Indeed. Sky Sports quickly (see 80 second video below) highlighted some of the issues with the 3 team groups calling the format "a bit mad", pretty much aligning to the views expressed in this forum. 🚨 | @SkyKaveh breaks down the new 2026 World Cup structure 🏆- 48 teams split into 12 groups of 4- Top 2 teams in each group plus 8 best 3rd placed teams qualify for round of 32- 8 matches required to win the World Cup- Number of games increased from 64 to 104 pic.twitter.com/yPdgboKFKU— Football Daily (@footballdaily) March 14, 2023 Funny that this comes right after the draw for the MLS-MEX Leagues Cup, so they are stuck with group of 3.
FIFA played MLS and Liga MX for fools Now the question is: does the next edition of Leagues Cup (2024) ape the new WC format? 'cause that would mean an even bigger midseason pause for both leagues... OTOH, now I gotta study all the third-place permutations before setting up the next WC family pool
Keep hearing for people say they should expand the number of stadiums now. Even with 104, thats only 6.5 games per stadium. Really as long as they include Mexico/Canada in Round of 32, I don't see a need for it.
I knew sanity would prevail. Imagine they even discussed PK shootouts at the end of any draws in the first round under 3 team groups. I think I would have boycotted the WC had they done that. Well if they are going to stick to the WC every 4 years they might as well make it a grand event.
I've read that the incredible drama that unfolded during those final simultaneous games this past December helped to sway FIFA towards the 4- vs 3-team groups. I don't know of any fans who wanted 3-team groups. One of my highlights from Doha wasn't even in a stadium but in a bar watching on 2 side-by-side TVs the 2 final simultaneous Group E games go back and forth between Japan-Spain and Germany-Costa Rica. I would have hated losing that sort of drama and excitement being replaced by the boring Group Stage that 3-team groups would bring. I'm ok with the 4-team groups, 32-team knockout format even though 32 teams and the previous format is more ideal.
The North America time zone variation really helps out a ton get the kinks out of this World Cup. 3-4 days between matches in Group Stage. 72 group stage games. During the first 2 games of the group stage you will have 4-5 games a day (8 days of 5, 2 days of 4) to be competed over 10 days. for the final group stage games 6 games to be played over 4 days in 3 time slots. 14 days to complete group stage over 12 in Qatar with more rest between most games. Russia took 14 days (I ignored opening games). Knock-out just takes an extra round... This in total adds at most a week to the tournament and of course... most teams will be gone long before. Eastern time zone kick off times will likely be 12:00, 2:30, 5:00, 7:30, 10:00. 12:00 will be kept in the Eastern time zone only and 10:00 in the Pacific only. Only 8 games will have that 10:00 pm kick off which will be a perfect 7:00 on the West Coast. The last thing they will have to deal with is the true outdoor stadiums and the heat... Mexico City, Monterrey, Kansas City, New York, Boston, Philadelphia.
Basically this For 48 teams you can't make a better format Speaking as someone from Europe: Euro is at best with 16 teams and WC with 32. But I like 2 things about 48: It solves the issue of all continents complained they had too few spots. I honestly believe no one in their right would complain about the spots NOW. It almost eliminates dead rubber games.
I hadn't thought about this but that is totally true. The most likely dead rubber game would be 2 teams on 6 points battling it out early in the 3rd match days when they have no idea who they would play next. But that would be super rare.
You're forgetting one the many things that make group of 3 so pointless and mickey-mouse like: it takes just as long to play a round robin group stage with 3 teams as it does with 4.
Don't think it does much in terms of reducing dead rubber games. I think that will only get worse because more teams will have clinched a R32 spot before playing their third group match. Moreover, there is often no difference between winning a group and finishing second (either way you could wind up playing a second-place team from another group).
an excerpt from FIFA's announcement today: "As you know we expanded the tournament to 48 teams because it will make us a lot more money than a 32-team tournament. As we all know there's no format that makes sense for a 48-team tournament, so we've decided to go with 12 groups of 4 because it's slightly less stupid than 16 groups of 3."
So will Canada and Mexico now get to host more than ten measly matches? And will it be a higher overall percentage or just an increase in alignment with the additional matches? Hopefully the former.
I created a spreadsheet mapping out the World Cup. FIFA should hire me... I was able to avoid outdoor stadiums in mid-day sun. Every stadium gets at least 5 games and knockout. The most any stadium gets is 8 games. Every group stays in a particular region.
Outdoor stadiums like Seattle and Toronto can host matches midday without many issues. Did you take that into account?
Yeah, I used these as my try and avoid mid-day stadiums: Mexico City, Monterrey, Kansas City, New York, Boston, Philadelphia. It really helps than everything in the Southern US will protected.
Miami midday should be avoided even with the reconfiguration of a roof. It is still too hot even in the fall for American football. Summer will be brutal.
i like to see that. how many regions you have? 4 regions with 4 cities? so how long is the break between back to back matches at a specific venue? what i wonder is how they want to avoid travelling after the group stage if the allocatio of 3rd place teams to group winners is majorly randmly by that allocation and depending on who are the groups the 3rd placed are comming from. that may result in a 3rd placed of a southeast group with matches in miami and atlanta need to travel to seattle fornthe round of 32 match.
In my opinion it is a good thing to make the third place teams travel far. It is another incentive for them to not finish in third place..
Not quite: it's the same number of matchdays, yes, but not the same number of games. For example, if you're scheduling 4 games a day with no simultaneous kickoffs until Matchday 3, you'd get through the group stage in 12 days with 3-team groups vs. 18 days with 4-team groups (you can cut the latter down to 15 if you keep 4 match windows in the day). All of which is a moot point, 'cause the 16 x 3 format can kick rocks
FIFA has 3 regions listed so I went with that. Venues can have tighter back to backs with only 1 day off in between. As someone who studied turfgrass management a bit it won't matter if you take 1 day off or 3, the grass will have little time to recover. Lusail had 10 matches at it and they had to replace the sod around the keeper after 8 or so. I just dont think that FIFA will allow Canada or Mexico to host past the Round of 32 and if that holds I think 3 venues will have 8 games.... NY (semi), LA (semi), Dallas (Final) and Miami (3rd).
FIFA has West (LA, SF, Seattle, Vancouver, Guadalajara), Central (Mexico City, Monterrey, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City and Atlanta) and East (Miami, New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Toronto). If FIFA limits travel each group will be in 1 region. I don't think the USA (who will probably go with the East) or Mexico (who with def. go Central and play 2 games at Azteca and 1 at Monterrey) will care about that. Canada would probably want to do all 3 games in both their cities but unless they just make that 1 game in Canada's group in Vancouver or Toronto while keeping them in a region, I don't see that happening.