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 - In Chronological Order ( Show Newest Messages First)
Sydney_Iron
6:27 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
And England would still either just scrape in or fail to qualify............
But i think it sounds a good idea, and all these so called "Elite" teams can fuck off if its all beneath them to play the smaller nations, football is becoming far to cliquey, same as these big European clubs talking of a super league so UEFA is looking at them getting a free pass to the big competitions to keep them onside.
|
RBshorty
8:56 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
BARMAN.!
|
gph
9:01 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
World Cups suffer from too many tedious games.
The first priority when fiddling with the format should be to encourage fewer of these, and not to increase the overall number of games or participants.
|
KingandPaynter
9:10 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
smells of more cash for FIFA
|
Baggins
9:13 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
A fucking utterly ridiculous idea that is all about politics and money and fuck all to do with the good of the competition or the game.
As for playing ONE game......dear oh dear, they just make this shit up as they go along.
|
Vexed
9:15 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Group stages are the boring bits. 48 team straight knockout with no seeding would be brilliant.
|
Baggins
9:19 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Vexed - There will be seeding and there will be group stages. No doubt about it.
|
Willtell
9:23 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Absolutely no point in expanding the game. I'd love to see NZ play in the WC too but really what's the point? They all have a chance to play in the early play-offs and if they are good enough would get through.
The problem is that for every NZ, Iceland etc there are larger nations without proper organised pro football that is the real reason for this proposal. The problem is they all have the same voting rights as an England, Spain, Italy or Germany but there are far more no hoper nations....
If they get their way they will increase their own chances so the problem is, like the Labour party is finding out, too much democracy can make stupid decisions.
Irrelevant football nations should not have an equal vote with the leading football nations. It is this that has led to corruption within FIFA where irrelevant nations can sell their votes resulting in Russia and Qatar getting the WC...
|
Vexed
9:32 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Baggins 9:19 Tue Oct 4
Probably. That would be pretty much pointless. Revenue generator.
|
East Auckland Hammer
10:48 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
As it stands, I'm fairly happy with NZ 's qualifying route - win Oceania and playoff against a central or South American team for a place. We' re the only confederation without direct entry and rightly so given the weakness of the region.
I guess you could make a case for the regional group winners to go straight through to the group stages and then figure out the rest of the seedings and entrants from the rest of the qualification, but it would be a pretty tenuous case.
|
Josh
10:52 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
So countries potentially going out to the host nation for only one game?
Yeah, makes loads of sense...
Thats the whole point of the WC Qualifying isn't it?
|
East Auckland Hammer
11:01 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Like the Club World Cup, only for countries and 10x the size.
|
dicksie3
11:02 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
It's already boring enough.
|
Troy McClure
11:15 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
As Im sure its already been said...
MONEY MONEY MONEY
The game is dead.
|
i-Ron
11:26 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
It's basically those two leg play off matches being played before the world cup, instead of november.
I think it's a great idea
|
Sniper
12:17 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
(nt)
|
Up The Iron
12:33 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Sixteen teams (one of which features three West Ham players) is the only format worth having.
|
andyd12345
1:37 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Stupid idea.
The knockout games would be seeded, so Germany would end up playing Botswana and winning 12-0 - no way wold a revenue producing "favourite" be allowed to leave after 1 game.
That leaves a handful of mediocre teams that will play a handful of equally mediocre teams in the same knockout stage. On the basis that no one would really give a toss who qualified out of Slovakia and Slovenia, or Angola and Guinea then those games wouldn't provide any real drama (or promote any interest) deeming the whole thing pointless.
The point of the 2 year qualifying campaign is the separate the wheat from the chaff. The tournament itself should be used for that.
|
andyd12345
1:38 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Shouldn't*
|
Mart O
1:48 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
So did anyone think that this summer's expanded Euros was a good idea ? It was a bag of shite, if you ask me.
|
| 
