World Cup 48 teams for the 2026 World Cup

Remove this Banner Ad

Penalties in group stages would be a farce. Means lower teams will just park the bus and hope to hold out for 90 minutes to better their chances of winning from the spot.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

More opportunities for countries.

PRetty much eliminated dead rubber group matches and twice as much knock out matches.

I actually like it.
 
The format's ridiculous. The 40 team proposal (8 groups of 5) or just something like 12 groups of 4 would work so much better than this new format.
 
Van_Dyke said:
The format's ridiculous. The 40 team proposal (8 groups of 5) or just something like 12 groups of 4 would work so much better than this new format.
Click to expand...

Whats the advantage of the bigger groups?

They just create dead rubbers.
 
Pykie said:
Whats the advantage of the bigger groups?

They just create dead rubbers.
Click to expand...
At least it means that you have to prove yourself over multiple games to advance. A side could draw two games and still make it to the next stage.
 
TheGreatBarryB said:
16 groups of 3?! Does that mean we only see Australia play twice instead of three times? Unless of course they qualify for next round. Becomes more of a knockout tournament than it already is. Dilutes qualification, will encourage more negative/defensive play by the weaker teams. Shocking decision but not surprising.
Click to expand...

That's right, that's the kicker right there. Only two matches of the big teams. Which is why I stated that if FIFA were indeed going for more money, than this format makes no sense. The Round of 32 is really the only thing that expands it. You get 88 games and 4 matches guaranteed of cash cows if you chose the 40 team option which is by far the best option for expansion.

The only benefit that this format provides is that one is more likely to see the US or China win the World Cup, despite the fact that they could get less guaranteed matches.

Inferno said:
I was merely pointing them out as an example from the tweet that shepp quoted. They're a team who's ELO is currently sitting between North Korea and China, and their the FIFA ranking is behind many teams who haven't made the World Cup in decades and even a few who haven't been to the World Cup before at all. Now the World Cup will have many teams of that standard from Asia and Africa rather than just a handful and that's not a good thing.

When Australia, Japan, S.Korea and Iran couldn't get a win between them how does opening the door to the UAE, Uzbekistan, North Korea, China etc. so that a majority of that group will probably qualify as well add anything to the World Cup in terms of playing standards or prestige? It'll also make qualifying in Asia stupidly easy for the stronger teams, we'd be at more risk of being toppled by the Kiwi's for Oceania's spot if we stayed there.

And guarantee wasn't the right word, but potentially opening up the tournament for what will then be the worlds largest economy certainly would've been in FIFA's minds since China is so far away from making a tournament of 32 but a slight improvement would see them on the bubble of a 48 team tournament where Asian qualification is easier.
Click to expand...


I think the Elo system itself has a few problems of its own, but I can tell you that BF is a lot closer to the top than what their Elo ranking is. For once I'm backing FIFA's ranking in this case. I see what you're trying to say, but at the same time, this is the World Cup. Not Europe, South America plus some random teams over the world. As long as the best making to the real stuff, that's really all you can ask for a premier tournament. Get the good ones to the tournament, and get the best ones in the finals.

Well those nations have always been there, Uzbekistan in particular getting the rough rub, probably one of the most underrated national teams out there. As things stand in Asia, I feel like there's not enough places to send the good Asian teams. There's a good reason West Asia did their best to keep us out, one extra major nation in there without any increase to their quota makes it a very tight business. As things stand, we could be losing our place to the UAE. Even in a 6 quota qualifier, it would still be knife edge stuff.

A slight improvement, provided the rest of Asia haven't improved either... then again, is it just China? Why not one of the most underlooked regions in World Football? ASEAN? You know, that subregion that we belong to, but aren't allowed to take part because we'd wallop them? I honestly have more faith in Thailand qualifying for a World Cup then I do with China. If this was under the 6 team quota, I would dare say Asian qualifying will become more difficult. Bad enbough Africa's a mad house, Asia could be following the same path.
 
Should've gone 40 with 8 groups of 5, top 2 go through.

Round of 32 is just silly. Also the 2 teams that play last in the groups will have an advantage over the other side.

My favourite system was the 2-group one they used in Span in 82.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Van_Dyke said:
At least it means that you have to prove yourself over multiple games to advance. A side could draw two games and still make it to the next stage.
Click to expand...


It's not like you are advancing to the Round of 16 straight off.

People have short memories with the group stages. Half way through most people are waiting for the knockout to come around.

The more knockout the better.
 
More knock out would only be good if they found an alternative to the penalty shoot-out that better reflected they football ability of the sides.
 
There's about 200 countries in the world, so I hope people saying Tahiti and Petoria will be in it are kidding.

Number of games is increased from 64 to 80.

Finalists still play 7 games.
 
Established1870 said:
1) The reducing of quality argument is pretty stupid when you see the potential sides from Asia and Africa who'd get a better chance of making it. The UAE creamed Bulgaria 3-0 away in a friendly at the end of last year and would do the same to a few sides who made the Euros and the last WC. Abdulrahman, Mabkhout and Khalil are some of the best players in Asia. Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia would all be sides from Africa highly likely to make an expanded WC and none of them are s**t either.

2) Thinking of all the likely sides to make an expanded WC, it's becoming pretty obvious who this was made to benefit the most. I won't name names but I'll give you a clue:

View attachment 326381
Click to expand...

IS this the same UAE that last year lost to powerhouses Syria and Jordan? Bulgaria was far from their best side that day. Why on earth would 5th-8th best teams in Asia add to quality. On a world comparison they are indeed very mediocre.

UAE v Egypt ...wow what we have to look forward to in future World Cups. Don't mind having to watch in a much lower tournament...but World Cup? Horrendous!
 
Inferno said:
When Australia, Japan, S.Korea and Iran couldn't get a win between them how does opening the door to the UAE, Uzbekistan, North Korea, China etc. so that a majority of that group will probably qualify as well add anything to the World Cup in terms of playing standards or prestige?
Click to expand...

Two of those nations qualified for the knockout stages in 2010 with another missing on goal difference.

If we're going to be overly reactionary to immediate previous performances, why not also look to limit European involvement - after all, two of the 9 countries who failed to win a game in 2014 are UEFA nations.

In fact we may as well go a step further. I believe only 6 nations have made the semi-finals on multiple occasions since 1982 - why not just hold the tournament with those nations? The rest aren't adding much to the "playing standards" are they?

The "playing standard" argument is a complete cop-out. Did you enjoy the standard of the semi-final in the most recent WC between the current 2nd and 3rd ranked sides in the world?

Your use of North Korea as an example is a little extreme - what are they, the 20th ranked nation in Asia?
 
8 teams have won the world cup since it's inception....

The people claiming about the bottom rung of teams diluting the talent, it's part of the whole reason of having the world cup, is the involvement.

If you only want realistic winning nations, how about we just keep it to 8 teams then......
 
Have they confirmed there will be a round of 32?

Alternative option is still go straight to round of 16, with only the group winners progressing. Would make the group stages much more entertaining
 
Pykie said:
8 teams have won the world cup since it's inception....

The people claiming about the bottom rung of teams diluting the talent, it's part of the whole reason of having the world cup, is the involvement.

If you only want realistic winning nations, how about we just keep it to 8 teams then......
Click to expand...

Increasing the number of teams doesn't suddenly make the WC more winnable for other teams..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dirty Bird
  • Sticky
  • Poll
World Cup 2026 FIFA World Cup (Qualifiers)
2 3 4
Replies
89
Views
8K
DBAH0
DBAH0
giggler99
Socceroos World Cup Qualifiers Socceroos V Lebanon
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
GOALden Hawk
G
G
World Cup Team of the Tournament
Replies
13
Views
760
Cruyff14
Cruyff14
RossFC
  • Locked
World Cup 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup (Head to Football Australia Board)
Replies
0
Views
1K
RossFC
RossFC
giggler99
  • Locked
Socceroos World Cup Qualifiers Socceroos V Bangladesh/Palestine
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
2K
krakouers
krakouers
Zidane98
  • Poll
AFC Asian Cup 2023 (Qatar Champions)
43 44 45 46 47
Replies
1K
Views
22K
Zidane98
Zidane98
RossFC
World Cup 2022 Qatar FIFA World Cup FINAL (ARGENTINA CHAMPIONS)
49 50 51 52 53
Replies
1K
Views
24K
LeoMessi
LeoMessi

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top