World Cup 48 team expansion allocation

[Bully Wee Villa]

They said it would dilute the quality when it expanded to 32 but the last World Cup was the best I can remember (only been watching since 1990, admittedly). The smaller nations are improving all the time, anyway.

 

I enjoy watching teams I'd never normally see... would rather watch Panama and Uzbekistan in a group stage then watch England play Slovenia yet again.

 

I agree that the format leaves something to be desired. I don't like the three team groups at all. But you'll still have 32 teams at the end of it, playing in meaningful knockout games. So I get to see the diddies that I like watching, you still get to see the big teams, albeit in knockout form. Everyone wins?

 

As for the host, I'd argue it will make co-hosting increasingly likely, which means more potential hosts rather than fewer.

 

And Scotland might qualify occasionally!

 

 

[Latino Lover]

There's only going to be about another 3 European spots so I'd imagine it will still be very hard for Scotland to qualify. The format is my main bugbear as well. 

[Bully Wee Villa]

Sixteen places as of right, sixteen places including the host with an additional team in intercontinental playoffs if Europe is hosting is how I understand it. Still not likely, admittedly. But more so than at present.

[sparky88]

5 hours ago, Enigma said:

 

Dilutes the quality (Panama v Uzbekistan, hold me back) and fucks with a good format. Also slims down who can actually host one even further.

Or it means joint bids become the norm, allowing smaller countries to host.

[Saint Garf]

On 8/11/2017 at 16:09, senorsoupe said:

Hopefully the Morocco bid fails as being co-host is the only way we would ever be able to actually make the world cup!  Even with 48 teams there isn't a snowball's chance in hell Canada would qualify by actually playing football.  

10 years ago, Iceland qualifying for anything would have been pretty far fetched, still seems unlikely, but you never know. International fortunes rise and fall at a dramatic rate. If Canada were to be confirmed as co-hosts now, the investment in youth football would skyrocket, boys who are 12 or 13 now would be in their early 20's, steering some of them away from the more mainstream sports into football could result in a decent national side in just under a decade. Securing a World Cup could be enough to do this.

[senorsoupe]

1 minute ago, Saint Garf said:

10 years ago, Iceland qualifying for anything would have been pretty far fetched, still seems unlikely, but you never know. International fortunes rise and fall at a dramatic rate. If Canada were to be confirmed as co-hosts now, the investment in youth football would skyrocket, boys who are 12 or 13 now would be in their early 20's, steering some of them away from the more mainstream sports into football could result in a decent national side in just under a decade. Securing a World Cup could be enough to do this.

Sure, but the problem is that soccer (football), especially for boys, is considered a fourth or fifth rate sport so throwing money at youth football coaching is not straight forward as it is in other countries.  There needs to be a culture shift in convincing young Canadian boys that soccer can be a cool sport, there can be a potential for a good career like there is in Hockey (of the Ice variety) Football (of the gridiron variety), baseball or basketball.  A lot of kids play soccer as kids as a way to keep fit for hockey season so once they are 15 or 16 they need to decide on which sport they want to pursue and it's usually hockey.  One thing that could work in soccer's favour is that hockey is in the process of pricing poorer kids out of the game, for a youngster to play Ice Hockey competitively as a teenager it costs thousands of dollars, something that a lot of families simply can't afford.  The Canadian Soccer Association needs to do some marketing to convince the young lads whose families can't afford hockey or gridiron football to pursue soccer instead of baseball or basketball as their sport of choice.

Also the Canadian Soccer Association has historically been a clusterfuck of infigthing, mismanagement, and incompetence which doesn't help matters 

[Herman Hessian]

 

7 hours ago, Enigma said:

Dilutes the quality (Panama v Uzbekistan, hold me back) and fucks with a good format. Also slims down who can actually host one even further.

1 hour ago, sparky88 said:

Or it means joint bids become the norm, allowing smaller countries to host.

I'm liking the sound of this joint Panamanian and Uzbekistani bid - bit of a logistical nightmare - but the different timezones and extra games are going to mean you get to watch maybe five, six games a day during the group stages - excellent - many pringles* and bottled beers required !

* that'll be the pleasingly crunchy and flavoursome entubed comestibles - not the beetroot-stained smart-casual knitwear...

[lionel hutz]

World Cup doesn't need expansion.

The intercontinental play-off should be changed to include European teams though. 

Would like to see Australia host it - they're the one large (and rich) country yet to host it.

[Bully Wee Villa]

f**k that. If they can't even be arsed to live in a sensible timezone, they don't deserve the World Cup.

[DiegoDiego]

Would like to see Australia host it - they're the one large (and rich) country yet to host it.

Canada is also reasonably large and rich.

[Bully Wee Villa]

China will be the next "new" single host. I expect Canada and Mexico to co-host with the USA. As a sentimentalist at heart, I do hope Uruguay is involved in 2030 in some capacity.

 

I wonder if FIFA might follow the Euro 2020 model, if it's successful, and have matches played across a continent. That seems to be, more or less, the plan for 2026 and could work with a South American bid for 2030, too. Hopefully with Montevideo hosting the Final or at least the opening game.

 

 

 

[senorsoupe]

12 minutes ago, DiegoDiego said:

Canada is also reasonably large and rich.

Yes, but unfortunately we don't have enough stadiums that are large enough to host it on our own and spending money to expand existing ones or build new ones wouldn't make sense as their primary post world cup tenants (CFL teams) don't have the attendances to justify a 35,000+ capacity stadium.  

[lionel hutz]

32 minutes ago, senorsoupe said:

Yes, but unfortunately we don't have enough stadiums that are large enough to host it on our own and spending money to expand existing ones or build new ones wouldn't make sense as their primary post world cup tenants (CFL teams) don't have the attendances to justify a 35,000+ capacity stadium.  

Needs to be 44,000 iirc

[senorsoupe]

9 minutes ago, Marr1 said:

Needs to be 44,000 iirc

Currently we have 4 stadiums with 44,000+ capacity, here is a summary of them

1. Rogers Centre - Toronto.  52,300 capacity in football configuration, Primarily a baseball stadium, can be transformed into a football stadium, designed in the era of the multi-purpose stadium meaning it's not really great for anything.  

2. Olympic Stadium - Montreal 61,000 capacity in football configuration.  Crumbling and shite, known as the Big Owe (due to the astronomical cost) has been a bit of an embarrassment for Montreal since it was built, starting in the 70's and finished in 1987 (it's a long story involving a fair amount of corruption).  Currently doesn't have a sports tenant, being used to house Haitian refugees fleeing Donald Trump.  

3. Commonwealth Stadium - Edmonton.  56,300 capacity.  Decent, although with very little protection from the sun for fans.  Fortunately it's located in Edmonton where that's not as much of an issue.  Has been recently renovated so not much would need to be done.

4. BC Place - Vancouver 54,500 capacity.  Another stadium that has been renovated in the last decade, it was essentially re-built for the 2010 Winter olympics.  Pretty much the only World Cup ready stadium.

[lionel hutz]

From What Australia have:

1. Melbourne Cricket Ground - Capacity 95,000: Has been used for Football in the past.
2. Stadium Australia, Sydney - Capacity 75,000:  Rectangular Stadium - was the Sydney Olympic Stadium
3. Perth Stadium - Capacity - 65,000: Opens next year
4. Docklands Stadium, Melbourne - Capacity 56,347: Built 2000 - Used for Rugby, Aussie Rules and Football
5. Adelaide Oval - Capacity 54,000: Redeveloped 2014 - Mostly Used for Cricket - but also Home ground of Adelaide United
6. Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane - Capacity 52,500: Redeveloped 1990s - Rectangular Stadium - has held Australian internationals in the past.
7. Allianz Stadium, Sydney - Capacity 45,000: Built in 1980s - Used for 2000 Olympic Tournament
8. Carrara Stadium, Gold Coast - Capacity 40,000: Built for Commonwealth Games next year
   
   They also were planning to use the following for the 2022 World Cup:
9. Newcastle Stadium, NSW - Capacity 33,000: New grandstand to be built in order to make it 45,000
10. Townsville Stadium, QLD - Capacity 26,500: Major upgrades to be made to expand to 40,000
11. Canberra Stadium, ACT - Capacity 25,011: New Stadium to be built on site
12. Blacktown Stadium, Sydney - New stadium at Syndey's Olympic Park
13. Geelong Stadium, VIC - Capacity 35,000: To be expanded to 41,000

[Bully Wee Villa]

Next time an "Asian" country hosts it after Qatar it'll be China. I was joking about them changing timezones, but Australia won't get a chance to host until at least the 2040s, unless Donald nukes Beijing.

[Dunning1874]

1 hour ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

China will be the next "new" single host. I expect Canada and Mexico to co-host with the USA. As a sentimentalist at heart, I do hope Uruguay is involved in 2030 in some capacity.

 

I wonder if FIFA might follow the Euro 2020 model, if it's successful, and have matches played across a continent. That seems to be, more or less, the plan for 2026 and could work with a South American bid for 2030, too. Hopefully with Montevideo hosting the Final or at least the opening game.

Joint Argentina-Uruguay has to be a possibility for 2030? There's really no need or logistical sense in going continent wide in South America.

[lionel hutz]

2 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

Joint Argentina-Uruguay has to be a possibility for 2030? There's really no need or logistical sense in going continent wide in South America.

Possible - but with Argentina going bankrupt again it seems unlikely, combined with the Minter that was the 2014 Brazil tournament - 2030 will most likely be in Europe.

Which would leave either Belgium and Netherlands or England

[Bully Wee Villa]

You probably need at least sixteen grounds to host it. I don't know if that's feasible for Uruguay and Argentina without help.

 

I'd like it if they did similar to the Cricket/Rugby World Cups and allocated matches to nearby countries without treating them as official "hosts" with automatic qualification.

 

So, say, eight grounds in Argentina. Four in Uruguay as the official co-hosts.

 

Chile, Peru, Paraguay and Bolivia all to have one host venue each.

 

That's a Southern South American bid, rather than a continent-wide one, but I reckon it would work nicely without too much travelling required.

 

Next time Brazil host it, Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela could all have a game or two each, so the whole of CONMEBOL eventually gets a go.

 

[Latino Lover]

Think the Low Countries would struggle with a 24 team euros let alone a 48 team World Cup. We all know money talks rather than logic anyway.