This article lays out the three formats Fifa is still considering for the 2026 World Cup: https://www.espn.com/soccer/fifa-wo...-abandon-three-team-groups-for-2026-world-cup 1) The current plan. 16 groups of three to get to a 32 team knockout round. 2) 12 groups of four. a 32 team knockout round so that 8 of the 12 third place teams make it out of the group. 3) basically like the above, but with the tournament divided into two 24 team tournaments. there would be two 24 team tournaments where in group of 24 is divided into 6 -4 team groups. (Like 1994) The winners of each sub "tournament" would meet for the final. These might seem weird, but I'm wondering if it is a way to cut down on travel time? Which means they don't seem to be considering a plan to have 12 groups of 4 with the top two teams advancing. (8 teams would get buys. 16 would play the first knockout round. But they aren't doing this, so...)
Hmmm... I don't like any of them, but I could live with any of them EXCEPT the 16 groups of three. That's just a terrible, terrible idea.
Me, too, it's obviously the best of the formats IMO, but that means that the tournament is one match longer, which is something that FIFA said that they're trying to avoid.
Totally, unless you're FIFA and really, really, really want to involve the world's two biggest nations--the 2nd and 5th largest economies--both of which suck at soccer. This is the "we're tired of waiting for you, so we're coming to you" solution.
If you're expanding the field, you shouldn't also expand the knockout stage. Don't dilute the most meaningful parts of the tournament.
If we doubled it and went to 96 India still wouldn't be safe, but I think FIFA would settle for China.
8 groups of 6 seemed like the best answer. Each team that gets in gets a guarantee of 5 games. Who wouldn’t want that? World Cup seems so short if you get bounced after 3 games.
Honestly, I love the idea of more teams in the World Cup. Give me more teams to learn about, to watch, chances for upsets and seeing new countries and players. I am old enough to remember many instances of expanding playoffs being met with disdain online, but in the end people loved it because at the end of the day we just want more entertainment. MLB Wild Card expansion, NCAA Play in Games, MLB Play in Games. Didn't NFL just expand their season? And Im sure NBA did something recently too. MLS has Leagues Cup, which had some people complaining but in the end more competitive matches I think will generally make people happy to watch. EDIT: Though there are always limits, just say NO to the Super League...
The best parts are the upsets. Best part of March Madness is the first weekend when the small schools take out the big schools. If the Final Four is Argentina, France, Brazil, and Spain I might not really care who wins.
Doesn't seem that weird to me - it basically sounds like the the playoffs from every American sports league, right? Seems like that format would involve a large number of total matches, though.
Slight disagreement. March madness is two tournaments. Underdog time is week one. But after that, you need more blue bloods than not, who will play more artistically. Same for the Wc. You need a certain degree of unpredictability for terror and unpredictability. Besides the US, I think I'd like to watch favorites struggle with each other from the quarters on.
That would be 120 games just for the group stage, compared to 64 for the entire current tournament. An there would a substantial number of meaningless games between eliminated teams in the latter matchdays.
Anything but #1. We cannot get rid of the drama of the final day in a group, nor open ourselves back up to collusion. Options #2 or #3 sound interesting.
I think having the best 8 first-place teams from 12 groups of four advance to a round of 16, with the remaining 4 first place teams and 12 second place teams playing matches for the other 8 round of 16 spots provides the most competitive balance without devaluing the group strange. Additionally it provides incentive for a team on 6 points after 2 matches to take the third match seriously to make sure they get a bye.
If we must have 48, we should have 8 groups of 6. Everyone plays 5 games in group. First place teams move to the round of 16. Second and third place teams play to get into the round of 16.
Count me in the camp who also thinks it is moronic for FIFA to expand the World Cup to 48 teams. 32 teams is also the perfect size for a World Cup. Exclusive enough to make it special to be there, while keeping the math & round progression straightforward: 32 > 16 > 8 > 4 > 2 > 1. I also think taking away 4-team groups with top-2 advancing takes away the best part of the World Cup. Look at all of the drama and jeopardy in the simultaneous 3rd games of each group -- that stuff is gold and FIFA would be making a huge mistake to remove that element. Outside of cheering on the US, prognosticating advancement scenarios throughout the 4-team round robin group stages is always my favorite part of following the World Cup. I find the # of variables involved to be fascinating. It would be a real shame for FIFA to take away this dynamic.
32 teams works out well both for just organizing the thing and creating groups and brackets and also in terms of competition. We already see a lot of teams with little chance and have multiple blow outs each time around. 48 teams is only going to increase this aspect while making the whole thing more convoluted. Purely a money grab sacrificing the actual competition in the process. But this is FIFA so we should expect nothing less.
That's a potential 10 games for a 2nd/3rd-place team that reaches the final. It's going to be a political difficulty to create a format that increases the max to 8, as the 4-team group ideas are going to do.
Exactly. It's one of the best moves FIFA ever made when they bumped it up to 32 from 24. The tournament cuts neatly in half for the round of 16, with no best-3rd-place finishes to deal with. And it allows for almost all the elite world powers, with just enough interesting underdogs as well. 48 teams is overkill.