N-A Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 According to Sky Sports News. I can not find an article online yet. BBC Article here http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/7636495.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarrek Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I'm pretty positive the World Cup event will follow with a similar expansion. Might be good news for CONCACAF if we can get an additional spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 quote:Originally posted by N-A According to Sky Sports News. I can not find an article online yet. BBC Article here http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/7636495.stm If you consider that there are a lot more nations in Europe now than 20 years ago it could be justified. With 24 teams though you have the top 3 in each of the 6 groups of four go through, so you add just one more round (round of 16). That means a competition that lasts just 3 days longer. Considering last Eurocup had 8 stadiums, the smallest at 30,000, that would still be enough to handle the compeition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpg75 Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Jeffrey, 3 X 6 = 18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 quote:Originally posted by jpg75 Jeffrey, 3 X 6 = 18. I guess he meant top 2 plus 4 third best...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desigol Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Memories of Argentina in 1990 and Italy in 1994. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianSoccerFan Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Jarrek I'm pretty positive the World Cup event will follow with a similar expansion. Might be good news for CONCACAF if we can get an additional spot. When I heard about this I was wondering the same thing. It would be a bit ridiculous but considering that the Euro expansion is money driven I would never rule out a 40 team World Cup. Keep in mind how greedy FIFA is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bxl Boy Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 I don't know 40, but maybe 36 for the 2022 WC. How old will we be then ? Don't dare to think about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 quote:Originally posted by loyola I guess he meant top 2 plus 4 third best...... That is exactly what I meant, much obliged. Actually it sounded funny to me when I wrote it but it is a bit of a poor display in arithmetic. Have I become one of those dolts you put on tv to prove Canadian 5th graders are really smart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianSoccerFan Posted September 26, 2008 Share Posted September 26, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Bxl Boy I don't know 40, but maybe 36 for the 2022 WC. How old will we be then ? Don't dare to think about it... 36 would be a reasonable increase but the logistics don't work well with an odd number of groups. Blatter has stated that for future World Cups he wants to take away some spots from UEFA and give them to Africa. UEFA currently has 13 entries and a drop to 11 or 12 seems very low. I think once he realizes that's not good for business he'll consider expanding the World Cup to 40. Remember, this is the same guy that wants to expand the club world cup to involve group play. Greed reigns supreme at FIFA and if it means more dollars they'll do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bxl Boy Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 You can't qualify “best seconds” And 16th finals isn't serious for a World Cup So, what could be possible 6 With 40 => 8 groups of 5 => 1 and 2 to second round = 96 games in total With 36 => ??? 6 groups of 6 ? too much games (106) ! / 9 groups of 4 with 1 and 2 and 6 best third, then 8 groups of 3 (78 games) + 8th finals (2 qualif by group) or direct quarter finals (1 by group) = total of 86 or 94 games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianSoccerFan Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 I could see the 40 teams with 8 groups of 5 happening. 1 Host 18 UEFA 4 CONCACAF 5 CONMEBOL 6.5 Africa 5 Asia 0.5 Oceania Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desigol Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 Good Idea, Double the Rugby World Cup (20 teams, 4 groups of 5). Makes sense with so many new countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted September 27, 2008 Share Posted September 27, 2008 quote:Originally posted by CanadianSoccerFan 36 would be a reasonable increase but the logistics don't work well with an odd number of groups. Blatter has stated that for future World Cups he wants to take away some spots from UEFA and give them to Africa. UEFA currently has 13 entries and a drop to 11 or 12 seems very low. I think once he realizes that's not good for business he'll consider expanding the World Cup to 40. Remember, this is the same guy that wants to expand the club world cup to involve group play. Greed reigns supreme at FIFA and if it means more dollars they'll do it. So your idea of greed is the more teams you have sharing in the wealth, the greedier those who set up the system? Tell us, how do you define generous, just curious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianSoccerFan Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. So your idea of greed is the more teams you have sharing in the wealth, the greedier those who set up the system? Tell us, how do you define generous, just curious? There's a ton of reasons why a 40 team World Cup would make more money than a 32 team World Cup. More teams means more games which means more ticket revenue. 95 games as opposed to the current 63. That's a a lot more money. Then there's the TV rights that become even more valuable when you consider that most of the added teams would likely be from UEFA where the TV networks can afford to pay big dollars. Obviously TV rights are much more valuable in a country that's participating giving FIFA even more bargaining power in negotiations. Then there's the sponsors. FIFA can demand more money from them with more countries being glued to the TV sets as opposed to just watching casually. It's not just a case of spreading the same amount of money across more teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 quote:Originally posted by CanadianSoccerFan There's a ton of reasons why a 40 team World Cup would make more money than a 32 team World Cup. More teams means more games which means more ticket revenue. 95 games as opposed to the current 63. That's a a lot more money. Then there's the TV rights that become even more valuable when you consider that most of the added teams would likely be from UEFA where the TV networks can afford to pay big dollars. Obviously TV rights are much more valuable in a country that's participating giving FIFA even more bargaining power in negotiations. Then there's the sponsors. FIFA can demand more money from them with more countries being glued to the TV sets as opposed to just watching casually. It's not just a case of spreading the same amount of money across more teams. So it is a case of spreading more money around to more teams and making millions of fans happier because they are in the World Cup then? Just so I understand the thinking: if less teams is greedy because only a few share in the wealth and joy, and more teams is greedy because more share in the wealth and joy, then obviously someone does not have a clue what the word "greedy" means and should shut up. Not saying this is you BTW, just wondering about the reasoning. There are only three decent arguments against expanding the World Cup: one is that it makes it longer and logistically more difficult, requiring more stadiums as well; another is also interferes with players' relationship with their clubs, with the teams paying them, as they spend more time playing for someone else, risking injury, and effectively hurting club play; and the third is that it waters down the competition, since you get lower quality games between lower quality teams: ranked 26 vs. ranked 38 may not be as high quality football, just as UEFA cup is not as good quality as Champions. Not saying I agree with any of these arguments, but they seem to me to be the only reasonable ones. Now if you don't mind any of these things, great, but don't tell me you don't like the expansion of the WC because of greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. Just so I understand the thinking: if less teams is greedy because only a few share in the wealth and joy, and more teams is greedy because more share in the wealth and joy, then obviously someone does not have a clue what the word "greedy" means and should shut up. Not saying this is you BTW, just wondering about the reasoning. If FIFA makes an average of X dollars per game played in the WC finals, then the bigger the tournament the more money for FIFA. Ergo FIFA is being greedy. Just because other nations that qualify who normally wouldn't also profit, doesn't take away from the fact that FIFA makes more money. I don't see what your problem is. quote: There are only three decent arguments against expanding the World Cup: one is that it makes it longer and logistically more difficult, requiring more stadiums as well; another is also interferes with players' relationship with their clubs, with the teams paying them, as they spend more time playing for someone else, risking injury, and effectively hurting club play; and the third is that it waters down the competition, since you get lower quality games between lower quality teams: ranked 26 vs. ranked 38 may not be as high quality football, just as UEFA cup is not as good quality as Champions. Not saying I agree with any of these arguments, but they seem to me to be the only reasonable ones. Another argument against an expanded World Cup is that it hurts the qualifying to some extent. Right now there are zero UEFA teams that can count on being in a Euro cup. That won't be the case for much longer. Italy, Spain, Germany, Netherlands ... even England will easily qualify for every Euro Cup starting in 2016. For me that takes away some of the excitement from these tournaments. I don't want to see that happen in every region, which is exactly what would happen if the World Cup was expanded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 quote:Originally posted by amacpher He means FIFA is being greedy. If FIFA makes an average of X dollars per game played in the WC finals, then the bigger the tournament the more money for FIFA. QED Another argument against an expanded World Cup is that it hurts the qualifying to some extent. Right now there are zero UEFA teams that can count on being in a Euro cup. That won't be the case for much longer. Italy, Spain, Germany, Netherlands ... even England will easily qualify for every Euro Cup starting in 2016. For me that takes away some of the excitement from these tournaments. I don't want to see that happen in every region, which is exactly what would happen if the World Cup was expanded. Fifa obviously rivals with the wealth of clubs, though oddly they regulate the rules of the game they play. But I don't agree that adding teams can be attacked even on the FIFA is greedy argument. I would bet the relative income from having 6 or 8 more teams, likely less powerful and from thus weaker soccer nations, with a lower overall impact on the overall tournament, would be more heavily weighed in their favour than in Fifa's. Meaning that the nations would have more to gain than FIFA would, since the current tournament already includes most of the heavyweights, and regularly. The same way that the relative benefit for a modest team to be in the Champions is much higher than the relative benefit for a strong team. A wider tournament waters it down and does not benefit the organizer as much as the weaker sides participating. It has more to do with vote buying, with pandering for good will and votes from FIFA members, than it does with income. As for qualifying tournaments: since you complain about some teams always qualifying why not go after Comembol for including all 10 sides in every Copa America; or better, why not go after Concacaf for qualifying arbitrarily three teams for our Gold Cup? Those are the real stuffed tournaments, not UEFA's Eurocup, which is for the region that has most grown in terms of nations. I think there are 14 more than 20 years ago, not sure about that though. And many others are growing economically and in football terms, so that it competition is tough: how else could a nation that did not exist in UEFA in the early 90s knock England out of the last Eurocup? Your logic assumes the relative power of the big nations will remain unchanged and they will always qualify for a wider tournament, but it underestimates the rising economic power of the former EAst Bloc nations, which will also bolster their football, and the rising strength of the former Soviet republics, meaning it may be that much harder to qualify even though the tournament has more spots. Travel has gotten harder too. That said, I think the last Eurocup was excellent, there was some good football, but there was something missing: England, its players, its media hype, its fans. Maybe a few more trashed bars along the way, but surely an even more exciting tournament to watch. Better to have sides like that in rather than out I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. Fifa obviously rivals with the wealth of clubs, though oddly they regulate the rules of the game they play. But I don't agree that adding teams can be attacked even on the FIFA is greedy argument. I would bet the relative income from having 6 or 8 more teams, likely less powerful and from thus weaker soccer nations, with a lower overall impact on the overall tournament, would be more heavily weighed in their favour than in Fifa's. Meaning that the nations would have more to gain than FIFA would, since the current tournament already includes most of the heavyweights, and regularly. The same way that the relative benefit for a modest team to be in the Champions is much higher than the relative benefit for a strong team. A wider tournament waters it down and does not benefit the organizer as much as the weaker sides participating. It has more to do with vote buying, with pandering for good will and votes from FIFA members, than it does with income. Maybe, but FIFA stands to gain big time in revenue, make no mistake. Even Tunisia - Ukraine in an 80,000-seat stadium sold-out easily in the last World Cup. The WC is so over-hyped now that any match will sell-out and be viewed in big numbers around the world. It doesn't matter if the WC is watered down because it doesn't matter if its England-Argentina or Bahrain-Trinidad meeting in the group-stage. Both matches will sell-out easy at the same outrageous ticket prices. Unless you're a scalper, the teams involved don't really matter to your bottom-line. quote: As for qualifying tournaments: since you complain about some teams always qualifying why not go after Comembol for including all 10 sides in every Copa America; or better, why not go after Concacaf for qualifying arbitrarily three teams for our Gold Cup? Well, the Gold Cup qualifying format was silly but that doesn't mean I can't complain about something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Let me just go on record that I think Canada should have to qualify for every Gold Cup. My view is that every team except the host should have to qualify, even if it means a home and away against a minnow. Better to have more official matches and to be sharp in the previous to the tournament. As for hosts, they should rotate. The Gold Cup only really needs 4-5 pitches. Having one host, and one that does not even ensure great crowds, is scandalous. It also alters the results, I am sure the US would not do so well if they had to play in Costa Rica one year and Jamaica the next. Everyone else always plays away, and don't go on about away supporters in the US because the results show that playing Guatemala there is tougher than playing them at home. Smaller nations could share tournaments, like even Eurocup and WC do. Finally, I don't mind if it is widened, since some of those minnows some are slamming are good enough to beat us with our gifted entry each year. So 16 teams, add another available pitch 5-6 in total, rotating host, everyone except host qualifies. Concacaf will never do it because they don't care about "the good of the game", it is all vested interests and money deals and power wielding, the corruption is endemic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianSoccerFan Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Maybe when Jack Warner finally dies off and somebody a little less corrupt is in charge the Gold Cup can be moved around. It would be a nice change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 quote:Originally posted by CanadianSoccerFan Maybe when Jack Warner finally dies off and somebody a little less corrupt is in charge the Gold Cup can be moved around. It would be a nice change. In fairness the CONCACAF Champions League was a great idea! Not sure how much Warner had to do with it, but sometimes CONCACAF does something right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 quote:Originally posted by loyola I guess he meant top 2 plus 4 third best...... Yeah thats terrible. picking 4 third place finisher is pointless and doesn't prove that they merit advancing. A wild card system only works when you have in interlocking play (ie.: teams in one division or group playing teams in another division or group). International soccer tournanments work best when you have 16 or 32 teams. But with 24, the only way to eliminate the wild card ( ie.: best 3rd place) is to have four groups of six. I'd rather see this. but I dont know how you'd complete the tournament in one month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Yeah, expanding to 20 would've made more sense. Four groups of 5. 7 games in 28-29 days. Perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N-A Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 Scotland/Wales ditch Euro 2016 Bid due to the cost of upgrading and building new stadia. France has so far put in the only bid. With the deadline being March 9 2009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.