FIFA

[Ram-Alf]

If there's another FIFA thread Mods please move...couldn't fine one.

Has this man had too much sunshine on his head or is he just Bonkers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64975011

[Ghost of Clough]

27 minutes ago, The Last Post said:

If there's another FIFA thread Mods please move...couldn't fine one.

Has this man had too much sunshine on his head or is he just Bonkers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64975011

In some ways, he's correct. For example, how many international fixtures do the likes of Fiji play compared with your top International sides. Would giving them a greater chance to compete at a major tournament (by increasing the number of competing nations) help them develop as a footballing nation?

On the other hand, rather than having a larger World Cup, why not introduce a 'B' tournament for those who didn't qualify instead?

 

Of course, this is actually in reference to the number of games each team plays at a World Cup, without increasing the number of nations. 4 team groups are always better than 3 teams as it avoids the risk of 'gaming' who goes through.
The real reason is for more revenue. More games = more money.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Ghost of Clough

[Ram-Alf]

19 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

 

On the other hand, rather than having a larger World Cup, why not introduce a 'B' tournament for those who didn't qualify instead?

 

Of course, this is actually in reference to the number of games each team plays at a World Cup, without increasing the number of nations. 4 team groups are always better than 3 teams as it avoids the risk of 'gaming' who goes through.
The real reason is for more revenue. More games = more money.

Introducing a "B" tournament would be a great Idea, England may get their 1st chance to win a final since 66 ?

Undoubtedly it's about the £ $ and €s,  

[Anon]

45 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

In some ways, he's correct. For example, how many international fixtures do the likes of Fiji play compared with your top International sides. Would giving them a greater chance to compete at a major tournament (by increasing the number of competing nations) help them develop as a footballing nation?

On the other hand, rather than having a larger World Cup, why not introduce a 'B' tournament for those who didn't qualify instead?

 

Of course, this is actually in reference to the number of games each team plays at a World Cup, without increasing the number of nations. 4 team groups are always better than 3 teams as it avoids the risk of 'gaming' who goes through.
The real reason is for more revenue. More games = more money.

I mostly ignore individuals or organisations that whinge about the amount of football played. We've all seen what happens whenever there's a gap in the calendar, players are dragged across the world to play in exhibition tournaments. Whenever a clubs or a league cry about too much football it's just code for them wanting to be able to generate revenue rather than FIFA or UEFA. There is a valid argument there, the clubs are paying these guys' salaries, why shouldn't they be the ones to profit from their labour? I just wish they'd ditch the phoney concern for "player welfare" and tell the truth regarding their objections.

I like your idea for a B tournament, but whilst I'd really like to watch something like that I think it would be a tough sell to the global football audience. People tune in to see big teams and big names and unfortunately Chile vs Slovenia isn't going to cover the organisational cost of such a venture.

I'm really pleased that they've ditched the awful 3 team group idea. The new format still isn't as good as the 32 team solution we've had for the last few decades. The group stage will be less exciting as most 3rd placed teams will progress anyway. There's also the massive issue of tournaments now being 104 game behemoths, but I suppose the logistical and cost issues will be countered by FIFA encouraging multi nation bids for hosting.