clearly using a pretty stupid definition of consistent.

Who said England were?

I just said Uruguay haven't been a consistent top side in living memory, because they haven't been.

 

I think blatant cheating is far worse.

Face facts. If England had won in 1966 because an English player had blocked Weber's 89th minute equaliser with a deliberate handball (and Germany missed the pen) nobody at all from Argentina would be saying he did the right thing. They would be calling it the biggest disgrace in the history of the world cup.

 

I did indeed. They are not a true powerhouse. Nor are Uruguay.

Both were very strong in the 1930s though.

 

See @BocaFan 's post. Suarez plays for Uruguay, his nation, he doesn't care what you think. Such a disgrace that the rules have not been changed yet.

But if the poster needed eight teams for his argument, Uruguay should still be the eighth.

 

Yep, in such a situation, where a player has clearly prevented a goal by cheating, I'd award a penalty goal.

When you break the rules to try to gain an advantage, that's cheating. And if you win through cheating, it definitely does tarnish the result.

So if somebody was looking to create a closed tournament featuring the best nations of consistently high quality for decades to come, Uruguay would be an obvious choice because they were good in the 1930s?

OK.

 

You are the one who insists in talking about consistency (not me).
I'm talking about who is among the best or top teams in the world, and for Spain, they happened to lift the trophee over their heads, 5 years ago, which puts them there.

Sure, same as England and Uruguay, for the time frame.
Uruguay on the other side, in historic achievements, has more than Spain's and England's combined, with 5 semi's in history (2 WC championship wins), which puts them lots better than both.

To be among the best, you must perform as the best as well.
And England, unfortunately almost always fails at it. That's why they aren't a top team.

They are a very good team (among all the teams of the world), I give you that. Certainly, among the top 16, which will almost always have them among those whom could potentially finish at top, but to their disgrace they also have the strangle abbility to lose unimaginable points to almost anyone with almost the same ease as they can win them. Truth is, that at current form, they don't scare no one.

In the last 40 years, both have finished only once among the top 4 teams of a WC. And both finished 4th in diferent WC's. (btw, same as Uruguay, Portugal, Bulgaria and Belgium)

To me, that's the same.

No, you didn't say it first when this whole debate started.
Actually it was @VBCity72 , whom said it first (post number 89 in this same thread)

Same as England (one 4th place and nothing else to show on their behalf, in the last 40 years)

 

As I said, anyone who thinks England and South Korea have been at the same level for 40 years is using a pretty ridiculous measure.

 

Surely we're not still pretending that reaching the semis in 1950 had the same level of difficulty as reaching the semis now(?). Uruguay pretty much received a bye to the semis in 1950. Venezuela accomplished more in the 2014 WC just by almost qualifying.

You were also talking earlier about the difficulty of maintaining form for the full 7-match run required to go all the way. In 1930, "going all the way" meant playing 4 matches. So it shouldn't be valued the same way as the modern-day WCs, using your own logic.

 

For that to be a cheat, the offender must be able to get out with it, with no punishment on his behalf.
For the case of Suarez, he was discovered and punished, with a direct red card so he didn't get away with it (which also meant him to not be able to play the next game, where with him in the pitch Uruguay could've perfectly defeated the Netherlands at the semi's as he is Uruguay's most deadly forward), and due to the fault Uruguay got sanctioned with a penalty kick in favour of their opponent, all according to the rule book.

What happened afterwards, is not Uruguay's fault.

Btw, in context, if we were going to go with everything sanctioned according to the rule book, the free kick that lead to this whole situation afterwards, should've never been called, as it was due to a blatant dive by an opposing player (which also by definition is a cheat, where which is worse, the player got away with it without any type of sanction), that the referee miscalled by giving a free kick due to it. If you really don't like cheating, you should really be mad over the cheater that got away with it, and not with Suarez whom got the fault called and sanctioned accordingly.

Anyhow, one offender or the other (no matter whom), the whole situation does tarnish the result. It is very strange that after all that happened back then, FIFA didn't do or say nothing about it, in order to avoid something similar to ever happen again.
Somehow, it seems as if FIFA is condoning it all, with their silence.

It's your opinion, which of course doesn't make it a fact.

Fact is, which is undeniable, is that both have done exactly the same thing, when it gets to finishing as the worst team among those who finish among the 4 best teams, in only one WC tournament, for the last 40 years.

 

And you would completely undo the naturalness of soccer, which is why cultures all over the world love and follow the sport in the first place. Soccer is not basketball, hockey or gridiron football, and that's its main strength. You get a penalty in the last play of the match, better score it. This is not kindergarten.

In any event, FIFA, UEFA or anyone else has not even thought about changing the rule.

There are different ways of breaking the rules and cheating.

Uruguay was also good in the 40s and 50s, that's why they won a World Cup in Brazil no less. Besides, World Cup semifinalists in 2010, continental champions in 2011, World Cup round of 16 in 2014. Which other NT outside the seven aforementioned can match that?