Utter disgrace.
They even commissioned their own report which came back saying that it will be less competitive, but make more money.
Utter disgrace.
They even commissioned their own report which came back saying that it will be less competitive, but make more money.
What a joke.
If they're going to have sixteen groups they may as well just make it 64 teams straight away instead of doing it four years later as they're inevitably going to anyway.
Still getting away with it. Just want to see Rome burn now. England should just grow some bollocks and pull out of Russia and Qatar. It'd probably achieve fuck all, but would be more interesting than watching them get knocked out by Nepal and Sierra Leone respectively.
I'd actually be more alright with 64 than 48. At least it's a situation where half the teams are knocked out in the group stages, and half progress.Originally Posted by wullie
Having 48 teams offends me as a mathematician.
I'd agree with Wullie, in that if they were going to change it and make it rubbish they should have just gone for 64 teams, which the quality obviously isn't there to warrant, but it would have at least made for a group structure that isn't a total shambles.
On the plus side, 2026 is another 9 1/2 years away and I doubt I'll care at all by then, particularly after having gone through the Russia and Qatar experiences, which will both be soul destroying in their own special ways.
It's so bad, so so bad.Having 48 teams offends me as a mathematician.
I'd have rathered the Euros was bumped to 32 teams for a similar reason. None of this best third placed nonsense, just have your success in the group stage relying on what happens in your group alone.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Two 0-0s and a penalty shoot out win takes you through. It's an absolute nonsense.
This marks the end of the World Cup as a serious tournament.
The China world cup.
If they don't qualify
I saw they were trying to merge the North and South American qualifying as well. If ever there's a way of blowing America out, that is it.
It's interesting that cricket is trying to go the opposite direction, but for the same (money) reasons, with India essentially trying to stop other countries from playing.
Can't wait. After the successes of Qatar and Russia this will be amazing. They should let BPLSPB qualify for it as well and make it a club v country super cup.
I still think it'd be cool to have a one-off, FA style World Cup where it's just a knockout tournament from the off.
Why would they want to do that?
As much as I enjoy the smaller teams/underdogs in International competition, this might dilute that enjoyment somewhat. I do think it'll be fun to see teams pop up that I've never paid attention to before. The more mental African teams and goalkeepers, the better.
That actually sounds interesting.
As for the 48 team thing, well, lol.
Merge them or flame America? They wouldn't like to do the latter, which is why it surprised me.
That would be glorious
Yeah, the latter. The revenue streams (particularly the potential ones) must be huge.
They're in an absolute hole qualifying for Russia at the moment, so it'll be interesting to see which refs they bribe to get them through.
I don't see how it makes things less competitive/dilutes it, because the shit teams will just get bashed out early and then the last sixteen will have the same QUALITY as always. It will just make it longer and duller (and even then we're in a minority in terms of watching loads of it).
With FIFA rankings as they are, this would be the competitors in the 48 team cup.
I'm all for more Haiti, tbh.
SLOW STARTERS could easily get tanked by this system.
Who were the ridiculously dirty bastards, I think in South Africa, was it Honduras? They were absolutely brutal, every tackle took the guy out by a good 5 yards.
How does CONCACAF have more slots than South AmericaHas it always been like that.
Because Concacaf get more votes than South America hence the 48 team WC in the first place.
South America only has 10 countries in it, and three of them are long term useless.
Whereas CONCACAF has like 40 and only 2 or 3 of them are useFULL.
Yeah, but if you said 8 South American teams are going to qualify then you might as well just abolish football in the region because there will be no competition.
It does make sporting sense to combine the Americas qualifying.
40 votes is also more useful than 10 votes.
I'm all for it. I never got what the fuss was about in international tournaments prior to the summer so long may it continue. The format is the bigger problem, three teams in a group? Nah. Keep it at 4.
Votes to do what? This in itself is what you need votes for.
That looks absolutely muck. I'd cut it to 24.With FIFA rankings as they are, this would be the competitors in the 48 team cup.
Just have the top 2 in a final played every month. And abolish all friendlies and qualifiers.
14 Europe, 6 South America, and play qualifiers between the rest for the other four.
Is that how it works, everyone gets one vote each regardless of country size or stature within the footballing world / ranking or whatever?
Yep, it's why they hate the UK as we're 5 votes that will pretty much always vote as a bloc. It's also why UEFA have tried to push countries like Gibraltar and Kosovo etc. so they get another vote to exploit.
It's the same thing that took a lot of the shine off Eurovision.
Saying the Eurovision is lacking in "shine" is not quite the right way of putting it I reckon.
The sequin and sparkle count is way down since it got all politicised, it used to be about the great music and showmanship.
Britain also holds half of the voting power on the International Football Association Board (one of those lol hangovers from inventing everything), which means that if FIFA want to play World Cup games in quarters and add McDonald's breaks then they have to get us on board.
Yeah, we were the ones that banned the Poppy as well which is quite funny.
As with the Champions League expansion in the 90s (was it 96?) I definitely don't approve.
I did agree with the Euros though - seeing as how the number of registered European national sides has just about doubled since the qualifying for the first 16 team tournament (96) began 23 years ago.
231 years since Euro 96
All the new teams were in Euro 96 qualifying. Belarus beat Holland within. Croatia and Czech Republic of course made the latter stages.
Bosnia Herzogovina, Kosovo, Serbia, Montenegro.
Ok that's not double. It's about double that of Euro 92 qualifying, but that's definitely not what I said and also may defeat my point about further expansion.
In fairness, you also said this is the year 2227.
International football is proper turd anyway. I don't see what's wrong with 48 teams.
I'm a twit
Dream group as an Australian-
Australia
New Zealand
Uruguay
England
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote