It was always going to be the case... The likes of Fiji / Venezuela / Niger all have the same voting powers as Brazil / Argentina / Germany so by voting to expand the tournament it gives them a greater chance of qualifying.
They need to change the way voting works... As an example surely they need to base the voting on the FIFA World Rankings, i.e. the top 50 Nations get a bigger say that the next 50 Nations and so forth... It then sends the message to the rest of the World saying that if you want to have a greater say on matters then you have to improve your FIFA Ranking, meaning that all the FIFA Funding you get has to go into actual Football rather than your own pocket!!
Edit: The only good thing surely is the fact that by having 48-teams and so 80 matches rather than 64 (Which is what it'll be) is that more Stadiums will be required to hold the matches - Surely this will mean that the likes of Qatar wont be able to host a tournament
(Although as devils advocate to my own comment... I can also see FIFA having more than one host going forward, i.e. for 2026 they're already looking at the Tournament being held by Mexico / United States AND Canada)
It appears that as I get older the World Cup is going the way of the FA Cup for me. Football I was once glued to the telly to that now seems less and less relevant. it's been happening for a long time but money really is ruining the beautiful game. The events happening at Charlton do not help with my love for the game. I despair what my boy will grow up to see as football.
It appears that as I get older the World Cup is going the way of the FA Cup for me. Football I was once glued to the telly to that now seems less and less relevant. it's been happening for a long time but money really is ruining the beautiful game. The events happening at Charlton do not help with my love for the game. I despair what my boy will grow up to see as football.
Money ruined the game years ago... Its just tightening its grip now
So the teams who play in the 3rd game know what they have to do to get through - doesn't sound fair to me.
May as well make it 64 teams 16 groups of 4....top 2 go through=32 teams then a straight forward knockout from the last 32. All this talk of penalty shoot outs in the group stages sounds a load of nonsense to me.
So the teams who play in the 3rd game know what they have to do to get through - doesn't sound fair to me.
Oh no it'll be much worse...
Say Slovakia end up with Brazil and United States with Brazil v United States as the last game...
Slovakia can DRAW both their matches to ensure they get through as there is also talk of having penalty shootouts to decide draws (Football League Trophy style) so if they win those, they'll get the bonus points, meaning they'll have four points and will qualify because the two teams in the last match can only get a further two maximum points.
Basically they've changed the World Cup so you can not only win the competition without winning a single match but they've changed it so that the winners of the World Cup dont even need to score a bloody goal!!
A post on Reddit shows that there will inevitably be a number of games where both teams will settle for a result from kick off. It's apparently called a 'biscotto' (cue garibaldi jokes in the quest for LOLs).
To sum it up, the team that doesn't play in the last fixture will be in trouble if there's a non-drawing score line that results in both teams progressing.
They should make it like wrestling where each continent has a trophy and then there are a few global trophies (World Champion, Intercontinental Champion, Superstar Champion), and you only have to beat the incumbent champion to win the trophy. Then change all the team names like the England Lions and the Spanish Bulls and they can have theme musics as they enter the arena. Maybe Mexico could have a Day of the Dead themed entrance and be led out by the Undertaker. The captains can do some smack talk and feign handbags before the referees split them up. Could even have a 'Hardcore' division where there are no cards or free kicks and a goalkeeper could hit a striker with a chair at the corner.
You might laugh but we are rapidly heading towards this.
A post on Reddit shows that there will inevitably be a number of games where both teams will settle for a result from kick off. It's apparently called a 'biscotto' (cue garibaldi jokes in the quest for LOLs).
To sum it up, the team that doesn't play in the last fixture will be in trouble if there's a non-drawing score line that results in both teams progressing.
Depends on the points given though surely for the penalty shootout win... If they take the same approach as the Football League Trophy from this season (where the winners simply get a second point) then the results and table would be like this:
Slovakia 0-0 Brazil (Slovakia win the penalty shootout) Slovakia 0-0 United States (Slovakia win the penalty shootout) Brazil 1-0 United States
the Table would be: Slovakia (4-pts) | Brazil (4-pts) | United States (1-pt)
Yet at the same time you could see the below scenario
Slovakia 0-0 Brazil (Slovakia win the shootout) Slovakia 0-0 United States (United States win the shootout) Brazil 0-0 United States (Brazil win the shootout)
the table would then be: Slovakia (2-pts) | Brazil (2-pts) | United States (2-pts).
Now how exciting would those games be? - Either way surely if it is going to be that approach there should be no Extra-Time?
Would be much simpler to have no points for a 0-0 and then your only concern is the highly unlikely scenario where all 3 games in a group ended as draws and all 3 teams scored the same number of goals.
I don't want more teams in the World Cup Finals, already it's not worth getting excited about the games until the knock out stage - expand it like this and we will end up with something like the Champions League where no one even bothers looking at the games or results in the group stage as it is all to predictable.
However if you look at how the rankings are done, and the bias on tournament football, it is virtually impossible for any team that doesn't play in a major tournament to score the points to get ranked as high as any nation that qualifies for the World Cup or the Euros and wins a game there.
There are just 211 teams in the current FIFA rankings, even including recent arrivals like Gibraltar, and nearly one quarter of them will be in the Finals.
Recalling the fun from about 10 years ago, when it was revealed that the cash-challenged Welsh FA had failed to take out insurance against qualifying for a finals, I wonder how some of the smaller nations might afford the costs of qualifying. Have FIFA given that any thought?
The bloated Euros was awful as teams didn't have to play for a win to get through. If they can get the format right it might be ok but I very much doubt it
In theory the 3 teams per group format with the top 2 going through will mean no dead-rubbers and every group game being meaningful. The all draws outcome is a problem, but in reality, with 3 teams from 3 different pots in each group and teams wanting to win the group to get a better draw in the next round, we should see fewer poor games in the group stage.
I think the bigger issue will be actually making fans interested. There will be just too many teams and groups to keep in your head. In the past with 4 groups in the Euros for example you'd just know the current position of each group and each team without much effort. Try memorising 48 teams over 16 groups with the positions changes every few hours not stops for the first 3 weeks of the tournament. If you can't hold it in your head then that means putting the effort into to look these things up continually, which a lot of people just won't do. So you might see fewer people paying attention the group stage than in previous years simply through overload, plus the fact that after 48 games and weeks of football, only a third of the teams actually get knocked out.
With 16 groups of 3 teams you technically only need 8 stadiums, with 2 teams per stadium. Though it'd be simpler to have 16 grounds, one per group and then each team who wins their group would stay put for the round of 32 game. You'd then lose half the stadia each round, i.e. 8 grounds for the round of 16, 4 for the last 8, 2 for the semis and just Wembley for the final.
16 grounds would be absolutely no problem in most top footballing countries, and the US (Where the 2026 finals could well end up) would find it trivially easy to find 16 suitable stadiums.
The only good thing to come out of an expanded tournament will be no dead rubbers. Every group game will have something riding on it and then we're straight into a knock out competition.
So at least we'll avoid the usual scenario where the likes of Germany and Spain field a reserve side for their 3rd group against no hopers who've already been eliminated.
Europe's major clubs will hate it for the obvious reason that their top players will now be away for a 6 week tournament. It will also surely need to start earlier than it does now because otherwise the start of the following season will be fucked up for clubs whose players make the semi finals and don't finish playing until mid July.
Comments
They need to change the way voting works... As an example surely they need to base the voting on the FIFA World Rankings, i.e. the top 50 Nations get a bigger say that the next 50 Nations and so forth... It then sends the message to the rest of the World saying that if you want to have a greater say on matters then you have to improve your FIFA Ranking, meaning that all the FIFA Funding you get has to go into actual Football rather than your own pocket!!
Edit: The only good thing surely is the fact that by having 48-teams and so 80 matches rather than 64 (Which is what it'll be) is that more Stadiums will be required to hold the matches - Surely this will mean that the likes of Qatar wont be able to host a tournament
(Although as devils advocate to my own comment... I can also see FIFA having more than one host going forward, i.e. for 2026 they're already looking at the Tournament being held by Mexico / United States AND Canada)
Say Slovakia end up with Brazil and United States with Brazil v United States as the last game...
Slovakia can DRAW both their matches to ensure they get through as there is also talk of having penalty shootouts to decide draws (Football League Trophy style) so if they win those, they'll get the bonus points, meaning they'll have four points and will qualify because the two teams in the last match can only get a further two maximum points.
Basically they've changed the World Cup so you can not only win the competition without winning a single match but they've changed it so that the winners of the World Cup dont even need to score a bloody goal!!
FIFA say that banning draws (and heading straight for a shoot-out) will minimise this, but this guy's maths says otherwise.
To sum it up, the team that doesn't play in the last fixture will be in trouble if there's a non-drawing score line that results in both teams progressing.
You might laugh but we are rapidly heading towards this.
Slovakia 0-0 Brazil (Slovakia win the penalty shootout)
Slovakia 0-0 United States (Slovakia win the penalty shootout)
Brazil 1-0 United States
the Table would be: Slovakia (4-pts) | Brazil (4-pts) | United States (1-pt)
Yet at the same time you could see the below scenario
Slovakia 0-0 Brazil (Slovakia win the shootout)
Slovakia 0-0 United States (United States win the shootout)
Brazil 0-0 United States (Brazil win the shootout)
the table would then be: Slovakia (2-pts) | Brazil (2-pts) | United States (2-pts).
Now how exciting would those games be? - Either way surely if it is going to be that approach there should be no Extra-Time?
However if you look at how the rankings are done, and the bias on tournament football, it is virtually impossible for any team that doesn't play in a major tournament to score the points to get ranked as high as any nation that qualifies for the World Cup or the Euros and wins a game there.
Recalling the fun from about 10 years ago, when it was revealed that the cash-challenged Welsh FA had failed to take out insurance against qualifying for a finals, I wonder how some of the smaller nations might afford the costs of qualifying. Have FIFA given that any thought?
I won't bother watching any of the dross, anyway.
I think the bigger issue will be actually making fans interested. There will be just too many teams and groups to keep in your head. In the past with 4 groups in the Euros for example you'd just know the current position of each group and each team without much effort. Try memorising 48 teams over 16 groups with the positions changes every few hours not stops for the first 3 weeks of the tournament. If you can't hold it in your head then that means putting the effort into to look these things up continually, which a lot of people just won't do. So you might see fewer people paying attention the group stage than in previous years simply through overload, plus the fact that after 48 games and weeks of football, only a third of the teams actually get knocked out.
Russia 2018 is using 12-Stadiums and no doubt the expansion will require a few more the Grounds we could use:
London (Wembley | Emirates | White Hart Lane | Stamford Bridge | Olympic Stadium)
Manchester (Old Trafford | Eithad)
Liverpool (Anfield | Goodison Park)
Newcastle / Sunderland / Middlesbrough (St. James' Park | Riverside | Stadium of Light)
Nottingham / Derby / Leicester (City Ground | Pride Park | King Power Stadium)
Leeds (Elland Road)
Birmingham (Villa Park)
Southampton (St. Marys)
Milton Keynes (Stadium:MK)
Bristol (Ashton Gate)
Brighton (Amex Stadium)
Thats over 20-Grounds that are already adequate for hosting a Tournament
16 grounds would be absolutely no problem in most top footballing countries, and the US (Where the 2026 finals could well end up) would find it trivially easy to find 16 suitable stadiums.
England get knocked out in second week leaving us with four weeks of boredom
Erm surely you do that PRIOR to the vote... You dont buy a kitchen and then check the reviews!!
So at least we'll avoid the usual scenario where the likes of Germany and Spain field a reserve side for their 3rd group against no hopers who've already been eliminated.
Europe's major clubs will hate it for the obvious reason that their top players will now be away for a 6 week tournament. It will also surely need to start earlier than it does now because otherwise the start of the following season will be fucked up for clubs whose players make the semi finals and don't finish playing until mid July.