The current FIFA plans for the 48 game tournament are, in a word, stupid. My understanding is that the current idea is Design 1: -3 team groups -top 2 advance to a round of 32 single elimination touranment This is silly because: 1) Three team groups still need three match days to play, with one team getting a bye each matchday. The one with the middle match day bye gets a big advantage. 2) You now have to make room for 16 "Round of 32" games. That round of 32 is going to add at least 4 days to the tournament length. Design 2: Informal conversations are around to go to 12 groups of 4, teams 1 and 2, plus the 8 best third place teams go to a round of 32. 1) This is better, since all teams play every match day 2) BUT, You still need that honking round of 32. https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...der-ditching-three-team-group-format-for-2026 Really, if you're going for such a bloated tournament, then what makes the most sense is: Design 3: 8 Groups of 6 Each team plays 5 matches 1, 2 go onto the Round of 16. This adds two match days per group. OTherwise, it's the same tournament we have now. Obviously longer, obviously more games (and stadiums), but you don't have the "bye" problem, and you don't have the silly "best third" problem, which is pretty strange to have results determined by results in other groups.
I actually don't mind the 48. It's the groups of 3 that really bothers me. They should do 12 groups of 4 with 8 rd place tes going through.
Yeah, basically this. I mean, I'm not a huge fan of some of the extra spots that the likes of AFC and CONCACAF are getting, but I can live with it if we at least have a proper format.
8 groups of 6 played Swiss-style with each team playing 3 games before advancing the top 4 to a round of 32 is also an okay option.
Yeah, and we also won't have as many big matchups in the group stage because the top 13/14 teams wouldn't be able to play each other (assuming the 3 cohosts round out Pot 1). 8 groups of 6 would add a few shit games, but we'd at least keep the good matchups we get in the group stage currently. Even 12 groups of 4 wouldn't dilute the quality as much.
3 team groups are the worst idea and I'd have trouble being interested. I mean waiting four years and then getting bounced out in TWO matches, not even having a proper three, is just stupid. No big team is truly safe and it's totally possible a Germany, Spain or Portugal just bottle it and are out in 2, whereas might have saved their campaign with a heroic third game otherwise. 3 games is what every team should be guaranteed to play for making it to this stage. WC groups should be groups of 4. It's been that way for a while and it has worked really well. Sorting the third place finishers is fine to me, just play as well as you can and not worry about playing for a draw or scoring X amount of goals or not picking X amount of cards with all the calculations.
8 groups of 6 would make the group stage overly long and lead to too many meaningless matches between eliminated teams. The winners would have also played 8 matches, which is the same as having 12 groups of 4. 3 team groups are a shit idea, as explained above - plus the possibility of collusion in the last game. We will also have teams eliminated and on the plane home before others have even played their first match. I expect 3 teams groups will be dropped in 2030 and will have 12 groups of 4. This will also allow expansion to 64 teams.
Assuming the group of three format is kept I will just treat it like an expanded round of Intercontinental play-offs. (I have always wanted more of those.) The Round of 32 will be the real true start of the tournament and it will be epic to have an extra round of do-or-die matches. Very excited for that round.
Now that we had 2 euros at 24 teams, I can tell you that I hate groups with "best thirds" being qualified. They make the group stage meaningless because there's too many teams going through. And even worse, they generate too much random in knock-out brackets so we end up with all favourites battling for the same place in final. Let's not forget that a world cup is a very physical tournament. The current world cup in Qatar is particularly intense with a game every 4 days. As such, I like better teams having to play 7 games to win it rather than more than that. I totally agree that the group stage will be totally meaningless. Winning the first game is enough to qualify for next round. And you can still go through with one draw and one loss, so even if you screw up it's very forgiving. As such, the group stage won't have more value than preparation games. However the new round of 32 will bring a lot more interesting games. So in the end, I still believe the 32-team format was the best one and shouldn't have changed. But if we have to go for a 48-team format, I think I like it better that way. The concept of "best thirds" is totally flawed anyway. You can't compare performances in different groups like that.
That is my biggest beef with best 3rds too. Going home because teams in another group scored more goals is so flawed. Even more flawed than a three team group. I rather they select the best thirds by FIFA ranking while they are at it. At least it makes more sense to me.
Another option is to give group winners a bye to the Round of 32, and have the second and third place finishers play a playoff round. This way, every team gets at least three games and collusion is less of an issue because no one gets eliminated after the group stage. It's possible a team could play eight games, but then that is their problem for not topping the group and having to go the hard way.
In some ways yes. But in other ways most of the teams being eliminated will just be very happy to be there as minnows.
There is an alternative. 1) Define 4 clusters of triple groups (ABC + DEF + GHI + JKL) 2) Within each cluster, make a secondary ranking with the 3 winners and the 3 runners up. 3) Top 2 group winners advance to the round of 16 directly 4) the 3rd (worst) group winner + 3 runners-up compete in 2 cluster wild card matches (8 wild card matches in total ... or more of less 1/2 round of 32). 5) 8 wild card match winners will join the 8 teams directly qualified for the round of 16. I named this Triple Group Wild Card 48 well that Design 3 is the Twin Pool 48 format I have extensivly described in the United 2026 forum. Both formats will drastically reduce the chance of teams qualified after 2 matches lining up their 2nd squad in the last group match, like France, Spain and Portugal which is understandably, but still unfair to the other contenders in the group. It is the format, that needs to prevent this. With Twin Pool 48, the chances of a team being qualified after 2 matches is below 1% With Triple Group Wild Card 48, each group winner would aim for being one of the 2 top group winners and therefore play at full strength in the final group match.
8 games a day, that's watchable. Joke aside, I fear we're heading towards this, but I really don't see the point of it. People will lose interest in the group stage.
Nah, expand it to 220 teams, but have regional tournaments first and the top 32 advance to a final round.... oh, wait.
The 32 team format is not perfect at all. Just watch how France, Spain, Portugal and now Brazil falsificate the group outcome as they are already qualified. My 2nd criticism is in comparison to the 24 world cup. Those format mixed the tournament a lot before the round of 16 as the decision which matches will be played was based on which groups provided the best 3rd placed teams. So the race was open till the very end. That was good for the tournament. With the 32 team format, it is always clear how the tournament bracket forms. So you know this time, France can only meet Brazil in the Semis. Predictible and much prediction means often tactical or let us say boring round of 16 matches.
Any attempt to increase the number of matches the semifinalists play would be subject to agreement with the ECA.