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

[KevFu]

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?

Yes. You cannot have two teams from the same confederation in the same group. Was that not clear in my original post?

It's pretty simple, you S-Curve based on rankings for 1-32 (after fixing the stupidity of the rankings formula).

So if by the S-Curve you run into this: #13 Italy, #14 USA, #15 Switzerland, #16 Belgium, #17 Ghana, #18 Croatia, #20 Costa Rica, #21 Poland, #22 Ivory Coast

You’d say:
#16 Belgium should be joined by #17 Ghana = Okay.
#15 Switzerland should be joined by #18 Croatia = Not Okay. Croatia must go into the next available pool, against #14 USA.
Next team up is #20 Costa Rica.
#15 Switzerland and #20 Costa Rica = Okay.
#13 Italy should be joined by #21 Poland - Not Okay. Poland must go into the next available pool. #12 is England. #11 is Mexico.

#21 Poland joins #11 Mexico. #22 Ivory Coast will join #13 Italy.




And when you're drawing the teams randomly from the 32-48 pool and it's "Now joining #1 Brazil and #32 Bosnia... (pull) #44 Peru. Peru cannot be placed in the same group as Brazil. Peru will be placed in the next group, joining #2 Germany and #31 Ghana. The next team to join #1 Brazil and #32 Bosnia is... (pull) #46 Japan! This group is #1 Brazil and #32 Bosnia and #44 Japan."

And once the 16 groups have members, you say "USA is the host, so their group of #16 Belgium, #18 USA and #54 Burkino Faso will be Group A. It follows from there that #1 Brazil, #32 Bosnia and #44 Japan are Group B; the #8 seed, #25 seed and the random third team is in Group C; etc.

 

[Merya]

Not sure why is this a bad idea considering there are too many good teams that don't get to participate now.

You can't be serious. Even then, the qualifiers are are long and fair. (except Europe is underrepresented)

 

[Merya]

I'm pretty sure that WC will lose a lot of prestige with the planned changes. Most of the groups can't sustain that kind of growth at all. Europe can sustain couple more than the projected expansion, Africa can maybe sustain its expansion, but for SA it means almost everyone gets in. For the existing joke regions it gets even more unsustainable. Asia will be hilarious and it gets even worse for the rest.
And all for nothing.

 

[KevFu]

I'm pretty sure that WC will lose a lot of prestige with the planned changes. Most of the groups can't sustain that kind of growth at all. Europe can sustain couple more than the projected expansion, Africa can maybe sustain its expansion, but for SA it means almost everyone gets in. For the existing joke regions it gets even more unsustainable. Asia will be hilarious and it gets even worse for the rest.
And all for nothing.

Here's the problem...

How do we know that the teams from Africa and Asia suck compared to the European and South American teams? Especially those who miss the World Cup? There's no meaningful games by which to measure.

The FIFA rankings? Europe and South America get more points for games just because they ARE in Europe and South America.

World Cup performance? The total World Cup performance of each confederation is a stupid thing to use. Brazil, Germany, Italy and France winning WC's doesn't make Peru, Bolivia, Bosnia and Denmark any good.

How's this for an indicator of how underrated CAF/AFC/CONCACAF are:

Using FIFA rankings, since 1998, the expected number of points from World Cup games:

54 CONCACAF
45 CAF
30 AFC (*Includes Australia’s OFC performance)

Actual points in those World Cups?
58 CONCACAF (+4) 4 upset berths in R16, 1 R16 upset win
72 CAF (+27) 6 upset berths in R16, 2 R16 upset wins
52 AFC (+22) 5 upset berths in R16, 1 R16 upset win, 1 Quarter win

Where do you think these extra 53 points have been coming from? against UEFA and CONMEBOL teams


I think UEFA should get more bids, but I think it should be:

16 UEFA (One in each group)
11 CAF
8 AFC
6 CONMBEOL
6 CONCACAF
1 OFC

(The hosts take a confederations bid)

And then we'll see what's what when UEFA's 12-16 teams play other confederations ever WC instead of having 2 in each group.

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

I'd honestly rather see a single knockout tournament (a la March Madness) rather than the 3 team groups.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I'm pretty sure that WC will lose a lot of prestige with the planned changes. Most of the groups can't sustain that kind of growth at all. Europe can sustain couple more than the projected expansion, Africa can maybe sustain its expansion, but for SA it means almost everyone gets in. For the existing joke regions it gets even more unsustainable. Asia will be hilarious and it gets even worse for the rest.
And all for nothing.

Not sure I buy that, it will still be the biggest sporting event in the World. Maybe the idea of just making it to the World Cup will lose a little bit, but not much. Secondly, for the team that wins, do you think it means less than 30 years ago because they played a weaker team in the prelims this time around? Still had to beat great teams in the knockout to win.

 

[KevFu]

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

The "problem" with 40 teams, or 4-team groups with 48, is that you're basically making "group disparity" the determining factor of who advances.

Like the last World Cup had:

Group G: 2 Germany, 4 Portugal, 13 USA, 37 Ghana
Group H: 11 Belgium, 19 Russia, 22 Algeria, 57 South Korea

Now if last spot to advance is between the 2nd place teams tied with 4 points, who should advance?

USA: WIN vs #37, DRAW vs #4, LOSS to #2 (0)
POR: WIN vs #37, DRAW vs #11, LOSS to #2 (-1)
ALG: WIN vs #57, DRAW vs #19, LOSS to #11 (+1)

Of those three, Algeria beat the worst team, drew the worst team and lost to the worst team. Yet, they’d win the tie-breaker based on goal differential because it’s easier to score on bad teams.

I'd rather they go to 64 teams, 32-team knockout than go to 40 and "SOME second place teams" advance.

I'd honestly rather see a single knockout tournament (a la March Madness) rather than the 3 team groups.

Yes and no. This is a step towards that (32-team knockout), but it's kinda silly to have 64 teams travel to one country, plan an entire month around the World Cup and then get bounced for one game.

This format gives:
16 teams 2 games
32 teams 3 games
16 teams 4 games
8 teams 5 games
4 teams 7 games

 

[Merya]

Here's the problem...

How do we know that the teams from Africa and Asia suck compared to the European and South American teams? Especially those who miss the World Cup? There's no meaningful games by which to measure.

I actually watch games. Even friendlies thru streams. I didn't say African teams sucked. They're actually rather good. I said Asian and American teams suck.(not south)
If you expand the games 50% you have to include 50% more European teams or it becomes a joke tournament.

 

[Merya]

Yes, I am sure it will mean less to Germany to win in 2024 than all the historic wins of tighter games with 3 groupgames and meaningful eliminations games against meaningful opponents. In this current scheme you will have total joketeams in the playoffs. Like Jamaica or Burkina Faso or Thailand or Canada or New Zealand. Those teams have no place in football world cup (so far). Fifa is destroying football with world cups in russia and qatar and now planning a totally diluted one. Or well, uefa will be fine.

 

[KevFu]

I actually watch games. Even friendlies thru streams. I didn't say African teams sucked. They're actually rather good. I said Asian and American teams suck.(not south)
If you expand the games 50% you have to include 50% more European teams or it becomes a joke tournament.

Yes, I am sure it will mean less to Germany to win in 2024 than all the historic wins of tighter games with 3 groupgames and meaningful eliminations games against meaningful opponents. In this current scheme you will have total joketeams in the playoffs. Like Jamaica or Burkina Faso or Thailand or Canada or New Zealand. Those teams have no place in football world cup (so far). Fifa is destroying football with world cups in russia and qatar and now planning a totally diluted one. Or well, uefa will be fine.

#1 - If a Asian or American team beats a UEFA team in a World Cup, it’s a massive upset because the system set up so that AFC/CONCACAF teams aren’t supposed to win (which didn’t stop Costa Rica).

And when it happens, it’s “oh, it’s just one game. Italy & England just happened to have a bad week once in four years.â€

Or when it’s a non-World Cup game, it’s “oh, we didn’t even try, it’s just a friendly.â€

#2 - MAKING the World Cup (and getting a share of the money that comes with it) will make federations better.

#3 - FIFA HAS destroyed world football, and World Cups in Russia and Qatar are totally ridiculous. I think we all missed a golden opportunity when the Swiss arrests went down. Had UEFA, CONMEBOL and the USA worked together on “Let’s form a new governing body that isn’t corrupt and stupid.†We could have held our world championship in the USA instead of Qatar and made a better world football system at the same time.

 

[Mobiandi]

International football is dead with this change

 

[Merya]

#1 - If a Asian or American team beats a UEFA team in a World Cup, it’s a massive upset because the system set up so that AFC/CONCACAF teams aren’t supposed to win (which didn’t stop Costa Rica).

And when it happens, it’s “oh, it’s just one game. Italy & England just happened to have a bad week once in four years.â€

Or when it’s a non-World Cup game, it’s “oh, we didn’t even try, it’s just a friendly.â€

One game is one game, but that's football, especially in important finals. (champions league!)
England hasn't been an elite Euro team for ages. They're touted as such by crazy english tabloids, but everyone in non-englishspeaking countries knows to put some money on England loss in big games. (the odds for bets is usually very good)
Friendlies are supposed to be games where you can try new or alternative players. You can't give those games the same value as serious games. My solution would be cross-continent qualifiers between 3rd and 4th place teams from European brackets versus all other continents, but the leagues will never accept that kind of travelling.
I can assure you tho that if the new 16 slots would be decided by games, Europe would take at least half of those places, probably almost all if it was played in two 8 team groups with everyone playing everyone home and away.

 

[Merya]

Russia 2018 has one upside. It'll prolly keep Putin from misbehaving too much for year and a half. (like Sotshi 2014)

ps. I appreciate that politics isn't very good, but politics is already in UEFA and FIFA rules when doing brackets. (some countries can't be in same brackets, this in addition to usual diversity rules.)

 

[cutchemist42]

So with the news yesterday, it seems like the plans for the WC2026 are working out, as they will get a rich country to spend money on soccer that isnt actually good at the sport. (I always saw this as the China plan, but there are still countries in the top20 GDP that aren't pure soccer countries)

That joint bid and expansion is going to get money from TSN or Sportsnet. Just wonder how much 3 group stage games with Canada is worth? Or overall worth of hosting 10 games?

 

[jason2020]

So with the news yesterday, it seems like the plans for the WC2026 are working out, as they will get a rich country to spend money on soccer that isnt actually good at the sport. (I always saw this as the China plan, but there are still countries in the top20 GDP that aren't pure soccer countries)

That joint bid and expansion is going to get money from TSN or Sportsnet. Just wonder how much 3 group stage games with Canada is worth? Or overall worth of hosting 10 games?

Is a soccer stadium still required.

 

[Roadrage]

Is a soccer stadium still required.

Probably not a soccer stadium but will require the big enough stadiums available like Edmonton, Vancouver, and Toronto to switch to natural grass from Field Turf.

 

[IME]

Rogers Centre in Toronto will be one of the venues, no doubt. The question then becomes whether CONCACAF uses BC place in Vancouver or Olympic Stadium in Montreal.

 

[htpwn]

Rogers Centre in Toronto will be one of the venues, no doubt. The question then becomes whether CONCACAF uses BC place in Vancouver or Olympic Stadium in Montreal.

I'm guessing BMO Field, actually. They packed 40,100 in there for the Centennial Classic and if they get creative with the north side temporary stands, might be able to fit a few thousand more. Rogers Centre only seats 47,000 for soccer, by comparison. Not sure where else is available. Investor's Group Field in Winnipeg is probably the nicest stadium in the country but is in... well... Winnipeg. McMahon and Commonwealth Stadiums look a bit run down, Lansdowne (TD Park) Stadium and Tim Hortons Field are too small, and is FIFA interested in the multipurpose bowl-type stadiums in Vancouver and Montréal? It wouldn't surprise me to see all 10 games in Toronto.

 

[cutchemist42]

I'm guessing BMO Field, actually. They packed 40,100 in there for the Centennial Classic and if they get creative with the north side temporary stands, might be able to fit a few thousand more. Rogers Centre only seats 47,000 for soccer, by comparison. Not sure where else is available. Investor's Group Field in Winnipeg is probably the nicest stadium in the country but is in... well... Winnipeg. McMahon and Commonwealth Stadiums look a bit run down, Lansdowne (TD Park) Stadium and Tim Hortons Field are too small, and is FIFA interested in the multipurpose bowl-type stadiums in Vancouver and Montréal? It wouldn't surprise me to see all 10 games in Toronto.

Mosaic might end up being the nicest stadium in Canada. The games arent going to the Prairies tho. Edmonton would be the biggest crowd possible for single games. I personally find games at the BigO look bad on tv, whether its football or basrball or soccer.

 

[htpwn]

Mosaic might end up being the nicest stadium in Canada. The games arent going to the Prairies tho. Edmonton would be the biggest crowd possible for single games. I personally find games at the BigO look bad on tv, whether its football or basrball or soccer.

Is the new Roughriders stadium still going ahead? For some reason I thought it was stalled. But yeah, that's what I meant. No slight to Winnipeg intended. I only brought it up because you guys have a damn beautiful stadium. I just don't see the organizers wanting to go outside of the Big 3 (Toronto/Montréal/Vancouver) for such a major event.

 

[bigred50]

I'm guessing BMO Field, actually. They packed 40,100 in there for the Centennial Classic and if they get creative with the north side temporary stands, might be able to fit a few thousand more. Rogers Centre only seats 47,000 for soccer, by comparison.

It wouldn't surprise me to see all 10 games in Toronto.

As it stands, Toronto does not have a stadium that meets current World Cup requirements:

- 40,000 minimum
- grass playing surface
- no temporary grandstands

 

[htpwn]

As it stands, Toronto does not have a stadium that meets current World Cup requirements:

- 40,000 minimum
- grass playing surface
- no temporary grandstands

Neither does any other city.

 

[bigred50]

Neither does any other city.

Correct. But a lot could change in 10 years...

Toronto: New Baseball Stadium/World Cup Stadium/Olympic Stadium?

 

[htpwn]

Correct. But a lot could change in 10 years...

Toronto: New Baseball Stadium/World Cup Stadium/Olympic Stadium?

I can't see a stadium project attracting much public support, although who knows? Maybe ML$E sees an opportunity to realize their NFL dreams and puts up the cash? The Olympics is an interesting thought. Between the Pan Am Games and the half-dozen NHL/OHL/ECHL/AHL hockey arenas around the GTA, not a lot would have to be built besides the stadium and athlete's village.

 

[IME]

As it stands, Toronto does not have a stadium that meets current World Cup requirements:

- 40,000 minimum
- grass playing surface
- no temporary grandstands

Why doesn't the Rogers Centre fit the bill? You can bring in natural grass. It's not the greatest, but some MLS stadiums do it.