News: FIFA to expand World Cup to 48 teams in 2026, impact upon the USA

Last year's Copa aside, I feel like we usually play Argentina pretty tough.

 

Have the federations merged already?

I thought I read somewhere the the merger was dead. I am on the side of no merger and keeping CONCACAF the same or the 25 Caribbean countries spin off to their own Federation, leaving CONCACAF with 10 countries.

 

So did a bit of research, and although I suspect I've missed one or two friendlies here is data on 17 matches between the USA and Brazil. Note that in competitive matches we are 1-7. So Mexico has been much better against Brazil than we have in competitive matches [7--9--1]. So we are poor. But not close to as poor as you claim. In those 8 matches, we were outscored 12-3. Our average margin of victory was 1 goal. Brazil's average margin of victory was a little over 1 [+9 goals in 7 matches].

With Klinsmann as the coach for the USA it's true we have been awful, not just poor. But let's compare what you wrote to what in fact happened.
2015-Friendly- we lose 4-1
2012- Friendly- we lose 4-1 That is an average margin of victory of 3 for Brazil.

Klinsmann is not coach now. Which is to our good. Here are the results from before the Klinsmann era but after the 1990 World Cup. We played Brazil just one time before 1992, that was in 1930, a game played in Brazil where we lost 4-3.

With Bradley as coach we are still poor. But let's compare what you wrote to what in fact happened.
2010-Friendly-we lose 2-0
2009-Confederations Cup- in group round we lose 3-0, and in final we lose 3-2
2007- Friendly-we lose 4-2 That is an average margin of victory of 2 for Brazil.

With Arena as coach we are still poor. But let's compare what you wrote to what in fact happened.
2003-Gold Cup- we lose 2-1 and in Confederations Cup we lose 1-0.
2001-Friendly- we lose 2-1
1999-Confederations Cup- we lose 1-0 That is an average margin of victory of 1 for Brazil.

With Sampson as coach we are still poor. But let's compare what you wrote to what in fact happened.
1998-Gold Cup- we win 1-0 [so far only victory of the USMNT over Brazil]
1995- Copa America- we lose 1-0. Average margin of victory is 1, Average margin of loss is 1.

[Yes. Sampson did much better by the USMNT than did Klinsmann]

With Bora as coach we are still poor. But let's compare what you wrote to what in fact happened.
1994-World Cup- we lose 1-0
1993- Friendly?- we lose 2-0
1992- Friendlies- we lose 3-0 [the first match to take place in Brazil], and we lose 1-0.

So in competitions the average margin of victory for Brazil is a little more than 1, Master O. How did you manufacture that "4 goal margin of victory"?

 

Must be a RWNJ news blogger?

 

If six, then 3 final groups of 6 (1st and 2nd advance).

or fvck it, 3 groups of 10.

Those will be some massive games.

Too many weak teams in the World Cup.

Just get rid of the World cup and have the Confederations cup be the world cup. We really do not need more than 8 teams.

 

Less than 16 if we rid of the half spots.

I assume every one that has a 0.5 spot gets and extra 0.5, then allocate the others. So 12 extra to allocate.

 

A lot, we all want to close the door behind us after we get in.

My only issue is that this makes it impossible for middle economy countries to host WCs on their own (it was already very difficult).

That is why I would prefer go full 64.

 

If that happens (and it will) there are 14 more to go.

 

I know I'm in the absolute minority on this from every luke warm take I've read which is exactly the same. But I love it. I love the World Cup. I want more of the World Cup. I want shitty teams to have a chance to play in the World Cup. Generally I always want more soccer, and then, even more than that if possible.

I understand the immediate negative visceral reaction, but frankly I don't care. Bring it. Play it here in 2026. Let's share it with Mexico and Canada and drink Molson while Canada plays Iceland in Edmonton. I love it I want more I'm insatiable.

 

this is how my ex-girlfriend was with all of her male friends. Eventually I had to say Enough is Enough

 

Yep, that's exactly it. That's exactly how I am with soccer. You nailed it. I'm watching AFCON right now and AFCON is nailing it.

 

which channel is it on?

 

Bein. I recorded it.

 

I should say in terms of relevance to the thread title...especially if CONCACAF and COMNEBOL merge qualifying, it infinitely improves our qualifying chances and the intensity and awesomeness of the process. It also weakens the field of the actual World Cup Finals and with increased variance, strengthens our chances of advancing further. Win win, for me.

 

Run up shootouts:

http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/201...s-penalty-kicks-mls-van-basten-world-cup-2026

 

None of that is accurate.

 

I disagree respectfully

 

Can you explain why?

 

If there are 13 or so spots and 4 groups of 8, or 5 hexagonals, or 3 groups of ten....well we might have a home and away vs Brazil or Argentina, which is AWESOME, but we'll have plenty of winnable points against Curaçao or Belize. I don't think it will be harder to qualify, and I think it will be so fun to potentially have real competitive matches in Santiago or Asunción.

As far as the World Cup Finals, we'll first of all we have a realistic path towards being a group seed, which is the goal of any potential World Cup winner anyway. We're not top 8 but we better believe we can be top 16. That's first off.

It's obviously easier to qualify as top 2 of a group of 3 than 4, and as a seed (potentially) we're more likely to win the group and face weaker round of 32 opposition. Sure it could be Brazil, but it's more likely to be Slovakia (Or Mali, or Iran, since more spots will be going to Asia and Africa and fewer proportionally will be going to Europe in terms of overall increase).

From there it's the same but with more teams and more variance of teams, we're less likely to matchup with a top team earlier, although obviously we might, luck is involved.

I suppose it's a matter of opinion but those are my thoughts.

 

I guess it would probably be easier to qualify in just CONCACAF as one of 6.5 qualifiers...so I should have emphasized "awesomeness of the process"

 

I think you're the first person in this thread that's actually bothered to defend their position on this when I've asked, so that's pretty awesome. Repped.

Personally, I find the idea that a handful of games in South America is going to help our development absurd (I know you didn't make that argument) and I feel that the added travel strain for both confederations is not worth the novelty of watching us get thumped in Quito or Rio. Sure, I guess you'd get some media hype the first time we had to play a real CONMEBOL power like Argentina or Brazil in qualifying, but that hype would work pretty heavily against us when we lost 7-0.

I can understand why more spots=easier to qualify, assuming qualification is structured like that and not some random whackadoodle mashup where Brazil play home and away to A&B or something. All things considered, though, IMO there are too many reasons-mostly logistical- why merging the regions is a bad idea, the travel being the particular thing.

 

Even Argentina loses 5 to 0 in La paz, so that 7-0 you used is not unrealistic.

 

6-1. But the ball moves differently when y0u're that high up.

 

I don't think the run-up is the worst idea. It gives the keeper a better chance, and increases the ability to make a play to win the game, rather than just guessing correctly. I just hate the expansion/3-team groups that are bringing it into play.

A 3 on 2 (and a keeper) might be a better idea.