Possible expansion to 48 teams from 2026 world Cup.

[osarusan]

FIFA discussing options for future world cups, and these are some:


There are four options for the 2026 tournament:

Keep the existing 32-team structure;
Expand to 40 teams (eight groups of five);
Expand to 40 teams (10 groups of four);
Expand to 48 teams (16 seeds joined by 32 winners of a play-off round).

I definitely don't like the last one anyway - if you get the finals you should get into a group without needing a playoff first.

I didn't think that the addition of extra teams in Euro 2016 really lowered the standard of football that much - if anything it was the group format which made for some poor games.

But mostly, I'd say it's fine as it is.

[pineapple stu]

I can't see how 8 groups of 5 is a runner after 1982. Didn't really work in the Europa League either.

The last option I think should be 16 seeds joined by 16 winners of a play-off round. I don't think it's the worst idea, but I do think it's worse than the current 32-team tournament.

[DeLorean]

We wouldn't have qualified for the Euros without the expansion so I think I'm now in favour of anything which heavily increases our chances and to hell with quality control, which isn't really in place for the World Cup as it is with some countries almost qualifying by default. Ireland and other middle ranking European teams get a seriously raw deal as things stand I think.

If it was increased to 40 teams I would prefer ten groups of four. Of those extra 8 teams though, how many would come from Europe? If it's only one or two then I'd nearly leave well enough alone as our chances wouldn't be increased all that significantly.

I'd be open to the 48 team expansion but would need more information on the format for the playoffs, etc.

[osarusan]

The last option I think should be 16 seeds joined by 16 winners of a play-off round. I don't think it's the worst idea, but I do think it's worse than the current 32-team tournament.
I don't like the idea of going to the host country just to leave after 1 game (maybe 2 if it's a 2-legged playoff, which is fairly pointless in a neutral venue). That doesn't really count as 'getting to the world cup' for me.

[nigel-harps1954]

If it ain't broke..

[Real ale Madrid]

8 Groups of 3. First and second in each group join 16 seeded teams in the round of 32 group stage. 8 x 4 and on as before. The game played in Round 1 could also count in round 2 and while the preliminary round is ongoing the top 2 seeds in stage 2 could play each other.

For Example

GROUP A

Argentina - Seed 1
Belgium - Seed 2

Argentina 1-2 Belgium

Nigeria - Pool A
Wales - Pool A
Australia - Pool A

Nigeria 1-0 Wales , Wales 2-0 Australia, Nigeria 1-1 Australia

POOL A
Nigeria 4pts
Wales 3pts
Australia 0pts


Nigeria top the stage 1 pool with wales 2nd - with Nigeria's win over Wales now counting in stage 2.

so after series 1 - Group A looks like this:

Belgium 3pts
Nigeria 3pts
Argentina 0pts
Wales 0pts

Remaining fixtures
Belgium v Wales , Argentina v Nigeria
Argentina v Wales, Belgium v Nigeria ( Can be played at the same time )

Madness I know.

[pineapple stu]

You can't have groups of three either - same problem with the potential for the last pairing knowing exactly what they need to progress (e.g. a 1-1 draw) before the game starts.

I can't see FIFA going with an odd number in a group.

[Real ale Madrid]

You can't have groups of three either - same problem with the potential for the last pairing knowing exactly what they need to progress (e.g. a 1-1 draw) before the game starts.


But the fact that the game could count in the next stage might eradicate the possibility of teams of playing for a draw when a win would suit them better later in the competition.

[pineapple stu]

Maybe - but I still reckon there's scope for complaints.

It'd also add an extra 24 games, which is a lot.

I don't think there's any really satisfactory way to increase from 32 to be honest. Which isn't to say they won't try.

[Real ale Madrid]

Maybe - but I still reckon there's scope for complaints.

It'd also add an extra 24 games, which is a lot.

I don't think there's any really satisfactory way to increase from 32 to be honest. Which isn't to say they won't try.

I reckon they will go 4 groups of 10 and rank the top 8 into the L16 with teams ranked 9-24 playing in a playoff round. So you will have top 2 in each group plus 4 3rd placed teams.

No good way of doing it - although an extra 24 games brings in a lot of revenue - which is what FIFA is all about.

[pineapple stu]

Agree on the revenue - I just wonder if there's saturation point.

The World Cup takes a month at present; adding an extra 24 games could take an extra week at least. And at a time when club teams are saying the international calendar is too busy. That's a counter-balance. (I'm sure the clubs can get bought off of course)

[backstothewall]

It's the greatest show on earth at 32. It's now harder to qualify for the World Cup than the Euros, which although firmly against the interests of Ireland, is probably the way it should be.

Just leave it be.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Will probably end up as 48, the only way to get enough of Africa and Asia a shot at the big stage without ****ing off the traditional power centres of Europe and South America. That play-off idea is horrible though, one match and out after a qualification campaign?

In regards the logistics of hosting, you could just play more games at the same time over 10-12 groups to stop a too great extension of the tournament. And, with UEFA moving towards a continent wide hosting process, it's not hard to imagine FIFA doing the same to accommodate the extra teams.

[osarusan]

This is being voted on Tomorrow.

The 5 options are:


A 48-team World Cup consisting of 16 groups of three, with the top two sides qualifying for a last-32 knockout stage (80 games in total);
Another 48-team version consisting of a 32-team, one-game knockout round, with the winners joining 16 already-qualified teams (80 games - 16 in preliminary and 64 in main tournament);
Expanding it to 40 teams, with 10 groups of four and only six group runners-up advancing (76 games);
A 40-team tournament with eight groups of five (88 games);
Keeping the World Cup at its present size of 32 teams (64 games).


BBC report here looks at who is supporting/against changes.

UK sides in favour of expansion as long as it means more places for European teams. Germany against, from a quality perspective.

I think it's grand as it is, and I really hope that the 2nd option of playoffs being held in the host country to go from 48 to 32 doesn't get enough votes. I think it's a terrible idea.

[DeLorean]

Out of those I'd probably go for the first option. I don't generally like the idea of a three team group but at least it would be more of a tournament feel, compared to a one match playoff round. I found after Poland that staying for all three matches was a bit tough on the body & mind! I reduced it to the first two for France and missed our best moment. This format would be ideal from that point of view!

It's totally open to shenanigans in the final group game but at least we would have a 2/3 chance of being involved in that fixture, if we reached that point. The excitement of the simultaneous games would be a big loss though I feel, if I wasn't selfish about our own chances I would probably think these are all rubbish ideas.

Have we any idea what way the extra 16 places would be distributed amongst the various confederations?

[osarusan]

It's decided - first option above was voted for. 16 groups of 3, 32 teams advancing to knockout stage.




The World Cup will be expanded to host 48 teams, up from 32, Fifa has decided.

An initial stage of 16 groups of three teams will precede a knockout stage for the remaining 32 when the change is made for the 2026 tournament.

The sport's world governing body voted unanimously in favour of the change at a meeting in Zurich on Tuesday.

The number of tournament matches will rise to 80, from 64, but the eventual winners will still play only seven games.

The tournament will be completed within 32 days - a measure to appease powerful European clubs, who objected to reform because of a crowded international schedule.

The changes mark the first World Cup expansion since 1998.

[jbyrne]

It's decided - first option above was voted for. 16 groups of 3, 32 teams advancing to knockout stage.

how many countries will actually be able to host an 80 match tournament?

[Real ale Madrid]

Have we any idea what way the extra 16 places would be distributed amongst the various confederations?

If Europe get say 4 or 5 spots then you are looking at no more playoffs and top 2 qualifying in 9 groups. Makes it that bit easier.

I like the idea of 32 games of knockout football, but the World Cup is perfect as it is.

[DeLorean]

If Europe get say 4 or 5 spots then you are looking at no more playoffs and top 2 qualifying in 9 groups.

Yeah that's what I would be hoping, otherwise it makes no real difference to us and the tournament itself probably won't be as good (or fair).

[NeverFeltBetter]

how many countries will actually be able to host an 80 match tournament?

UEFA and Asia can't bid for 2026. Forget Oceania obviously. Of the other three, CONCACAF held it the longest time ago. I'd say the States would be nailed on to host, and they could do 80 games.

[BonnieShels]

The good money is on the US and there's been chat of a joint hosting with Mexicanada.

We've gotten the least worst options. But Europe and S America is still gonna get the short end. And the rest of us get the see more Asian and African dross.

Soccer is over. So it really doesn't matter tbf.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Continent hosting is going to become the norm I feel.

I'm not adverse to Asia getting more spots, there's a gigantic geographical/population imbalance there.

[DeLorean]

Ireland will still have to negotiate tough World Cup qualification route (http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/soccer/ireland-will-still-have-to-negotiate-tough-world-cup-qualification-route-438606.html)


For the tournaments hosted outside Europe, the increase for that region will be just two, from 14 to 16 qualifiers.

Okay, now I'm just anti the idea completely.

[DeLorean]

Okay, now I'm just anti the idea completely.

Although this is a pretty good piece I think.

(https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/sports/soccer/gianni-infantino-fifa-world-cup.html?smid=tw-nytsports&smtyp=cur&_r=0)Seeing the Upside as FIFA Votes on Expanding the World Cup (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/sports/soccer/gianni-infantino-fifa-world-cup.html?smid=tw-nytsports&smtyp=cur&_r=0)

[Stuttgart88]

The talk is of USA and Mexico jointly I think.

[NeverFeltBetter]

It's the last game issue that's the real problem for me. A few of these groups are going to have a situation where the last game played will benefit both sides if its a draw. I'm trying to think of a viable way to eliminate this if the next round is knock-out: I'll I've got is that the best 8 teams should go straight into the Last 16, with the remaining 16 group qualifiers having a play-off round to join them.

There's any number of alterations to dream up of course. In a few decades I wouldn't be surprised to see the World Cup being played on the same timeframe and manner as the Champions League.

[NeverFeltBetter]

If 48 teams had been at Brazil, the likes of Uzbekistan, Peru, Panama, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso and New Zealand would probably have qualified. A few there that you wouldn't blink at - NZ did fine before, Panama can't be too far behind Honduras.

[geysir]

Although this is a pretty good piece I think.

(https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/sports/soccer/gianni-infantino-fifa-world-cup.html?smid=tw-nytsports&smtyp=cur&_r=0)Seeing the Upside as FIFA Votes on Expanding the World Cup (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/sports/soccer/gianni-infantino-fifa-world-cup.html?smid=tw-nytsports&smtyp=cur&_r=0)

I thought the extended format for euro 2016 was a resounding success, however that doesn't mean the 2026 wc format will similarly work and it's hard to predict beforehand how things will pan out there.
Those who were opposed to the extended euro format would have to completely deny Ireland's experience there, deny their right to be there, deny the validity of qualifying from third place to the last 16. To follow on, those geniuses probably would have to attribute Ireland's modest fortunes at Euro 2016 to an incredible run of luck right from the first qualifiers onwards, only to be finally exposed as the small team they are by….. France. :rolleyes:

For me the football quality negatives of Euro 2016 were not to do with lesser teams like Ireland, Hungary and Albania (most probably) who never would have qualified, but more so with the fancied qual table toppers such as England (excalibrated), Austria (castrated), Spain weak, a previously exciting but now tired Croatia getting dumped out the competition by a dumbed down Portugal.

Why do we condescendingly focus with germanic arrogance that this new 2026 WC format means the likes of ……... (insert name of some 'tiddlywinks' country) getting through? To my mind that's balderdash. The progress of football is not just about Germany adding another 100 academies and 500 A coaches to their stockpile, it's more about what's happening at the bottom to raise the level upwards. Will the like of Faroes finally get their indoor pitches built? a team who look like they will be competing for 3rd and 4th spot in their group is already stunning evidence of what can happen and yet there's still plenty of room to improve their lot.

At first glance with the new 2026 finals format, a down side is that there only 2 group games but with 2/3 going through, one can reasonably expect that modest teams like Ireland/Wales should at least get to play a 3rd game (Scotland still won't make it to these finals).
I would not be surprised if Uefa get 7 qual berths, still manage to have at least 2 play off fixtures between 4 of the best 3rd place teams in the wc group qualifiers.

[SkStu]

Soccer is over. So it really doesn't matter tbf.

How do you mean Bonnie?

[Gather round]

Those who were opposed to the extended euro format would have to completely deny Ireland's experience there, deny their right to be there, deny the validity of qualifying from third place to the last 16

They wouldn't need to deny any of those things. There are plenty of other criticisms of the expanded format even though the eight extra teams turned out not to be the weakest there. The convoluted structure and the never-ending games at all hours of the day, for two.


Why do we condescendingly focus with germanic arrogance that this new 2026 WC format means the likes of ……... (insert name of some 'tiddlywinks' country) getting through?

We don't really focus like that. Minnows have always had a chance (Montenegro and Estonia making the play-offs in recent qualifers when there were only 13 or 16 places available). Realistically 'plankton' like San Marino will never qualify even with 32 or 40 European places. But fair dos to them for trying.

[ArdeeBhoy]

A circular response from GR, Bless...
:eek:

[BonnieShels]

Slots decided upon for 2026 World Cup:

Slot allocation*

· AFC: 8 direct slots

· CAF: 9 direct slots

· CONCACAF: 6 direct slots

· CONMEBOL: 6 direct slots

· OFC: 1 direct slot

· UEFA: 16 direct slots

Host Country would take slot form its confederation. There will be a play-off for the 2 remaining slots.

http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/news/y=2017/m=3/news=bureau-of-the-council-recommends-slot-allocation-for-the-2026-fifa-wor-2878254.html?intcmp=fifacom_hp_module_news_top

[TheBoss]

Going to have a lot of average to poor sides in that World Cup!

[BonnieShels]

Yup. It's going to be gash. Ah well.

[NeverFeltBetter]

16 teams from UEFA: 9 group winners + 7 best runners up? Not sure how else to work it, having a play-off system doesn't quite fit.

Or 7 groups of 5, 3 of 6. Ten group winners + 2 best runners up + 4 play/off winners?

Looking at 2014, think Sweden, Ukraine, and Romania would have been the sorts of teams getting in under this system in Europe. In other confederations the likes of China, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Tunisia, Egypt, Burkina Faso, Panama, Jamaica, Venezuela and New Zealand would have been going to Brazil.

[NeverFeltBetter]

http://www.msn.com/en-ie/sport/american-football/us-canada-and-mexico-set-to-submit-joint-bid-to-host-2026-world-cup/ar-BBzuek1?ocid=spartanntp

A joint Canada/US/Mexico bid being considered. Might be a nice way to celebrate the end of the Trump presidency.

[citybone]

http://www.msn.com/en-ie/sport/american-football/us-canada-and-mexico-set-to-submit-joint-bid-to-host-2026-world-cup/ar-BBzuek1?ocid=spartanntp

A joint Canada/US/Mexico bid being considered. Might be a nice way to celebrate the end of the Trump presidency.

If there is a 48 team tournament US/Mexico/Canada is a good combination. Group stages will need to be regions like Cascadia, Southern California, New England & New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia and Washington DC, Florida etc. But the Knockout rounds would still have a lot of travel.

[BonnieShels]

They could split the knock-out phase up like a bracket and have a East v West sitch. The Knock Out stage s are already split in a certain way anyway.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Is this our World Cup 2026 thread? Both Morocco (http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/43443278)and the CONCACAF (http://www.espn.com/soccer/fifa-world-cup/story/3422496/us-mexico-canada-joint-bid-submits-application-to-host-2026-world-cup)bids have submitted their formal proposals. Decision to be made June 13th. CONCACAF with the obvious advantage in essentially being able to host the tournament without too much else to be done regards infrastructure (though some of the host city applications have been withdrawn over disputes with FIFA). But Morocco could potentially do the same over a much smaller area given nearly eight years of prep time, and in European timezones.

[NeverFeltBetter]

48 teams for 2022 looking more likely, however coy Infantino is being: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2019/0410/1041888-world-cup-increase-to-48-teams-is-50-50-says-infantino/

Final decision in June, the day before qualifying actually starts (Asia's first round).

[NeverFeltBetter]

Lot of noises from various media sources on the topic this month, now Infantino is saying a scrapping of the 16 groups of three in favour of 12 groups of four is on the table: https://www.rte.ie/sport/world-cup-2022/2022/1216/1342239-fifa-to-reexamine-four-team-groups-for-2026-world-cup/

This would presumably mean the top two teams in the group progress, along with the best eight third-placed sides, similar to the current Euros format. That'll bring problems of its own, along with the mountain of games: we'd go from 64 in the current format to 80 in the standing format for 2026 to 104 under the proposed model. Only regional hosting could handle that really.

[pineapple stu]

The whole point of three-team groups was that it would still take 7 games to win the World Cup, so clubs were happy.

Now it's an extra game asked on players, so the clubs are presumably going to have to be in on this.

I imagine they can be bought off - but if you have 48 teams going to a last 32, why not in due course make it 64 teams and have top two go through?

It's all starting to eat itself I think...

[Real ale Madrid]

What's the issue with 3 team groups? I've never really understood in what situation where 2 out of 3 qualify there would be room for collusion.

[pineapple stu]

Well partly it's that you're going to have a team potentially knowing what result they need going into the final round, which is a help (see Argentina 6-0 Peru in 1978 - not a three-team group, but the same idea as the final group games weren't down at the same time)

But it is also possible to rig the final round - Team A beat Team B 3-0 on the opening day, Team B then beat Team C 1-0, so Team C just need to beat Team A 1-0 and A/C are through and B are out.

[NeverFeltBetter]

It's being reported that the three team group idea is being abandoned: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2023/0314/1362149-world-cup-to-include-new-last-32-stage-in-longer-event/

So 12 groups of 4, with group winners, runners-up and the best eight third placed teams progressing to a 32 team knockout. Aside from the issues of how this guts the competitiveness of the group stage (it's being claimed that the excitement of the Qatar group stage is influencing this decision, but if anything that kind of situation is now less likely to repeat) this has big implications on future hosting. 104 games over a month and a half-ish is a lot. The 2026 big can handle it, but after that you suspect you're looking at continent-wide hosting or lots of co-hosts.

[pineapple stu]

So four group runners-up don't get through? That also seems quite harsh. The group stages will be chaos - lose your opener and you could be all but out. Lots of defensive football as a result?

[SkStu]

So four group runners-up don't get through? That also seems quite harsh. The group stages will be chaos - lose your opener and you could be all but out. Lots of defensive football as a result?

No - all runners up and winners go through (24) plus 8 3rd placers. Wasn't WC90 the same (with less teams obviously)?

[pineapple stu]

Oh sorry - misread that.

Doesn't that mean an extra game to win it then? I thought they were really trying to avoid that

[SkStu]

Not sure... i didnt really think it was broken in the first place.

[sidewayspasser]

No - all runners up and winners go through (24) plus 8 3rd placers. Wasn't WC90 the same (with less teams obviously)?
It was, same as 86 and 94 I think. 6 groups with 4 teams each, top two and the four best third placed teams went through.