Blatter has spoken. If the Executive Committee can come up with a workable format for 36 teams by the time of the next ExCo meeting in Paris at the end of June, then the World Cup 2006 will expand to 36 teams.
Is there any point where this stops? If we get a fourth spot, I guess I won't complain, but this has got to be the limit. Heck, this is beyond the limit.
I doubt CONCACAF will see another spot- South America and Europe will get them. Which I don't really have a problem with...3.5 spots is just fine for CONCACAF right now, if you ask me.
How are they going to work 36 teams???? Are they gonna play the first round to eliminate 4 teams, and have 5 rounds of knockout??? Hell, that makes the MLS regular season look highly efficient. Or are the two "worst" 2nd place teams going to miss the knockout round? What a stupid, stupid, stupid idea. And, yes, TFC will likely get another half spot. 3.5/32 is almost the same as 4/36. Well, there IS one semi-intelligent way to implement this. Look at how the NCAA got in a 65th team. Have 8 teams (like TFC's 4th, CONMEBOL's 5th, etc.) pair off in a home and home to eliminate 4 teams. OK, now that I think about it, that's a horrible idea too. But slightly less horrible than a 36 team WC.
The problem is that it's not so easy to figure out what makes more money in the long run. At some point, more teams harms the competition which isn't good business.
It's not really dollars. It's votes. The Executive Council members will do whatever is most likely to get them reelected.
Concacaf would get .5 meaning 4 tickets to the WC Conmebol would get 1 more meanin 5 spots Uefa would get 2 more spots meaning 16 Asia would get a .5 too meaning 5 spots Africa would stay as it is with 5 spots Oceania would get 1 spot
Just for the record, if the bottom two 2nd place teams did not make the second round rule had been in effect in K/J, the USA's World Cup would have ended with the loss to Poland.
If #4 Concacaf plays #5 AFC in a home and home, then the USA might have to play a game in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Syria. This would put our team in grave danger, and this scenario should be avoided at all costs; even if it means excessively tinkering with the format of the final phase.
Two basic choices. 9 groups of 4, or 4 groups of 4 and 4 groups of 5. 9 groups of 4 means 9 first place teams and 7 second place teams in the round of 16. So you need to eliminate 2 second place teams. Your options are to take the worst 4 second place teams and have them play in for a pair of slots or to just eliminate the worst 2 second place teams. 4 groups of 5 have the problem of creating an extra first round game for half the groups. On the other hand its nice and simple, just take the top two teams in each group. Regardless though 36 teams is just a bad idea. Keep it at 32.
This article concurs: http://www.theonion.com/onion3916/syria_harboring.html Seriously, though, this is just plain stupid. If this comes to pass, I will really, really want the Oceania team to crash and burn like a thousand million comets slamming into the sun.
I posted this on the FIFA board but perhaps it makes sense to post it here too ... I think this is all being blown out of proportion. On May 2nd the Football and Technical Committee voted in favour of retaining a 32 team World Cup. Among the reasons for this decision was that a 36 team field was not feasible. The next feasible number being 40. On the press release for this meeting it said: "The FIFA Executive Committee will reach a decision on the proposal from the South American confederation (CONMEBOL) to increase the number of teams at the 2006 FIFA World Cup™ finals from 32 to 36 at its meeting tomorrow (Saturday, 3 May)." So May 3rd rolls along and what does the Executive committee say. Well, they say, yes - IN PRINCIPLE - they'd like to increase the number to 36 teams BUT only if there's a practical way to actually have 36 teams in the competition. So what's the executive committee done here? They've said to South American: we feel very bad for you and if there was anything we could do to help you out we would. But we're between a rock and a hard place when it comes to increasing the number of World Cup participants. But, again, we feel very bad for you and - in principle - we'd like to have a bigger World Cup but we can't. In short, the Football and Technical Committee is playing the heavy and helping the Executive committee retain it's we're-all-so-happy-and-everything-is-just-swell-head-of-the-worldwide-soccer-family status.
Except that you're leaving out the existence of yet another group, so the results aren't really comparable. In your scenario only 14 teams advance.
No, I'm not. The USA was the worst 2nd place team. Even if the 2nd place team in the extra group was below the USA, we still would not have advanced. You could also say that we would have played diffrently knowing that we had to get the result. But if you recall, the USA only made it out of the group thanks to a gift goal from Korea in the late stages of their game with Portugal. So the Poland game was (as far as we knew) a must win, and we didnt get it done.
FIFA agrees to 36-team World Cup http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=266166&cc=5901 Funniest quote (last part): "'Everything is set for 36 teams now,' said Blatter. 'But only on condition that a schedule is made that will preserve the sporting spirit of the event and that the framework of the calendar is viable and acceptable. 'So we are now giving that job to our friends from South America. They all know how to run professional football in their countries. Now they have a chance to find a solution for the World Cup finals. The ball is in their possession.'" I am from South America, and no, we have no clue on how to run football....We just know how to squander money....Oh well, may God guide SA officials into making the WC a respectable event...To me, having 36 teams is already hurting the reputation of the WC
Ah, thank you Knave! You made my day. For a moment I thought they might actually do this. Of course, now it's time for the 40 team tournaments to start (on more match each team, and probably a week longer tournament to accomodate the two extra match days it would probably take). Keep it at 32 G.
Personally, for my money I like the idea of a 40 team tournament. I'm not talking feasability or money at all though. 8 groups of 5, four matches would be awesome. It would allow more nations the opportunity to play, and make the best teams prove themselves even more. In 1994, when there were 32 teams, nations like Senegal may not have even had a chance to be in the Cup. In 2002 they were the story everyone was raving about. So I'm starting the 40 teams in the WC campaign right here, right now!!!
In 1994 there were 24 teams. They went to 32 in 1998, and kept it in at 32 in 2002. One trouble with a group of 5 is that they all cannot play at the same time in the last round. So chuck that idea.
bring it back to 24! 32 teams is a perfect number, the only only only reason FIFA would put any more is to make more money, period.