World Cup to expand in 2026

[Animal is a Ram]

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

Oh gawd.....

 

[Mostyn6]

cash cow.

[GboroRam]

I'd like to be the first person to say that this decision is definitely not based on having more backhanders. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

Can I be the first to feel just awful that Scotland still probably won't qualify.

[Mafiabob]

Fully support this. Smaller nations have bridged the gap over last decade..... only have to see this years Euros.

Quite lazy to call it anything else in my opinion. Of course it's going to be more profitable. Let's hope the smaller nations benefit financially from it.

This is for the good..... not the sneering football elite. 

[Tony Le Mesmer]

As a fan of a smaller nation who are perenially atrocious and rarely qualify for anything. I'm over the moon about this!!

[Animal is a Ram]

A photo of the 2026 Panini sticker album has been leaked:

Rumours are parents have already started saving for stickers.

[DEL]

FFS. 

 

Well.at least Scotland will still fail to qualify anyway. 

[Andicis]

In many ways it'll be nice to see some extra games in the world cup. Is anyone sure of how the 3 groups of 16 will work? 

[Animal is a Ram]

Worst team of the three will be eliminated, then knockouts from there, I believe

A team will have to play 9 games to win the tournament.

[archram]

I think it's great for the smaller nations - but they're going to have the expenses of getting a team there for probably two games. Perhaps the richer nations could help with that!!

[Stive Pesley]

10 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

Worst team of the three will be eliminated, then knockouts from there, I believe

A team will have to play 9 games to win the tournament.

Not true - it will still be 7 games to win the tournament, as there is one less group game (groups of 3 instead of 4) and then one extra knockout game instead

I actually like this format better, as the group stages get a bit farcical, lots of dead rubbers, lots of teams being knocked out despite winning games. The knock-out stages are always more competitive, plus it becomes more like a proper cup run, with easy draws, hard draws etc

 

[Albert]

20 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Not true - it will still be 7 games to win the tournament, as there is one less group game (groups of 3 instead of 4) and then one extra knockout game instead

I actually like this format better, as the group stages get a bit farcical, lots of dead rubbers, lots of teams being knocked out despite winning games. The knock-out stages are always more competitive, plus it becomes more like a proper cup run, with easy draws, hard draws etc

 

I too think it will be a good thing. A lot of very solid sides in confederations like Africa and Asia don't get much of a look in for such tournaments, and even if they have no chance of winning it as a whole, the World Cup is meant to be about more than simply who will win. If it were just about who was going to win, England would have been barred from entry from the 90s. 

My only concern with the format is how they're going to do tie breaks and prevent collusion between sides. Have 3 in a group means that only two teams are playing at once, not more simultaneous final rounds. Picture a group of 3 teams, A, B and C. We'll have 3 matches in the group:

A v B

A v C

B v C

Now, the problem is that if we allow draws in the group state, we could get a situation where A draws with B and C, giving this before the final match:

A: 2 points, 0 GD

B: 1 points, 0 GD

C: 1 points, 0 GD

Now is the interesting part. If B or C lose, they're out regardless of sorting rules. Standard sorting rules currently though are: 1. Goal difference; 2. Goals Scored; 3. Results between teams; etc. Here, a draw between B and C with more goals scored than A sends them both through, it's very beneficial to fix the match this way. This basically means that draws open this possibility up.

So how do we stop such a farce? The proposal seems to be ending matches with a penalty shootout in the case of a draw to decide a winner. This means that it then becomes a case of who wins in all cases. That has it's own problem though, you can have the case of all 3 teams beating eachother, i.e. A beats B, B beats C and C beats A. Even with sorting by goals scored, there's a case that they could all beat eachother by the same margin, essentially rendering it impossible to separate the group beyond drawing lots. This isn't even that unlikely a scenario. Equally, think of a final round in such a position:

A: 1 win, -1 GD, 2 goals

C: 1 wins, +2 GD, 2 goal

B: 0 win, -1 GD, 1 goals

For this last match, B v C, a loss for B would send them out. Equally though a 3 goal loss to B is problematic for them. If B win by exactly 1 goal though, both B and C go through. A prior agreement for this result guarantees both passage without the risk. Again, there exists situations where collusion is potentially very valuable for sides. 

Be interesting to see how they prevent this. 

[Anon]

1 hour ago, Mafiabob said:

Fully support this. Smaller nations have bridged the gap over last decade..... only have to see this years Euros.

Quite lazy to call it anything else in my opinion. Of course it's going to be more profitable. Let's hope the smaller nations benefit financially from it.

This is for the good..... not the sneering football elite. 

They haven't bridged the gap at all. If anything it's getting wider. Look at the teams who made it through the groups to the knock out stage in each of the last three World Cups;

2006 - 5 teams outside the top 20 in the FIFA rankings (Average ranking position = 17.75)

2010 - 4 teams outside the top 20 in the FIFA rankings (Average ranking position = 16.63)

2014 - 3 teams outside the top 20 in the FIFA rankings (Average ranking position = 14.63)

If what you were saying were true I'd expect a significant shift in the opposite direction with more upsets and more established teams being put out at the group stage.

This change is a better option than the several proposed last year, but it's still completely unnecessary. 32 teams works perfectly. A three team group stage inevitably means that the last two teams to play will know exactly what result they require to progress, affording them an advantage over the 3rd team. No draws in the groups with matches being decided by penalties actively encourages smaller teams to aim for a stalemate. We're also increasing the total number of games to 79 in a time when host nations are already complaining about the cost and the stress on their infrastructure.

It's a bad idea and it won't end here. One member one vote system ensures that the World Cup will increase in size until approximately half of the member nations are involved in the final tournament.

[RadioactiveWaste]

5 minutes ago, Anon said:

They haven't bridged the gap at all. If anything it's getting wider. Look at the teams who made it through the groups to the knock out stage in each of the last three World Cups;

2006 - 5 teams outside the top 20 in the FIFA rankings (Average ranking position = 17.75)

2010 - 4 teams outside the top 20 in the FIFA rankings (Average ranking position = 16.63)

2014 - 3 teams outside the top 20 in the FIFA rankings (Average ranking position = 14.63)

If what you were saying were true I'd expect a significant shift in the opposite direction with more upsets and more established teams being put out at the group stage.

This change is a better option than the several proposed last year, but it's still completely unnecessary. 32 teams works perfectly. A three team group stage inevitably means that the last two teams to play will know exactly what result they require to progress, affording them an advantage over the 3rd team. No draws in the groups with matches being decided by penalties actively encourages smaller teams to aim for a stalemate. We're also increasing the total number of games to 79 in a time when host nations are already complaining about the cost and the stress on their infrastructure.

It's a bad idea and it won't end here. One member one vote system ensures that the World Cup will increase in size until approximately half of the member nations are involved in the final tournament.

Or until Scotland qualify. Whichever is the later.

[Mafiabob]

22 minutes ago, Anon said:

They haven't bridged the gap at all. If anything it's getting wider. Look at the teams who made it through the groups to the knock out stage in each of the last three World Cups;

2006 - 5 teams outside the top 20 in the FIFA rankings (Average ranking position = 17.75)

2010 - 4 teams outside the top 20 in the FIFA rankings (Average ranking position = 16.63)

2014 - 3 teams outside the top 20 in the FIFA rankings (Average ranking position = 14.63)

If what you were saying were true I'd expect a significant shift in the opposite direction with more upsets and more established teams being put out at the group stage.

This change is a better option than the several proposed last year, but it's still completely unnecessary. 32 teams works perfectly. A three team group stage inevitably means that the last two teams to play will know exactly what result they require to progress, affording them an advantage over the 3rd team. No draws in the groups with matches being decided by penalties actively encourages smaller teams to aim for a stalemate. We're also increasing the total number of games to 79 in a time when host nations are already complaining about the cost and the stress on their infrastructure.

It's a bad idea and it won't end here. One member one vote system ensures that the World Cup will increase in size until approximately half of the member nations are involved in the final tournament.

Cough Wales Cough Iceland Cough..... holland not qualifying Cough..... Spain getting turned over by Slovakia..... just to name a few, and that's in Europe.

Quite amazing basing this on rankings..... can see with our own eyes smaller nations are far more competitive now than they were 10 years ago.

Also.... 4 team groups don't work as well as you think. Last games can be contrived etc when there's 3 games.

Fully support this superb idea. 

More football to watch..... isn't that what fans want?

[Stive Pesley]

58 minutes ago, Albert said:

My only concern with the format is how they're going to do tie breaks and prevent collusion between sides.

<snip>

there exists situations where collusion is potentially very valuable for sides. 

Be interesting to see how they prevent this. 

Wow - great analysis, and all seems valid. A good job there is no corruption in football eh? Oh...

I'm struggling to think of ways they will prevent it, any ideas?

 

[SaintRam]

As long as it isn't more difficult to watch every game (except the simultaneous group ending games) I don't care. 

If it becomes more difficult to watch every game then **** this decision, I don't give a **** about the smaller countries.

[Anon]

56 minutes ago, Mafiabob said:

Cough Wales Cough Iceland Cough..... holland not qualifying Cough..... Spain getting turned over by Slovakia..... just to name a few, and that's in Europe.

Quite amazing basing this on rankings..... can see with our own eyes smaller nations are far more competitive now than they were 10 years ago.

Also.... 4 team groups don't work as well as you think. Last games can be contrived etc when there's 3 games.

Fully support this superb idea. 

More football to watch..... isn't that what fans want?

Wales and Iceland finished 2nd in their groups so would likely have qualified for the tournament regardless of whether the number of teams had been expanded or not. Tell me which of the also rans (Ukraine, Ireland, Sweden, Hungary) that scraped through the play offs you felt lit up the tournament.

I base it on rankings because it lets me know which teams were good at the time. Just because a team were good at a certain point it doesn't mean they should be at tournament finals from then onwards until the end of time. The Netherlands didn't qualify because they were a bad team who didn't deserve to sit at the top table in 2016. Their failure to qualify is a vindication for the current system in so much as it proves that so called lesser teams have ample opportunity to prove their worth in qualifying and earn their place.

4 team groups can normally only be contrived if the final two group games aren't played simultaneously. They are.

More games devalue the tournament. We are now at a stage where 1/2 of UEFA members and 1/4 of FIFA members will play in the prestige finals of their respective organisations' tournament. Much more of this and it will lead us to question what is the point in a qualification process at all.