Exactly like Las Vegas. They must have copied that type of "entertainment" down to the cabaret shows usually featuring not very talented performers. What happens in the seedy hotel lounge stays in the seedy hotel lounge
Thing is most people will read this as a joke, but knowing you, you really will bring the popcorn for a 96-team World Cup . On the other hand, AFC would probably have at least 16 or 17 spots at such an event, so there’s a chance my beloved India might finally qualify . Lol, just sign me up too . Give me an hour or two, I’ll think up a format too .
At the 2018 World Cup, only two teams failed to register a point, and only two games had a goal difference of four or more goals. The 2020 UEFA Champions League group stage is only 32 games in and 5 of those games already have a GD of four or more goals. Both tournaments have a 32 team field. There's much greater parity in international soccer than there is in club soccer. In the current FIFA rankings, positions 48-50 are occupied by Ghana, Jamaica, and Costa Rica. Those teams are capable of playing competitively in the World Cup. Basketball also has a 32 team World Cup despite soccer being much more developed around the world and having a much greater sporting culture. The justifications for expanding to a 48 team World Cup make sense to me. For the fans that don't like the expansion, it was never about them. This is a strategy to use the global reach of the World Cup to develop soccer in the few areas of the world where it isn't the dominant sport, places like the Caribbean, Oceania, and South Asia. Giving teams like Jamaica, New Zealand, and India a better shot at WC qualification has to help soccer's profile in those countries and regions. If the tradeoff is lower TV viewership for some group stage games, the extra round of knockout games more than makes up for it.
This is just my guess but I think the main reason from fans against the expansion is the format for the first round group phase: 16 groups of three teams each, with the top two from each group advancing to the second round. Personally, on the surface I feel like there's a disaster waiting to happen in terms of collusion in the final match of the group even if it may not be obvious until it happens. We'll see.
48 is fine, plenty of teams who miss the World Cup are capable of being competitive in one. The stupid thing is the format. I'd rather they go with 12 groups of 4
64 is coming the transition from 48 to 64 will happen quick. Wouldn't be shocked if we aren't there by 2038 China's World Cup.
Not sure that's a good metric to arrive at such a conclusion. But in any case, you are probably right with your concluding point. Then again, does anyone think expanding the CL to 48 and then soon to 64 would make it better? We saw this with rugby. They had a 16-team WC with about 5-6 teams that had a realistic chance to reach the final (about the same proportions as the FIFA WC - just double both numbers). Then they expanded and now the Rugby WC is really watered-down. They also are stuck with an odd number of teams in each group so the group stage drags on. A lot of bad games.
I dont really think the WC will be watered down that much going from 32 to 48 teams. You will likely have a few more teams that get blown out, but you will also get some extra teams that are just as good and even better than some teams in a 32 team cup. All in all its a plus IMO I just think they need to improve the format.
On the other hand, half of India will see ads for “Jamaica v India” and probably be left wondering when Jamaica left the West Indies cricket team .
Why not just auto-qualify the top 20 European countries? There’s little reason to be going deeper into the African, Asian/Oceanic, or CONCACAF fields than are already there.
Teams like Algeria, Ghana, Ivory Coast who didn't qualify last time are better than the 20th ish euro sides.
Unfortunately, "a few more teams" is actually a lot. Let's say out of the 16 additional teams, 6 of them a quite poor (this is being conservative when you consider the regions where most of these 16 new teams come from). 6 crap teams out of 48 doesn't seem so bad, but combined these teams will be involved in 25% of the matches played during the group stage (assuming a decent job is done with the seeding and the 6 teams are placed in different groups). There's also the question of how interesting these 6 groups will be when only 1 team gets eliminated and these groups contain of a team that is worse than 2018 Panama .
Indeed. Groups of 3 teams are also one of the worst-ever ideas for any football competition, let alone the WC.
No one can predict who will be minnows and how those minnows will adapt to the new format. I think there is a chance we will see some of the really horrible teams just close up shop, park the bus and try to keep it at 0-0 as much as possible knowing that if there are spot kicks as a tie breaker (I assume) all the pressure may be on the favorite. No one wants to lose to a minnow even in a shootout. So the whole way the game is played could be changed and the minnows may not be blown out as often as people may think.
I see someone hasn't watched UEFA Nations League...sit down and enjoy the "top-shelf" quality from Leagues B and below. It's not great.