World Cup to expand in 2026

[Highgate]

24 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

In theory yes thats why they are all played at the same time currently. Even in the PL and EFL all the last games are at the same time even if televised.

I have no issue with increasing the number of teams, just keep it groups of 4 even if a few extra groups and change the qualification for the 2nd round, make it top 1 auto qualifies and then best X number of runners up...job done, no need to mess around with it.

Certainly sounds fair, the only drawback i see is more 'dead rubbers' in the group stages, if only 1 qualifies automatically.

[Sith Happens]

8 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Certainly sounds fair, the only drawback i see is more 'dead rubbers' in the group stages, if only 1 qualifies automatically.

Yeah probably right....i dont even know how they would split the groups, it doesnt even allow for equal groups of 3 or 4.

 

[Stive Pesley]

16 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

Yeah probably right....i dont even know how they would split the groups, it doesnt even allow for equal groups of 3 or 4.

 

The more I think about the proposed 3 team group format - the more I struggle to understand how FIFA have approved the change. Even us dummies on a Derby County forum can see that you can't play all the final group games simultaneously !

Even the idea of going to penalties for a draw in the group stages seems flawed. Potentially a team could play extra-time in every one of their potential 7 games (up to the final) - which is an extra 3.5 hours of football. Unless they go to penalties after 90 mins in the groups, just to settle the tie. But that would be unprecedented and lead to a lot of bore draws

The only conclusion you can come to is that they have just not thought it through!

 

[Sith Happens]

Just now, StivePesley said:

The more I think about the proposed 3 team group format - the more I struggle to understand how FIFA have approved the change. Even us dummies on a Derby County forum can see that you can't play all the final group games simultaneously !

Even the idea of going to penalties for a draw in the group stages seems flawed. Potentially a team could play extra-time in every one of their potential 7 games (up to the final) - which is an extra 3.5 hours of football. Unless they go to penalties after 90 mins in the groups, just to settle the tie. But that would be unprecedented and lead to a lot of bore draws

The only conclusion you can come to is that they have just not thought it through!

 

Probably not. It does seem a strange proposal.

[Anon]

20 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

The only conclusion you can come to is that they have just not thought it through!

They've done plenty of research on the things that are pertinent to them. You'll notice they released a rather specific figure of the projected revenue increase for an expanded tournament, whilst we're all left guessing about unimportant rubbish like whether the length of the tournament will increase or whether more games will end up clashing. After all, who actually wants to waste time watching football when you can watch McDonalds and Coke adverts whilst keeping the other eye on your balance sheet?

[Broderick]

I have more of a problem with the format than the number of teams . 

[Albert]

16 hours ago, Anon said:

The rest of world football already has their chance. You do realise that the qualifiers are part of the World Cup, just not the finals? When Burton drew Manchester United they did it because they earned their place in the 3rd round by winning their previous fixtures, not because the FA messed with the structure of the tournament because they felt sorry for them or wanted to generate more revenue.

It's not even particularly about elitism, just common sense. I was fully behind the move to increase the number of teams to 32. The structure as it is, is pretty much perfect. The games fit neatly into a four week period and, aside from the final group games, can be played at intervals that allow you to watch every single game if you're so inclined. Four team groups are competitive and fair without lasting too long.

Fair point on the European head to heads. I agree that isn't the best method, so let's look at the direct results of African and Asian vs European teams in the world cup finals. I have even included 2002 this time to attempt to improve Asia'a dreadful record.

Asia vs Europe - P30 W7 D6 L17

Africa vs Europe - P39 W8 D8 L23

So it's 

Asia v Europe: 0.233-0.200-0.567

Africa vs Europe: 0.205-0.205-0.590

Those aren't terrible records, particularly considering that in most cases it's Europe onto countries they destroyed in the past economically and culturally. 

[Albert]

14 hours ago, Anon said:

They've done plenty of research on the things that are pertinent to them. You'll notice they released a rather specific figure of the projected revenue increase for an expanded tournament, whilst we're all left guessing about unimportant rubbish like whether the length of the tournament will increase or whether more games will end up clashing. After all, who actually wants to waste time watching football when you can watch McDonalds and Coke adverts whilst keeping the other eye on your balance sheet?

The length of the tournament is meant to be the same under this proposal, and there will no longer be games clashing. Those were actually two of the key points that came out of the proposal. 

[Sith Happens]

2 hours ago, Albert said:

The length of the tournament is meant to be the same under this proposal, and there will no longer be games clashing. Those were actually two of the key points that came out of the proposal. 

I suppose their thinking is if games dont clash they can charge more for each one.

[Albert]

18 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

I suppose their thinking is if games dont clash they can charge more for each one.

Yep, 80 games which all have their own TV slot is a lot more lucrative than 64 with 16 cases where they clash (8 games that you'd need to watch either side by side or on a delay). 

I never got all this rage about it being about the money though. Basically ever decision in football was about "improving the product", or in more direct terms ££££. 

Playing in leagues? Needed a steady stream of income. 

International cups? Good crowd puller. 

The World Cup? Guess. 

3 points for a win? Gotta make it more exciting, get bums on seats. 

Goal difference to sort teams? Don't want dead rubbers due to a results between teams system would we? 

The playoffs for promotion? Hmmm...

Promotion relegation systems? Sure makes the bottom end of one league, and the top end of the other interesting doesn't it? 

Games not on Saturday at 3pm? ...

Even the rules of the sport have been changed to make it more exciting many times over, and still fairly recently. 

People will whinge about the new format now, but we'll all be watching in 2026, and we'll enjoy it just as much as other tournaments. 

[Anon]

4 hours ago, Albert said:

So it's 

Asia v Europe: 0.233-0.200-0.567

Africa vs Europe: 0.205-0.205-0.590

Those aren't terrible records, particularly considering that in most cases it's Europe onto countries they destroyed in the past economically and culturally. 

They're bad enough records to justify not increasing their allocation of teams until they improve.

I forgot just how many countries had a thriving domestic football scene before the advent of European colonialism in the 16th century.

[Anon]

4 hours ago, Albert said:

The length of the tournament is meant to be the same under this proposal, and there will no longer be games clashing. Those were actually two of the key points that came out of the proposal. 

Did they outline how they plan to achieve this? The current format already involves playing three games per day with four rest days for teams between fixtures. I don't see how they're going to add 16 games without reducing the rest period.

[Albert]

1 hour ago, Anon said:

They're bad enough records to justify not increasing their allocation of teams until they improve.

I forgot just how many countries had a thriving domestic football scene before the advent of European colonialism in the 16th century.

I know that you're as slow as to not get the point of economic disadvantage making the development and growth of professional sports difficult, so we may as well leave it at this. 

[Albert]

1 hour ago, Anon said:

Did they outline how they plan to achieve this? The current format already involves playing three games per day with four rest days for teams between fixtures. I don't see how they're going to add 16 games without reducing the rest period.

Same way they achieve it now. Games don't need to be concurrent to achieve this goal. Teams will still play the same number of games to win the tournament at 7. A simplified version of what I can gather is this:

Currently there are 48 group games, there will be 48 group games under this system. Current group stage requires 3 matchdays to get through the groups, the new one does as well. However, there will be a bye for each team. This means that teams can play on day 1, 5 and 9 in each group, with one team playing 1 and 5, one team playing 1 and 9 and one team playing 5 and 9. Each team will play 2 games in their first 9 days at the tournament, at least by their groups reckoning. This means each day we'll see matches from four groups, and it can alternate from here. 

Round of 32 match for the groups that started on match day 1 would be day 13, for day 2 groups on day 14, etc. There will be 4 round of 32 matches on this day, A winner against B second, B winner against A second, etc. These teams would play their round of 16 matchups on day 17, and their quarters on day 21. They'd play match day 2 groups on day 26 for the semis, with match day 3 and 4 groups playing on day 28. Match day 31 for the third place playoff, match day 32 for the final. Works very similarly as to now. The difference is no concurrent games. 

There's bound to be some fiddling in there, but the only instance of having less than 3 rest days between matches is the third place playoff, which is a situation that happens now anyhow.

[Anon]

1 hour ago, Albert said:

I know that you're as slow as to not get the point of economic disadvantage making the development and growth of professional sports difficult, so we may as well leave it at this. 

I get the point, I just reject it completely. If there were any truth to your ridiculous theory then the former European colonies in South America would also be crap at football.

[Albert]

42 minutes ago, Anon said:

I get the point, I just reject it completely. If there were any truth to your ridiculous theory then the former European colonies in South America would also be crap at football.

There's a big difference between colonies set up as outposts with support and a growing population, and colonies in the sense of the East India Company, or the exploitation of China, the scramble for Africa, etc. 

[Anon]

On ‎14‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 14:14, Albert said:

There's a big difference between colonies set up as outposts with support and a growing population, and colonies in the sense of the East India Company, or the exploitation of China, the scramble for Africa, etc. 

Thank goodness that economic disadvantage we enforced on the sub continent somehow failed to effect cricket in the same way it did football. Let's face it, it couldn't possibly be that most of these nations showed no interest in football up until about 30 or 40 years ago.

[Albert]

16 hours ago, Anon said:

Thank goodness that economic disadvantage we enforced on the sub continent somehow failed to effect cricket in the same way it did football. Let's face it, it couldn't possibly be that most of these nations showed no interest in football up until about 30 or 40 years ago.

Let's put it a different way then. A country of 1.25 billion is competing against countries of populations of the order of 23 million and 64 million, and you're suggesting that their economic disadvantage as caused by the British has not come into play at all? Do you honestly believe that if India had the same level of development as Australia, or even a little less around the level of the United Kingdom, that the cricket World would be anything but utterly dominated by them. Even now India is one of the strongest cricketing nations, and only getting stronger. 

Compare this then to countries in Asia of similar or smaller population to their European counterparts, who actually bother with football as a sport as more than a tertiary or quaternary concern. Does it surprise you that their performance isn't on the same level? 

Equally, your ignorance of Asian football is astounding. Whilst the money hasn't always been there, the sport has been popular across Asia for a long time, many of the countries have been active in the international scene of the sport in one form or another since the interwar years. 

[Anon]

5 hours ago, Albert said:

Let's put it a different way then. A country of 1.25 billion is competing against countries of populations of the order of 23 million and 64 million, and you're suggesting that their economic disadvantage as caused by the British has not come into play at all? Do you honestly believe that if India had the same level of development as Australia, or even a little less around the level of the United Kingdom, that the cricket World would be anything but utterly dominated by them. Even now India is one of the strongest cricketing nations, and only getting stronger. 

Compare this then to countries in Asia of similar or smaller population to their European counterparts, who actually bother with football as a sport as more than a tertiary or quaternary concern. Does it surprise you that their performance isn't on the same level? 

Equally, your ignorance of Asian football is astounding. Whilst the money hasn't always been there, the sport has been popular across Asia for a long time, many of the countries have been active in the international scene of the sport in one form or another since the interwar years. 

Let's put it a different way then. A country of 321 million(USA) is competing against countries of populations of the order of 11 million(Cuba) and 10 million(Dominican Republic), and you're suggesting that their economic disadvantage as caused by the British has not come into play at all? Do you honestly believe that if the USA had the same level of development as Cuba, or even a little less around the level of the Dominican Republic, that world baseball would be anything but utterly dominated by them?

Things must be so simple in your world. If population > relative performance in any given field = colonialism.

[Albert]

7 hours ago, Anon said:

Let's put it a different way then. A country of 321 million(USA) is competing against countries of populations of the order of 11 million(Cuba) and 10 million(Dominican Republic), and you're suggesting that their economic disadvantage as caused by the British has not come into play at all? Do you honestly believe that if the USA had the same level of development as Cuba, or even a little less around the level of the Dominican Republic, that world baseball would be anything but utterly dominated by them?

Things must be so simple in your world. If population > relative performance in any given field = colonialism.

I get the impression you're trying to compare this to international baseball, something that Americans don't take particularly seriously (the sides they send are usually pretty weak). The big teams in World baseball though are, despite sending weak sides, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the United States, and they are ranked some way ahead of others like Cuba, the Dominican Republic and such. Cuba tends to be quite successful in some of the older tournaments though. Surely you would have done some basic fact checking before posting it as an example though. 

You also raise an interesting point about division of talent across sports. Countries that split their attention across many sports tend to underperform in the more competitive ones (i.e. England in everything). That however isn't the point here. It's hard to use America as an example in international sport because they play so many, and don't treat international sports with any particular amount of respect.