Super Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 48 teams?! What a joke. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38565246 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 At first glance I was skeptical. I've thought about it now and perhaps it's really just a blending of the qualifying and finals sections. I'm thinking I'll just treat that initial group stage as simply the last qualifying stage. If you do this then the World Cup in fact becomes a straight knockout competition with 32 teams going at it from the start...perhaps, just perhaps...that could be fun? Of course this is ignoring the fact that this is probably just a way to allow the African and Asian FAs to join in the cash-supernova. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevonRed794 Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 The quality of the football at Euro 2016 wasn't as good as previous tournaments due to this change. Teams only had to win one game and they'd more or less be through to the knock-out stages. It seemed that teams would rather avoid defeat than try to win all their games. It will be good for the smaller nations, but for spectators, I think it will have a negative impact. I'm sure many will disagree but that's my view of it, as I found myself dozing off during a number of games in the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big C Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 of course we are now back to the eighties, like in the Germany/Austria game when the two teams playing the last group game can now fix the result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider-manc Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 8 minutes ago, DevonRed794 said: The quality of the football at Euro 2016 wasn't as good as previous tournaments due to this change. Teams only had to win one game and they'd more or less be through to the knock-out stages. It seemed that teams would rather avoid defeat than try to win all their games. It will be good for the smaller nations, but for spectators, I think it will have a negative impact. I'm sure many will disagree but that's my view of it, as I found myself dozing off during a number of games in the summer. It was ridiculous. The fact that the team who won the tournament only won 1 game within 90 mins tells you everything you need to know about the entertainment value- No disrespect intended to Portugal who did what needed to be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevonRed794 Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, cider-manc said: It was ridiculous. The fact that the team who won the tournament only won 1 game within 90 mins tells you everything you need to know about the entertainment value- No disrespect intended to Portugal who did what needed to be done. De-values the tournament in my opinion, should be for the 'top' teams in their respective confederations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 i'll give it a chance, but i can't see anything but a dire tourny like the euros was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider-manc Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, DevonRed794 said: De-values the tournament in my opinion, should be for the 'top' teams in their respective confederations. Unfortunately whilst devaluing the quality it makes the tournament more valuable financially. And we all know which one of those values is more important to the likes of FIFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevonRed794 Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, cider-manc said: Unfortunately whilst devaluing the quality it makes the tournament more valuable financially. And we all know which one of those values is more important to the likes of FIFA. Agree. Sad state of affairs.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Meh. I guess they have to do something to stay relevant, and this will pretty much ensure that pretty much all "star" players will be present, something that the champions league seems to have had as a boast for sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Team In Keynsham Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Given group games must be played on separate days, I fully expect FIFA to assist the supporters in their travel and accommodation arrangements ensuring any group is based in a single location. The governing body can always be relied upon to put the fans first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo88 Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 There are approx 194 countries in the world, (there is some dispute as to whether some states are countries or not) and 211 football associations affiliated to FIFA. A 48 country World Cup will mean approx 25% of the world's countries will be taking part! By comparison, the 1966 World Cup only had 16 teams. There is only one reason for the plan to have 48 teams. More teams mean more televised matches, which means more money. Virtually every change to the way football is organised is driven my money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sepp Blatter Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Upping the tournament to 48 teams will bring in an estimated one billion pounds worth of extra revenue. I wonder why this decision has been made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 1 hour ago, DevonRed794 said: The quality of the football at Euro 2016 wasn't as good as previous tournaments due to this change. Teams only had to win one game and they'd more or less be through to the knock-out stages. It seemed that teams would rather avoid defeat than try to win all their games. It will be good for the smaller nations, but for spectators, I think it will have a negative impact. I'm sure many will disagree but that's my view of it, as I found myself dozing off during a number of games in the summer. Couldn't have said it better myself. The Euros were awful, and not just because of the England results/performances. I watched a lot of the evening games, and to be honest I can't remember one single game that was worth watching really. Everything that is changed, whether it be tournament formats, sponsorships, kick off times, it's all money orientated. A lot of fans are becoming wise to it, but I can't see anything getting bette, or even changing, anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 I'm sure the teams who play the last game wouldn't dream of fixing a result that benefits both teams.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123456789000 Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Sepp Blatter said: Upping the tournament to 48 teams will bring in an estimated one billion pounds worth of extra revenue. I wonder why this decision has been made? You're just bitter because it's not going in your back pocket anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Sepp Blatter said: Upping the tournament to 48 teams will bring in an estimated one billion pounds worth of extra revenue. I wonder why this decision has been made? Not even with a Steve Landown..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiale Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 invite every country and have it done as a knockout competition, you win you progress..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanterne Rouge Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 4 hours ago, pongo88 said: There are approx 194 countries in the world, (there is some dispute as to whether some states are countries or not) and 211 football associations affiliated to FIFA. A 48 country World Cup will mean approx 25% of the world's countries will be taking part! By comparison, the 1966 World Cup only had 16 teams. There is only one reason for the plan to have 48 teams. More teams mean more televised matches, which means more money. Virtually every change to the way football is organised is driven my money. That was my first thought too, nearly a quarter of all the affiliated associations would qualify - ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Isewater Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 The World Cup and Euros have been devalued by the rich clubs and the players who no longer see playing for the national side as the peak of their careers but as an inconvenience in between League and Champions League matches when they need / want a rest . The mystery and excitement I once felt as the best players in the world assembled to do battle has now gone as the best players are seen regularly on telly ( mostly for Real and Barca ) and have become all too familiar. Its all got very tiresome I'm sad to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
22A Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Forty years ago Joao Havelange was trying to become President of FIFA. He toured the nations of Africa, Asia and even Oceana and suggested if they voted for him, he'd ensure more of them got to play in the World Cup finals. Today FIFA have announced "Football is more than just Europe and South America". In Rugby League they welcome any nation that can raise a team to take part in their World Cup. Cricket has a separate tournament for their lesser nations with just the top few being allowed into the main World Cup. I think cricket has got it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixtyseconds Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 I think FIFA know best. They know what they are doing. And always act with the best intentions for football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestonRobin Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 29 minutes ago, 22A said: Forty years ago Joao Havelange was trying to become President of FIFA. He toured the nations of Africa, Asia and even Oceana and suggested if they voted for him, he'd ensure more of them got to play in the World Cup finals. Today FIFA have announced "Football is more than just Europe and South America". In Rugby League they welcome any nation that can raise a team to take part in their World Cup. Cricket has a separate tournament for their lesser nations with just the top few being allowed into the main World Cup. I think cricket has got it right. I agree - I think cricket has it right too. I'd also have a separate qualifying tournament for the minnows (Gibraltar, Faroe Islands, San Marino, Andorra, etc, etc) ... they'd play in a group and the winner(s) would qualify for the main European qualifying campaign. It would help them immensely in my opinion...they'd be playing in far more competitive games and therefore build confidence from winning. It means there would be less qualifying groups which would also be more competitive...top teams playing top teams far more regularly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixtyseconds Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Embrace it. Rooney could get 200 caps this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olé Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 8 hours ago, cider-manc said: It was ridiculous. The fact that the team who won the tournament only won 1 game within 90 mins tells you everything you need to know about the entertainment value- No disrespect intended to Portugal who did what needed to be done. On the other hand we had to play one more game than every other team at the tournament Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 7 hours ago, Sepp Blatter said: Upping the tournament to 48 teams will bring in an estimated one billion pounds worth of extra revenue. I wonder why this decision has been made? That , and it guarantees Infantino lots of votes when it comes to re-election possibly Guess it opens up lots more opportunities for 'appreciative gestures' from lots more countries too !! Possibly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 1 hour ago, 22A said: Cricket has a separate tournament for their lesser nations with just the top few being allowed into the main World Cup. I think cricket has got it right. Like hell they have, they've pushed teams like Ireland, who are more than capable of beating the top teams out of the world cup to ensure only the teams who play each on rotation anyway are in the competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheddarReds Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Does anyone know how the groups will be organised (for example 8 groups of 6 and top 2 go through with 4 other top point scorers) or haven't they gone into that much detail yet? Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cityexile Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 5 minutes ago, CheddarReds said: Does anyone know how the groups will be organised (for example 8 groups of 6 and top 2 go through with 4 other top point scorers) or haven't they gone into that much detail yet? Cheers I believe it us going to be a massive 16 groups of 3, Top two from each group go through, and these 32 will then go in to straight knockout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Why not have more countries getting the chance to play in the WC finals. It's not long ago that England failed to qualify for the final 32, so at least it gives us more chance ( no I'm not joking) of qualifying each time. Less and less English talent playing in our leagues ( we have just signed an Aussie,Bosnian and a German ourselves! ) will make it harder for us. Currently Europe gets 13 of the 32 places, i for one would like some of the other football mad countries in the World get their chance to finally have their day. There are talented players worldwide who currently will never get to play in a WC, It may well make WC finals become a bit more interesting, because the last few have become stale imo. I read today that 77 different nations have played in WC finals, some of these should have more of a chance of experiencing the tournament again in the future, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.