FIFA World Cup - bigger is better?

[bocadillo]

FIFA have ratified their decision to increase the number of teams in the World Cup Finals to 48 from 2026. I think people will be worried about this and decry the decision but I wonder if it will not actually improve the spectacle.

Gone are the endless group games where teams have not necessarily had to go all out for a win and where in the last game of the groups two teams have been happy to settle for a draw, knowing that a single point would be enough to take them both through. The sixteen 3-country groups will need only three games to complete and then we will be straight into a knock-out competition where nobody will be able to afford to sit back (except those few countries who think they can win every game on penalties )

OK. It's a far cry from the 1966 World Cup, which is the first one I really took much notice of, with its 16 teams and four groups of 4. But it's infinitely better than the system that was used from '74 to '82 which included a double dose of group games and it seemed that they wanted to eliminate nobody from the competition any sooner than they had to. There'll just be three games in each group before they start sending people home with abandon.

I think it might work.

 

[FIF]

It may work.

It's likely to make qualifying for the finals even less interesting than it is now and in the finals teams are likely to be more worried about losing than they are at present creating very defensive set-ups until a goal is scored. Are they changing substitute rules, extra time and penalties?

 

[pork pie fox]

FIFA have ratified their decision to increase the number of teams in the World Cup Finals to 48 from 2026. I think people will be worried about this and decry the decision but I wonder if it will not actually improve the spectacle.

Gone are the endless group games where teams have not necessarily had to go all out for a win and where in the last game of the groups two teams have been happy to settle for a draw, knowing that a single point would be enough to take them both through. The sixteen 3-country groups will need only three games to complete and then we will be straight into a knock-out competition where nobody will be able to afford to sit back (except those few countries who think they can win every game on penalties )

OK. It's a far cry from the 1966 World Cup, which is the first one I really took much notice of, with its 16 teams and four groups of 4. But it's infinitely better than the system that was used from '74 to '82 which included a double dose of group games and it seemed that they wanted to eliminate nobody from the competition any sooner than they had to. There'll just be three games in each group before they start sending people home with abandon.

I think it might work.

Some of the old formats were very odd. There's a breakdown on here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38565246

From a financial standpoint, they've managed to get an additional 16 teams there and 16 more matches overall, all of which should bring in more money. This has been done whilst ensuring the teams who get to the final still only play the same amount of matches as the old format and the length of the tournament (32 days) is no longer too. Quite clever really, in that respect.

 

[jb5000]

I'm certainly willing to give it a go. People always decry everything the football authorities do after all, but I thought that uefa moving to a rolling week of qualifiers was really good and that the 24 team European championship (which still saw the Dutch not qualify, along with genuine minnows making the last 8) was no bad thing. The idea seems to be to offer more opportunities to African and Asian countries, which is no bad thing in itself, and is unlikely to have much effect on European qualification

 

[Lako42]

Whatever, given up with international football.

If it's great and reawakens any interest at the time then great.

 

[Blaarev]

 

[East Anglia Fox]

Well... It's a bit of a farce calling it the "finals" now isn't it?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

[jb5000]

I dare say people were saying that in 1934, when the "Finals" (seriously,who calls them that?) expanded to 16 teams. I am concerned about the capacity for mutually beneficial results (as in the 1982 disgrace of Gijon) though

 

[Brown Nose]

I've no problem with this. However, this means that one quarter of the football playing nations will be there. So, surely we can simplify the mind numbingly tedious qualification process with a straight two round knockout for a place there?

I'd also do this worldwide rather than continent based.

 

[Blaarev]

The level of participants will be at the same level as it was in 1982 and 86 (approx 22% of all FIFA member nations. Can't see the big drama here.

 

[fitz]

The level of participants will be at the same level as it was in 1982 and 86 (approx 22% of all FIFA member nations. Can't see the big drama here.

It's because FIFA are bent. It may improve the competition but that won't have been a consideration in their decision. I personally hope it improves it but can see why people moan at everything them ****s do.

 

[bocadillo]

I can see why people moan at everything them ****s do.

I think that's why I was surprised that I could write something positive about the new arrangement.