48 Teams in the World Cup From 2026

Laois_Man

FIFA will debate a proposal to expand the World Cup from 32 teams to 40.

The change can be approved by Fifa's executive committee without consent from the 209 member associations, and could come into effect from 2026.

The proposal will be discussed later on Thursday in Zurich, where a meeting is taking place focused on reforms of world football's governing body.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/34994402

What do people think?

More European qualifiers and a better chance to qualify?

But (I'm guessing) 8 groups of 5 making it harder to progress in the tournament.

sky88

Laois_Man wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/34994402

What do people think?

More European qualifiers and a better chance to qualify?

But (I'm guessing) 8 groups of 5 making it harder to progress in the tournament.

i would say that it would be more asian or african teams to grow the game

ArmaniJeanss

Laois_Man wrote: »

More European qualifiers and a better chance to qualify?

Probably only 1 extra European qualifier.
I'd expect it to be an extra place per confederation with a further one on top of that for Africa - that way they can give the Africans/Asians/Concacafians their long demanded extra place without interfering with the European allocation.

Speak Now

Odd number groups would ruin it for me. We had it in round 2 in 1982 with 3 team groups. Huge advantage over the team that's already finished their games.
They even had final group matches on different days, I remember West Germany beating Austria 1-0. The result meant both teams knocked out Algeria. A farce of a match.

loyatemu

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

Odd number groups would ruin it for me. We had it in round 2 in 1982 with 3 team groups. Huge advantage over the team that's already finished their games.
They even had final group matches on different days, I remember West Germany beating Austria 1-0. The result meant both teams knocked out Algeria. A farce of a match.

Knowing FIFA they'd have 10 groups of 4 with the top 3 and the 2 best last placed sides going through to a round of 32.

keeponhurling

if it ain't broke....

gimmick

FFS, may as well just scrap the qualifying stage if they increase it to 40.

Laois_Man

loyatemu wrote: »

Knowing FIFA they'd have 10 groups of 4 with the top 3 and the 2 best last placed sides going through to a round of 32.

The 10 group winners and the 6 best out of the 10 runners up into a last 16 round would be the only other way.

Playing 60 games just to knock the 8 most rubbish teams out would be farcical.

The clubs might go ape**** over their most valuable players potentially playing 8 games which would happen with either of my ways.

Plus, this thing would need at least 2 host nations most years! So that limits the qualification extensions more.

Father Hernandez

Interesting concept as previously suggested it'd be 8 groups of 5 teams.

More chance for teams to qualify but then it'd be knocking 24 teams out in the groups stage before its even begun really.

The majority of the best teams in the world are European so it's only right they make up the majority of teams albeit 13 may be a bit much.

How about taking 1 team from Europe and allocating it to OFC? Other than that, it's quite fair as it is.

HalloweenJack

FIFA announce a controversial idea on the same day as two officials are arrested. Colour me shocked.

Omackeral

hogey143 wrote: »

How about taking 1 team from Europe and allocating it to OFC? Other than that, it's quite fair as it is.

Tahiti back on the world stage! Gerrrupoutttadat!

SantryRed

Farcical proposal.

I assume they'd keep it as 8 groups and make it 8 groups of 5. Top two into the last 16. All about the money though, and it'd generate an extra 4 games per group. So an extra 32 games to show!

Korat

There aren't many countries that could afford to host a tournament of that size. World Cup Kuwait 2026, Abu Dhabi 2030, Saudi Arabia 2034...

murpho999

SantryRed wrote: »

Farcical proposal.

I assume they'd keep it as 8 groups and make it 8 groups of 5. Top two into the last 16. All about the money though, and it'd generate an extra 4 games per group. So an extra 32 games to show!

Why is it farcical?

Countries like ourselves, for example would get an extra match to enjoy, more money for the football associations etc

I would rather have 8 groups of 5 teams and top 2 through to last 16 that 10 groups of 4 and messing around with silly qualification criteria or a round of 32 or something like that?

hogey143

hogey143 wrote: »

Interesting concept as previously suggested it'd be 8 groups of 5 teams.

More chance for teams to qualify but then it'd be knocking 24 teams out in the groups stage before its even begun really.

The majority of the best teams in the world are European so it's only right they make up the majority of teams albeit 13 may be a bit much.

How about taking 1 team from Europe and allocating it to OFC? Other than that, it's quite fair as it is.

I don't see how 13 out of 32 is too many. Especially when looking at the last 16 and quarter finals make-up.

SantryRed

murpho999 wrote: »

Why is it farcical?

Countries like ourselves, for example would get an extra match to enjoy, more money for the football associations etc

I would rather have 8 groups of 5 teams and top 2 through to last 16 that 10 groups of 4 and messing around with silly qualification criteria or a round of 32 or something like that?

Because it's all about the $$$$$$$!

32 teams is a perfect amount for the tournament. There's no need to extend it. For once I wish football wouldn't be tainted due to football, and I thought keeping the World Cup at 32 teams would be one of those things. The Euros being extended to 24 is sure to see a drop in quality in the tournament in France, I'd have preferred it to be kept at 16.

dfx-

hogey143 wrote: »

Interesting concept as previously suggested it'd be 8 groups of 5 teams.

More chance for teams to qualify but then it'd be knocking 24 teams out in the groups stage before its even begun really.

The majority of the best teams in the world are European so it's only right they make up the majority of teams albeit 13 may be a bit much.

How about taking 1 team from Europe and allocating it to OFC? Other than that, it's quite fair as it is.

Not really. The best teams often recently stink the tournament out. Netherlands, Portugal, England, France, Brazil, Italy being prime examples. Especially in the latter stages. France v Germany in the last world cup was dreadful.

The high points of the tournaments come from Costa Rica, Ghana, Colombia, Chile, USA, New Zealand, Japan. More of these 'weaker' teams the better the tournament.

murpho999

SantryRed wrote: »

Because it's all about the $$$$$$$!

32 teams is a perfect amount for the tournament. There's no need to extend it. For once I wish football wouldn't be tainted due to football, and I thought keeping the World Cup at 32 teams would be one of those things. The Euros being extended to 24 is sure to see a drop in quality in the tournament in France, I'd have preferred it to be kept at 16.

Quality of the world cup did not drop when increased to 24 or 32.

It gives smaller teams the chance to qualify, gain experience and improve which is good for the game.

If they change it but keep the perfect 16 going through from groups then it will be fine.

gosplan

Kind of for and against this for a couple of reasons.

A fifth team would actually improve the group stage hugely tbh.

But then I read in the guardian today that this is basically FIFA's response to losing 70million or so in the last few months due to the corruption issues.

Rikand

8 groups of 5.

Winners of each group automatically through to last 16.

2nd & 3rd from each group play against each other in a last 16 style preliminary round to qualify for the real last 16.

lertsnim

HalloweenJack wrote: »

FIFA announce a controversial idea on the same day as two officials are arrested. Colour me shocked.

This. It is a smokescreen and it looks like it has worked.

CSF

Rikand wrote: »

8 groups of 5.

Winners of each group automatically through to last 16.

2nd & 3rd from each group play against each other in a last 16 style preliminary round to qualify for the real last 16.

Why though? The 2nd place already finished ahead of the 3rd so deserves to go through.

Fr Tod Umptious

lertsnim wrote: »

This. It is a smokescreen and it looks like it has worked.

Well the idea has been shelved until they do some study on it.
And the arrests are making more news than this in fairness.

Fr Tod Umptious

Rikand wrote: »

8 groups of 5.

Winners of each group automatically through to last 16.

2nd & 3rd from each group play against each other in a last 16 style preliminary round to qualify for the real last 16.

Why the over complications ?

Rikand

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Why the over complications ?

More tv time.
More matches.
More revenue.
????
Profit

Rikand

CSF wrote: »

Why though? The 2nd place already finished ahead of the 3rd so deserves to go through.

1st place is key
2nd/3rd for the playoff spot.

And if you come 2nd your chance of advancing should be greater than the 3rds anyways.

And be nice for the "weaker" teams to get to a knock out stage

Laois_Man

I like Rikand's suggestion.
It's also a safety guard against the likes of the farcical Germany v Austria situation mentioned earlier. Or the Scandinavian conspiracy against Italy at Euro 2004 - because it creates a huge difference between winning a group and coming second

Fr Tod Umptious

Rikand wrote: »

More tv time.
More matches.
More revenue.
????
Profit

Your already getting that by increasing from 32 to 40 as it is.

Fr Tod Umptious

Laois_Man wrote: »

I like Rikand's suggestion.
It's also a safety guard against the likes of the farcical Germany v Austria situation mentioned earlier. Or the Scandinavian conspiracy against Italy at Euro 2004 - because it creates a huge difference between winning a group and coming second

The "West" German v Austria situation was resolved in 1986 with simultaneously kick offs

Arghus

I suppose more World Cup action is a good thing, but I think 40 is a very unweildy number. I love the crazy hugeness of the World Cup, but I think 32 is just about the right number. As it is, it can be kind of hard to get a handle on the avalanche of games that is the group stage. 40 would be pushing it into outright farce territory.

Obviously this is a compromise idea - that's only being "talked about" at this stage - designed to up the representation of non-UEFA confederations and still keep all that glorious TV money from the good old European piggy bank. I just wonder if it's an idea designed to please everyone, that could end up being detrimental to the competition as a whole. I've no doubt that this idea could happen, it probably will, in fact - There's just too much lovely cash to be made for everyone involved.

The really brave thing to do would be to take some of the European places and spread them out, but that's the least likely of all outcomes.

~Rebel~

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The "West" German v Austria situation was resolved in 1986 with simultaneously kick offs

Only works as long as there's an even number of teams in the group though.

Fr Tod Umptious

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Only works as long as there's an even number of teams in the group though.

True

loyatemu

5 team groups would result in a lot more dead rubbers.

martyos121

I also like Rikand's idea. The bigger teams need to be at their best so they can win the group and avoid a play-off, and the weaker teams won't be settling for draws to frustrate the bigger teams, since they have a good chance to go through themselves. It would benefit sides like Ireland should we qualify, since we'd have a decent chance of 3rd place in the group, and when it comes to a playoff, we are well able to rise to the occasion. The only issue with it is the extra round of games affecting the length of the tournament, which could see fewer days between matches and tiredness setting in early in the knockout stages.

Fr Tod Umptious

Rikand wrote: »

1st place is key
2nd/3rd for the playoff spot.

And if you come 2nd your chance of advancing should be greater than the 3rds anyways.

And be nice for the "weaker" teams to get to a knock out stage

Why ?

With the odd exception of tje likes of Costa Rica last time "weaker" teams add very little to world cups.
Saudi Arabia have been in loads and are always s%it, same goes for Egypt, Tunisia, North Korea*, China, Iran, El Salvador, Honduras etc.

The might get an unheralded African team come out of the group but that's about it.

The great thing about the 16 team Euros was that it was concise and the quality as good.

Over complicating matters for the sake of giving "weaker" teams a better shot is counter productive.

*1966 is too long ago to be relevant

Kidchameleon

Itll eventually always have two hosts, one for the group and one for the knockout. This format could have worked in Quatar.

I'd really love to know the reasoning behind suggesting that European teams take up too many spots.

ArmaniJeanss

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd really love to know the reasoning behind suggesting that European teams take up too many spots.

Obviously theres no meritocratic reasoning as European results would indicate that they deserve more places than they currently get.

The reasoning I've seen from African and (to a lesser extent Asian) FA chiefs is generally along the lines of
a) querying the ratio e.g. 'We in Africa have 55 teams and only 5 places, whilst Europe have 53 and 13, surely thats plain wrong'
b) stating that its chicken and egg situation 'Europe doesn't have so many places because it does well, what actually happens is Europe only do so well because they have so many places for purely historical reasons'.
The theory being that having so many places allows European FAs to invest money which leads to more qualification which leads to more investment etc.
c) African teams always get a difficult draw because they are geographically potted with a weak confederation therefore can't play against those weaker teams.
d) The allocations are more equitable at all underage level where Europe generally only gets 25/30% of places, so why should they get 40% at senior level.

a) is obviously nonsense, b) is an interesting philosophical debate, c) has at least some basis in truth, d) is irrelevant I think.

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Obviously theres no meritocratic reasoning as European results would indicate that they deserve more places than they currently get.

The reasoning I've seen from African and (to a lesser extent Asian) FA chiefs is generally along the lines of
a) querying the ratio e.g. 'We in Africa have 55 teams and only 5 places, whilst Europe have 53 and 13, surely that plain wrong'
b) stating that its chicken and egg situation 'Europe doesn't have so many places because it does well, what actually happens is Europe only do so well because they have so many places for purely historical reasons'.
The theory being that having so many places allows European FAs to invest money which leads to more qualification which leads to more investment etc.
c) African teams always get a difficult draw because they are geographically potted with a weak confederation therefore can't play them against those weaker teams.
d) The allocations are more equitable at all underage level where Europe generally only gets 25/30% of places, so why should they get 40% at senior level.

a) is obviously nonsense, b) is an interesting philosophical debate, c) has at least some basis in truth, d) is irrelevant I think.

That's all fairly spot on, though I'd argue about b as well, proportionally more European teams get through as it is.

citytillidie

Looks like they are going for 48 team world cup now.

16 Seeded teams in the main group stage

32 teams in a knockout round with the winners of each game going into the group stage is it is now.

So an extra 16 games in the World Cup

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/37547545

Lovely Bloke

Good idea imo, it's just moving the likes of the South American ".5" play off, and the European play offs into the tournament timespace instead of having them in the November previous.

How many play offs are there currently in the November? Five or six in Europe is it? The one involving the South American team? Any more?

If we can add some Asian and African teams and give them exposure at the tournament itself it's no bad thing.

It give the appearance of more teams qualifying for the "World Cup" but in essence it's a re-organisation of deckchairs.

ArmaniJeanss

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

Good idea imo, it's just moving the likes of the South American ".5" play off, and the European play offs into the tournament timespace instead of having them in the November previous.

How many play offs are there currently in the November? Five or six in Europe is it? The one involving the South American team? Any more?

If we can add some Asian and African teams and give them exposure at the tournament itself it's no bad thing.

It give the appearance of more teams qualifying for the "World Cup" but in essence it's a re-organisation of deckchairs.

8 European teams play for 4 places.
One team each from Asia, Oceania, Sth America and Concacaf play for two places.
So 12 teams for 6 places currently.

loyatemu

Gianni Infantino wrote:

According to the 46-year-old Italian, 16 countries would be eliminated after a preliminary knockout round.

so 16 teams would travel to some far flung country to play 1 match? this just gets stupider and stupider.

citytillidie

loyatemu wrote: »

so 16 teams would travel to some far flung country to play 1 match? this just gets stupider and stupider.

Sure it will bring FIFA more money that is all they care about

Muahahaha

loyatemu wrote: »

so 16 teams would travel to some far flung country to play 1 match? this just gets stupider and stupider.

I doubt the teams players and fans will care, theyll just be glad of a chance to play in the full World Cup. We will have 8 extra games between 16 teams which will essentially be a one off high stakes knockout game and then afterwards a full World Cup of 32 teams, whats not to like about that? Its better than the eight groups of five idea IMO

Fr Tod Umptious

Talk is tomorrow a 48 team tournament will be agreed.

16 x 3 team groups with a 32 team knockout.

I like the idea of a 32 team knockout

http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2017/0109/843670-world-cup/

citytillidie

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Talk is tomorrow a 48 team tournament will be agreed.

16 x 3 team groups with a 32 team knockout.

I like the idea of a 32 team knockout

http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2017/0109/843670-world-cup/

Groups of 3 with with 2 going through will be tough to keep fair, shoot out is an idea if a game is drawn for an extra point in the group stage.

I say go for a mass open draw world cup. 128 teams.

1-127 in the FIFA rankings and have those ranked 128-209 in there own competition to see who gets the final spot.

Would be heck of a number of games but you could have 1st two rounds in a home and away bases and then the final 32 into one country for the rest of the knock out.

:D:D:D:D

LeeJM

citytillidie wrote: »

Groups of 3 with with 2 going through will be tough to keep fair, shoot out is an idea if a game is drawn for an extra point in the group stage.

I say go for a mass open draw world cup. 128 teams.

1-127 in the FIFA rankings and have those ranked 128-209 in there own competition to see who gets the final spot.

Would be heck of a number of games but you could have 1st two rounds in a home and away bases and then the final 32 into one country for the rest of the knock out.

:D:D:D:D

Present it to FIFA in a way that proves they will make more money from your format than the current one and they will do it. Its all about profit afterall

blueser

Getting beyond a joke now. FIFA looking to milk the cash cow; TV rights, advertising, sponsorship, "corporate/worldwide partners", etc etc. It'll soon get to the point where it's almost harder not to qualify!

inforfun

Great.
1st round at a tournament cant last me long enough.
We need the excitement Croatia - Portugal brought us last summer multiplied several times but then in matches between Gabon and Uzbekistan.

But yeah.... what do you expect with a fifa president who puts himself in a line up with Maradona yesterday.

loyatemu

https://twitter.com/martynziegler/status/818726187061092352

personally I'd take those .5s from Concacaf and Asia and give an extra place to Europe or Africa (or a play off between a European and African side for the final place).