Swiss model would be more exciting - especially if only the two highest-ranked teams in each of the 8 groups qualified for the knockout stage which would begin with the R16 and they'd be three games simultaneously on MD3 - but I expect 24 additional games would be more lucrative. What Conmebol and FIFA are overlooking is that qualifying games are important to all national associations because they not only generate revenue but also maintain the profile of national teams between major competitions. Downgrading their value is a foolish move particularly when adding 16 teams would only detract from the World Cup itself.
I think it would have to be top 4 in each of the 8 groups (32 advance). But the beauty of the Swiss model is that you have top teams going head-to-head. That is one thing the 2026 WC has lacked compard to all previous WCs played. We are at the semifinal stage and Portugal v Spain & Belgium v Spain have been the only matches involving two top 10 teams, according to the rankings used for this WC (though I realize the rankings are not aligned with reality)
I just can't get behind the Swiss model because you are judging teams and points based on playing different teams. So a team can not qualify because they had harder matches to play, while a team can qualify simply because they played an easier opponent. Can u imagine a conmebol qualifying where Paraguay didnt have to play Brazil or Argentina. Yeah no, teams should have to play everyone in their group. Never down with this.
Actually that's a good analogy, but the question actually is "can you imagine a C'BOL qualifying where Paraguay plays Brazil instead of Argentina". You can't avoid playing a top team, its just you play one instead of another. And a follow up question is, "since the top 6/7 teams advance anyway, does it really matter?" Remember also that as long as we are advancing "Best 3rd-place teams" the major flaw that you see in the Swiss model is even bigger in the current format.
The flaw in the Swiss model applies to all the teams in the group, while it only applies to 3rd place finishers in the 48 team model.
It applies to everyone in the current format. Some group winners play 2nd place teams, others play 3rd place teams. And that's usually a pretty big difference. Bottom line, if you finish 5th in a group of 6 you have no grounds for complaint.
So it's 8 groups of 6 with top 4 advancing, 3 games each ? Then R32 1st plays against 4th in another group and 2nd plays 3rd ? I mean I kind of see why this is attractive but how do you determine which 3 games you play in your group, and that WILL have a massive effect on whether you finish 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th, and that will create probably even more unbalanced brackets than whatever we have seen before.
You could seed the 48 teams into three pots of 16 teams each based on the FIFA World Ranking at the time of the draw and each team would play three opponents, one from each pot (including their own). Biggest argument against the Swiss model was the public's lack of familiarity with it, but that's no longer the case after its successful use in the UEFA club competitions.
Not a bad idea. I still think you could get quite a variety of strength in those pots, but it seems like an ok idea.
Yeah, I think you would need to set up the pots like 1A, 1B, 2A.... , 3B. So, the top 8 teams would be in pot 1A and #9-16 in pot 1B and so forth (the weakest 8 teams are in pot 3B). Then, teams that draw a 1A team would get "compensated" by playing their other 2 group matches against a '2B' and '3B' team. And vice versa - if you get a '1B' team you have to play against the upper top half of pots 2 and 3. Though I realize this works better when the ranking system doesn't suck. It would also be important that IC and UEFA playoff qualifiers get seeded appropriately. Though I feel like these 2 things are kinda needed regardless.
Infantino may be silent about it, but I think that the push for 64 teams is a way to get China and maybe India to play it, and draw billions of people into it. Yes, and also it's too complex to understand for fans. I would prefer groups of six teams with a 3-vs-3 crossover format, where the 3-4 best teams in each group advance to the playoffs.
So I have wanted to see what groups would look with 64 teams. I am going to just may educated guesses and use qualified teams from this time out. You can ignore my confederation allocation, just making guesses. AFC (12): Australia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Uzbekistan, UAE, Oman, China CAF (14): Algeria, Cape Verde, DR Congo, Egypt, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Morocco, Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia, Nigeria, Cameroon, Mali, Burkina Faso CONCACAF (8): Canada, Haiti, Mexico, Panama, USA, Costa Rica, Honduras, Jamaica CONMEBOL (8): Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela, Chile OFC (1): New Zealand UEFA (21): Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Croatia, Czech Republic, England, France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Italy, Denmark, Ukraine, Poland, Hungary Pot 1: Spain, Morocco, Portugal, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, France, England, Brazil, Belgium, Netherlands, Mexico, Colombia, Germany, Croatia, Switzerland Pot 2: Italy, USA, Japan, Senegal, Norway, Denmark, Iran, Austria, Egypt, Ecuador, Nigeria, Turkey, Australia, Algeria, Canada, Ivory Coast Pot 3: South Korea, Ukraine, Poland, Sweden, Hungary, DR Congo, Scotland, Cameroon, Panama, Venezuela, Czech Republic, Chile, Costa Rica, Mali, South Africa, Tunisia Pot 4: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Uzbekistan, Bosnia, Burkina Faso, Iraq, Cape Verde, Ghana, Honduras, UAE, Jamaica, Jordan, Oman, New Zealand, Haiti, China Group A: Spain Austria South Africa Uzbekistan Group B: Colombia Algeria Hungary Jordan Group C: England Norway Tunisia UAE Group D: Mexico Australia Chile Bosnia Group E: Germany Iran Cameroon Jamaica Group F: Argentina Turkey Sweden Cape Verde Group G: Uruguay USA Czech Republic Oman Group H: Morocco Canada Poland China Group I: France Ecuador South Korea Burkina Faso Group J: Switzerland Ivory Coast Costa Rica Iraq Group K: Portugal Nigeria Venezuela Saudi Arabia Group L: Belgium Egypt Poland Qatar Group M: Croatia Senegal Panama New Zealand Group N: Brazil Japan Ukraine Ghana Group O: Paraguay Denmark DR Congo Honduras Group P: Netherlands Italy Mali Haiti
I'll approach the question from another angle.....i.e. that of logistics.... If you're going to have a 64 team World Cup, you've gotta be able to find suitable bases for 64 teams. You also have to have enough good stadia to host all those extra matches, and enough quality referees and AR's to officiate them. From the perspective of TV networks, you cannot have a 64-team group stage that gives every match its own time slot unless you stretch the group stage alone out to 20 days....at four matches a day you need 8 days each for MD1 and MD2 instead of 6 days. And it likely DECREASES ratings for the vast majority of the group stage since all the top teams are virtually assured of advancing and there will be a lot more matches that neutrals don't care about.
Not sure Thats a lot of games. Its also tests the attention span (7 weeks?) It limits the number of countries that can host.
They would have to play some group stage matches concurrently even if it was hosted in the USA. A tournament played in Spain, Portugal, Morocco and South America doesn't have that issue. Matches can be played in three time slots on the east of the Atlantic and later slots on the west side of the Ocean. The matches people are most interested in will tend to be in good time slots to maximise viewings figures. At least for Europe and the Americas. Viewing figures might not go down significantly as the matches in South America would pick up share in the Americas. All the major European nations would play in Europe as top seeds with the South American hosts playing in South America. Obviously very few people will watch all the matches but I doubt many did this time round. I don't think it is a good idea but they would make extra more money.
so there would be 96 matches. 64 in the first two rounds. It took 13 days this World Cup to get through the first two rounds. If they ran 5 matches a day, they could complete the cycle in the exact same amount of days as this World Cup. Kickoffs at 11. 130. 4. 630. 9. would get the job done. 11 am kickoffs would be weird for Spaniards but they wouldn't probably just make those matches in Morocco. 9pm would be normal in Spain. Like they don't even need to have matches run at the same time. Also a larger range of kickoff times helps teams in the rest of the World. The Americas (and FIFA) would love the late kickoffs for TV purposes.
Conmebol are pushing this because they want more matches in South America. No problem with scheduling in that case. A bad idea for other reasons, such as flying teams half way across the world to appear in later rounds.