The Solution to All WC Problems

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by photar74, Sep 7, 2002.

  1. photar74

    photar74 New Member

    Jun 25, 2002
    West Philly
    One more for the road...

    Complaint #3: The USA can't host in 2014! I am offended by your bizarre notion that the USA would be able to host a 48 team tournament easier than anyone else (several posters):

    Look, by 2014, the twenty-five largest metro areas in the USA (all with 2M+ population) will all have 65,000-80,000 seat stadiums that meet current FIFA requirements for field size. Further, all of these cities will have hotel space for over three-hundred thousand people--each. I'm sorry if this doesn't meet your requirments.

    And besides, I just threw the in USA 2014 as the first 48-team WC because , like it or not, the USA is bidding to host the 2014 games, and 2014 is the first time that a 48-team finals in possible. I want the USA to host in 2014, but that is ultimately irrelevant to a 48-team WC. So, for the purpose of discussion of the viability of a 48-team WC, let's assume that I believe the USA should never host a WC again, ever, period. They don't deserve it, CONCACAF has gotten it way too many times, they don't have adequite stadia, they have no football culture, America is an instant gratification soceity, Americans don't understand the beauty of soccer, they use the word soccer, whatever. I agree with you. Let's give the first five 48-team WCs to UEFA, and three of those to England. Fine. Can we move on now?

    Complaint four (from Bauser): Its the WC FINALS, not hte WC participation tournament.

    Answer. This is not a real argument, its pure rhetoric. 197 nations participated in the last WC, which I guess does in fact make it the WC participation tournament. Somehow by capitalizing the word finals does not lead one to the conclusion that 48 teams is too many for the final round, whereas 32 is not. It could just as easily said that its the WORLD Cup Finals, not the European-South American Circle Jerk Finals. Over the past three WCs, there have been 30 different nations from Europe and South America, and only 15 from the entire rest of the world. With a 48-team WC, you would have 22 participants from outside Europe and S.America every time, almost as many as have ever been granted exalted and divine permission to compete in the WC (25 all-time total--three less than the UEFA and CONMEBOL total since '98) by the UEFA-CONMEBOL junta. In fact, it is only with a 48-team WC that you can use the term "World" with a straight face.

    Besides, a 48-team WC would not in anyway increase the number of teams in the WC. All it would do is consolidate some of the final qualifying rounds with the finals. Heck, this could even be sen as more fair to UEFA and CONMEBOL than anyone else--if they really are so much better, than a longer group stage against weaker teams from weaker confeds will certainly mean more teams from UEFA and CONMEBOL in the knockout stages. I mean, wouldn't it?

    Complaint Five (RichardL): European TV companies would pay less for rights to a 48-team WC in the Americas than a 32-team WC, because some matches would kcik off at around midnight.

    Answer. This hasn't been a problem before ('62, '70, '78, '86, '94). Also, I simply cannot accept the notion that European TV companies wouldn't shell over vastly more money for 100 matches that would take place in the early or late evening Central European Time plus around 40 that would take place after midnight CET time than for the current 64 match setup. Maybe we're not talking eight-fold, but we are still talking a huge increase in TV money, even with this "detraction."

    Complaint Six (from Bauser): Increasing the number of teams would reduce the romance of qualifying.

    Answer: This is a pure aesthetic difference on our parts. Besides, as the number of high-quality soccer nations continues to increase, inevitably the romance of qualifying, as you see it, would return in full force. Besides, why allow the romance of qualifying to continue to increase as more nations become good at soccer, rather than allowing the romance of the WC Finals to increase? As more nations become strong at soccer, why simply allow qualifying to become harder and harder, when you could allow the Finals to be more participatory?
  2. photar74

    photar74 New Member

    Jun 25, 2002
    West Philly
    A Plea

    Please remember that I am basing much of this entire thread on the belief that in 2014, as a result of many recent developments, there will be at least 10 more strong soccer nations in the world, and that at least half of those will be in the top 15 of world GNI.

    Please also remember that, while I thought this was the best idea I have posted on bigsoccer, and while it came to me only after several months of research in related areas, I still believed that it would be picked apart by the posters at bigsoccer, who I respect very much.

    However, so far on this thread I have actually become more, rather than less, convinced about the viability of a 48-team WC. I have already provided a revision in match scheduling in response to what I believed was a very strong argument that pointed out a clear deficiency in my original proposal (from Bauser and others). However, so far everything else has been utterly unconvicning.

    Right now, as far as I can see, a 48-team WC, starting in 2014, would be a helluva lot better for soccer world-wide than keeping the current 32-team setup in 2014 or beyond.
  3. Bauser

    Bauser Member+

    Dec 23, 2000
    Fredrikstad FK
    Re: TV Rant Continued

    I'm not gonna go into details with the economical issues of expanding to 48 teams because they are just theories of yours and can't be proven. They might be wrong, they might be correct. No one knows.

    First, we must not fool ourselves into thinking the World Cup revenues is what keeps the footballing circus alive. Club football and everything involved with that is what makes the big bucks - not the national team tournaments.

    FIFA knows this very well and therefore tries everything they can to squeeze the World Cup into one month. It's always been about fitting the whole thing into one month. Even Sepp Blatter has stated publicly how important it is to stage the whole thing within a month. It's been a month long since 1982 when they expanded to 24 teams and remained a month long - though with more matches per day of course - when expanded further to 32 for France 1998.

    The clubs pay the wages. They want their players back home in good time before pre-season starts in July. The players must have some time off as well between seasons. There is simply not enough weeks left on the calendar for further expansion of the World Cup. One month is the limit. 48 teams with your schedule won't work under this timeframe unless you use a very tight and unfriendly TV schedule that will hurt TV-viewers.

    If the basis of starting this whole thread was to get countries with big economies (though weak on the field) into the World Cup, then I think you love the game for the wrong reasons.
  4. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    In respone to various points

    Insulting Mexico - I'm sorry but however huge Mexico might be in CONCACAF they aren't regarded as a big draw in other parts of the world. They aren't small but they are no more attractive (in terms of pulling in TV viewers) than the likes of Uruguay or Belgium. Maybe that is a European view but I can't imagine viewers in Africa, South America, Asia or Australia setting their alarm clocks so they don't miss the big Mexico match either.

    If 6 weeks is too long then leagues around the world would fold - there's a big difference between getting geared up to watch one or two matches a week for six weeks and watching 6 matches a day, every day, for six weeks, especially if as I said before a lot of the first round matches would be less than mouth-watering. Also with larger groups the number of meaningless matches towards the end of the group stage (due to teams already being through/out) is only likely in increase.

    TV Revenue - maybe someone could go and find something to say how much each confederation paid this year, rather than speculating. The fact that in 1994 and 2002 kick-off times were set for the convenience of European viewing schedules must indicate something.
    The 62 world cup almost certainly wasn't shown live on TV (a distinct lack of TV satellites back then). None of the other world cups were showing football over a 12 hour period and consequently the matches were not shown in the middle of the night (I think at latest they kicked off at 11pm GMT).

    Suitablity of US stadia - I've mentioned this before and every time the US red mist descends and the point I'm making has been ignored. Does the US have an 80000 seat covered stadium with a FIFA size field that actually fits properly (i.e. not like soldier field or meadowlands where players are practically in the crowd when they try to take a corner). If not then the US doesn't have a venue for the final. You may say that it's sunny in the US, so you don't need the cover, but that's missing the point that those guidelines are set down for every other bidding nation and the US surely wouldn't be allowed the excemptions in got away with in 94.
    Also, please don't fall into the trap of assuming that everyone in Europe wants every world cup to be held in Europe. That is not, and never has been, the case.

    The move from 24 to 32 teams was just down to wanting more teams involved, it was due to the awkwardness of the first round phase where 16 from 24 qualified (having rejected the second group staged used in Spain 82).
  5. empennage

    empennage Member

    Jan 4, 2001
    Phoenix, AZ
    First, roofs over fans will not be a deal breaker for FIFA.

    Second, there are a ton of new stadiums being/have been built. There's the stadium in Seattle(with roof) built with FIFA standards in mind, the new stadium in Boston, Phoenix is getting a new stadium(with roof). Hundreds of millions of dollars are currnetly being spent at Soldier field for a renovation. LA will probably have a new football stadium by 2014. Trust us when we say that all of these stadiums that are being built, have been built with soccer in mind. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the 2014 WC was in the US there would not be a single stadium that was the same in 1994.
  6. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Nice too see seattle finally got finished (I walked past the construction site 2 years ago). Boston is nice, but completely open, as is I believe will be the new soldier field. No 80,000 seat covered stadium at the moment, or indeed planned, so contrary to the earlier report, the US couldn't host a tournament next month. To be honest if the US has a good batch of 65000 capacity stadiums I can't see FIFA turning them down unless a better bid came in. On the other hand if there were better bids I can't see any city building a brand new venue "just for soccer". I'm not sure if Wembley will have been rebuilt by 2014, but hopefully we'll at least have started demolishing he old one.
  7. empennage

    empennage Member

    Jan 4, 2001
    Phoenix, AZ
    LOL!! :D

    I disagree with you on the covered seat requirements though. I really can't see this being used as the determination between a good bid and a bad one.
  8. photar74

    photar74 New Member

    Jun 25, 2002
    West Philly
    I'm sorry to everyone for getting so aggressive. It was inappropriate and not the kind of persona I want to project on this board.

    I still believe that in the somewhat distant future, a 48-team WC will solve many of the problems that are only now beginning to emerge from the current 32-team setup.

    Anyway, much of my desire for a 48-team WC comes from wanting group stage with 6 teams in each group. Although I built a large facade to cover it up and to show that such a setup could be workable, I did so basically because I want a longer group stage (and because I couldn't figure out the approriate number of allocations for a 32-team WC). I really don't like seeing some teams eliminated only hours after others have played their first game. I also really don't like seeing teams that went 1-1-1 in three matches going out, and that being that.

    Also, I just thought that the following allocations to a 48-team WC would be more fun than the original ones I posted:

    UEFA: 20.0
    CAF: 8.0
    AFC: 6.5
    CONMEBOL: 6.0
    CONCACAF: 5.0
    OFC: 1.5
    Host: 1.0

    This would lead to a pretty groovy situation where there is an African team in every group, and Asian / Oceanian team in every group, an Americas team in every group, and two European teams in every group (the sixth team in each group would either be a second Americas team or a third European team). Every group would be like a mini-WC! :)

    I also think that in my effort to try and be thorough, I forgot to mention just how fun I think a 48-team WC would be. There is no first division soccer in my city (well, the Charge play a very short schedule out on the Main Line)--or much soccer of any sort, really. As a result, I enjoy country competitions more than club ones.

    And this WC was so short! I don't have cable, my Spanish is shaky, my friends who have cable either don't like soccer or live too far away (or don't want me up all night in their apartment), bars in Philly close at 2:00 a.m., the Dark Horse only shows matches with "powerhouse nations," Univision barely comes in on my TV and I'm not terribly familiar with the cafes in certain sections of the city that showed the WC to large immigrant populations. Not to mention that staying up from 2:25 am-9:30 am was really difficult to do on a regular basis.

    And the 2003 WWC is in China! And the USA might not even make Copa America 2004 (or even accept a bid if they are offered one)! Why can't soccer be easier to watch in America!? Arrgghh!

    Anyway, that's that. I just wanted to show that there was more than just an analystical / financial side to my proposal.
  9. RichardL

    RichardL BigSoccer Supporter

    May 2, 2001
    Reading FC
    Nat'l Team:
    I think Japan got away with a 75,000 seat covered stadium for the final. The thing is if bidding for the 2014 cup starts in 2008 then FIFA will have to say to those bidding "to get the cup you must have stadia that meet x,y & z specifications". What they can't do is, if for example England, Spain, Brazil & Argentina were also bidding,is say "well England, Spain, Brazil & Argentina, you've all got to meet x,y & z or you won't be considered, but America you've only got to meet x as we can be flexible for you on y and don't bother with z".
  10. mr magoo

    mr magoo New Member

    Jul 19, 2002
    South Shields
    Were all driffting away from the point of the world cup. Its to bring the best teams from the world together to see which is the best if they carnt get past the qualifiers as they are at the minute they dont deserve to be there at all.

    Towards the end of this world cup most people were suffering from football burn out. its just not right sitting on your arse watching 3 matches a day drinking beers eating pizza/kebab/fish and chips and getting obese. T

    There is no way that 6 matches a day would be good for Fifa. New people may be attracted to the game but you will be driving away alot of fans that are getting bored of watching games such as Peru V Belgium or Egypt V Saudi Arebia. No offense to these teams but they dont have much marketing appeal outside of there own countries and with more teams i the cup you will get more matches of this calibre.

    Personaly i was happy with France98 tournamet schedule were there were only 2 games a day. one kicked off at 4pm(uk time) and another 8pm (uk time) this was good bcause after the first match you could go down your local field and have a kick about for a few hours and then come back home and watch an good evening match. This world cup was ok i didnt mind the early kick off's as I am up early anyway but having 3 wasn't enjoyable it got tedius faster than a gibbon on speed.

    Having 6 games like i said would turn away the most avid football fan and teh only type of fan you would have left is the fat one who sits down and watches tv all day and has no social life what so ever.
  11. photar74

    photar74 New Member

    Jun 25, 2002
    West Philly
    Like I said, you don't have to watch every game (its crazy to do that now), and with the new shcedule I came up with there would be 5 matches a day, at most, rather than six. Even with this in mind, if it does increase the amount of matches you wouldn't want to watch then you ample free time to relax between games you do want to watch.

    Right now, there are not enough strong soccer nations in the world to fill a 48-team WC with quality sides. However, in 1986 there certainly weren't enough strong soccer nations in the world to fill a 32-team WC with quality sides. However, several nations have emerged since that time: Korea, Japan, USA, Turkey, Ireland, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Nigeria, Senegal, Cameroon, Columbia, South Africa. In the next decade, its possible that China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Wales, Ukraine, Israel, Greece, Hungary, Tunisia, Cote d'ivore, Anolga, Egypt, Venezuela, Honduras, Canada, Jamaica, Australia and, who knows, maybe even India will all either emerge, continue to improve, or regain their former glory as strong soccer nations.

    Yes, a 48-team WC is unwieldy, but we are talking about the future, not about now. Just wait until the battle over allocations this December at the FIFA executive committee, then decide if adding teams to the WC isn't a more feasible solution.
  12. desertfox2

    desertfox2 Member

    Jul 18, 2000
    Trenton, NJ
    Oh I just love a good World Cup debate! Photar74, you bring some interesting ideas to the table. You've obviously put a lot of time into it. However, there are some points that I have to disagree with.

    Overall, I don't think a 48 team World Cup would work, either now or in 2014. Now, I understand that more nations in the world are becoming much better at football, which is your logics for a 48 team World Cup. However, even with that being the case, you are turning the Qualifying Round into "Round 1" if you may of the World Cup tournament. What I mean by that is that the Qualifying Round will lose it's value as more teams will be qualifying. If 48 teams qualify for the Finals, who's gonna care about the Qualifying Round? Basically, only nations that are on the border of qualifying. All the big name nations will qualify almost definitely. Plus, making the Finals will be too easy for smaller nations thus lowering the prestige of the Finals. Making the Finals should be a huge achievement, not just advancing to a so-called "Round 2".

    Now, you are correct when you say that increasing the amount of allocations of spots for each zone would shut them all up. However, in that scenario, there would be too many non-deserving nations making the Finals. Although there is much bickering between regions over spots, it must stay that way. I mean, it's that way for a reason, cause that's about how many teams can compete at a World Cup from each zone.

    I also have to agree with the people who are posting that there would be too many meaningless matches. I mean, that's what the Qualifying Round is for; which is to sort out this mess before the big show.

    Now, I'm a huge World Cup fan (and that's putting it lightly), but watching 5 or 6 matches a day is insane. I mean, I watched all 64 matches of the 2002 World Cup Finals live and taped them all (yes, I'm obsessed), but let me tell you, it was no easy task especially since the games were in the middle of the night. I remember watching 4 matches straight on June 2nd from 1:30am-9:30am and I barely made it. I was literally splashing water in my face every 5 minutes just to stay awake for the Spain-Slovenia match which was the last of them that day. I couldn't imagine ever watching 5 matches in a row at night for every day in the tournament. Now, I know you mentioned that you don't have to watch every match, but then again you don't know me lol. I HAVE to watch every match as I am completely obsessed. But doing that is just insane if there is 144 matches in 6 weeks.

    Plus, having 16 more nations would make life very difficult for me as I would have to write my analysis on 16 more teams (I did an analysis on the 32 teams this past World Cup and that took me about 3 months!).

    Also something that has not been mentioned yet is the traffic and other problems in the host nation. Now I know this isn't as big a problem, but it still will be there. 16 more nations means 16 more nations' fans. I've heard stories of very bad traffic this past World Cup and that was with only 32 teams. This must too be considered.

    Well, now I'm ranting. I'll stop now lol. I mean, some of the things you say do make sense, but i just can't see FIFA doing something like this. However, I like your speculation cause it does throw something out there to think about.
  13. mr magoo

    mr magoo New Member

    Jul 19, 2002
    South Shields
    It all comes down to this.

    "If your Good enough for the world cup you will qualify for the world cup"

    You carnt go around offering extra places just because some country feels its getting screwed out of a place. The bottom line is if your good you will get in if your bad you wont. I know countries are getting better and i say good on them but the world cup is for the elite from every continent and offering more places means your going to get relitevly strong nations from a continent getting mauled in the world cup.
  14. photar74

    photar74 New Member

    Jun 25, 2002
    West Philly
    A Look Back at France '98

    I was just glancing at the schedule setup for France '98, something which I admit I did not do when originally proposing my idea. I should have done it, however, because without having to worry about the rainy season, the schedule borders on perfection:

    -At least three days rest for every team at every stage of the competition.
    -No more than three matches any day, except for the four simultaneous kick-off days during the final set of group stage matches.
    -Only six days even had three match times per day.
    -33 days total, starting on the second Wednesday of June.

    Sweet, beautiful, nearly perfectly symetrical stuff.

    Not only was the scheduling in France excellent, it can be fairly well assumed that any 32-team Finals not held in a country or countries with wild weather swings during early summer will have equally attractive scheuling. With this in mind, some pretty major cracks--much bigger than the ones I already pointed out--are going to have to appear in the current system for expansion to 48 to become a more attractive option than the current 32-team setup.

    Besides, I should have also realized that there are other ways to expand the size of the WC Finals without going beyond a 32-team finals. That sounds like an oxymoron, but removing the holder's spot has already shown one way this can be done. Thus, FIFA has found a way to expand the 2006 WC without actually expanding beyond a 32-team Finals.

    This, of course, is only temporary, but for 2010 yet another ways can be found. For example, one way to appease confederations and FIFA alike in 2010 would be to replace the Confed Cup with a small, interconfederational, final round of qualifying the November before the Finals. For example, in November 2009, instead of having UEFA 14 vs AFC 5 or AFC 1 vs CONMEBOL 5 as in the current system, eight teams from the six confederations could be drawn into two groups. Then, they could play round robin in the host nation, with the top two nations in each group advancing to the finals. Thus, in 2010 allocations could look like this:

    UEFA: 1st-12th auto, 13th and 14th in playoff
    CAF: Host, 1st-4th auto, 5th in playoff
    AFC: 1st-4th auto, 5th and 6th sin playoff
    CONMEBOL: 1st-3rd auto, 4th and 5th in playoff
    CONCACAF: 1st-3rd auto, 4th in playoff
    OFC: 1st auto

    So, there are certainly a number of bandaids that can be applied even to a 32-team finals for a number of years, even with the large problems that are certain to one day appear in it (eventually, everything changes). In fact, temporary solutions could be found to such problems to the point of not making a 48-team finals the more attractive option until 2018, 2022, or even 2026.

    However, if by some miracle this board is still around in 2015 or so and we are all still posting when FIFA does in fact decide to adopt my system, don't say I didn't tell ya' so. :)
  15. mr magoo

    mr magoo New Member

    Jul 19, 2002
    South Shields
    I like your way of thinking hopefully the France98 schedual will be the one used for Germany06 as it is much more viewer friendly than KoPan02.

    And on the Four days where there were three games kicking off one after the other the first game of the day was always the one that nobody wanted to see for example i think of the first friday the 1:30pm(uk time) kick off was BulgariaVParaguay and then the more high profile matches where put on at Prime Time to get the most amout of viewers.
  16. photar74

    photar74 New Member

    Jun 25, 2002
    West Philly
    I was wondering things along this line--would it be possible to shcedule the matches in '06 so that they fit, time-wise, into the TV viewing schedule of the nations involved. For example:

    -CONCACAF and CONMEBOL nations are always given the night time slot in Germany, when its late morning or early afternoon in the Americas.

    -AFC, OFC and Russia are always given the afternoon slot in Germany, when its late evening (or at least before midnight) in East Asia.

    It could probably be worked out because CAF and UEFA nations, whcih combine for more than half of all nations in the WC, would be very flexible TV time-wise.

    I think this would be a nice thing to do for the fans across the world.
  17. SJJ

    SJJ Member

    Sep 20, 1999
    Royal Oak, MI, USA
    Michigan Bucks
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Not exactly sure what you are asking (did you mean to schedule the games with teams from the Americas and Africa/Asia in their prime times, because the Europeans would be more flexible?)

    Anyway, remember that match logistics (including sattelite time, travel considerations, etc.) are scheduled much in the future of the event. Very little movement can occur. In Ja/Ko 2K2, wasn't there only two or (at most) four games time-shifted?

    It may mean that confederations would be pre-slotted in their groups. So, the 8 (or so) teams from the Americas would be given group slot 1, the 8 (or so) Africa/Asia teams would be given slot 2, and the 16 (or so) European teams would be given slots 3 and 4.

    So the draw becomes who-is-in-which-group, rather then the current who-is-in-which-group-and-what-is-their-position-in-that-group.
  18. Chicago76

    Chicago76 Member+

    Jun 9, 2002
    Fixture congestion and calendar problems aside, more fixtures may or may not mean more money.

    1- 6 team groups could lead to a lot of meaningless games if the group is already decided. Four team groups seem to be a magic number. Photar mentioned not liking to see a side effectively out after their first two games. What about when 2 teams run away with a group after 3-4 rounds of group play and six more matches in a group have yet to be played for nothing?

    2- How can supporters stay away from work for 6 full weeks to watch their team play? Teams with devout supporters like Brazil, Argentina and many Euros can expect that many of their travelling supporters to follow an entire tournament now, but how many people have 6 weeks of vacation? Even for those who have 6 full weeks, how many would be willing to use all of their days on the World Cup and forego the chance to take a week trip or extend family time over the holidays? Most likely we would see spotty attendance among supporters for group matches because supporters could not attend the full complement of games.

    3-I realize locals could pick up some of the slack, but with so many fixture offerings would you not expect a dilution of interest on a per match basis?

    Then of course there are competition issues. The World Cup is first and foremost a competition to determine the best team in the world.

    What would adding teams 33-48 really accomplish? Would it change the outcome of the event? Maybe, because we could see goal difference coming into play when a mid tier team can pound the #6 Asian team by 7 goals while another only wins by 5 goals. It didn't affect the outcome of group play with Saudi Arabia and China, but would adding 16, and effectively even worse sides, to the mix increase the chances? Absolutely. As a fan, I don't want to see this affect who deserves to advance. Would this format do a better job of determining a true champion? No.

    This doesn't even begin to address the Finals' effects on the qualifying process. Add 16 more places and how many does Europe get? Half probably. You expand the field this much and why even have England, Germany, Italy, Holland et al qualify? Why not give them lifetime passes? How many spots does CONMEBOL get? Two more maybe. So the number 7 CONMEBOL team now gets a playoff vs. Asia/Oceania #7? Even if you combine the Americas, with 3 more spots, who would qualify that could compete against the best? There was a pretty big drop off in talent below Honduras this time around in CONCACAF and a "lucrative" market like Canada couldn't even qualify for the hexagonal.

    From a strictly economic standpoint:

    Cost to Clubs and Players from Calendar Congestion + Increased Costs from Additional WC Fixtures > Additional Revenue from Additional WC Fixtures + Benefit of Marketing the Game on a Finals Stage to 16 More Nations

    ...You've hit the top of your utility curve at 32. The cost (at least until more of the world becomes competitive) exceeds the benefit of adding another team.

    With all of these factors pointing to why the finals should not be expanded, I think in this case less is more.

    We can try to make it easy and make the pie bigger to appease everyone, but we risk ruining the pie. Every other time we've had this problem, we've had the luxury or making the Finals bigger--8, 16, 24, 32. There are too many problems in making this thing any larger. It is not going to be easy to tell CONCACAF they only get 3 or 3.5 places and Asia they're crazy to even ask for 5, but it must be done.
  19. ferx203

    ferx203 Member

    Aug 18, 2004
    Re: A 48 team WC

    Some ideas about that.

    1. FIFA would be rolling in money with a 48 team WC.
    - A group of 3 teams with 2 qualified to next round is the better system because you don´t have irrelevant games, every game means something.
    - First Round with 16 groups of 3. First and second advance. Every game is important for 1º, 2º or 3º place.
    - Next Rounds with knockout stages (32-16-8-4-2-1).
    - 16 additional countries (and markets) increase the money for FIFA.
    - 16 additional games (round of 32).

    2. Every confederation would have more than enough allocations.
    - First, you can merge AFC with OFC (Asia-Pacific) and Conmebol with Concacaf (Americas).
    - Allocations : Asia-Pacific 8, Africa, 8, Europe 20, Americas 12.
    - Host and Holder are included in these allocations.
    - The confederations host the World Cup every 16 years.
    - End of discussions about allocations and small confederations (Conmebol, OFC).

    3. A 48 team WC would require either 9 or 10 matches for the finalists and semifinalists, thereby irritating clubs. However, with 48 teams in the finals, the amount of qualifiers would be significantly reduced.
    - Europe : 10 groups of 5/6 teams. First and second qualify. 8/10 games.
    - Americas : 2 Preliminary rounds for reduce to 24 teams. Final Round with 6 groups of 4. First and second qualify. 6/8/10 games.
    - Asia-Pacific : 2 Preliminary rounds for reduce to 16 teams. Final Round with 4 groups of 4. First and second qualify. 6/8/10 games.
    - Africa : 2 Preliminary rounds for reduce to 16 teams. Final Round with 4 groups of 4. First and second qualify. 6/8/10 games.

    4. Small nations would be far better off, and not just because it would be easier for them to qualify.
    - Middle/Small countries with chances for qualifying.
    - Europe :Ukraine, Norway, Wales, Poland.
    - Americas : Honduras, Chile, Peru, Trinidad, Jamaica.
    - Asia-Pacific : Iran, Australia, New Zealand, Iraq, Uzbekistan.
    - Africa : Ghana, Ivory Coast, Egypt, Zimbabwe.

    5. Teams can recover from bad starts to the tournament.
    - A group of 3 with 2 qualifying to next round. You can lose or draw the first game, but in the second game you win and qualify. Next rounds are knockouts.
  20. sdiyes

    sdiyes New Member

    Sep 26, 2004
    Re: A 48 team WC

    I think your idea based on the reasons you stated a farily good one. For example in the Rugby World Cup they had four groups of 5 teams each and everyone got to play 4 matches. In this format everyone instead of having only 3 matches would get to play 5 and more players would get a taste of international experience. One of the few draw backs is that if expand to 48 teams would it end there or would it just keep going. The only changes from yours I would consider is if we consider the poor performance of Asian Teams except for South Korea at the last World Cup(granted Japan qualified for the knockout round but because they were a joint host they got put into the weakest bracket where they could not help but qualify) can not see how they even now can be justified getting more slots than CONCAF. Only difference I would suggest is reducing AFC to 6 and maybe UEFA to 19.5 and increasing CAF to 8.5 or 9 if OFC Reduced to 1. Overall think this is a good suggestion and maybe I have to much time on my hands or am overthinking but thought your proposal made some sense which is why FIFA who is more concerned about players high fiving fans or celebrating goals would not consider anything like you suggested
  21. SJJ

    SJJ Member

    Sep 20, 1999
    Royal Oak, MI, USA
    Michigan Bucks
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    40 teams, 24 knockout

    Interesting reading this two-year-old post. Although I couldn't figure out if the Photar's purpose is to eliminate the "lose your first two games and you're out" situation, or to increase the TV slots or to fix inequeties in qualification.

    Anyhow, I do kind of like the idea of 24 teams in the knockout rounds. It adds some drama in that finishing first over second gives you an advantage of having a "bye" in the round-of-24.

    So I do like having eight groups, with three teams in each advancing, but it seems more managable with 40 teams instead of 48. The first round now becomes 80 games (currently 48, or 120 in the 6-groups-of-8 original proposal).

    Yes, I know that one team in each group would be finished by the last day of group play. Hopefully, the "match fixing" of past years will remain in the past. (It helps that the first tie-breaker is now head-to-head, instead of overall goal differential.)

    With the complaints of too many TV games on each day (somewhat corrected by Photar's second go-around), an 80-match schedule can be played in 20 days, having four matches on weekend days, and three on weekdays (two or four on the last matchday):

    (sat) A-A-B-B [that means, two matches from group A, two from group B]; (sun) C-C-D-D; (mon) E-E-F; (tue) F-G-G; (wed) H-H-A; (thu) A-B-B; (fri) C-C-D;

    (sat) D-E-E-F; (sun) F-G-G-H; (mon) H-A-A; (tue) B-B-C; (wed) C-D-D; (thu) E-E-F; (fri) F-G-G;

    [at this point, we've played four matchdays, except for group H. the fifth needs the two matches from a group at the same time]

    (sat) H-H-A-A; (sun) B-B-C-C; (mon) D-D; (tue) E-E; (wed) F-F-G-G; (thu) H-H; (fri) OFF

    Each team get at least three off days (sometimes four) between games. Plus, each team will have one "extended" layaway when their "idle" date falls in the schedule.

    Knockouts rounds:

    (sat) four games in the round-of-24; (sun) four games R-24

    I see the knockout rounds looking something like:

    (1) B2-F3, winner plays A1
    (2) D2-H3, winner plays C1
    (3) F2-B3, winner plays E1
    (4) H2-D3, winner plays G1
    (5) A2-E3, winner plays B1
    (6) C2-G3, winner plays D1
    (7) E2-A3, winner plays F1
    (8) G2-C3, winner plays H1

    If you sketched this into a bracket linearly like I listed it, you'll get the QF, SF, and Final round matchups. [Example: (winner of 1) plays (2); (3) plays (4); one semi-final is (1-2) playing (3-4)]

    If all the #2 teams beat the #3 teams in the second-round (R-24) game, then the tournament falls into the 16-team setup as now. A #1 and #2 team from the same group can't meet until the final. A #2 and #3 team from the same group can't meet until the semi-final.

    (tue) (wed) (thu) Round of 16 games (three or two games each day)

    (sat) (sun) Quarterfinals (two each day)

    (wed) (thu) Semi-finals (one each day)

    (sun) Third place, final

    I count this as 37 calendar days. Not bad for increasing the whole tournament, and adding eight more teams to the knockout phase, while keeping the TV viewing somewhat managable for human beings.
  22. Power_of_foot

    Power_of_foot Red Card

    May 28, 2004
    Re: A 48 team WC

    48 teams are too little.
    How about 64 teams in WC.
    All they have to do is have just one more stage when two out of four teams qualify after the group stage.

    Sounds great huh?

  23. SJJ

    SJJ Member

    Sep 20, 1999
    Royal Oak, MI, USA
    Michigan Bucks
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I now realize that I messed up the arithmetic on my last post. I only had 8 games per group, when I should have had ten, in my 40-team setup. I'll have to go through the scheduling again; it should add another week to the calendar (about 44 days total).
  24. mfw13

    mfw13 Member+

    Jul 19, 2003
    Newcastle United FC
    With all due respect to all the people who have posted detailed and intelligent threads on this topic, I have a simple question.....WHY?

    Keep in mind that since the beginning of the modern era of the World Cup (1954, the first full 16-team tournament) exactly 10 countries have made it to the Final, and exactly 22 countries have made it to the Semifinals. In any given year, there are no more than 8-10 countries that are serious threats to win the tournament. So why would anyone want to expand the tournament beyond its current 32-team format (which one could argue is already too big)?

    Host countries already have to give away tickets to less glamorous matches, a problem that would only increase if the tournament became bigger. Let's face reality here...there isn't going to be a lot of ticket demand for those thrilling Bolivia-Uzbekistan, Slovenia-Honduras, or Lativa-Ivory Coast matches.

    The simple fact is that outside of UEFA and to a lesser extent South America, the depth is non-existent. In 2002, the 3rd and 4th best Asian teams (China & Saudi Arabia) combined to score 0 goals and allow 21. Africa has never gotten more than one team into the second round. No CONCACAF team other than Mexico and the USA has ever made the quarterfinals.

    So why would anyone want to add even more teams that have no chance at winning the title than already make it in? Let's not forget, the purpose of the whole exercise is to determine a champion, not to have a party!
  25. SJJ

    SJJ Member

    Sep 20, 1999
    Royal Oak, MI, USA
    Michigan Bucks
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Then, mfw13, you must love the Confederations Cup. Only the continental champions get in, plus two extra. You skip all that round of 32 and round of 16 stuff. You get right to only the teams who can realistically win the competition.

    The World Cup is not only about who can win it, or who can make the finals. It's about the fourth-string countries who try to make one big belly flop to get into the World Cup ocean. It's about the third-string countries who try to get one toe into the WC pool. It's about the second-string countries who try to solidify their position as someone to watch in the starting blocks. THEN it's about the top tier countries who try for the Gold, Silver, and Bronze.

Share This Page