World Cup expanded to 48 teams.

Discussion in 'General football forum' started by RandomJ, 10 Jan 2017.

  1. BlueMoonz1977

    BlueMoonz1977

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2012
    Occupation:
    Clinical Recovery Coordinator
    Location:
    Formby (originally Wythenshawe, Northenden)
    Great idea for me....more teams, lesser nations have a chance to be involved, potential bigger giant killings, increased revenue for the tournament holders, more games for the fans....more games on TV.....What's not to like,

    Lots of angry wives/girlfriends though
     
  2. Blue Hefner

    Blue Hefner

    Joined:
    11 Jul 2009
    There is the quality over quantity argument, for starters......
     
  3. CaliforniaBlue

    CaliforniaBlue

    Joined:
    12 Jan 2010
    Location:
    Northern California
    Probably already been said in the preceding pages, but it seems like although this could make the finals more interesting, and it'll mean a lot to the smaller nations who've never qualified before, it's bound to further devalue the qualifiers. That used to be a tournament in itself, providing some real excitement over the 18 months prior to the finals, but now it'll be a whole bunch of stats-padding meaningless games with no real danger that any of the bigger countries will miss out.
     
  4. ROCKET80

    ROCKET80

    Joined:
    17 Jul 2008
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Auckland, NZ
    There's not been much quality on show over the last few World Cups. I'd say the last tournament with any genuine quality on display was France 98.

    I thought with the expansion of the last Euro's made qualifing more exciting as the 'lesser' nations had a genuine shot at qualification.
     
  5. its a Barm

    its a Barm

    Joined:
    29 Nov 2012
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    part time rag slayer
    Location:
    Warrington
    I don't get all the fuss is think it's a good thing. Much more of a tournament loads of games win win for me what are the negatives?
     
  6. TonyM

    TonyM

    Joined:
    8 Aug 2006
    It'd be great if the qualifies were knock out over 2 legs. Just to reduce the number of games using the club season. Then a bigger final is a good thing because it reduces the games even more during the qualifying stage.

    And friendlies should be reduced too or better still eliminated.
     
  7. BluessinceHydeRoad

    BluessinceHydeRoad

    Joined:
    26 Mar 2012
    This idea is FIFA at its greed, money grabbing best. Its own report reckons it will make an extra half billion pounds out of the 2026 tournament, but its aim is to encourage investment in the game. Leaving aside that the father of this idea is Infantino, who co-operated as closely as possible with Platini to prevent European clubs investing in building teams which would make bigger, better stadia to accomodate bigger crowds possible, we are driven to ask who would invest in football? Not Europe thanks to Infantino! South America has found that the growing financial strength of football was put back years by the cost to Brazil of meeting FIFA's demands to put on the 2014 world cup. The most football mad nation in the world driven to rioting in the streets against the cost of its own world cup! Asia? China wants to put on the world cup, but I doubt the new format is what they want. The Gulf? I doubt the example of Qatar has done much to encourage football in an area where many are heartily sick of FIFA. Abu Dhabi? I don't think the football authorities attitude to investment in City has been endearing or encouraging. I am left with the opinion that it is Africa which is to be fleeced. African governments may well be receptive to hosting a world cup with more than enough construction projects to make everyone rich - apart from millions of poor Africans. Then they'll be treated to God knows how many groups of three, with two teams playing for penalties to avoid the humiliation which will deter any further investment in football in their region. None of the money for investment will come from FIFA's half a billion - FIFA will act as Robin Hood. milking money from Europe to give crumbs to the hosts to build stadia no-one wants in areas no-one lives. Just ask the Brazilians.
     
  8. An extra 3 places will make very little difference in qualifying from a European group
     
  9. MarsLlama

    MarsLlama

    Joined:
    23 May 2016
    Gender:
    Male
    It makes qualifying even more pointless though (for about 40 of the 48 countries). Wish it was logistically possible to make the Euros/WC run on a two year cycle rather than four.
     
  10. Gray

    Gray

    Joined:
    30 May 2004
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Timperley - I was just too stubborn to ever be gov
    With 32 teams there are a hell of a lot of absolutely shite games.

    At present the group stages are in 8 groups of 4 giving a total of 48 matches, then 16 teams progress to the knockout stages.

    The new formula at the group stages is 16 groups of 3 giving the same number of group matches, but now 32 teams progress to the knockout stages so here you get the extra 16 matches.

    Assuming the extra 16 teams will all be cannon fodder apart from the odd European or South American team then I expect the number of shite matches to increase substantially.

    With a total of 211 countries in FIFA the percentage taking part will rise from 15% to very nearly 23%, next change will probably put it up to a third of the teams eligible - barking mad.

    Another barmy idea by the powers that be, which has only happened because of their greed.

    Expect almost empty stadiums at some games, especially at the prices that FIFA charge - who will even want to stage the bloody thing?
     
    Last edited: 12 Jan 2017

Share This Page