World Cup to be expanded?

[Panda]

FIFA's members will vote on Tuesday on proposals to expand the size of the World Cup from 32 to 40 or 48 teams in an effort to make more money make the game more inclusive around the world. Any changes would take effect from the 2026 World Cup.

5 proposals are on the table:

1) 48 teams in 16 groups of 3. Top 2 in each group progress to knockout stages. (possibility of penalty shoot-outs being used after draws in the group stage)

2) 48 teams - one knockout round with 32 teams with the winners progressing to the group stage, joining 16 teams who qualified by right.

3) 40 teams in 10 groups of 4. Winners plus 6 best runners-up progress to knockout stages.

4) 40 teams in 8 groups of 5. Top 2 in each group progress to knockout stages.

5) Maintaining the current format of 32 teams in 8 groups of 4.


I did a post a while back about how option 4 could potentially work. Interestingly, the Venezuelan FA claim they've been told the South American and CONCACAF qualifying could be merged - something I also explored in that post. link

Frankly, all the other expansion options look awful.

[o]

Squeeze the life out of that cash cow!

[suedehead]

Option 1 (which is apparently the favourite) has its attractions although there is a high risk of final group matches where a draw is sufficient for both teams. Option 4 is likely to result in a number of "dead" group matches, but it is probably the best format. After all, it matches the 20 team format I described several years ago. If that option is adopted, I would like to see the lowest ranked team miss the final round of group matches to minimise the chances of teams sitting around waiting to see whether they have qualified from their group. The assumption is that the lowest ranked team would already have been eliminated by then.

[Earl Purple]

Either:
8 groups of 6 with 2 going through from each group to knockout phase.
Every team gets to play at least 5 games that way.
World cup one week longer than usual to allow for those extra 2 games.

Or:

"Swiss" format throughout. Every team plays 8 games and moves up and down a table, playing a team close to themselves in the table.

After 8 games, the top 2 play the final. If the final is drawn it goes to extra time, but no penalties. If still level after extra time, the team who was ahead after the "Swiss" phase wins.

That way, no penalty shoot outs at all, and no "going home early". Everyone gets to play 8 games.

If you prefer, make it 7 games before the final.

(If 40 world cup teams then either groups of 5 with 2 going through, or Swiss format).

[Shireblogger]

They've picked Option 1.

Upsides:- I enjoy watching some of the lesser nations in action. More opportunity for surprise results. Straight knock-out after the initial phase should lead to a greater number of exciting matches in the tournament.

Downsides:- England knocked out even more embarrassingly than usual. Some of the first round groups will feature one obviously weak nation, and hence be a dull formality. Pre-tournament seeding will be even more important than before.

Overall, its a thumbs up from me.

[Robin]

I really wouldn't want any more European teams in the tournament, maybe South American or African.

[o]

I expect the African teams will rise after their Cup of Nations later this month?

[Razzle Dazzle]

Ive made a list of the 16 teams most likely to join the 32 usual suspects (going off the last world cup) who just missed out on qualifying then and the rankings now

Iceland
Sweden
Ukraine
Romania
Denmark
Poland
Austria
Republic of Ireland
Wales
Turkey
New Zealand
Senegal
Egypt
Tunisia
Peru
Equador

AFC (4)
 Australia
 Iran
 Japan
 South Korea

CAF (5)
 Algeria
 Cameroon
 Ghana
 Ivory Coast
 Nigeria

OFC (0)
None qualified

CONCACAF (4)
 Costa Rica
 Honduras
 Mexico
 United States

CONMEBOL (6)
 Argentina
 Brazil
 Chile
 Colombia
 Ecuador
 Uruguay

UEFA (13)
 Belgium
 Bosnia and Herzegovina
 Croatia
 England
 France
 Germany
 Greece
 Italy
 Netherlands
 Portugal
 Russia
 Spain
 Switzerland

[suedehead]

Jan 10, 2017 11:22:51 GMT 1 Earl Purple said:

Either:
8 groups of 6 with 2 going through from each group to knockout phase.
Every team gets to play at least 5 games that way.
World cup one week longer than usual to allow for those extra 2 games.

Or:

"Swiss" format throughout. Every team plays 8 games and moves up and down a table, playing a team close to themselves in the table.

After 8 games, the top 2 play the final. If the final is drawn it goes to extra time, but no penalties. If still level after extra time, the team who was ahead after the "Swiss" phase wins.

That way, no penalty shoot outs at all, and no "going home early". Everyone gets to play 8 games.

If you prefer, make it 7 games before the final.

(If 40 world cup teams then either groups of 5 with 2 going through, or Swiss format).

Groups of six would lead to far too many dead matches.

I can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that the Swiss format will never be adopted for a major tournament, no matter how many times you suggest it.

[Earl Purple]

They should do a trial tournament with Swiss format and see how it works. There would, of course, be a lot of games. But I guess you'd watch your own team each round then highlights of the other games. A bit like what happens in weekly league football.

Groups of 6 would have only 2 teams qualify so it would encourage teams to attempt to win as mid-table won't get you through.

Three teams out of four qualifying is what leads to boring group matches.

[suedehead]

I saw somewhere that the South American and North and Central American qualifiers might be merged. This would make sense. As there are only ten countries in the South American group, it makes no sense to increase the number of qualifiers. They would end up with a lot of matches to eliminate almost nobody. Merging the two also tackles the issue of Mexico and the USA generally qualifying easily (although the USA are struggling a bit this time).

[Mart!n]

To be honest I would have kept it as it was, with 32 teams, its looks silly with 16 groups of 3, its a bit of a overkill. I'm guessing the games will be played over 2 months instead of the usual 6 weeks, that I really don't mind.

Me and Andy will end up buying those stickers from Panini, probably have to collect 1000 stickers to complete the collection ha ha.

[raliverpool]

The proposed breakdown would comprise:

Europe 16 teams (13 currently)
Africa 9 (5)
Asia 8.5 (4.5)
South America 6 (4.5) *
Concacaf 6.5 (3.5) *
Oceania 1 (0.5)
Host nation 1 (1)

* All of America might be combined together via qualifying.

Apparently one serious proposal that has been bouncing around the corridors of Fifa HQ is that every group game would have to end in a positive result. In other words, if you’re drawing at full-time, the game goes to penalties (with 2 points going to the winner, and 1 point going to the loser). A result in 90 minutes would remain 3 = Win & 0 = Loss.


Still one can at least look forward to a 50% increase in excuses as to why Scotland have again failed to qualify; and a 50% increase in excuses as to why it is never InGurLand's football hooligans fans fault they get caught up in fights.

[frag]

There's no way to completely rule out collusion with the top two qualifying from a 3-team group.

For example, say Australia beat Brazil 1-0 but then lose 2-0 to Croatia. Brazil and Croatia could then organise a 1-0 Brazil win, and the Aussies would go out on goal difference.

[Earl Purple]

It was in the Metro today and the only format they mentioned was 16 groups of 3 which I dislike as it ends up with most of the contest being straight knockout, and some teams only getting 2 games.

[Panda]

Jan 10, 2017 16:45:26 GMT 1 Earl Purple said:

They should do a trial tournament with Swiss format and see how it works. 

No they shouldn't.

[Panda]

Jan 10, 2017 18:58:42 GMT 1 Mart!n said:

To be honest I would have kept it as it was, with 32 teams, its looks silly with 16 groups of 3, its a bit of a overkill. I'm guessing the games will be played over 2 months instead of the usual 6 weeks, that I really don't mind.

Me and Andy will end up buying those stickers from Panini, probably have to collect 1000 stickers to complete the collection ha ha.

The length of the tournament will be pretty much the same. 32 days has been mentioned. I guess that means we'll see 3 games a day each day in the group stage, and 4 a day in the 2nd round, with a possible return to both semi-finals being played on the same day.

[Panda]

Jan 10, 2017 16:01:19 GMT 1 Razzle Dazzle said:

Ive made a list of the 16 teams most likely to join the 32 usual suspects (going off the last world cup) who just missed out on qualifying then and the rankings now

Iceland
Sweden
Ukraine
Romania
Denmark
Poland
Austria
Republic of Ireland
Wales
Turkey
New Zealand
Senegal
Egypt
Tunisia
Peru
Equador

Only problem with that is I would be very surprised if Europe got more than 3 of the 16 extra places. That would mean 1 European team in each group. 

The possible breakdown of numbers could be:

Hosts: 1

Europe: 16 (up from 13)

Americas: 13 (up from a combined 8)

Africa: 9 (up from 5)

Asia: 8 (up from 4.5)

Oceania: 1 (up from 0.5)


Based on current world rankings, that would give a line-up of:

Germany, Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Wales, England, Croatia, Poland, Italy, Iceland, Netherlands, Ireland, Turkey, Slovakia

Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, USA, Paraguay, Panama, Venezuela (that's 9 of the 10 CONMEBOL teams, with only Bolivia missing out)

Senegal, Ivory Coast, Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, DR Congo, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Ghana

Iran, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, UAE, China

New Zealand

plus whoever the hosts are

[Earl Purple]

Jan 11, 2017 13:34:07 GMT 1 Panda said:

Jan 10, 2017 16:45:26 GMT 1 Earl Purple said:

They should do a trial tournament with Swiss format and see how it works. 

No they shouldn't.

Better would be to just run the world cup in that format.

It would be more fun to see England play a full set of 7 games and see where we finish in that list of 48 teams you mentioned.

[Razzle Dazzle]

Jan 11, 2017 13:48:57 GMT 1 Panda said:

Jan 10, 2017 16:01:19 GMT 1 Razzle Dazzle said:

Ive made a list of the 16 teams most likely to join the 32 usual suspects (going off the last world cup) who just missed out on qualifying then and the rankings now

Iceland
Sweden
Ukraine
Romania
Denmark
Poland
Austria
Republic of Ireland
Wales
Turkey
New Zealand
Senegal
Egypt
Tunisia
Peru
Equador

Only problem with that is I would be very surprised if Europe got more than 3 of the 16 extra places. That would mean 1 European team in each group. 

The possible breakdown of numbers could be:

Hosts: 1

Europe: 16 (up from 13)

Americas: 13 (up from a combined 8)

Africa: 9 (up from 5)

Asia: 8 (up from 4.5)

Oceania: 1 (up from 0.5)


Based on current world rankings, that would give a line-up of:

Germany, Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Wales, England, Croatia, Poland, Italy, Iceland, Netherlands, Ireland, Turkey, Slovakia

Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, USA, Paraguay, Panama, Venezuela (that's 9 of the 10 CONMEBOL teams, with only Bolivia missing out)

Senegal, Ivory Coast, Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, DR Congo, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Ghana

Iran, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, UAE, China

New Zealand

plus whoever the hosts are

sounds reasonable if they merge the America's otherwise south America qualifying would be irrelevant



Probably right with the 16 from Europe, so it will be 3 from them 10 or 11 which keeps things interesting



Africa will be nice to see them represented more, that doesn't even include Cameroon, Gabon, Morocco, Mali etc who could all be thrown into the mix with a good AFCON



Asia is always the worry, such weak teams, even China are bottom of qualifying behind the likes of Syria