I don’t think China is super interested in doing so but I think they are capable of hosting on their own if they were.
And a solo bid for 2030 also. And it probably brings in a ton of votes from Africa if Spain/Portugal add Morocco.
Oh I don't have any issue with the increased size of 64. I'm not arguing that at all, I think 64's been great and always has been, it was perfectly tailored to make for a great tournament, not funkyness, 4 sets of 16 teams slowly battling down to a semifinal with 4 regional champs. Its better than the old 48 set up. I tried to promote that idea as better than the 16 3 team groups FIFA was promoting that sucked but nobody thought it was a good idea (probably for good reason). 64 just works better than 48. I didnt realize it, but the 48 system gave teams bye's. That kind of sucks. 64 is just better period. I 100% believe that interest in NCAA Basketball and the tournament itself is not as high as it was in the eighties and nineties though. Back then until basically the early nineties you had powerhouse teams built over years. Once early declares became the regular by the early nineties building those powerhouse teams over years became totally impossible, and as a result, it just became less interesting. It doesnt mean people don't care anymore, hell I'd argue it made the tournament a lot more competitive because the very best teams are no longer blends of young stars and 3 and 4 year starters like you saw with Ewing's Georgetown, or those great Duke teams of the late eighties and early nineties, the great Kentucky teams from back then and UNLV, UNC, Michigan etc. Now its more competitive because the powerhouse teams are vulnerable due to youth and lack of chemistry and experience, while the outsiders tend to have more 2-4 year players, which make them more competitive. I think that's why you've finally seen the 16 seed winless run end and a lot more 13-15's win then back in the day. But, the teams aren't as interesting either. Im sure the ratings are generally lower than they once were, but it's also negated by the fact that people just have way more options these days than 1985, 1990 etc.
Y'all need to stop comparing the NCAA hoops tourney to the WC. The selling point for the expanded hoops tournament was to give more teams a chance to play for the national title since they all play in different conferences and see very little overlap especially for the smaller schools. That is apples and oranges to the World Cup. All those little guys have the opportunity right now to play in the qualification "tournaments" to make the final. Now if you want to expand it because you think it increased interest etc, then fine but don't compare that to hoops. Its an apples and oranges thing. Now for those who misread my last post. Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I said I would prefer that the WC went to every 2 years over further expansion. Apparently I did word the parenthetical after that strong enough. I DO NOT want the WC to go to every 2 years. All you are doing when you expand the final from 32 to 48 or 64 is to include some form of final qualification into the actual WC tournament. No "new teams" all of a sudden have a chance to be in the WC that didn't at the start. You are just changing some of the final qualification to part of the "World Cup". And the more teams that make the final tournament the more you have diluted the qualification phase. Take the US for example. Yes we should qualify every time under the 32 team format. There is no reason why we shouldn't be in the top 3 of CONCACAF (not to mention #4 gets the play in match). But as shown in the last several years we still had to show up and earn our way in and in fact didn't qualify until the last window. Now lets expand to 64. Say now CONCACAF gets 5 auto spots instead of the current 3. Now qualifying matches are vastly diluted. We should be able to make it through with a C team. So how many players will skip qualifying matches? How many fans will travel to watch our matches when the level of pressure to win is so much less? I certainly would have less interest to go to a qualifying match. Just my perspective.
Not really. In WC qualifying before the actual WC you only play teams in your confederation. In the actual WC you play teams from every confederation. So if say Thailand somehow qualified with expansion do you think they wouldn't be thrilled just to play in the group play against say a Brazil or Germany? They know they'll get pasted but also know it's the only way they'll ever have a game against those types of teams.
I took it more as a negotiating tactic and also a reference to all the money USSF raked in last cup. They want the money that is due to them.
Its the same as Copa Libertadores, and the rationale for CONCACAF teams in that event. Does CONMEBOL need CONCACAF teams in club or international soccer from a competition point of view? Not really. CONMEBOL has the history and prestige! CONCACAF has money! I think everybody gets it. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement. At the same time, CONCACAF does have 4 teams that can do damage at a Copa America. Don't tell me Costa Rica can beat Japan and give Germany everything they can handle at the World Cup...............but can't beat Peru. Maybe my memory is hazy, but Mexico and the US both won their groups in the 2016 Copa America. Forlan's beloved Uruguay failed to advance. I mean, the top of CONCACAF has heald its own for 30 years against CONMEBOL. Did people not watch the 1994 World Cup? [I'm old enough to remember that Copa America in 1995. The US won its group with Argentina, Chile, and Etcheverry's Bolivia. They faced Mexico in the quarterfinals, who had also advanced.] The level of competition would NOT suffer for having 6 CONCACAF teams.
That wasn't really it. It was really just to get more teams in. You already had a ton of small conference winners and multiple teams from big conferences ... but only a few. If we're doing the "only give everyone a chance" model, why not just have a tourney with a single team from each confederation? The first point you made is never really the real reason for tournament size. All this just seems a lot of doomsday fuss over simply change.
Of course Thailand would be thrilled to get a match like those. But those matches are not without risk. But there seem to be a bunch of problems with expansion. 1. What format you do use? Are you going to have 16 groups of 4. Then a round of 32, then 16, then 8, then 4 then the final? This is more games than they play today. Maybe that's a good thing but its also not without risk. 2. The draw is already ultra important. Expand to 64 and that gets magnified. Using your Thailand example. Look what happened in the Women's WC when they included Thailand. The big countries were drooling to get drawn with Thailand. Free win and rest players. I get the argument that the only way some countries will improve their quality is to get this kind of exposure. But I also think that a measured approach is important. I believe you have to just recognize that you need to be careful about diluting the quality of the tournament. At 32 even the worst team has a chance (slim as it may be) against the big dogs. But expand to 64 and their are just going to be a bunch of teams that don't have the quality to complete. Now the draw is just too much a part of the equation for me. Bottom line - somethings in life are already great. More does not always mean better.
[QUOTE="ifsteve, post: 41087853, member: 229236" ] Bottom line - somethings in life are already great. More does not always mean better.[/QUOTE] I think most fans absolutely LOVED the way this 2022 World Cup played out. [I know WHY they're going to change it. More nations want that pot of gold. Particularly those for whom that pot of gold is really meaningful.] That's the format that this expanded Copa America can take. 10 CONMEBOL teams plus the top 6 CONCACAF teams. 4 groups of 4, and away we go. Sounds great. People like Forlan can whine all they want. CONMEBOL has been inviting guest teams already in order to make the competition work. They had invited Qatar and Australia in 2021, but they had to pull out due to a conflict.
And change is not always bad. Most of the pushback is from people who really only care about the World Cup for their (usually qualified team) or as a sort of Champions League. But for the nations who now have a shot, they are suddenly included. There's reason to care about their team, reasons for their feds and countries to invest, and if it pays, an incredible sense of pride. When parts of Southeast Asia are effectively Brazilian or Argentinian fans ... don't you have to wonder that if they party in the streets for Messi, what would they do if their country actually made it? Whether it is rules or structure of competitions, there's always the danger of too much greed or too much tinkering. But likewise, the structure of the World Cup isn't definitively in some magically perfect state or passed down on stone tablets from Mount Sinai. I think people are always amazed at how many changes have been made in sports they've assumed are static, and how some of those changes can actually be very good. The 32 team World Cup is now FAR and AWAY better than a sixteen team. It's not even close. Aside from perhaps Qatar, every team was competitive and able to play. Does Morocco make the World Cup in a 16 team tournament? The US doesn't. Do we think it is a complete coincidence that the US made a World Cup 8 years after CONCACAF went from 1 bid to 2? People always say that would make those teams better, but I don't think it does. Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things. It'll take time, but just like the 24/32 team tournament opened up opportunity for some nations, increasing will open up more. The challenge for FIFA will be to create format that keeps the magic and makes new magic.
I get your points and they have merit. But one question re the bolded part. Does that not greatly increase if you expand to 64? That is more real concern. Perhaps its not an issue and most all 64 would be competitive. If that would be the case then I'd be ok. ....maybe....lol
Nah, at the beginning, all 64 won't be competitive. It's not going to be Thailand at the WWC but yeah, El Salvador or Honduras or Oman or Iraq or something is going to get rolled in a game. It's gonna happen. But those teams aren't going to materially improve without the chance to do so. And a country like Benin or Jamaica might actually make a run and surprise some people. Sometimes you've got to lead the teams in. Now, maybe 64 ends up too much; I dunno. It'll be somewhere around 30% of teams making the World Cup, and that's higher than the NCAAs but lower than most North America playoff systems. But I just really don't think we're going to see substantial movement in a lot of these countries if they have no shot at making the big one.
Sounds like they wanted guaranteed money and then changed their mind when the tournament did better than they thought it would. Like and actor taking 5 million and then the movie becoming an all time block buster and they could have made 50 million with a percentage. Does anyone really renegotiate those deals?
It's the same thing people whined about with the USSF/SUM contract. They were going to get a guaranteed amount. Then the tournament did amazing, and they wanted a percentage, ignoring that they chose to give up upside and risk previously. Add in the complexity that I think CONCACAF had previously contracted Traffic Sports to run Copa America Centenario. Then Traffic Sports got caught up in bribery charges and fell apart (btw, it was Traffic Sports friend Riccardo Silva who spearheaded NASL and their lawsuit against USSF and bankrolled Wynalda's candidacy for USSF in a bid to get the media rights -- this all comes around.) CONCACAF was screwed, but then USSF tabbed SUM to run it at nearly the last minute. SUM is a lot more capable, from everything I've seen, than traffic (just look at MLS productions v CCAF over the years) and knocked it out of the park. A huge % of the $100M+ reserve US Soccer has right now is from Copa Centenario.
The best part of the World Cup is the group stage. There are multiple games every day for a few weeks. Extending the Group Stage seems like a way to include more nations in that exciting experience. It also puts more games on more TV’s. It also increases the nations in the knockout rounds. I don’t see how there is anything bad about any of that.
Ok so at what point does it become a negative? If 64 is good how about 128? Or maybe we should skip any qualifying and just have a tournament will all 195 countries? Ok clearly I am being a bit tongue in cheek but you get the point. Do you make the tournament longer to accompany 64 teams? Or do you keep the normal schedule format (not this years shortened group stage)? If you do the later then you really don't get more games on TV with any real affect because they would have to run multiple games at each time slot. So we aren't watching really anymore than now although I guess they could cram in one more game and skip the hour break between them like this year. Ok what the hell. Go with 64.....
Your point is valid. I don't know the number, and I think it likely changes over time. And it's likely different for different people. My point isn't that I know the exact right number to maintain a perfect balance. It's merely that I wouldn't be so sure that what we're on now is it. Here I would say, hell yes. It drives me nuts that the club teams are so unyielding on a tournament length that happens once every four years. Let's have an agreement that we won't do every two years, that we won't expand the Club World Cup, but that we can take as much time as we need for the World Cup to be great.
I am all for extending the tournament but as you know the club teams have mega millions of dollars at risk with their players. National team duty is just a pain in their asses and its hard to fault them. This is a tough issue to deal with.
Like I said, I'd trade some of the dumber crap. Also, you could give more rest with more time. That might actually reduce wear and tear and chance of injury.
More games than they play today but not more games than they will play in the 48 team format. That’s why I view expansion to 64 as inevitable. Should they do it? Probably not, but I didn’t think they should be expanding to 48 either. But FIFA on the other hand is always looking to expand revenue. Infantino has a lot of mouths to feed and keeping them happy is how he maintains his grip on power.
They should expand it to 48 teams because the current qualifiers by region is totally unbalanced. Africa has deserved more spots for well over a decade -- doubling their spots is totally fair play. I think after this World Cup an argument that Asia deserves more also is kind of fair. It might not come to full fruition in 26, but when Europe doesn't have half the teams in the tournament, you'll see a lesser margin of error for that confederation. Which would be nice (and Fun!)
I think Africa deserves more but I'm not sure Asia made a case as it takes more than one cycle to change my mind and this one was in Asia. CONCACAF has done well before but was weak this time. Confeds have ups and downs and the Europe or S America win the whole thing.
In terms of spots increasing: UEFA went from 13 --> 16. CAF went from 5 --> 9. CONMEBOL went from 4 --> 6. Of the 16 (or 17, if we note the host now comes out of the Federation allotment) spots increasing, that's 9 where the teams should be pretty competitive. Maybe one of the nine might not be so good, but at least half the increase will be teams like Italy, or Peru, or Egypt. CONCACAF goes from 3 --> 6. OFC goes from 0 --> 1. AFC goes from 4 --> 8. These 8 will likely not be great, though you can toss Qatar into this comparable bucket to make it slightly more palatable. The playoffs are still two spots, though the quality is probably downgraded. That said, there's some substitution here so we're really looking at... ...About half the increased teams will be quality, and about half will be a real step down.