48 Team World Cup

[djchapsticks]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/10/03/fifa-president-gianni-infantino-wants--48-team-world-cup-finals/

So, you'd feasibly be looking at Qualifying group to make a qualifying playoff, to make another qualifying playoff at the finals to make the group stage.

Nah, f**k that. The World Cup doesn't need more matches, it's fine as it is.

[HibeeJibee]

It makes no sense to me to have teams slog through 2 to 4 years of qualifying only to make 32 of them - and their fans - travel to the finals tournament in a host country, only for 16 to go home after 1 game which won't even be classed as the tournament "proper".

Plus the other 16 wouldn't know if they're making it through or not until a week before the groups start.

You'd almost wonder if Infantino is having second thoughts about the "40 team World Cup" he advocated while running for the job - logistically, and in light of the expanded Euros not setting the heather alight - and this is a way of saying "never mind 40 we offer you 48!", but managing to stick with 32 either by it being rejected/or accepted with this preliminary.

[vikingTON]

Anything that undermines the utter travesty that is international football is fine with me. 

[shootingboots]

Sounds horrific. There are enough shite games at the World Cup without inviting more cannon fodder.

Always preferred the Euros to the WC but you saw how dull that was in France with the expanded format too. 

[Dunning1874]

This is close to the right idea but manages to be an absolutely dreadful idea. It's right to keep the tournament with the current 32 team group stage format, but don't add an extra 16 teams to the tournament with 32 of 48 teams turning up with the possibility of going home after one game in a playoff. Make that playoff the last round of intercontinental qualifying rather than making it the first round of the tournament in the name of expansion, when giving teams one game is an absolutely dreadful excuse for expansion and the size of the tournament is perfect as it is.

Have 16 qualifiers directly from their respective continental qualifying tournaments - 6 UEFA, 4 CONMEBOL, 3 CAF, 2 CONCACAF, 1 AFC, 0 OFC. Then, based on their final positions in their continental qualifiers, have teams qualifying for an intercontinental knockout for the remaining 16 places - preferably 64 teams going in to that stage so there are two rounds to get through and no one can qualify by virtue of one easy draw. Make all those playoff games two leg home and away ties.

There's an advantage for everyone in this: those who complain they don't get enough places with their current qualifying competitions being extremely competitive, principally CONMEBOL and CAF, get the chance to earn more places. If they deserve more places, they'll get them by earning them. UEFA loses more automatic places than anyone, but again there's the chance to earn more - the largest number of teams UEFA has had at a tournament is 15 and the current total is 13, they could end up with more than that with 16 places to play for over and above the 6 automatic qualifiers. Middling UEFA nations have - fairly - complained in the past about the likes of Australia effectively getting byes to the tournament due to the lack of depth in their continent. They can go and prove they're better than them and deserve a place more than them. On the flipside, those weaker AFC nations get a second chance to qualify after they inevitably fail to finish above Japan, South Korea or Australia for the trillionth time.

[dogmc]

This is close to the right idea but manages to be an absolutely dreadful idea. It's right to keep the tournament with the current 32 team group stage format, but don't add an extra 16 teams to the tournament with 32 of 48 teams turning up with the possibility of going home after one game in a playoff. Make that playoff the last round of intercontinental qualifying rather than making it the first round of the tournament in the name of expansion, when giving teams one game is an absolutely dreadful excuse for expansion and the size of the tournament is perfect as it is.

Have 16 qualifiers directly from their respective continental qualifying tournaments - 6 UEFA, 4 CONMEBOL, 3 CAF, 2 CONCACAF, 1 AFC, 0 OFC. Then, based on their final positions in their continental qualifiers, have teams qualifying for an intercontinental knockout for the remaining 16 places - preferably 64 teams going in to that stage so there are two rounds to get through and no one can qualify by virtue of one easy draw. Make all those playoff games two leg home and away ties.

There's an advantage for everyone in this: those who complain they don't get enough places with their current qualifying competitions being extremely competitive, principally CONMEBOL and CAF, get the chance to earn more places. If they deserve more places, they'll get them by earning them. UEFA loses more automatic places than anyone, but again there's the chance to earn more - the largest number of teams UEFA has had at a tournament is 15 and the current total is 13, they could end up with more than that with 16 places to play for over and above the 6 automatic qualifiers. Middling UEFA nations have - fairly - complained in the past about the likes of Australia effectively getting byes to the tournament due to the lack of depth in their continent. They can go and prove they're better than them and deserve a place more than them. On the flipside, those weaker AFC nations get a second chance to qualify after they inevitably fail to finish above Japan, South Korea or Australia for the trillionth time.

Yep this seems sensible. .....and on that basis will never happen [emoji23]

[trgf]

The SFA likes this

[BFTD]

Can't see anybody being too chuffed with the idea of going home after one game again.

I've heard the thing about the Aussies practically getting a bye in the qualifiers before, but I don't think it's true, considering how many times they've managed to f**k it up, and at times when they had an arguably easier route to qualifying than they do now. Also, the newsgroups at World Cup time used to be full of Aussies complaining about the unfairness of their qualifying track compared to "shite" like Scotland...I'd have taken a round-robin against Oceania followed by a play-off against the fifth best side in North/South America or Asia any day of the week, personally.

[BallochSonsFan]

A 48 team world cup would be utterly horrific.

There aren't 48 national teams of sufficient quality to make an entertaining tournament. Hell, the increase in participation at the Euros wasn't exactly a success.

[Latino Lover]

Probably just something he said to get votes from weaker confederations. Can't see it happening 32 is fine. 

[Bully Wee Villa]

I can't see the point in going all that way for one game. If it's going up to 48 teams have eight groups of six. Group winners straight through to last sixteen, second/third place teams playoff in a Wildcard Round to join them.

[forameus]

Like dunning says, it's the kernel of a good idea surrounded by shite.  I've no problem with them giving more opportunities to more nations (in before "Scotland still wouldn't qualify lolbantz) but why play that extra round right before the tournament?  Personally I don't see an issue with the fans side - it's likely to be nations that don't usually qualify, so would some of those fans care that it might just be for one game?  They'd still travel in hordes.  But it's obviously not ideal.

Why not do it similar to how the Euros are going to be?  Qualifying finishes by November as usual, at which point you pull together 16 (or however many) nations from around the world and make intercontinental playoffs in the March window.  That way you've given more nations a chance, and you can still have the usual format of 32 in the summer.  Dunning already covers most of the advantages.  

If they really must expand, the only way I can see it working is to add another 8 teams in and have 5 team groups.   Also gives more opportunity for that sweet TV deal money that they love so much.

[MEADOWXI]

Always has been an imbalance and doubt there is a perfect solution, UEFA currently getting 13 places at next World Cup yet has 22 of top 32 world rankings in FIFA,

UEFA qualification is immediately going to be difficult.

It a start of a good idea and it could be as previously said the idea of advancing into Intercontinental Playoffs isn't bad,

32 or better  still 64 teams having two legged Intercontinental playoffs to fill the the last 16 places makes more sense, then 32 teams showing up to have 50% of them home within a day or so, the logistics for fans of going and accommodation and getting tickets for their teams games in group stage etc would be ridiculous.

[Bishop Briggs]

Are there many countries that have top class facilities for 48 countries and have enough large stadiums to host a huge number of group matches? Off hand, I can think of the US, China, England, Germany and France. Realistically, countries would have to co-host again.

[itzdrk]

Just make the qualification worldwide.

[HibeeJibee]

11 hours ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

I can't see the point in going all that way for one game. If it's going up to 48 teams have eight groups of six. Group winners straight through to last sixteen, second/third place teams playoff in a Wildcard Round to join them.

Groups of 5 or 6 are always being to be problematic as they'd require 5 matchdays instead of 3. Plus groups of 5 have an odd team. It's probably why Infantino has moved away from 40 (8 x 5).

[Bully Wee Villa]

Yeah Groups of 5 are controversial, people have moaned lots in the Rugby due to some teams having three days between games while others have eight days off.

Groups of 6 is the way to go.

Start end of May, end at the end of July.

Better still, have it in winter every time. That way I can watch them all in the pub without football-hating twats suggesting that I might like to miss a game or two to join them in the beer garden.

[Lurkst]

8 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

 Plus groups of 5 have an odd team. It's probably why Infantino has moved away from 40 (8 x 5).

Could have 10 groups of 4 though. Would probably require an additional elimination round prior to the last 16, but it could be worked out.

Best to keep it as it is IMO however.

 

[HibeeJibee]

If it was to be 40 they should use 10 groups of 4 in an equivalent format to Rugby World Cup 1999.

Group winners to Last 16/group runners-up and 2 "best third place" teams playing  'Intermediate Round':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Rugby_World_Cup#Pool_stage

[Bully Wee Villa]

I'd prefer Group Winner and Runner-Up from host/holder groups to go to last sixteen and remaining runners up play in Intermediate Round.

Although I've changed my mind again and reckon they should just go with 64. If you had it so the first and second group games were played simultaneously (like the final group games are now) it wouldn't take too much longer than it does now, and would have loads of mad teams in it.