2026 World Cup - News, Updates and discussions

[king1010]

didn't know the intercontinental playoff was going to continue with the 48 team format. 

[Free kick]

This would have been the time to get rid of it.   Under a 32 team format, the IC playoff was the last chance for a good side, who tripped up or was unlucky in WCQ, to get into the finals.   But under a 48 team tournament, are you truly a team deserving to be at the WC finals if have to play in the IC playoff?  I would say no.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Free kick

[Free kick]

41 minutes ago, king1010 said:

didn't know the intercontinental playoff was going to continue with the 48 team format. 

Also,  we are getting close to the point where some of the reputable sides in most regions (eg.:  Conmebol) may ponder or question the need of calling up their top talent for WCQ.  What's the point?  With recent qualifying standing,   Arg and Bra would have just had to beat out Paraguay to qualifying for the WC.  A "B-team" would have sufficed.  Maybe even a team composed entirely of domestic players.   

This means that the big winners out of all this will be the clubs (particularly the European clubs) because they might not lose good talent to international duty as often as it would have been under a 32 team WC format. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Free kick

[TOcanadafan]

50 minutes ago, Free kick said:

This would have been the time to get rid of it.   Under a 32 team format, the IC playoff was the last chance for a good side, who tripped up or was unlucky in WCQ, to get into the finals.   But under a 48 team tournament, are you truly a team deserving to be at the WC finals if have to play in the IC playoff?  I would say no.

When I last saw a proposed format, the playoff would involve as many as 6 nations - so they want to make it even bigger.  FIFA must see it as a chance to do a mini-dress rehearsal / work out some of the technical issues.  But I agree, from a competitive stand point, it’s not needed.

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, Free kick said:

Also,  we are getting close to the point where some of the reputable sides in most regions (eg.:  Conmebol) may ponder or question the need of calling up their top talent for WCQ.  What's the point?  With recent qualifying standing,   Arg and Bra would have just had to beat out Paraguay to qualifying for the WC.  A "B-team" would have sufficed.  Maybe even a team composed entirely of domestic players.   

This means that the big winners out of all this will be the clubs (particularly the European clubs) because they might not lose good talent to international duty as often as it would have been under a 32 team WC format. 

Very good point, and especially for regions with the single table like Conmebol. 

On the other hand, with Copa America every 2 years, I always found it was the S Americans who were most pushed to the limit on scheduling, speaking from a European club perspective. So that rest might be beneficial. I recall players doing Copa America and then the Olympics, for the younger Argentines it was common.

Compare to UEFA qualifying, much softer and with minnows in every group, and the fact that the Eurocup is only once very 4 years. The European internationals are not as pushed when it comes to international dates, and of course, the travel, being close to home or at home. 

 

[Free kick]

5 hours ago, TOcanadafan said:

When I last saw a proposed format, the playoff would involve as many as 6 nations - so they want to make it even bigger.  FIFA must see it as a chance to do a mini-dress rehearsal / work out some of the technical issues.  But I agree, from a competitive stand point, it’s not needed.

It would be six mostly mediocre sides.  It be will hard to garner wider interest. 
The Confederations cup is what used to be mini dress rehearsal. 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Free kick

[Free kick]

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Very good point, and especially for regions with the single table like Conmebol. 

On the other hand, with Copa America every 2 years, I always found it was the S Americans who were most pushed to the limit on scheduling, speaking from a European club perspective. So that rest might be beneficial. I recall players doing Copa America and then the Olympics, for the younger Argentines it was common.

Compare to UEFA qualifying, much softer and with minnows in every group, and the fact that the Eurocup is only once very 4 years. The European internationals are not as pushed when it comes to international dates, and of course, the travel, being close to home or at home. 

 

I think Its travel that differentiates Euro sides versus the rest of world.  Moreso than the qualifying setup or international fixture requirements. There is no qualifying required for Copa America nor the Gold cup (for most anyways) whereas there is for the Euro Cup.  Therefore for the first two years following the WC, what international callups would there be from national sides in the Americas (north and south) that the European club would have to contend with?  None that i can see, other than maybe friendlies.   Plus Copa and the Gold cup are played in the summer.  Next to europe, it sounds like African players are the ones most pushed to the limits because their regional chmapionship tournament is held in January and it lasts something like a month.  

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Free kick

[kacbru]

7 hours ago, Free kick said:

This would have been the time to get rid of it.   Under a 32 team format, the IC playoff was the last chance for a good side, who tripped up or was unlucky in WCQ, to get into the finals.   But under a 48 team tournament, are you truly a team deserving to be at the WC finals if have to play in the IC playoff?  I would say no.

You might think differently when we find out that Canada as host doesn't qualify directly, but rather qualifies directly to the playoff round! 

[Free kick]

6 minutes ago, kacbru said:

You might think differently when we find out that Canada as host doesn't qualify directly, but rather qualifies directly to the playoff round! 

Actually, I wont.  I have held the same view in the past when Canada didnt qualify for the World Cup.  You get what you deserve in WCQ.     If Canada cant win in that playoff round, then they dont deserve to be in the world cup.

Edited August 2, 2022 by Free kick

[Kent]

On 8/2/2022 at 12:17 PM, Free kick said:

There is no qualifying required for Copa America nor the Gold cup (for most anyways) whereas there is for the Euro Cup.

Starting in the 2021 edition of the Gold Cup, there are qualifiers for all teams. It is just that the Nations League doubles as Gold Cup qualifying (plus a bit of qualifiers for teams in addition to Nations League for some teams).

On 8/2/2022 at 9:31 AM, Free kick said:

This would have been the time to get rid of it.   Under a 32 team format, the IC playoff was the last chance for a good side, who tripped up or was unlucky in WCQ, to get into the finals.   But under a 48 team tournament, are you truly a team deserving to be at the WC finals if have to play in the IC playoff?  I would say no.

I wish they would use the inter-continental playoff matches as a data point for determining how many spots each confederation gets, kind of like the UEFA coefficients for Champions League spots. Hypothetically speaking, if one confederation keeps advancing out of the inter-continental playoffs and also outperform other confederations in the World Cup itself, it indicates they probably deserve more spots in the World Cup.

Like why does AFC deserve 8 direct spots but CONCACAF only 6 (which is the last proposal I have heard for CONCACAF)? Since 1998 (for all stats in this mini rant) AFC have had 5 out of 25 teams advance out of the group stage, but CONCACAF has had 10 out of 20. If the argument is that CONCACAF leans on Mexico and USA for those numbers, AFC have only had Japan, South Korea, and Australia make it out of the group stage in that time frame, where CONCACAF has equaled that unique team number with Mexico, USA, and Costa Rica advancing out of the group. AFC has had 5 teams lose all 3 games in the group stage, whereas CONCACAF has had 4. CONCACAF in the group stage has averaged 1.067 points per game while AFC teams have averaged 0.802. And CONCACAF has had 2 teams make it beyond the round of 16, while AFC has had only 1. Looking at these kind of stats, and inter confederation results for confederations (CONCACAF 3 wins and 2 losses, AFC 3 wins and 5 losses, or 2 wins and 4 losses if you don't count OFC era Australia) to determine spots would be more fair than a boardroom decision that is then set in stone for future World Cups to blindly follow.

Sorry. I just have to let that out every once in a while.

[TOCanada115]

Yeah, them getting 8 is ridiculous. Europe should probably get more spots. Asia should get 6 like us. 

[TOcanadafan]

From a pure footballing point of view, I wish Europe was getting more bids.  I’m sure FIFA is hoping China gets its act together (and maybe one day India).  Based on the AFC qualifiers, Arab nations are the ones to benefit from the additional spots.  

[TOcanadafan]

From a pure footballing point of view, I wish Europe was getting more bids.  I’m sure FIFA is hoping China gets its act together (and maybe one day India).  Based on the AFC qualifiers, Arab nations are the ones to benefit from the additional spots.  

[Free kick]

Was debating whether to post this given that it is one of those mindless top 5 or top 10 lists 

Opinion │Ranking the five best and worst 2026 World Cup stadiums | Sports | breezejmu.org

But it is content for this thread topic and is sure to stir up discussions 

[Free kick]

23 hours ago, Kent said:

 

Like why does AFC deserve 8 direct spots but CONCACAF only 6 (which is the last proposal I have heard for CONCACAF)? Since 1998 (for all stats in this mini rant) AFC have had 5 out of 25 teams advance out of the group stage, but CONCACAF has had 10 out of 20. If the argument is that CONCACAF leans on Mexico and USA for those numbers, AFC have only had Japan, South Korea, and Australia make it out of the group stage in that time frame, where CONCACAF has equaled that unique team number with Mexico, USA, and Costa Rica advancing out of the group. AFC has had 5 teams lose all 3 games in the group stage, whereas CONCACAF has had 4. CONCACAF in the group stage has averaged 1.067 points per game while AFC teams have averaged 0.802. And CONCACAF has had 2 teams make it beyond the round of 16, while AFC has had only 1. Looking at these kind of stats, and inter confederation results for confederations (CONCACAF 3 wins and 2 losses, AFC 3 wins and 5 losses, or 2 wins and 4 losses if you don't count OFC era Australia) to determine spots would be more fair than a boardroom decision that is then set in stone for future World Cups to blindly follow.

Sorry. I just have to let that out every once in a while.

This has come up a lot over the past 20 years here.  And I agree,  AFC has been lousy at the World cup and I mentioned it many times,  there is isn't a single side from AFC that you can say is a good bet to advance from the group stage.   Unlike every other region.

So its pretty clear that FIFA panders to AFC.  The question and answer is the same reason as why Western companies and corporation were rushing to get a foothold or presence into China?   There is 1.4 billion people there so thats a significant audience for FIFA sponsors. Plus, you have Korea that is still one of the fastest growing economies on the world and there are a few Korea companies amongst FIFA's tier 1 corporate sponsors. 

I am sure that if is someone asked this question point blank to Infantino,  that's what he would say and he wouldn't be dumb enough to try and sell anyone on the idea that the reason that AFC deserves more spots is due to 'on-field' performance.   I think we just have to accept that WC spots are not awarded on just merit.

 

 

PS.:  for anyone who follows FIBA international basketball,   the pandering that they (FIBA) do to Asian countries (in the pacific rim) is even worst than FIFA.  And if you think that Asian countries are lousy in international soccer,  well they are even worst in international basketball.   

Edited August 8, 2022 by Free kick

[Watchmen]

3 hours ago, Free kick said:

This has come up a lot over the past 20 years here.  And I agree,  AFC has been lousy at the World cup and I mentioned it many times,  there is isn't a single side from AFC that you can say is a good bet to advance from the group stage.   Unlike every other region.

So its pretty clear that FIFA panders to AFC.  The question and answer is the same reason as why Western companies and corporation were rushing to get a foothold or presence into China?   There is 1.4 billion people there so thats a significant audience for FIFA sponsors. Plus, you have Korea that is still one of the fastest growing economies on the world and there are a few Korea companies amongst FIFA's tier 1 corporate sponsors. 

I am sure that if is someone asked this question point blank to Infantino,  that's what he would say and he wouldn't be dumb enough to try and sell anyone on the idea that the reason that AFC deserves more spots is due to 'on-field' performance.   I think we just have to accept that WC spots are not awarded on just merit.

 

 

PS.:  for anyone who follows FIBA international basketball,   the pandering that they (FIBA) do to Asian countries (in the pacific rim) is even worst than FIFA.  And if you think that Asian countries are lousy in international soccer,  well they are even worst in international basketball.   

I think they usually go with "the number of countries in Asia" as the reason they deserve more. 

I'll be interested to see how many spots Africa gets. Think it's going to be 9 plus an IC spot, which feels right - I'm always more interested in the African teams than the Asian ones, and usually when there's a "group of death" at the tournament it's because one of the top African teams landed in it.

[Unnamed Trialist]

5 hours ago, Free kick said:

Was debating whether to post this given that it is one of those mindless top 5 or top 10 lists 

Opinion │Ranking the five best and worst 2026 World Cup stadiums | Sports | breezejmu.org

But it is content for this thread topic and is sure to stir up discussions 

That was badly enough argued to basically ignore. I mean, the entire BC Place is one of the worst is based on artificial turf, which features in many of the selected stadiums. Then they say they'll put grass in. So basically there was no argument at all other than sticking the two Canadian stadiums in there.

[Kent]

8 hours ago, Free kick said:

This has come up a lot over the past 20 years here.  And I agree,  AFC has been lousy at the World cup and I mentioned it many times,  there is isn't a single side from AFC that you can say is a good bet to advance from the group stage.   Unlike every other region.

So its pretty clear that FIFA panders to AFC.  The question and answer is the same reason as why Western companies and corporation were rushing to get a foothold or presence into China?   There is 1.4 billion people there so thats a significant audience for FIFA sponsors. Plus, you have Korea that is still one of the fastest growing economies on the world and there are a few Korea companies amongst FIFA's tier 1 corporate sponsors. 

I am sure that if is someone asked this question point blank to Infantino,  that's what he would say and he wouldn't be dumb enough to try and sell anyone on the idea that the reason that AFC deserves more spots is due to 'on-field' performance.   I think we just have to accept that WC spots are not awarded on just merit.

 

 

PS.:  for anyone who follows FIBA international basketball,   the pandering that they (FIBA) do to Asian countries (in the pacific rim) is even worst than FIFA.  And if you think that Asian countries are lousy in international soccer,  well they are even worst in international basketball.   

Africa is a weird case. Their performances are more in line with Asia than CONCACAF, and they don't have big money for FIFA to chase, but they get more spots than AFC (and of course CONCACAF as well). I'll run through their stats that I did for Asia, and put CONCACAF's result in brackets next to it for context. A reminder this is all since 1998, when it became a 32 team tournament.

6 out of 31 teams have made it out of the group stage which is 19%. (CONCACAF 10 out of 20 teams).
They outperform AFC and CONCACAF in terms of unique teams to make it out of the group stage with 4. Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Algeria. (CONCACAF 3 teams)
4 CAF teams have gone 0-3 in the group stage. (CONCACAF 4 teams as well).
0.86 points per game in the group stage (1.07 for CONCACAF).
CAF tied with CONCACAF with 2 teams making it beyond the round of 16.
CAF doesn't participate in inter-continental playoffs.

Bonus stat: In World Cup games contested between 2 of CONCACAF, CAF, or AFC, the confederations have the following points per game.
CONCACAF  1.93
CAF               1.17
AFC               1.13

[Free kick]

5 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

That was badly enough argued to basically ignore. I mean, the entire BC Place is one of the worst is based on artificial turf, which features in many of the selected stadiums. Then they say they'll put grass in. So basically there was no argument at all other than sticking the two Canadian stadiums in there.

Yeah,  he lists BC place amongst the worst category for the sole reason that it has artificial turf.  Then he turns around and mentions artificial turf stadiums in his top 5

[Bison44]

Isnt that just a article from some doofus campus newspaper??  

[narduch]

I feel dumb for asking, but has FIFA confirmed the 48 spots for 2026 already?

[kacbru]

14 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

Isnt that just a article from some doofus campus newspaper??  

They are going to wonder why their readership has gone through the roof with the additional 15 clicks on the story.

[ted]

20 hours ago, Free kick said:

But it is content for this thread topic and is sure to stir up discussions 

Artificial turf and small capacity. Whoop de doo.

[Free kick]

25 minutes ago, narduch said:

I feel dumb for asking, but has FIFA confirmed the 48 spots for 2026 already?

They confirmed that AFC goes from 4 to 8 guaranteed spots. or 8 1/2 

They confirmed that CONMEBOL goes from 4 to 6 guaranteed spots. or 6 1/2 

 

No word on the others

 

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Free kick

[Watchmen]

Let's be honest about the main reason the IC exists - it's easier for FIFA's politicians to award a federation an IC spot and let the play on the field determine what happens than to be accused of favoring one federation over another by giving them a full berth.