2026 WC Bid?

[CanadianSoccerFan]

 

[dyslexic nam]

^^^ That was one of the first things I thought of as well.  Unless Australia moves back into Oceanna, it seems like NZ face the daunting task of overcoming those micronesian powerhouses to get to the WC every year.  Must be nice.

[Alex]

Yeah I was thinking Oceania should get 1.5 although Tahiti did make the confed cup a few years ago...

[matty]

58 minutes ago, dyslexic nam said:

^^^ That was one of the first things I thought of as well.  Unless Australia moves back into Oceanna, it seems like NZ face the daunting task of overcoming those micronesian powerhouses to get to the WC every year.  Must be nice.

We're forgettinf Tahiti i see ?

[red card]

I think it won't dilute the competition as much as the general consensus seems to be so far.

In 10 years time, the economies of Africa and Asia will continue to increase their middle class which will improve their football. Today already, Africa probably deserves another 2 spots. Asia has a number of underperformers like China where the money and interest is there but not the results.

But 6.5 for Concacaf is too much other than it helps Canada. Oceania doesn't also deserve an auto spot. Increasing Europe and South America isn't an issue.

So now we have about 2-4 weak teams. Moving to 48 increases it about 8-9 but all will be gone in 2 matches. 

It will however make qualifying less interesting other than for countries like Canada. But moving to 48 offsets the stupid qualifying process in CONCACAF and also in Africa.

[matty]

14 minutes ago, red card said:

 

But 6.5 for Concacaf is too much other than it helps Canada. Oceania doesn't also deserve an auto spot. .

I mostly agree but disagree here. I would say concacaf's top 6 is stronger than afc's top 6, currently at least, and do think ofc should be represented despite its weak standing.

[spinrack]

Three-team groups sounds like an incredibly bad idea to me.

Especially considering that they apparently want to use penalty shootouts to settle group games that end in draws...

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/world-cup-expansion-fifa-soccer-1.3928648

NO, NO... a million times... NO

[Guest]

1 hour ago, red card said:

I think it won't dilute the competition as much as the general consensus seems to be so far.

In 10 years time, the economies of Africa and Asia will continue to increase their middle class which will improve their football. Today already, Africa probably deserves another 2 spots. Asia has a number of underperformers like China where the money and interest is there but not the results.

But 6.5 for Concacaf is too much other than it helps Canada. Oceania doesn't also deserve an auto spot. Increasing Europe and South America isn't an issue.

So now we have about 2-4 weak teams. Moving to 48 increases it about 8-9 but all will be gone in 2 matches. 

It will however make qualifying less interesting other than for countries like Canada. But moving to 48 offsets the stupid qualifying process in CONCACAF and also in Africa.

So your saying Asia's increase in spots is deserved and concacaf's isn't? smh..

[matty]

29 minutes ago, spinrack said:

Three-team groups sounds like an incredibly bad idea to me.

Especially considering that they apparently want to use penalty shootouts to settle group games that end in draws...

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/world-cup-expansion-fifa-soccer-1.3928648

NO, NO... a million times... NO

Mls was ahead if its time

[ray]

So no one in FIFA stood up for reason over money.  They are happily cashing in while devaluing their flagship product and tarnishing the history of the tournament.  Would serve the FAs right if interest and TV $$$ declines in this watered-down version.

Canada making the WC seems much less important now.  Sad day for fans ...

[baulderdash77]

6 Concacaf teams would be huge.

I envision a final 12 in 3 groups of 4.  The top 3 teams qualify and 2nd and 3rd place teams play a final Hex where 3 teams would qualify.

In that scenario we would have a very very good chance of qualifying.

Taken in this qualifying circuit the US, Mexico and Costa Rica would be through and there would be a Hex next year of Panama, Haiti, Honduras, Canada, Trinidad, Gautama.

That would be a competitive Hex and I like our chances.

[Kent]

1 hour ago, red card said:

I think it won't dilute the competition as much as the general consensus seems to be so far.

In 10 years time, the economies of Africa and Asia will continue to increase their middle class which will improve their football. Today already, Africa probably deserves another 2 spots. Asia has a number of underperformers like China where the money and interest is there but not the results.

But 6.5 for Concacaf is too much other than it helps Canada. Oceania doesn't also deserve an auto spot. Increasing Europe and South America isn't an issue.

So now we have about 2-4 weak teams. Moving to 48 increases it about 8-9 but all will be gone in 2 matches. 

It will however make qualifying less interesting other than for countries like Canada. But moving to 48 offsets the stupid qualifying process in CONCACAF and also in Africa.

Africa and Asia are the least deserving of more spots. I looked into this somewhat deeply, and as objectively as I could back in 2014.

http://www.wakingthered.com/2014/6/28/5853508/world-cup-evaluating-the-also-rans?_ga=1.51921705.1883941630.1450363221

[Kent]

18 hours ago, canta15 said:

Not to mention the HUGE possibility of a biscotto

I wasn't able to quote the relevant part of what you had posted, where it asked about the likelihood of the situation arising. I would imagine something that would increase the odds of the "biscotto" situation happening is that team A in the example will have a disadvantage in their second game, playing on shorter rest than team C. So if team A wins their first group game, if they are relatively equal in quality to team C, they will be disadvantaged by having played a few days prior, which increases their chances of a loss on their second match day.

[Kent]

Apologies for 3 posts in a row, but one other thing that hasn't really been explicitly called out yet with this new format, is the relatively high likelihood that there will be one or more groups where the group winner will have the same number of points as the team that finishes last in the group and gets eliminated.

Maybe this doesn't change much, since groups of 4 always allow for the possibility of the top 3 teams all having 6 points, and even have a possibility of all 4 teams having 4 points, but I think those scenarios are probably less likely than a 3 team group all tied on points. Maybe I'll look up historical results at some point to see if it happens like that in practice.

[Cheeta]

1 hour ago, spinrack said:

Three-team groups sounds like an incredibly bad idea to me.

Especially considering that they apparently want to use penalty shootouts to settle group games that end in draws...

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/world-cup-expansion-fifa-soccer-1.3928648

NO, NO... a million times... NO

You know I could live with the 32 as a necessity (even if I felt it was inflated) but as jolly as 48 is going to be for some, yeah, sort of devalues the early stages.  There are definitely going to be some hard watches in there.

 

[jpg75]

1 hour ago, baulderdash77 said:

6 Concacaf teams would be huge.

I envision a final 12 in 3 groups of 4.  The top 3 teams qualify and 2nd and 3rd place teams play a final Hex where 3 teams would qualify.

In that scenario we would have a very very good chance of qualifying.

Taken in this qualifying circuit the US, Mexico and Costa Rica would be through and there would be a Hex next year of Panama, Haiti, Honduras, Canada, Trinidad, Gautama.

That would be a competitive Hex and I like our chances.

You would have the SF group winners sitting out for a year and a half until the WC as they'd already qualify and avoid the Hex.

[matty]

 While everyone else in uefa is pissed.....

 

[jpg75]

1 hour ago, Kent said:

Africa and Asia are the least deserving of more spots. I looked into this somewhat deeply, and as objectively as I could back in 2014.

http://www.wakingthered.com/2014/6/28/5853508/world-cup-evaluating-the-also-rans?_ga=1.51921705.1883941630.1450363221

Interesting. I assumed AFC was weaker than CONCACAF (and it is), but didn't realize CAF had such weak numbers. I've always thought Africa had pretty good depth but those tables indicate that the weaker CAF teams who have qualified recently have been dropping the ball.

[Macksam]

2 hours ago, spinrack said:

Three-team groups sounds like an incredibly bad idea to me.

Especially considering that they apparently want to use penalty shootouts to settle group games that end in draws...

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/world-cup-expansion-fifa-soccer-1.3928648

NO, NO... a million times... NO

I didn't mind how it was done for the earlier knock out stages at Copa 2015, it made the teams actually go for it during regular time unlike most knock out stages during international tournaments, where the quality takes a hit and it becomes cagey affair.

[Kent]

45 minutes ago, jpg75 said:

Interesting. I assumed AFC was weaker than CONCACAF (and it is), but didn't realize CAF had such weak numbers. I've always thought Africa had pretty good depth but those tables indicate that the weaker CAF teams who have qualified recently have been dropping the ball.

Yeah, Africa was surprising to me when I looked into it too. The thing with Africa is that while CONCACAF has 2 teams that regularly make it to the knockout rounds (plus Costa Rica did it once), Africa almost always have just 1 team advance, even though the country that advances changes from tournament to tournament. Below are the CONCACAF and CAF teams to advance beyond the group stages for every 32 team World Cup.

1998
CAF: Nigeria
CONCACAF: Mexico

2002
CAF: Senegal
CONCACAF: Mexico, USA

2006
CAF: Ghana
CONCACAF: Mexico

2010
CAF: Ghana
CONCACAF: Mexico, USA

2014
CAF: Nigeria, Algeria
CONCACAF: Mexico, USA, Costa Rica

[theaub]

2022 - the last chance Canada has to legitimately qualify for a World Cup

[red card]

Similar reasons were brought out when it went to 32 from 24 and also when it expanded in the 70s. Expanding the WC would mean a loss of lustre and there go the fans.  

Football is world sport. Yet only 5 out of 55 African countries and 4.5 out 47 from Asia make it. 50% of the ten most populated countries have never seen their country in the WC (except China 1x). It's time for the WC to represent the football world and the real world not just of today but what it will be 10 or 20 years away. 

Business wise, it will add another $1b for FIFA which will be in part passed on to member nations. All the ways it will benefit Canada if we make it, will happen in the other countries. 

Being the dominant global sport, it's time to leverage this power even more. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Kent said:

I wasn't able to quote the relevant part of what you had posted, where it asked about the likelihood of the situation arising. I would imagine something that would increase the odds of the "biscotto" situation happening is that team A in the example will have a disadvantage in their second game, playing on shorter rest than team C. So if team A wins their first group game, if they are relatively equal in quality to team C, they will be disadvantaged by having played a few days prior, which increases their chances of a loss on their second match day.

No. The situation was that the teams could all be tied on 3 points and the game on the last matchday could be fixed so that both thise teams playing in that game would advance

[Kent]

1 hour ago, canta15 said:

No. The situation was that the teams could all be tied on 3 points and the game on the last matchday could be fixed so that both thise teams playing in that game would advance

I understand that. For that to happen the team that plays in each of the first two games must of course win one and lose one. I am saying because of the schedule, they will be at a disadvantage for their second game because they will be on something like 3 days rest, while their opponent is fresh. So if team A wins their first game, the schedule makes it more likely that they will lose their second match.

Then everything is set up for a mutually beneficial result in game 3.

[Watchmen]

Should have just jumped it to 64 teams and no group stage. Works for March Madness.  The early games are some of the most entertaining, and you'd reduce the chances of a fixed match (since every game matters).