Jump to content

Biennial World Cup Proposal


Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Free kick said:

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. 

I think we get this already, even in the group stage. And the stronger team usually still wins. Of course there's upsets. But I think by the end of the tournament you'd still have two good teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are they really consulting fans? Come on fans, don't let me down!

Apologies if this has already been answered and I've just forgotten, but is there any proposal for how this would work? Would the expectation be something like this?

2023 Nations League, doubling as qualifying for continental competition
2024 Continental tournament
2025 Nations League, doubling as qualifying for World Cup
2026 World Cup

Otherwise, I don't see any way to keep Nations League and continental cups if we are having a World Cup every other year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CONCACAF just released a statement with some passive aggressive barbs at UEFA.  

 

 

 

https://www.concacaf.com/news/concacaf-statement-fifa-consultation-regarding-the-international-match-calendar/

Concacaf Statement – FIFA consultation regarding the International Match Calendar

Published on 13 Sep 2021 / Updated on 13 Sep 2021 at 19:40
 

The current men’s FIFA International Match Calendar ends in 2024 and Concacaf has been requested by FIFA to formally take part in its consultation process to help shape a new calendar. Meetings between FIFA officials and the Confederation and, separately, Concacaf Member Associations, will take place in the coming weeks.

 

Our initial analysis is that we recognize the merits of creating entirely new international men’s, women’s, and youth football calendars which are underpinned by fewer international windows, reduced travel for players, friendlies being replaced by meaningful matches, and a more balanced structure for the overall benefit of football development globally. We will continue to look at these proposals constructively, with an open mind, and in the spirit of positive engagement.

 

Concacaf welcomes the fact that FIFA’s Chief of Football Development, Mr. Arsène Wenger, has been transparent in sharing his vision and we are currently studying how the proposed changes would impact football in North America, Central America, and the Caribbean.

 

While Concacaf’s immediate focus is on its own region, we also believe in the importance of being part of the global football family and we will listen to the views of football stakeholders in all parts of the world. It was in this spirit that Concacaf was supportive of UEFA and its European football stakeholders when recent threats to their own club competitions structures were explored.

 

Football in all parts of the world should be given an equal opportunity to play a part in the development of what is a FIFA international football calendar. Now is not the time for fearmongering and neither is it right that this process should be dominated by the interests of a few, or that more weight should be given to one particular region over others.  

 

We encourage not only our fellow Confederations but also all members of the global football family to come together and work collaboratively to create FIFA calendars and competitions that have benefits for the development of the game in all regions across the world.

Edited by CanadianSoccerFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's merit in some of the rumoured proposals for the new international calendar. There's no reason that they can't concentrate international football into fewer windows, but longer each time, rather than them popping up every month or so throughout the season. However, doing that doesn't make a World Cup every 2 years and a major tournament every, single summer, anything other than a stupid idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, CanadianSoccerFan said:

CONCACAF just released a statement with some passive aggressive barbs at UEFA.  

 

 

 

https://www.concacaf.com/news/concacaf-statement-fifa-consultation-regarding-the-international-match-calendar/

Concacaf Statement – FIFA consultation regarding the International Match Calendar

Published on 13 Sep 2021 / Updated on 13 Sep 2021 at 19:40
 

The current men’s FIFA International Match Calendar ends in 2024 and Concacaf has been requested by FIFA to formally take part in its consultation process to help shape a new calendar. Meetings between FIFA officials and the Confederation and, separately, Concacaf Member Associations, will take place in the coming weeks.

 

Our initial analysis is that we recognize the merits of creating entirely new international men’s, women’s, and youth football calendars which are underpinned by fewer international windows, reduced travel for players, friendlies being replaced by meaningful matches, and a more balanced structure for the overall benefit of football development globally. We will continue to look at these proposals constructively, with an open mind, and in the spirit of positive engagement.

 

Concacaf welcomes the fact that FIFA’s Chief of Football Development, Mr. Arsène Wenger, has been transparent in sharing his vision and we are currently studying how the proposed changes would impact football in North America, Central America, and the Caribbean.

 

While Concacaf’s immediate focus is on its own region, we also believe in the importance of being part of the global football family and we will listen to the views of football stakeholders in all parts of the world. It was in this spirit that Concacaf was supportive of UEFA and its European football stakeholders when recent threats to their own club competitions structures were explored.

 

Football in all parts of the world should be given an equal opportunity to play a part in the development of what is a FIFA international football calendar. Now is not the time for fearmongering and neither is it right that this process should be dominated by the interests of a few, or that more weight should be given to one particular region over others.  

 

We encourage not only our fellow Confederations but also all members of the global football family to come together and work collaboratively to create FIFA calendars and competitions that have benefits for the development of the game in all regions across the world.

Where are you seeing anything passive aggressive towards UEFA, let alone, "barbs"?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ted said:

Where are you seeing anything passive aggressive towards UEFA, let alone, "barbs"?!?

The statement is very carefully worded.  Paragraphs 4 and 5 are passive aggressive shots at Ceferin.

 

Vic is basically saying to Ceferin: "I backed you against the super League in support of your interests so show some f*cking gratitude and return the favour and stop being an arrogant isolationist prick looking down your nose on the interests of the rest of the world."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, CanadianSoccerFan said:

The statement is very carefully worded.  Paragraphs 4 and 5 are passive aggressive shots at Ceferin.

 

Vic is basically saying to Ceferin: "I backed you against the super League in support of your interests so show some f*cking gratitude and return the favour and stop being an arrogant isolationist prick looking down your nose on the interests of the rest of the world."

OK, but it takes a lot of cynicism (which I totally get) to read it that way. I simply read it as, we backed you, now we expect you to back us.

And BTW, why would UEFA be in support of the biennial plan when it would destroy the Euro's just as much as it would the Gold Cup? UEFA has more to lose under this proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2021 at 11:50 AM, Kent said:

Are they really consulting fans? Come on fans, don't let me down!

Apologies if this has already been answered and I've just forgotten, but is there any proposal for how this would work? Would the expectation be something like this?

2023 Nations League, doubling as qualifying for continental competition
2024 Continental tournament
2025 Nations League, doubling as qualifying for World Cup
2026 World Cup

Otherwise, I don't see any way to keep Nations League and continental cups if we are having a World Cup every other year.

Wait a minute, what was I even thinking here? We are talking about World Cups every 2 years. So it would have to be more like.

2026 World Cup
2027 Continental tournament - doubles as qualifying for World Cup?
2028 World Cup
2030 Nations League - doubles as qualifying for World Cup and Continental Cup?

I don't see how this can work at all. I hate it so much. Keep the World Cup every 4 years and reduce the Gold Cup to every 4 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Kent said:

Wait a minute, what was I even thinking here? We are talking about World Cups every 2 years. So it would have to be more like.

2026 World Cup
2027 Continental tournament - doubles as qualifying for World Cup?
2028 World Cup
2030 Nations League - doubles as qualifying for World Cup and Continental Cup?

I don't see how this can work at all. I hate it so much. Keep the World Cup every 4 years and reduce the Gold Cup to every 4 years.

The details and schedule are all in the presentation Alexi Lalas linked to

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CanadianSoccerFan said:

The details and schedule are all in the presentation Alexi Lalas linked to

 

 

They don't really detail how qualifying would work. Does it all get crammed into one month (in "Option 1") the year of the tournament? Or in 2 breaks of a total of 5 weeks in "Option 2"? Without doing the math/counting, that doesn't seem like enough for World Cup Qualifying for CONCACAF, and probably not for AFC either (this is off the top of my head, I don't even know if they have a comparable length of qualifying for sure).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kent said:

They don't really detail how qualifying would work. Does it all get crammed into one month (in "Option 1") the year of the tournament? Or in 2 breaks of a total of 5 weeks in "Option 2"? Without doing the math/counting, that doesn't seem like enough for World Cup Qualifying for CONCACAF, and probably not for AFC either (this is off the top of my head, I don't even know if they have a comparable length of qualifying for sure).

Wenger said in other interviews it would only be 6-7 games with groups of 4.  Option 1 is they would play all games in one block in October the autumn before the World Cup.  Option 2 is the games would be broken up into 2 windows (one in October and one in March).  The cycle would repeat the following year for the confederation championships.  Nations Leagues would be scrapped.

No mention of the intercontinental playoffs but I suspect those would have to be scrapped due to logistics with each confederation having no half-berths.  

Taking a step back, a lot of the current qualifying procedures across the world are unnecessarily bloated just to fill time in the calendar.  Up until the 1980s, qualifying in South America was only 4 games with a playoff.  With 48 berths, most confederations can streamline things substantially.   

 

CONCACAF would probably resemble something like we saw in the preliminary rounds this year where we went from 30 prelim teams to 3 Octagonal participants in just 6 matches.  Confederations have a lot more berths to work with going forward so it's easier to cut down the matches.

Edited by CanadianSoccerFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we’re going full speed ahead on a biennial World Cup, here’s one possible way to make it work without it totally sucking. The reduced time between tournaments makes the following feasible. Buckle up buckeroos.

Qualifying? Where we’re going we don’t need qualifying.

Instead of one World Cup per cycle with only the top 32/48/64 teams, you have a 3-4 tier pyramid of 7 World Cups, with promotion and relegation between each tier.

For example:

Tier A 1x32 <—> Tier B 2x32 <—> Tier C 3x32 <—>Tier D 1x19.

Hockey already does something similar. The number of promotions/relegations can be tweaked as organizers deem appropriate. You can include continental quotas if absolutely necessary, though I think a simple meritocracy is ultimately more beneficial in the long run even if some editions are UEFA/CONMEBOL heavy.

Pros

  • Fairness: Under this system, 192 of 211 teams are never any more than 4 years (2 WC cycles) away from “qualifying” for the A Tier World Cup - same as it is now. The top 96 teams are never more than 2 years away. The remaining 19 are only 6 years away, and realistically there was never any chance of a team that bad qualifying under the current system.
  • Decongestion: No qualifying means happy club teams.
  • Competitiveness: dead rubber matches become more meaningful, almost every team has something to play for in every game.
  • Revenue: Potential to add more matches (relegation knockout for the bottom 16/third place teams) while maintaining the 32 team, 4 group structure we all prefer to the 48 team abomination that’s coming
  • Parity: more balanced competitions produce more entertaining games.
  • Continental tournaments become more special: Removing WCQ against the other nations in your region makes Continental qualifiers and Finals games more meaningful.
  • Scalability: Tiers B,C and D require progressively less infrastructure to host by way of smaller stadiums, lower quality training facilities, and less fan accommodation. Lower tiers can also split into smaller 16 team tournaments to reduce stadium demands even more.
  • Novelty: Tell me you wouldn’t watch the Tier 4 final between Somalia and Gibraltar just for the sheer strangeness.
  • Player Opportunity: Tournaments present an opportunity for young players to showcase themselves. Maybe a young wunderkind from Eritrea or Tonga gets discovered where he would have otherwise floundered in obscurity.
  • Reduced Travel Cost: Particularly for the minnows and ultra minnows (like the CSA ;) ), travel cost is prohibitive to playing games. International games in every other year would now be compressed into a few weeks in a single host nation. 

 

Possible cons:

  • Hosting complications: Without assurance that your team will be in tier A 4+ years from now, picking hosts becomes more problematic. A potential solution is enforced promotion should a host team fall below the tier they are scheduled to host in. Eg. if France gets relegated after 2026, but are due to host in 2030,  the number of merit-based promotions would be cut by one in 2028, and France would play Tier 2 as a warmup for hosting. Not really sure how to solve the reverse problem wherein the D-tier host gets promoted out before hosting, but perhaps such a small scale event would require less lead time and 2 years would be sufficient.
  • No home qualifiers: FIFA wants to reduce qualifiers, but this strategy removes them entirely, which admittedly is a bummer. It does, however, present more opportunities to host Tier B/C/D Finals tournaments.
  • Fewer local derbies: Personally, I think this can be mitigated by structuring continental competitions properly, but it is possible that Canada v Uzbekistan in a Tier B group match doesn’t have them same fire as Canada v Honduras might. I still think the weight of the occasion would be enough to create fast foes, but YMMV.
  • Timing: 211 countries all playing at once in the same month is likely too much, IdeaIly it would be better from an audience standpoint to spread the tiers out. eg: Tier D in March, C in April, B in May, A in June. This has potential to create player availability issues with clubs, but at least these issues would be spread out over the calendar. Overall load would be reduced though, so this might be an acceptable compromise. Instead of Premier League clubs losing 4-9 internationals every month for a week, it might be 1-2 different players each month. You can keep playing league games while only missing 1-2 players. 
  • I’m sure there’s more, and I’m sure you’ll all let me know what they are.

If you made it this far, I’m so sorry. Thoughts? Tweaks?

Edited by footballfreak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, footballfreak said:
  • Not really sure how to solve the reverse problem wherein the D-tier host gets promoted out before hosting, but perhaps such a small scale event would require less lead time and 2 years would be sufficient.
  • No home qualifiers: FIFA wants to reduce qualifiers, but this strategy removes them entirely, which admittedly is a bummer

Overall I don’t like the biennial proposal, but I actually like your proposal. Kudos. I wonder if the tweak that solves the hosting issue at the bottom end is to run those “World Cups” more like Nations League where countries (perhaps those higher ranked) host their own games. Disperses logistics issues among countries instead of burdening one country that might struggle with them, and gives further incentive to move up the rankings (every game is meaningful)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, footballfreak said:

If we’re going full speed ahead on a biennial World Cup, here’s one possible way to make it work without it totally sucking. The reduced time between tournaments makes the following feasible. Buckle up buckeroos.

Qualifying? Where we’re going we don’t need qualifying.

Instead of one World Cup per cycle with only the top 32/48/64 teams, you have a 3-4 tier pyramid of 7 World Cups, with promotion and relegation between each tier.

For example:

Tier A 1x32 <—> Tier B 2x32 <—> Tier C 3x32 <—>Tier D 1x19.

Hockey already does something similar. The number of promotions/relegations can be tweaked as organizers deem appropriate. You can include continental quotas if absolutely necessary, though I think a simple meritocracy is ultimately more beneficial in the long run even if some editions are UEFA/CONMEBOL heavy.

Pros

  • Fairness: Under this system, 192 of 211 teams are never any more than 4 years (2 WC cycles) away from “qualifying” for the A Tier World Cup - same as it is now. The top 96 teams are never more than 2 years away. The remaining 19 are only 6 years away, and realistically there was never any chance of a team that bad qualifying under the current system.
  • Decongestion: No qualifying means happy club teams.
  • Competitiveness: dead rubber matches become more meaningful, almost every team has something to play for in every game.
  • Revenue: Potential to add more matches (relegation knockout for the bottom 16/third place teams) while maintaining the 32 team, 4 group structure we all prefer to the 48 team abomination that’s coming
  • Parity: more balanced competitions produce more entertaining games.
  • Continental tournaments become more special: Removing WCQ against the other nations in your region makes Continental qualifiers and Finals games more meaningful.
  • Scalability: Tiers B,C and D require progressively less infrastructure to host by way of smaller stadiums, lower quality training facilities, and less fan accommodation. Lower tiers can also split into smaller 16 team tournaments to reduce stadium demands even more.
  • Novelty: Tell me you wouldn’t watch the Tier 4 final between Somalia and Gibraltar just for the sheer strangeness.
  • Player Opportunity: Tournaments present an opportunity for young players to showcase themselves. Maybe a young wunderkind from Eritrea or Tonga gets discovered where he would have otherwise floundered in obscurity.
  • Reduced Travel Cost: Particularly for the minnows and ultra minnows (like the CSA ;) ), travel cost is prohibitive to playing games. International games in every other year would now be compressed into a few weeks in a single host nation. 

 

Possible cons:

  • Hosting complications: Without assurance that your team will be in tier A 4+ years from now, picking hosts becomes more problematic. A potential solution is enforced promotion should a host team fall below the tier they are scheduled to host in. Eg. if France gets relegated after 2026, but are due to host in 2030,  the number of merit-based promotions would be cut by one in 2028, and France would play Tier 2 as a warmup for hosting. Not really sure how to solve the reverse problem wherein the D-tier host gets promoted out before hosting, but perhaps such a small scale event would require less lead time and 2 years would be sufficient.
  • No home qualifiers: FIFA wants to reduce qualifiers, but this strategy removes them entirely, which admittedly is a bummer. It does, however, present more opportunities to host Tier B/C/D Finals tournaments.
  • Fewer local derbies: Personally, I think this can be mitigated by structuring continental competitions properly, but it is possible that Canada v Uzbekistan in a Tier B group match doesn’t have them same fire as Canada v Honduras might. I still think the weight of the occasion would be enough to create fast foes, but YMMV.
  • Timing: 211 countries all playing at once in the same month is likely too much, IdeaIly it would be better from an audience standpoint to spread the tiers out. eg: Tier D in March, C in April, B in May, A in June. This has potential to create player availability issues with clubs, but at least these issues would be spread out over the calendar. Overall load would be reduced though, so this might be an acceptable compromise. Instead of Premier League clubs losing 4-9 internationals every month for a week, it might be 1-2 different players each month. You can keep playing league games while only missing 1-2 players. 
  • I’m sure there’s more, and I’m sure you’ll all let me know what they are.

If you made it this far, I’m so sorry. Thoughts? Tweaks?

Weird. When I started reading, I initially thought this was crazy, but as I read on (yes, I made it to the end) this actually makes a lot of sense. Doubt any of this will happen but way to think outside of the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see on the powerpoint proposal that they expect no leagues to run from June to July every year. I can see why Comnebol hates this, 9 of them would have their seasons cut in half. Only Brazil plays the European winter season. Same with MLS, CPL, South Korea, Japan, and Scandinavia. 

Does this mean MLS and CPL have to lose their revenue stream (fans) in the summer because they are forced to shut down for two months every year?  I don't see that happening. 

Edited by Trois Reds
Rewording
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trois Reds said:

I see on the powerpoint proposal that they expect no leagues to run from June to July every year. I can see why Comnebol hates this, 9 of them would have their seasons cut in half. Only Brazil plays the European winter season. Same with MLS, CPL, South Korea, Japan, and Scandinavia. 

Does this mean MLS and CPL have to lose their revenue stream (fans) in the summer because they are forced to shut down for two months every year?  I don't see that happening. 

It also looks like they plan to start the World Cup a week earlier and finish by the turn of the month.  The last World Cup didn't finish until July 15th.

The 25 day break is a very eurocentric talking point but that is the opposition they have to placate.  In practice, I don't see how it can be enforced for other confederations.

 

 

 

image.png.3357a8e5ea148c1b758e83b67afa6a88.png

 

image.png.348d85380c31ea7d7107832a7dc1a3b2.png

Edited by CanadianSoccerFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If FIFA insists on a World Cup every 2 years, I’d love it if they’d be open to trying a different format every other World Cup.

Every 4 years have the traditional World Cup, but keep it at 32 teams.

In between, try a knockout style tournament like Wimbledon / March Madness… I think there are 211 member nations:  Teams ranked 46-211 start in the first round, 1-45 join the 63 winners of Round 1 into a 128 team round 2 and the bracket begins.  Maybe have the first few 3 or 4 rounds “regionally” and then have the final 32 or 16 and after in one location.  Perhaps give the host of this Final 32/16 a bye even into this point of the tournament.  
The pros would be no need for qualification, it’s something new, it works for tennis and college basketball.  The cons would be a lot of early round blowouts / low -ranked teams parking the bus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2021 at 7:22 AM, shorty said:

Overall I don’t like the biennial proposal, but I actually like your proposal. Kudos. I wonder if the tweak that solves the hosting issue at the bottom end is to run those “World Cups” more like Nations League where countries (perhaps those higher ranked) host their own games. Disperses logistics issues among countries instead of burdening one country that might struggle with them, and gives further incentive to move up the rankings (every game is meaningful)

I considered this, but ditched it because of how much travel time and cost it would entail without using a regional model. Imagine Australia/England/Senegal/Chile in the same group. If teleporters existed, your format would be awesome though. If nothing else it would make a fun football manager mod.

On 9/16/2021 at 3:50 PM, TOcanadafan said:

If FIFA insists on a World Cup every 2 years, I’d love it if they’d be open to trying a different format every other World Cup.

Every 4 years have the traditional World Cup, but keep it at 32 teams.

In between, try a knockout style tournament like Wimbledon / March Madness… I think there are 211 member nations:  Teams ranked 46-211 start in the first round, 1-45 join the 63 winners of Round 1 into a 128 team round 2 and the bracket begins.  Maybe have the first few 3 or 4 rounds “regionally” and then have the final 32 or 16 and after in one location.  Perhaps give the host of this Final 32/16 a bye even into this point of the tournament.  
The pros would be no need for qualification, it’s something new, it works for tennis and college basketball.  The cons would be a lot of early round blowouts / low -ranked teams parking the bus.

Definitely a fun option. It would be interesting to see statistics on the likelihood of upsets in international soccer vs college basketball. Intuitively I would guess they are less likely, but that could be wrong. No way FIFA would approve this method unfortunately. Imagine if one or more of the big guns went out early. An Italy loss to Togo in the second round would be fun for diehards, but FIFA would lose money hand over fist. 

On 9/16/2021 at 12:17 PM, johnyb said:

Weird. When I started reading, I initially thought this was crazy, but as I read on (yes, I made it to the end) this actually makes a lot of sense. Doubt any of this will happen but way to think outside of the box.

Yeah, definitely unlikely but it was fun to spitball. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I...don't hate this proposal? Basically, a "World Cup" but minus Europe and South America. Bigger and more of a challenge to the top teams from the other regions, rather than just a continental competition that doesn't challenge the top teams.

https://theathletic.com/2884596/2021/10/14/an-alternative-plan-to-a-world-cup-every-two-years?source=user-shared-article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

I...don't hate this proposal? Basically, a "World Cup" but minus Europe and South America. Bigger and more of a challenge to the top teams from the other regions, rather than just a continental competition that doesn't challenge the top teams.

https://theathletic.com/2884596/2021/10/14/an-alternative-plan-to-a-world-cup-every-two-years?source=user-shared-article

The patronizing condescension from Cox is nothing new

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...