48 Teams in the World Cup From 2026

inforfun

So...60% of South America or even 70% when the tournament is held there.

Now i do like to watch most of these countries but 60/70% of a continent present at a tournament seems a bit much.

Father Hernandez

So 48 teams is confirmed is it? Jokeshop if it is

loyatemu

Father Hernandez wrote: »

So 48 teams is confirmed is it? Jokeshop if it is

apparently so, it's being voted on today, but there may not even be a vote. The countries that are opposed know that they're in the minority and want to choose their battles.

elefant

8.5 teams from Asia is ridiculous. Some of the teams qualifying from there will be lambs to the slaughter. Coincidentally, China are the 8th highest Asian ranked team; that's lucky!

In 10th we have Syria...

loyatemu

if (as seems likely) they have penalties in the group games, expect weaker teams to play for penalties from minute 1. We could be in for some very dull matches on the one hand and some very one-sided matches on the other.

inforfun

elefant wrote: »

8.5 teams from Asia is ridiculous. Some of the teams qualifying from there will be lambs to the slaughter. Coincidentally, China are the 8th highest Asian ranked team; that's lucky!

In 10th we have Syria...

Qatar, UAE.... they all are competing in Asia but never qualify.
Sheiks need to be kept happy in order to keep the pockets of the fifa rulers filled.

Mr.Crinklewood

So ....should Boards.ie apply to play at the 2026 world cup?

5starpool

I can't wait for group matches where the group consists of Switzerland, USA and China.

At least it cuts out the final dead rubber of a match that happens in a lot of groups with 4 teams and gets to the knockout phase with less games played, so that's something. It isn't the worst world cup format ever though. In 1982 there were 6 groups of 4, then 4 groups of 3, then the semi finals. At least in this format there should be very little matches with nothing at stake, even if it is probably still a very likely outcome.

inforfun

5starpool wrote: »

I can't wait for group matches where the group consists of Switzerland, USA and China.

At least it cuts out the final dead rubber of a match that happens in a lot of groups with 4 teams and gets to the knockout phase with less games played, so that's something. It isn't the worst world cup format ever though. In 1982 there were 6 groups of 4, then 4 groups of 3, then the semi finals. At least in this format there should be very little matches with nothing at stake, even if it is probably still a very likely outcome.

One of the 24 country tournaments in the past had groups of 3 already and they switched back from that to 6 groups of 4.
As soon as there is over 50% chance of qualifying from a group, you end up with gentlemen's agreement matches or matches where both teams take no risk whatsoever. See last summer.

RikkFlair

It's the kids I feel sorry for, they'll never finish their sticker albums :pac:

murpho999

RTE now saying FIFA have voted for this.

I actually like the idea.

More times taking part provides more excitement and build up in countries which is good for the game and gives opportunities for countries who never made it to take part in a major tournament.

I think less group games and an extra knockout round will make it more exciting.

MagicIRL

You would imagine, with the competition growing, that the idea of group games would be redundant?

Let everyone play to qualify, and once qualified, play knockout rounds all the way along until there's a winner.

Imagine the excitement at every game if you knew only a win would suffice?

Might be tough on fans only potentially seeing one game from their country, but otherwise, are we just going to have group games upon group games before the real action starts?

GavRedKing

I think adding another 16 teams is going to seriously dilute the World Cup.

It didnt exactly do the Euros any favours that 3 teams were getting out of the group stages either.

FIFA are doing this purely for the money, they couldnt care about the fans, unless it means more fans and more ticket sales to bump up their bank account.

SEANoftheDEAD

The traditional side of me wants to scream and shout about this, but the more I look at it, it seems to make sense.

32 team straight knock out is class. Obviously the 3 team group stage is too sort out seeding etc. But overall, I think this can work and make for a good tournament.

paulbok

On the other hand, with extra places for Europe, it should mean smaller qualifying groups so less games to disrupt the club schedules.

Copper_pipe

Its gona be messy though, what if all 3 teams in the group draw the 2 games 1-1?

MagicIRL

Copper_pipe wrote: »

Its gona be messy though, what if all 3 teams in the group draw the 2 games 1-1?

They play each other in single, double elimination, triple threat match. Obviously.

Jan_de_Bakker

Copper_pipe wrote: »

Its gona be messy though, what if all 3 teams in the group draw the 2 games 1-1?

Conkers!

ArmaniJeanss

Copper_pipe wrote: »

Its gona be messy though, what if all 3 teams in the group draw the 2 games 1-1?

The exact same tie splitters that happen now if all 4 teams in a group draw all games 1-1?
Though admittedly its more possible in a smaller group.

inforfun

paulbok wrote: »

On the other hand, with extra places for Europe, it should mean smaller qualifying groups so less games to disrupt the club schedules.

Not necessarily. They will just use those days for meaningless friendlies
Look at the last international break.
Most countries had only 1 qualifier to play and just played a friendly on top of it.

Fifa announces several international breaks for each year. Might not be as many qualifiers in Europe but that doesnt mean the amount of breaks will be reduced. The other confederations might still need all of them for qualifiers.

SEANoftheDEAD

Actually... I take back what I said.

This is an awful idea.

80 matches in one month?

There will not be many countries that can host that and cater to 48 teams.
Some of which might only be there for a few days.

If the 32 team World Cup is bankrupting counties as it is, then this will be on a whole other level.

murpho999

SEANoftheDEAD wrote: »

Actually... I take back what I said.

This is an awful idea.

80 matches in one month?

There will not be many countries that can host that and cater to 48 teams.
Some of which might only be there for a few days.

If the 32 team World Cup is bankrupting counties as it is, then this will be on a whole other level.

What? Do the GAA have World Cup plans now?

SEANoftheDEAD

murpho999 wrote: »

What? Do the GAA have World Cup plans now?

Well I think it's well documented that South Africa and Brazil didn't do as good as they expected for being World Cup hosts.

GLaDOS

SEANoftheDEAD wrote: »

Actually... I take back what I said.

This is an awful idea.

80 matches in one month?

There will not be many countries that can host that and cater to 48 teams.
Some of which might only be there for a few days.

If the 32 team World Cup is bankrupting counties as it is, then this will be on a whole other level.

May go down the Euros route of hosting it in a few cities across a continent.

GavRedKing

SEANoftheDEAD wrote: »

Actually... I take back what I said.

This is an awful idea.

80 matches in one month?

There will not be many countries that can host that and cater to 48 teams.
Some of which might only be there for a few days.

If the 32 team World Cup is bankrupting counties as it is, then this will be on a whole other level.

They wont think of the long term, they'll think of the now and how it looks good that they can make half a billion extra wihth 16 more teams.

Increasinly, if it goes to a 48 team WC, it simply has to be always played in a countries with the ability to hold it, not some sh*thole in Asia or Africa where they have to build 20 new stadiums that will never be used again after it just because FIFA want to bring the game to all corners of the globe.

gimmick

SEANoftheDEAD wrote: »

Actually... I take back what I said.

This is an awful idea.

80 matches in one month?

There will not be many countries that can host that and cater to 48 teams.
Some of which might only be there for a few days.

If the 32 team World Cup is bankrupting counties as it is, then this will be on a whole other level.

China.

International football is dead.

24 team Euro 2016 was a terrible idea. Sure we got out joe.ie lols with our banteracious fans in France, but it was a piss poor tournament with pretty much no memorable matches as a neutral.

I think for this clusterfk they are suggesting matches go to penalties if drawn so as to avoid the scenario given above.

SEANoftheDEAD

GavRedKing wrote: »

They wont think of the long term, they'll think of the now and how it looks good that they can make half a billion extra wihth 16 more teams.

Ah good aul FIFA, include the lesser nations. Let them qualify and drag them across the globe to be seeded in a group with teams that'll send them home after a couple of games. Less than a week. But hey, once they make money eh?? :pac:

loyatemu

murpho999 wrote: »

What? Do the GAA have World Cup plans now?

only really Cork could host a 48 team tournament.

loyatemu

They may go back to the idea of joint hosts like in 2002.

SEANoftheDEAD

loyatemu wrote: »

They may go back to the idea of joint hosts like in 2002.

No other option really... Whoever hosts is getting stuck with providing top training facilities for 48 teams and World Cup standard stadiums that'll get used once for the tournament.

GavRedKing

If FIFA do go with a 48 team WC in 2026 it has to be held in Britain, theres enough stadiums to host it and its not a giant land mass that takes days to get around like Brazil or Russia.

Although it could get tricky when it comes down to accommodation and infastructure.

Between Scotland, Wales and England they would have enough stadiums or scope within existing stadiums to expand to FIFA criteria.

Much easier than say some Asian country spending billions on producing white elephant stadiums.

ebbsy

inforfun wrote: »

Not necessarily. They will just use those days for meaningless friendlies
Look at the last international break.
Most countries had only 1 qualifier to play and just played a friendly on top of it.

Fifa announces several international breaks for each year. Might not be as many qualifiers in Europe but that doesnt mean the amount of breaks will be reduced. The other confederations might still need all of them for qualifiers.

Europe might get 3 extra places = 16 in total .

Possibly 8 groups top 2 through no playoff.

GLaDOS

GavRedKing wrote: »

If FIFA do go with a 48 team WC in 2026 it has to be held in Britain, theres enough stadiums to host it and its not a giant land mass that takes days to get around like Brazil or Russia.

Although it could get tricky when it comes down to accommodation and infastructure.

Between Scotland, Wales and England they would have enough stadiums or scope within existing stadiums to expand to FIFA criteria.

Much easier than say some Asian country spending billions on producing white elephant stadiums.

Britain and Ireland joint hosts

SEANoftheDEAD

GavRedKing wrote: »

If FIFA do go with a 48 team WC in 2026 it has to be held in Britain, theres enough stadiums to host it and its not a giant land mass that takes days to get around like Brazil or Russia.

Although it could get tricky when it comes down to accommodation and infastructure.

Between Scotland, Wales and England they would have enough stadiums or scope within existing stadiums to expand to FIFA criteria.

Much easier than say some Asian country spending billions on producing white.

England couldn't host the 32 team tournament on their own so unless FIFA's hosting criteria changes dramatically, there is no chance of the above.

loyatemu

GavRedKing wrote: »

If FIFA do go with a 48 team WC in 2026 it has to be held in Britain, theres enough stadiums to host it and its not a giant land mass that takes days to get around like Brazil or Russia.

Although it could get tricky when it comes down to accommodation and infastructure.

Between Scotland, Wales and England they would have enough stadiums or scope within existing stadiums to expand to FIFA criteria.

Much easier than say some Asian country spending billions on producing white elephant stadiums.

I think the US is currently favourite for the 2026 WC, possibly with a few games hosted in Canada or Mexico. Though as you point out, Britain could host it tomorrow if required (probably Germany & Spain also).

GavRedKing

GLaDOS wrote: »

Britain and Ireland joint hosts

Possibily, although we only have the Aviva to call on at the moment.

Thommond would need to be expanded and unless the GAA can be swayed with Croker, we dopnt really have availability to host a round of group games and its unfair to make fans jump on ferries or planes to come to Dublin for a game and then back to the UK so we'd need a 2nd stadium to host one of the groups, which would hold Ireland hopefully which leads me to my next point below.

FIFA may baulk at the idea of giving out 4 free places at the WC and no doubt Northern Ireland would kick up a fuss too, if 4 of the 5 home nations get automatic entry so it would be a mine field in that regard.

SEANoftheDEAD

In order for Britain to host it...

Four teams are granted automatic qualification. England, Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland.

Stadiums eligible. Remember FIFA only allow 1 per city and 2 in the capital city.

London
Wembley.
Emirates Stadium or Olympic Park

Manchester
Old Trafford

Newcastle
St. James Park

Glasgow
Celtic Park or Hampden Park

Cardiff
Millennium Stadium

So that's the big ones an only half of what is required.
We need 6 more stadiums in separate cities with a capacity of over 40k and a UEFA 4 star rating minimum.

Beefy78

SEANoftheDEAD wrote: »

England couldn't host the 32 team tournament on their own so unless FIFA's hosting criteria changes dramatically, there is no chance of the above.

Why couldn't they? We went for 2018 and had a strong bid and that's a 32 team tournament. I like the idea of a UK & Ireland joint bid but England can host a 32 team tournament and I'd say the logistics are there for 48. The Olympics has far more teams than that and that went well.

Being English my instant reaction to any change whatsoever is to moan about it and hark back to simpler times but I think I like this. Euro 2016 was a terrible tournament but due to its structure rather than necessarily the increase in number of teams. 42 teams works but only if you take some bold steps in structuring the tournament which it looks like they've done. Penalties after draws in the Group doesn't instinctively sit well with me but it eliminates the glaring issue with the three team groups which was collusion over draws.

Effectively we've got two group matches with little margin of error and then straight into a 32 team know-out tournament. I can get on board with that. I think my preference would be 64 teams. The World Cup is the best thing about football and it should be open to everyone.

kfallon

As it stands I'd say England/Britain, Germany and USA could host the expanded tournament if it was on this summer!

SEANoftheDEAD

Beefy78 wrote: »

Why couldn't they? We went for 2018 and had a strong bid and that's a 32 team tournament. I like the idea of a UK & Ireland joint bid but England can host a 32 team tournament and I'd say the logistics are there for 48. The Olympics has far more teams than that and that went well

England couldn't meet the requirements for the the 32 team tournament.

As stated above, they needed 10 stadiums.
2 in London and 1 per city. With a minimum capacity of 40k and UEFA 4 star rating.

In your failed bid you included 3 in London, 2 in Manchester and 2 stadiums that weren't even built in Nottingham and Bristol.

Not to mention 6 more stadiums in need of renovations that were included in the bid in Leeds, Plymouth, Liverpool, Birmingham, Sheffield and Milton Keynes.

So no, England could not host the tournament anytime soon

SEANoftheDEAD

And just to add to that, the strong England bid you mentioned only got 2 votes out of a possible 22.

Fratton Fred

SEANoftheDEAD wrote: »

In order for Britain to host it...

Four teams are granted automatic qualification. England, Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland.

Stadiums eligible. Remember FIFA only allow 1 per city and 2 in the capital city.

London
Wembley.
Emirates Stadium or Olympic Park

Manchester
Old Trafford

Newcastle
St. James Park

Glasgow
Celtic Park or Hampden Park

Cardiff
Millennium Stadium

So that's the big ones an only half of what is required.
We need 6 more stadiums in separate cities with a capacity of over 40k and a UEFA 4 star rating minimum.

Liverpool, Sunderland and Villa as well

SEANoftheDEAD

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Liverpool, Sunderland and Villa as well

They would be chosen cities alright, but Anfield and Villa Park are in need of upgrading to meet FIFA's Wordl Cup standards.

inforfun

ebbsy wrote: »

Europe might get 3 extra places = 16 in total .

Possibly 8 groups top 2 through no playoff.

Could be.
But it is the FIFA who decides the international calendar.
If they decide there will be 8 breaks in a year, there will be 8 breaks.
If countries dont have qualifiers to play in those breaks, they ll play friendlies.

Fratton Fred

SEANoftheDEAD wrote: »

They would be chosen cities alright, but Anfield and Villa Park are in need of upgrading to meet FIFA's Wordl Cup standards.

which shouldn't be too much hassle. middlesbrough have planning permission to expand the Riverside to 42,000 and there's Murrayfield as well.

For a 48 team Tournament though, I would expect a change to the regulations. London could easily use four grounds and if they dropped capacity to 35,000 that pens up more stadiums.

None of that will get over the general mutual hatred between FIFA and the FA though.

Then there's all those lucrative construction contracts if FIFA award it to China or somewhere completely innapropriate

inforfun

Beefy78 wrote: »

The World Cup is the best thing about football and it should be open to everyone.

It is. The qualification is already World Cup.
But the end tournament should be about great matches between great teams.

The only memorable matches of Euro 2016 for me were Iceland - England and Croatia - Portugal.

First one because it was funny, 2nd because it was the worst match i have ever seen. And i have seen some ****.

16 team Euro's worked
32 team WC worked

Dont fix what isnt broken in order to please some sheiks so they keep lining your pockets

5starpool

SEANoftheDEAD wrote: »

In order for Britain to host it...

Four teams are granted automatic qualification. England, Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland.

Stadiums eligible. Remember FIFA only allow 1 per city and 2 in the capital city.

London
Wembley.
Emirates Stadium or Olympic Park

Manchester
Old Trafford

Newcastle
St. James Park

Glasgow
Celtic Park or Hampden Park

Cardiff
Millennium Stadium

So that's the big ones an only half of what is required.
We need 6 more stadiums in separate cities with a capacity of over 40k and a UEFA 4 star rating minimum.

Well you'd have Sunderland, Liverpool, Birmingham, Edinburgh (if they could borrow Murrayfield) so that's 4. NI would be irrelevant as they couldn't provide a stadium. I don't think there would be the prospect of them having 3 host countries though when 75% of the stadiums would be in one of them.

Logistically, they'll have to change how the competition is hosted. They can't expect countries to build even more stadiums. It is limiting the field to a handful of countries or else forcing others to go bankrupt essentially.

SEANoftheDEAD

5starpool wrote: »

Well you'd have Sunderland, Liverpool, Birmingham, Edinburgh (if they could borrow Murrayfield) so that's 4. NI would be irrelevant as they couldn't provide a stadium. I don't think there would be the prospect of them having 3 host countries though when 75% of the stadiums would be in one of them.

Logistically, they'll have to change how the competition is hosted. They can't expect countries to build even more stadiums. It is limiting the field to a handful of countries or else forcing others to go bankrupt essentially.

Ye can't have a British tournament without one of the their states.

So already in order to host this tournament you're looking to use rugby grounds and calling for criteria to be changed to suit your needs.

The Germans for example, built everything first, then bid.
This is a concept lost on the FA as they seem to think, we have the PL here and loads of fans so isn't that enough to host the tournament.

Bottom line is, they have a lot of work to do in order to bring the World Cup to England/Britain.

astrofool

SEANoftheDEAD wrote: »

In order for Britain to host it...

Four teams are granted automatic qualification. England, Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland.

Stadiums eligible. Remember FIFA only allow 1 per city and 2 in the capital city.

London
Wembley.
Emirates Stadium or Olympic Park

Manchester
Old Trafford

Newcastle
St. James Park

Glasgow
Celtic Park or Hampden Park

Cardiff
Millennium Stadium

So that's the big ones an only half of what is required.
We need 6 more stadiums in separate cities with a capacity of over 40k and a UEFA 4 star rating minimum.

I'd imagine the criteria will be updated to facilitate a 48 team tournament to run successfully in a country as stadium rich as England, or it's just held in the USA every time.

Of the above, you're also missing Villa Park, Anfield, Elland Road, KC, St Marys, Hillsborough, Pride Park, which could all be raised to the necessary standard without much investment. London could add another 2-3 stadia as needed, Manchester, Newcastle and Liverpool another 1 or 2 each,

Fr Tod Umptious

SEANoftheDEAD wrote: »

In order for Britain to host it...

Four teams are granted automatic qualification. England, Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland.

Stadiums eligible. Remember FIFA only allow 1 per city and 2 in the capital city.

London
Wembley.
Emirates Stadium or Olympic Park

Manchester
Old Trafford

Newcastle
St. James Park

Glasgow
Celtic Park or Hampden Park

Cardiff
Millennium Stadium

So that's the big ones an only half of what is required.
We need 6 more stadiums in separate cities with a capacity of over 40k and a UEFA 4 star rating minimum.

Where are you getting the 1 per city requirement ?

I know that for these events organisers prefer to spread out tournaments but I doubt there is a 1 per city hard rule.

By the way if there was then how come Qatar got the WC, oh wait...