World Cup 2026

No one here even knows this is happening; there is so little media attention and/or advertising, it's insane. Not to mention the fact that tickets are a fortune and they've made it really hard to get to matches. Lets see if its half emtpy stadiums that have 0 enthusiasm, cause thats the way its headed.
 
bluebanana83 said:
Bloated.

For me it should be the best 32 or 48 teams now in the world. If that’s means it has more teams from Europe, Africa and South America and none from Oceania and what not so be it.

There should be one qualification with all the teams in and have it split out into world rankings. Where say the top 32, next 32 and so on. Then each team plays one or two games against random opponents in each section. Either home or away but not both.
Something along those lines, I’ve not thought too much about the actual logistics. Similar to the Champions league. I know that they are changing to this but just for Europe and still limiting Europe to 16 places I think.

I get in the past it was all to do with travel and some countries may still be poor but FIFA should step in and subside travel etc for such countries - they can afford it.

This way you would get games such as Brazil v wales or England v Nigeria etc.

Would be much better in my opinion.

The way it is set up now means some absolute tripe makes it to the finals or you get the same teams like South Korea and Japan every year as they don’t have much of a challenge or New Zealand and Australia. Same goes for USA that make it every year. No way these are better than a lot of European and many African teams that don’t get in.

Even South America pretty much 6 out of a group of 10 qualify and 7th gets a shot via a play off. So 70% of SA teams have a chance of qualification compared to about 30% maximum of European teams.

I think it would be much more enjoyable playing games from countries all over the world to qualify and it would eradicate this so many places for so many areas nonsense. It would simply be the best teams.

I mean Curaco, Haiti, Jordan, Iraq, Panama and New Zealand…
Click to expand...
48 teams is ridiculous.

32 was the limit. When 2/3rds qualify into the next round I mean what fucking competition would do that...er...other than the champions league. A joke.
 
madloaf said:
48 teams is ridiculous.

32 was the limit. When 2/3rds qualify into the next round I mean what fucking competition would do that...er...other than the champions league. A joke.
Click to expand...
Apart from the England v Croatia game , pretty much every one of the other 71 group games is between a big name & a minnow zzzzzzzzz
 
I live in the Boston area and didn’t get tickets in the draw, but I’ve been offered tickets to the England game. They’re over priced, I hate everything about FIFA and Trump, and transportation to the stadium will be an epic nightmare. However, I’m a newer football fan and don’t get many opportunities like this (I’ve seen City play once)…so I’m sucking up my reservations about this shit show of a tournament and hopefully going to see Guehi and Stones and O’Reilly out there! It’s still a dream come true to see these guys play in person - it was for my first City game and it will for this - it honestly barely seems real to me.
 
Not sure where to put this, but saw Japan’s adidas origals away kit for the World Cup. One of the nicest shirts I’ve ever seen.
 
Middedon said:
I live in the Boston area and didn’t get tickets in the draw, but I’ve been offered tickets to the England game. They’re over priced, I hate everything about FIFA and Trump, and transportation to the stadium will be an epic nightmare. However, I’m a newer football fan and don’t get many opportunities like this (I’ve seen City play once)…so I’m sucking up my reservations about this shit show of a tournament and hopefully going to see Guehi and Stones and O’Reilly out there! It’s still a dream come true to see these guys play in person - it was for my first City game and it will for this - it honestly barely seems real to me.
Click to expand...
If you can afford it, do it.
 
Middedon said:
It’s a done deal. My husband is a huge Harry Kane fan and has never seen him play. And my youngest son wants to see Bellingham. So clearly I have failed as a mother, but I’ll get to see my City players!
Click to expand...

The World Cup is about those dreams coming true and the opportunity should therefore be affordable for all. If you can afford it then do it, but it's sad it's breaking the bank for that opportunity.
 
Middedon said:
I live in the Boston area and didn’t get tickets in the draw, but I’ve been offered tickets to the England game. They’re over priced, I hate everything about FIFA and Trump, and transportation to the stadium will be an epic nightmare. However, I’m a newer football fan and don’t get many opportunities like this (I’ve seen City play once)…so I’m sucking up my reservations about this shit show of a tournament and hopefully going to see Guehi and Stones and O’Reilly out there! It’s still a dream come true to see these guys play in person - it was for my first City game and it will for this - it honestly barely seems real to me.
Click to expand...
We want a report of your travel experience, atmosphere and if you would do it all again please. :D

Glad you got offered tickets. Hopefully you get to see City players in the lineup and really hope you have an amazing experience.
 
KentBlue said:
I have the same view. Endless adverts, some screeching diva like Beyoncé strutting about under a billion lights (and an equal number of dancers leaping about behind her). Footage of Donald Trump wearing his MAGA hat, and the pundits' riveting analysis, loftily informing us plebs that the team that scores more goals than their opponents in a match has a good chance of winning.

I don't like going into a major tournament with my country involved, and I have next to no enthusiasm. Still, it all points to it being an over-the-top Hollywood extravaganza with the odd game of football going on now and again.
Click to expand...
When the states hold any event it is all about the $. In 94 they increased the teams from 24 to 32 now this time it's 32 to 48.It is quantity over quality and I will not be watching. If you want to see corruption at its highest watch out for the dodgy decisions which will take place. When the knockout stages come I will be interested how many go to ET so they can cram more ad breaks in. Some might say I'm been cynical damn right.
 
bluebanana83 said:
Bloated.

For me it should be the best 32 or 48 teams now in the world. If that’s means it has more teams from Europe, Africa and South America and none from Oceania and what not so be it.

There should be one qualification with all the teams in and have it split out into world rankings. Where say the top 32, next 32 and so on. Then each team plays one or two games against random opponents in each section. Either home or away but not both.
Something along those lines, I’ve not thought too much about the actual logistics. Similar to the Champions league. I know that they are changing to this but just for Europe and still limiting Europe to 16 places I think.

I get in the past it was all to do with travel and some countries may still be poor but FIFA should step in and subside travel etc for such countries - they can afford it.

This way you would get games such as Brazil v wales or England v Nigeria etc.

Would be much better in my opinion.

The way it is set up now means some absolute tripe makes it to the finals or you get the same teams like South Korea and Japan every year as they don’t have much of a challenge or New Zealand and Australia. Same goes for USA that make it every year. No way these are better than a lot of European and many African teams that don’t get in.

Even South America pretty much 6 out of a group of 10 qualify and 7th gets a shot via a play off. So 70% of SA teams have a chance of qualification compared to about 30% maximum of European teams.

I think it would be much more enjoyable playing games from countries all over the world to qualify and it would eradicate this so many places for so many areas nonsense. It would simply be the best teams.

I mean Curaco, Haiti, Jordan, Iraq, Panama and New Zealand…
Click to expand...
New Zealand were the only team not to lose a game at the 2010 WC. Australia only lost 2-1 to the winners in the R16 at last WC
 
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