Vidahost - UK Web Hosting
Vidahost - UK Web Hosting


Blueblur

48-team World Cup 2026

England still wont get out the group and Scotland still won't qualify.

In all seriousness it's not a good thing. Makes the qualifier's pointless if 3-4 teams qualify from each group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, drjonesy1994 said:

England still wont get out the group and Scotland still won't qualify.

In all seriousness it's not a good thing. Makes the qualifier's pointless if 3-4 teams qualify from each group.

Exactly. But i'm sure it gives FIFA more opportunities to line their pockets 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess I better enjoy the heck out of the 2018 World Cup as I've already decided that I won't be watching the 2022 tournament and now it sounds like I won't be interested in the next tournament(s) either.

Edited by Maksimov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

I don't like thinking that far ahead, i will be 36 by then. :biggrin:

It's only 9 short years away!:chillpillsmile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the benefits of this were almost entirely based on the chosen format. An expanded tournament could only mean more football, which, from my perspective, can't be a bad thing. That said, there are a few caveats.

 

In short, these are the formats from which the FIFA Committee chose:


1) A 48-team World Cup consisting of 16 groups of three, with the top two sides qualifying for a last-32 knockout stage (80 games in total);

2) Another 48-team version consisting of a 32-team, one-game knockout round, with the winners joining 16 already-qualified teams (80 games - 16 in preliminary and 64 in main tournament);

3) Expanding it to 40 teams, with 10 groups of four and only six group runners-up advancing (76 games);

4) A 40-team tournament with eight groups of five (88 games);

5) Keeping the World Cup at its present size of 32 teams (64 games).

 

Assuming option 5 is unavailable, my perspective is:

- I don't like the idea of odd-numbered groups as it increases the likelihood of collusion.

- I don't like seeding as I like all teams who have qualified to begin on an equal footing.

 

This rules out everything except option 3.

 

 

Naturally, FIFA went for the option which includes the most matches, and henceforth, the most money, and sod the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 or 9 Asian teams is ludicrous. Coming from an Australian.


Sure we would seemingly qualify for every world cup, but sheesh, if we can't finish in the top two teams in our group, in the final section of Asian qualifying, we don't deserve to be there. Most Asian teams are very ordinary. Difficult to travel to, and qualify, but that's largely down to dodgy pitches, and insanely humid conditions.

 

48 teams just fills the world cup with more teams that will look completely out of place.

Jezz likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More matches that will be hard to look at. Like a 20-0 game. 32 should have bwen enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That 16 groups thing is f**king stupid. 3 teams in a group.....so 2 matches each, why even bother ? They may as well just make it knock out right from the off.

I can live with the teams being increased to 48 ( even though i am against it ) but not when the groups only have 3 teams in it. Why not just have 6 in each group and the top 4 go through ?

The decisions made at the top these days just don't benefit the game at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

That 16 groups thing is f**king stupid. 3 teams in a group.....so 2 matches each, why even bother ? They may as well just make it knock out right from the off.

You can't do that with 48 teams. Or do you suggest an expansion to 64? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, undertow said:

You can't do that with 48 teams. Or do you suggest an expansion to 64? :)

Deleted

Edited by Scott Harris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this on Twitter: "Using FIFA rankings, here's how World Cup 2026 groups could look. Seeds listed first; top 2 go through. Hell of a draw for Wales and England"

 

C1zdVmIWEAAXiCQ.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kiwi1691 said:

Saw this on Twitter: "Using FIFA rankings, here's how World Cup 2026 groups could look. Seeds listed first; top 2 go through. Hell of a draw for Wales and England"

 

C1zdVmIWEAAXiCQ.jpg

 

Jesus H Christ. When you put it out on a graphic like that....this looks terrible. Just, disgusting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Blueblur said:

 

Jesus H Christ. When you put it out on a graphic like that....this looks terrible. Just, disgusting. 

I agree, why couldn't Burkina Faso get Tunisia's draw?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kiwi1691 said:

Saw this on Twitter: "Using FIFA rankings, here's how World Cup 2026 groups could look.

Honestly, as a neutral, I'd say that group stage has two matches that I would watch and maybe a further two or three that I might watch if I didn't have anything better to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad decision in my opinion. 3 teams in a group it feels like it friendly tournament. It had to stay like it always been, no changes needed. Disappointing.

Jezz likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IliyaKrostin said:

Bad decision in my opinion. 3 teams in a group it feels like it friendly tournament. It had to stay like it always been, no changes needed. Disappointing.

Well it hasn't always been like it was before they decided to go to 48 teams either. This is a just a progression. I think it's down right stupid to go to 48 though. Some of the teams in the example above stand no chance of even earning a point, never mind the fact that some of those groups are extremely uneven. E and F for example, Curacao? If I was the head of their FA I don't know if I would even bother showing up to lose.

 

I think they would have been better off with 40, 8 groups of 5 teams, top two progressing to knockout. More group games to televise, games which would actually mean something, plus teams would actually have to use most of their squad if they're playing 4 times in 10/14 days. The way they have set it up now, you may not need to use players 16-23 at all if you're playing 1 match every 5 days. To me that would bring more entertainment and competitiveness to the tournament. Let's see Roberto Martinez gamble on when to give Hazard or De Bruyne a rest. I'd like to see what Argentina would do with Messi or Uruguay with Suarez if they only need 3 points from 2 matches to go through. 

 

This 3 team group stuff is going to open it up for even more complaints about seeding, bias, favoritism etc.. unless I'm missing something, they'll only be playing 1 match per group at a time. The scheduling seems like it will be ludicrous. Not to mention the amount of teams who are surely going to end up playing for a draw because 1 or 2 points could see you through

Edited by TheChelseaBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.