It would require 9. Group A Teams 3-6 play one another, round robin style. Assume teams 3 and 4 advance. They then join the two bye teams (teams 1 and 2). 3+4 have already played one another in the prior round. Their results from that match carry to this group. They should not play one another again. Teams 1 and 2 play one another at the same time as the final round of the team 3-6 prelim group. This leaves only two extra match days after the completion of the prelim group. So, prelim group = 3 match dates. 8x4 = 2 additional match dates knockouts = 4 match dates FWIW, I agree with you re: the inability to add matches to the tournament. 8 may be doable in a 48 team tournament. 9 is a huge ask. This is why I favor larger groups using a Swiss system as a shortcut to a full round robin. I do think 9 could be possible in a 64 team tournament provided the qualifying is reduced to give dates back during the club season. You'd have something like 25 UEFA teams, 15 Americas (combined qual), 24 CAF/AFC/OFC. Using UEFA as an example: 24 teams at Euro. 21 more teams that did not qualify for Euro run a prelim around Euro. 7 groups of 4, 1 of 3. Top 2 (16 teams) in each advance to second qual stage with 24 Euro participants. Then just do 10 groups of 4 (6 matches). Top 2 qualify, 3rd place two more matches in a home/away playoff. Similar things are achievable in other qualifying regions. Expansion to 64 provides a lot of opportunities for abbreviated quals without being too punitive for a single bad result. Then FIFA would turn around and "give back' a two-match window the club season prior to the WC and the same in the club season after the WC in a exchange for a longer 9 match WC. I'm not saying this will definitely happen, but this sort of compromise is probably the only way for the WC to continue to expand.
Actually, I do not hate this idea. I think its the best one I've seen for a 48-team tournament so far. In a way, it keeps the 32-team World Cup format which I love! I can't see that being an issue at all. Firstly, it would only be about 5-7 days longer than the silly 16*3 format. Plus, the tournament would start at the same time as normal. These extra 5-7 days occur at the end of the WC (i.e. the WC would extend deeper into July). At that point, there are only 4 teams left in the tournament so there won't be many training grounds or stadiums being occupied for WC teams. Plenty of availability if local clubs want to start their preseason before the WC ends.
I don't know how you add an entire extra group stage with only 5-7 extra days, but good luck if you can do it. Extending the tournament later than expected pushes everything closer to the NFL preseason, and several of the stadiums are going to have a complete field surface replacement from grass back to their normal artificial turf. I assume that the hosting contracts all already specify dates when FIFA must be done with the venues.
Its explained by @Chicago76 above. One of the games from the first stage carries over to the second group stage. So, there are a total of 9 matchdays. The 12*4 or the 16*3 formats both require 8 matchdays. One matchday more ==> 5-7 extra days. This goes back to my point about only 4 teams remain during that additional week of the WC. The vast majority of stadiums will no longer be needed in that final week of the WC. I mean, the Giants can play their first preseason game on the road. This strikes me as a non-issue.
I still think the best format is 8 groups with a 3-vs-3 format (so 3 matches per team). If the knockout phase has 16 teams (2 teams out of each group), then each team play a maximum 7 matches. If the knockout phase has 24 teams (3 teams out of each group), then each team play a maximum 8 matches. I prefer the latter, because it reduces the number of dead rubbers, as the top teams fight for the 2st place and a bye, whereas the bottom teams fight ford 3rd place.
interesting variation. so do i get you right, you like 8 groups of 6 with swiss format and only 3 matches played (not round robin) and than not the top 2 advancing straight into a rond of 16 but only the best 8 winner and the 2nd and 3rd of the groups of six playing in the round of 24 (or wild card round) with the winner than reaching also the round of 16? this "only" means 8 matches more. and it hepls to reduce the chances of a team becoming 3rd in a group of 6 with 2 wins and 1 draw being then out of the world cup which is one of the bad traits of the 8x6 format with 3 matches played.
I think the "3-vs-3" idea was to split each group in half and have each team play the three teams in the other half of the group. Thus, all three teams in each half-group would play the same opponents, but would not play each other.
I have seen that format too and while I like it I think it is too unfamiliar for the millions who watch the WC but do not necessarily follow soccer outside of the WC. In order to make it more comprehensible to them, I suggest the format below. Replace the group stage with a league stage, the KO stage remains identical to how it has been from 1986-2022 starting with the Round of 16. A single league table of the 48 reams and after each team has played 3 games - Swiss system - the highest ranked 16 teams qualify for the KO stage and the lowest ranked 32 teams are eliminated. At the WC draw, the teams are seeded into 4 pots of 12 teams each - A to D - based on the FIFA World Ranking, with each team playing one team from each of the other 3 pots according to the schedule below. MD1: A-B C-D MD2: A-C B-D MD3: A-D B-C Three kick-off times per day with 2 games played simultaneously would give 36 league stage kick-off times - 37 if the host's opener is played a day earlier as happened between 2014 and 2022 - compared with 40 in the 32-team format group stage. The league stage could be completed in 12-13 days, leaving 3 rest days before the KO stage starts on the third Saturday, like it does now. In the Round of 16, the pairings are scheduled accordingly: 1-16, 2-15, 3-14 etc. This format is fair, comprehensible, ensures all teams play between 3-7 games like now and features a manageable total of 88 games which - with 2 league stage games being played simultaneously - avoids saturation. Crucially, it is compatible with the policy goal of expansion, providing more teams with the opportunity to qualify, albeit presenting them with a significant challenge in order to qualify for the KO stage.
youncannot have a leaguebof 48 and quite random allocation of matches. a world cup is not a league. the schedule is dance and must be regarded like slots at an airport when planes land or start. gaps not to long, not to short. that means groups must we sequenced in their playtime on the calendar schedule. younshall have 8 leagues of siy and then your proposal applies and always 2 minigroups of 3 cross their swords. as mentioned before, there is one big flaw coming with that allocation of matches. in theory all teams of half 1 might win all 3 matches against all teams of half 2. the final standings would be then 9-9-9-0-0-0 points. that would result in a team becoming 3rd and being out of the tournament because of a worse goal difference despite winning all 3 group matches. people will blame the format for that. there are two options to overcome this flaw. 1.) all teams in half 1 play round-robin, all teams in half 2.play round-robin and each team has a third match against opponent of the other half. (pot a vs pot c, pot b vs pot b, pot c vs pot a) still a parallel matchday 3 is possible. and the "worst" outcome then is 9-7-7-1-1-0 so the 3rd placed team is eliminated on goal diff with 2 wins and 1 draw. still edgeworthy but at least more acceptable. 2) mix of groups of 6 with round of 24 there is an extra wild card round after the group stage for 2nd and 3rd placed teams of the groups. 8 winners of the group advance to round of 16 directly and A2 plays B3, B2 plays A3, C2 play D3 and so on are the 8 matches in that wild card round. by that, also a strong 3rd placed team still is in the competiion after a strong group stage.
Surprised no one has mentioned it but the BBC is reporting that the World Cup will likely stay Groups of 4. The Vote is reportedly going to take place on the 16th. They still do not want to extend the tournament though so they have to figure that out.
According to this they will cut down on team preparation time: https://www.insideworldfootball.com...m-group-format-discussed-fifa-council-kigali/
I think FIFA will end up going with 12 groups of 4. And add a round of 32, with the top 2 in each group and the best 8 third place finishers advancing. That is very similar to what they eventually did when they went from 16 to 24 teams, after first trying a second round group stage in 1982 that resulted in the Brazil/Argentina/Italy group of death. I would rather see them go to 64 teams, 16 groups of 4 with the top 2 advancing to a round of 32. They could give Canada and Mexico more group stage matches that way too. There are still some good teams that won’t qualify for a 48 team tournament, especially from Africa and Europe.
Extend relative to what? If its relative to the 16*3 format, that shouldn't be too much of a problem. Basically, just means the group stage would have to be conducted in 12 days, or 3 groups and six matches per day (instead of 4 groups and 4 matches per day). Although they may need to add one rest day between the group stage and R32 if going with 12*4.
I interpret extend as ensuring the final is not played after the second Sunday in July (ironically the only exception to this I can recall in the era after expansion from 16 teams was 1994 in the USA when the final was held on 17 July).
So essentially we've got the '86/'90/'94 format doubled in size. Oh great, who doesn't love teams trying to draw 3 games and grab a 3rd place spot?
It will be interesting to see what they use as a third place tie breaker. Would be funny if it is something like the Fair Play rules they have been using the last couple of cups. Good ultra physical teams may think twice before they accumulate the strategic yellows.
Good point, yes. Nevertheless, seeing the back of the groups of 3 teams is a significant improvement. Will games have to be played simultaneously with the new format?
thats why they went back to groups of four. it will we interesting to see the table of allocation of the eight 3rd placed teams to the group winners. if they take 12x4 they should have went with the round of 24 (wild card round) and 8 byes for 8 best group winners. (TripleGroupWildCard48) * the motovation for finish a group on top is much higher * it is less matches, 96 instead of 104 matches * it can be held in 33 days * 50% of all teams go home after group stage, not only 1/3 * teams of a group won't face again before the final. i also wonder if they now stick with only 10 matches in camada and 10 in mexico as that would mean that the 10 USA venues will stage 84 matches which is 8.4 matches per venue, while the 5 the mexican and canadian venues have 20 matches which is 4 per venue.
I remember reading somewhere that FIFA doesn't want teams getting byes, so they would have never agreed to something similar anyway
Byes are stupid. Every team should play the same amount of games. They picked the best format for a 48 team tournament.
They should give 3 points with 1 victory over 3 points from 3 draws preference in the tie breaker rules.
It would be impossible to have that scenario in the same group, do you mean in terms of selecting best third place finishers? I am not sure how I would feel about that. Going out undefeated seems a bit harsh, especially considering you got a tie against the seeded team. It would also favor the team with the weaking minnow in their group.
Yeah I meant for best 3rd place finishers, but now you put it that way, not sure I'd like it either. It would still be way down the list after goals scored and goals difference. I'd say its better than yellow cards though.