I suppose that they did not want to over represent any confederation or sell anyone short other than Europe that cannot really complain because they have the most teams in the tournament. Plus I imagine they just wanted to to give the highest seeds the most advantage as possible only having to play one match. It increases the odds of a good South American or African team that got nipped during their continental qualifying process to have one last back door in.
So basically Africa since we get 9 teams for 2026, we could possibly end up with 10 African teams because of the inter confederation playoff I love this
I'm all for an expanded inter confederation playoff; and I might like the one-match-neutral-location (test the world cup stadiums) format. I still have my doubts about the 48 team World Cup, but we'll see how it goes; I know that ground has been covered in other threads.
The playoff could be epic. Especially since it will most likely include teams that have not made it to the World Cup in a very long time. Or even better some small nation making a debut. The Celebrations would be even more epic. FIFA Television can cut away and show those places having joyous parties in the streets.
Yeah but it depends on who is facing who so then wait a minute for the 6 playoff teams when they face each other in games to decide who qualifies, those games will be played in Mexico? In USA? And playoff games also being played in Canada? If that is true...I can only imagine how the inter confederation games will be in Canada...huge atmosphere for sure
That's what we've been discussing - FIFA and the United Organizing Committee will have to decide which countries/venues will host these playoff games, but they will take place in North America.
Then that's great but I would rather have them take place in Mexico because in USA and in Canada during November...it is going to be cold and snowy
Yes. But they were pretty epic when they were home and home series. The one between Iran and Australian was gripping. It would be good if the TV rights were packaged properly. But as a one off at World Cup host sites, it could be really good too. Sort of a confederations cup replacement with higher stakes.
Would be more epic if it was 8 teams vying for 2 spots IMO. I fear that with a 6 team bracket where the better teams are not only better but also given a much easier path, it may be too predictable. Depends of course on the teams involved, but it could end-up feeling a bit like the CWC (albeit not to that extreme). The celebrations would also be more epic if you had to get through 2 teams to qualify instead of just 1. I don't see the entire country of Colombia, for instance, losing their shit after beating Cabo Verde, but if it was 2 games as part of a week-long tournament it would be a much bigger event.
That is the down side... ... if there is a team that has been to the World Cup recently or uses it as a back door as I said before. That said, as a Colombian I will be hypothetically celebrating in the street no matter how we make it to the World Cup. Sure the celebrations would not be as epic but we will be collectively doing one humongous sigh of relief and wiping the sweat from our eye brows and happy to not miss out. Losing would be such a big shame and dishonor that it would make me very happy to sneak in.
In some ways yes. But it can NOW be packaged as a made for television do-or-die knockout instead of a two game aggregate series. The ratings and the drama will be pumped up a bit since I assume the times will correlate much better with the majority of TV Networks that pay the biggest bucks. And if set up correctly we do not have to wait a week between matches like when Oceania or Australia are involved.
For sure. I just don't want the neutral venue thing to bleed into other qualifying. Part of the entertainment of qualifying is the exotic conditions and venues. Brazil can play their friendlies in the middle east or London or whatever, but I want most of world cup qualifying to have home games. CONCACAF my host gold cup in the USA, but world cup qualifying should make the US team go to Guatemala and Trinidad. For me that is part of the entertainment of international football and part of what distinguishes it from the club game.
The down side for a Team like Trinidad and Tobago (The hypothetical example you gave) is that their field conditions are sometimes subpar which takes way from the game itself and my enjoyment. Having it on a neutral site of the Host World Cup cleans up those little problems so that they can make sure the field conditions are as pristine and crisp as possible.
Completely opposite effect for me: by far my favorite moment from 2014 WCQ was seeing Timmy Chandler melt in San Pedro Sula, incapable of adjusting to the tall grass, the heat or the wiles of Carlos Costly That, and it's not like we're above sub-par fields here either. See: that game in Colorado, several turf fields in MLS, or the temporary grass-over-turf USSoccer and Concacaf have resorted to at times.
I wouldn't bank on big ratings. At least not from a global perspective. It'll very much be one of those things that's a huge deal for the countries involved, a medium-size event for the host nation, and pretty close to a complete non-event for every one else. I mean, wouldn't this tournament have to occur during a FIFA break? So there will be a slew of other competitive and friendly NT matches happening on the same days (and likely same time) across the world, including UEFA that will be having their own play-in tournament featuring more high profile teams. (again, reminiscent of the Club WC).
Yes, UEFA champions league qualifying and group stage get some of that. FA cup is good too. And CONCACAF champions league. I love that tournament. We joke that the less likely a team is to win a tournament, the better the atmosphere. Think small club in either Champions League or FA Cup (or World Cup qualifying for that matter).
Could be huge ratings for the USA market which is paying big bucks. Especially if the Central American teams make it as I said. As to your other point I believe they are saying this would be the only thing on during that FIFA break that would be official matches so I think it would get the eyeballs for that reason alone.
When you have time to prepare a big neutral site match the odds that the conditions would be pristine is maximized. Especially for a FIFA competition. I just do not like matches that have horrible field conditions. Makes it seem so armature.
Cruz Azul would like a word with you You would've really hated Mourinho's Chelsea, then - I distinctly remember him instructing the groundskeepers to deliberately let their field turn to crap ahead of Champions League games against Barcelona, in order to frustrate their style of play.
1) I meant major competition not a now defunct competition. 2) I do not care about Chelsea under Jose or his weird ways of telling groundskeepers what to do. I do not like gamesmanship home tactics like that. I literally like an even playing field.
I'm pretty sure that kinda thinking is what led to the idea of two-legged ties in the first place. Can't get more fair than that IMO.
Neutral sites are not less fair and allow for the drama to bubble up in a small window of time. Not dragged out over a week having to worry about various factors.