OT: FIFA World Cup expanding to 48 teams, expansion worth $1billion

[NJDevils7]

Only way it leads to meaningless games is if the first team to play twice, loses both games. Then, the last game doesn't matter.

For example you have a group consisting of US, Italy, Cameroon. First game, US beats Cameroon. Second game, Italy beats Cameroon. Now, Italy vs US is only for seeding.

But, if the opposite happens. Cameroon beats US, then Cameroon beats Italy, then the US-Italy game is huge.

I did see a side article that states to make sure every prelim game is meaningful, the winner of the first game of the group should play the 3rd team in the next game. This way, you won't have to worry about the first team playing twice, to lose both, thus making the last game meaningless.

Yes, the last game would be meaningless in terms of going through, but seeding would probably be pretty important. Assuming all the 1 seeds get matched up against the 2nd seeds, you want that #1 seed for the knockout round

 

[patnyrnyg]

Yes, the last game would be meaningless in terms of going through, but seeding would probably be pretty important. Assuming all the 1 seeds get matched up against the 2nd seeds, you want that #1 seed for the knockout round

unless there is an upset in the other pool. Let's say the US is in pool A and will match up with pool B in the round of 32. If Pool B was Germany, South Korea, and Ghana, and somehow Ghana or South Korea beat Germany in the prelims and got the 1 seed, I'd probably rather have the US as the 2 seed. Obviously, there is a chance that Ghana or South Korea is actually better than Germany this time around, but not likely. Just like Belarus wasn't really better than Sweden in 2002, but upsets happen.

 

[Deleted member 93465]

Talking about the different levels. Someone mentioned a bar in Cincy being packed for a World Cup game, you won't see that for MLS. I was referring more to soccer growing I was talking more about participation at the youth level. Younger kids. Not sure participation in HS or HS age club teams have sky-rocketed all that much.

You mean how Cincinatti FC averaged 17,000+ last season in the third tier of American soccer? I guess it wasn't a bar though...

 

[sajmae]

I was curious which teams would have played at the 2014 WC if the speculated system (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).) was in place.

Europe adds 3 of Iceland, Romania, Sweden, Ukraine
Africa adds 4 of Burkina-Faso, Egypt, Ethiopia, Senegal, Tunisia
Asia adds Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Uzbekistan
SA adds Venezuela
NA adds Mexico, Panama
And New Zealand from Oceania.

Jamaica vs Iraq/Lebanon playoff.

Obviously in 2026 the strength of the teams will be different and the system of reginonal qualifications will be different as well. 8.5 spots for Asia is just But I guess it is hard to say no to oil money + China lobby.

 

[patnyrnyg]

You mean how Cincinatti FC averaged 17,000+ last season in the third tier of American soccer? I guess it wasn't a bar though...

No, it wasn't a bar, and my post referenced packing a bar for World Cup vs MLS or whatever team. As far as the 17,000+ attendance for 3rd tier, I would say that is pretty impressive. However, I would ask questions about the 17,000. How many are freebies? What do people pay for tickets, etc. Yes, maybe Cincy is a great market for soccer, so maybe using that example was a poor choice. Just saying in general. Most cities, you can probably find a few packed bars for USA World Cup games. Doubt you will see that for pro soccer on to regular of a basis.

 

[TorstenFrings]

I was curious which teams would have played at the 2014 WC if the speculated system (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).) was in place.

Europe adds 3 of Iceland, Romania, Sweden, Ukraine
Africa adds 4 of Burkina-Faso, Egypt, Ethiopia, Senegal, Tunisia
Asia adds Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Uzbekistan
SA adds Venezuela
NA adds Mexico, Panama
And New Zealand from Oceania.

Jamaica vs Iraq/Lebanon playoff.

Obviously in 2026 the strength of the teams will be different and the system of reginonal qualifications will be different as well. 8.5 spots for Asia is just But I guess it is hard to say no to oil money + China lobby.

Are we talking about the 2014 Men's World Cup in Brazil? Because I am mostly certain Mexico was at that as it were. Even made it out of the group stages.
There was a huge deal about their goalie being awesome and having great hair.

 

[theaub]

yes how can we forget NO ERA PENAL

The added teams from North America would have been Panama and Jamaica

 

[HajdukSplit]

So I know you can still question if Canada makes it in the new format.

Would you guys say though this guarantees China makes it every 4 years? Or UAE?

UAE's current generation would qualify for a 48-team WC, hard to say 10+ years from now. China atm probably wouldn't but they will only improve I think so yes they should make it. However, I think Asian football is declining in general, even teams like Australia/Korea/Japan. Compare Australia's current team to their 2006 team for example...

 

[njdevsfn95]

Would not be a fan of a CONMEBOLCACAF region.

Both regions combine for 8 guaranteed spots out of 16 nations. Does this become 12? How would qualifying work? If there are 16 nations you could have a 30 game qualifying campaign? (Ok that's absurd even for FIFA...I think)

Perhaps 4 groups of 4 where the top 3 auto-qualify?

 

[jason2020]

Would not be a fan of a CONMEBOLCACAF region.

Both regions combine for 8 guaranteed spots out of 16 nations. Does this become 12? How would qualifying work? If there are 16 nations you could have a 30 game qualifying campaign? (Ok that's absurd even for FIFA...I think)

Perhaps 4 groups of 4 where the top 3 auto-qualify?

From what I heard it would be set up so its an qualifying schedule.

 

[Hoek]

CONCACAF has more than 6 nations. Granted once you get past the typical sides that make the hex it gets considerably weaker, but no worse than the weakest sides in UEFA (in fact I'd probably take some of our minnows over the likes of Andorra, San Marino, and Faroe Islands). A combined region's qualifiers would probably look like Europe's as a result. Smaller groups where the top two automatically qualify and playoffs between the third best.

 

[USAUSA1]

No, it wasn't a bar, and my post referenced packing a bar for World Cup vs MLS or whatever team. As far as the 17,000+ attendance for 3rd tier, I would say that is pretty impressive. However, I would ask questions about the 17,000. How many are freebies? What do people pay for tickets, etc. Yes, maybe Cincy is a great market for soccer, so maybe using that example was a poor choice. Just saying in general. Most cities, you can probably find a few packed bars for USA World Cup games. Doubt you will see that for pro soccer on to regular of a basis.

My local pizza hub run by El savaldors always have soccer showing. That's the only place in my city that show soccer and I live in a top 60 market with a big Hispanic population. Going to be extremely hard for the next world Cup due to time zones. US games will have to air/start between 11-1 on most days and that's just for the east coast.

 

[KevFu]

I hate the group play with an odd number of teams, because simultaneous games for the entire group on the last day is IMPORTANT and needs to happen.

But I also think the 32-team knockout phase is going to be ridiculously awesome.


Lots of people have said in this thread “32 teams was the correct/perfect number†and now “Qualifying is meaningless.â€

But that’s where I disagree. The WCQ bid allotment, the process, and the World Rankings are all a terribly organized steaming pile of garbage.

We all “know†that South America and Europe are better than other confederations… but we have zero system in place to judge these things. Because the rankings formula is SO RIDICULOUSLY SELF-FULFILLINGLY REDUNDANT that those confederations are going to dominate the rankings.

And when there’s head-to-head among different confederations, it’s either:

A. Meaningless games that don’t count for much if anything because it’s a Friendly/Tune-Up.

If the USA and Spain both beat Brazil, Spain would get more points for it than the USA would… but both USA & Spain get less points for beating Brazil in a non-World Cup game than they’d get for beating a terrible team in WCQ, because WCQ is worth more.

SA & UEFA get more points for everything just because they are in SA & UEFA than anyone else.


B. Highly meaningful games in a “rigged†system that creates a lot of outcomes that backup the self-fulling system:

In each group, you have:
1 Seed: Top 8 seeds based on FIFA rankings, best teams in the world (From Europe/SA)
2 Seed: unseeded Europe Team
3 Seed: Africa or South American team
4 Seed: Asia, Oceania or North America team

Then we use “Well, Ivory Coast and Ghana couldn’t get out of their groups because Africa is weak!†Ivory Coast finished third behind #4 and #12; and Ghana was in a group with Germany, Portugal and the United States (and they DREW AGAINST GERMANY in game 2).

Costa Rica won a group with Uruguay, Italy and England.
Nigeria advanced with a UEFA team third.
USA advanced over Portugal
Algeria advanced over Russia
Mexico advanced over Croatia
Teams that weren’t supposed to advance by seed did in FIVE of SEVEN GROUPS (one group had two UEFA and one SA team).

But those teams get the benefit of positive results in meaningful WC games, but because of the time component, and the fact that ALL OTHER GAMES, UEFA/SA is racking up more points, it becomes meaningless for seeding…

… and if you don’t MAKE the World Cup, there’s nothing you can use to argue you belong in it (other than pointing out how stupid the rankings are).


So here’s hoping the 16 additional bids give like 3 to UEFA/SA and 13 to everyone else, and the everyone else start beating UEFA/SA more and more at the€œ2 seed†vs “3 seed†level, thus fixing the stupid rankings.

 

[KevFu]

The other thing they’re talking about is starting a Shoot-out (not PKs, but the old MLS “breakaway” format) for World Cup games…

Now, I think this COULD be horrific. But it also could be “done right”

They should NOT use this to settle ties, NOT award points for the shootout wins.

The table should be as it is now: 3 points for a WIN, 1 for a DRAW, 0 for a loss.

But they should conduct the shootout after all the games, and use the shootout only to have tie-breaking data if necessary beyond head-to-head.


(They should also take a small slice of the revenue and do a “shootout bonus,” so if your team gets trounced, the shootout matters to your confederation and even if you finish third in the group “Hey, we won our national program some extra bonus money”)

 

[KevFu]

And some thoughts on Bid Allocation & Draw.

#1 - They need to do away with “Host Confederation gets an extra bid.” The host slot should come from the confederation allotment.

#2 - UEFA should get at most 16 total bids out of 48.

#3 - The World Cup is far too important for random draw based on silly non-sense that makes USA & Mexico “Four Seeds” from 1998-2022.

- SEED THE THING WITH AN S-CURVE for 1-32.
- Only one team from a confederation per group, so you simply skip to the next available group for seeds 17-32.

An do a random draw for teams 33-48, but again skipping confederations match ups.

You then put the groups in an order so that “if the top seeds win” it’s 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15, etc, bracket style. Whatever group the host is in becomes “Group A”

So using a totally made up FIFA rankings/qualifiers, random draw for team 3:

A: 14 USA / 19 CRO / 47 CMR
B: 3 ARG / 29 IRL / 46 RSA
C: 6 ESP / 26 PER / 36 ALG
D: 11 MEX / 20 POL / 41 BFO

E: 2 GER / 33 TUN / 35 KOR
F: 15 SUI / 18 CIV / 40 JPN
G: 7 CHI / 27 CZE / 59 CGO
H 10 FRA / 24 IRN / 38 NGA

I: 1 BRA 30 / BIH / 52 HON
J: 16 BEL / 17 GHA / 58 JAM
K: 8 COL / 23 GRE / 43 KSA
L: 9 URU / 22 WAL / 54 CHN

M: 4 NED / 31 EGY / 51 UZB
N: 13 ITA / 21 CRC / 37 AUS
O: 5 POR / 28 SEN / 77 NZL
P: 12 ENG / 25 ECU / 39 PAN

 

[Icedog2735]

I dislike the notion of shootouts for the group stage games but realize the need for some sort of tiebreaker on a game by game basis in the group stage. I wonder if a system where 3 pts are awarded for a regulation win and 2 pts for a PK win would work. Wouldn't give a "loser point" to teams losing in PKs because I don't think there should be an incentive of parking the bus to try to win in PKs. I don't know; maybe this is a start?

 

[Icedog2735]

And some thoughts on Bid Allocation & Draw.

#1 - They need to do away with “Host Confederation gets an extra bid.†The host slot should come from the confederation allotment.

#2 - UEFA should get at most 16 total bids out of 48.

#3 - The World Cup is far too important for random draw based on silly non-sense that makes USA & Mexico “Four Seeds†from 1998-2022.

- SEED THE THING WITH AN S-CURVE for 1-32.
- Only one team from a confederation per group, so you simply skip to the next available group for seeds 17-32.

An do a random draw for teams 33-48, but again skipping confederations match ups.

You then put the groups in an order so that “if the top seeds win†it’s 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15, etc, bracket style. Whatever group the host is in becomes “Group Aâ€

So using a totally made up FIFA rankings/qualifiers, random draw for team 3:

A: 14 USA / 19 CRO / 47 CMR
B: 3 ARG / 29 IRL / 46 RSA
C: 6 ESP / 26 PER / 36 ALG
D: 11 MEX / 20 POL / 41 BFO

E: 2 GER / 33 TUN / 35 KOR
F: 15 SUI / 18 CIV / 40 JPN
G: 7 CHI / 27 CZE / 59 CGO
H 10 FRA / 24 IRN / 38 NGA

I: 1 BRA 30 / BIH / 52 HON
J: 16 BEL / 17 GHA / 58 JAM
K: 8 COL / 23 GRE / 43 KSA
L: 9 URU / 22 WAL / 54 CHN

M: 4 NED / 31 EGY / 51 UZB
N: 13 ITA / 21 CRC / 37 AUS
O: 5 POR / 28 SEN / 77 NZL
P: 12 ENG / 25 ECU / 39 PAN

I would even go a step further and seed all of the teams into 3 pots based on FIFA ranking. We could agree it is blatantly unfair that the USA for example has absolutely no shot at being drawn into a group with other weaker teams (bottom Asian or African teams) simply because non-seeded CONCACAF teams are paired with another confederation to make up the numbers. We also could agree that the FIFA rankings should be revised, however, who knows how likely that is. If they are going to be used then, use them to seed ALL of the teams. From there it is a fairly elementary exercise to make sure teams from the same confederation don't end up in the same group (which I support). In my example below, I used 16 teams from UEFA, 9 from CAF, 6 from CONMEBOL, 6+1 from CONCACAF (assuming the USA is hosting and CONCACAF loses the playoff to AFC), 9 from AFC (8 plus playoff winner with CONCACAF), and 1 from OFC. I simply used the top requisite number of teams in each confederation currently according to the FIFA rankings, for ease. Per tradition, I also put USA in the 1st pot and into group A as hosts. At least in this model, you get one team each from seeds 1-16, 17-32, and 18-48 into each group with the only restriction being geography. You can argue in the current format a team like USA would never be drawn into a group with a team like Uzbekistan because they likely must have 1 European team, 1 European or South American team, and 1 other team likely African and a strong competitor, which has happened in each of the last 3 World Cups.

 

[MNNumbers]

I would even go a step further and seed all of the teams into 3 pots based on FIFA ranking. We could agree it is blatantly unfair that the USA for example has absolutely no shot at being drawn into a group with other weaker teams (bottom Asian or African teams) simply because non-seeded CONCACAF teams are paired with another confederation to make up the numbers. We also could agree that the FIFA rankings should be revised, however, who knows how likely that is. If they are going to be used then, use them to seed ALL of the teams. From there it is a fairly elementary exercise to make sure teams from the same confederation don't end up in the same group (which I support). In my example below, I used 16 teams from UEFA, 9 from CAF, 6 from CONMEBOL, 6+1 from CONCACAF (assuming the USA is hosting and CONCACAF loses the playoff to AFC), 9 from AFC (8 plus playoff winner with CONCACAF), and 1 from OFC. I simply used the top requisite number of teams in each confederation currently according to the FIFA rankings, for ease. Per tradition, I also put USA in the 1st pot and into group A as hosts. At least in this model, you get one team each from seeds 1-16, 17-32, and 18-48 into each group with the only restriction being geography. You can argue in the current format a team like USA would never be drawn into a group with a team like Uzbekistan because they likely must have 1 European team, 1 European or South American team, and 1 other team likely African and a strong competitor, which has happened in each of the last 3 World Cups.

I won't take the time for a randomized drawing, but I agree with this premise. Specifically, the host should be placed as 1A - meaning they get the sites and dates they want. But, not necessarily a #1 seed.

Then, I would actually do 4 pots, rather than 3. Pot A would be seeds 1-8, Pot B would be 9-16, then 17-32 and then 33-48. In this way, it would be possible to restrict the top 2 teams in the world from facing each other early in the KO portion.

Draw would be done with assistance from mathematicians, to ensure the result would be as random as possible. I would suggest this:
For Pot C:
1- Draw at random a Group (1-16)
2- Place in the bowl only those nations whose presence in the group does not violate geographical ideals.
3- Draw the nation.
Continue until all #2s are placed. And, there may need to be some adjustment even with in that for the sake of the math, so that the randomization does not leave you with only a 2nd Euro team for the last group.
Pot D: Similar

KO:
1a/2b::3a/4b::5a/6b::7a/8b::9a/10b::11a/12b::13a/14b::15a/16b
1b/2a::3b/4a::5b/6a::7b/8a::9b/10a::11b/12a::13b/14a::15b/16a

Which means that if the host is a #1 seed, then their Pot covers Groups 1,3,5,7,9,11,13 and 15, because they have to go in Group 1.

If the host is not a #1, then Pot A (Seeds 1-8), covers the odd groups, and Pot B covers the even groups.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

I think they should do away with draws. 3 points for a win, 1 point for a shootout win, 0 for a loss.

And the run up shootout is so much better than PKs.

 

[Asiantuntija]

Finland have now better chances to make it, when theres more teams, we have better coach now and Eremenko doesn't play. His attitude was ridiculous at last year games so i'm very happy that i don't need to watch his face anymore.

 

[Hoek]

I think they should do away with draws. 3 points for a win, 1 point for a shootout win, 0 for a loss.

And the run up shootout is so much better than PKs.

Even the big international stars that played in NASL shootouts back in the day thought so.

 

[KevFu]

I would even go a step further and seed all of the teams into 3 pots based on FIFA ranking.

I won't take the time for a randomized drawing, but I agree with this premise. Specifically, the host should be placed as 1A - meaning they get the sites and dates they want. But, not necessarily a #1 seed.

Then, I would actually do 4 pots, rather than 3. Pot A would be seeds 1-8, Pot B would be 9-16, then 17-32 and then 33-48. In this way, it would be possible to restrict the top 2 teams in the world from facing each other early in the KO portion.

I'm saying don't DRAW by chance at all (except for teams 33-48). Seed the entire thing. It shouldn't be "Oh, we pulled a ball from the bin to see who's in Group A.

It should be "FIFA rankings determine who's in which group, and who the host is determine which of those groups gets labeled Group A.

 

[MNNumbers]

I'm saying don't DRAW by chance at all (except for teams 33-48). Seed the entire thing. It shouldn't be "Oh, we pulled a ball from the bin to see who's in Group A.

It should be "FIFA rankings determine who's in which group, and who the host is determine which of those groups gets labeled Group A.

Just checking Kev:

You want to draw 33-48, and make the others go 1/32; 2/31; 3/30, etc???

Would you allow for special provisions so that 3 UEFA nations don't end up grouped together? Or, worse 3 CONCACAF nations?

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

Even the big international stars that played in NASL shootouts back in the day thought so.

That looks so cool!

 

[Lieutenant Bookman]

This is beyond stupid to me. First off, it was way too much expansion, they made a 32 team field fifty percent larger all at once. If they were going to expand 40 would have been a logical stopping point. But worst of all is this 3 team group madness. At least make even groups of four and just have the group winners and best 4 second place teams advance. The group stage is going to go from one of the most intriguing parts of the World Cup to the most pointless