World Cup Expansion (Update: FIFA Council Recommends Increase to 48 Teams)

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by shizzle787, Dec 4, 2015.

  1. Paul Calixte

    Paul Calixte Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    Location:
    Lima, Peru
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Country:
    United States
    That could leave a bunch of pointless games at the end, which the Caribbean wants to avoid - hence the change from the WC14 qualifying format with the first group stage and only one team moving on to the Wc18 one with all playoffs before the semifinal round.

    I presume this would mean only one Gold Cup per cycle...which may happen anyways, as anything in football beyond 2022 is a toss-up at this point. But considering Montagliani's comments about getting the smaller teams in CONCACAF more games, I don't see a giant single-group final round happening.

    Highly doubt this ever happens, as it would be disastrous for them economically.

    If this were to happen, then: poor, poor Belize... :D
     

  2. Footsatt

    Footsatt Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Location:
    Michigan
    Country:
    United States
    This was when there was 3.5 spots out of 6 teams advancing... in 2026 WCQ the Caribbean teams could have a chance with 6.5 teams out of 12 teams making it. 5 teams will play a lot of games and not make it, but the bottom 23 teams in the region will be out already. The losing 23 only play 4 games... this should appease the weaker teams of not playing to many games.
     
  3. Blondo

    Blondo Member+

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    African nations want 10 places at expanded competition - bbc.com

    That's CAF +100% ... to compare Uefa seeks +23% and Conmebol +33% (it's 20% really as the interconfed play-off usually goes their way)
     
  4. JLSA

    JLSA Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2003
    Regardless of the "fairness" or "deservedness", you have to admit that the following split (based on taking the 1/2 places from Asia and Concacaf and adding them to CAF's earlier 9 to give)
    UEFA 16 - CAF 10 - AFC 8 - Conmebol 6 - Concacaf 6 - OFC 1 - Host 1
    would be far easier to arrange in terms of final round qual groups in confederations
    CAF - 5 groups of 4, AFC 4 groups of 4, Concacaf 3 groups of 4
    9, 8.5 and 6.5 seem really awkward to me in terms of how you structure without multiple play-offs at the end (which pushes the earlier matches - and hence competitive fixtures for teams that do qualify relatively easily - further away from the finals tournament)
    Clearly this point is irrelevant for South America and Oceania. UEFA could go 10 groups, winners + 2 best 2nds + 4 playoff winnners.

    J
     


  5. almango

    almango Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Location:
    Bulli, Australia
    Club:
    Sydney FC
    Country:
    Australia
    I'm surprised UEFA has kept its bid for extra spots so low. Maybe they will soon expand the Euro to 32 teams as compensation. I would rather see a 32 team Euro than a 24 team one. The average quality of teams will drop but that will be made up for by the fact you cant draw (and bore) your way to the knockout round with any confidence.
     
  6. Blondo

    Blondo Member+

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    In case of a 32 team Euro you could as well invite the best sides from around the world (sorry Scotland you still won't get in) ... I'm betting it would be better than Infantino's 48 team nonsense ... I'd prefer that Ceferin restores the 16 team Euros though ... Nations League looks promising ... especially as it will replace meaningless friendlies ... some changes are for the better and I can get behind the Nations League one ... a 16x3 WC still disgusts me and I'll probably end up watching a lot less of it.
     
  7. Datderfranny

    Datderfranny Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2015
    Location:
    Detroit, MI
    Club:
    --other--
    Country:
    United States
    COMMEBOL should get at least 7 in a 48 team world cup and frankly it’s silly that they only get 4.5 in the current format. The average COMMEBOL nation is FAR better than the average nation from any other federation, including UEFA. And no, the whole argument of “cheapening” the COMMEBOL World Cup Qualifying stage is not enough justification to short justifiable allocation for the federation.

    Hopefully it looks something like this:

    UEFA 16

    CAF 9.5

    COMMEBOL 7.5

    Oceania 1

    CONCACAF 5.5

    AFC 6.5

    1 Host

    In the case of two hosts, which I think will happen more frequently (and should), I would think that the hosting confederation should relinquish at least a half spot, or a even one whole spot. What I mean is, only the first spot is free when there are two hosts. So example, if the US and Canada dual host 2026, Concacaf would only get 4.5 in addition to the US and Canada, not 5.5 + the 2 hosts, which would still be a nice boon for the confederation.

    EDIT: Throughout this argument, I’ve been a proponent for the expansion of the world cup, but I am not a big fan of 3 team groups, mainly because two games is too short a group stage for me. At this point, I hope they move up to a 64 team world cup rather quickly, and make 2 and even 3 host nation cups mandatory.
     
  8. Footsatt

    Footsatt Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Location:
    Michigan
    Country:
    United States
    It looks like FIFA wants co-hosts for 2026. They mention to ideally have 3-4 hosts for each WC. How will they handle the allocation?...

    My guess is the host Confed will get 1 extra spot for hosting. The host countries will have to take spots from their allocation for the other 2 or 3 spots. For example, lets say CONCACAF is host and usually gets 6 spots, then if they were host they get 7.

    It could look like this...

    MEX - Host
    USA - Host
    CAN - Host
    4 extra spots for the rest of CONCACAF to battle over.

    These numbers are obviously hypothetical, but I just cant see any region getting 3 or 4 extra spots when hosting.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2017 at 12:14 PM


  9. Footsatt

    Footsatt Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Location:
    Michigan
    Country:
    United States
    Here is the article...
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-soccer-africa-idUSKBN16126T

    It seems they are still negotiating allocation spots, but this what the article states.

    10 for Africa (was 5)
    16 for Euro (was 13) - they hope to have 1 Euro team in each of the 16, 3 team groups.
    8 or 9 for Asia (was 4.5)
    6 for S. America (was 4.5)
    6.5 for CONCACAF (was 3.5)
    1 for Oceania (was .5)
    1 for Host

    The math in the article does not add up. The total is 48.5 to 49.5.

    My guess is more like this...
    9.5 for Africa
    15.5 for Euro
    8.5 for Asia
    6.5 for S. America
    5.5 for CONCACAF
    1.5 for Oceania
    1 for Host

    This equals 48 and it keeps the half spots for playoffs.
     
  10. Blondo

    Blondo Member+

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Africa demands 10 but they'll probably settle for 9 or 8.5 (AFC being handed 9 if CAF receive 8.5) and I doubt that OFC gets 1.5 (have to wait and see) ... it could be:

    9 for Africa (was 5)
    16 for Euro (was 13)
    8.5 for Asia (was 4.5)
    6 for S. America (was 4.5)
    6.5 for CONCACAF (was 3.5)
    1 for Oceania (was .5)
    1 for Host

    Conmebol with less spots than Concacaf ... really should merge, at least the Qs.
     
  11. Pipiolo

    Pipiolo Member+

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Country:
    Argentina
    Ridiculous that Concacaf should have more spots than Conmebol. Political correctness gone astray.
     
  12. dinamo_zagreb

    dinamo_zagreb Member+

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    Location:
    San Jose, CA / Zagreb, Croatia
    Club:
    --other--
    Africa has disgraceful success since last expansion. I really love African football, but their performances are disgraceful and they don't even deserve 5 spots in 32-team format.

    26 appearances, 20 eliminations in group stage (1998-2014), two times reached quarters. 17 wins, 24 draws, 45 defeats in 86 matches.

    FIFA is killing the game. :geek:
     
  13. Paul Calixte

    Paul Calixte Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    Location:
    Lima, Peru
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Country:
    United States
    Not the term I would use...politics over football is more like it.
     
    Pipiolo repped this.
  14. Footsatt

    Footsatt Member+

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Location:
    Michigan
    Country:
    United States
    I just don't see how this new format will kill the game...

    More teams from the weaker regions and the better regions will go to the WC now, allowing more countries to watch and celebrate. But the groups should be easier now too, with 2 teams out of 3 from each group advancing. This new format should eliminate all the weak teams in the group stage and more of the better teams will advance to the knockouts. If one of these bottom 16 teams do advance then they are advancing past a top 32 team (in theory anyway).

    Lets assume this hypothetical allocation...
    16 for Euro
    9 for CAF
    8 for AFC
    7 for CONMEBOL
    7 for CONCACAF (+1 for the host)
    1 for Oceania

    The hypothetical top 32...
    All 16 of Euro, 7 of CONMEBOL, 3 from CONCACAF, 3 from CAF and 2 from AFC, 1 for Oceania
    The above teams should be the teams that advance to the knockouts. Assuming Euro teams cant face Euros and CONMEBOL teams cant face each other either in the group stage.

    The bottom 16 teams that are hypothetical eliminated in the group are...
    4 from CONCACAF, 6 from CAF, 6 from AFC
     
  15. almango

    almango Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Location:
    Bulli, Australia
    Club:
    Sydney FC
    Country:
    Australia
    Whilst you wont be too far off I would be very surprised if all European teams advanced. Not because I think they are weak, but that with so many teams and the time gap between qualifying and the tournament there will be one or two who will drop off performance wise in that time. Look what happened to Leicester City in 12 months.
     

Share This Page