The FIFA Executive Committee really liked the idea. But expansion to 36 teams is contingent upon finding a workable scheduling solution before the next ExCo meeting at the end of June.
Okay, here's my solution First round 6 groups of 6. Each team plays 5 matches Knockout stage is reduced to 8 teams. The six group winners and the top two second place teams. Timewise it fits. The extra two first round matches replace the time taken up by the round of 16, and necessitate a little shrinking of the other first round time frame. Remember, it took 6 days until the last World Cup before all 32 teams had played their first match.
Typical FIFA. They make one stupid decision (the screwing of South America for places in WC) and "fix" it with another stupid decision (growing to 36). I love the quote "but only on condition that a match schedule be drawn up that ensured the sporting credibility of the event". This proposal has been on the table for a month and a half. If there was a good way to schedule 36 teams, don't you think someone would have come up with it by now? I can't see them changing the group size. So it's 9x4. They'll probably go for screwing 2 second place teams out of spots for the round of 16. Probably the "best" proposal is to take the worst 4 second place teams and have them play off for the round of 16. But that will extend the tournament several days.
That system would seem to have a weakness similar to UEFA World Cup qualifying: the draw would be inordinantly important -- very much more so than in the current system.
The fact is, they can't extend the time frame of the tournament very far, and having the "best 7 of 9" second place teams advance is not workable.
Didn't Platini and the rest of them say that 40 teams would be the next logical step and that they didn't like the 36 teams idea to begin with? Anyway, the amount of teams per region should be based on number of FAs in that region. Sure it might be less exciting but it would be fair. I mean Oceania getting an automatic bid is ridiculous.
Then if CONCACAF has 3.5 spots (or let's say even 3 spots) and OFC is a third of the size of CONCACAF, which it is, then OFC ought to get an automatic bid. I'm still in favor of 128-team knockout. *snicker* But 36 teams...this is shooting from the hip, but I think the layout should be 4 groups of five, 4 groups of four, top four seeds thrown into the 5-team group. Or, if you must, 6 groups of 6, group winners and runner-ups advance as well as the next four overall, based on points, goal difference etc on down the line. Seeding will be a nightmare in that situation though.
Oh, and based on size, CONCACAF should have at least half as many spots as UEFA does. CONMEBOL shouldn't even have an automatic spot.
I like this answer to the expansion to 36 teams for the World Cup. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let CONMEBOL & Brasil cry because they aren't going to get their automatic spot anymore. FIFA should just leave it alone. 32 is enough & it's exciting. FIFA should have some balls for standing firm on their original decisions.
I'm not saying that quality-wise it would be better. In fact, it would probably be worse but we have these same arguments all of the time and it would be one solution. One solution which would start up more problems. Sticking with 32 would be the best solution on the number of teams.
I understand. But under this proposal, exciting Round-of-16 knockout games are removed and, in their place, we get a bunch of "dead games" by having group games #4 and #5 often come between teams that know they can't win their group (or be a very top second) by then and many more between teams still in the hunt facing teams who were ready to go home a week before. Currently, not too many teams have no hope by the last game of the group, but under this proposal, a majority could know their fate is sealed yet still have multiple games to go.
8 groups with five teams each does sound like a better option. The top two teams still advance and it would only extend the tournament by one game per team. This may water the field down significantly though.
okay, but... Um.... Aren't you contradicting yourself? 204 federations. 32/204 ~ 1/6.5 Oceana has 10 federations. By your first point, you're saying Oceana should have 1.5 finalists, but then you say an automatic bid for the region is a joke. Can you enlighten me?
One other negative is that it would require "a little shrinking of the other first round time frame." In the last WC, they had no overlap of first round games except for Game 3 in each group, for competitive reasons. Obviously, they like being able to sell all games to television. If shrinking the time frame meant having multiple games going on at the same time, I don't know if FIFA would go for that. The other option would be pushing games earlier into the day to avoid overlap. Their TV buyers might not like that either (especially since the schedules are made before the draw, meaning high-profile teams could be on in the afternoon).
36 teams is a disaster To have 36 teams would mean possibly adding 4 more weak squads to the world cup. The WC already has enough teams that will struggle for goals and wins (Saudi Arabia, China, Tunisia, Slovenia) now you are talking about adding Oceania teams, along with more entries. The only nations this will benefit is large and advanced soccer/football countries such as Brazil (02), England (94), Argentina (94) and Holland (02) whom have struggled in their qualifying groups.
Which is why six groups of six is the way to go. Unless they decide to "damn the torpedos" and go with forty, we have to assume the solution 1) has 36 teams 2) fits into the same time frame. My 6x6 works, but since you're adding 2 matches to the tournament in the first round you've got to pull back time somehow. Well, they don't need a full 15 days to play 3 matches, but I don't think anyone wants a track meet that 5 matches in 15 days would create. That's why I axed the round of 16. That could be added back, but you'd really need to extend the tourney slightly. I'm just trying to work out the best compromise given the conditions set in place. ala Blatter's challenge.
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.
Did you watch this mornings webcast press conference? The press releases are dry, but it's pretty apparent that the Executive Council has agreed to 36 barring an inability to make it work. Don't underestimate the politics at work here.
Also, there needs to be an even number of teams in each group so that on the final matchday of each group, all the teams can play simultaneously to prevent match fixing. That can also be a bummer on television contracts and the like. I mean, I can handle two games at once, but three? I love dessert, but I can only digest so much at one time.
Exactly ... speaking of politics. We're in complete agreement about what happened here. I just give it a somewhat different spin than you. Of course the executive committee is gung-ho about expanding the field. And as you point out they always include that little caveat about finding a feasible way to have 36 teams. Taken together, as far I can see the decision was made yesterday with the emphatic statement that a field of 36 is not feasible. But politically the executive committee needs to make it look like they agree with CONMEBOL and that the decision has not been made. In the end, I'm not underestimating the politics here. I just think it's a somewhat different politics than you. The interesting thing will be if FIFA pushes for a 40 team World Cup in the near future. I'm starting to think that's what they'd really like to do.
Well all I know is this, and that is that a 36 or a 40 team world cup is the dumbest thing I have heard of since blatter wanted the world cup every 2 years. Just ridiculous. Like doesn't anyone that works on the executive committee have any interest for what's best for the tournament? 36 teams? Are they out of their minds? What is so bad with 32 teams? And I realize it's all politics but I still get upset when something this dumb is even taken somewhat seriously. Did any of these people watch how bad China, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, and Tunisia played at the 2002 WC? And now they want to add 4 more. Yeah that's smart, make a simple entertaining tournament into one that's complex with less exciting matches. You know, if this goes through, it will start to become a joke of qualifying for the WC finals. It used to be something of great significance, but with this it wouldn't be as difficult for teams on that line. And I hope South America is really happy that they have screwed up the greatest tournament on this Earth if this goes through. Just unreal.
I am not for a larger tournament just yet, but I would have to imagine the only real argument for increasing the number of teams is that the size of the World Cup must be proportional to the number of FAs affiliated with FIFA. The last FA that re-upped with FIFA was Afghanistan, and Iraq will eventually make new inroads in the years to come. And a handful of other smaller FAs have joined up in the past couple of years. As the soccer family, so to speak, increases in size, so too must the tournament. 32 is not a magic number. The World Cup must always increase its scope and dimensions. Right now just isn't the time to do it, though.
I think it's big enough where it's at, with 32, but if they do expand it, I like the idea of 6 teams in 6 groups in the first stage. But I think they should bring back a relic from the old WC, the 2nd group stage (think 1982) to make this work. First stage: 6x6, Each team plays 5 games. Top 2 in each group advance. (The only problem is there might be one or more groups of death. Then again, groups of death are a fact of life in group stages). 2nd round: 12 teams. Break up the 12 into 4 groups of 3. This is like the 2nd stage in 1982. Each team will play 2 games. Winner of each group advances to Semifinal. Semifinal - Same as now Final - Same as now There will be a lot more games,and the finalists will end up playing 9 games. Drawbacks: More games, players will get worn out, groups of death. Also, in the first stage, there may be some "useless" games. (If a team wins the first 3 games, like in CL, they are as good as advanced. As a result, those last 2 games they'll be fielding benchers.) Pluses: No "flukes" advancing. to the next rd. If you advance to the 2nd group stage you deserve it in this scheme. I don't think a team can "luck" through 5 games. In the current first group stage, you can advance on a win and a draw. In this system, with the number of teams and games, you will have to put up wins, or you will not advance.