World Cup 2026

supercity88 said:
It doesn't matter what the format used to be, or whether UEFA's qualifying system made sense.

Iraq get Iran's spot as they're the next best from that qualifying process.

If you want to keep the playoff system fair and transparent have Bolivia v Suriname with the winner playing the UAE.
Click to expand...

You're waxing poetic about fairness whilst proposing something that goes against fairness. You're not thinking this through or admitting how difficult a situation this is. You're trying to over-simplify it without understanding how uniquely complicated and unclear this specific situation is, given the new qualification process, given the war, given needing to now determine a replacement. Determining that replacement is uniquely complicated here because of the fact that in this new expanded format we still don't have the WC field set less than 90 days from the WC. In the past, the field would already be set by now and they wouldn't have to wait another "month" before finalizing the field. Under this insanity, we are 90 days away from the start of the WC and we still are waiting for playoff matches. You're proposing that Iraq gets in automatically now instead of playing their playoff game and UAE should now play in the playoff game that Iraq should? That actually over-complicates an already complicated situation.

There are too many unknowns to predict how this will play out or what might happen. Keeping the playoff system "fair" would be having it go forward as usual (Iraq vs Bolivia / Suriname) and the winner goes to the World Cup.

That's separate from Iran needing to be replaced. If Iraq were to qualify, then they, like Iran, might not be able to make the World Cup due to the war. UAE, Israel and other Middle Eastern possible replacements for Iran are also involved in a war. We will presumably have to see what happen with Iraq and if they qualify, which could mean needing not just 1 (for Iran) but 2 (for Iran and Iraq) if Iraq wins the playoff. If they don't, then you would still need one replacement. UAE would make the most logical sense as a direct replacement, but they already lost an Asian playoff. Again where's the fairness to choose a team that lost a playoff over other teams that lost other playoff. Other UEFA 3rd place teams didn't even get a chance to "play" in a playoff despite many having a "better" WCQ campaign than those who did. That's the justification for staging an "additional" playoff of the best who did not make a playoff.

supercity88 said:
You are complicating it to such an extent I can only assume you were part of the committee that established this farce of a world cup process.
Click to expand...

I am not complicating anything. I have described the situation as it exists which indeed is far more complicated for this World Cup than it ever has been. For you to assume that I were "part" of the committee that changed the World Cup to this is actually mad. I've been speaking out against the FIFA President, as it pertains to VAR, as it pertains to the new WC format, and how much I opposed what they have done to football, and in your mind somehow you've concluded speaking out against it and trying to put forth a better outcome means that I'm part of what I clearly oppose.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
You're waxing poetic about fairness whilst proposing something that goes against fairness. You're not thinking this through or admitting how difficult a situation this is. You're trying to over-simplify it without understanding how uniquely complicated and unclear this specific situation is, given the new qualification process, given the war, given needing to now determine a replacement. Determining that replacement is uniquely complicated here because of the fact that in this new expanded format we still don't have the WC field set less than 90 days from the WC. In the past, the field would already be set by now and they wouldn't have to wait another "month" before finalizing the field. Under this insanity, we are 90 days away from the start of the WC and we still are waiting for playoff matches. You're proposing that Iraq gets in automatically now instead of playing their playoff game and UAE should now play in the playoff game that Iraq should? That actually over-complicates an already complicated situation.

There are too many unknowns to predict how this will play out or what might happen. Keeping the playoff system "fair" would be having it go forward as usual (Iraq vs Bolivia / Suriname) and the winner goes to the World Cup.

That's separate from Iran needing to be replaced. If Iraq were to qualify, then they, like Iran, might not be able to make the World Cup due to the war. UAE, Israel and other Middle Eastern possible replacements for Iran are also involved in a war. We will presumably have to see what happen with Iran and if they qualify, which could mean needing not just 1 (for Iran) but 2 (for Iran and Iraq) if Iraq wins the playoff. If they don't, then you would still need one replacement. UAE would make the most logical sense as a direct replacement, but they already lost an Asian playoff. Again where's the fairness to choose a team that lost a playoff over other teams that lost other playoff. Other UEFA 3rd place teams didn't even get a chance to "play" in a playoff despite many having a "better" WCQ campaign than those who did. That's the justification for staging an "additional" playoff of the best who did not make a playoff.



I am not complicating anything. I have described the situation as it exists which indeed is far more complicated for this World Cup than it ever has been. For you to assume that I were "part" of the committee that changed the World Cup to this is actually mad. I've been speaking out against the FIFA President, as it pertains to VAR, as it pertains to the new WC format, and how much I opposed what they have done to football, and in your mind somehow you've concluded speaking out against it and trying to put forth a better outcome means that I'm part of what I clearly oppose.
Click to expand...

Firstly, Iran have already qualified but are withdrawing.

Secondly, Iraq beat the UAE to go to the playoff final v Bolivia or Suriname.

Iraq replace Iran, UAE replace Iraq in the playoff. That doesn't have any unfair impact on anyone.

Iraq happy as they qualify
UAE happy as they have a playoff
Bolivia and Suriname happy as it means their final is against a slightly easier opponent based on this circumstance.

As to whether they do or don't want to go, maybe check that first but they aren't involved in a war against the US so should be fine.

Your issues with UEFA's qualifying is irrelevant. Teams get a chance of the playoffs via the NL as well. Everyone knew their situation.
 
supercity88 said:
Firstly, Iran have already qualified but are withdrawing.

Secondly, Iraq beat the UAE to go to the playoff final v Bolivia or Suriname.

Iraq replace Iran, UAE replace Iraq in the playoff. That doesn't have any unfair impact on anyone.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting idea but it is not a "simple" solution given the "complicated" framework that exists. You're suggesting that Iraq should be promoted to the top of the group, taking Iran's place, being put directly into the World Cup without needing to play in the playoff, and putting UAE into the playoff that is currently scheduled for March 31st.

There are multiple logistical problems with this. You would have to first explain the proposal to UAE's football team, ensure that they accept playing in a playoff that they haven't been preparing for, while their country is under attack from Iran. Would UAE's team realistically be ready to play on March 31th in Mexico?

The decision-making process that you're imagining is so easy is not so easy because the playoffs have not occurred yet. If the WC field was set, that would be different. That is not the situation here, which creates the insanity and uncertainty. In your case, the longer FIFA stalls before taking action, the more unrealistic this idea becomes. Because again, the Iraq playoff match is later this month. And there's no indication FIFA is about to announce what you propose, to replace Iraq with UAE and promote Iraq directly into the WC, when we don't even know if they will be able to compete.

Doing nothing is also a possible problem because Iraq is currently a war zone and its players are supposed to travel to Mexico (under FIFA's insane new qualification format) later this month to play a de facto WC play-in game barely 2 months before the WC starts.

supercity88 said:
Iraq happy as they qualify
UAE happy as they have a playoff
Bolivia and Suriname happy as it means their final is against a slightly easier opponent based on this circumstance.

As to whether they do or don't want to go, maybe check that first but they aren't involved in a war against the US so should be fine.

Your issues with UEFA's qualifying is irrelevant. Teams get a chance of the playoffs via the NL as well. Everyone knew their situation.
Click to expand...

My issues with UEFA's qualifying under this format is not irrelevant, it's precisely about "fairness" which you said is important. And for you accuse me of being "part" of the committee that established this farce is curious, by calling issues with the process "irrelevant". That sounds like you're "part" of the committee that established this farce, if you're coming to this farcical WCQ format's defence here.

I appreciate your idea and view of all this but I dont think you're thinking this through or understanding how logistically difficult and unlikely what you propose is. What i mean by this is that, if what you think should happen doesn't occur. Lets say Iraq plays in its playoff as scheduled and no decision is made until April. Then what?
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
It's an interesting idea but it is not a "simple" solution given the "complicated" framework that exists. You're suggesting that Iraq should be promoted to the top of the group, taking Iran's place, being put directly into the World Cup without needing to play in the playoff, and putting UAE into the playoff that is currently scheduled for March 31st.

There are multiple logistical problems with this. You would have to first explain the proposal to UAE's football team, ensure that they accept playing in a playoff that they haven't been preparing for, while their country is under attack from Iran. Would UAE's team realistically be ready to play on March 31th in Mexico?

The decision-making process that you're imagining is so easy is not so easy because the playoffs have not occurred yet. If the WC field was set, that would be different. That is not the situation here, which creates the insanity and uncertainty. In your case, the longer FIFA stalls before taking action, the more unrealistic this idea becomes. Because again, the Iraq playoff match is later this month. And there's no indication FIFA is about to announce what you propose, to replace Iraq with UAE and promote Iraq directly into the WC, when we don't even know if they will be able to compete.

Doing nothing is also a possible problem because Iraq is currently a war zone and its players are supposed to travel to Mexico (under FIFA's insane new qualification format) later this month to play a de facto WC play-in game barely 2 months before the WC starts.



My issues with UEFA's qualifying under this format is not irrelevant, it's precisely about "fairness" which you said is important. And for you accuse me of being "part" of the committee that established this farce is curious, by calling issues with the process "irrelevant". That sounds like you're "part" of the committee that established this farce, if you're coming to this farcical WCQ format's defence here.

I appreciate your idea and view of all this but I dont think you're thinking this through or understanding how logistically difficult and unlikely what you propose is. What i mean by this is that, if what you think should happen doesn't occur. Lets say Iraq plays in its playoff as scheduled and no decision is made until April. Then what?
Click to expand...

It is a simple solution. You're complicating it with hypothetical issues. If the UAE/Iraq have any issues the fine, let them review it from there.

Ultimately, it will be what it will be and I don't particularly care as none of these sides have any chance of winning the thing anyway.

You're biggest challenge is not resolving this issue, but learning how to think about what you want to say and condensing it into a couple of sentences. What you've written above didn't need to be 20 paragraphs, you could have said "due to the war it is a lot more complicated than you've suggested". But before you try that, let me say a) maybe it is, maybe it isn't and; b) I don't really care.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
Click to expand...

As someone that rides on this transportation system daily, this will be a total shit show. This will be an hour long train ride that’s less than 30 miles. It will be excruciatingly slow. And that doesn’t include the queueing for the train in the station - last night people waited an hour plus to get on the train. 2k people took the train last night, they’re expecting 20k to during the WC.

Boston isn’t a bad city, but our public transport is not great. And it really bothers me that they’re charging so much money for this - it should be less than an NFL game! For a family that’s hundreds of dollars for the train ride alone. And Gillette is in no mans land. It will be a shock to a lot of international travelers. I’m sorry on behalf of Boston residents (and frankly, I’m sorry for pretty much everything about the US lately, but Boston is usually better than the rest!)
 
Middedon said:
As someone that rides on this transportation system daily, this will be a total shit show. This will be an hour long train ride that’s less than 30 miles. It will be excruciatingly slow. And that doesn’t include the queueing for the train in the station - last night people waited an hour plus to get on the train. 2k people took the train last night, they’re expecting 20k to during the WC.

Boston isn’t a bad city, but our public transport is not great. And it really bothers me that they’re charging so much money for this - it should be less than an NFL game! For a family that’s hundreds of dollars for the train ride alone. And Gillette is in no mans land. It will be a shock to a lot of international travelers. I’m sorry on behalf of Boston residents (and frankly, I’m sorry for pretty much everything about the US lately, but Boston is usually better than the rest!)
Click to expand...
It’s the first time FIFA has allowed transport to and from World Cup games not to be free.

Guess it won’t be that bad if nobody pays the extortionate prices to go to the games.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
It’s the first time FIFA has allowed transport to and from World Cup games not to be free.

Guess it won’t be that bad if nobody pays the extortionate prices to go to the games.
Click to expand...
Perfect, the first time there is a fee. And likely the worst system (although I suppose most US cities don’t have one…) and European has seen.

It’s amazing how much more popular football has become. Ten years ago my husband took our little kids to the Copa. It was like $30 a ticket and they saw Brazil, Argentina and Chile play - all with huge “star” players. The stadiums were not full at all. Now, any of those games would sell out here and be ten times the price.

We have a lot of friends that grew up in Europe so obviously wanted to attend a game (as did I) and no one was able to get tickets to any game. So someone is going. But at this point it would be cheaper to come over there and see the teams play on their home soil. And frankly, probably more enjoyable. Par for the course lately, Americans are doing a pretty good of ruining things for everyone…
 
Middedon said:
Perfect, the first time there is a fee. And likely the worst system (although I suppose most US cities don’t have one…) and European has seen.

It’s amazing how much more popular football has become. Ten years ago my husband took our little kids to the Copa. It was like $30 a ticket and they saw Brazil, Argentina and Chile play - all with huge “star” players. The stadiums were not full at all. Now, any of those games would sell out here and be ten times the price.

We have a lot of friends that grew up in Europe so obviously wanted to attend a game (as did I) and no one was able to get tickets to any game. So someone is going. But at this point it would be cheaper to come over there and see the teams play on their home soil. And frankly, probably more enjoyable. Par for the course lately, Americans are doing a pretty good of ruining things for everyone…
Click to expand...
Capitalism’s final chapter seems to be playing out.

It’s going the same way over here, albeit slightly slower.

It’s not just the US though. FIFA are equally is responsible.
 
Infant timo has just stated the Iran world cup games will not be moved to Mexico. They will still be played in yankland.

The 2 countries are at war after Trump illegally bombed them and he is now threatening to obliterate them.
The world cup is several months off, by which time body bags could be piling up at American air force bases.
If this competition wasn't already a farce it is now.
 
Middedon said:
Perfect, the first time there is a fee. And likely the worst system (although I suppose most US cities don’t have one…) and European has seen.

It’s amazing how much more popular football has become. Ten years ago my husband took our little kids to the Copa. It was like $30 a ticket and they saw Brazil, Argentina and Chile play - all with huge “star” players. The stadiums were not full at all. Now, any of those games would sell out here and be ten times the price.

We have a lot of friends that grew up in Europe so obviously wanted to attend a game (as did I) and no one was able to get tickets to any game. So someone is going. But at this point it would be cheaper to come over there and see the teams play on their home soil. And frankly, probably more enjoyable. Par for the course lately, Americans are doing a pretty good of ruining things for everyone…
Click to expand...

FIFA and the US are in this together.

Infantino: "Here's a peace prize we've just made up"
Trump: "Thanks, can you ban Norway from the World Cup because I wanted their one too"
Infantino: "Sadly not, but why don't we charge a fortune for tickets and transport and share the rewards"
Trump: "Perfect! Shame that guy with the island isn't around to go celebrate this properly".

Football has changed beyond recognition.

The idea of a World Cup should be about inspiring people to join the sport and uniting people from different backgrounds. Instead it's a luxury raffle lining the pockets of already wealthy individuals and freezing out the everyday fan as a result.

This could have been a monumental occasion in the rise of football in the US. But instead there aren't going to be very many of your average Americans attending games.

From a selfish perspective, the kick off times look wank. The weather will lead to storm breaks which, combined with VAR getting involved in corners amongst everything else, will sap any remaining energy left from a game in intense heat played at walking pace with drink breaks every 20 minutes. I'm usually so positive about World Cups, but this feels like it will be a disaster if the Club World Cup is anything to go by.
 
supercity88 said:
FIFA and the US are in this together.

Infantino: "Here's a peace prize we've just made up"
Trump: "Thanks, can you ban Norway from the World Cup because I wanted their one too"
Infantino: "Sadly not, but why don't we charge a fortune for tickets and transport and share the rewards"
Trump: "Perfect! Shame that guy with the island isn't around to go celebrate this properly".

Football has changed beyond recognition.

The idea of a World Cup should be about inspiring people to join the sport and uniting people from different backgrounds. Instead it's a luxury raffle lining the pockets of already wealthy individuals and freezing out the everyday fan as a result.

This could have been a monumental occasion in the rise of football in the US. But instead there aren't going to be very many of your average Americans attending games.

From a selfish perspective, the kick off times look wank. The weather will lead to storm breaks which, combined with VAR getting involved in corners amongst everything else, will sap any remaining energy left from a game in intense heat played at walking pace with drink breaks every 20 minutes. I'm usually so positive about World Cups, but this feels like it will be a disaster if the Club World Cup is anything to go by.
Click to expand...
Just know many Americans feel exactly the way you do and are embarrassed by the whole charade. And if someone who was a football fan was lucky enough to get tickets, they’re definitely going sheepishly.
 
Donnarumma vs Dzeko tonight, which is pretty amazing if you think about it....

One of my current favourite City players vs one of my faves from when it really all got going....
 
Middedon said:
As someone that rides on this transportation system daily, this will be a total shit show. This will be an hour long train ride that’s less than 30 miles. It will be excruciatingly slow. And that doesn’t include the queueing for the train in the station - last night people waited an hour plus to get on the train. 2k people took the train last night, they’re expecting 20k to during the WC.

Boston isn’t a bad city, but our public transport is not great. And it really bothers me that they’re charging so much money for this - it should be less than an NFL game! For a family that’s hundreds of dollars for the train ride alone. And Gillette is in no mans land. It will be a shock to a lot of international travelers. I’m sorry on behalf of Boston residents (and frankly, I’m sorry for pretty much everything about the US lately, but Boston is usually better than the rest!)
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t be a shock for any City fan that went to Istanbul. Rumours are there are still people waiting for a bus nearly 3 years later!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top