World Cup with 40 teams? The president of AFA (Argentina Federation) proposed a World Cup with 40 teams. The idea is making 10 groups of 4 teams. Top team of each group advances with the bets 6 2nd places. Making a normal 2nd phase. http://www.peru.com/futbol/AutoNoticias/DetalleNoticia22434.asp (spanish)
Because groups of 4 can be played in 3 matchdays; groups of 5 require 5. The number of matchdays needed in the group stage is equal to the greatest odd number less than or equal to the number of teams in the group. Work it out yourself.
Why? It would have taken only a few seconds more to explain your reasoning. Certainly 40 (eight more) would have given UEFA and CONMEBOL back what they lost to Asia, and the rest to the remaining federations. Everybody's happy.
FIFA has stated over and over how important it is to complete the tournament within a month. With 8 more teams it would be virtually impossible. Many more games would have to be played simultaneously which again results in less live games for fans and that is certainly not a goal for FIFA. They packed some matchdays with 4 matches played with a two-hour gap last summer only to make them live games for TV. 32 is a good number. There is nothing wrong with the number of spots, but the allocation of them can certainly be discussed. It was ridiculous to cut Conmebol's quota, but if they hadn't lost that 0.5 spot the AFA president wouldn't have bothered to suggest 40 teams at all.
All good points, but the tournament has increased its draw at least twice in the past. I look for it to happen again, in my lifetime. I think FIFA will eventually see the $$$ in those extra matches (future technology will provide for viewing options)and get it done. I don't have a problem with those other five or six teams being what some posters here call "minnows", either. They (the left out nations) won't be able to say they didn't have their moment on the big stage, and when they're gone, the usual teams will still be there.
I would think the reasons are pretty obvious..meh .Tournament will get watered down .Tournament will take too long (see Bauser's post) Unless you're a team that was still left at home that is, I guess this means we should make a Cup with even more spots to divide so every team on the planet can not say they didn't have their moment on the big stage?
Shit, it's watered down now, to let some folks tell it. Let's just invite Brasil, the USA and the 30 European nations of your choice- that'll be a nice elitist package the football world can take pride in. Better still, include those teams you feel are so undeserving and then beat 'em. With those 15 extra spots, even Holland might somehow find a way into the draw. But Bauser had a point with the time. I still see the expansion happening.
Wow, you really aren't anti-UEFA at all (that's sarcasm by the way, just saying because it appears I need to spell things out for you) Preguntas: Where in my post did I say more European teams should go? Is it your opinion the tournament will not get watered down with 40 teams? The way things are going now: Europe and South America would probably get 1 more spot each with which they will send a team that would probably only get to the 2nd round tops (Holland wasn't a victim of too few spots, but of their own bad game, they'll be in the Cup next time regardless if UEFA gets 14 or 15 spots) and then you got 6 spots to divide between the other feds, of which some already send too many teams according to many (might come as a shock to you...but even non-Europeans say this ) And then you have the smart idea to only let the best 2nd placed teams in the groups go on instead of all of the second placed teams, so if you're in a tougher group your chances of going through will be even smaller than normal. But hey, at least some more teams can say they had their moment on the big stage right?
There are two competing forces here. On the one hand there's the need to have a viable tournament, that is a tournament that can be concluded within the time of around one month. On the other hand there's the fact (I don't think this is disputable) that the soccer minnows are growing in stature. The gap between Europe/South America and the rest of the world is closing - if slowly. The result of this is an increasing demand for WC spots from second and third tier confederations. Perhaps these demands are premature today. Nonetheless, given the direction that world soccer seems to be taking there will come a rightful time for these demands. Asia, Africa, North America and even Oceana are getting better. In the long term if UEFA insists that it never loses slots, insists that it have ample slots so that even it's second tier teams (like Ireland, Slovenia, Denmark etc.) can have a place in the World Cup then this tension between the growing stature of the rest of the world and the need to have a viable tournament will only intensify. And if one way to alleviate this tension is to increase the tournament to 40 teams, then perhaps FIFA needs to find a way to do it in one month.
I was probably spelling before the rabbit died on your mama. Save the sarcasm for those few you can impress. While we're on the subject of spelling things out for others, I suggested the 30 European teams, not you. You were given the option (in that scenario) of choosing them. Reread my post. Watered down only on the bottom, to answer your question- which doesn't make winning any easier. The contenders will be there. Any team that can't make it probably wouldn't get far anyhow, and most who do make it won't, either. Fact is, one team will win, and that team will have gone thru good and bad teams to do so. The format isn't as important as resolving the issue of allocations. I can understand FIFA's position that more simultaneous matches will cut into their profit margin, but unless you can anticipate now that you'll have to choose between two matches you really want to see, your opposition to the 40-team idea rings hollow as a Dutch PK. Uhhh...no, that's really, really, really, etc. bad logic. Right now, the fifth place team in CONCACAF has NO chance of going through, because they'll be at home. Look. What happens to the teams once they get to the Finals is up to their play, and that of their opponents. The allocation issue doesn't address getting to the second round- it is concerned with the first round.
.... What the Hell is that supposed to mean? "Before the rabbit died on your mama"? Is that ebonics? No hablas Ingles? Sh¡t. It was implied. See, like if I said I think people who pretend to be Brasilians are funny..I'm pretty much saying I think you are funny. It's the World Cup, I can allready anticipate I want to see every match. I guess the penalty kick doesn't 'ring hollow' at all......how the fu©k does a penalty kick ring hollow anyway? Sheesh. Have you been smoking that good stuff again? I'm talking about the best 2nd placed teams in the groups at the World Cup being allowed to go through, as opposed to all the 2nd placed teams. You know, like was said in the article. Did you even read it?
3 words - no NO NOOOO!!!! and i cried when HOLLAND missed out on WC2002 so you know im not biased but so. america is gettin screwed a bit
Which federation has complained the most about losing a ½ spot? Which confederation came up with the 4 way playoff so they would still sort of have their ½ spot? Which confederation has done worse overall than UEFA in the last 12 years yet according to people on this board don't 'deserve' to lose a spot whereas UEFA, of course, do 'deserve' to? From which confederation is the 40 team tournament idea coming from so they can get that ½ spot back? I guess the hint that I'm not talking about UEFA is a given. It was UEFA who gave Asia another ½ spot this year. It has been UEFA that has pretty much kept quiet after losing a full spot for the next World Cup. Yet it is UEFA that 'insists' on never losing spots? Oh wait, I forgot I was on Bigsoccer.com. My wrong.
No, I understand English perfectly, as well as most Ebonics, if that matters. It's an American saying that means in this case, "before you were born". The "rabbit died" refers to a failed (positive)pregnancy test. It does when the Orange take them See W/C '98 & Euro 2000 semis. We are discussing the proposed expansion of the W/C draw. The previously left out teams that earn their way into this expanded draw would now have a better chance of advancing to the second round even if they had to play 3 men down. They weren't in the Cup before, so any chance is better than none, yes? What you said was: "And then you have the smart idea to only let the best 2nd placed teams in the groups go on instead of all of the second placed teams, so if you're in a tougher group your chances of going through will be even smaller than normal." It doesn't matter how tough a group they're in, or how few 2nd place teams qualify. It's still a 100% better chance than they had staying at home. Nor does it matter how tough the group is for the "contenders". They're either going to prove their worth (or not) based on the scoreboard.
You do realise I'm Spanish and the fact that Holland suck at penalties doesn't really matter to me right? I don't understand the constant ribbing of the Dutch if you aren't under this misconception, seeing as it wouldn't make much sense to do so otherwise. Meh. Why the Hell would I care if the teams that are worse than China have a better chance to advance to the 2nd round seeing as they wouldn't even be in the World Cup otherwise? I'm talking about the teams that are allready good enough to qualify for the WC now. If you have a tough group, and a group with 2 of said teams that are worse than China...you do understand that the 2 other teams in the latter group would have a better chance to be one of those 'best 2nd placed teams' when they can get two monster scores (see Germany vs Saudi Arabia) whereas the teams in the tough group wouldn't have it so easy and thus get an even smaller chance to qualify to the 2nd round than they do normally, because they didn't get opponents where you can win with 9-0. So yes, it does matter.
That's not how your previous post reads, though it may have been what you intended to say. Besides, there have always been "tough" groups in the W/C finals. As I said before, this thread is about expanding the draw. Just play ball, and those things will take care of themselves. BTW, you should have scored more against Korea.
Damn, you're slow Once again: This makes the chance of qualifying from a 'tough' group even smaller than it is now: because with the new setup the 2nd placed team isn't even sure to qualify, and will have a hard time becoming one of the best 2nd placed when teams in other groups face weaker opposition and can up their goal differential/points easier. And only the best 2nd placed teams qualifying because of it. It's not the one without the other, but since you've read the article you probably already know this. See that makes much more sense than dissing the Dutch. At least my national team doesn't suck so bad that I feel the need to become a supporter for another country
Oh, Spain sucks all right. They suck and swallow. Much worse than the USA, considering the so-called talent you claim to have. Playing for some of the wealthiest clubs in the world, but fold like a deck chair during the World Cup. At least the USA went out to the greatest team in European history. Spain went out to... Korea. (Korea?) And please don't bother whining about bad calls. If you can't beat Korea and the refs, God help you and your piss-ant nation.
They should go back to the 24 team system. 6 groups of 4 and the top teams go through along with the 2 best second placed teams go through to the quaters. The world cup is designed to get the best teams in the world at the same time to find out who is the best. We dont need teams like Costa Rica, Saudi Arebia and Slovenia making a mockery of the tournament. Like i said before If they are good enough they will qualify. Places like North America, Asia and Africa should be happy with 2 places each, there are not enough good teams in their confederations for them to deserve the amount of spots they get. Here is how i would give out the places. Europe - 10 S/America - 5 N/America - 1.5 Africa - 2.5 Asia - 2.5 Oceania - 0.5 Host - 1 Holder - 1 That would be 44 games and if held in June you could have 2 games a day in the group stages, which would take up 16 days. The quaters, semi's, 3rd/4th place and final could all take place on seperate days and will take 8 days in total. The total is 24 days of games and this would allow for a couple of rest days between each round. 1st June - Group Stage starts 16th June - Group Stage ends 19th June - Quaters start 22nd June - Quaters End 25th June - Semi 1 26th June - Seni 2 29th June - 3rd/4th place 30th June - Final That looks perfect to me. anyone agree?