The proposal is sure realistic to them. If people don't have a life, then why do you think they only watch from 16:00 - 22:00 but not from 12:00 - 0:00? You do realize these people put their lives to a halt during the World Cup, including sneaking out of work to watch the games in big city square? You claimed "You just can't double the matches per day if you want to have all games played at different times." with no qualification of work schedule or people having a life. Sure we can double the matches per day since there are at least 12 hours for sporting events. 6 games per day is not a deterrent for TV audience. If we go with 3 games/day and double the days of the group stage, there is no guarantee that the TV audience would be better than the 6 games/day scheme. The tournament is simply diluted with too many games. So be it. Ever watch the World Cup or Euro in Asia? Every Asian fan has to suffer thru' a month of sleeplessness. Got any inconvenience following the Beijing Olympics in Europe? Bet almost all Europeans lost some sleep for following Michael Phelps, since none of his events happened in non-sleeping hours in Europe. That's life for following a once-in-4-years big event. What awkward time? Kickoffs are from 12:00 to 22:00, legitimate time to attend sporting events. We are not talking about a game at 02:00. Again, you are putting extra qualifications of your faulty statement "You just can't double the matches per day if you want to have all games played at different times." If you notice, in recent decades, the American World Cup is always played in early afternoon to accomodate the European audience. Well-being of the players and fans are not FIFA's highest priorities... The starting time is not the only issue. There are sporting events that can start at 20:30 but end after midnight (America's World Series). So a game ending at or after midnight is no big deal. Soccer is not the only game in Beijing, you know. Lots of games in Beijing starting after 22:00 . For example, look at the last basketball games of each day: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer08/schedule?discId=7 8/9: Russia X Latvia (women) 8/10: USA X China (men) 8/11: Australia X Brasil (women) .... Some volleyball games even started at 22:45: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer08/schedule?discId=46 8/12: Japan X Bulgaria (men) 8/15: Japan X Cuba (women) World Cup does not have to be televised on one channel. For example, in England BBC and ITV share the tournament. There is no rule saying that the WC must be televised on one channel of a national TV network. If nothing else, RAI has Uno, Due and Tre, RTP has RTP1 and RTP2, TVE has 1 and 2, TVP had 1 and 2, etc. I don't think God orders that the games must be televised on RAI Uno, TVE1, TVP1, and RTP1, and cannot be shown on 2 or 3. There are so many reasons not to go to 64 teams in the World Cup, but lack of timeslots for games per day is NOT one of them, ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! Since the World Cup is a global event, a 12-hour timeslot makes even more sense. The audience in every part of the world can enjoy part of it in non-sleeping hours. At least if it's 12:00 - 0:00 in Europe, the audience in Asia can watch the first 2+ games of the day. If it's 12:00 - 0:00 in America, the audience in Asia can watch the last 2+ games of the day, unlike the current arrangement...
Point by point... 3 games a day yes, 6 games a day is much more difficult. Sure, but all my post was intended to show that it is not feasible. According to your logic you can play 24 h/day, but that's not feasible either. Exactly, a good reason to avoid 64 teams. You know, before writing anything I thought that out and first I thought like you. Then I realized it's not so simple. I can for sure sacrifice a couple of night hours to watch the Galaxy, but not much more. A doubling of playing time a day has, relatively speaking, more consequences on those in "wrong" time zones. And no, I don't know any Europeans who waked up to watch Phelps, but sure there are. Luckily Bolt was in more human hours. That's why so many soccer games are played at those times in weekdays. Faulty for you. I think FIFA and soccer fans around the world agree with me. Not well-being of them. That game was played in slow motion. There goes entertainment and good game, something important for FIFA. And you continue to bring irrelevant sports in this discussion. All indoor games. Sure, boxe, snooker and darts have even later starting times. But we are talking soccer here. Not God, but those same exact channels. You know, soccer fans are not their only audience. RAI can make one effort for the last day of groups phases, but that's it. Ask them how willing they are to devote two different channels to the WC. Even Olympics they had on only one analog channel. Now, I admit this could change with digital terrestrial and better internet, but as of now the only relevant channels in most of Europe are those analog free channels belonging to Eurovision. Sure it is. I have tried to explain why. Again, it's the opposite. If you live in the "wrong" timezone, sure it gets easier to get one or two games in your favorite time, but it will make it much more difficult for you to watch most of the games. How hard is that to grasp?
No. Don't want to see a 64 Team World Cup, 32 teams is just fine, besides, the argument that quality teams are being left out is not holding any water. The purpose of the World Cup is to showcase football from all parts of the globe and to determine the best team in the world. If a country cannot qualify from the format currently, they are not good enough to be crowned the best team in the world.
Difficult is only a matter of perspective. I say it's not difficult at all, since you qualify it as "people who don't have a life". Now it's merely your opinion vs mine. It's not a fact. All my post soundly refuted your post. When everything fails, just use a strawman argument (24 h/day). Can't blame you for that... But it's not because there is not enough timeslot per day. Afterall, we all see events from the morning to midnight in the Olympics. So by your admission, losing sleep for following a once-in-4-year event is part of life. There is nothing infeasible about it. Strawman again. What soccer game is played at 02:00 at the stadium? Care to enlighten us? We have seen starting time of soccer from noon (UK) to 22:00 (Spain). FIFA has no problem with those starting times, or it would have banned it (like banning lots of other stuff). So FIFA agree with you on what? If we don't see 64-team tournament, it's not because FIFA agrees with you that there are not enough timeslot per day. Obviously not. For all the games in WC70, WC86 and WC94, I only saw one moment of nightfall (the tail end of the Spain X Korea game in 94). So contrary to your wishful thinking, FIFA's actions showed us that it's not important to them. Of course, because when you limit the context to soccer, you are making a "deliberately calculated" qualifcation for the argument with no reason whatsoever. If a game can start at 22:45 and another game can end at 00:30, why do you think a soccer game can't start at 22:00? So? why is soccer different? and why is "outdoor" a legitimate qualification? And you realize baseball and American football are outdoor games too, no? That's your speculation. I speculate that they would be more than wiliing. Again, it's your speculation vs mine. And there goes your argument. Nothing there. Do you think an explanation like "I am talking about soccer here, I don't care whether volleyball, basketball, baseball or gridiron is being played until midnight, but God says that soccer can't" can fly? as opposed to much more difficult to watch all the games? like watching the (non-Asian) World Cup and Euro in Asia? or watching WC02 in America? I live in a TZ that the CL starts in the wee hours. You live in Europe. You have no clue about what "wrong timezone" is. You are spoiled.
64 team wold cup? lol NO WAY. he tournament will take till Christmas. Leave it the way it is. Its perfect.
Games kicking off after midnight local time?! The World Cup is meant for both the local fans and tv audience. Who in their right mind in any country is going to stay up to watch a game at 1 in the morning on tv during the working week, let alone actually go to the game? I'd suggest you drop this thread quickly, you're making yourselves look like school children. They already struggle with 32 teams.
During last Euro, there were only 16 teams, and the tournament was amazing. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean better. Anyway, I personally like the 32 teams format at the World Cup because I like the simplicity of its process. Yes, few weak teams can be boring to watch, but it's fun to watch teams from all over the world. I believe the major risk with a world cup having 64 qualified teams is that many fans will pay less attention to group games, and the "real" world cup would only start with the playoffs.
Yeah, could end up feeling like a final leg of qualification. The crap(pier) teams will be knocked out either way, whether it be in actual qualification as it is currently or in the group stage of a gigantic 64-team tournament.
Exactly, when someone suggested 24h/day for games and so many games are played at 2:00 AM, that's insane...
Yeah I imagine well a team playing a game at 2:00 AM and then 3 days later another at 10:00 AM. I'm sure players will be very happy about it. Anyway, another issue about a World Cup with more than 32 teams is that it would necessarily lead to an extra game to win it all. In 2006, competitors were already exhausted at the semi-final, and they couldn't even walk during the extra-times of the final. I don't believe that making teams play an 8th game will necessarily improve the quality of the show. Many of the best players would probably preserve themselves during the group games to be at their best physically for the playoffs. Once again, as mentioned by Neuwerld, the group games would strongly look like a final qualifying round rather than the beginning of the real thing.
I agree it sounds like a good idea and I'd love to see it but you'd basically have to double it from one month to two and the soccer calendar is already too packed...they could never justify another month. It would start to interfere with club football. If you didn't double the timeframe you'd have too many games at once and fans would miss games...not cool. Won't happen.
You must be a (spoiled) European... the entire Western Hemisphere did that during the 2002 World Cup and Asia does it all the time for nearly every major competition. Every single USA game in the 2002 World Cup was either 3:00 or 5:00 in the morning, and there were obviously lots of people watching (including me ).
32 teams. just leave it as that. 64 teams would just kill of any appreciation for qualifying. At 32 spots you have to earn your place in the finals, with 64 teams it would just be a joke and i would lose all respect and interest in the world cup. 64 teams...no just no!
Yup, that's my view exactly! The World Cup is already a 200+ team tournament that lasts for two years the way I see it. What's all this expand to 64 teams discussion?
Of course Europeans have been spoiled, because their TV networks have offered the most $$$$$ If the World Cup is played in Europe, it's played at European late afternoon and primetime. If the World Cup is held in Americas, it's played during the day such that it'll fit into European primetime. Let the players and the fans suffer thru' the heat... If the World Cup is held in Asia, it's still played during the daytime (morning & noon) in Europe. I can't wait for the moment that the World Cup is played in America in primetime, such that Europeans have to suffer thru' the wee hours - Italy X Nigeria 00:00 CET, Germany X Russia 02:00 CET, England X Paraguay 06:00 CET... Let them taste what a wrong timezone means. We'll see that moment when American networks outbid European TV for the World Cup, and dictate the kick-off time, like that do to the Olympics...
You make a fair argument. It is unfair and paradoxical considering that is FIFA's responsibility to encourage football worldwide.
I think it waters it down too much. Logistically I think with proper scheduling it can work. But I think 32 is the perfect number for the world cup until countries like China, India, and the U.S. are on the same level as teams like Portugal and the Netherlands.
Currently there are 3 broadcasting spots. No need to change that but play 2 games at the same time group stage.(Final games already being played simultenously) I have done the last 16 in 23 days in this way. In the existing format it takes 15 days to come to this point so only another 8 days is not much and its perfectly doable. World cup creates a phenomenal intersest in the participating countries and to deny this chance once every 4 years to a further 32 countries is a big waste by FIFA I think. Imagine the heartbreak of Irish fans after an unfair miss in the play- offs. The difference when England failed to qualify to world cup in the over all mood in England. The atmosphere it created in Jamaica when they qualified. 200 million extra viewers created by the Chinese qualification. Even these countries get knocked out early in the group stage it creates a world cup fever for the rest of the tournament and lifts up the national pride and togetherness in every participating country or their followers any where in the world. Spot 1 Spot2 Spot3 Day 1 1 2 1-2 Day 2 3-4 3-4 5-6 Day 3 5-6 7-8 7-8 Day 4 9-10 9-10 11-12 Day 5 11-12 13-14 13-14 Day 6 15-16 15-16 1-2 Day 7 1-2 3-4 3-4 Day 8 5-6 5-6 7-8 Day 9 7-8 9-10 9-10 Day 10 11-12 11-12 13-14 Day 11 13-14 15-16 15-16 end of second matches Day 12 1 2 3 Day 13 4 5 6 Day 14 7 8 9 Day 15 10 11 12 Day 16 13 14 15 Day 17 16 1-9 1-9 Day 18 2-10 2-10 3-11 Day 19 3-11 4-12 4-12 Day 20 5-13 5-13 6-14 Day 21 6-14 7-15 7-15 Day 22 8-16 8-16 Day 23 Rest day The rest carries on with same format resulting in 39 days instead of 31 in its current form. Stadia needed at the moment is 10. increasing that to 14 would solve that problem too. If its co hosted thats no problem with 7 each. If not, I m sure big footballing nations or big countries are able to accomadate a further 4 stadiums to an event maybe thay will host once every 50 years or a century