- Moderator
- #51
Yeah I know it’s all politics. Nobody at FIFA actually cares about the football just greedy lobbying.Infantino looking to get elected. Lotsa votes in expanding concacaf anf caf spots.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Yeah I know it’s all politics. Nobody at FIFA actually cares about the football just greedy lobbying.Infantino looking to get elected. Lotsa votes in expanding concacaf anf caf spots.
I think FIFA have already announced that all future World Cup bids need to be co-host between two or more countries for any chance of winning.I reckon 32 is optimal personally
But if you’re going to squeeze 103 games into say 6 weeks cohosting is the way to ensure stadium infrastructure is adequate.
Theres probs only England, Spain, Germany, Italy and maybe the US that could host on their own And the logistics would have to absolutely perfect.
but even then I reckon cohosting is the way forward (Eng/Scot or Spain/Por).
Anyway you look at it expanding the size of the groups from 4 to 5 or even 6 potentially means more dead rubbers or semi-meaningless group games. Reducing to three has the same effect but increases the chances of collusion etc.
It all depends how qualifying is setup. The AFC tend to favour certain countries doesn’t make it guarantee but I’m sure India and the Middle East countries will lobby for an easy path.Yep, don’t expect this 48 team World Cup thing to make it any easier for an India or Malta or Latvia etc to make the World Cup. From Europe, it will be nations like Turkey, Finland, Slovakia, Romania and countries of that tier with much more of chance to make the World Cup moving forward.
New Zealand will always be in the World Cup now. So from this region, no one else will make it. Making it a 48 team World Cup won’t suddenly improve most countries chances.
But if you’re going to squeeze 103 games
How dare you get rid of the ever-popular third place play-off...
Spot on, remember when they expanded the Cricket World Cup (One Dayers) with a lot more teams and games, and it just dragged on way too long ?
Also would Euro Clubs (especially the big ones involved in the Champions league) support an extended world cup which puts more miles and less rest in the non domestic season for their star players/multi million dollar assets ?
There is too many logistical reasons not to expand it to 48 teams.
There definitely wouldn't be a mid season world cup again to appease a sportswashing oil nation state. That's for sure.
In all reality there would only be one extra match round with 16 groups of 4 into 32 and so on. When played in the accepted World Cup timeslot of June / July that won't pose an issue at all to European club seasons. It would lengthen the tournament from 32 to 37 days. Easily accommodated in the off season.
There definitely wouldn't be a mid season world cup again to appease a sportswashing oil nation state. That's for sure.
In all reality there would only be one extra match round with 16 groups of 4 into 32 and so on. When played in the accepted World Cup timeslot of June / July that won't pose an issue at all to European club seasons. It would lengthen the tournament from 32 to 37 days. Easily accommodated in the off season.
Bit like Fifa expects international teams to play every 3-4 daysHave you seen when German football comes back? They have a traditional winter break every year and that is still happening of course, it’s basically like stopping football for the length of two World Cup‘s. Final league games were on November 12th and the league returns on January 20th.
Bayern, for example, have matches on January 21st, 25th, 29th, February 2nd and February 6th. Crazy.
Just accentuates the difference between the big and small clubs…That’s just one German club. They would all be on the same schedule.
ANZindI think FIFA have already announced that all future World Cup bids need to be co-host between two or more countries for any chance of winning.
Group | Pot 1 | Pot 2 | Europe |
A | USA | CAMEROON | ITALY |
B | MEXICO | NEW ZEALAND | SERBIA |
C | CANADA | IVORY COAST | WALES |
D | SOUTH KOREA | ECUADOR | SWEDEN |
E | COLOMBIA | JAMAICA | UKRAINE |
F | ARGENTINA | MALI | PORTUGAL |
G | URUGUAY | EGYPT | FRANCE |
H | MOROCCO | UAE | GERMANY |
I | PERU | QATAR | POLAND |
J | IRAN | PANAMA | NETHERLANDS |
K | CHILE | SAUDI ARABIA | ENGLAND |
L | AUSTRALIA | NIGERIA | SPAIN |
M | JAPAN | ALGERIA | DENMARK |
N | BRAZIL | BURKINA FASO | CROATIA |
O | SENEGAL | COSTA RICA | BELGIUM |
P | TUNISIA | IRAQ | SWITZERLAND |
I saw a stat that said something like Spain have the top 4 records for passes in a match in a WC but have gone on to lose 3/4 of them.Way to go Morocco!
Good riddance Spain, same toothless bullshit as the last World Cup.
They're great, but i do hope Brazil's cockiness is their undoing in the tournament.
Spot on, remember when they expanded the Cricket World Cup (One Dayers) with a lot more teams and games, and it just dragged on way too long ?
They won't this year.They usually start to self destruct at the quarters.
I wouldn't underestimate Portugal.Winner of France/England will be in the final. That cutthroat
Just realised they haven't made the final four since 2002, their last win. Given it's Brazil, that is quite something.They usually start to self destruct at the quarters.