Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

World Cup - FIFA 'investigating' move to 64 teams. Scotland still won't qualify...

Leroy Ambrose
Leroy Ambrose Posts: 14,435
edited March 6 in Other Football and Sports
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/mar/06/fifa-will-consider-expanding-world-cup-to-64-teams-for-2030-tournament

Comments

  • Algarveaddick
    Algarveaddick Posts: 21,140
    Infanto is a bigger twat than Blatter. 
  • cafcnick1992
    cafcnick1992 Posts: 7,413
    I preferred corruption over the decisions being made by Infanto
  • Leroy Ambrose
    Leroy Ambrose Posts: 14,435
    Spoiler - there's still corruption also 😏
  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,030
    A 64 team World Cup will be atrocious until the quarter finals. I know it’s all about money, but FIFA really can’t be trusted with their greatest asset. 
  • jimmymelrose
    jimmymelrose Posts: 9,740
    I’m quite sure that this move to 48 teams in 2026 will result in me watching fewer games. In previous world cups I’ve ’watched’ every match, some from distance whilst cooking, others from an earlier recording with fast forwarding an option.
    I intend to pick and choose next time.

    Make it 64 teams and I’m likely to ignore the group games completely. 

    FIFA are like humanity with the planet:. Play with the beautiful thing you’ve got rathering than nurturing it, and you’ll lose what made it special.


     
  • Briston_Addick
    Briston_Addick Posts: 11,676
    1934 - 1978  16 teams
    1982 - 1994  24 teams
    1998 - 2022  32 teams
    2026  48 teams
    2030  64 teams

    2038  200 teams? Get everyone involved and make the tournament 2½ months long.

    And then hold it every other year.

    What could possibly go wrong?

  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,833
    More is definitely not better, once you pass a certain point.

    The Euros used to be too small when it was only 8 teams, so the 16 team Euro 96 felt like a big improvement. 24 teams for the Euros and 32 for the Worlds seems as big as both should go 
  • sam3110
    sam3110 Posts: 21,238
    Hold it every year, every team plays in a single elimination tournament, the lowest ranked nations play eachother in qualifying matches until you have the right amount of nations left. Regionalise the first games, but then don't regionalise when you get to the last 32

    When it gets to the last 8, play it all in a 2 week period in a host nation, and have that as 2 groups of 4, round robin. Top 2 of each group goes into the Semi's, 1st of group A plays 2nd of Group B and vice versa. 

    So more like the FA Cup, with a mini tournament at the end with all the pomp and circumstance, hopefully with 8 nations at the top of their game. 
  • Chris_from_Sidcup
    Chris_from_Sidcup Posts: 35,987
    Can also guarantee the move to 64 teams as a "special one off" because it's the centenary world cup will also definitely not be a one off once they realise they can make even more money.

    Will be pretty stupid though, the tournament will have to last for about 6 weeks.
  • Briston_Addick
    Briston_Addick Posts: 11,676
    killerandflash said:
    More is definitely not better, once you pass a certain point.

    The Euros used to be too small when it was only 8 teams, so the 16 team Euro 96 felt like a big improvement. 24 teams for the Euros and 32 for the Worlds seems as big as both should go 
    At the time, eight teams in the Euros was OK. It was only the disintegration of the old Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia in the early 1990s - resulting in a shed-load more countries in UEFA - that made it sensible to expand to 16.

    I'm not a fan of "odd" numbers of teams in tournaments. The group stages need to have four teams in each group as three isn't enough (you can be knocked out after playing one game) and five could be too much, and having "best third place" qualifiers for the knockout stages just seems wrong so you should have four or eight four-team groups i.e. 16 or 32 teams competing, with top-two only feeding into the knockout stage.
  • Sponsored links:



  • WelshAddick
    WelshAddick Posts: 1,321
    I would say the top 32 teams automatically qualify. Get rid of stupid internationals that are virtually meaningless. 
  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,030
    Chris_from_Sidcup said:
    Can also guarantee the move to 64 teams as a "special one off" because it's the centenary world cup will also definitely not be a one off once they realise they can make even more money.

    Will be pretty stupid though, the tournament will have to last for about 6 weeks.
    Hopefully the first round will be a knockout round before a 32 nation group phase or something. 
  • Briston_Addick
    Briston_Addick Posts: 11,676
    WelshAddick said:
    I would say the top 32 teams automatically qualify. Get rid of stupid internationals that are virtually meaningless. 
    How would you judge who the top 32 teams were if no-one plays international matches outside of tournaments? How do the smaller nations get a chance to break into the top 32?

    Do you just have England, France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Argentina, Brazil in every tournament and invite 24 others from around the world?
  • Ian Nightingale
    Ian Nightingale Posts: 392
    Cha Ching is the only consideration 
  • Chris_from_Sidcup
    Chris_from_Sidcup Posts: 35,987
    se9addick said:
    Chris_from_Sidcup said:
    Can also guarantee the move to 64 teams as a "special one off" because it's the centenary world cup will also definitely not be a one off once they realise they can make even more money.

    Will be pretty stupid though, the tournament will have to last for about 6 weeks.
    Hopefully the first round will be a knockout round before a 32 nation group phase or something. 
    A 64 team tournament would actually be quite interesting if they did away with seedings and groups and made it an open draw, anyone can get anyone, straight knockout tournament. 

    Obviously would never happen though.
  • Leroy Ambrose
    Leroy Ambrose Posts: 14,435
    Looking forward to a first round group like:

    England
    Djibouti
    The Republic of California
    Galapgos Islands
  • usetobunkin
    usetobunkin Posts: 2,179
    Leroy Ambrose said:
    Looking forward to a first round group like:

    England
    Djibouti
    The Republic of California
    Galapgos Islands
    We would still finish 2nd in the group and play Argentina in the next round 
  • Leroy Ambrose
    Leroy Ambrose Posts: 14,435
    usetobunkin said:
    Leroy Ambrose said:
    Looking forward to a first round group like:

    England
    Djibouti
    The Republic of California
    Galapgos Islands
    We would still finish 2nd in the group and play Argentina in the next round 
    Actually, yeah - and we'd have Poland in the group instead of Djibouti 
  • swordfish
    swordfish Posts: 4,233
    Chris_from_Sidcup said:
    se9addick said:
    Chris_from_Sidcup said:
    Can also guarantee the move to 64 teams as a "special one off" because it's the centenary world cup will also definitely not be a one off once they realise they can make even more money.

    Will be pretty stupid though, the tournament will have to last for about 6 weeks.
    Hopefully the first round will be a knockout round before a 32 nation group phase or something. 
    A 64 team tournament would actually be quite interesting if they did away with seedings and groups and made it an open draw, anyone can get anyone, straight knockout tournament. 

    Obviously would never happen though.
    But that would simplify everything and make every game do or die. Why on earth would the public pay to see that? Whoever heard of such a thing? Ludicrous suggestion. 
  • jimmymelrose
    jimmymelrose Posts: 9,740
    Ian Nightingale said:
    Cha Ching is the only consideration 

    Maybe. China never go far so with 64 teams they might get a few wins.

Categories

“Marketplace”