World Cup 48 teams for the 2026 World Cup

[jd2010]

Whats the advantage of the bigger groups?

They just create dead rubbers.

There's no such thing as dead rubbers in a proper tournament. Sides might be knocked out but their fans get to see their players on the biggest stage trying to go for a win. Sure it might have been harder for a lesser side to get through making the same 6-8 sides win it but that's actually a good thing!

Now we are going to see more Greece/Portugal's or sides pretty much base their game around being good penalty takers/stoppers. That's not good for the game at all

 

[Inferno]

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 2010 Asia sent North Korea who managed a goal difference of -11 and lost their half a spot to the powerhouse that is New Zealand.

In 2006 Asia won a total of one match (S.Korea against Togo, which will go down in the annals of history I'm sure).

2002 saw Asia send China who managed a goal difference of -9 and Saudi Arabia who managed one of -12.

1998 saw Asian teams yet again win only one match between them.

How is it beneficial to the quality of the competition to have more Asian teams? The current number of Asian teams was fine, and if anything was one too many. A significant expansion of it will simply result in a lot of very mediocre teams competing in what was an event where part of the charm was that qualification for it was at least somewhat difficult and will result in more uncompetitive matches.

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?

All I said was that having more teams like UAE, Uzbekistan, North Korea, China etc. qualify won't add to the quality of the competition and you somehow extrapolate it to this comment? How even???

But I can play this game too. Why don't we just let everyone qualify? Can't wait to see Germany v Gibraltar. Should be a thriller and would really add to the spectacle of the World Cup

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?

Talking of extreme examples, pretending that the 7-1 semi final is the norm rather than the exception is absurd. Brazil didn't just fluke their way into a semi final in the first place, and a 5 time winners capitulation in one individual match doesn't add to the argument of sending a bunch of mediocre Asian and African teams to future World Cups.

And if North Korea could qualify and be uncompeditive 7 years ago it's hardly outside of the realm of possibility that they'd do it again in 9 years time when their path to qualification is all of a sudden much easier.

 

[Inferno]

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.

Fair enough, but again I'm not sure how many people have thought that the problem with the World Cup is that there aren't more teams around the 50th rank in the world being there. Add to that the of massively watering down the group stage where two draws will be enough to get through and an expanded knockout stage which has the potential to see the weaker teams park the bus and attempt to 0-0 their way to penalties. None of this really adds to the spectacle of the competition and I worry that it'll make it significantly worse.

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.

Point taken, but Asia has sent some absolutely trash teams - N.Korea in 2010, China and Saudi Arabia in 2002 as well as only one win among all Asian teams in 2014, 2006 and 1998. Uzbekistan might be ok but they're not another Japan, S.Korea or Australia. I just don't see the need for more Asian teams when we've consistently been a weak conference at World Cups and if Uzbekistan or similar Asian teams are good enough to be there they'd make it through the existing qualification system.

And I mean there's plenty of better European teams who miss out too, I'd place teams like Wales, Ireland, Iceland, Sweden etc. ahead of Uzbekistan. The world is full of ok teams like the Uzbek's.

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.

Considering it was only 2 years ago that China went undefeated in their Asian Cup group which included the same Uzbekistan who you are praising and Saudi Arabia who are a solid chance to qualify atm even without the expanded 48 team format, it's hardly unrealistic to see them qualifying at least semi-regularly in a 48 team format whereas they've struggled to under the 32 team format.

A lot of this decision is based around getting developing market teams into the World Cup, and China who by next decade will be the largest economy in the world would obviously be at the top of that list of nations FIFA want in for economic reasons.

 

[UnitedWarrior93]

Great decision

 

[jd2010]

this is as much about getting election votes as it is $$$

which is just as bad

 

[Magma]

it's great for small nations i guess. and their fans.

 

[Established1870]

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.

They also beat Japan, in Japan, so obviously they're not as s**t as you're trying to make them out to be. And just because Bulgaria weren't full strength, it doesn't matter. They played a mid tier European side in Europe, and thrashed them.

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!

Yeah because everyone around the world can't wait for Australia V Serbia

In 2010 Asia sent North Korea who managed a goal difference of -11 and lost their half a spot to the powerhouse that is New Zealand.

Yes and NK also pushed Brazil to the limit and only lost 2-1 in the end.

2002 saw Asia send China who managed a goal difference of -9 and Saudi Arabia who managed one of -12.

Asia also saw South Korea going all the way to the Semi Final.

 

[Fryer Tuck]

Fair enough, but again I'm not sure how many people have thought that the problem with the World Cup is that there aren't more teams around the 50th rank in the world being there. Add to that the of massively watering down the group stage where two draws will be enough to get through and an expanded knockout stage which has the potential to see the weaker teams park the bus and attempt to 0-0 their way to penalties. None of this really adds to the spectacle of the competition and I worry that it'll make it significantly worse.



Point taken, but Asia has sent some absolutely trash teams - N.Korea in 2010, China and Saudi Arabia in 2002 as well as only one win among all Asian teams in 2014, 2006 and 1998. Uzbekistan might be ok but they're not another Japan, S.Korea or Australia. I just don't see the need for more Asian teams when we've consistently been a weak conference at World Cups and if Uzbekistan or similar Asian teams are good enough to be there they'd make it through the existing qualification system.

And I mean there's plenty of better European teams who miss out too, I'd place teams like Wales, Ireland, Iceland, Sweden etc. ahead of Uzbekistan. The world is full of ok teams like the Uzbek's.



Considering it was only 2 years ago that China went undefeated in their Asian Cup group which included the same Uzbekistan who you are praising and Saudi Arabia who are a solid chance to qualify atm even without the expanded 48 team format, it's hardly unrealistic to see them qualifying at least semi-regularly in a 48 team format whereas they've struggled to under the 32 team format.

A lot of this decision is based around getting developing market teams into the World Cup, and China who by next decade will be the largest economy in the world would obviously be at the top of that list of nations FIFA want in for economic reasons.

I take that as agreement that the format as a whole does stink. However, the expansion was deemed because well... there are a lot of quality sides (let's not go there), and I do believe that there's more than just 32 out there. I can see why they would think expansion was a good idea, even ignoring the $$$.

Honestly, NK of 2010... they were a good story, and well, I believe had it not been for Portugal, they would've had good reason to hold their heads high. I mean, they kept Brazil honest, and I believe they would've had every chance against Ivory Coast had the IC not required to win to keep their qualification hopes alive, and if North Korea didn't lose morale as quick as they did. I believe that NK is really one of the most underrated sides in Asia (but probably because they are massively inconsistent) NK was a great story for 2010, and I don't think you'd find many haters for them being there over a more 'faniced' Asian team. I had seen the performances, and I thought they would've done better. Brazil was a better indication of their performance as a whole, I'd say.

Actually, I'm going to shoot myself in the foot here, buut... No Asian team recorded a win in WC2014. The worst performance in years. Yet Costa Rica topped the Group of Death, go figure that out. Usually they do better than NA, and they do better Africa... but then that's the ticket, innit? The new places have to come from there, and quite frankly, we've seen the poor depth of NA outside of the big 3.

Wait... Iceland over the Uzbeks? Well... to be fair, that would be an interesting match, but at the same time, this isn't Euros 2.0... and also as noted, we are guaranteed a dud Euro nation thanks to the Nations League. But I'd say WC14 was more a buck against the current trend. I expect them to get even better come WC26.

One note that I probably should say: Uzbeistan making the World Cup is actually a very important milestone, because it does actually relate the topic about Europe just being naturally better and how a nation can benefit from competition just above their current level.

Semi, but hardly regular... but honestly, I see more progress coming from ASEAN than I do... there's something very... Indian about how China is handling things (That reminds me, I wonder why no one ever talks about India, who is actually destined to take over China even) I expect Asian qualifying to be very tough by the time 2026 comes round. As for the quality, we will certainly see more of it over the years.

That's pretty much the ticket, though the format makes no sense in regards to that goal. The only way that it does benefit is well, the paradox.

Increasing the number of teams doesn't suddenly make the WC more winnable for other teams..

And well, funnily enough, it does. Thanks to the format, you've got a situation where you're more likely to win the darn thing with 48 then you ever were with 32. Football is a low scoring game after all. If you're great at parking it and doing well in penalties, then you're going to go far!

This doesn't seem like 'get China to the World Cup and maximise their expsoure' which is what the 40 team format would've done (4 guaranteed matches instead of 2). This is 'get China to the World Cup, and give them a decent chance of winning it all and getting a billion people into it.'

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Keepy-uppies?

crossbar challenge

 

[jd2010]

They also beat Japan, in Japan, so obviously they're not as s**t as you're trying to make them out to be. And just because Bulgaria weren't full strength, it doesn't matter. They played a mid tier European side in Europe, and thrashed them.

Are they really mid-tier?

Finished above Azerbaijan & Malta in their Euro qualifying group. And just above Armenia (on GD) & Malta in the last WC qualifying. Would say they're a bottom Euro nation just above the minnows.

Yeah because everyone around the world can't wait for Australia V Serbia

They can when the football is pretty decent. A lot of players in top divisions from those 2 sides. Seeing sides like UAE, NZ, China etc. in knock-out stages is no comparison to Australia or Serbia.

 

[giggler99]

I hated this 48 team World Cup concept when first I heard about it but the more I read up and weight the pros and cons the more I'm starting to like it.

I'm actually in favor and like the idea of sixteen groups of three, they will be done quick with less blow outs, and you will expect less parking the bus from minnow teams in order to just get a point you'll actually see far more attacking play because wins will be like Gold! it is all that pretty much counts draws will be as good as a loss especially if you can't win the first match. (unless of course they go with the idea of a penalty shootout to decide draws then we'll see far more parking the bus from minnows nations, but I'm not convinced that's going to happen through not initially anyway). All matches will actually mean something because only the top nation in each group will advance to the knockout stage.
Essentially what FIFA are doing is a speed dating type group stage done on a lager scale to keep it interesting. 12 groups of 4 will just end up becoming way to boring. and will prolong the tournament out to like six or seven weeks.

Still wont make any difference who wins the World Cup through you can have as many African and Asian countries as you like, the Europeans and South Americans are still always going to win it lol, Through I doubt this is a reason for the expansion a lot of these minnow nations just want to be apart of it and now they get a chance to do so.

The qualifier will probably be damped down, because we will see a lot predictable qualifiers and matches, but meh.. who cares they are just qualifiers. Maybe the confederations will they to spice them up a bit by only doing two legged knockout stages as appose to group stages. who knows, but this is all starting to sound exciting.

 

[jd2010]

I'm actually in favor and like the idea of sixteen groups of three, they will be done quick with less blow outs, and you will expect less parking the bus from minnow teams in order to just get a point you'll actually see far more attacking play because wins will be like Gold! it is all that pretty much counts draws will be as good as a loss especially if you can't win the first match.

2 draws will get you through the group stage more often than not. Unless the other 2 sides colluded so that they both had 1 win & 1 draw

 

[Quokka]

2 draws will get you through the group stage more often than not. Unless the other 2 sides colluded so that they both had 1 win & 1 draw

Isn't it just a 3 game round robin for each group? If you've drawn both your games then the only remaining match is the other two teams against each other.

A win means going on, a draw and it's a three way tie. If GD is equal how would you decide the group barring replaying all 3 games?

 

[jd2010]

Isn't it just a 3 game round robin for each group? If you've drawn both your games then the only remaining match is the other two teams against each other.

A win means going on, a draw and it's a three way tie. If GD is equal how would you decide the group barring replaying all 3 games?

It's every team playing each other once with the top 2 making it through.

If you finish with 2 draws. The other two teams will either have 1 finish on 4 points the other on 1 (so the 2 draws goes through) or they all finish equal on 2 draws. It's just a farce really that goals scored would decide who goes through with the whole group having 2 draws each

 

[Nuke Fremantle]

Another sign the millennials are taking over. Everyone gets a spot, everyone gets a prize.

 

[Quokka]

It's every team playing each other once with the top 2 making it through.

If you finish with 2 draws. The other two teams will either have 1 finish on 4 points the other on 1 (so the 2 draws goes through) or they all finish equal on 2 draws. It's just a farce really that goals scored would decide who goes through with the whole group having 2 draws each

Sorry thought it was only the top team for each pool to go through

 

[Fryer Tuck]

Are they really mid-tier?

Finished above Azerbaijan & Malta in their Euro qualifying group. And just above Armenia (on GD) & Malta in the last WC qualifying. Would say they're a bottom Euro nation just above the minnows.


They can when the football is pretty decent. A lot of players in top divisions from those 2 sides. Seeing sides like UAE, NZ, China etc. in knock-out stages is no comparison to Australia or Serbia.

According to the Nations League, the bottom 16 make up League D. That means currently 40th place and down are in that league (I think surely we'll see a 56th Euro nation, maybe Monaco will like to finally make their big appearance on stage).

The Bulgars are currently ranked 35th, which puts them in League C. League C includes teams like Greece, Denmark, Norway, Albania, Greece, and Finland (I'm surprised too).

Please not that for qualifiers for Euros and the World Cup, one of these teams is guaranteed to take a place in the competition.

It also reminds me that Bulgaria has fallen quite a bit... they used to have a pretty good team. Golden Generations come and go, that's for sure.

Sorry it was only the top team for o go through

In the event that all three teams have the same number of goals for and against, random lots will be determined to see who gets to pack their bags. Most likely in the interest of fairness, otherwise the two teams can either collude to ensure they both get through, or there will be a penalty shootout that determines the loser. (If it is this case, it is likely that the resting team is the group's top seed.)

I hated this 48 team World Cup concept when first I heard about it but the more I read up and weight the pros and cons the more I'm starting to like it.

I'm actually in favor and like the idea of sixteen groups of three, they will be done quick with less blow outs, and you will expect less parking the bus from minnow teams in order to just get a point you'll actually see far more attacking play because wins will be like Gold! it is all that pretty much counts draws will be as good as a loss especially if you can't win the first match. (unless of course they go with the idea of a penalty shootout to decide draws then we'll see far more parking the bus from minnows nations, but I'm not convinced that's going to happen through not initially anyway). All matches will actually mean something because only the top nation in each group will advance to the knockout stage.
Essentially what FIFA are doing is a speed dating type group stage done on a lager scale to keep it interesting. 12 groups of 4 will just end up becoming way to boring. and will prolong the tournament out to like six or seven weeks.

Still wont make any difference who wins the World Cup through you can have as many African and Asian countries as you like, the Europeans and South Americans are still always going to win it lol, Through I doubt this is a reason for the expansion a lot of these minnow nations just want to be apart of it and now they get a chance to do so.

The qualifier will probably be damped down, because we will see a lot predictable qualifiers and matches, but meh.. who cares they are just qualifiers. Maybe the confederations will they to spice them up a bit by only doing two legged knockout stages as appose to group stages. who knows, but this is all starting to sound exciting.

It's top 2 out of 3, mon. Just don't finish last, which is easy if you draw both games.

Also, park the bus all the way to the victory, baby!

 

[jd2010]

Sorry it was only the top team for o go through

yeah thought so too at first. if it was it'd be great

but that would mean less games than now & less $$$

 

[jd2010]

According to the Nations League, the bottom 16 make up League D. That means currently 40th place and down are in that league (I think surely we'll see a 56th Euro nation, maybe Monaco will like to finally make their big appearance on stage).

The Bulgars are currently ranked 35th, which puts them in League C. League C includes teams like Greece, Denmark, Norway, Albania, Greece, and Finland (I'm surprised too).

Please not that for qualifiers for Euros and the World Cup, one of these teams is guaranteed to take a place in the competition.

It also reminds me that Bulgaria has fallen quite a bit... they used to have a pretty good team. Golden Generations come and go, that's for sure.

I'd imagine they'll finish last in that League C. Norway finished comfortably ahead of them in one of those 2 qualifying campaigns

 

[Fryer Tuck]

I'd imagine they'll finish last in that League C. Norway finished comfortably ahead of them in one of those 2 qualifying campaigns

Well, if you're curious about what the Leagues would look like now, here's the list:
http://www.footballseeding.com/national-ranking-uefa/ranking-2017/

Seriouisly, see some Finnish Football, and then tell me if you think the Bulgars will finish last.


The biggest shock for me? Iceland is actually in League A (if the Leagues were made right now), Wales is somehow in League B with the Dutch. Safe to say that Iceland's gonna die, lol.

 

[jd2010]

Well, if you're curious about what the Leagues would look like now, here's the list:
http://www.footballseeding.com/national-ranking-uefa/ranking-2017/

Seriouisly, see some Finnish Football, and then tell me if you think the Bulgars will finish last.


The biggest shock for me? Iceland is actually in League A (if the Leagues were made right now), Wales is somehow in League B with the Dutch. Safe to say that Iceland's gonna die, lol.

finland weren't disgraced in their group for qualifying for euro 2016. albeit a shite group!

 

[jd2010]

Well, if you're curious about what the Leagues would look like now, here's the list:
http://www.footballseeding.com/national-ranking-uefa/ranking-2017/

Seriouisly, see some Finnish Football, and then tell me if you think the Bulgars will finish last.


The biggest shock for me? Iceland is actually in League A (if the Leagues were made right now), Wales is somehow in League B with the Dutch. Safe to say that Iceland's gonna die, lol.

whats the relegation criteria again?

they might just survive in the C league for a while. Azerbaijan, Lithuania & Cyprus the only sides they should feel confident beating

 

[Fryer Tuck]

finland weren't disgraced in their group for qualifying for euro 2016. albeit a shite group!

Bulgar's got 2 wins, and is a point behind 2nd. Finland couldn't even win against Kosovo, as the two of them are nailed to the bottom of their group. Finnish football just boggles the mind sometimes.

whats the relegation criteria again?

they might just survive in the C league for a while. Azerbaijan, Lithuania & Cyprus the only sides they should feel confident beating

Bottom team of each group gets relegated. Group Topper gets promoted. (They're doing it in groups of 3... where you can kinda see where the World Cup idea came from.)

 

[Mr_Bojangles]

Another sign the millennials are taking over. Everyone gets a spot, everyone gets a prize.

Your avatar could not be more apt with a comment like that.

 

[giggler99]

It's top 2 out of 3, mon. Just don't finish last, which is easy if you draw both games.

Also, park the bus all the way to the victory, baby!

Mmmm... OK well in that case my theory sucks! Most teams will just park the bus, I've gone back to hating this concept again.