I think that a lot of the conflict among posters on this forum is due to the fact that we have very different ideas about what the World Cup should be....so share your vision for the World Cup on this thread. For me, the four most important elements for a World Cup should be: 1) Determining the best team in the world by a method which minimizes the role of luck as much as possible 2) Providing as many interesting matches as possible 3) Maximizing the number of tickets available to fans 4) Minimizing travel costs for fans Therefore, my "ideal" World Cup would have 16 teams, playing in a total of eight stadiums, each with a minimum of 50,000 seats. The group stage would be four groups of four teams, with each group being split between two stadiums in the same geographical city or region. The knockout stage would be replaced by a second group stage, consisting of the 1st/2nd place teams from each of the four group stage groups. The final would take place between the winners of the two groups from the second group stage, resulting in the winning team having played seven matches, and thus keeping the tournament at the same length of time it is now (note that this format was used in 1974, 1978, and 1982). The sixteen qualifiers would be determined as follows: UEFA - 5 automatic + 3 playoff places CONMEBOL - 3 automatic + 2 playoff places Africa - 2 automatic + 1 playoff place Asia - 2 automatic + 1 playoff place CONCACAF - 2 automatic + 1 playoff place TOTAL of 14 places awarded automatically + 2 places awarded through the 8-team playoff The 8-team playoff would take place during the pre-tournament friendly "period" at the site of the World Cup, with the eight teams being divided into two 4-team groups, with the two group winners advancing to the World Cup proper. That's my vision.....more matches between top-level teams, fewer knockout matches (to reduce the influence of both PK's and refereeing decisions), and fewer mediocre teams at the World Cup that have no chance at winning.
I agree with all your objectives / elements of an ideal WC but I would still prefer 32 teams. One thing I’ve learnt from attending WCs is that the group stage is the most fun part in terms of mingling and partying with other fans and I think some of that will go away if you only have the usual big countries qualify. Its true that a 32-team tournament leads to a few poor teams qualifying. I guess 24 would be the ideal # but it leads to a bad format, which is worse (imo). And 16 is too restrictive (say goodbye to the Scandinavians who are always a laugh, and probably the former Yugoslav nations as well). It would also feel a bit too much like a Western Euro – South America tournament rather than a World Cup.
Well realistically split the world into 7 federations and have an 8 team tournament with 7 champions and the host country invited (It would be better with 8 federations and no host, but hey). 1. Concacaf 2. Conmebol 3. UEFA 4. CAF 5. West Asia (Asia is big) 6. East Asia (Asia is big) 7. OFC If you want 8 then split Africa into North and South.
I prefer 32 teams. Some of the countries with the longest active qualification streaks would have failed to qualify or gone to a playoff for a 16 team World Cup with mfw13's format: South Korea (qualified for the last 9) did not win their group, so they would have had to go to a playoff, and they had fewer points than Saudi Arabia, who was second in the other group Japan (qualified for the last 6) would have had to go to a playoff for World Cup 2010 Mexico (qualified for the last 7) would have missed World Cup 2014 Spain (qualified for the last 11) would have missed World Cup 2006 Argentina (qualified for the last 12) would have had to go to a playoff for World Cup 2010 The qualification streaks include 2018 and include hosts who did not have to qualify.
31 teams (with qualification shortened somehow) 1 Host 14 UEFA 3.5 AFC 0.5 OFC (play-off with AFC) 4.5 CAF 2.5 CONCACAF (play-off with CAF) 5 CONMEBOL 15 knock-out ties (14 Uefa v 14 others/1 Conmebol v CAF) with golden goal (extra 3 subs for e.t./5 penalties) (hosts given bye) 4 groups of 4 quarter finals (extra 3 subs for e.t./full team 5 penalties/6 run-up shots) semi-finals (extra 3 subs for e.t./full team 5 penalties/ 6 run up shots) final (extra 3 subs for e.t./full team 5 penalties/ 6 run up shots) VAR or something similar in use. I think that all makes sense.
Seeing that we can have our ideal World Cup here, I’m going to stick with a 32 team same format as 2018. It’s qualifying and allocation of places where I would mix things up. Others have talked about having more inter-continental play-offs as a way of ensuring more of the right teams make the WC. I’m going to go along this path with a bit of a change aimed taking exciting/inter-continental football to places it doesn’t often reach. I’ll use 2018’s qualifiers as my example of who would go where if this was in place now. Obviously initial qualifiers may be altered to reach the correct numbers. Automatic Qualifying places 22 + Host Host UEFA 10 (France, Portugal, Germany, Serbia, Poland, England, Spain, Belgium, Iceland & Switzerland) AFC 3 (Iran, Japan & Saudi Arabia) CAF 4 (Tunisia, Nigeria, Senegal & Egypt) CONMEBOL 3 (Brazil, Uruguay & Argentina) CONCACAF 2 (Mexico & Costa Rica) For the remaining 9 WC places, I would have 9 mini-tournaments of 3 teams, hosted by the next highest finishing teams in OFC, AFC & CONCACAF to be played in the November window prior to the WC (when the current play-offs occur). Winner takes all and qualifies. As I have left CAF nations out of hosting I have given more teams the opportunity to qualify, though this could be altered to allow some CAF hosting (but if that was the case I would give less CAF nations the opportunity to qualify). Play-Off Places UEFA 6 (Italy, Denmark, Croatia, Sweden, Northern Ireland & Greece) CONMEBOL 4 (Colombia, Peru, Chile & Paraguay) CAF 6 (Morocco, DR Congo, Zambia, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso & Uganda) OFC 2 Hosts (New Zealand & Solomon Islands) CONCACAF 3 Hosts (Panama, Honduras & USA) + 1 (Trinidad & Tobago) AFC 4 Hosts (South Korea, Australia, Syria & Uzbekistan) + 1 (UAE). Teams would then be seeded into 3 Pots (Hosts, Pot 1 (9 highest ranked remaining teams using October FIFA rankings), Pot 2 (9 lowest ranked remaining teams). Drawn into groups with continental separation applying. I did the random draw and these are the groups I ended up with: (had to move Greece as they ended up in Croatia’s group) Hosts, Pot 1, Pot 2 Group A Syria, Colombia, Trinidad & Tobago Group B Uzbekistan, Italy, Ivory Coast Group C Honduras, Sweden, Burkina Faso Group D South Korea, Northern Ireland, Uganda Group E Solomon Islands, Croatia, UAE Group F USA, Chile, Greece Group G New Zealand, Peru, Morocco Group H Panama, Denmark, Zambia Group I Australia, DR Congo, Paraguay Matches would be played Hosts vs Pot 2, Pot 1 vs Pot 2, Hosts vs Pot 1 to try and best avoid the 3rd game being a dead rubber. Even if the Pot 2 team had already qualified, hosts vs Top ranked team should still be able to draw an ok crowd. Usual tie-breaks to apply, but if tie between Hosts and Pot 1 still exists continue into ET and Pens. If tie between Pot 2 team and one of the others, or a 3 way tie I haven’t figured out the solution yet. With only 1 teams going through though there should be no collusion. So this would mean allocations: (Min, Current, Max) UEFA : 10, 13, 16 CONMEBOL: 3, 4 or 5, 7 CAF: 4, 5, 10 OFC: 0, 0 or 1, 2 CONCACAF: 2, 3 or 4, 6 AFC: 3, 4 or 5, 8
Basically, that's the confederations Cup. Instead of dividing confederations, I like better the solution consisting in dividing them into subconfederations. That's what Africa and Asia area heading to and it solves most issues due to distance without reducing the competitiveness of the continental tournament. As a matter of fact, I would personally integrate OFC as an AFC member without dissolving it, but in making of it a subconfederation of the bigger AFC. This way, OFC could still maintain an Oceania Cup yet could also participate to the AFC Asian Cup. I can't see what OFC would lose here, considering it's not necessarily harder to qualify to the world cup in ending among the top 4 Asian countries rather than in winning against the 5th CONMEBOL team. In a similar way, I would also merge CONMEBOL and CONCACAF, but in giving more importance to subconfederations, allowing them to organize their own tournaments (a bit like it's already the case with the Caribbean Cup and the Copa Centroamerica, but also, why not for North and South America). This way, we would have 4 powerful confederations organizing 4 prestigious continental tournaments: a Copa America enlarged to CONCACAF, the Euro, the Africa Cup of Nations, and an AFC Asian Cup including Oceania as well.
If you are going to merge Concacaf and Conmebol, why not do the same for Europe and Africa? That way we have 3 very large (Asia would still be huge) Confederations.
Because both Europe and Africa already have 50+ members each. Together, that would make more than half of FIFA members. Conmebol is a great confederation with nations such as Chile or Colombia really on the rise, but it's rather small with only 10 members. As a result, non-members are already invited to fill up the slots and make a 12-team tournament. I think it would make sense to make of Copa America an All-Americas tournament permanently the way it's been done for the Centenario edition.
Basically the same as now. 32 teams, groups of 4. Seeding based on qualifying performance, not region. Keep teams apart from same region (except UEFA). The only thing I'd do different is have more intercontinental play-offs. 1 round (one pair of international dates) but more teams (so CONCACAF, for instance, has 2 full and 2 half sports, maybe African gets 4 and 4, or 5 and 4, even UEFA has it's second place teams be in the Intercontinental depending on the draw. ). Those are fun.
I like expansion more than others here apparently but I would be on board with a 32 team World Cup with some tweaks. This would never happen but I would like more inter-confederations playoffs. Instead of the European second places playing amongst each other (like it is set up now) I would have them seeded with the best teams from other confederations based on FIFA rankings and have them play on a neutral site.
32 teams Host and defending champions qualify automatically Guaranteed spots: 10 for UEFA 6 for South America 5 for Africa 5 for Asia 3 for CONCACAF 1 playoff spot: UEFA vs OCEANIA Giving an automatic spot to the defending champs virtually guarantees an extra spot for UEFA or South America. South America is shafted under the current format anyways. They have performed very well the last 2 WCs but haven't received an extra spot. I'd reduce UEFA's spots to try to make the game more globally appealing. As bad as they perform, you need to give Asia its fair share due to the huge market presence there. Qatar 2022 is the last good WC until FIFA ruins it with the junk 48 team format.
32 is the best format but if they must expand it they should go to 40 teams. 8 groups of 5. Top 2 qualify for the round of 16. 4 matches per group. Teams can lose a match and still recover. Fairer as an unlucky loss doesn't put you out of the tournament. More opportunity to see your team play. The tournament length may need to become a day or 2 longer to fit the additional match in but a squad of 23 should be enough to cope with the additional match. This format allows some additional African teams to be admitted because their qualification is brutal. A couple extra from Europe and FIFA get their wish with China and the USA likely to qualify every single time. As a bonus the quality is not as diluted as it would be with a 48 team tournament.
I would like that format, but it would take more than an additional day or two to complete the tournament. You are talking about adding 2 matchdays compared to the current format, an its one matchday longer than the proped 16 groups of 3 format (i.e. 5 matchdays during the group stage and 4 knockout rounds).
Only one additional match day compared to the 32 team format though. At the moment each team in each group plays the other teams a total of 3 times. In a 5 team group you'd play a total of 4 group matches. (I.E. One additional match day) Or am I missing something?
For a four team group you need 3 match days - but for a 5 team group you need 5 (because effectively you have a bye for each round). Think of a group of 3 - you need 3 match days for that - you can't play the group in two match days. Sure each team only plays 4 times, but you need to effectively schedule the rounds as if they had to play 5. With 5 there are ways to make it sort of less bad, but that means some teams will need to play with very different gaps between their matches. J
Aah yes I see now what you mean. Still.....40 is way better than 48 even with a bye. 48 is just way to diluted and it's likely that if you lose your first match in a 3 team group you will be out. I doubt I'd travel halfway around the world to watch only 2 matches guaranteed. Infantino is just after a cash grab. It's a bit of a joke really.
It's only 2 matches guaranteed, but 2 out of 3 teams per group advance, so some teams will lose their first game and advance. As a hypothetical, if Japan opens with a loss to Brazil, it doesn't affect Japan's chances much because they're competing for second with a team who hadn't played Brazil yet.
Slot for defending champion screws up continental qualifiers, leaving the incumbent without proper prep matches. UEFA must open its slots for intercontinental playoffs. Other confeds must travel far and wide for playoffs, UEFA does not. Conmebol must earn its additional slots (after spot #4) thru intercontinental playoffs. Just because the top 4-5 Conmebol reps have done well in recent history, it does not mean the lower 6th-7th will excel at the world stage. Direct tickets for lower teams would be nepotism. Agree with OFC going to intercontinental playoffs.
UEFA would love that. The reason UEFA isn't part of the play-off's atm isn't to protect them from travelling, it is because the other confederations don't want to miss out on the WC by losing to an UEFA team.
Yea they used to have a spot for the defending champ but that was scrapped because no one wanted to get the bye as it was too much of an disadvantage.
The last time UEFA partook in intercontinental playoff was in Nov-Dec 1985. Although football has improved in other world regions since 1986, somehow UEFA continues to control 40.6% - 43.7% of WC spots. That share could grow to 50%, once the 48-team expansion is implemented. In order to justify such a large share of WC spots, FIFA should open up some UEFA slots to intercontinental playoffs. Back in 1962, UEFA held 2 intercontinental playoffs, for instance. Today, the football calendar is saturated. UEFA clubs will not accept that its players travel around the world for intercontinental playoffs. A bit of arrogance, but it is mostly greed. Intercontinental playoffs where UEFA participated so far: 1986: Scotland beat Australia. Scotland traveled twice. 1978: Hungary beat Bolivia. Bolivia traveled twice. 1974: USSR forfeited to Chile. Chile traveled twice. 1962: Spain beat Morocco. Spain traveled twice. Yugoslavia beat South Korea. Yugoslavia traveled twice. 1958: Wales beat Israel. Wales traveled twice. 1952: Italy beat Egypt. Italy traveled twice.