It's better than the 3 team in a group idea IMO.
Better than groups of 3 but way too many teams now, so agree with you PP.
I liked the Euro format of a couple of years ago. 16 teams in 4 groups of 4, top2 go thru straight to the q/fs
Still, too much money to be made by UEFA/FIFA by adding extra teams/rounds
They need to play 36 games just to get us to the point where there’s 32 teams remaining.
It’s such rubbish they’ve done this with the world cup. 32 teams was more than enough.
What else are going to do in the summer? More the merrier.
I can see why fans of the established nations would not like it but for smaller nations like us (ROI), it at least gives us a bit more of a chance to qualify and possibly get through the group stage
Should've made it 60 so we could get Bhutan v The Bahamas.
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 35 seconds ago
I can see why fans of the established nations would not like it but for smaller nations like us (ROI), it at least gives us a bit more of a chance to qualify and possibly get through the group stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tbf I think this was one of the few benefits of the euros being expanded. Especially when all the home nations but Scotland qualified, that was hilarious.
Will be schitt - will make the group stages terrible as seeding will mean you will never see a group of death again.
Look at Argentina this time - lost to the Saudis in the opening game - suddenly they had to play on a knife edge for the rest of the tournament - brilliant, one wrong move and they are we’re out. Whereas now, they could lose to the Saudis, lose to Mexico and beat Poland in the last game and scrape through in 3rd place. It’s crap.
How long will the group stage be now? 3 weeks?
The big World Cup game of the day - Ecuador vs Australia - would rather watch paint dry
It's only 1 more game for the two teams that get all the way to the final so it sounds worse than it actually is.
Miles better than the other proposal as others have said.
More chance for a surprise winner. You get some decent teams that have only recently become good in the last couple of years. Let's say Norway, for example, who may not qualify for a world cup currently because their ranking gave them a tough group with say France in it. With more teams qualifying, there is more likelihood that you could get a Leicester winning the world cup. A team that is very good for a short period of time and can be rewarded for that short term greatness.
comment by (K̇ash) - Liverpool 7-0 Man U (U1108)
posted 22 minutes ago
What else are going to do in the summer? More the merrier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The bigger problem is that it’s essentially stopping one country hosting the world cup now. There’s always been limitations in that regard, you need the infrastructure and economy to do it, but now it’s going to be the end of smaller or medium size countries hosting it - which isn’t fair - and will mean that a multiple teams now won’t have to qualify, it takes away the magic of there being one host and also makes it difficult for fans that will have to travel huge distances, across multiple countries, to follow their teams. But it’s okay, at least FIFA can get some more money.
I suspect it will make the group stages almost not worth watching. They've reverted to 4 teams in each group due to the final day drama in Qatar, but the most dramatic group was the one that Spain and Germany were both in. And also not really a fan of the best 3rd placed teams going through - the maths of 48 teams requires them to do it but really it makes no sense.
On the flip side its great for fans of smaller footballing nations like Scotland etc. And personally I'm planning to get out to the 2026 world cup so will enjoy that one regardless.
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 32 seconds ago
The bigger problem is that it’s essentially stopping one country hosting the world cup now. There’s always been limitations in that regard, you need the infrastructure and economy to do it, but now it’s going to be the end of smaller or medium size countries hosting it - which isn’t fair - and will mean that a multiple teams now won’t have to qualify, it takes away the magic of there being one host and also makes it difficult for fans that will have to travel huge distances, across multiple countries, to follow their teams. But it’s okay, at least FIFA can get some more money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point - zero host nation kills the flavour of a tournament.
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 32 minutes ago
They need to play 36 games just to get us to the point where there’s 32 teams remaining.
It’s such rubbish they’ve done this with the world cup. 32 teams was more than enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a good time to state it'll be 72 games...
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 32 minutes ago
They need to play 36 games just to get us to the point where there’s 32 teams remaining.
It’s such rubbish they’ve done this with the world cup. 32 teams was more than enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a good time to state it'll be 72 games...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah forgot to double it.
Probably for the same reasons as Babyen I don't really mind more teams qualifying. However, it really does dilute the tournament IMO. 32 teams just makes sense from a logistical viewpoint.
Also, using our team in France in 2016, that seemed to be a French tournament and our fans bought into that and there's still a warm welcome for us even now in Bordeaux. The last Euros where we had top travel across the continent was terrible from a fan point of view.
What the 48 teams World Cup does do though, if they want it to be in just one country is increase the chances of England hosting I reckon. There are plenty of grounds big enough (even if infrastructure would need looking at) to host it. A quick Google search sees 11 football grounds in England with 40k plus capacity with a few more stadium possibly (Everton a definite) increasing that number.
comment by Striketeam7 - the smartest person you know - B... (U18109)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 32 seconds ago
The bigger problem is that it’s essentially stopping one country hosting the world cup now. There’s always been limitations in that regard, you need the infrastructure and economy to do it, but now it’s going to be the end of smaller or medium size countries hosting it - which isn’t fair - and will mean that a multiple teams now won’t have to qualify, it takes away the magic of there being one host and also makes it difficult for fans that will have to travel huge distances, across multiple countries, to follow their teams. But it’s okay, at least FIFA can get some more money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point - zero host nation kills the flavour of a tournament.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People say that Qatar was the best for fans as you can go to multiple games per day without flying. The atmosphere was like a carnival with every fan mingling with other fans of every country.
Gutted I didn't go now
Also great that you'll get to see some of the world's best players that play for smaller nations, playing at a world cup. Players like Haaland, Kvaratskhelia, McTominay and the like.
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 13 minutes ago
Also great that you'll get to see some of the world's best players that play for smaller nations, playing at a world cup. Players like Haaland, Kvaratskhelia, McTominay and the like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grate point
I am actually for this increase in numbers.
It’ll open up spaces, for example, for more African teams to regularly qualify for the World Cup. Many African nations have access to a wide diaspora of dual national players and if World Cup entry was more guaranteed then I think more dual national players will switch to play for these nations and raise the quality.
I think there’ll be a similar story for South American (particularly Suriname) and definitely for Caribbean countries too. Jamaica for example have already been recruiting many dual national players such that they now have a side that is looking relatively strong, with well known players and could probably be an interesting side at a World Cup. Again, opening up places means that they get a chance on world stage and becomes more attractive for dual national players to choose to represent.
Additionally, in my opinion already there aren’t enough places for African nations vs the quality of football on the continent. Only 5 (of a continent of ~50 nations) places are available at each World Cup when there are at least 7-8 nations of World Cup quality, such that someone big always misses out. It is for me one of the major reasons behind why no African nation has gone past the quarter finals.
"To me the standard will drop a lot due to the amount of other teams qualifying, however at least they are not doing 3 team groups which is a positive."
This was also the case previously, now you have Croatia getting far every year, an African and Asian side in the Semi Final etc
Having said that, I hate the idea you can be third best in a group and qualify.
Not in favour of the expansion to 48, even though it gives my lot (Scotland) a better chance of qualifying. 32 is the perfect number, end of.
It’s happening anyway though, and at least they’ve finally cottoned on to the utter folly of groups of 3. Which eejit ever thought that was workable?! So 1 team in each group is sitting it out when the last game’s played … just how much rigging of results would that have produced in those final group games? Laughable that this was ever considered.
Sign in if you want to comment
New World Cup Format 2026
Page 1 of 4
posted on 14/3/23
It's better than the 3 team in a group idea IMO.
posted on 14/3/23
Better than groups of 3 but way too many teams now, so agree with you PP.
posted on 14/3/23
I liked the Euro format of a couple of years ago. 16 teams in 4 groups of 4, top2 go thru straight to the q/fs
Still, too much money to be made by UEFA/FIFA by adding extra teams/rounds
posted on 14/3/23
They need to play 36 games just to get us to the point where there’s 32 teams remaining.
It’s such rubbish they’ve done this with the world cup. 32 teams was more than enough.
posted on 14/3/23
What else are going to do in the summer? More the merrier.
posted on 14/3/23
I can see why fans of the established nations would not like it but for smaller nations like us (ROI), it at least gives us a bit more of a chance to qualify and possibly get through the group stage
posted on 14/3/23
Should've made it 60 so we could get Bhutan v The Bahamas.
posted on 14/3/23
comment by Irishred (U2539)
posted 35 seconds ago
I can see why fans of the established nations would not like it but for smaller nations like us (ROI), it at least gives us a bit more of a chance to qualify and possibly get through the group stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tbf I think this was one of the few benefits of the euros being expanded. Especially when all the home nations but Scotland qualified, that was hilarious.
posted on 14/3/23
Will be schitt - will make the group stages terrible as seeding will mean you will never see a group of death again.
Look at Argentina this time - lost to the Saudis in the opening game - suddenly they had to play on a knife edge for the rest of the tournament - brilliant, one wrong move and they are we’re out. Whereas now, they could lose to the Saudis, lose to Mexico and beat Poland in the last game and scrape through in 3rd place. It’s crap.
How long will the group stage be now? 3 weeks?
The big World Cup game of the day - Ecuador vs Australia - would rather watch paint dry
posted on 14/3/23
It's only 1 more game for the two teams that get all the way to the final so it sounds worse than it actually is.
Miles better than the other proposal as others have said.
posted on 14/3/23
More chance for a surprise winner. You get some decent teams that have only recently become good in the last couple of years. Let's say Norway, for example, who may not qualify for a world cup currently because their ranking gave them a tough group with say France in it. With more teams qualifying, there is more likelihood that you could get a Leicester winning the world cup. A team that is very good for a short period of time and can be rewarded for that short term greatness.
posted on 14/3/23
comment by (K̇ash) - Liverpool 7-0 Man U (U1108)
posted 22 minutes ago
What else are going to do in the summer? More the merrier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 14/3/23
The bigger problem is that it’s essentially stopping one country hosting the world cup now. There’s always been limitations in that regard, you need the infrastructure and economy to do it, but now it’s going to be the end of smaller or medium size countries hosting it - which isn’t fair - and will mean that a multiple teams now won’t have to qualify, it takes away the magic of there being one host and also makes it difficult for fans that will have to travel huge distances, across multiple countries, to follow their teams. But it’s okay, at least FIFA can get some more money.
posted on 14/3/23
I suspect it will make the group stages almost not worth watching. They've reverted to 4 teams in each group due to the final day drama in Qatar, but the most dramatic group was the one that Spain and Germany were both in. And also not really a fan of the best 3rd placed teams going through - the maths of 48 teams requires them to do it but really it makes no sense.
On the flip side its great for fans of smaller footballing nations like Scotland etc. And personally I'm planning to get out to the 2026 world cup so will enjoy that one regardless.
posted on 14/3/23
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 32 seconds ago
The bigger problem is that it’s essentially stopping one country hosting the world cup now. There’s always been limitations in that regard, you need the infrastructure and economy to do it, but now it’s going to be the end of smaller or medium size countries hosting it - which isn’t fair - and will mean that a multiple teams now won’t have to qualify, it takes away the magic of there being one host and also makes it difficult for fans that will have to travel huge distances, across multiple countries, to follow their teams. But it’s okay, at least FIFA can get some more money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point - zero host nation kills the flavour of a tournament.
posted on 14/3/23
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 32 minutes ago
They need to play 36 games just to get us to the point where there’s 32 teams remaining.
It’s such rubbish they’ve done this with the world cup. 32 teams was more than enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a good time to state it'll be 72 games...
posted on 14/3/23
I’m all for it.
posted on 14/3/23
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 32 minutes ago
They need to play 36 games just to get us to the point where there’s 32 teams remaining.
It’s such rubbish they’ve done this with the world cup. 32 teams was more than enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a good time to state it'll be 72 games...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah forgot to double it.
posted on 14/3/23
Probably for the same reasons as Babyen I don't really mind more teams qualifying. However, it really does dilute the tournament IMO. 32 teams just makes sense from a logistical viewpoint.
Also, using our team in France in 2016, that seemed to be a French tournament and our fans bought into that and there's still a warm welcome for us even now in Bordeaux. The last Euros where we had top travel across the continent was terrible from a fan point of view.
What the 48 teams World Cup does do though, if they want it to be in just one country is increase the chances of England hosting I reckon. There are plenty of grounds big enough (even if infrastructure would need looking at) to host it. A quick Google search sees 11 football grounds in England with 40k plus capacity with a few more stadium possibly (Everton a definite) increasing that number.
posted on 14/3/23
comment by Striketeam7 - the smartest person you know - B... (U18109)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Kobbie The King Mainoo (U10026)
posted 32 seconds ago
The bigger problem is that it’s essentially stopping one country hosting the world cup now. There’s always been limitations in that regard, you need the infrastructure and economy to do it, but now it’s going to be the end of smaller or medium size countries hosting it - which isn’t fair - and will mean that a multiple teams now won’t have to qualify, it takes away the magic of there being one host and also makes it difficult for fans that will have to travel huge distances, across multiple countries, to follow their teams. But it’s okay, at least FIFA can get some more money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point - zero host nation kills the flavour of a tournament.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People say that Qatar was the best for fans as you can go to multiple games per day without flying. The atmosphere was like a carnival with every fan mingling with other fans of every country.
Gutted I didn't go now
posted on 14/3/23
Also great that you'll get to see some of the world's best players that play for smaller nations, playing at a world cup. Players like Haaland, Kvaratskhelia, McTominay and the like.
posted on 14/3/23
comment by Lorent Tolaj (U1734)
posted 13 minutes ago
Also great that you'll get to see some of the world's best players that play for smaller nations, playing at a world cup. Players like Haaland, Kvaratskhelia, McTominay and the like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grate point
posted on 14/3/23
I am actually for this increase in numbers.
It’ll open up spaces, for example, for more African teams to regularly qualify for the World Cup. Many African nations have access to a wide diaspora of dual national players and if World Cup entry was more guaranteed then I think more dual national players will switch to play for these nations and raise the quality.
I think there’ll be a similar story for South American (particularly Suriname) and definitely for Caribbean countries too. Jamaica for example have already been recruiting many dual national players such that they now have a side that is looking relatively strong, with well known players and could probably be an interesting side at a World Cup. Again, opening up places means that they get a chance on world stage and becomes more attractive for dual national players to choose to represent.
Additionally, in my opinion already there aren’t enough places for African nations vs the quality of football on the continent. Only 5 (of a continent of ~50 nations) places are available at each World Cup when there are at least 7-8 nations of World Cup quality, such that someone big always misses out. It is for me one of the major reasons behind why no African nation has gone past the quarter finals.
posted on 14/3/23
"To me the standard will drop a lot due to the amount of other teams qualifying, however at least they are not doing 3 team groups which is a positive."
This was also the case previously, now you have Croatia getting far every year, an African and Asian side in the Semi Final etc
Having said that, I hate the idea you can be third best in a group and qualify.
posted on 14/3/23
Not in favour of the expansion to 48, even though it gives my lot (Scotland) a better chance of qualifying. 32 is the perfect number, end of.
It’s happening anyway though, and at least they’ve finally cottoned on to the utter folly of groups of 3. Which eejit ever thought that was workable?! So 1 team in each group is sitting it out when the last game’s played … just how much rigging of results would that have produced in those final group games? Laughable that this was ever considered.
Page 1 of 4