FIFA International Match Calendar: Proposed Changes & General Discussion

This looks like a ridiculous request as the opening of a door-in-the-face negotiation tactic. Everyone knows a 48-team biennial World Cup is an impossibility, so FIFA is just throwing that out there so they can eventually compromise on a Global Nations League, which is what they really want. Remember the Club World Cup/Global Nations League joint venture a few years ago that suddenly disappeared? Well, this is FIFA’s opportunity to resuscitate that concept. There’s much more potential in a GNL then a CWC.

 

I think it is a mistake to draw that conclusion.

A significant amount of work and resources have gone into examining the feasibility of organising the WC biennially.

FIFA want it and - I suspect - so does the majority of its members.

 

Increasing the frequency of a 48 team World Cup wouldn’t solve any of the structural problems that the system currently has. The World Cup is about getting the best teams from each confederation into the final tournament. It’s not about developing the game, and I’m sure FIFA wants to raise competitive parity so that future qualifications for a 48 team WC don’t become a farce and the finals don’t have lopsided scores. Over half of the FIFA member associations have virtually no chance of qualifying, even in a 48 team WC field. Those same teams, the ones that would benefit the most from competitive games, are the ones that play the least amount of WC qualifying games. And many of the qualifying games are embarrassing mismatches, even in the final round of qualifiers. So this becomes a reinforcing loop. A Global Nations League would address all these issues. Teams would play an equal number of games against similar strength opponents, the winners in each group would earn promotion to the next higher league and qualify for the league finals against other confederation qualifiers. You’d have 7 leagues of Confederations Cups. If this was an alternative presented to CAF/AFC/CONCACAF, I find it hard to believe they wouldn’t choose a Global Nations League to become more competitive, along with the financial incentives. And unlike the WC Finals, there wouldn’t be such a disproportionate representation from one confederation. CAF probably has the greatest depth from top to bottom than any other confederation, so they’d do really well in this type of competition. And AFC would see regional rivalries that would be much better than the current WC qualifying system. Based on the system that was proposed a few years ago, here’s what the confederation allocation would be for every league and what the hypothetical qualifying groups could look like in the top league:


League 1: UEFA x3; CONMEBOL x2; CAF/AFC/CONCACAF x1 each. Examples of groups: (Germany/Spain/Switzerland/Denmark); (Portugal/France/England/Croatia); (Belgium/Poland/Italy/Wales); (Brazil/Colombia/Peru); (Argentina/Chile/Ecuador); (Senegal/Egypt/Tunisia/Cameroon); (Iran/Japan/South Korea/Australia); (Mexico/U.S./Canada/Costa Rica)
League 2: UEFA x3; CAF x2; CONMEBOL/CONMEBOL/AFC x1 each
League 3: UEFA x3; CAF/AFC x2 each; CONCACAF x1
League 4: UEFA/CAF/AFC x2 each; CONCACAF/OFC 1x each
League 5: CAF x3; AFC/CONCACAF x2 each; UEFA x1
League 6: CAF/AFC/CONCACAF x2 each; UEFA/OFC 1x each
League 7: CAF/AFC/CONCACAF x2 each; UEFA/OFC 1x each

 

You mean, between Concacaf, AFC and CAF right? Yes, they certainly do.

Problem with GNL is it wouldn't generate near the revenue as a WC. But compared to an expanded CWC? Hmmm....Yeah, I could see GNL having more potential than expanded CWC.

Another challenge I see with GNL is finding the money so that Montserrat, Vanuatu and the likes can travel all over the globe for matches. But I guess they could play an entire group stage in one venue over 7 days or something like that.

 

Currently 4/6 feds don't have a nations league. That will come down to 3/6 when CONMEBOL nations join the UEFA Nations League.

 

I’d include UEFA in that list too. Top to bottom CAF is the most competitive confederation (excluding CONMEBOL because of its much smaller size). The last 7 African Cup of Nations winners have all been different. In fact, prior to this year, the last 5 editions had 10 different finalists (not a single repeat finalist). Since UEFA and CAF both have 24 team continental championships, we can make a fair comparison. At this year’s Cup of Nations, three Pot 4 teams (Comoros, Eq. Guinea, Gambia) qualified for the R16 and two of those qualified for the QFs. Not a single Pot 4 team at the Euro’s qualified for the knockout stage. The Cup of Nations had many more surprising/shocking results than the Euro’s did.

It's all speculation regarding the potential revenue for a GNL, but the fact that a consortium had offered FIFA $25 billion for the GNL and the expanded CWC without either tournament having taken place shows there’s plenty of potential for it to be lucrative. Personally, I like the concept more than the World Cup, since there’s a continuation from tournament to tournament with the promotion/relegation system and it gives literally every member association a legitimate chance at winning an international trophy by facing similar strength opponents. No team is out of their league, literally.

As far as travel, how was Montserrat able to travel to Bhutan for The Other Final? These mini-tournaments would be much better funded. And we’re only talking about 8 teams qualifying for the finals in each of the 7 leagues. So only 56 teams total would make it out of regional qualifying.

I went off of this article for the confederation allocation and how the GNL would be run. FIFA supposedly wanted all 211 member associations plus non-FIFA members to participate. The league system would seem to be a package deal and non-negotiable. At some point you have to balance profits with development of the game. The more leagues (or tiers) there are, the more competitive and balanced the groups are.

Your concept is too watered down. You have 62 teams in League A? No way that many teams belong in the same tier. The original concept had about 32 teams per group, broken down into 8 regional groups of four teams each. This was the example provided based on the rankings of teams in 2018 when this idea was first discussed:

It depends on how you look at things. The 3 confederations that you're referring to are the AFC, CAF, and OFC. There were reports back in 2018 that the AFC wanted to start their Nations League in 2021 but obviously COVID has altered plans. CAF will support whatever plans FIFA comes up with, whether it's a biennial WC or a CAF Super League, so it wouldn't be hard to get them on board. So do you think the 11 member OFC would be the ones to derail a Global Nations League?

 

Lol even in mock draws Iran is obligated by law to draw South Korea it seems.

 

I would be okay with manipulating the draw if necessary so Iran gets to:

(a) face Australia instead. It is ridiculous that we have actually faced Australia in 6 World Cup qualifying matches all dating to when they were in the OFC, but in the 15+ years they have been a member of the AFC, we have never faced them in any games whatsoever. Not Asian Cup, not World Cup qualifying, not even a friendly match!

(b) avoid having to play Saudi Arabia. Besides the Saudis being terribly bad news for Iran, unless the AFC has the clout to force them to play in Iran, the draw should segregate the two.

My non-simulated hypothetical draw for the AFC teams would be:
Group 12:
Iran
Australia
Qatar
Iraq
Group 13:
Japan
S.Korea
Saudi Arabia
UAE

 

It was paid for by the film producers, hence the drama. They could have just flown from London to Paro via Calcutta, but there would have been less drama.

 

Come on Pakistan! How can a country of 220 million people be below Guam in the FIFA rankings?

 

Guam are ranked 199 by FIFA, Guam 198.

 

Sorry, for some reason I was looking at May 27, 2021.

 

It would dramatically increase the availability of capital, which would actually ease quite a few structural issues the game faces globally (many of these come down to a lack of capital and an inability to consistently generate it).

Not really true. The primary purpose of the world cup is obviously the competition itself, but it is the international game's single largest and most dominant generator of capital. Developing the game requires capital, and lots of it - the primary source of said capital cannot really be separated from that purpose. The world cup is essential to the development of the game.

That's what the enhanced revenue would do. We live in a world where most nations can't afford to do basic things, like fund professional support staffs (ex: nutritionists, physical therapists, etc), hire experienced coaches who understand the nuances of the game at the highest levels, book flights that don't require 2 or 3 connections, maintain at least a couple of decent pitches, fund youth and women's teams, etc.

All of these things require money, and lots of it. We can be very confident that the biennial world cup will provide that. We cannot really be so confident about the GNL doing the same.

A Global Nations League wouldn't get you much of anything unless you can generate substantial revenue (read: multiple billions over a 4 year cycle). Again, the lack of capital is the issue that depresses competitive ability more than anything else. The conversation really begins and ends there.

This is not to say that inactivity isn't a problem - it is, and getting more games for national teams is a worthwhile endeavour. This is why the establishment of nations leagues in multiple confederations has been beneficial - in CONCACAF, getting more games will absolutely benefit smaller federations like the Bahamas or Anguilla over the long term, and even somewhat larger ones like Jamaica, Guatemala or Haiti gain significantly.

That benefit, however, is not a substitute for the revenue that a biennial tournament would provide. Any plan that suggests leaving that revenue on the table in favor of a solution that offers competitive games but provides no real concrete promise of said revenue is really just missing the point.

They would not, because they need revenue to really enhance competitiveness and the biennial world cup offers a clearer case for generating said revenue than this global nations league idea.

Using my own country as an example, there's really zero incentive to make the choice you're talking about. A biennial world cup offers Jamaica not only more opportunities to qualify for the game's premier stage (qualification which is in itself too valuable for any alternative to match, both in a financial and in an intangible sense), but tens of millions of dollars over the course of a 4 year cycle that can be plowed into essential activities to enhance our competitiveness (ex: actually maintaining youth national teams, sanctioning and running domestic youth leagues, covering flights so our teams dont need to take 3 connections to get to qualifiers in columbus, port au prince or mexico city, etc).

So let's say we forego this for a global nations league. We're not going to get the same revenue - we'll be competing in League 2 or League 3 which, let's be honest, nobody is going to watch, and the nations league idea as a whole can't generate what a biennial tournament can.

We lose opportunities to qualify for the World Cup which, as I mentioned above, are absurdly valuable both financially and in terms of the indirect non-financial benefits (marketing, domestic enthusiasm for the game, etc).

and we give that up for what? The chance to play some more games against Botswana or Lithuania in the Global Nations League tier 2 or 3?

You could argue we're not even really getting the competitive benefit here because unlike some confederations, we already have a nations league in CONCACAF - so those extra competitive games are already on the table for us as things stand. We don't really have to give up access to a biennial world cup to get them. And if we do, the fundamental problems that are really holding us back (ex: still cant maintain or properly fund our youth teams) aren't really going away, because the GNL isn't bringing in the revenue we really need to solve them.

It just doesn't make sense.

Even if I put myself in the shoes of a smaller nation, like Antigua and Barbuda, the case isnt much better. Unlike Jamaica, Antigua isn't going to get to World Cups, so they won't miss out on that by foregoing the biennial world cup idea in favor of GNL. But like Jamaica, they already have a nations league - the GNL doesn't really help them in that sense. And they need the revenue a biennial world cup provides as much as anyone else...which the GNL won't get them.

From the AFC's perspective, why not just establish a local nations league similar to that in CONCACAF or UEFA? They get the benefit of those regional rivalries and don't have to give up the potential revenue and access a biennial world cup provides. Why not do that?

There's even potential to modify any given confederation's world cup qualfying process to integrate a local nations league. Why not explore that?

There are tons of alternatives here that get these nations more competitive games (which everyone wants) while also keeping the potential and revenue of a biennial WC on the table. What would motivate anyone here to just dismiss these alternatives out of hand (other than a fundamental opposition to the idea of a biennial world cup on principle)?

The biennial tournament can be said, with some confidence, to offer anywhere from $3 to 4 billion over the course of a 4 year cycle.

You're not coming close to that with this. Nobody is going to watch the lower tiers.

https://www.insideworldfootball.com...bn-nations-league-club-world-cup-buyout-plan/

Something tells me the revenue projections for a 48 team biennial tournament are on much more solid, transparent ground than this $25B proposal every really was.

Honestly, if you really want to get into viable alternatives to a biennial world cup that offer at least some of the meaningful revenue potential, you should be talking about a tournament.

Call it the confederations cup, invite 48 teams, allocate fewer spots to UEFA + CONMEBOL and more to the rest of the world, and hold it 2 years before the WC. Remove the current playoff that determines the last two places in the 48 team WC, and give those spots to the Confederations Cup finalists.

That still won't match the upside of a biennial world cup financially, but it'd get a lot closer than this GNL idea, which is convoluted, limited and frankly just kind of superfluous.

 

I'm glad to get the conversation moving!

Only the group winners would make it to the finals so I was implying that they'd travel only once if they qualified. If there were 7 leagues with 8 finalists in each, that's 56 teams. One team in each of the 7 leagues would host the finals. So that leaves 49 teams needing to travel. The rest of the travel would be regional qualifying, since it's within each confederation, and it could be as simple as 3 matchdays at a single venue.

If someone told you that sports fans would rather watch amateurs over professionals, would you believe it? Yet March Madness has more viewers and better ratings than the NBA playoffs, and the Final Four rates higher than the NBA Finals. That comes down to marketing and hype. My point is, more than one format can exist to draw in viewers, and the NCAAs are successful exactly because of the unique format. I'm sure you've also noticed that sports networks have started prioritizing quantity as much as quality in their broadcasting, so the seven league format isn't a detriment. Soccer has already started reaching a saturation point, so packaging a fresh format like the GNL is exactly what global soccer needs to kickstart development of the game to another level. These are all assumptions, but I can back up my personal opinions with plenty of evidence: 1) UEFA and CONCACAF have said their NLs have been more successful than they'd imagined; 2) several sports economists have gone on record saying a GNL would outshine a WC; and 3) the aforementioned $25 billion offer by a consortium on a GNL that hasn't even happened yet. I'd say the upside is pretty strong. What's the evidence that generating WC-like revenue for a proposed GNL is an impossibility at this point other than feelings?

Any country lower than 150 or so in the rankings has several factors working against them that trying to develop at the grassroots level all the way up to the senior team probably isn't going to pay dividends. Philippines qualified the men's NT for the Asian Cup and the women's team for the next WWC despite having terrible youth teams. Montserrat, has a barely functioning domestic league, yet finished WCQ undefeated using the same formula. The clear recipe for success for these countries is to have: 1) functional FAs and 2) a coach that can scout players abroad for the NT. Guam has both of those, so they managed to make it to the second round of AFC WCQ, despite a small population. Pakistan has neither, and with seemingly no interest in soccer within the country, they need to change their approach and start identifying expats in lower English leagues that would instantly make them better.

First off, before I mention anything else, did you say that if a biennial 48 team WC isn't approved, your suggestion is FIFA should try to pass a 48 team tournament and call it the Confederations Cup? Brilliant....if you're trying to convince preschoolers. Apparently I'm the only one who caught that.

The two things I got from your post was: 1) GNL bad, biennial WC good, and 2) more money equals more development for everyone.

On the first point, it's not me that you need to convince. You're focusing your energy on extolling the virtues of a concept that has virtually no support across the world of soccer:

- Players don't want it
- The European Club Association doesn't want it
- UEFA and CONMEBOL don't want it
- Sponsors don't want it
- Fans don't want it

Despite your pleas and protestations, this is a lost cause. I'm sorry to have to be the one to break it to you. Look at the tea leaves and focus on the compromise that FIFA will have to make.

On the second point, the money that FAs receive from the WC and WCQ between countries is far from equal. Even in a 48 team WC, there are no more than 90 serious contenders among FIFA's 211 members. There's already a sizeable gap between contenders and pretenders, and an even bigger gap between pretenders and no-hopers. WC finalists need funding the least, relative to the other members in their confederations, yet receive much more funding as a result of qualification than everyone else. Look at who is in line to qualify for the 2022 WC in each region, and they're the same teams who have the best domestic leagues, youth NTs, facilities, etc. within their confederations. The prize money alone for making it to the WC finals continues to widen the gap and creates less overall parity. Development through WCQ has the same problem. Other than in UEFA and CONMEBOL, there is a huge gap in competitive matches between the top teams and the rest of the pack. Canada, Panama, and El Salvador will finish WCQ with 20 matches played, and the rest of the teams in the final round will have played 14 times, while the rest of CONCACAF have had four matches. Over a quarter of African teams finished WCQ with 2 games. The 12 teams in the final round of AFC qualifying have played twice as many games as the rest of Asia. GNL would offer a more equitable distribution of competitive matches as well as prize money. As it stands, the bottom half of FIFA nations receive crumbs compared to the bigger nations, so even when the money they receive isn't lining the pockets of corrupt officials in those FAs, their slice of WC revenue hardly makes a dent in improving infrastructure, domestic leagues and youth teams.

I also have to mention that your track record on developmental ideas isn't all that good. Remember way back when I suggested that the CFU would be better off as a standalone confederation for growing the game in the region? Under my proposal, they would've gotten one slot at every WC and youth WC. You suggested that would actually hurt the Caribbean. It hasn't aged well. Since the turn of the century, there have been 10 editions each of the U17 and U20 WCs. Under my proposal, there would've been a CFU representative at all 10 editions of each tournament (like the OFC). With the status quo that you advocated for, there have been a grand total of four CFU members at those ten combined U17 WCs and three CFU members combined at the ten U20 WCs. Not to mention only one representative at the last five WCs (six if we're counting Jamaica's failure to qualify for the 2022 WC with three matches to go, although on the bright side they're not bottom of the table this time). Even the OFC has managed to qualify more times with just a playoff spot. For being Jamaican, you seem to secretly enjoy sabotaging the Caribbean a little too much.

Lastly, even if I were to jump into the rabbit hole and suspend belief that qualifying, the host selection process, and the logistics could all be worked out every two years, I still can't defy logic enough to pretend that doubling World Cups every four year cycle wouldn't suffer from the law of diminishing returns, oversaturation, and the loss of value and prestige. You can't look at a previous WC and double the revenue numbers, that's not how it works. To fail to factor in devaluation is simple ignorance. If you don't understand this you probably think the dollar hasn't lost any purchasing power since being taken off the gold standard.

 

March Madness 2022, runs from March 15 to April 4. 80 teams compete.
https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketbal...a-bracket-printable-march-madness-bracket-pdf

NBA playoffs 2021, ran from from May 22 to July 20. 16 teams competed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_NBA_playoffs

Viewership rate is:
- directly proportional to number of teams in tournament (80 vs 16).
- inversely proportional to tournament days (20 vs 59).

It is erroneous to compare viewership rates of both tournaments.

 

NCAA tourney is actually even less than 20 days because they have long breaks after rounds 2 and 4. It's more like 10 days. Meanwhile, in the NBA there are games almost every day until the Finals.

 

That is exactly what I said. Create a 48 team tournament for the rest of the world. Allocate the bulk of the spots to the confederations clamoring for the 48 team tournament, include a few token UEFA + CONMEBOL teams who fail to qualify for the WC (first three who miss qualifying in UEFA + the 3 teams who fail to qualify in CONMEBOL).

The rest of the world gets their tournament, UEFA + CONMEBOL get to (mostly) ignore it as they desire, and keep their best teams from playing every two years they way the biennial WC proposal would have forced them to.

What I suggested was not complicated. Not sure what you're missing.

That's an over-simplification, but ok.

It has the support of pretty much the entire planet outside of UEFA and CONMEBOL (and even in the latter, fan support diverges from the opinion of the Confederation).

Fans do want it, if by "fans" we define the term globally and include casuals (read: most fans). Most of the firm opposition is in Europe. The rest of the world has a much more favorable opinion than is the norm in the UK or Germany, which is unsurprising given that the benefits of a biennial tournament will be strongest outside of Europe. And the rest of the world is where most of the world's eyes (present and future) are.

Western Europeans, generally, hate the biennial tournament idea. Fans in South America, Africa, Asia, North America and Oceania are far less opposed. That matters - indeed, this fact is probably one of the 2 or 3 single largest factors keeping this proposal alive. That, and the fact that the majority of broadcasters and sponsors, even if skeptical on principle about altering the frequency of the tournament, aren't exactly going to brush of $3-4 Billion that easily.

https://morningconsult.com/2021/12/...ld-cup-every-two-years-but-americans-love-it/

Were the proposal put to a vote today, easily 65%+ of FIFA's 200 or so members would support it - again, most of that opposition is in Europe.

This is not a tiny rebellion against the status quo. The forces pushing expansion are real, and significant, and yes, they are a threat if your goal is to maintain that status quo. They won't be defeated if this isn't acknowledged.

We may indeed never see a biennial tournament. That outcome is nowhere near as certain as you've portrayed it to be, but it's very plausible.

Compromise is also likely.

What you are overlooking is the scale of support for expansion, and how that scale is too great to be satiated by the crumbs you're proposing to toss as a "compromise".

GNL is not going to be enough to put out the biennial WC flames (assuming they can be put out - again, that's not actually a given). You're going to need much, much more.

I am, we just disagree as to what a viable compromise is.

Not really relevant to the point I'm making.

Yes, some nations, by virtue of qualifying more regularly than "no-hopers" will make more than others. And the enhanced revenue will not close the gap between those "sort of hopers" and the games elite.

The money, talent, and influence will continue to be concentrated primarily in Europe, and a bit in South America. That's the way it will be. And no, this proposal will not bring The Bahamas onto equal footing with Haiti or Guatemala.

Equality is not the point of this. Equality is not attainable.

What is attainable? Raising the floor of the game and closing the gaps slightly.

Allowing teams that cannot do any of the basic things now will improve their capability and raise the overall level of play generally. That's all we can ask for, and that is all that is being contemplated.

It doesn't matter that El Salvador, by virtue of qualifyng occasionally as a "sort of hoper" gets substantially more from this proposal than Belize, a "no-hoper". What matters is that Belize, a very poor federation that can barely run a skeleton of a senior team, much less any youth or women's teams, can use these funds to start doing basic things, like actually feed it's national team members, train them properly, provide them with the bare minimum of professional coaching, pay for team travel, support a youth side, run a national youth league (or at least a competition or two), etc.

When nations like Belize can all afford to do these basic things, the floor is raised an gaps close at least somewhat. That's the goal. Belize will still in all likelihood never be equal to El Salvador, and El Salvador in turn (even with its occasional qualifications to the World Cup as a "sort of hoper") will never be an equal to Mexico. But the gaps will be smaller, and these nations will get closer to the competence that right now is only shown by very well capitalized powers (Mexico, USA, etc). That's the idea - raise the floor.

GNL wouldn't solve this, because it's not going to bring in enough money, for reasons I've already explained. This is beside the fact that you don't need GNL to solve the issues you note (which are valid, for the record) - a local nations league can do the same thing by giving smaller regional teams more games to play, and would not require the elimination of the biennial world cup idea to implement.

Again, we don't need equal funds to raise the floor.

Under this biennial WC proposal, a federation like Guyana would generate maybe $16M/4 years. This will still pale in comparison to the $100M+ budgets the USA and Mexico enjoy, but Guyana doesn't need $100M+ to raise it's floor dramatically. Even a few million added over the course of a handful of cycles would make a major difference for Guyana and countries like it when it comes to reaching basic competence - basic competence doesn't require USA, Mexico, or Italy levels of capital.

I think you're remembering things incorrectly. The last (and only) time I got into a big extended debate with you over this, it was not about you arguing for a standalone CFU. It was me arguing against your proposal to force the CFU to merge, alongside the rest of CONCACAF, with CONMEBOL. I argued that this would hurt the CFU and suggested the CFU would be better off by itself or within an existing CONCACAF post-WC expansion, and I stand by that. You argued that going into CONMEBOL would help the CFU. The thread is below for all to read precisely what we both said:

https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/w...slot-allocation.2027025/page-20#post-33631815

I don't oppose a standalone CFU. Indeed, I'm on record supporting the idea of CFU independence fairly frequently here in posts going back as far as half a decade (some of these are below):

https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/caribbean-breakaway-the-impact.2038408/#post-35059660

https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/c...aul-qualifying-process.2036005/#post-34685665

https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/c...alifying-process.2036005/page-2#post-34686311

You are putting words in my mouth and claiming I said things I did not say. I do not appreciate that. Further, I don't know why you would both to misrepresent things in such a way when anyone can simply use the search function to find out exactly what was and wasn't said.

Bro, come off it. I never even made the arguments you're attributing to me. I never opposed a standalone CFU, and I defended it on multiple occasions - the evidence is above. If your plan is to simply manufacture things I didn't say to yell at, then you can instead find someone who actually said those things to argue with. Don't waste my time.

Precisely zero people in this thread have done this. Another strawman.

Again, I'm not here to defend claims I didn't make. Go find a person who actually made those claims and argue with them.