World Cup 2026

TheBeautifulGame said:
And if they lose their playoff? Who should fill the Iran vacancy? Where should that come from? Lets say Sweden and Northern Ireland lose their playoff. My argument is that you shouldn't take any loser of a playoff, because they already have an opportunity. But if that's what you think should happen, then on what basis do you choose which playoff loser to replace Iran. And why would that be a better choice than giving the next best an opportunity, many of whom had a better WCQ than the teams currently in the playoff.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't be any of them as it's not a European spot.
 
bluesmith said:
It shouldn't be any of them as it's not a European spot.
Click to expand...
They are not required to replace Iran with an AFC squad. And as you know there have been more spots allocated to AFC and other feds for this expanded World Cup. In UEFA it is a much different situation due to the difficulty of advancing compared to AFC and other Feds.

There is also a war in the middle east / AFC at the moment. And the nation that is next in line for a spot (UAE) is currently under attack by the nation who cannot compete. So choosing the next best AFC as your "easy" solution may not be viable. I don't see how anyone who knows football and knows where the top talent is would want to see the replacement nation coming from outside of UEFA qualifying.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
They are not required to replace Iran with an AFC squad. And as you know there have been more spots allocated to AFC and other feds for this expanded World Cup. In UEFA it is a much different situation due to the difficulty of advancing compared to AFC and other Feds.

There is also a war in the middle east / AFC at the moment. So choosing the next best AFC as your solution may not be viable.
Click to expand...
Whether they are required to or not it should be a team from the same confederation.
 
bluesmith said:
Whether they are required to or not it should be a team from the same confederation.
Click to expand...
It's unclear if this is the procedure in play. Iran may be forced to pay a fine for withdrawl and if they don't pay it then AFC would be delinquent due to Iran in which case the spot(s) would go to the most deserving squad(s) throughout the world, who had the best WCQ results. But you'd rather it go directly to the next in line AFC squad (UAE). I would argue that there are more deserving nations in UEFA than the next best AFC. My solution is to have a 3 or 4 team playoff between UAE and several of the 3rd place UEFA finishers to fill the vacancy.
 
If it is agreeable to them, Iran should be guaranteed to play their games in mexico or Canada, it's comfortably the best solution. Technically, the US attacked Iran, imagine that was Russia attacking Ukraine and we all go and have a world cup in Russia a few months later and tell Ukraine they can compete if they want but safety isn't guaranteed. Wouldn't happen.

Would anybody be even slightly surprised if Trump had a word with Infantino and Israel took Iran's place?

Edit; Already beaten to that thought.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Wonder if a big hitter like Spain pulled out whether there would be a domino effect.

Think it’s unlikely mind. It would be a huge call and not sure how it would be enforced.
Click to expand...
German FA have considered it. Sadly I think their new mega kit deal with Nike has overridden their principals.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Long way to go yet, mate, but yes as things stand money will most likely talk.
Click to expand...
You're right.

As it continues attitudes may change.

Highly unlikely but i'd love Scotland to get to the final because they'd happily chant what they think of Trump in front of him.
 
TinFoilHat said:
You're right.

As it continues attitudes may change.

Highly unlikely but i'd love Scotland to get to the final because they'd happily chant what they think of Trump in front of him.
Click to expand...
Scotland is an interesting one because culturally they are far more recalcitrant and politically more likely to be disposed towards boycotting, but I’m not sure the First Minister has sufficient autonomy to effectuate it.

One thing is for sure, if you’re an Iranian sleeper cell based in the US, the World Cup is the mother lode, especially if their team are excluded.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
It's unclear if this is the procedure in play. Iran may be forced to pay a fine for withdrawl and if they don't pay it then AFC would be delinquent due to Iran in which case the spot(s) would go to the most deserving squad(s) throughout the world, who had the best WCQ results. But you'd rather it go directly to the next in line AFC squad (UAE). I would argue that there are more deserving nations in UEFA than the next best AFC. My solution is to have a 3 or 4 team playoff between UAE and several of the 3rd place UEFA finishers to fill the vacancy.
Click to expand...

Iraq beat the UAE and are in the intercontinental playoff with the winner of Bolivia/Suriname. Iraq should be given Iran's place as they come from the same confederation and the winner of Bolivia v Suriname should then also qualify.

You can't give the place to another confederation just because you think they deserve one more. The number of places for each confederation was established from the start and shouldn't change.
 
There shouldn't be any thoughts about boycotts. There shouldn't need to be. The World Cup should just be moved.

The Iranians shouldn't have to go there, but neither should anyone else.

The way FIFA have bent over for Trump is a total embarrassment. The tournament could well end up being looked at similarly to when the England football team saluted Hitler in 1938. Shameful.
 
Last edited:
supercity88 said:
Iraq beat the UAE and are in the intercontinental playoff with the winner of Bolivia/Suriname. Iraq should be given Iran's place as they come from the same confederation and the winner of Bolivia v Suriname should then also qualify.
Click to expand...

Iraq is in the playoff. By similar logic to your point below, you can't just arbitrarily decide that two of the teams don't need to play of their playoff match and both would automatically qualify without having to play. That also ignores the problem that would persist, that Iraq might not be able to play in the World Cup if they advance for the same reasons Iran can't. It would be unfair to all the other nations in the format who are required to play their playoff match for 2 of the teams to not have to. Why should Iraq or Bolivia / Suriname get to bypass the match that they are supposed to play in to get into the tournament?

supercity88 said:
You can't give the place to another confederation just because you think they deserve one more. The number of places for each confederation was established from the start and shouldn't change.
Click to expand...

By that same logic, the number of playoff spots and playoff matches "for each confederation was established from the start and shouldn't change". It's important to note that the number of spots for each confederation in this expanded field were not allocated equally or fairly between Feds. Just looking at the UEFA WCQ format compared to the standard format that we have become accustomed to, this is completely different. So I get your wanting to keep the spots allocated to each Fed the same, in a normal situation that makes sense, but here it's not so simple, with the war raging and with there not being a clear or a simple solution to the problem.
 
Shit tournament, shit venue I will probably give it no more than a passing glance.

I still cannot understand the politics of it. Not that I particularly want them to have it but... why have England been blanked yet America will have had it twice since '66 same for Germany.
 
BigJoe#1 said:
Shit tournament, shit venue I will probably give it no more than a passing glance.

I still cannot understand the politics of it. Not that I particularly want them to have it but... why have England been blanked yet America will have had it twice since '66 same for Germany.
Click to expand...
Because they are desperate to grow the game (and revenues) in America. Not many years now before everyone calls it soccer. (yuk)
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
Iraq is in the playoff. By similar logic to your point below, you can't just arbitrarily decide that two of the teams don't need to play of their playoff match and both would automatically qualify without having to play. That also ignores the problem that would persist, that Iraq might not be able to play in the World Cup if they advance for the same reasons Iran can't. It would be unfair to all the other nations in the format who are required to play their playoff match for 2 of the teams to not have to. Why should Iraq or Bolivia / Suriname get to bypass the match that they are supposed to play in to get into the tournament?



By that same logic, the number of playoff spots and playoff matches "for each confederation was established from the start and shouldn't change". It's important to note that the number of spots for each confederation in this expanded field were not allocated equally or fairly between Feds. Just looking at the UEFA WCQ format compared to the standard format that we have become accustomed to, this is completely different. So I get your wanting to keep the spots allocated to each Fed the same, in a normal situation that makes sense, but here it's not so simple, with the war raging and with there not being a clear or a simple solution to the problem.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
 
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