The threat posed by the Super League makes this even less likely to happen now IMO. Just gives clubs another reason to leave FIFA.
Expanding to 48 teams was bad enough, if they proceed to move it up to every 2 years we should riot. Horrendous decision that would tarnish the aura and rarity around the event, and thus remove whats at stake.
I had the same thought. But, I could see how holding WC's (both for the men's and women's) at odd-year intervals would mean these tournaments will conflict with with different events and other tournaments (regional cups, the Olympics, etc.). A more complicating factor is that what would be in conflict would change from year to year since these other events all tend to be on even-year intervals.
Gets too messy once you try to fit the continental competitions and WC qualifying around that (i.e. Euros, Copa America, etc.). Every 4 years is perfect. Every 2 years is just stupid. I don't think there is a need to find middle ground between "perfect" and "stupid".
It is still a World Cup. No one went up to Uruguay and said hey Uruguay you cannot celebrate your 1995 Copa America because Argentina won in 1993. Or Brasil when they won in 1997.. No. They all celebrated as if they won an important tournament and had a blast.. Same goes for African Champions too. The whole tarnish aura argument does not hold water to me. A team and a country is going to cherish a World Cup no matter if it is 4 years, 3, years, every year, heck every month.
Sure, but how hard the winning team celebrates is not a measure of how important a tournament is. Especially if its a second-tier team. Leicester players went bonkers when they just won the FA Cup but when the tournament started it wasn't even a priority for them. (Not saying the WC would become the FA Cup, just showing an example of players celebrating like crazy over a tournament that has lost a lot of its prestige / importance).
Winning a World Competition is inherently important and the value will always be high no matter how often it is..
Yeah, I mean its not binary (high/low). Champions League is high too but not as high. In any case, I don't think this is the among the biggest 'problems' with a biennial WC. My main concerns would be the elimination of continental championships, fatigue / injuries of the world's top players, finding adequate host nations for a 48 (soon to be 64)-team tournament, and last but certainly not least, the anticipation and excitement level of fans.
I actually like the every 3 years idea. Regarding the potential conflicts: I believe the individual confederations would also adjust to every 3 years (may have to adjust qualifying methods for UEFA/confederations; but that's doable). The Olympics is the real issue. Personally, I feel like the popularity of the Olympics decreases a little every year, and FIFA should get out in front of this/not let a possible head-to-head with the Olympics in some years stop them. I agree that every 2 years has the potential to water down the World Cup & make it less special (I'm also against the 48 team world cup - would prefer a 40 team with 8 groups of 5 if expansion is necessary). But, every 4 years is a long time between World Cups. Depending on when a player is born, some greats only get 2 cups in their prime, and the randomness of injuries can reduce that, and really narrow some of the 'smaller' nations windows. That 'extra' world cup every 12 years (4 vs 3) can really impact a players legacy and potentially allow some other nations to break through: right now, nations outside the top 20 or so really have to time their health/'golden generations' and luck of the draws/pool play perfectly to get through/even qualify sometimes. Every 3 years would really let them re-set & expand those windows.