64 Teams in 2030

FFS, let's just go June Madness then.

 

It was always going to happen. I do think we're actually probably going to see some dilution at this point -- it didn't show a ton in this 48 but there's simply no way it doesn't happen here unless they allocate seeds extremely differently.

For the US, we do have a better chance of making Pot 1 if there are 16 groups rather than 12 groups. But yes, no third place does leave the potential of a tougher group being an issue.

It's always going to be a bit rougher on us because of the geographic component; it's easier for us to make a World Cup but since CCAF is weak, we will tend to get harder groups. Thankfully, AFC exists.

 

It'll make it a lot easier to get out of the group than 32, because each pot has 16 teams.

We'd actually have a pretty good chance to be seeded most years, and would only have one other top ~32 team in our group.

 

Bro. how I feel is that we will be a seeded team.

Third place teams shouldn’t make it anyway and this would increase our chance of being a more regular host.

 

Also, if they do this as early as 2030 it's horseshit to only give the South American countries a game each and then bar them from hosting the next 2 cycles. At least stage a full group in each of those 3 countries.

 

You’re right, they’ll probably do that. Maybe they can start those groups a day or two early for the travel.

I wonder if Saudi Arabia is finding itself needing to build a couple more stadiums.

 

my body is ready. bring it

 

32 to 48 was annoying because it introduced an extra knockout stage game, which just increases the chances of being eliminated by a weaker team due to random one-off events. (See Balogun's red card this time.)

But 48 to 64 presumably keeps the same number of knockout stage games we had this time, so this doesn't really improve or worsen the biggest issue with the 48-team change.

Having to finish top 2 instead of top 3 but having a better chance of being seeded probably ends up being a wash too.

32 to 48 was also annoying because it meant we'd probably never play Mexico (or Canada now) in a World Cup qualifier again. This change makes it even harder to care about the qualifying process now, but the main damage had already been done.

 

He's only doing it because he's italian.

 

So this is how soccer ends...

 

Will 64 teams be enough to squeeze China and India into the tent? I hope so.

Where will the additional 16 teams come from?

What will this do to qualifying? Presumably this will vary by confederation.

 

It’s eventually going to be 128.

 

And no single country will ever host the tournament again.

 

The right number is and will always be 32. But since we're never going to go back to that I'd rather them bite the bullet and go up to 64 rather than keep at 48 for another tournament.

I think it will improve the groups because you have to get top 2 so every match has more meaning. And it gives us even more matches every day and more fans to learn about. In terms of the knockouts there's no difference between 48 and 64 so might as well.

The only negative is it dilutes the qualifiers. I used to really like the Concacaf and European Qualifiers, especially the HEX. But Concacaf was already moving away from that format, and UEFA has the weird Nations League backdoor that confuses everything so no point in staying at 48 to preserve competitions already on their way out.

 

This I am in agreement with. 32 will always be the ideal number, but the second most ideal number is 64. 48 third.

 

A 64 team WC would stretch the group stage to basically two months just to finish!
And if held in multiple countries, how do they determine which country/countries get screwed when it comes to multi continental travel?! Let’s say 2038 is hosted by Mexico, Germany and South Africa. Group games in all three countries. R16 and QF held in Mexico, while Germany hosts SF and Final. Which country/countries rack up frequent flyer miles - - - group games in South Africa, then R16/QF in Mexico, then SF/Final in Germany?

 

Yeah I think the most part all the damage has been done from moving to 48. And better just top two from each group versus all the third place permutations that we saw.

I think it was Nate Silver who also did some analysis that it wouldn’t really dilute things. https://www.natesilver.net/p/a-bigger-world-cup-is-a-better-world

I would have preferred that it stayed at 32 but if it goes to 64 there has to be no further expansion from that point.

 

I think the problem is Conmebol is also falling behind UEFA as well. Look at the quarterfinals. You had one Conmebol team, one African team, and 6 UEFA teams. And that African team is filled with dual nationals developed in UEFA countries.

Logistically it’s impossible but the ideal would actually be to join UEFA. And time zones aside it is a shorter flight from the East Coast of the US to many European destinations than it is to Buenos Aires.

 

I’d recommend reading the full Silver article but his thought is you’d punch up UEFA more considering other confederations got more of a boost from 32 to 48.

 

I guess I might be the only one who likes 3rd place teams advancing. The first WC I watched was '86, so I was raised on WCs with 24 teams and 3rd place teams advancing. I like almost all teams having a shot going into the 3rd group stage game.

And 64 seems like too many to me. We didn't see much dilution this time, but it has to kick in at some point.

 

Do that, and suddenly all the indignation about Infantino will subside until the next time they want more money.

I don't think we'll move up from 64 anytime soon. It's just such an easy number, and major increases so dramatic here.

Even the NCAAs keep doing this stupid first four and whatever it is now, but that's much harder to do with soccer. I'm sure it will happen, but the core will stay at 64 for a while.

 

If they go to 64 the US will be a co-host often.

First WC had 13 teams. US started with 13 colonies. Currently the comparison is 48 and 50.