FIFA International Match Calendar: Proposed Changes & General Discussion

Honduras did very well and added a good flavor to the tournament.

Lots of crazy things happened that tournament but it still went on and still counts.

Just like lots of crazy things happened this time around a year after the last Copa but no one is going to care about it.
They will just continue to say Messi got his Cup.

 

It still counts but those who are aware will always look at it with context.
France celebrated their 1984 Olympic gold medal, nevermind the majority of the dominating Eastern Bloc countries didn't participate. "It still counts" but there will always be unanswerable questions by those who remember.

 

True.
Just like this Copa America that should have been hosted by Colombia. We will never know but we must come to the conclusion that if ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a very Merry Christmas.

A win is a win is a win.

 

So you believe if the USA win a World Cup with no UEFA and/or CONMEBOL countries participating no one will care?

 

I never said that.

 

Never said you did. But you did say "a win is a win is a win", which I take to mean a win counts regardless of the circumstances. So I'm simply asking you if you believe no one would care if the USA win a World Cup with no UEFA and/or CONMEBOL countries participating.

 

Well, you interpreted it the wrong way.

In my opinion it cannot be called a World Cup when not all the Confederations in the World are involved.
It is something different if that is the case.

 

So when you say, "a win is a win is a win", what exactly do you mean?

 

It means when a team wins a tournament and the rules and regulations and certain criteria is met we cannot go back and say what if this would have happened or what if this team played or what if the venue were changed or what ever we had people in the stands etc.

Winning a Championship is something glorious and should be honored. We should not play the contextual what if game. You play with the hand dealt to you.

 

So you don't feel people should question Argentina reaching the '78 World Cup final or the elimination of Algeria from the '82 World Cup, both of which involved the lack of simultaneous kickoffs in their respective groups?

 

They can do whatever they want.
But rules were rules and complaining won't do anything but make them look salty.

 

Agree to disagree.

 

Nothing to agree or disagree about on that one. Champions are champions no matter who complains about them and the complainers always come off as sore losers.

 

FIFA ultimately changed the rules regarding simultaneous kickoffs so one could conclude the complaints were legit.

 

Legit to some I suppose. But FIFA has gone to three team Groups so there will not be simultaneous kicks anymore.

 

While I'm not a fan of the 48-team expansion, I could warm up to the idea if the following criteria was used:

1- the allocations would be equally divided between 3 wider regions: 16 teams from UEFA, 16 from AFC-CAF-OFC, and 16 from CONMEBOL-Concacaf (with the allocations for hosts counting against/deducted from the corresponding region).
2- each of the 16 World Cup groups with 3 teams in each group, would have exactly 1 team from each of the wider regions, but otherwise be composed and drawn based on FIFA rankings.

If both of the conditions I have set are observed, then I think the 48 team expansion would work well.

 

The leadership of CONMEBOL endorses the recent proposal from @Iranian Monitor regarding slot allocations for the 48-team World Cup.

 

Conmebol should be quite pleased if we had what I suggest, but so should the other confederations. While this proposal would help prevent the tournament from getting really watered down as much, it will also give lesser sides the chance to battle teams from neighboring regions to improve as well as give them a decent shot at qualifying too.

 

Possibly, but nevertheless something has to give if you want to make soccer more global and equitable.

Ultimately, everyone benefits if international soccer becomes more competitive and thereby more attractive.

 

FIFA did not make any solidarity payments to its members until 2002, from then until 2016 is was USD 1m every four years, moving to 5m from 2016, then to 9m from 2026. Under this proposal it would move to 25m.

FIFA Forward development funding per member would also increase.

 

FIFA's studies amount to the publishing online of over 700 pages of detailed analysis by industry-leading experts.

Over 100 consultation meetings have been held so far globally.

The breadth and robustness of this process is very high.

 

The WC and continental championships would be played over one season with qualifiers in October and/or November and March, with the finals in June.

Restricting the entirety of competitions to a single season should go some way to off-setting any potential loss on interest in the Euros because their intensity is increased.

 

I don't know why you think the degree in which someone celebrates is the litmus test for how prestigious a tournament is. There was also a massive celebration when Leicester beat Liverpool in a mid-season EPL match, which I would argue rivaled Brazil's celebration when they won the Copa in 2019.

Prestige can be measured through more than one thing.

Also, Copa America is a poor example since it was, on average, held every 2 years for its entire existence (48 Copas in 105 years of history ~= one every two years). So when you say 'it was not devalued', it is not devalued compared to what?

 

This is telling when even the world's top players are against it. They are the ones that you'd think benefit the most after the FIFA execs. They have a chance to be in the spotlight more and have more chances to win a WC.

The biennial WC will be a lot harder on the non-NT footballers (a mere 99% of all professional footballers). They will have to completely shut down their season for an entire month when qualifiers are played, meanwhile fixtures will be more condensed during the other 7-8 months of the season.

 

Interesting proposal. That would increase the number of inter-confederation matches significantly (which is pretty much the only benefit the biennial WC would bring).

I just don't know if AFC, CAF and CONCACAF would go for it because currently they are getting a lot of guaranteed spots in the WC. Albeit through your proposal they could wind up getting even more of their teams to qualify, but people tend to like guarantees and things that have low risk.