World Cup Expansion: 48 teams in 2026

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,483
The 718
I will give some credit for a good-faith try, but it's not enough teams in a group, not enough games, and too many bad teams - the first couple of European and CONMEBOL teams out are better than some in the field of 32, but 16 more teams means some really bad sides from Asia, CONCACAF, and Africa (if not Oceania-shudder-would make it).

A hypothetical group could be France, USA, and United Arab Emirates, who would be insane not to park the bus like it's never been parked before and hope for the best. How the hell would you tiebreak three 0-0 draws?
 
Last edited:

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,595
Pittsburgh, PA
Or 8 groups of 6, where you get 5 games for your troubles. If you're going to make a mockery of league schedules and have a hilariously long summer tournament, might as well give teams a lot of action. Really increases the value of your TV rights, too.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,203
Or 8 groups of 6, where you get 5 games for your troubles. If you're going to make a mockery of league schedules and have a hilariously long summer tournament, might as well give teams a lot of action. Really increases the value of your TV rights, too.
I agree with the 8 groups of 6

First choice would be group winner gets a bye and a 2 plays a 3.

Second choice would be top 2 advance
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,203
In my plan, spots would be allocated as follows:

Europe : 24 (3 in the each group)
South America 8 (1 in each group)
Africa : 7 (one in each group w/ocea)
Oceania : 1
Concacaf: 4
Near Asia: 2
Far East : 2

If host is one of big 4, one of their spots is replaced
If host is one of little 3. Europe loses a spot
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
I agree with the 8 groups of 6

First choice would be group winner gets a bye and a 2 plays a 3.
This is fascinating, and really easy to format. With all the proposals pushed so far, ease of format for the knockout round seems like one of the main goals. It would be a minimum of 40 days total, today it's about 30 days.

They would definitely need to expand rosters, maybe 25 or 30 players (23 is a joke as it is). Each team would have 5 group matches in 17 days, and if they are not a group winner, up to 10 matches in 35-45 days. That's a lot of games in a short period. Maybe they make it mandatory that players sit out at least one group match.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,203
This is fascinating, and really easy to format. With all the proposals pushed so far, ease of format for the knockout round seems like one of the main goals. It would be a minimum of 40 days total, today it's about 30 days.

They would definitely need to expand rosters, maybe 25 or 30 players (23 is a joke as it is). Each team would have 5 group matches in 17 days, and if they are not a group winner, up to 10 matches in 35-45 days. That's a lot of games in a short period. Maybe they make it mandatory that players sit out at least one group match.
I'm in favor of 24 field players plus 3 goalies for 27 total and extending to 45 days. Maybe start around June 3 and end mid July (if in Europe Far East or US) I don't like the mandatory sit outs for freedomish reasons. If Djibouti wants to Qatar it, let them.
 
For what it's worth, I've been working for three years as a television commentator on the Champions Hockey League - European ice hockey's equivalent of the UEFA Champions League - and for the past two seasons the format has been 48 teams in 16 groups of 3, with the top two in each group advancing to the last 32. Of course it's different because the teams play each other twice in the group stage, but it works surprisingly well, particularly insofar as there are very few meaningless matches than you'd get with other formats like 8 groups of 6, and there's usually some benefit to getting first place in the group as well. It's not really want I want from a World Cup, but they could do worse.
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
Just read that there are 5 options in the proposal:

1. 48 teams with a play-in round for 32 teams, and then a 32-team group stage (8 groups of 4 teams)

2. 48 teams with 16 groups of 3 teams, top two advancing

3. 40 teams in 8 groups of 5

4. 40 teams in 10 groups of 4

5. stay at 32 teams

Infantino is supporting the second 48-team option. I'm guessing that they'll add a fair-play as the second-to-last tiebreaker before drawing lots. They did that for the Euros
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
48 teams with 8 groups of 6 would ensure that teams like Sweden and Paraguay don't get excluded, while creating additional spots for teams in developing (soccer-wise) regions, while actually making it more likely that the 8 best teams in the world (or something close to it) make the quarterfinals. What's not to love?

But if the goal is to give teams like Saudi Arabia and China a chance to make the knockout round and win a game or two, they'll go with 16 groups of 3, and that will suck.
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
I've been looking at the parameters for 48 teams in 8 groups of 6, and there more I look at it the less realistic it seems. It would be 144 games over 40-50 days. (Right now it's 65ish games over 30 days.) That's a huge jump. The group stage would have almost twice as many games than the entire current tournament. They would need a bare minimum of 14 stadiums if they wish to have two off days per stadium, and probably really better off with 20 stadiums or more. It could only be in very large countries or in groups of smaller countries. More than two countries could be chaotic. Travel would be massive, even if they regionalized the groups. I'm intrigued but to me it seems like something better in theory

Edit: math
 
Last edited:

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,483
The 718
First of all, we have always been at war with Oceania.

Secondly, 2010 New Zealand would like to remind you that they were the only unbeaten team in the entire tournament.
I remember their 3 points from 3 draws and I welcome the Kiwis.

My horror would be at 2+ Oceania teams. Germany - Vanuatu or Argentina- New Caledonia..... ooooof.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,335
Philadelphia
In my plan, spots would be allocated as follows:

Europe : 24 (3 in the each group)
South America 8 (1 in each group)
Africa : 7 (one in each group w/ocea)
Oceania : 1
Concacaf: 4
Near Asia: 2
Far East : 2

If host is one of big 4, one of their spots is replaced
If host is one of little 3. Europe loses a spot
This seems like a great way to make most qualifying matches even more pointless.

Which two of the ten CONMEBOL teams will fail to qualify? Will it be Venezuela and Peru, Venezuela and Bolivia, or Venezuela and Paraguay? Tune in for a bunch of totally meaningless matches between everybody else!
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
The Peter Principle says that (business) managers are promoted to the level of their incompetence. There should be a similar law which says that sports leagues increase games up to the level of disinterest.
 

SocrManiac

Tommy Seebach’s mustache
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
8,629
Somers, CT
Given the snoozing early stages of the Euros this year, I'd hope the powers that be could be smart enough not to do this.

However, they aren't.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,203
This seems like a great way to make most qualifying matches even more pointless.

Which two of the ten CONMEBOL teams will fail to qualify? Will it be Venezuela and Peru, Venezuela and Bolivia, or Venezuela and Paraguay? Tune in for a bunch of totally meaningless matches between everybody else!
Qualifying matches, at least for 95% of UEFA and CONMEBOL, should be pointless. The actual World Cup (Finals) that people watch is what matters and what gives FIFA its $$. You shouldn't have a situation where an Argentina or Brazil is worrying about qualifying.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,335
Philadelphia
Qualifying matches, at least for 95% of UEFA and CONMEBOL, should be pointless. The actual World Cup (Finals) that people watch is what matters and what gives FIFA its $$. You shouldn't have a situation where an Argentina or Brazil is worrying about qualifying.
Sure, but national teams will still recall all their best players because they'll want to give them practice playing together, even if the results of the matches are completely meaningless. The net result is to expand the presence of international football - which largely sucks, in terms of the quality of play - while turning most international breaks during the year even further into glorified friendlies.

The World Cup, Euros, and Copa America are great as they are: Fun tournaments with great histories and national pageantry featuring football played at a relatively shitty level by tactically disjointed teams. They already take so long that players, who don't even get paid, often end up missing the beginning of the club season (ie, their actual job as a professional). Lets not make these tournaments any longer just to line FIFA's pockets.
 

Titans Bastard

has sunil gulati in his sights
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2002
14,421
The World Cup, Euros, and Copa America are great as they are: Fun tournaments with great histories and national pageantry featuring football played at a relatively shitty level by tactically disjointed teams. They already take so long that players, who don't even get paid, often end up missing the beginning of the club season (ie, their actual job as a professional). Lets not make these tournaments any longer just to line FIFA's pockets.
I wonder if pressure from clubs can help here. They can't be thrilled at the prospect of a 48 team world cup.

1. Players will be gone from the club for a longer period of time
2. Players will be worked harder and would be more likely to pick up an injury while on international duty
3. More players will be subject to (1) and (2) because of the increase in countries at the WC
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,567
Panama
48 is silly.
40 may be doable.

What would be fun is changing the format. After the first round, pool the 16 teams into 4 groups, have them play 3 matches and then narrow the field to 8, then go to single elimination. It would involve two extra matches per team qualifying.
 

Mr. Wednesday

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2007
1,589
Eastern MA
The World Cup, Euros, and Copa America are great as they are: Fun tournaments with great histories and national pageantry featuring football played at a relatively shitty level by tactically disjointed teams. They already take so long that players, who don't even get paid, often end up missing the beginning of the club season (ie, their actual job as a professional). Lets not make these tournaments any longer just to line FIFA's pockets.
Bold is not correct. The players do get paid for national team duty. In a reasonably well-off federation like the USSF, the money can be significant to the guys who aren't on max or DP contracts, and there are substantial bonuses for advancement in the World Cup. (In fact, U.S. players are under a negotiated union contract; during one of the qualifying runs [either '06 or '10] there was an impasse in negotiating the new contract. I've forgotten now if we actually took replacement players to T&T for the hex, or if Landon brokered the new contract in time to avoid that.)
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,483
The 718
WC play can also be lucrative re: endorsements. Donovan didn't get commercials for playing for the Galaxy.
 

Dummy Hoy

Angry Pissbum
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2006
8,227
Falmouth
A few people have pointed out that FIFA is likely floating 48 teams as such an unpalatable idea that when they drop to 40, no one complains.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,335
Philadelphia
Bold is not correct. The players do get paid for national team duty. In a reasonably well-off federation like the USSF, the money can be significant to the guys who aren't on max or DP contracts, and there are substantial bonuses for advancement in the World Cup. (In fact, U.S. players are under a negotiated union contract; during one of the qualifying runs [either '06 or '10] there was an impasse in negotiating the new contract. I've forgotten now if we actually took replacement players to T&T for the hex, or if Landon brokered the new contract in time to avoid that.)
Yes you're absolutely right. For top level players in Europe, though, its tip money. Their job is playing club football.
 

Zososoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2009
9,201
South of North
I've been looking at the parameters for 48 teams in 8 groups of 6, and there more I look at it the less realistic it seems. It would be 144 games over 40-50 days. (Right now it's 65ish games over 30 days.) That's a huge jump. The group stage would have almost twice as many games than the entire current tournament. They would need a bare minimum of 14 stadiums if they wish to have two off days per stadium, and probably really better off with 20 stadiums or more. It could only be in very large countries or in groups of smaller countries. More than two countries could be chaotic. Travel would be massive, even if they regionalized the groups. I'm intrigued but to me it seems like something better in theory

Edit: math
This is the key. 16 groups of 3 ensures that the maximum amount of games per team remains the same (7). This is accomplished by having the top 2 teams in every group proceed to a 32 single elimination bracket. So, the 8 groups of 6 format was pretty much DOA IMO.
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
This is the key. 16 groups of 3 ensures that the maximum amount of games per team remains the same (7). This is accomplished by having the top 2 teams in every group proceed to a 32 single elimination bracket. So, the 8 groups of 6 format was pretty much DOA IMO.
8 groups if 6 was I think just thread conjecture. All the options sucked but 40 with 10/4 was the least change and thus least sucky.

Groups of three will be so anticlimactic. If some teams were only going to play two matches, then maybe just scrap groups and go double elimination?
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
Sorry if this has been addressed but will tie breakers be the same to see who advances?
Infantino wants PK shootouts in the group stage, although if each team wins 1 game or teams 2 & 3 tie?

FWIW, UEFA now uses fair play as the penultimate tiebreaker before drawing lots
 
Last edited:

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
These opening round games are going to be dreadful to watch, too. Watching a seeded team like Germany or Argentina play the 6/7/8th best teams in Asia (currently Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar, by ELO), or the 7th best CONCACAF team (which would be a team that can't even get into for the Hex under the current qualification rules) or other similarly lowly ranked teams is going to be boring as hell.

Also if they're going to expand that much, CONMEBOL should really have more than six slots. All ten of their teams are currently ranked in the top 55 by ELO.

A shorter group stage also makes the tournament more random. One bad day or fluky result will be hard to recover from. Things like Spain recovering from losing its opening game to win the tournament will be much less likely.

Only FIFA could ruin the world's greatest sporting event.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,252
These opening round games are going to be dreadful to watch, too. Watching a seeded team like Germany or Argentina play the 6/7/8th best teams in Asia (currently Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar, by ELO), or the 7th best CONCACAF team (which would be a team that can't even get into for the Hex under the current qualification rules) or other similarly lowly ranked teams is going to be boring as hell.

Also if they're going to expand that much, CONMEBOL should really have more than six slots. All ten of their teams are currently ranked in the top 55 by ELO.

A shorter group stage also makes the tournament more random. One bad day or fluky result will be hard to recover from. Things like Spain recovering from losing its opening game to win the tournament will be much less likely.

Only FIFA could ruin the world's greatest sporting event.
Don't forget officiating blunder! Lord knows where they'll be pulling the extra crews from.
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
This could sound like whining, but beyond time for the big countries to just pull out of FIFA. Nine years is plenty of time to set up a separate organization and tournament, and I'm sure ESPN or NBC would joyfully pay top dollar and and leave FOX with a waste-oid World cup
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,595
Pittsburgh, PA
This could sound like whining, but beyond time for the big countries to just pull out of FIFA. Nine years is plenty of time to set up a separate organization and tournament, and I'm sure ESPN or NBC would joyfully pay top dollar and and leave FOX with a waste-oid World cup
Wouldn't UEFA and CONMEBOL then have to punish them by not letting them play the Euros / Copa America? Unless they get their confederations to go in on it too. Would players from still-in-FIFA countries no longer be allowed to play their club ball in countries whose FAs switched over to the New World Footballing Order?

Dueling unaccountable global organizations would be hilarious theater though. Especially when Switzerland's FA moves to NWFO, while the country still hosts FIFA as an organization. And I guess if the big English clubs could break away 25 years ago, then with a nearly-as-huge pot of money at stake, I could see it being a serious consideration.

edit: and a hat tip to @Vinho Tinto. You're right of course, but I'm continually astounded at just how brazen it is.
 

SoxFanInCali

has the rich, deep voice of a god
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 3, 2005
15,557
California. Duh.
How are they going to change CONCACAF qualifying? Under those proposed numbers, everyone in the Hex gets in, plus an extra team in a qualifier. If they move away from the single group final stage, it likely means a lot fewer US-Mexico matches.
 

Bosoxen

Bounced back
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 29, 2005
10,186
How are they going to change CONCACAF qualifying? Under those proposed numbers, everyone in the Hex gets in, plus an extra team in a qualifier. If they move away from the single group final stage, it likely means a lot fewer US-Mexico matches.
What's the point of the hex if they're all going to get in? Might as well end it after the group stage with the "last team out" getting the Oceania playoff.

God, this is so stupid. Everything surrounding the World Cup just became college bowl season (aka, a meaningless money grab).
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,203
3 in a group
8.5 teams from Asia and only 6 from South America?

WTF?

Brazil could field 7 teams themselves better than 6 or more of the Asian teams

This is so stupid. Appeal to Den Haag, please!