|
East Auckland Hammer 5:44 Tue Oct 4
A 48 team World Cup? Approved by FIFA
|
|
New FIFA president has suggested a 48 team World Cup from 2026.
The tournament would start with 16 playoff games, with the 16 winners going on to the group stages alongside 16 seeded teams and carrying on the tournament proper.
Now, I'm all for growing the game, but is there any point in expanding the tournament by all including all of these additional teams to simply send a 3rd of them home after a single game?
Doesn't that just dramatically increase the expense of hosting the tournament, and attending it?
I mean, I'd love NZ to qualify for the World Cup, but I don't see the point in them attending for a single game, because that's probably all we'd get.
Is it just a way of increasing the revenue for FIFA?
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
Sven Roeder
12:07 Tue Jan 10
Re: A 48 team World Cup? Approved by FIFA
|
3 team groups will see teams playing for 0-0 and trying to win on pens.
The Euro's were always the best tournament when it was 16 teams so you had quality vs quality from the start.
Can understand that with a World Cup you want a wide representation but the tournament drags with 32 teams already.
As I understand it 2022 will be the last one centre World Cup and 2026 would be something like USA/Canada/Mexico so a nightmare for travelling fans.
If teams are going to the World Cup they have to have 3 games at least so I'd go 12 groups of 4 reducing to 32.
And the tournament cant be any longer than a month.
|
On The Ball
12:01 Tue Jan 10
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Thank God we got rid of Blatter, now we have honest men with the interests of the game at heart
|
Grumpster
11:59 Tue Jan 10
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
All purely so they can make more money.
Game ruining cunts.
|
Sniper
11:58 Tue Jan 10
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Sorry didn't see this when I posted my thread
This is utter bullshit. The only small positive of having three team groups is a greater Chance of some shocks as if you lose one game you're fucked.
But it's a nonsense decision - the World Cup already has enough crap teams in it without this. The euros should have been a stark warning to everyone - it seemed like a good idea to start with but actually the overall quality of matches was pretty crap, I can't recall many standout games and teams like Iceland and Wales went on good runs despite, frankly, being shite. Yes Wales were shite - I said it. Even in their amazing win over Belgium, the Belgians should have had 2 penalties and wasted lots of chances. Wales were shit in all their group games as well.
This expanded tournament will be an utter bore fest. Penalty shootouts in the groups makes it even worse. And the. They'll have to be a ref from every country so you can just imagine how the standard will be even worse. So we've now got world cups in Russia and Qatar and this nonsense. FIFA aren't even trying to hide heir greed any more. .
|
stoneman
11:57 Tue Jan 10
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
It was boring and too long with 32 so for that reason I'm out.
|
Rossal
11:52 Tue Jan 10
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Absurd decision
I think only ISIS is a worst organisation
No footballing reason behind it. Just to get more ££££. The reason why the shit little countries dont get to world cups are because they are not good enough. Its not like they will qualify and do anything, just lose both group games and go home.....pointless
|
collyrob
11:50 Tue Jan 10
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Greedy cunts
|
GreenStreetPlayer
11:50 Tue Jan 10
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Its not really the finals is it.
|
Josh
11:41 Tue Jan 10
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
World Cup madness: 48 countries, 16 groups (yes, that's 3 teams in each) and penalty shoot-outs in group matches... FIFA chiefs vote for bloated new format
- FIFA Council have unanimously approved a World Cup of 48 teams
- The tournament currently has 32 sides in eight groups of four
- From 2026, the competition will have 16 groups of three teams
The FIFA Council have unanimously approved a 48-team World Cup from 2026 at a vote in Zurich.
The plans overseen by president Gianni Infantino mean the tournament will now have 16 groups of three teams.
The top two sides in each group will advance into a last-32 knock-out stage. There will be a total of 80 games in the tournament. Currently, in the 32-team format, 64 matches are played overall.
|
zico
2:25 Sun Oct 9
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
It's too much about revenue these days, FIFA, UEFA, The Premier League all milking the game and supporter for as much as they can get. I can't be bothered these days with Euro, World Cup qualifiers or Champions League Group games as there are too many crap teams.
In the World Cup and the Euros there should be qualifying qualifying groups where teams like San Marino, Malta and all the other teams that have hardly won a game play each other and a couple qualify. That way you at least get a couple of the best of the worst rather than stupid groups that the top teams just waltz through on auto pilot. That's half the problem with England these days, never tested until a tournament.
|
gph
12:39 Sun Oct 9
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Too many boring games is the bane of the WC.
Football is great because of the creative tension between attack and defence, but the format changes the balance between the two.
At the moment, defence is over-emphasised in the WC, but if teams started playing very old-fashioned formations like 1-1-8 or 2-1-7 (which, iirc, were the ones employed in the first ever International*), you'd get lots of very devalued goals, and this would be just as boring once the novelty wore off.
I'd experiment with four points for a win (keeping 1 for a draw) in the group stages (making it difficult to qualify out of the groups without winning a single game), and/or points for a certain number of goals (bearing in mind there are heightened opportunities for cheating here - "Here's an offer - we don't expect you to throw the game, but if it becomes clear you're going to lose, lose heavily - you'll get a cash consolation").
*which, ironically, finished 0-0
|
Jim C
8:22 Sat Oct 8
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Scotland might even qualify.
|
KLM
3:16 Sat Oct 8
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
If it means less qualifying matches then I am for it
|
East Auckland Hammer
11:32 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
I agree ,
Obviously some countries would be happy because they'd expect to get through the playoff leg, but would other countries be able to justify their year-long buildups with the promise of only a single game?
|
,
10:21 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
I don't think that many, if any, national teams would want to play at a WC tournament unless guaranteed at least three games.
|
i-Ron
10:12 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
I don't mind the current setup and I think moving a 2 leg November play off to the World Cup and having a single knock out would be good
The 2013 play offs were
Portugal vs Sweden (the one where zlatan vs Ronaldo scored all 5 in a 3-2 game)
Ukraine vs France
Greece vs Romania
Iceland vs Croatia
In Africa the best matches out the 5 play offs were
Ivory Coast vs Senegal
Ghana vs Egypt
Tunisia vs Cameroon
Then Mexico vs New Zealand
Although Jordan vs Uruguay wouldn't be too appealing
I think most of them would be good matches to watch
|
,
9:45 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Iron, I agree there will be some dead games but there will be more games that matter from the start and there will be no way of top teams avoiding one another until the final.
Every top team will need to be on its mettle from the beginning. No time to find their feet, they'll need to be ready from the get go.
I would much prefer it to the system we have now.
|
Lertie Button
8:39 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
For fucks sake, more crap games. more crap teams, what's the point
|
i-Ron
8:37 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
VirginiaHam - it was 24 teams at the euro's...
Comma, if you don't want DEAD GAMES, then two divisions of 8 is the WORST suggestion i've ever read.
By the 3rd or 4th game you'd have nations mathematically out playing the remaining fixtures with no hope of winning.
Pointless.
|
,
8:17 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
There is simply not the quality of player available to make a 48 team WC watchable. However what determines this arrangement is the greed of FIFA, the TV money and the gullibility of the public.
I would prefer to see a WC comprising the top 16 teams in the world. Split them in to two divisions of 8, let them play a league system and the two table toppers contest the final.
There will be no dead games, no saving themselves for a decider, each team will have to go for a result. More entertainment for the fans but fewer games for FIFA and TV so it will never catch on.
|
VirginiaHam
8:11 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
surely not.........32 was too many meaningless matches at Euro 2016.
|
|
|
|
