Would you like to see a format change to the World Cup format in 2030? Not all, but many of us think that 32 teams with 8 groups with 16 teams advancing to the knockout phase is the best format. Enjoy it in 2022 because we are losing this format come 2026. 2026 is expanding to 48 teams with 3 teams in each of the 16 groups and 32 advancing to the knockout phase. I think its clear we are eventually heading to 64 teams. The expansion from 16 to 24 to 32 had us have 4 World Cup's at 24 before getting to the current format. The world is faster now, the game is more global now so lets say the next expansion only takes 3 World Cup's at 48. The earliest we are possibly moving to 64 would be 2038. My question and discussion I'd like to have is what would be the best format for the 48 team World Cup's? So is the current planned format that they'll use in 2026 the best format? It would be 7 game max for finalists just like it is now, but potential for match fixing with 3 team groups. Or is it something else? What about 12 groups of 4 teams each with 32 teams making the knockout phase? It would be a max of 8 games for the finalists which would be the same as this year's Copa America. Or what about 8 groups of 6 teams each with 16 making the knockout phase? It would be a max of 9 games for the finalists but probably would yield the most fair results. Maybe its something I haven't thought of or considered.
I hate the 3-team group idea. 12 groups of 4 would be a major improvement. Obviously 4 team groups are better just from a format standpoint, but also having 16 groups really spreads out the top teams across different groups. With 12 groups, the chances increase that we'll at least get a few pretty good matchups in the group stage. I also don't like just ending the group stage after two games. The group stage has its own unique appeal which is separate from the tension and caginess of the later stages. Advancing 3rd-place teams to a round of 32 isn't ideal, especially considering in some groups you'll know from the outset who'll finish last if you end up with a Trinidad and Tobago or Bahrain-type team in your group, but then you might know that even with 3 groups and 2 advancing. 48 teams just isn't great for the WC. At least 12 groups of 4 will probably give us more good group games, even if there won't be much suspense due to the forgiving format.
I agree. I dislike the 3 team group format. The other issues you brought up are very valid and a big reason why we will eventually move to 64 teams eventually. I do not see them ever rolling it gback to 32. Plus, literally every confederation that could has expanded their own tournament. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually the Euros get to 32 teams. Years of that will lead to us having the feeling that more teams deserve to be in. Its actually quite brilliant by FIFA.
what we would like is irrelevant! starting with qatar, followed with 32 teams in the USA and whatever FIFA nonsense comes next, 64 teams or World Cup every second year ... all pointless!
Yep, the biggest problem with 12 groups of 4 (imo) is that it greatly reduces the importance of each match. Not only are you advancing some teams that get only 3 points in 3 group games (with the only win against Bahrain), but there isn't really much incentive to winning your group. Another option is to have just four groups with 12 teams each. The 12 teams are divided into one of 4 pots and each team must play a team from the other 3 pots. Top 8 in each group advance. I suggest 4 groups because then its easier to ensure non-UEFA teams from the same confederation don't meet in the group stage. And each group could have 4 UEFA teams. You can have max 2 UEFA v UEFA matchups in each group (so each UEFA team will have at least 2 group games against ROW). In terms of advancing this doesn't increase the importance of the group stage matches but it does when you factor-in seeding for the knockout stage. Unlike the format with 12 groups of 4 where there isn't much benefit to winning all 3 group matches, in this format teams that win all of their group games will be guaranteed to face teams that stumbled through the group stage - not just in the round of 32 but likely in the round of 16 too.
Interesting proposal. How’d do you do the draw? Draw teams from 12 pots into the four groups first, then do a second draw for the matchups within each group? Alternately, I’ve seen some propose a format with 8 groups of 6 where each team only plays three games, though I don’t remember the exact mechanics of it.
I was thinking just 4 pots and each group gets 3 teams from each pot, factoring-in some geographical distribution such that a group can't have, for instance, more than 2 teams from CONCACAF. hmm... I think I might like that one even more. So 3 pots and you play 1 match against a team from each pot, including your own pot (a group would have two teams from each pot). And what it also means is you still have matchups involving two teams in the top 16 of the FIFA rankings during the group stage. Genius! [With only 3 pots it would mean a pretty big disparity in the quality of the teams across the same pot. So might need to split each pot in half - top half and bottom half - and then each group gets one team from both the top and bottom half of each pot.]
Hmm, okay. Dividing the pots into two makes things a bit more complicated. I guess you could do something like this: Pot A: Teams 1-16 Pot A1: 1-8 Pot A2: 9-16 Pot B: Teams 17-32 Pot B1: 17-24 Pot B2: 25-32 Pot C: Teams 33-48 Pot C1: 33-40 Pot C2: 41-48 Let's say teams from pot A1 play teams from A2, B2, and C1. Teams from A2 play teams from from A1, B1, and C2. B1 play A2, B2, and C1. B2 play A1, B1, and C2. C1 play A1, B1, and C2. C2 play A2, B2, and C1. The only flaw with this is C2 theoretically has an easier schedule than C1 for the two games apart from their direct matchup. I'm not too concerned about this since it's pot C (i.e. teams that probably won't advance anyway) and the most important game for both is probably their direct matchup in any case. Since teams aren't playing the same opponents, I'd favor using head-to-head instead of goal difference where available. You could also schedule the games so that teams from the same pot play on the last matchday. If needed to settle a tie, you could have a penalty shootout at the end. If it's between 5th and 6th, it would be pointless to go to penalties so you could just use goal difference, seeding order, or draw lots. If there's a tie between teams not playing each other on the last day and head-to-head isn't available because they either drew their game or didn't play at all, then you could use goal difference. Though realistically a team from pot C2 is extremely unlikely to actually be in any position to advance (these will generally be your Jamaica, Jordan, Bahrain type of teams). I could maybe see a team from pot C1 making it to the R32 if someone like Ghana or the Ivory Coast had a low ranking and just barely ended up being stuck in the last pot. With 8 groups, you could theoretically limit UEFA to 2 teams to a group, CONMEBOL, CONCACAF, and OFC (if they somehow sent a second) to 1 per group. AFC could be limited to 1 per group if they lose the playoff, otherwise you'd have one group with 2 AFC teams. Depending on how you do the draw, you could make sure there are no intra-AFC matchups. CAF gets 9 or 10 (w/playoff), so you'd have at least 1 group with multiple CAF teams. As with AFC, you could probably rig the draw so you don't get any intra-CAF matchups.
Yeah, that is a bit of a problem. Also B2 teams would have it a bit tougher than B1 because there is a big difference (generally) between the top 8 in the world and the next best 8. So I'd rather play A2 + C1 than A1+ C2. Anyway, I think this side-effect stemming from teams in the same group not having the same opponents is still better than what we have now with 16 groups of three teams each. With the 2026 format we will see collusion among the teams playing in the final game for sure. And there isn't much benefit to winning your group. Also, 8-9 rest days between matches. Plus its just plain boring - if you win your first match it will be about two weeks before you play another game that means something. Just an awful format, and 12 groups of four doesn't get rid of many of these issues! I think everyone would have a decent shot at advancing since the bar is lower (just finish top 4 out of 6 teams). If you beat the other pot C team in your group you might already have enough points to advance if you keep the goal differential respectable. But 3 points isn't necessarily enough to advance so you still have to go out and fight for another point or 2. Every match will carry some importance that's why I like the format.
Alright, so just for fun I did a little mock draw for a theoretical 48-team 2026 WC with 12 groups of 4. I thought you all might be interested just like I was in seeing how such a tournament might look like, so I decided to share it here. I selected teams from each confederation based on the current FIFA rankings, which might be a little flawed for a tournament 6 years out, but oh well. I am assuming all three co-hosts automatically qualify. I placed Canada in Group A because it's all made up anyway and in my opinion Canada should have the opener (I'd also prefer Mexico getting at least one semifinal). USA was placed in Group B and Mexico in Group C. All three co-hosts are seeded, in accordance with usual FIFA convention of seeding the hosts regardless of ranking. All other teams were seeded based on current FIFA rankings. Geographical separation rules are as usual, no more than 2 UEFA to a group, no more than 1 from any other confed in the same group. With all that out of the way, I present to you my mock draw for the 2026 FIFA World Cup: Group A: Canada, Croatia, Peru, Ghana (poor Canada drew the highest ranked team in Pot 2, the second highest in Pot 3, and the fourth highest in Pot 4!) Group B: USA, Poland, Venezuela, Cameroon Group C: Mexico, Wales, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia Group D: France, Denmark, Jamaica, Burkina Faso Group E: Belgium, Sweden, Tunisia, Iraq Group F: England, Germany, Japan, Egypt Group G: Uruguay, Senegal, Australia, New Zealand Group H: Italy, Chile, Algeria, Qatar Group I: Portugal, Colombia, South Korea, Mali Group J: Argentina, Austria, Ukraine, Honduras Group K: Spain, Switzerland, Morocco, UAE Group L: Brazil, Netherlands, Iran, Costa Rica I have my own thoughts on these groups and this theoretical WC, but what are yours? Are there any groups you find interesting? Or not so interesting? For me personally there do seem to be some interesting matchups; however, there appear to be relatively few groups where I can see all four teams being competitive, and given that 8 out of 12 third-place finishers advance, I can see how it may not be all that interesting from an advancement standpoint.
Yeah, a couple of mouth-watering matchups stand out but of course they don't carry the same importance as they would if only 2 teams advanced from each group. But certainly looks better than 16 groups of three where we don't get those same mouth-watering matchups.
40 team WC with 10 groups of 4 was a better option. 10 first placed teams with 2 best second placed teams advancing to last 16 while other 8 second placed teams would play an additional round to get to last 16. The countries that would get 6 points from first two games would not play third game in the group for pride because they would need to win to avoid the additional round. The only flaw would be number of total games which would increase to 80. Uefa clubs would be probably against this because WC would last longer but fifa could compensate that by reducing number of games in qualifying. Second option would be to have 10 groups of 4 with 10 group winners and 6 best second placed teams advancing to last 16. Third option is to have 11 groups of 4 where 11 winners would advance to last 16 with 5 best second placed teams or 10 best second placed teams out of 11 could play an additional round. I think WC with 48 teams is a terrible idea. I don't think that way because of the number of teams. Problem is in the groups of 3 and playing only two games in group, in teams making too many calculations etc. Fifa 2026 will be full of scandals. There is not a group of 3 in any sports with teams playing only two games in group. Ther for that it's bad and it doesn't work. And one more thing. I see many people are making wrong draws of groups for WC. In world cup two teams from same confederation can not be drawn in the same group with an exception of uefa because uefa had 13 teams and there where only 8 groups. That means in WC 2026 you will probably have on spot A three hosts and 13 teams with best fifa ranking. On spots B and C you will have countries drawn in a way so you can not have let's say Panama and Usa, Senegal and Morocco, Japan and South Korea etc in the same group. Probably there will be one team from europe in every group with two more teams from around the world.
I would rather if you keep it at 48 then you do 12 groups of 4 teams and 8 best 3rd placed teams qualify for Round of 32 That is just how I would do it
I love your mock draw especially love Group A because 2 of my countries are in the same group that being Canada and Ghana...I'm of Ghanaian descent/nationality but was born and raised in Canada
Impossible because you would then play 8 games if you reached the semi-final and ECA would never agree to it.
You would have to extend the duration. Eight games would be intollerable to the clubs and I don't think players,coaches and fans would welcome it either.
Couldn't that be alleviated by playing more matches at the same time/same day? The current proposal already has 8 matchdays anyway. If it's such an issue, I would be open to changing rules around substitution - maybe 4 subs instead of 3, 5 if it goes to extra time? Also, rotation exists, we see it regularly even under the current format. Invariably every WC we get a few B-team dead rubbers on matchday 3. This should be even less of an issue with a 12 groups of 4 format since most decent teams will probably already be through by matchday 3 or at worst be playing for a draw.
Yes, but you can't guarantee that individual players won't play more minutes than they currently do in a format involving a maximum of 7games.
I'm suggesting that the number of players who will play significantly more minutes than they do now will be negligible (considering it's only 4 teams that play an eighth game as well). But yes, it is possible that a handful of top players will play an extra game.
But don't 4 teams that used to play 6 games now play 7 and so on down the line? That probably adds up so that a fairly large group of players - who largely play for a select group of clubs - all adding more minutes under this scheme (at least, total minutes for their country in the tournament). Personally I think the argument is overblown from the clubs (given the expansion of squads we would probably see there is a likelihood of more players being used across the matches) but that it the point they would make - it's not just the 8th games, its the extra 7th games etc. J
Yeah, that is a fair point. Although imo less of an issue than the 8th game. Fwiw I doubt most people would care very much if you scrapped the third-place match. Apart from some sense of tradition, there isn't a strong argument for keeping it.