Jump to content

Biennial World Cup Proposal


What is your preferred frequency for the World Cup?  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. What is your preferred frequency for the World Cup?

    • Every 2 years
      7
    • Every 4 years
      19


Recommended Posts

Yeah there’s a big pie to be shared for sure between fifa and the regional fiefdoms (or fifadoms if you will) but it’s not clear if these proposals benefit anyone other than the pie eaters. 
 

32 to 48 teams is problematic for other reasons including time to complete and watering down on quality, number of stadiums etc. It really doesn’t consider fans or players but revenues and tv contracts.  Expand pot and grow the brand.  Extract as much cheap human labor as possible due to their desire to play for their countries.  
 

I do think a global home and away tournament style would be fun though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TOcanadafan said:

I also hope UEFA wins.  But UEFA also went and made the Euro worse imo when they expanded from 16 to 24 to increase revenues, so they can hardly preach. 

With the break up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, UEFA membership nearly doubled. Increasing the number of teams at the Euros made some sense on certain levels, even if the competition was at its best when it was 16 teams. That move was in no way comparable to making the World Cup every 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am mixed on this proposal.  I probably prefer the status quo as it preserves the integrity of the competition and the scarcity makes it more of a global event especially with the non-fans.  That being said, for players, it means you only play in 3 or 4 World Cups a career if you are lucky and many stars less than that through injury, shortness of their personal career at the top or their nation failing to qualify.  Personally, if every summer I had either the World Cup or the Gold Cup to watch with qualifying for each in the periods in between (and no or much fewer friendlies), that would be great.  It definitely would devalue the regional competitions which likely matters the most for Europe as the Euros are still something special whether you have 16 or 24 sides.  The rest of the continents the regional competitions are generally meh with the Copa America being somewhere between meh and wow.  I suspect the Gold Cup would become like it was this summer with many players opting out which in some ways would give nations the opportunity to trial players as there would be a hell of a lot less friendlies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2021 at 4:40 PM, Ruud said:

Yeah there’s a big pie to be shared for sure between fifa and the regional fiefdoms (or fifadoms if you will) but it’s not clear if these proposals benefit anyone other than the pie eaters. 
 

32 to 48 teams is problematic for other reasons including time to complete and watering down on quality, number of stadiums etc. It really doesn’t consider fans or players but revenues and tv contracts.  Expand pot and grow the brand.  Extract as much cheap human labor as possible due to their desire to play for their countries.  
 

I do think a global home and away tournament style would be fun though. 

64 team, knock out tournament. Works extremely well for March Madness. The two finalists don't play any more games than they do now. There's no meaningless matches. You can divide the tournament in to regions (read: different countries) pretty easily, which is what they're moving towards anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Watchmen said:

64 team, knock out tournament. Works extremely well for March Madness. The two finalists don't play any more games than they do now. There's no meaningless matches. You can divide the tournament in to regions (read: different countries) pretty easily, which is what they're moving towards anyway.

I am a big fan of March Madness. But I don’t think you get a World Cup where a Germany or Brazil can go home after one match on a fluke result. Also, the big difference is that NCAA basketball are club teams who have a whole year of playing together.  For football, the National sides need the first round to gel.  It’s almost a preseason for the top sides. 

So the compromise is a 48 team tournament where instead of 3 matches, everyone is guaranteed 2 matches and if the aforesaid Germany or Brazil have one off match in the prelims, they likely can make it up in the other match and go through as 2 out of the 3 sides get through the first round  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, An Observer said:

I am a big fan of March Madness. But I don’t think you get a World Cup where a Germany or Brazil can go home after one match on a fluke result. Also, the big difference is that NCAA basketball are club teams who have a whole year of playing together.  For football, the National sides need the first round to gel.  It’s almost a preseason for the top sides. 

So the compromise is a 48 team tournament where instead of 3 matches, everyone is guaranteed 2 matches and if the aforesaid Germany or Brazil have one off match in the prelims, they likely can make it up in the other match and go through as 2 out of the 3 sides get through the first round  

If it's pre-season for the top sides, it's also pre-season for the smaller sides.  The top sides in March Madness rarely lose early, and when they do it becomes a major moment to remember.  The same would hold true for the World Cup.  So, I guess I don't really care if a Germany or Brazil goes out after one match to a Montenegro or Slovenia, and I don't think the format would prevent one of the top teams in the world from still winning either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Watchmen said:

If it's pre-season for the top sides, it's also pre-season for the smaller sides.  The top sides in March Madness rarely lose early, and when they do it becomes a major moment to remember.  The same would hold true for the World Cup.  So, I guess I don't really care if a Germany or Brazil goes out after one match to a Montenegro or Slovenia, and I don't think the format would prevent one of the top teams in the world from still winning either.

You might not care but Germany and Brazil do and therefore, FIFA does and that's why its not going to happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Watchmen said:

If it's pre-season for the top sides, it's also pre-season for the smaller sides.  The top sides in March Madness rarely lose early, and when they do it becomes a major moment to remember.  The same would hold true for the World Cup.  So, I guess I don't really care if a Germany or Brazil goes out after one match to a Montenegro or Slovenia, and I don't think the format would prevent one of the top teams in the world from still winning either.

I don't follow March Madness, but I believe it is seeded. I don't care if Germany or Brazil lose in 1 game, but I would be pretty disappointed if Canada makes the World Cup and gets drawn against a powerhouse like those teams in a do or die match. 1 no hoper of a game and then going back home. I already dislike the idea of the 48 team tournament only guaranteeing 2 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kent said:

I don't follow March Madness, but I believe it is seeded. I don't care if Germany or Brazil lose in 1 game, but I would be pretty disappointed if Canada makes the World Cup and gets drawn against a powerhouse like those teams in a do or die match. 1 no hoper of a game and then going back home. I already dislike the idea of the 48 team tournament only guaranteeing 2 games.

Maybe I am in the minority then, since the idea of 2 games seems much weaker and dull to me than the intensity of 1 knock out round game. I enjoyed 32 more, but 48 seems...dumb to me. I'd rather jump to 64.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between March Madness and the World Cup is that March Madness happens every year. It would be crazy to wait 4 years between World Cups and go through all this qualifying, just to be eliminated in 1 game. If they end up doing it every 2 years or even every year some time in the future, then it may make more sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/28/2021 at 10:01 AM, archer21 said:

I’m still not in favour of 3 team groups. Too easy for a group to end up with all the games being a draw or all teams being 1 win and 1 loss. I wouldn’t want multiple teams being sent home by goal difference. 3 games total for a group is too small of sample size for me.

Oh worse yet, the last group game could be irrelevant and play just safe enough to qualify for the knockout rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jedi Ram said:

Oh worse yet, the last group game could be irrelevant and play just safe enough to qualify for the knockout rounds.

Yup this is ridiculous a lot of those third games will be meaningless,  plus you go through that long qualifying process to be guaranteed only 3 games . What are these idiots thinking , they have no clue .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, SoccMan said:

Yup this is ridiculous a lot of those third games will be meaningless,  plus you go through that long qualifying process to be guaranteed only 3 games . What are these idiots thinking , they have no clue .

I think there is actually no scenario where the third game of the group stage would be meaningless.

Of Greater concern is the need for a complicated tiebreaker process.

That said I still really like the 48 team format. Essentially it gives an additional 16 teams two games in the World Cup. The 32 teams who would have made it in the 32 team format are still guaranteed the same three games that they were previously. 

Not a fan of a biannual World Cup though as I think it cheapens competition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Kusch to the Corner said:

I think there is actually no scenario where the third game of the group stage would be meaningless.

Of Greater concern is the need for a complicated tiebreaker process.

That said I still really like the 48 team format. Essentially it gives an additional 16 teams two games in the World Cup. The 32 teams who would have made it in the 32 team format are still guaranteed the same three games that they were previously. 

Not a fan of a biannual World Cup though as I think it cheapens competition

Actually you are only guaranteed 2 group games...Lose both and you're out, as Round of 32 is not exactly a shoo-in...  Makes you wonder if the whole long process of qualifying for the World Cup worth it just for 2 games...In my own opinion it would be better to stick to 32 teams and make it more exclusive and rewarding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CanadianSoccerFan said:

 

If UEFA and CONMEBOL simply refuse to participate in the additional tournaments, and choose to run their own competitions (Euros and Copa America), is there really a single thing that FIFA or the other confederations can realistically do about it? FIFA is trying to bully UEFA and CONMEBOL into going along, but if their bluff gets called, they'll lose. There's no money in a World Cup tournament without Europe and South America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SthMelbRed said:

If UEFA and CONMEBOL simply refuse to participate in the additional tournaments, and choose to run their own competitions (Euros and Copa America), is there really a single thing that FIFA or the other confederations can realistically do about it? FIFA is trying to bully UEFA and CONMEBOL into going along, but if their bluff gets called, they'll lose. There's no money in a World Cup tournament without Europe and South America.

CONMEBOL is onboard.  It's only UEFA in the way

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/nov/23/world-cup-two-years-fifa-conmebol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CanadianSoccerFan said:

Well, they've got the most money and the most viable outlook if they tell FIFA to get fucked. I think FIFA and the other confederations are going to have to come up with a lot of money to compensate UEFA for the loss of the massive revenues they generate from the Euro every 4 years if they have any hope of succeeding here. Simply trying to bully them, and dropping stupid quotes about colonialism, isn't going to cut it. I hope UEFA holds firm, as I think it's a stupid idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, SthMelbRed said:

Well, they've got the most money and the most viable outlook if they tell FIFA to get fucked. I think FIFA and the other confederations are going to have to come up with a lot of money to compensate UEFA for the loss of the massive revenues they generate from the Euro every 4 years if they have any hope of succeeding here. Simply trying to bully them, and dropping stupid quotes about colonialism, isn't going to cut it. I hope UEFA holds firm, as I think it's a stupid idea.

Precisely how it looks to be playing out.  Mexico came out in favour.

 

UEFA getting pissed

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by CanadianSoccerFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2021 at 6:58 PM, Watchmen said:
On 8/10/2021 at 6:58 PM, Watchmen said:

64 team, knock out tournament. Works extremely well for March Madness. The two finalists don't play any more games than they do now. There's no meaningless matches. You can divide the tournament in to regions (read: different countries) pretty easily, which is what they're moving towards anyway.

Just to clarify a little bit,  in March madness,  the regions that they setup are for the locations of the venues only.   Not for nor based on the location of the school.  Hence a school from the east coast could play in the west region.   Maybe this is what you meant.  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2021 at 10:47 PM, Watchmen said:

If it's pre-season for the top sides, it's also pre-season for the smaller sides.  The top sides in March Madness rarely lose early, and when they do it becomes a major moment to remember.  The same would hold true for the World Cup.  So, I guess I don't really care if a Germany or Brazil goes out after one match to a Montenegro or Slovenia, and I don't think the format would prevent one of the top teams in the world from still winning either.

There is a difference with college basketball and international soccer.  There is a large gap bettween the big schools from the power conferences and those small mid majors from very weak conferences.  You can say that there is also a similar gap in international soccer.  But the differences lie in the two sports:   In basketball anyone can get hot shooting the ball and that can be an equalizer that causes upset.  Whereas is soccer the big equalizers is the negative tactics like bunkering, parking the bus, or diving and similation,  or bad referee decisions.  
 

i am more comfortable with kind of upset that occur because of a hot shooter in basketball than i am with an upset in soccer due to those conditions i listed. 

Edited by Free kick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Free kick said:

Just to clarify a little bit,  in March madness,  the regions that they setup are for the locations of the venues only.   Not for nor based on the location of the school.  Hence a school from the east coast could play in the west region.   Maybe this is what you meant.  
 

I get that, but I meant it more along the lines of one part of the bracket plays exclusively in one country, another bracket plays in another, etc. Then the final 4 is in one city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...