The next World Cup format sounds horrendous

TeaCider said:
There's not a single player in the German team born in Turkey.

There's not a single player in the England team born in Ireland

There are only two players born in Africa In the French team, Camavinga (Angola) and Mandanda (DR Congo), both benchwarmers, and both were raised in France from the age of 2.

But, despite the ignorant implications of your post, such a move would negatively impact developing nations far more.

A quarter to a third of each African nations squad at this World Cup are made up of players born in Europe, using "loose family connections and passports" to play for a country they weren't born in.
Click to expand...
Not in this world cup. But in previous.
Are you saying there are players out there who don't pick and choose which national side they represent?

😅

It's interesting that so many people were against that European super league model but also against the expansion if the world cup to stop the same usual suspects fighting it out every 4 years.

Would we see the likes of Saudi Arabia beat Argentina with their aggressive, fast and flowing football in a 16 team tournament? Or the likes of Iran proving the world wrong with their overall displays against England and Wales?
 
Centralscrutinizer said:
It's ridiculous. All about milking it for money 👎
Click to expand...
On this occasion, I don't think that's true. It was a blatant attempt to Garner votes for the presidency from the emerging continents, and it worked.

TeaCider said:
The format isn't fully agreed yet, I expect they'll change it to 12 groups of 4 when the idiots pushing for the changes actually realise the implications of it.

48 teams is far too many though.
Click to expand...

That would increase the number of group games from 48 to 72. One reason for this format was shortening the time a 48 team tournament would take, so I don't think this will happen. Plus, I don't see how 12×4 would help whittle the teams down to knockout numbers. Maybe 12 group winners and 4 best runners up? It would lead to a lot of dead rubber matches.

I think the format is perfect now with 32 teams. What I will miss is the 3rd round of group games with 4 teams playing at the same time. It usually produces the best drama.

I appreciate the need for emerging continents to have more chance. I'd therefore include runners up from European qualify groups in intercontinental playoffs. If teams from other continents prove themselves better than the likes of Wales, they'll have more places.

Probably not a popular view, but I think after 32 years, it's the right time to take the tournament back to North America. Had it been 32 teams, maybe Canada could have hosted it alone though.
 
Last edited:
Randy said:
Not in this world cup. But in previous.
Are you saying there are players out there who don't pick and choose which national side they represent?

😅
Click to expand...

No player born in Ireland has ever played for England in football.

1 Turkish born player has played for Germany in their entire history, Mustafa Dogan in 1999, and he'd lived in Germany since he was a child.
1999 was not a World Cup year.

I'm countering your argument, which I can only assume is judging the children of immigrants as not really being from the country they're born or raised in and they shouldn't be allowed to represent it.

It's nonsense.

Can you give me one example of a player born and raised in a developing country who's "picked and choosed"?

There are plenty of examples of South Americans and Europeans representing other sides through ancestry or residency, but I don't think anyone would argue South American or European countries are struggling for players.
 
Frozen Horse said:
On this occasion, I don't think that's true. It was a blatant attempt to Garner votes for the presidency from the emerging continents, and it worked.



That would increase the number of group games from 48 to 72. One reason for this format was shortening the time a 48 team tournament would take, so I don't think this will happen. Plus, I don't see how 12×4 would help whittle the teams down to knockout numbers. Maybe 12 group winners and 4 best runners up? It would lead to a lot of dead rubber matches.

I think the format is perfect now with 32 teams. What I will miss is the 3rd round of group games with 4 teams playing at the same time. It usually produces the best drama.

I appreciate the need for emerging continents to have more chance. I'd therefore include runners up from European qualify groups in intercontinental playoffs. If teams from other continents prove themselves better than the likes of Wales, they'll have more places.

Probably not a popular view, but I think after 32 years, it's the right time to take the tournament back to North America. Had it been 32 teams, maybe Canada could have hosted it alone though.
Click to expand...
I agree they wont change that format I reckon simply because of the number of games In the present proposed groups of 3 format the winner still has to navigate 7 matches. If you create 12 groups of four you would increase that to 8 if the top two in eaxh group plus 8 best 3rd place teams qualify for the R32.
 
Frozen Horse said:
That would increase the number of group games from 48 to 72. One reason for this format was shortening the time a 48 team tournament would take, so I don't think this will happen. Plus, I don't see how 12×4 would help whittle the teams down to knockout numbers. Maybe 12 group winners and 4 best runners up? It would lead to a lot of dead rubber matches.

I think the format is perfect now with 32 teams. What I will miss is the 3rd round of group games with 4 teams playing at the same time. It usually produces the best drama.

I appreciate the need for emerging continents to have more chance. I'd therefore include runners up from European qualify groups in intercontinental playoffs. If teams from other continents prove themselves better than the likes of Wales, they'll have more places.

Probably not a popular view, but I think after 32 years, it's the right time to take the tournament back to North America. Had it been 32 teams, maybe Canada could have hosted it alone though.
Click to expand...

The same number of teams would go through as with groups of 3, it would just be more competitive.

The format they're going with now adds a round of 32, whilst effectively ruining the group stage in the process.

You might as well just have it as straight knock-out if you go with groups of 3.

I agree on it being in North America though, absolutely no problem with them hosting it.
 
Due to the corruption a group of 3 would make, I don't see FIFA doing this....then again it's FIFA, so I'm not holding my breath.

FIFA really don't help themselves. A 32 team tournament works very well. If it's not broke, then why fix it it?

But we all know why they want to increase it to 48 💰💰💰💰

The quality of the WC will go downhill because of it, but that doesn't matter, because it's all about the cash.
 
Its been said that the previous USA world cup are the only ones to have made a profit?

with so many teams involved it looks like they are going for it again.

my concern is around the number of aeroplane flights required by the teams and fans to get to games - some carbon footprint that will be - this 2022 world cup, many fans are walking between grounds for games.

©️ can i be the 1st to say i will be boycotting the world cup matches being played in the USA during 2026. - a country that has alarming human rights and social welfare conditions - student debt@$1.75 trillion, wage inequality, public healthcare, housing, voting rights, human reproductive rights, book bans in schools, LGBTQAI2+ rights, climate justice & racism - its a shocking example of a country as the so called leaders of the 'free' world.😇
 
England get Ghana and Brazil in the group stage.

England beat Ghana.
Brazil beat Ghana.

England and Brazil lazily kick the ball about for 90 minutes in the final match, knowing that both are guaranteed progression, whilst Ghana are already on the flight home.

It's going to be an absolute farce if they stick with that, because it's a very likely scenario in groups.

Even worse is if one team wins their opening game, the other draws their, when they play each other they'll both know that a draw will send them through and would have no incentive to try and win.
 
TeaCider said:
The same number of teams would go through as with groups of 3, it would just be more competitive.

The format they're going with now adds a round of 32, whilst effectively ruining the group stage in the process.

You might as well just have it as straight knock-out if you go with groups of 3.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong; I like the current format, and I hate what FIFA proposes.

I also think what you propose has problems though. 72 group games plus a round of 32 makes for an extremely long tournament. I'm ready to stand corrected on the maths, but I reckon it would increase the number of matches from 64 to 104. You could play group matches at the same time as each other, I suppose.

I also dislike 3rd placed teams going through. I think it leads to more negative football in the group stage as it generally makes draws a good result

One more thought; I don't know where they got to for this, but there was talk of shootouts in the group stage to prevent the contrived draw. I hate this idea too: a draw is a legitimate result in a group stage, and it won't stop non-aggression pacts. The sham of Gijon did not end in a draw, after all.
 
TeaCider said:
England get Ghana and Brazil in the group stage.

England beat Ghana.
Brazil beat Ghana.

England and Brazil lazily kick the ball about for 90 minutes in the final match, knowing that both are guaranteed progression, whilst Ghana are already on the flight home.

It's going to be an absolute farce if they stick with that, because it's a very likely scenario in groups.

Even worse is if one team wins their opening game, the other draws their, when they play each other they'll both know that a draw will send them through and would have no incentive to try and win.
Click to expand...
Brazil and England will not be paired in the same group though will they unless one of the two slip alarmingly down the rankings. And you can bet your bottom dollar that they wont pair the the 1st and 2nd seeded teams together in a final group game.
 
Randy said:
Football is a global game. The only way to improve the quality of other nation's footballing sides is to compete in major tournaments.

It might go some way to preventing players using loose family connections and passports to play for another country other than the one they were born in. Like Turkish playing for Germany, Africans playing for France and Irishmen playing for England.
Click to expand...
Qualifiers in Europe will be even more of a non-entity for the bigger 7-10 nations. I really don't think we'll see things like Italy failing to qualify again.
 
Frozen Horse said:
Don't get me wrong; I like the current format, and I hate what FIFA proposes.

I also think what you propose has problems though. 72 group games plus a round of 32 makes for an extremely long tournament. I'm ready to stand corrected on the maths, but I reckon it would increase the number of matches from 64 to 104. You could play group matches at the same time as each other, I suppose.

I also dislike 3rd placed teams going through. I think it leads to more negative football in the group stage as it generally makes draws a good result

One more thought; I don't know where they got to for this, but there was talk of shootouts in the group stage to prevent the contrived draw. I hate this idea too: a draw is a legitimate result in a group stage, and it won't stop non-aggression pacts. The sham of Gijon did not end in a draw, after all.
Click to expand...

The only reason to add more teams in the first place is so they can show more games and make more money, it's the intention, not a side effect.

There are 64 matches in the 2022 World Cup.

As it stands there will be 80 matches in the 2026 World Cup, but 16 teams are losing a match, because they've removed a group game.
This would likely primarily impact the weaker footballing nations that they're trying to pander to by expanding in the first place.

Keeping the groups at 4 only adds 1 more game for each team that progresses out of the groups, whilst keeping it the same for those who fail to progress.

It also provides more games for them to televise.
 
Zoophonic said:
Brazil and England will not be paired in the same group though will they unless one of the two slip alarmingly down the rankings. And you can bet your bottom dollar that they wont pair the the 1st and 2nd seeded teams together in a final group game.
Click to expand...

It was just 3 random names I picked, change them to what you want, it doesn't alter the scenario on results.
 
TeaCider said:
The only reason to add more teams in the first place is so they can show more games and make more money, it's the intention, not a side effect.

There are 64 matches in the 2022 World Cup.

As it stands there will be 80 matches in the 2026 World Cup, but 16 teams are losing a match, because they've removed a group game.
This would likely primarily impact the weaker footballing nations that they're trying to pander to.
Click to expand...

Well 16 teams aren't losing a game: 16 teams didn't have any games before. They've gained 2 games.

As I said before, I don't think this actually about money on this occasion: it's about power.

The 48 team format was part of Infantino's bid to be elected president, and it gained him a lot of support from Asia and Africa.

However, this was at the risk of alienating powerful European unions. To pacify them, we have this contrived format which increases the number of teams while minimizing the increase in number of games.
 
Frozen Horse said:
Well 16 teams aren't losing a game: 16 teams didn't have any games before. They've gained 2 games.

As I said before, I don't think this actually about money on this occasion: it's about power.

The 48 team format was part of Infantino's bid to be elected president, and it gained him a lot of support from Asia and Africa.

However, this was at the risk of alienating powerful European unions. To pacify them, we have this contrived format which increases the number of teams while minimizing the increase in number of games.
Click to expand...

If you're knocked out in the group stage right now, you've played 3 games.
If you're knocked out next time, you've only played 2 games.

Plenty of the teams that are knocked out early in 2026 will have competed in 2022, it's not just entirely new nations that will come through the expanded qualification, so it's not a straight 0 to 2.

I am 90% sure that FIFA will cave and switch to groups of 4, there's already been plenty of pushback before their reputation was completely trashed in the last month.

The African and Asian nations will probably want it too, as it guarantees them 3 games on the big stage whilst still increasing the odds of them getting a 4th and beyond compared to the current format (8 groups increasing to 12).
 
TeaCider said:
If you're knocked out in the group stage right now, you've played 3 games.
If you're knocked out next time, you've only played 2 games.

Plenty of the teams that are knocked out early in 2026 will have competed in 2022, it's not just entirely new nations that will come through the expanded qualification, so it's not a straight 0 to 2.

I am 90% sure that FIFA will cave and switch to groups of 4, there's already been plenty of pushback before their reputation was completely trashed in the last month.

The African and Asian nations will probably want it too, as it guarantees them 3 games on the big stage whilst still increasing the odds of them getting a 4th and beyond compared to the current format (8 groups increasing to 12).
Click to expand...
Well they have themselves in a mess then if you think they will "cave" - there would be too many games to play with 12 groups of 4 unless you have the top of each group go through and then the best 4 runners up to go straight to a R16. That would be messy and can't see an agreement to that.
 
Zoophonic said:
Well they have themselves in a mess then if you think they will "cave" - there would be too many games to play with 12 groups of 4 unless you have the top of each group go through and then the best 4 runners up to go straight to a R16. That would be messy and can't see an agreement to that.
Click to expand...

Simplest solution to me would be to have the last 2 group games, rather than just the final one, played at the same time.

There's obviously going to be an increase in the number of games, but it limits the extension of the number of days.

Whichever way they play it, increasing it to 48 teams is going to cause problems, either in format or game numbers, because it's a daft number.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top