FIFA World Cup '26: News & Analysis

Too many teams especially when you start being forced to pick which game you want to watch.


Then you have WCQ becoming boring due to all those extra berths which also makes inevitable boring group stage games.

32 teams was the sweet spot.

If Infantino gets his 64 games insane wish, he runs the risk of having people turning off the TV for some of the group stages and only show up at knockout stages. I don't see how's that better

 

The talking point was that there would be too many matches that were not competitive or that the teams that qualified in the new format would get blown out. Other than Curaçao that has all been debunked so far,

 

There's like 30 teams in this WC that we only have the privilege of seeing because the WC expanded to 48.

 

That wasn't the only blowout and nothing has been debunked.

The main talking point, which I mentioned several times before a ball was kicked because I knew people would say "I told ya expansion was great" every time a team outside the FIFA top 20 got a draw, was that the expansion creates this unbalanced format where some third-place teams advance, significantly reducing the importance of every group game.

So, while its interesting to hear that Qatar get a lucky draw v Switzerland, it probably won't have any real impact on the tournament like upsets had in the previous format.

 

It's not an improvement from the old formula in terms of quality. The fact that finishing 3rd can be good enough is diluting the stakes of the group stage as well.

Top teams underperforming here and there is nothing new - it happens in continental tournaments all the time, this debunks nothing since the sample is way too small

 

That may be your talking point but you should take a look at the expansion thread from years past. Too many people focused on teams that supposedly did not belong.

 

Improvement is subjective.
My point has little to do with the 32 team supposed cleanliness but more so with World Cup providing good moments, upsets and story lines that would not have happened in the old format.
I have been consistent in my views. Expansion will have blowouts and good matches just like any other tournament PLUS the addition of feel good stories that would not have happened without it.

 

It was the clearly main talking point, not just mine. I even recall you complaining that so many people were talking about the format and proposing alternative formats.

Also, many of these teams picking up results would have qualified in the 32-team format anyway.

 

Complaining about what? Explain.

There are about 5 teams that would not have been in his tournament that have provided good/ great moments. Expansion has been a net positive yet people still will cling to the 32 team is best narrative.

 

This is a criticism of FIFA and not the US. A 32 team tournament in the US would still have been superior to the 48 team. You seem defensive because the tournament is in the US. Same criticism will be raised for all subsequent hosts

 

I was for expansion before knowing it would be in the USA so once again you are wrong. And you are also the one bringing up the political angle which I do not care about.
Nice try though.

 

Yes, primarily because the format with 32 teams was so superior.

To your other point, do you include NZ drawing Iran in those "5 teams"?

 

Cannot wait for the 64 team tournament will be the worst format ever posts.

 

Superior in what way? And yes New Zealand probably would not have beaten Brasil or whoever.

 

Because only top 2 advanced from each group, so alot was riding on almost every match.

 

I see what you are saying now. Maybe when it comes to the Group stage but overall it does not make much of a difference to me.
There is a round of 32 that is do or die so in some ways that is superior.

 

Let's rewind. Now your entire argument is that "48-team WC is good because its not producing blowouts every game like people predicted"

But you know full well, that what people were complaining about mostly is the format that came with the 48-team WC (with 'best-3rd-place teams advance').

 

^ Ok, never mind. You got it now.

 

The posts I saw focused on there being too many minnows and the competition being tarnished. I have always said that expansion would be similar to the Euro expansion. There would not be more matches that were lopsided. And there would be great underdog stories.

 

That's a fair position, and not one many would disagree with. 95% of the posts complaining about expansion were focused on the resulting worse format that came with it (i.e. 3rd-place teams advance).

Maybe 5% of complaining was about lack of competitiveness. And even that 5% was talking about Germany x Curacao-type matchups, not Iran v NZ or Uruguay x Saudi.

 

This is a reason why 64 teams will be inevitable.

 

Any format where you must finish top 2 and are only compared to your group opponents is more competitively satisfying, but we could apply the same criticism to the Euros and AFCON and Asian Cup. But I like seeing the new teams.

 

64 teams will be a better tournament format than 48. They should have done it this time. It is a math thing. 16 groups of 4, top 2 advance. That is much better than this best 3rd place teams craziness. It also makes it much easier to follow your team, if you are attending in person. There are only 2 possible paths for each team.

 

Yes, they already have, from some crazy buyers. That’s why I hope the final is between some unexpected teams, just to disrupt the celebrity culture.