World Cup format for 48-team expanded competition

[WessexPest]

Thought there’d be a thread on this; didn’t spy one but please merge if I overlooked.

FIFA has confirmed the group stage will feature 12 pools of four, not the previously proposed 16 pools of three.

Happy they scrapped the three-in-a-bed format for reasons of footballing integrity, but the tournament is positively elephantine now with eight matches for the eventual winners to navigate, and - if my abacus is working - an additional 40 matches to be played over the course of the tournament.

Even the most ardent armchair fan is going to tire of watching that much football, particularly as there are going to be so many god-awful matches in the group stage and early knockouts. 32 was the perfect number of teams but even at the last two tournaments, which were largely of a very high standard, there were a handful of teams there who were clearly making up the numbers. Not sure the “matchday three of the groups was edge-of-the-seat stuff and we want to preserve that drama” reasoning bears close scrutiny either - the mathematics is completely different when two go through and two are on the plane home versus two qualify from each group plus more than half of the third place teams.

The qualifying tournaments are going to be utterly moribund now. Little point in Argentina facing the other eight CONCACAF teams home and away in a league format - what are the odds of them not finishing in the top six?

32 teams was about optimal, but FIFA’ll not be happy until they’ve taken a sledgehammer to the entire thing - especially if this every two years suggestion rears its ugly head again.

 

[cidercity1987]

Crap crap crap

How did we go from the perfect 16 for the Euros and 32 for the WC to the current monstrosities. The group stages in both competitions are beyond meaningless now as 3rd often goes through

[BCFCGav]

I’m generally very much in the ‘change is good’ camp - but the constant need to fiddle with football is so annoying. Constantly taking things that aren’t broke and trying to fix them - all for £££.

[Mr X]

No matter what FIFA say the only reason why they've done this is for cash. More matches = more money. The world cup is the only way FIFA make any real money which is why they're trying to cash in on it as much as possible. For the same reasons they're also significantly expanding the Club World Cup so that it'll now be a summer tournament for 32 teams (like the current world cup) from 2025. 

[The Bard]

It's political mainly.   FIFA know that the 32 team format was the optimum but there was no way that UEFA and the South American federation were going to give up qualifying spaces for other federations.  When you consider that Egypt, Nigeria and Algeria didn't qualify last time but Wales  and Equador did, you can see why they'd want to change it.  Apart from Qatar, Wales were the only team at the last World Cup that weren't actually any good.

Of the 16 extra places, only 3 are going to Europe.  That would've been Poland, Ukraine and Sweden for the last tournament. 

Obviously there is money to be made but it isn't as simple as 'they're doing this for the money'.  

Personally, I would have liked to see them create a 2 tiered qualifying process where 16 sides qualify directly with a further 32 going into a global qualifying tournament to decide the other 16 qualifiers.  They did something similar for the 20/20 world cup last year.

Edited March 15, 2023 by The Bard

[1960maaan]

In one breath "players play too much"

The next. "we need more games"

They wont be happy until the schedule is so bloated people stop watching. The Euros & WC are/have been special because you have to wait. The qualifying games are still (sort of) relevant ,but the more teams qualify, the less point there is to qualifying and if they do change it to 2 years, there wont be any point, and it might as well be invitation for any bigger Nations. 
 

Edited March 15, 2023 by 1960maaan

[steveybadger]

I’m sure cash (and votes) are the drivers but I read that of the 200+ nations that can qualify only 78(?) actually have, so the theory is that it increases the chance of smaller countries qualifying.

Now I accept that many nations are so small as to be also rans, that it will dilute overall quality (though not the latter stages) and it will be cumbersome, but try telling that to a small nation which might get to experience it for the first time.

I wonder that if it is going to be increased to add a last 32 round then it might as well be made 64 teams. At least then you get rid of third place teams qualifying from the group, which to me seems like rewarding failure and is potentially open to some manipulation if a team is in the last group to play.

Still rather keep it 32 though.

[Rocking Red Cyril]

9 hours ago, BCFCGav said:

I’m generally very much in the ‘change is good’ camp - but the constant need to fiddle with football is so annoying. Constantly taking things that aren’t broke and trying to fix them - all for £££.

This is the current global and UK problem with maximising profits.Banks and bloody accountants running the show. When is there ever a concern for the fan. 

[johnbytheriver]

******* ridiculous  !

Edited March 15, 2023 by johnbytheriver
omitted a letter

[2015]

It's better than the 16 Groups of 3, but I still do not believe a 48 Team World Cup is good. 

What I cant stand is when a side like Finland will qualify and the BBC and ITV media teams will be saying 'Such a huge achievement to qualify'. Well, it's not really going to be hard anymore is it?

[WessexPest]

I’m sure we will see a 64-team tournament before too much longer, which will restore the symmetry but will obviously further dilute the quality.

Someone above mentioned this but the more teams qualify the more I wonder we will see the qualification process morph into an FA Cup model where the third round is akin to the tournament proper and the nations seeded 33 and below will vie to join the established nations at the showpiece. Hardly fair, but you can’t keep expanding the tournament that much without making major changes to how teams earn their place at the table.

My biggest beef with the third-place teams advancing is it encourages negative play. At Italia 90, the Republic of Ireland reached the QFs without winning a single game and scoring a total of two goals.

[handsofclay]

My main concern, of several, is that international football whether that's playing for one's country in tournaments or playing for one's club in European matches, will eventually become so taxing on players due to the increased workload that domestic competitions will take a back seat. Similar to cricket where international players rarely play for their counties, indeed, at times they'll turn out for a completely different county if there's a match in the build up to a Test or T20 etc and they need a run out. 

I can see domestic competitions being used to blood promising youngsters and the old guard who are past representing their country. The standard will become diluted. Unless the tail stops wagging the dog. 

I wouldn't mind if World Cups etc were consigned to history. Much prefer the domestic club competitions and European and possibly world club competitions, but as long as they aren't played to the detriment of the domestic game 

[The Gasbuster]

As others have said, this will dilute the quality of the tournament, with more lower quality sides qualifying.

Therefore more of the insufferable Jock and Taff fans being labelled as "the best in the world", by themselves.

Four games (at least) a day during the group stages, how will interest be maintained ? (In fairness, during the 2022 tournament, the lower key fixtures were generally played earlier in the day).

 

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it !"

[2015]

Just genuinely think the Tournaments will be nowhere near as good on quality from any of the World Cups from 1998 - 2022. 

The expansion to 32 was justified due to 24 teams meaning that 3rd placed sides would qualify from Groups from 86 - 94. 

I don't see the 48 team world cup as signs of good 'progress'. I see it as a money making scheme for FIFA and the smaller Football Associations so they can play on the big stage.

For my generation (born in the early 90s) i'm not sure the World Cup will feel the same going forward.

[Pearcy]

It's better then the 3 teams in a group proposed originally, however, it means there will be SEVENTY TWO group games played in total to only eliminate 16 teams. 

It also makes it unlikely any of the bigger nations will be eliminated in the group stages. The likes of Mexico, Germany, Belgium & Uruguay who were all knocked out in the group stages of the last World Cup would make it through to the knockout stages with this new format. 

But I guess this is exactly what FIFA are aiming for, more matches & the bigger nations not going out early.

[WessexPest]

45 minutes ago, Pearcy said:

It's better than the 3 teams in a group proposed originally, however, it means there will be SEVENTY TWO group games played in total to only eliminate 16 teams. 

Yes, that is utterly ridiculous. And makes a mockery of the claim they want to preserve the drama of matchday 3 of the groups from the last tournament - it really won’t. The tournament will not really get going until the round of 16.

[WessexPest]

Also, surely they need to counter the ridiculous number of games by now scrapping the bronze medal match. 

[Baba Yaga]

Think I was one of those who criticised the euros going up to 24 teams but to be honest I did end up enjoying lots of the last tournament. Looking back there were some really good games in the last 16 so in theory a last 32 with the rest of the world included should be similar quality. It definitely makes the qualifying process less exciting for a club like England though. One thing I think is a negative is that it makes it harder for nations to host tournaments by themselves because of the increased number of games, but I would rather that than 3 team groups which I think would have been a disaster.

From the point of view of the people who matter at fifa I suppose the 2 options were to either keep the gravy train running by expanding the tournament or to continue picking host nations who give the best backhanders, and after the political pressure from the previous bids they decided to expand the tournament.  

[22A]

Also an increase in the number of clubs invited to the Club Championship. From 2025 it'll be 32. I remember when it was the winners of the Euro Cup (Champions League) against their South American counterpart.

19 hours ago, cidercity1987 said:

Crap crap crap

How did we go from the perfect 16 for the Euros and 32 for the WC to the current monstrosities. The group stages in both competitions are beyond meaningless now as 3rd often goes through

It's to allow more clubs the opportunity to play in the World Cup. A FIFA official explained that over 200 member nations, but the vast majority have never made it to the Finals. 

Someone should explain to FIFA the tournament is for just the top nations. Using FIFA's reasoning, Hartlepool will be in the Prem next season.

[The Bard]

8 hours ago, WessexPest said:

I’m sure we will see a 64-team tournament before too much longer, which will restore the symmetry but will obviously further dilute the quality.

Someone above mentioned this but the more teams qualify the more I wonder we will see the qualification process morph into an FA Cup model where the third round is akin to the tournament proper and the nations seeded 33 and below will vie to join the established nations at the showpiece. Hardly fair, but you can’t keep expanding the tournament that much without making major changes to how teams earn their place at the table.

My biggest beef with the third-place teams advancing is it encourages negative play. At Italia 90, the Republic of Ireland reached the QFs without winning a single game and scoring a total of two goals.

I'd keep the tournament at 32 teams, but I'd have 2 tiered qualification.  16 teams qualify direct from the usual qualifying from confederations with the other 16 from a qualifying tournament held in the host country/countries 6 to 12 months before.  32 teams from all the federations whittled down to 16 through 8 groups of 4.  That would ensure the best teams actually play in the tournament proper.  No one would walk into the tournament like they do at the moment.  

It would give FIFA the the extra games but with loads more jeopardy. 

Having said all of that, it will never happen .  Far too competitively honest.  There isn't a sport that isn't loaded in favour of the bigger markets.

[Northern Red]

 

[Super]

Buzzing for Sudan v Latvia.

[cidercity1987]

If it needs to be 48 teams, then a 3 team group is pathetic as fans would travel for only two games, but the solution is also very bad to have uncompetitive groups as top 3 go through, too many games and more games per team.

Did they think about having a preliminary stage for the outsiders with only a few going through to the main group stage of 32?

[The Bard]

1 minute ago, cidercity1987 said:

If it needs to be 48 teams, then a 3 team group is pathetic as fans would travel for only two games, but the solution is also very bad to have uncompetitive groups as top 3 go through, too many games and more games per team.

Did they think about having a preliminary stage for the outsiders with only a few going through to the main group stage of 32?

As I suggested above.   16 direct qualifiers, 32 qualify for a global qualifying tournament to determine other 16 qualifiers.  Would be of massive interest for maybe 2 weeks 

[cidercity1987]

3 minutes ago, The Bard said:

As I suggested above.   16 direct qualifiers, 32 qualify for a global qualifying tournament to determine other 16 qualifiers.  Would be of massive interest for maybe 2 weeks 

Absolutely, those qualifiers are less likely to reach the latter stages so not going to be playing 10 games. But for some of the 16-32 ranked teams they'll play more than the usual 3 in a World Cup which would have been great.

 

[Sir Geoff]

Look on the bright side we might see Tommy Conway at the World Cup in a couple of years (or whenever the next one is) time. Keep expanding it and Scotland will get there eventually.

[WessexPest]

13 hours ago, Northern Red said:

 

I usually shy away from criticising a fellow slaphead, but that fecker is slimier than a slug who has competed on Pat Sharpe’s funhouse.

I like @The Bard’s suggestion but agree it is highly unlikely to ever become reality.

With Australia now competing in the AFC qualification competition and OFC having a guaranteed spot in the finals, New Zealand can look forward to qualifying in perpetuity - can’t see Solomon Islands, New Caledonia or Tuvalu presenting them any significant problems.

[The Bard]

1 hour ago, WessexPest said:

I usually shy away from criticising a fellow slaphead, but that fecker is slimier than a slug who has competed on Pat Sharpe’s funhouse.

I like @The Bard’s suggestion but agree it is highly unlikely to ever become reality.

With Australia now competing in the AFC qualification competition and OFC having a guaranteed spot in the finals, New Zealand can look forward to qualifying in perpetuity - can’t see Solomon Islands, New Caledonia or Tuvalu presenting them any significant problems.

Australia will now start to pine for the pacific.....