this is the way, best to avoid Brazil/France situations where we see teams play a total B team in the final group game. and it keeps all the drama of the 4-team group, while improving the one weak spot in it. originally I was for 8 groups of 6 with 3 advancing, but I think that would take too long. it's fairer but the World Cup is not about fairness really
Hear me out, 12 Groups of 4. -Best 6 ‘First-placed teams’ qualify directly for the R16. -Playoff round formed of 20 teams i.e. remaining 6 first placed teams + 12 runners up + 2 best third-placed teams -Playoff round to be dependent on the group results as well i.e. 10 best teams (6 #1 Teams + 4 best #2 teams) of the playoff can’t play against each other. -Playoff won’t go into extra-time. Direct Penalties if it ends in a Draw. -The 10 winning teams join the initial 6 teams to complete the R16. -We go on as usual beyond it. With this format- -We get to reward to 6 best group stage teams. -Make Matchday 3 more interesting as every team will have something to play for. Example - Even if its #1 vs #4 on Matchday 3, the #1 team will push to win by a big margin to ensure that it finishes in the ‘Best 6 #1 teams’ which will help them play 1 match less. On the other hand, the #4 team will also push to win because they might still have a chance to qualify as the ‘Best 2 #3 teams’ -Overall quality of the Group Stage increases as every team (especially the “weaker” footballing Nations) will fight in all 3 of the group games knowing they have a very realistic chance to qualify at #3 as long as they don’t get thrashed in any of their matches.
Infantino said he believes soccer will be the number one sport in the US by 2026. That’s not happening. He also said expanding the WC to 48 teams gives India a chance to qualify. The always had a snowball’s chance in hell. Expanding to 48 teams is akin to the devil turning down the thermostat 5 degrees. It’s not happening. I have no doubt FIFA cares deeply about the USA, India and China, but Infantino is taking people for clowns when he makes these sorts of statements. If soccer becomes the number 1 sport in the US, it will require at least 25 years of demographic shifts and continued investment in MLS and USL. Those things are not in FIFA’s control. All FIFA can do is harm those chances and that is exactly what a 16 group of 3 format does. Hosting is a golden opportunity to move the needle a bit. Moving the needle requires building interest over weeks while the event is taking place. Many matches slowly builds the bandwagon. Two matches in a group stage hinders that. You need 4,5,6 matches to maximize casual interest. Worst case scenario in the group of three format: USA opens the WC with a tricky team from one of the other two pots (teams 17-48). Ivory Coast, Ghana, Egypt, Morocco, mid tier CONMEBOL, Japan, etc. They lose or draw. 4 days later they play the second match against an aging team 4 years past their expiration that has the players to compete for a couple of matches but who will ultimately tire due to age. Like a Wales this time. The USA loses or draws. Now they’re on one point and the other two teams (on 3 and 1) pass the ball around in the third and final group match and send the USA home. Two matches. Five days. Tournament over before it really even started. It’s a terrible format. They need to give teams three guaranteed matches at a minimum. You’re sitting on 1pt going into the third match and you’re alive knowing you need three points and maybe some help in the other match. This is why 8 groups of 6 is appealing. Everyone gets 4 matches. Time to build interest/media coverage/narrative. 4 matches to build a case/narrative before qualifying for R16. Groups of 6 will be more balanced than groups of 3 or 12 groups of 4 from a strength standpoint. Talent tends to win out over more matches as well, so more big names get into knockouts. You will have a much easier time explaining the nuances of a 4th flex group match than you will two teams colluding to advance at the expense of a third who only had 5 days to show anything.
Yes. A full round robin with groups of 6 would take too long. 5 rounds of matches to get to even a 16 team knockout (if only taking the top two in each group) is too many. 4 match rounds to get from 48 to 16 is doable. And if the tournament went to 64, then 5 rounds to get from 64 to 16 might be. The tournament would be considerably longer, but expanding to 64 would have a huge impact on qualifying structure. FIFA woukd be able to give some fixture dates back to the clubs. And doing that might...might enable clubs to end their seasons a couple weeks earlier during a WC year.
I will buy you a free lunch if Groups of six is the one chosen. But until then I will just say it has a very slim chance of happening.
If someone just lived life saying the complete opposite of everything that comes out of Infantino's mouth, they'd probably sound quite rationale. "I don't know what its like to be a migrant worker in Qatar." "FIFA should listen to moral lessons that others are trying to tell them." "As a multimillionaire piece of garbage, I don't know what it means to be discriminated against." "Europe accepts a lot of migrants from countries like Bangladesh and India." Sounds better already.
One thing that we can expect is that when FIFA confirms it wants a group stage of 12 groups of 4 teams each there will be objections - justified IMO - based on the semifinalists having to play 8 matches. However, if FIFA opts for the 12 x groups of 4 format with the top 2 in each group qualifying for the KO stage including the modification that the highest 8 ranked group winners qualify directly for the Round of 16 while the other 4 group winners and the 12 runners-up have to play a playoff round in order to qualify for the Round of 16, only if one of the successful playoff teams reaches the semifinals will 8 games be played by any team. I expect that on average only 1.5 teams out of the 8 successful playoff teams would reach the semifinals in multiple tournaments, making the number of players affected by having to play 8 matches negligible. This format could therefore be the one which ensures groups of 4 teams are preserved in tournaments with 48 teams.
I don’t think an 8th game is a huge deal. It’s a threshold that only 4 teams out of 48 would face regardless and I don’t think they’ll complain when they’re getting ready to play a semifinal as a 7th game. Yes, fatigue is cumulative. I think they need to accept the need to spread the tournament out from the normal 32 days to 38 days. Spread the matches out of the group rounds to give an extra day of rest. Between that and spreading a full R32 out over 8 days by playing 2 matches per day (more eyes in each match anyway), teams would some time to recover. I don’t see another way. The problem (IMO) with the bye knockout concept is that the recovery advantage is too big and the bar due getting a bye is too high. 1/3 of the group winners won’t get one. Playing in groups of different strength. Good chance the difference is down to getting placed into a group containing one of the 3 or 4 weakest of the extra 16 sides piling up a massive goal differential advantage.
FIFPro said last month they approved of the expansion to 48 teams on the condition that the maximum number of matches any team plays does not exceed 7.
But you run into the same issue if you have 32 teams in the knockout phase. Except instead of comparing goal differences between group winners, we are using it to rank third-place teams. And, yes, we still have the bye issue in the 16*3 format. I think a 32-team World Cup works better.
But you run into the same issue if you have 32 teams in the knockout phase. Except instead of comparing goal differences between group winners, we are using it to rank third-place teams. And, yes, we still have the bye issue in the 16*3 format. I think a 32-team World Cup works better. [/QUOTE] i don’t disagree with you. 32 works better. If we’re going to 48, my preference order: 8 groups of 6 w two fixed matches and two flex matches (based on first two match results). Kind of a modified Swiss system. Top 2 from each group to knockout. 12 groups of 4. Top 2 + some third to R32. Not fair for third place teams but I’d rather make the distinction there than between group winners. 12 groups of 4. Top 2 advance. 8 of 12 group winners get byes to R16. Other group winners and all runners up to the partial R32 round. and if we need to expand, I’d actually prefer bypassing 48 to 64 and running a 4 match/team Swiss system group stage in 8 groups of 8.
Having read and heard alot about this 48 team world cup, all i can say is they shouldve expanded it to 64 teams. 48 teams sort of dilutes the footballing sense already ugh.
I don't think FIFPRO has much influence here. Although good on them for taking a strong stance to protect worker's rights as they did with WC2022. /s But on a more serious note: I do think the workload is getting insane. And that's coming from all directions. Domestic club league fixtures, domestic cups, CL expansion, WC expansion, FIFA club WC expansion, nations leagues. There are more compelling ways to run domestic leagues than the traditional full table home/away. They don't need that many matches to reasonably determine a champion for a 16-20 team league. Domestic leagues should probably be merging in UEFA at this point as well. That would help the commercial interests of leagues 6 - 20 substantially. The gap between them and the first 5 is too big/unhealthy. This would also facilitate better distribution of CL/Europa League spots and keep the fields a bit smaller. League cup replays should be scrapped for AET + penalties. Continental cups should run quadrennially. No need for two + a WC every 4 years. WC quals should be curtailed. Run prelim quals around continental tournaments to cull the field. This would reduce qualifying time. Example: UEFA could run a prelim group phase for the 31 teams that do not qualify for Euro around the Euro. 31 teams to 16 teams. 16 phase advancers + 24 Euro = 40 in 10 groups of 4. 6 to 8 match dates to qualify rather than 10-13 or whatever. Do the same thing for continental qualifiers with non-WC teams. In other words, a 7 match date WC cap or an 8 or even a 9 match cap--provided there is sufficient recovery time between matches--is not the real problem. The real problem is 4 too many domestic league matches, 4 too many champions league matches, 1 or 2 too many league cup replays and a useless club world cup every year. And 4 too many WC qualifiers, 4 too many continental qualifiers and in some cases a completely unnecessary additional continental tournament every 4 years.
Agreed. 48 teams is kind of the worst of both worlds. The manner in which the additional 16 spots are allocated is creating a watering down effect and the expansion to 48 is creating an awkward format. 64 reduces the awkwardness and shortens the qualifying campaign to take stress off the players. With that field size, you can pretty aggressively shorten things without it being too unforgiving. And if the additional 16 teams are UEFA and CONMEBOL heavy, it's not really dilutive compared to the current 48 team allocations. 32 is preferrable, but 48 is terrible.
come on folks. a 48 team world cup will literally and metaphorically be huge. there will propably be around 5 maiden contenders. more matches mean it is easier to get tickets for the fams. why should football be the one sport that has the highest berths in their world cup? look, at weekend the handball world cup starts and it also has 32 teams and nobody talks about watering of the quality of this sport. why are you all so eager to discredit the increase of the size to 48? 48 teams is a staged variant of a 24 team world cup format and those 4 between 1982 and 1994 were among the greatest ever. I took the recent days to map the 16 venues announced to a schedule for that 12x4 teams. with a round of 24 and 8 group winners advancing to the round of 16. This was quite a brainteaser peace of work but i have been successful, i think. during this scheduling design work, i often asked myself how on earth they like to do any other 48 team format than the one mentioned without having teams travelling 2 or 3 times across the whole north american continent. it was really a tough peace of work. so check in the next days, when i will present it here.
Personally, I never liked the 24-team format so this argument doesn't sell the 48-team WC to me. Two words: Euro 2016. Furthermore, since groups of 3 is still very much a possibility, I don't think one can say that 48 teams is a variant of the 24-team format that we are familiar with. Having said that, its probably time to move on and stop complaining about the expansion.
Handball is super entertaining, but the tournament logistics are completely different. They have two group stages. Initial 3 matches to weed out a bottom team, then combine the three surviving teams in two groups, have everyone play the three other opponents from the other group that was combined. One 6 team group. Everyone plays everyone. Top two advance. This is an equitable way to identify the best teams for knockout. Bir handball is a completely different beast. Each team plays every other day. 6 matches total over 11 days if you make the second group stage. Soccer can’t do that. Teams can only play three matches over this period of time. Handball can also play multiple matches at the same venue quite easily. This cuts down on fan travel. Turf won’t hold up to that. And the soccer venues tend to be further apart because they are huge and expensive. It doesn’t make sense in most locales to have multiple 40,000-90,000 seat venues with the amenities FIFA seeks in close proximity. The challenges with a soccer World Cup of any size: 1-create a system where tourney progression is equitable and not subject to a single fluke occurrence. People tend to like groups of 4, two advancing from each group, 3 matches where everyone plays everyone because it is the most straightforward and equitable format that can be executed in 3 match dates. Short enough that meaningless third group matches are rare. Long enough to give everyone some opportunity and to prevent a scenario where fans travel thousands of miles only to see their team eliminated after one or two matches. 2-keep the match load to a manageable level with sufficient days off between matches for teams. 3-keep the travel manageable for fans coming from all over the world while giving the turf sufficient time to recover between matches. 4-create an allocation of tournament berths that strikes a balance between inclusivity and getting the best teams to the event. 48 is here. But there are probably better ways to do it that arguably adhere to the general tournament principles better.
I feel CONMEBOL qualifying is already being watered down by allocating 6 spots, with eight spots why even bother? I hate FIFA and their greedy meddling.
I take the challenge by addressing all your points. Here is the update on Triple Group Wild Card 48 1) There are 4 groups but this time the 3rd matchday encounters are not at risk of being dead rubber matches. As every team will aim for performing as best as possible at group stage as the 1st and 2nd best group winner of a cluster (3 groups bound together) will get a bye to the round-of-16. 2) 96 matches in total. of course that is much, but I think 100 is the limit not to exceed. 3) that is the real cool part with my proposal. The tournament is split into a western and eastern half. Up to the semi final no team will have to cross that imaginary border to play at a venue in the other half. (check the venue related slides) Also every team reaching the wild card round and then the round of 16 will stick majorly to the same venues they played at group stage. 4.) check for the tournament brackets therefore. It is really cool as teams follow comprehensive paths throughout the tournament. Also I have designed, that Canada will play all 3 group matches at Vancouver and Mexico their group matches at Mexico City, Monterrey and Guadalajara. The USA kick of in N.Y., then Houston and Miami at the end. But of course, that could all still be changed. My idea would be to have Mexico playing the inaugural match, USA on the same day later and Canada on the 2nd tournament day. A video will be uploaded to youtube within the next hour. It gives more explanation to the single slides and I will post the link here.
The teams that benefit the most playing at the World Cup are lesser sides that often end up playing the fewest matches. Conversely, all the top teams have high profile players whose clubs are the ones most anxious to avoid seeing them involved in too many matches outside their clubs. As such, I think a case can be made that top 16 ranked teams should get a bye from the first round, with the first round featuring 8 groups of 4 (32 lowest ranked teams) with the top 2 from each group (16) then joining the top 16 ranked teams (32 teams) for a 2nd Round with again 8 groups of 4. The practical consequences of this will be: an extension of the World Cup by around 2 weeks; better preparation for lower ranked teams for matches in the 2nd round in lieu of mere friendlies; a minimum of 3 matches for all 48 teams, a minimum of 6 matches for those lower ranked teams who advance from Round 1 (maximum of 10), but the same number of games as we have now for the top 16 ranked sides. In a way, this would unite my long-standing position in favor of more intercontinental qualifiers with what was adopted instead, namely 48 team World Cup expansion. I would be particularly in favor of this system with 3 additional provisions: 1- teams in R1 be allowed a 32 player roster, with those advancing to R2 and all other R2 teams limited to the same (23 or 26) player roster; 2- regardless of their ranking, all host required to participate in R1 and seeded in R1 groups (only); 3- all R1 cards (except red cards) erased for R2.
This really isn’t a bad idea. The only weakness is that it could potentially require 9 matches for a non top 16 team in the event they make the finals. It would probably only add 10 days to the tournament. The two group teams receiving byes could play one another on the same date as when the other 4 teams are playing their third preliminary group match. The result from the prelim group match of the two advancing teams would carry over. So each of the 2 bye team + 2 prelim advancement team groups would only require 2 additional match dates. This maintains the symmetry of the event. The only alternative I can think of that does the same is 8 groups of 6 where teams play 4 of 5 group opponents in a Swiss style format. Top 2 advance. This would add 5 days to the tournament and eliminate the possibility of 9 matches to get to a finals, although 8 matches would be required of all 48 teams to do so. I’m not sure how feasible this is. The players union/clubs wouldn’t like it, but I’m not sure they could do anything about it anyway. What FIFA can give back to the clubs/players in terms of fixture reduction over the entire 4 year cycle may be a consideration to get parties on board with a match increase. Economize the qualification process by culling the bottom 100 or so teams that have no chance of qualifying or even being quasi competitive with mid tier qualifiers anyway. Over 90% of the teams qualifying in a larger field would easily do so playing only a 6 match group of 4. 64 probably makes that easier than 48.
It would require 10 matches. They're not going to do that. They're also not going to launch the tournament with a couple weeks for a 48-game group stage that excludes the top teams and presumably the hosts. Another thing to consider is that they're using borrowed stadiums and training facilities whose regular occupants will want them back at some point. FIFA doesn't have unlimited calendar flexibility to just add weeks to the tournament.
12 groups of 4 is the easiest , simplest, and BEST. There's no need for all the other convoluted nonsense.