Yeah, I agree. Those lower-ranked teams don't need to be in the later rounds. Neither they nor their opponents gain anything from the exercise. Although I suppose with the expansion if you wanted you could probably just give the higher-ranked teams a bye directly to the final round and keep these lower-ranked teams in the competition a little longer with more extensive preliminary round(s).
The 10 lowest ranked teams of the 11 1st round losers have a knockout phase to enter the group stage of Asian Cup qualifying (the highest ranked goes straight to the group stage). This means 5 teams only get 4 qualifying games across the two tournaments. The AFC solidarity Cup was created for teams eliminated from qualifying early although I'm not sure if this will continue in this cycle (the 2020 edition was cancelled due to covid).
I think that creating alternate competitions for these very uncompetitive teams is the answer. I'm not totally familiar with all the AFC tournaments but I did once attend a Laos v Afghanistan game in Vientiane some years back during some tournament, definitely wasn't a WCQ. In addition to the Asian Cup, there are tournaments like the bi-annual Southeast Asian (SEA) Games where football is a sport and a pretty big deal in the region and gives small countries a chance to play in a competitive environment. Creating a large WCQ tournament where teams like Guam or Sri Lanka play AFC powerhouses just to lose 15-0 isn't productive for anyone. Also, there are cost considerations for some of these small teams having to travel across the continent to play games. It's better and more fair to narrow down to the top teams and let them battle it out against each other to see who qualifies.
No dates announced yet. Asian Cup is in June/July next year so I can't see it starting before then. Need 12 FIFA windows for all the rounds and allowing one window in November 2025 for the IC playoffs so the preliminary round may be in the September 23 window with the 2nd round to be in Oct, Nov and March 24. The next six windows (provided FIFA stay at 5 per year) cover stage 3 finishing June 25. That leaves two windows for stage 4 to be completed and then the playoffs.
But I think 12 stadiums is plenty. 48-team WC isn't actually that many more matches than the 32 team format we have now. And the 48 tournament will of course be longer in duration too.
So long as FIFA sticks to its guns with the 16x3 format... Mind you, next year's MLS/Liga MX Leagues Cup is the first time we'll ever see it put in practice. I'm begging the football gods for a scenario where two MLS teams in a group play each other on the last matchday, knowing that a certain scoreline could send them both through at the Liga MX team's expense, just to see reporters grill Infantino on how FIFA is so sure the same thing couldn't happen in '26.
Not really the first time we'll see it. The 1982 WC had 3-team groups. No issues arose as already-eliminated Spain didn't roll over to England. Probably because they were playing at home. But the 1954 World Cup had a group stage consisting of only 2 games and half the groups ended-up being decided by the drawing of lots. And while the 1978 World Cup had 4-team groups, we saw what happens when all the teams in the group don't play their final group match at the same time.
I seriously don't know why they don't just go with 12x4. 24 more games for FIFA to make ton of money. in the group stage. 8 best 3rd place teams get a spot. Will allow some really unique round of 32 matchups.
Mind you, the ECA didn't make a peep when the original format for the last Copa América meant the same thing (Argentina only ended up playing 7 games 'cause of Australia and Qatar withdrawing). I should clarify: 3-team groups with two teams advancing...
That whole '7-match limit' logic is a joke anyway since the WC contains 8 matchdays regardless of whether its a 6x3 or 12x4 format.
in proposed 16x3 format it does have 8 gamedays indeed, but every team plays only maximum of seven in 12x4 format each team would have to play maximum of eight games, assuming they continue with R16 and not R32
I know. But extra days of training between big WC matches isn't the same as being on summer holidays. And I think what the ECA is concerned about is the summer break for players keeps getting shorter and shorter.
The second format you refer to - 12x4 format with 16 teams qualifying for the KO stage - features a maximum of 7 games for the semifinalists.
Yes. I also don't like the idea of two top ranked teams playing each other in the round of 16 due to the vagaries of the draw. That's why I think when seeding the 16 groups we should have six buckets of 8 teams each with the groups arranged so that the top 8 seeded teams don't meet until the quarter finals (provided of course that they don't stuff up prior to that round).
Just tell the European clubs to suck it up, do the 12 groups of 4 with a Round of 32, and get it over with. It's one extra game, big deal. Hell, get rid of the third place game if you want. 2 teams will play an eighth game, meh.
you're right of course whatever, there is no good format for 48 teams WC, only bad one and many worse ones and extend everything for one more week..... as format probably the best option, but there are too many who oppose this, not only european clubs
I assume a knockout stage of 24 would be off the table with the top 8 group winners going to the round of 16? It would probably make those final group stage games more interesting for the side at the top of the group.
That's certainly better than 16x3 with only the last-place cannon-fodder team getting eliminated after two weeks and a thousand matches played. Your proposal also makes it quite rare that any team will play more than 7 matches (especially if you get rid of the 3rd place friendly). It's also the same KO-stage format that the UEFA Champions League (and Europa League) will use starting in 2024 so people will be very accustomed to that format by 2030.
ohhhh i like that. puts extra emphasis on winning your group. two teams with 6 points going into the last matchday of the group aren't going to be in a dead rubber match and will be playing for a bye... that's worth full effort.
True. Of course, the slight flaw is that you could win a tough group and still not get that bye (12 groups, 8 byes). So it's still messy but as someone said above it's just about going with the least bad option when you have 48 teams.
Yeah, it will feel very Mickey Mouse when someone or another inevitably misses out on a bye because they got 7 pts and "only" a +4 goal difference. I guess in this sense the best thirds and Round of 32 format feels a little bit less Mickey Mouse, because the more arbitrary advancement criteria will be only end up being used for the teams that are on the margins anyway that no one cares about. Of course the con is the resultant lack of suspense in the group stage.