In the past I have heard more than once that some people would like to see it played every 2 years instead of 4. This was one of the comments made by the FIFA president that some people disagree with. I just want to hear what you think. I myself like it being every 4 years. It makes being a part of the World Cup even that much more of an honor and that much more exciting to watch. The one thing that I wish would have happened was the scheduling of the Womens World Cup be played in its own year. I wish the FIFA Men's World Cup, FIFA Women's World Cup, Rugby World Cup, and Olympic Summer Games were all played in different years. The Rugby World Cup and FIFA Women's World Cup are played in the same year. There are plenty of sporting events around the world to watch that happen every year like the Super Bowl, NCAA Basketball Tournament, World Series, Daytona 500, Indy 500, UEFA Champions League, Tri-Nations Rugby, Super 12 Rugby, golf majors, tennis majors, and more.
I would like the World Cup to be played every 2 years, because I just love the excitiment. But I in reality I still say it is better to host it every 4 years because of the honor as you stated above
At one time, I thought every 2 years would be better than 4 years. Of course, as a fan not having to wait 4 years (which can seem like an eternity) was the better option. But after weighing the pros & cons, there's NO doubt that every 4 years is the PERFECT scheduling. Just think about how long WCQ takes in different confederations because of the number of countries involved. CONMEBOL WCQ, alone, takes an entire TWO years. CONCACAF is now up to a year & a half. There's NO way you could schedule a World Cup tournament every 2 years, unless you "downsized," BIGTIME, the World Cup Qualifying competition. Personally, I don't want that to happen and I don't think that MOST people would want that either. Plus, having the World Cup, just once every 4 years, keeps the "mystique and aura" of the beautiful game going STRONG!! Having it every 2 years might make it "less of an event" IMHO.
Unusual for an American to be interested in rugby It is almost impossible for organisers of big events to avoid other events. You can add the Commonwealth Games, Cricket World Cup and Netball World Cup to your list. From 2006 it is expected that NZ, Australia and South Africa will be playing Tri-Nations Soccer as well. Stick to four year World Cups for soccer. Crowdie
If the World Cup is played every 2 years, then when would you play the WC qualifiers, let's say that they start 3 months after a WC and end 3 months before the WC, that would leave 18 months to play the qualifiers. Ok, here's the problem, countries have a hard time calling their european based players to play friendlies once a month, in the last WCQ games InterMilan didn't realize 2 players from Argentina. That means that you have 18 games. That might be enough for South America that has 10 teams, but it would stop it from being the best WCQ because is likely they wouldn't get the 18 games needed to play everybody vs everybody. What about Europe, NorthAmerica, Africa, Asia. How do you do a WCQ with 40-55 teams in 18 games? It would also keep the World Cup from being such a big event. People live and grow up to play in the WC. The people that have played the most WC, I believe have played it 4-5 times. It makes it close to impossible for anybody to win the World Cup for their country, that's why the World Cup is so big and exciting.
4 years... two years will have too many winners at given time. The value of winning the cup meant less. Plus, what to do with European Championship or Copa America?
Having it every two years would water it down immensely. Also players already play too many matches. If the cup were held every two years they'd never get a break from qualifying.
The other thing you have to consider is there is a FIFA Confederations Cup which is played every 2 years. That is an 8 team mini World Cup.
LMAO, Did you know that Copa America is the world's oldest international soccer tournament. It has been played since 1916, 14 years before the first World Cup. It was also played in 1910, but for some reason 1916 is considered the 1st one. Between 20000-30000 people watched the final in 1916, that's that tell you anything?
I agreed. We should cancel all CL, domestic league, etc. Then, all the NT teams will play in a league format in different conferences and in the end of every summer, we will have a WC Finals.
DanRod78, BTW, most of the rest of the world was playing in a much bigger & more important tournament in 1916. It was held in Europe and called World War I. Cheers.
Depends what you consider 'international' to mean. The Home Championship was played between England, Scotland, Wales and (Northern) Ireland from 1884. Given that they are independent nations in footballs eyes, I think it counts as 'First international soccer tournament'.
yeah.. but nobody really remembers it because it only happened twice and it wasn't on a stable schedule. almost as if they were organized by concacaf.
Every 4 years is the ideal time. It makes us wait just long enough so we don't die of anticipation. Heres a crazy notion what about every 3 years? I would guess they would throw that out the window because the years would not be constant and it would conflict with different sporting events every year, like the Olimpics or Rugby world cup.
SCENARIO: IF the World Cup Is Played Every 2 Years... Every 4 years is ideal because it makes it special. May this tradition continue. There are some good things about every two years (such as more interesting international play, more opportunity for contenders like Canada to qualify and more opportunities for many countries to host), but it's better to stick to the tried and true. IMAGINE what incredible change (some might describe it as a nightmare) would have to occur to international football IF FIFA goes to a World Cup every two years... IF FIFA decides to make the WC a biennial (every 2 years) event (which may happen for financial, the wrong, reasons), then the whole structure of international football would necessarily have to change. The qualifying for the continental championships and the continental championships themselves (which would also have to be biennials) would have to serve as WC qualifiers. Assume Brazil is awarded an inaugral biennial 2013 World Cup. All the Continental championships would have to become biennial starting in 2012, and the spots could be allocated as follows: -Asia Cup: top 4 given automatic spots, and q-f losers playing off in home and aways to see who plays Africa for half-spot -Africa Nations Cup- top 4 qualify, with q-f losers playing off to see who meets Asia 5th for 1/2 spot -Gold Cup- Top three (finalists and 3rd place game winner) qualify, 4th place meets South America "5th" for half place. This would make the 4th place match interesting. -Copa America- Since Brazil gets automatic spot as host, top 3 (or 4th place if Brazil in top 3) qualify, q-f losers (or 4th place if Brazil doesn't make semis)to play-off to see who (or 4th place if Brazil doesn't make semis) plays CONCACAF 4th for half-spot. -Oceania Nations Cup: Winner finally given automatic spot as trial. If Oceania team completely falls on face in Brazil, Oceania is forced back to half spot fight with Asia (or top 3 Oceania's to be in future expanded Asia/Oceania Cup, something meaningful). -Euro Championships: Top two in each Group qualify automatically (8). The teams that don't make the second stage (8) play-off in two home-and-away series with 16 other European teams (determined by separate qualifying matches in same spring) for the remaining 6 places. Conflict with club teams would be reduced by elimination of most friendlies, making continental championship qualifier systems more efficient, and by elimination of useless tournaments such as the Confederation Cups and the Olympic Football Tournament. The U-17 and U-20 competitions (perhaps add regular U-23's competition to mix) would be seen as more relevant, as they would be seen as important avenues to the national teams with fewer friendlies. There would be the argument that having WC qualification partly decided without home games because of necessity would be partly met by the case that if you can't compete away from home in a regional tournament, why should you go to a world tournament away from home (and since the continental qualifiers would also serve as WC qualifiers, like in Africa now, the teams would still have WC's at home for early stages)? However, the lack of time for fuller WC qualification would make such an argument moot. The above is just a scenario if the biennial WC becomes a reality, but something like it would HAVE to happen in such an event. Either that, or continental championships would have to be eliminated altogether, but no way the Confederations would stand for that. Of course, all of this could be avoided if FIFA keeps partial sanity and keeps the WC every 4 years, as it should. Then we could have the luxury of the present uneven system of WC qualifying and other competitions that have little relation to each other. Depends on how money-hungry FIFA becomes over the next few years. No more pickles before I go to bed!