48 Teams in the World Cup From 2026

There are arguments for and against expansion.

For me, the WC should be 32 teams and the Euros 16 teams. Simply because of how perfectly those numbers lend themselves to a tournament, 8 (or 4) groups of 4, and so narrowing to 16 for knockouts and so on.

inforfun

dfx- wrote: »

What impact does qualifying have on entertainment in the tournament?

There have been hundreds of dreadful games between big name teams no matter what the size of the tournament.

Brazil were abysmal in 1974 and 1990 (arguably 2006 and 2010 too). Argentina were dreadful in 2002 despite being swashbuckling in qualification. Germany were awful in 2002 and made it all the way to the final. So have the Netherlands, France, Portugal, England and Spain in recent tournaments.

Did the size of the tournament have any impact on improving the Ireland v Egypt game in 1990?

Who knows, Gabon v UAE might be the game of the tournament.

Of course there is no guarantee that if you have the top 32 of the fifa ranking in a tournament, each and every match will break the entertainment meter.
And yes, Holland was bad in euro2008 for example. But that was also in a group with Germany, Portugal and Denmark.

Ireland - Egypt (and almost every match in the groups in Italia90) was painful to match. And that was for the exact same reason as the last euro's had terrible group matches. Wrong format.
Dont lose and you have to have the worst luck in the world not to qualify out of the group.
Might as well go ahead make the group stages a penalty shoot out only.
But then at least take the ones they used to have in the MLS. They were fun

This expansion is on par with making the premier league a 48 team affair so Barnet can play in it as well because that is good for football in Barnet.

loyatemu

Bridge93 wrote: »

12 stadiums needed for a 32 team tournament and unknown as of now what the 48 team one will need. Qatar are actually trying to get FIFA to agree to only 8 or 9 grounds being needed. Of the 12 planned 4 are in Doha so this 1 per city and two in the capital rule is obviously flexible

London - Wembley, Olympic Park
Manchester - Old Trafford
Newcastle - St James' Park
Liverpool - Anfield
Sunderland - Stadium of Light
Middlesbrough - Riverside
Birmingham - Villa Park
Sheffield - Hillsbrough
Leeds - Elland Road
Derby - Pride Park
Southampton - St Marys
Leicester - King Power
Coventry - Ricoh Arena
Wolverhampton - Molineux
Blackburn - Ewood Park
Brighton - Amex
Nottingham - City Ground
Milton Keynes - Stadium MK

All these are above 30,000 currently at least so would require a lot less than the vast majority of countries to get the required number of fit grounds with the required capacity. Englands bid may have failed but infrastructure would not be the reason when you see Russia and Qatar getting it. Bar maybe 3/4/5 countries England would have the best raw materials to start from.

If this 1 per city and 2 per capital rule is true, it is likely to be changed, along with the 40,000 capacity and strict criteria for grounds unless FIFA wants only 2/3 countries to ever host it and in light of recent choices we know this isn't the case. If it's opened up then London has loads more grounds.
As far as I'm concerned with a bit of work on some grounds England is well capable of hosting the tournament without any help. Definitely at 32 teams anyway. If Qatar can host it and spread it around it's pretty clear England could.

London alone will have 5 60K+ football stadiums by 2026 - Chelsea have just been granted permission to build a new Stamford Bridge and Spurs are midway through rebuilding WHL. England could easily host it, they wouldn't even need to share it with Scotland or Wales.

topmanamillion

I don't understand the discussion about England hosting a world cup. They tried to host the 2018 one and its not that they didn't try to bribe and buy votes, they were just crap at it. Throwing the toys out of the pram afterwards when their vote buying wasn't as good as Russia`s.
The infrastructure in America makes Englands` look like a pub league. If they wanted to they could host a World Cup exclusively in stadia with capacities of 100k or more, they have 8 stadia with capacities in excess of 100k and a fleet of other ones over 90k.
Germany - 2006 - UEFA
South Africa - 2010 - CAF
Brazil - 2014 - CONMEBOL
Russia - 2018 - UEFA
Qatar - 2022 - AFC

The only logical place for WC 2026 is USA. They would have no need of co hosting with anyone.

Bridge93

topmanamillion wrote: »

I don't understand the discussion about England hosting a world cup. They tried to host the 2018 one and its not that they didn't try to bribe and buy votes, they were just crap at it. Throwing the toys out of the pram afterwards when their vote buying wasn't as good as Russia`s.
The infrastructure in America makes Englands` look like a pub league. If they wanted to they could host a World Cup exclusively in stadia with capacities of 100k or more, they have 8 stadia with capacities in excess of 100k and a fleet of other ones over 90k.
Germany - 2006 - UEFA
South Africa - 2010 - CAF
Brazil - 2014 - CONMEBOL
Russia - 2018 - UEFA
Qatar - 2022 - AFC

The only logical place for WC 2026 is USA. They would have no need of co hosting with anyone.

The discussion arose from the idea England couldn't host it. No doubt America is by far and away the best placed in the world to host a major tournament

ArmaniJeanss

inforfun wrote: »

Ireland - Egypt (and almost every match in the groups in Italia90) was painful to match. And that was for the exact same reason as the last euro's had terrible group matches. Wrong format.

Such bollox talk to be honest - the poor quality of Italia '90 was almost nothing to do with the 24 team format (Mexico '86 under the same format had been great) and more to do with a general malaise in football at the time and a feeling that the game had been 'solved' by negative coaching.

FIFA made some major changes to the game after that to get rid of the negativity of Italia '90 - three points for a win was soon adopted and was in full use by the next WC, and the 'backpass to keeper' rule came in in 1991/92 and was a massive game changer.

inforfun

Ok, so what was the reason then the group matches in the last euro's were terrible?All those post italia90 changes are still in play.
As soon as 3 draws suffice for qualification, teams will go for the negative approach of not to lose ---> **** matches more often than not.

Mexico 86 had Maradona. That doesnt count

paulbok

loyatemu wrote: »

London alone will have 5 60K+ football stadiums by 2026 - Chelsea have just been granted permission to build a new Stamford Bridge and Spurs are midway through rebuilding WHL. England could easily host it, they wouldn't even need to share it with Scotland or Wales.

6, add in Twickenham (not strictly a football stadium but 82,000 capacity )

764dak

Skylinehead wrote: »

More than that, it vastly increases the chances of impromptu matchfixing in the last group game.

Nah, teams would play to win the group.