FIFA Council unanimously approves World Cup expansion to 48 teams

Lorenzo

Registered User
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Posts
8,778
Reaction score
3,135
Location
Vegas
BBC radio covered this today and did not have good things to say about it. I had heard about this before, but have not really looked into it.
 
OP
OP
Dback Jon

Dback Jon

Killer Snail
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
77,428
Reaction score
34,870
Location
Scottsdale
A lot of the European Federations are not happy with it.
 

Chaplin

Better off silent
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
45,231
Reaction score
15,071
Location
Round Rock, TX
A lot of the European Federations are not happy with it.
Of course not. But Africa and Asia love it!

I'm mixed. It a World Cup, I think it's appropriate to have more of the "World" playing there. Gives some of the smaller teams a chance to show what they can do.
 

Lorenzo

Registered User
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Posts
8,778
Reaction score
3,135
Location
Vegas
Of course not. But Africa and Asia love it!

I'm mixed. It a World Cup, I think it's appropriate to have more of the "World" playing there. Gives some of the smaller teams a chance to show what they can do.
very true. Europe will never be happy with world cup unless more EUFA teams qualify... because they feel the football worlds revolves around them. and it does mostly, but the world cup is the one time in the football world where the other regions matter and can show their muscle.
 

Milgod

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 21, 2007
Posts
1,210
Reaction score
246
Location
Peterborough, UK
What a ridiculous decision. It'll only serve to lower the standard even more. The recent Euros were probably the worst yet after the 16-24 team increase.
 

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
46,069
Reaction score
11,611
What a ridiculous decision. It'll only serve to lower the standard even more. The recent Euros were probably the worst yet after the 16-24 team increase.

Are you serious? A team like Iceland wouldn't have made the tournament prior made the Euros one of the most exciting in quite a while. Are you bitter than England lost to Iceland? ;)
 

Lorenzo

Registered User
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Posts
8,778
Reaction score
3,135
Location
Vegas
Are you serious? A team like Iceland wouldn't have made the tournament prior made the Euros one of the most exciting in quite a while. Are you bitter than England lost to Iceland? ;)
There is a lot of that yet how have they performed against the minnow teams? They tend to lose or draw.

And no disrespect I want to see England do well they have a lot of promise in the future. Also wales did nicely in that tournament. Outside of club teams being upset I don't see how this is all bad. But change is not often popular.
 

Milgod

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 21, 2007
Posts
1,210
Reaction score
246
Location
Peterborough, UK
Are you serious? A team like Iceland wouldn't have made the tournament prior made the Euros one of the most exciting in quite a while. Are you bitter than England lost to Iceland? ;)
You are the first person I have ever encountered who found the standard at this Euros 'exciting'. With the extra teams, countries weren't going all out for wins most of the time. It was insanely dull. Iceland doing well doesn't make it a great tournament.

I support the US as my national team, so I wasn't too bothered about England in 2016. Especially with Rooney being forced into the lineup at the detriment to the team.
 

slinslin

Welcome to Amareca
Joined
Jun 28, 2002
Posts
16,855
Reaction score
562
Location
Hannover - Germany
Are you serious? A team like Iceland wouldn't have made the tournament prior made the Euros one of the most exciting in quite a while. Are you bitter than England lost to Iceland? ;)
Greece won it in 2002 and they were no better.

Not sure even Iceland might have qualified regardless of the change.
 

slinslin

Welcome to Amareca
Joined
Jun 28, 2002
Posts
16,855
Reaction score
562
Location
Hannover - Germany
very true. Europe will never be happy with world cup unless more EUFA teams qualify... because they feel the football worlds revolves around them. and it does mostly, but the world cup is the one time in the football world where the other regions matter and can show their muscle.

The truth is that too many terrible teams are already qualifying for the World Cup while strong teams stay home.

The reason that European soccer federations hate this is because they are trying to push back against the expansion of the national team calendar since the clubs are paying the players, the national teams just take advantage and might return you an injured player.

Most soccer fans also do not care even one bit about friendly national games or stuff like Confed Cup.
 

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
46,069
Reaction score
11,611
Greece won it in 2002 and they were no better.

Not sure even Iceland might have qualified regardless of the change.

You know who don't like Cinderella teams? Powerhouses? You know you do like them? Everyone else.
 

Milgod

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 21, 2007
Posts
1,210
Reaction score
246
Location
Peterborough, UK
For every 'cinderlla team' there are plenty more lowering the standard of the tournament.

The World Cup is meant to be the ultimate International tournament. Having a quarter of the nations in it is absurd.
 

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
46,069
Reaction score
11,611
For every 'cinderlla team' there are plenty more lowering the standard of the tournament.

The World Cup is meant to be the ultimate International tournament. Having a quarter of the nations in it is absurd.

When 3/4 of the world view futball as their country's sport. 1/4 doesn't seem to bad.

I agree that this will probably water down the competition some. The good teams should be able to weather it just fine.

I think people should be more upset at the allocation than the actual expansion. Africa getting 4 more teams, and Europe only getting 3? That's the more absurd part in all this.
 

Milgod

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 21, 2007
Posts
1,210
Reaction score
246
Location
Peterborough, UK
When 3/4 of the world view futball as their country's sport. 1/4 doesn't seem to bad.

I agree that this will probably water down the competition some. The good teams should be able to weather it just fine.

I think people should be more upset at the allocation than the actual expansion. Africa getting 4 more teams, and Europe only getting 3? That's the more absurd part in all this.
But that's all part of the 'let's include as many as possible no matter how good they are' ideas that FIFA try to push.

I do think that something could be looked at with qualification. There is no benefit for having teams like San Marino in the qualification process as it is. The smaller (in terms of ability) nations could have a different event/tournament/qualification and then the best of them could compete for a real place.
 

Zeno

Ancient
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Posts
15,547
Reaction score
5,330
Location
Fort Myers
What a huge mistake. It minimizes the importance of qualifications to weed out the teams that truly don't deserve to be there.

The only positive I see is it makes the US one of the few countries in the world capable of handling such a large event with no heavy lift....although I guess the talk is sharing WC's more and more now, with US/Canada and Mexico sharing 2026 being a real possibility.
 

Lorenzo

Registered User
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Posts
8,778
Reaction score
3,135
Location
Vegas
The truth is that too many terrible teams are already qualifying for the World Cup while strong teams stay home.

The reason that European soccer federations hate this is because they are trying to push back against the expansion of the national team calendar since the clubs are paying the players, the national teams just take advantage and might return you an injured player.

Most soccer fans also do not care even one bit about friendly national games or stuff like Confed Cup.
I don't always agree with you, but on this topic I do.

In the USA our spectator culture is different because club football was not established until modern times and it still has not taken off with a lot of American fans who are keen to root for USA but not a MLS club. still MLS has a long way to go. the American international fixtures year round were historically more important to our players and fans alike before MLS and even now. and still we have a reputation around the world that we call our top players too often when they may need recovery. that has changed somewhat in recent times thanks to MLS. but this is a battle that all countries face with their top players. they have to be smart with how they utilize their top players with the ultimate goal of having them peak in the world cup not in friendlies or qualifying campaigns(as USA has been known to do). Perhaps the MLS expansion, albeit slow, is a reflection of the world cup expanding its boundaries from just Europe and South of the Rio Grande.

I think EUFA as far as world cup qualifying goes is rather set. the same teams qualify and there is some turnover among the bottom because of the way they split up the groups. I am not an expert. obviously there are some good teams that do not qualify. last go around Ukraine and I think Russia both had teams that would have most certainly qualified in other regions, but there are still some minnows as well in Europe on the international stage. just not as many compared to other international federations. Understandably the top clubs do not want to see all of their players now playing in grueling tournaments. Garreth Bale and Pierre Abaumayang are two examples. Or even ronaldo.. their international sides need them to carry them all the time. And this begs the question to how they will play the 2022 world cup in the winter time with likely every 1st and 2 tier European based player set to play in the World Cup?

I think expansion has its pros and cons. Pro is soccer can spread slowly over time, con is that we get poor matches and more club teams risk losing top players to injury. 32 teams was good for me.
 
Last edited:

Lorenzo

Registered User
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Posts
8,778
Reaction score
3,135
Location
Vegas
You are the first person I have ever encountered who found the standard at this Euros 'exciting'. With the extra teams, countries weren't going all out for wins most of the time. It was insanely dull. Iceland doing well doesn't make it a great tournament.

I support the US as my national team, so I wasn't too bothered about England in 2016. Especially with Rooney being forced into the lineup at the detriment to the team.
For every 'cinderlla team' there are plenty more lowering the standard of the tournament.

The World Cup is meant to be the ultimate International tournament. Having a quarter of the nations in it is absurd.
Portugal winning was a shock. Italy held on real tight to beat germany. Spain and France should have done better. England did what they do best over the last 10 years when they are in a tournament. So who wins the argument? My take is yes the quality is lowered by adding teams. some spectators(the added teams) are very happy and it is exciting. For the established teams it is not good because they can be upset by a subpar opponent as we saw multiple times in that tournament. With that said, as a neutral, it is hard to sympathize with an English or Frenchman whining about the quality whilst their side loses to a team with less quality. It does not mean they are wrong, but it is what it is..at the end of the day for me I'm not a big fan of expansion because of the posturing in the group stages, but it's already happening. The big teams will find a way to win like they always do. Both Spain and Germany were on quite the run of it before then if you ask me. France should have won. I would not make too much of the most recent Euros as becoming the norm. But we shall see.
 
Last edited:

Lorenzo

Registered User
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Posts
8,778
Reaction score
3,135
Location
Vegas
What a huge mistake. It minimizes the importance of qualifications to weed out the teams that truly don't deserve to be there.

The only positive I see is it makes the US one of the few countries in the world capable of handling such a large event with no heavy lift....although I guess the talk is sharing WC's more and more now, with US/Canada and Mexico sharing 2026 being a real possibility.
So it looks like a USA/CANADA/MEX world cup in 2026? Can any other bid beat that?
 

Zeno

Ancient
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Posts
15,547
Reaction score
5,330
Location
Fort Myers
So it looks like a USA/CANADA/MEX world cup in 2026? Can any other bid beat that?

In a word NO. If you read the details of the bid the VAST majority of the games would be in the US to include everything from the quarterfinals on, Canada and Mexico both admitted that they needed the US more than the US needed them to make hosting a reality. The reality is the US has some of the best stadiums in the world and every new NFL stadium has been built with the capability of handling an international soccer pitch.
 

cardfaninfl

Demographically significant
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
1,010
Reaction score
131
Location
Beyond the sun.
So it looks like a USA/CANADA/MEX world cup in 2026? Can any other bid beat that?
Did Qatar beat the last bid? Championships are not won on paper, and World Cup hosts are not awarded on merit.

It was smart of Sunil to tie in the popularity of the Latin market (Mexico) with the emerging market and virgin host angle of Canada. The automatic qualification given to three nations and the seeding of three host countries shouldn't be too much of a problem with the expanded field. But could be just enough of an excuse to deny the bid if Uruguay delivers an impressive bid to return the tournament to the starting point for the 100th Anniversary.

The poison pill in all this is the orange man-baby, xenophobes, nationalists, and people intolerant of other religions. FIFA would not step on it's PR Johnson a third time by awarding the bid to a nation that continues attempts at instituting a Muslim ban while building a fortification along the border of a non-hostile (and fellow Host nation) neighbor.
 

Zeno

Ancient
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Posts
15,547
Reaction score
5,330
Location
Fort Myers
Did Qatar beat the last bid? Championships are not won on paper, and World Cup hosts are not awarded on merit.

It was smart of Sunil to tie in the popularity of the Latin market (Mexico) with the emerging market and virgin host angle of Canada. The automatic qualification given to three nations and the seeding of three host countries shouldn't be too much of a problem with the expanded field. But could be just enough of an excuse to deny the bid if Uruguay delivers an impressive bid to return the tournament to the starting point for the 100th Anniversary.

The poison pill in all this is the orange man-baby, xenophobes, nationalists, and people intolerant of other religions. FIFA would not step on it's PR Johnson a third time by awarding the bid to a nation that continues attempts at instituting a Muslim ban while building a fortification along the border of a non-hostile (and fellow Host nation) neighbor.

Well since FIFA gave a WC to a homophobic country that actually is religiously intolerant I would see no issues with them issuing it to the USA since most of what you said is inaccurate political rhetoric.
 

Staff online

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
540,953
Posts
5,296,661
Members
6,290
Latest member
stbmd
Top