I think the format should stay roughly the same as to expand it would make it very difficult to fit in the international calendar. The only problem is with Australia's departure from OFC. Sydney is porbably the weakest team in the tournament but they are still an order of magnitude better than what OFC could provide without Australia. Perhaps OFC should play off with AFC and the sixth spot either go to the host or holder (my preference is holder).
Bump Agreed. The six-team format is working well... The OFC champion should indeed be forced to play off. However, I'm against inviting the CWC holder back every year. Imagine a team like AC Milan winning three Club World Championships in a row simply by being there as holders (a very distinct possibility with such a small field.) I'm not thrilled with the idea, but a host team seems like the best solution for the time being...
Re: Bump The problem is who is the host? In this Japan tournament, which club is the host? Most major cities (I think of future hosts, such as Mexico City or Buenas Aries or Rio or Istanbul) have several teams.
I would agree with 8, but I'd say the champion from the previous event and the best team from the country who is hosting (not sure what they'd do if a country hosting has their team already qualified through CL though). With a host club, even though they might not necessarily "deserve" to be there, it will draw out more fans. I think having a J-League club at this competition would have really boosted the attendance (overall and especially for the games the J-League club played) and helped make the tournament even more popular.
As much as inviting a host club would benefit general interest, I just can't agree with it. It's against the whole principal of the competition. In fact, one of the major problems with Brazil 2000 was that half of the field didn't deserve to be there. FIFA have shot themselves in the foot by allowing Australia to leave OFC. This Confederation needs more countries, not less. In doing so, they've created further problems for the fledgling Club World Championship. Personally, I'd rather see the OFC representative get soundly beaten than invite a host which doesn't merit its place. The best solution, by far, would be to hold the tournament in the backyard of one of the rightfully qualified clubs. However, this is logistically unfeasible without major changes to the calender. The AFC and CAF Champions Leagues, for example, do not finish until October/November.
I'd agree to this but expans slightly - 3 teams from UEFA, 2 from Americas, 1 each from Asia and Africa, + host Nat. Champions - gives 8 teams, nice even number. This would be maximum expansion it could cope with - and I still think UEFA would disagree. Combining the confeds as a bove would be better for WC as well
The tournament is perfect!! But the "Brazilian Summer Tournament" is not a World Cup... and Corinthians is not a World Championship!!! ahhh, remember you, in Brazil, Corinthians have a cool nickname: "GAMBAS"
I think going to 8 would be a mistake because then a European club plays 3 games and will miss 2 weekends of domestic games. I also think you want this to be difficult to qualify for, the dissapointment on Gerrard's face at the end of the game said a lot, he knew he might never get back to this game. If 3 from Europe went, it would not be so rare and special. Also with 8 teams, you now probably need 2 stadiums which would eliminate some potential future hosts. I think 6 or 4 teams is the only way to go. As I have said before, I think what this tournament needs to move around the globe, a more favorable travel and time zone for a few years would breathe some life into this.
Re: Bump That would be a mistake... how can you consider some team being a World Champion if he did not win the continental championship?? That's corinthians case in the 2000 summer cup... CWC it's not the same as a World Cup. The aim is to define who is the best of the world in detriment of the continental championships. There is no such a thing as a qualifying tournament. I think it must remain the same way. About Oceania, i think it would be better if FIFA gaves 1 "vacancy" to the whole continent instead of makimg them play another qualifying game or make Australia plays at the Asia qualifying tournament And a message to the corintiano above: vai toma no cu corinthians, vai toma no cu corinthians, vai toma no cu corinthians! Sou tricampeao do mundo e vc não conseguiu! Corinthians vai pra ******** que pariu!!
Re: Bump Look, I'm not thrilled with the idea of a host team either, but when the OFC becomes a subconfederation of the AFC (and I'm convinced it will) we need a sixth team for the current format. What are the alternatives? Defending champion? Extra spot for the runner-up of the hosting confederation? Until the Americas decide that they are stronger together, a host team seems like the best solution, even if it means we'll have the occasional home-victory a la Corinthians.
I think the slight adjustment to 8 teams would be best.. A host nation team and defending champ is what they are talking about as the 2 additional teams. I don't like this 2 matches for 2 teams and 3 for the rest format as far as the road to the final part..
Re: Bump If the OFC team has to be replaced I'd rather see the holder as the extra team (or when they have already qualified the runner-up from that confederation), than a host-team. Or make it a 5-team event, with the worst 2 confederations of last year as the only QF-match, and the other 3 directly into the SF's.
Keep the tournament as is! If Oceania's representative gets smashed 6 - 0 by an AFC, CAF or Concacaf side - so be it. Let the rest of the world ridicule their football.