Here's mine....top 24 ranked teams receive a bye to the proper tournament. The bottom 24 ranked teams are divided into 8 groups of 3, the 3 teams play each other, top one qualifies. Then it's back to 32 teams, so 8 groups of 4 as normal.
I agree. To have teams go through a grueling qualifying process only to give them 2 games to show themselves would be absurd. Which means that's the option FIFA will go with.
I have been suggesting this since the US got the bid, but Infantino has not been returning my emails.
I see many rightly griping about expanding from 32 to 48 but it's never going back and will likely go to 64 soon. I guess the only difference between 32 to 64 is one more game by the end for those in the finals (my math may be faulty so here admittedly)? The real tragedy will be qualifying as it will become so much easier for the better teams. You will rarely see teams like Italy miss again.
It's so funny. "We have the mix exactly right, so let's go back and review the nitty-gritty details of our unnecessary commitment to massively changing it" There is a right answer here though. 12 groups of 4, top two advance from each, the eight teams with the most points regardless of placement in their group get a bye to the round of 16, with the tiebreaker being total goals scored regardless of placement in their group. Retains the four-into-two dynamics and scheduling that they rightly like, without bloating the tournament length too extremely, or adding any more games for the vast majority of teams, creating more rest for many top teams, and adding an incentive for attacking play and trying to win games. There are so many of these sports bloat scenarios where byes don't work as a solution. Here they clearly do.
Just by way of demonstration of how this would work, the advancing teams from a given group would be the same as they are now, but in terms of the seedings for the byes using the 2022 WC results: 1. England, 7 points, 9 goals 2. Netherlands, 7 points, 5 goals 3. Morocco, 7 points, 4 goals 4. France, 6 points, 6 goals (+3 GD the extra tiebreaker) 5. Portugal, 6 points, 6 goals (+2 GD the extra tiebreaker) 6. Senegal, 6 points, 5 goals (ahead of Japan even as group runner-up due to goals scored) 7. Japan, 6 points, 4 goals 8. Switzerland, 6 points, 4 goals (Switerland and Japan both on +1 GD, winning the group can be last tiebreaker) This would give even teams that are through something to play for on the third matchday, discourage playing for a draw, and encourage even teams that are winning to keep attacking rather than shut it down. (You could be even more extreme and seed the byes on goals scored first if you really wanted to, but that perhaps over-rewards Spain 7-0 Costa Rica type results which aren't ultimately the kind of rewarding spectacles we want, and might create weird 3rd game incentives for teams with that kind of blowout already in hand)
https://www.natgoldc.com/2026 Still the best plan I've seen for dealing with 48 teams and 16 groups of 3.
That's really interesting and I never would have thought of such a format. The TLDR is 16 groups of 3, each of which is paired with another group. So, for example, the 3 teams in group A each play all 3 teams from group B. The top 2 teams in each group advance. Teams don't play against teams in their own group, but are judged against them (which is balanced, because they've all played the same opponents). Every team is thusly guaranteed at least three games. The two that make the final have to play one more game (8 as opposed to the current 7) than we've been accustumed to. I'd like to hear more thoughts on this format and the one that @Fighting Illini suggests (12 groups of 4, top 8 teams get a bye). I must say I'm very intrigued by the 12x4 in that the the possibility of securing a bye means the 3rd game is still very much important for teams entering that round in top spot.
The linked plan is absolute genius, and as you said I never would have come up with that, but at the end of the day it means all the teams are playing three group stage games, which is the expansion of tournament length and team burden they were hoping to avoid, so if you're crossing that bridge you might as well just have normal groups of four. The byes actually cut down the days and the total games, and that's the lever they're hoping to press.
I've seen a lot of cross play groups in youth soccer so it's not completely surprising to me. I much prefer that to the proposed 16x3 system. But the 12x4 with first round byes is just too good to pass up though.
What is absolutely incredible to me though -- is the concept of having 48 teams AND a 2 year cycle. Basically, FIFA, in that case, would be creating a version of a 'super league'. With players in it that play for just about free!!! Just incredible to me.
This would be my preferred format, too. The end of the group stage has the potential to be very dramatic. But I think they'll opt for advancing third-place teams from groups of four instead. It lets you schedule the second round ahead of time so that teams playing early in the sequence of group stages don't play too early in the knockouts. With seeds based on standings, you can't schedule ahead of time and sometimes might have to play on very short rest. Also, they'll probably worry more about the competitive advantage of the extra game for the unseeded teams in the knockouts.
TV pays FIFA $X per World Cup game. FIFA controls how many World Cup games there are. So lets have way more World Cup games. All barriers to just zombie-brained travel in that direction, not just in soccer, not just in sports, but in all commercial enterprise globally. All will be dissolved in the acid of year-over-year revenue growth.
That crossover group idea also could have the extreme example where one group wins all of the games, so you have group tables of 9/9/9 and 0/0/0. One of the nines is eliminated and two of the zeroes advance.
I looked at each of the options and the number of games that option means and the number of games that are needed by a team to reach finals. Here's my calculations, please check as there is a lot going on here: Today's format 64 games, 7 games to reach the final. 48 group games, 16 games thereafter (included 3vs4) 16 groups of 3: 80 games, 7 games to reach the final 48 group games, 32 games thereafter 12 groups of 4: 104 games, 7 games to reach the final 72 group games, 32 games thereafter 2 groups of 24 teams in 6 groups of 4: 106 games, 7 games to reach the final 72 group games, 34 thereafter (do you have 3v4 play in each group?) 8 groups of 6 teams: 136 games, 8 games to reach the finals (top 2 in each go thru) 120 group games, 16 games thereafter Top 24 byes, 24 play in 8 groups of 3, winner to todays format. 88 games, 7 games to final if from the bye group, 10 games if from play-in group (Assuming the bye group doesn't want first game a knockout round game.) 16 groups of 3 - play across groups: 104 games, 7 games to the final 72 group games (9 games in each mega-group of 6), 32 games thereafter Sorry if I missed your option. I think the 7 games to get to the final is important, but if it goes to 8 maybe not a big deal. Obviously FIFA wants more games. But they also need to make sure they have enough referee crews and technology to make the logistics work and the quality to remain. (Though not necessarily the quality of the teams on the field.)
3, 4, and 7 have 8 games to the final, 5 has 9 games to the final, and 6 is not worth checking due to being too complicated.
I like #2 the best. While it may turn out differenlty depending on the draw methodology, the 12 groups increase the chance that we could finish first in group and play a weak 3rd place team in R32. The experience gained in R32 will help us get over that R16 hump. Is there any chance we could be ranked #12 or better by the time of the draw when we don't have quali's? Not sure how FIFA looks at that.
Repped but competition in Concacaf may get hotter with the way world soccer is developing on various fronts. 48 teams should do the trick for qualifying without big worries.
At what point do the confederations tell Fifa to pound sand though? Having the World Cup every two years essentially cuts out the Confederations money maker events in their region specific tournament and Nations League. Not to mention there won't be anymore friendlies either, though there are considerably less of thoise now with Nations League. At some point the confederations will take a stand. Especially UEFA if the International games start to really impact their continental club competitions. That happens, and the moves and calls for a Super League will not be as easily brushed aside or ignored.
I like the 12 groups of 4 with top 2 advancing. I like incentivizing the third game towards byes. Guarantee everybody 3 games, have more meaningful games in the group stage , another 8 knockout games, Nobody plays more than the current 7 games unless somebody comes out of the playoff bracket and they get to 8. Seems fan and TV friendly.