2030 World Cup

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by Nico Limmat, Jun 4, 2017.

  1. glennaldo_sf

    glennaldo_sf Member+

    Houston Dynamo, Penang FC, Al Duhail
    United States
    Nov 25, 2004
    Doha, Qatar
    Club:
    FL Fart Vang Hedmark
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Go back to 32? Has that ever happened in the history of the world cup? Have they ever contracted teams? It's only gotten bigger and bigger as time has gone on. Same with the Euros, Champions League, etc. I don't know any international football tournament of this magnitude come to think of it that has actually shrunk, it's very, very rare. And any FIFA presidential candidate who dares suggest that would be ultimately be committing political suicide. I think the promise of potential World Cup football to so many nations was ultimately what got Infantino elected. Who cares about the quality?
     
  2. jesta

    jesta Member+

    Feb 9, 2014
    every bubble blows once, who knows. infantinos greed is unlimited but he won’t be there forever
     
  3. HomietheClown

    HomietheClown Member+

    Dusselheim FC 1971
    Sep 4, 2010
    Club:
    --other--
    #403 HomietheClown, Aug 10, 2020
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2020
    I will take 64 teams single-elimination.

    A losers bracket after the first round of the 32 teams who lost. The "Winner" of the losers bracket gets some sort of reward for wining 5 straight matches. Maybe an automatic spot in the following World Cup playoffs no matter how they do in qualifying.

    Rinse, repeat every 4 years.

    The end.
     
  4. Paul Calixte

    Paul Calixte Moderator
    Staff Member

    Orlando City SC
    Apr 30, 2009
    Miami, FL
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    :thumbsdown:

    Losers' brackets are for Sunday league, and would be considered a bunch of pointless dead-rubbers unless there's a hefty cash prize at the end. I could just hear the English press bitching about having to stick around with no WC in sight, practically begging the team to lose so that players can get back for the Premier League season. And Lord help us if there were a major injury in the losers bracket :eek:

    Before we go down that road, I'd rather see a 64 team tournament with 16 groups of 4...with only the group winners moving on to the R16. Now you have giant WC finals (and all that delicious cash for FIFA) with everyone playing three games - and only one likely dead rubber for the teams that crash out early, rather than a bracket full of them - and still only 7 games to the title.
     
    jagum repped this.
  5. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    I like the simplicity of it but straight-KO is an idea that will be as successful as the idea to reduce the number of teams in the tournament (either way its fewer total matches, thus less $$ for FIFA and everyone involved).

    Why not double-elimination? Still have your brackets but every match matters. 112 matches in total. Easy, clean format (no best-3rd-place-teams or awkward 3-team groups BS).
     
  6. HomietheClown

    HomietheClown Member+

    Dusselheim FC 1971
    Sep 4, 2010
    Club:
    --other--
    We already have do-or-die at round of 32 so I think just raising the stakes at 64 is the best thing for me and for Television purposes. The drama would be so intense if a 1 seed just happens to go to penalties with a 64 seed in the future.

    It would literally be the biggest upset in World Cup history if it ever does happen (and the 1 seed is eliminated) and would be treated as the biggest feat in all of sports really.
     
  7. Holiday_Jenkins

    Barcelona
    United States
    Jun 10, 2020
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    When the World Cup goes to 64 and it will eventually. 16 Groups of 4, winners and runners up advance to Round of 32 with knockout play from there. Adding an 8th game for 2 teams that reach the World Cup Final is not that big of a deal. Having 6 matches during group play would be matches all day. 11am, 1pm, 3pm, 5pm, 7pm, 9pm local times. Round of 32 would be four matches. 12noon, 3pm, 6pm, 9pm. Round of 16 and Quarterfinals can be 2 a day. Something like 5pm and 9pm local time. Semifinals could be 9pm local time and Final could be dependent on what's best for a Worldwide audience also considering where its at. In Europe like and 8pm local kickoff, in the Americas maybe a 1 or 2pm local kickoff.
     
  8. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    Biggest upset? Perhaps. But I don't agree with designing a format just to try to produce something that may happen once per century.

    Also not sure the viewership would be so much bigger that it would offset the significant reduction in # of matches. As @Holiday_Jenkins points-out above, the most logical format for a 64-team WC would likely mean 6 matches per day for the first two weeks of the tournament. And the thing about great surprises is you don't know they're gonna happen beforehand, so not sure a tonne of people are watching #64 Panama upset #1 Belgium when it happens every 100 years. If there are 5 other matches that day, I reckon I would skip it.
     
  9. HomietheClown

    HomietheClown Member+

    Dusselheim FC 1971
    Sep 4, 2010
    Club:
    --other--
    If there are 6 matches a day they will more than likely be simultaneous kickoffs so that means eyeballs divided amongst different matches.

    Single elimination with a Losers bracket is still a lot of games to watch per day and each game will be watched by the whole world without conflicts.
     
  10. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    Not really because you would still need to schedule 6 matches per day otherwise teams would go 8 days between matches.
     
  11. Paul Calixte

    Paul Calixte Moderator
    Staff Member

    Orlando City SC
    Apr 30, 2009
    Miami, FL
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Can't be back-to-back: TV networks would balk at having no time for post/pre-game shows (and I'd be pissed if there were no time to show the anthems). A more likely outcome is either @HomietheClown 's simultaneous kickoffs or a schedule like this:

    9:00 a.m., 11:30 a.m., 2:00 p.m., 4:30 p.m., 7:00 p.m., 9:30 p.m.

    Again, IMO you overestimate the draw of a losers' bracket, even one within the World Cup. Notice how CR7 hightailed it out of the last Confed Cup once Portugal got eliminated, rather than stick around for the 3rd-place match? Tell the likes of France, or Argentina, or Mexico that they're out of contention for the World Cup, but can still play 4-5 games for a consolation prize, and you'll see their stars abandon the tournament en masse.
     
    BocaFan repped this.
  12. jesta

    jesta Member+

    Feb 9, 2014
    honestly, I expect different scenario. going back to 32 but playing every two years. that would be the real money for fifa
     
    glennaldo_sf repped this.
  13. Paul Calixte

    Paul Calixte Moderator
    Staff Member

    Orlando City SC
    Apr 30, 2009
    Miami, FL
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    True, but FIFA would have to square up with both the IOC and UEFA for that to happen.
     
  14. glennaldo_sf

    glennaldo_sf Member+

    Houston Dynamo, Penang FC, Al Duhail
    United States
    Nov 25, 2004
    Doha, Qatar
    Club:
    FL Fart Vang Hedmark
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Although I agree with the premise.... there's also the slight issue of the clubs that play these player's wages not objecting... I'm sure they will be totally fine with letting their players go for another 6 weeks every other summer + the qualifiers! erm...not!
     
  15. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    It would have to be instead of the continental championships. But I don't think too many people want those tournaments to disappear.
     
  16. PabloSanDiego

    PabloSanDiego Member+

    West Ham United
    United States
    Jan 18, 2014
    San Diego, CA
    Club:
    West Ham United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    yeah I agree with this, it's never going back to 32. Like it or not more money will be made and the decision will never be to make less money. I do think an eventual expansion to 64 is likely as I agree a 48 team field is awkward with 3 team groups. It wouldn't shock me if it's 64 as soon as 2030.
     
  17. PabloSanDiego

    PabloSanDiego Member+

    West Ham United
    United States
    Jan 18, 2014
    San Diego, CA
    Club:
    West Ham United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think this is the most likely scenario. I even don't think having 2 matches on simultaneously during the whole group stage is that big of a deal. It happens for 1/3 of the group stage already.
     
  18. r0adrunner

    r0adrunner Member+

    Jun 4, 2011
    London, UK
    Club:
    AS Roma
    Nat'l Team:
    Italy
    I think the 2030 edition will be staged in Europe. Never before have three consecutive editions been held outside of Europe.

    The most likely alternative in 2030 - South America - is unlikely because after 2026 in North America it would be unlikely to have two consecutive events in the western hemisphere time zone.
     
  19. HomietheClown

    HomietheClown Member+

    Dusselheim FC 1971
    Sep 4, 2010
    Club:
    --other--
    There's a first time for everything.
     
    BocaFan repped this.
  20. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    I don't think there is any rule or good reason why you can't have back-to-back WCs in the Americas. It hasn't happened because in the old days every second WC was in Europe. So there wasn't even a possibility to have consecutive WCs in the western hemisphere until 2010 + 2014.

    That said, the case for western Europe to host in 2030 is a very good one. They are past due.
     
  21. r0adrunner

    r0adrunner Member+

    Jun 4, 2011
    London, UK
    Club:
    AS Roma
    Nat'l Team:
    Italy
    I agree, but I think commercially the case to not have it in Europe for three consecutive editions cannot be made.
     
  22. glennaldo_sf

    glennaldo_sf Member+

    Houston Dynamo, Penang FC, Al Duhail
    United States
    Nov 25, 2004
    Doha, Qatar
    Club:
    FL Fart Vang Hedmark
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Normally I'd agree but I think the temptation to have the centenario in the same location where it all began might genuinely be there...
     
  23. Holiday_Jenkins

    Barcelona
    United States
    Jun 10, 2020
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I agree 2030 is Uruguay and other Co-Hosts. However, if its a scenario where Uruguay and friends is incapable of hosting then I see England getting the hosting duties.
     
  24. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    Probably the UK, not just England. UK would be an amazing host, albeit expensive.

    England has expressed interest in hosting Euro 2028, which could negatively impact their 2030 WC bid. But I guess they would probably back off from pursuing Euro 2028 if they see that they have a good shot at the WC. Not sure which announcement comes first.
     
  25. glennaldo_sf

    glennaldo_sf Member+

    Houston Dynamo, Penang FC, Al Duhail
    United States
    Nov 25, 2004
    Doha, Qatar
    Club:
    FL Fart Vang Hedmark
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Wembley is also hosting the 2020, erm I mean 2021 Euro final + semifinals.. dunno if that will do anything to their 2028 Euro bidding chances
     

Share This Page