FIFA International Match Calendar: Proposed Changes & General Discussion

What is happening with this world? Why? Is there anyone in FIFA with a gram of brain?

I know this will go through (FIFA's voters would sell their mother for a few dollars more) but I still hope someone (UEFA, CONMEBOL) says "******** off, you bald twat", and leaves FIFA completely as UEFA does not need FIFA to keep producing money while FIFA likely goes doom without Europe.

 

Next step would be to get rid of qualifying and use the FIFA rankings.

 

That's pretty much the only way this statement can be true: "there would be fewer international matches but with a greater impact" - FIFA blowhard.

Yeah, I know what they mean - more France v Brazil type matches, and less France v Kazakhstan type games. Still kind of BS though if there is going to be a month long tournament every summer plus a month long int'l break in October every year. Not to mention, no consideration given to how Borat Kazakhstan feels about it. Or France and Brazil for that matter.

 

I guess the short answer to your question is: greed.

The WC could generate profits over $3 billion. Not sure how much the CWC generates but the TV revenue is $40 million, and I'm guessing that's the largest revenue source. And for the expanded CWC a lot of revenue will have to go to the clubs just to convince them to compete in it.

 

That is the reason: the major part of the revenue would go to clubs, mainly from UEFA.

A major reason for the biennial WC proposal is to help bridge the gap between UEFA teams and the Rest of the World which is continuing to grow under the status quo.

Currently, the global economy for NT soccer is split UEFA NTs 69:31 RoW NTs in revenue terms. Neilson's projection is for a biennial WC to close that gap to UEFA 57:43 RoW, with UEFA NTs' 57% projected share still being higher than its current 69% share.

It is similar to the WC slot allocation: the lasst 24 team field in 1994 included 13 UEFA teams (54%), and when it returns to North America in 2026 with the first 48 team field UEFA's slots would have increased to 16 but its overall share would have fallen to 33%.

FIFA is skillfully trying to grow the game around the world without undermining it in Europe.

If the proposal is rejected we can look forward to the final week of future WCs usually resembling the European Championship.

 

If by skilfully you mean the complete opposite of skillfully I'd agree with you.

They seem to be trying to bludgeon through a biennial World Cup and expanded CWC without getting UEFA and CONMEBOL on board first.

 

The problem with the FIFA proposal is it directs power to them by being the ones who make the decisions on the revenues UEFA now already have without FIFA having anything to do with it and so also no power derived from it.
Atm sponsors and media have to reckon with UEFA as they have a product, the EURO and UEFANL, that are highly sought after. If this EURO would shift to the the Bi-Ann. WC, it will shift power to FIFA as then they control the global market on their own.
UEFA would be stupid as f.ck to agree with that.
I think the best way to deal with this all is to start preparations in broad daylight with secession action preparations to put a loaded gun on the stupidface Infantino, and to the heads of the corrupt bribed yay-sayers from the FA's depending on the FIFA handouts. Without UEFA the handouts turn into breadcrums.
If you want to play poker with multi billion stakes, you better make sure your opponent understands you control the pot.

 

You have a point. Most of the TV money comes from UEFA.

However TV revenue from North America, the Far East and the Middle-East increased about 90% between 2014 and 2018 so that's presumably where they are looking to increase income going forward.

 

I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim that 3 million dollars (or whatever the exact figure was) can lift a NT into the final 8 of a WC. The countries that are on the cusp of that are probably already putting a lot of money into their football programme.

 

It is more about strengthening soccer across the world by significant investment (the projected average solidarity payment to each member is USD 25m for the first four year cycle and USD 30m for the second, a few years ago it was just USD 1m). Prize money for qualification for and performance in the WC final competition is also projected to rise by 50%.

More money = more professionalism = more investment = more development.

If clubs outside Europe can hold on to their best players for longer it will not only increase the eventual transfer fees they receive for their best players who eventually make it to Europe but will also help increase the value of their domestic and continental clubs competitions. It is like a snowball effect.

 

How do you imagine this all?
The elusive money from this extra bi-annual WC round isnot going to lift those clubs to the next or even higher level. Simply because the money available to clubs is a derivative of the economic strength of the environment clubs play in. A risen handout to the FA's (assuming corrupt officials keep their hands off that purse) isnot going to make clubs be able to hang on to players.
Money wise in economic strength only the USA, Japan and China can hang in with Europe, with India limping after these, to have fans able to spend money on their clubs in gate revenues/merchandising/tv/media.

 

A rare rep from me for FSF.

 

Making the poorer federations wealthier should help clubs in those countries develop better infrastructure and, consequently, players, with FIFA also extending coaching education opportunities both online (FIFA Training Centre) and in person to improve coaching in those countries.

Clubs should also be able to benefit from the increased opportunities for their NT in terms of populising the game and increasing the talent pool. More opportunities to qualify for the WC will increase interest in and the commercial returns of quailfiers in Africa and Asia.

Eventually the better players from these countries might reach Europe if they are good enough, but if they transfer later in their careers the fee for their club should be higher and meanwhile keeping better players - especially NT players from those countries - will help under-developed leagues and continental club competitions in Africa and Asia to improve and therefore grow commercially.

 

You can't grow crops on parched grounds. As long as the economies of those countries/confeds besides the ones I mentioned arenot at the same level as Europe, the local fanbase simply miss the money to make the clubs thrive and a few millions from FIFA arenot going to tip the scale.
You're processing the developments in a backwards way.
It's wishfull thinking instead of a real path.
First you need the economies grow.
Second you need the citizens have the money for entertainment.
Then clubs can profit from the wealth grow.
Then extra money will help.
Turning it upside down isnot going to work.

 

This is pretty clear:

- As has been noted above, CWC generates a fraction of the revenue of a biennial World Cup. We are talking about 8 figure sums of money vs 10 figures - tens of millions vs. multiple BILLIONS. They're not in the same galaxy in terms of actual value.

- This doesn't benefit most FIFA members. An expanded World Cup helps most of the world via enhanced solidarity payments (from enhanced revenue) and enhanced competitive opportunity for nations capable of qualifying (maybe not Nepal or Turks & Caicos but the Jamaicas and Uzbekistans of the world, of which there are many). The CWC just benefits European clubs, who are all in Europe and who are all already rich. The majority of those pushing FIFA to support an expanded biennial World Cup (read: something like 150+ of FIFA's 200 or so members) aren't going to be placated by the CWC, because the CWC gives them just about nothing.

That is, in short, why simply backing down and accepting the CWC wouldn't be an especially appealing option: it guarantees far less money for everyone and pisses off the bulk of FIFA members (who are hoping to get something, where the CWC gives them nothing).

A compromise in which FIFA backs down would more likely be an alternative tournament (a "Rest of the World Cup" or something, as discussed in this thread earlier I believe) that, while less lucrative than a biennial WC would at least bring in some significant revenue to be spread around and allow smaller nations more chances on a bigger stage. The CWC as a compromise is probably a non-starter.

 

I think the first two paragraphs are correct, but we're going off base if we assume that this will allow these clubs to hold onto players for much longer, if at all.

As has been noted elsewhere, there's just not going to be enough money for that in most cases. The money will go to the FAs and, while it will definitely improve infrastructure and development dramatically, it won't trickle down to clubs in an amount significant enough to fend off high-six/low-seven figure transfer fees from Europe for promising 18-21 year old talents. Those players are still going to leave.

The benefit is:
- The players will probably be better due to improve infrastructure an development funded by the biennial WC money
- Players will get more exposure in many countries (just having the funds to actually field and prepare youth teams consistently will help with this in a big way)
- Clubs will be better able to market said players due to enhanced quality and development + a bit of extra exposure in some cases, which for the savvier clubs who play their cards right and know how to actually market their prospects, will lead to more transfer fees to earn and greater revenue.

These factors will greatly aid most of the world's football, which is reason enough to support FIFA's proposal.

 

I was basing that idea on Wegner's research which revealed that the average value of a transfer of an African player to Europe is about 0.3m euros. The average value of that player's second transfer - within Europe - is about 2.8m euros. Hence Wegner saying that if African clubs can retain their best players for longer then - while the best ones will eventually transfer to richer clubs in Europe - they should nevertheless receive a higher transfer fee.

 

This man is truly someone without a moral compass or dignity:

Fifa president Gianni Infantino has said his plans for a World Cup every two years could stop African migrants from finding 'death in the sea', in an extraordinary address to European politicians.

Story: @PaulMac https://t.co/0v02s8VeOx

— Guardian sport (@guardian_sport) January 26, 2022

 

what a idiot!

 

I think what he was trying to say was that if every organization focused on Africa it would lead to fewer people desperately fleeting the continent and the biennial World Cup would be FIFA's contribution.

But he still managed to sound like sometime trying to justify a scheme that's all about enriching himself, whether financially or egotistically.

 

So basically a typical politician

 

FIFA's fearless leader must be an avid reader of Kipling's works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden

Love how these idiots reveal their condescending nature when backed into a corner.
Come on UEFA! Let us have pity on those poor little Africans, you know they're incapable of qualification unless we insert their minnows into a WC.
Grow the sport baby! Water it down so they won't drown!