FIFA recently announced that the World Cup in 2026 would be expanded to 48 teams. The decision was far from being warmly received. One concern, that the format for 48 teams will not be as good as the format for 32 teams is entirely valid. However my view is that the benefits of having more teams competing more than makes up for this. There is also concern that the move to 48 teams is political and is about shoring up the support of the FIFA President Gianni Infantino (which could be true) and there was a lack of consultation.
Increasing the number of participants of any World Cup is a good idea, something the
ICC should take note of.
I think much of the criticism comes because football don't like or trust of FIFA, which is perfectly understandable. The fact that the structure of FIFA is basically unchanged after all we have learnt about corruption in FIFA is remarkable and very disappointing. The extent of how much FIFA is on the nose is that the movie,
United Passions, that FIFA financed about it's history was the lowest grossing movie in US history and could not find a distributor in the UK, Germany and Brazil and went straight to DVD in France (and these are, of course, nations that love football).
The presidents of the German FA and the Spanish League have come out strongly against the move.
The European Club Association who represent about 220 of the major clubs in Europe are against it. However a lot of football fans regard them about as highly as they do FIFA.
Former Socceroos captain Paul Wade is against because it will dilute the quality of the World Cup. This is the same Paul Wade whose 340 game club career was spent in Australia, when any half decent player was heading overseas. Wade also marked Diego Maradona when Australia played Argentina in qualifiers for the 1994 World Cup. It's hard to imagine anything diluting the quality of a World Cup more than of having Paul Wade play at a World Cup at the expense of Diego Maradona.
Having more games between 'big' teams and 'small' teams might lead to more one sided games. However it will also lead to more of this:
FIFA Now is the organisation which has really been at the forefront of trying to overhaul how FIFA is run and structured,
does not support the plan. There 3 objections are that:
- It will dilute the quality of the tournament and therefore the enjoyment of fans;
- It will make a mockery of the qualification process; and
- That it is a money and power grab
Re the last point. I assume that Infantino's plan will be very popular with the African, Asian, North American & possible Oceania confederations. That could be a sign that something is fishy. However it could also be because it is a good plan. And getting more money for TV rights and the extra games is not in itself a bad thing, indeed I would say it is a good thing.
Regarding their other points. Yes qualification will be easier but I strongly disagree it will make a mockery of qualification. At the 2014 World Cup, Europe had 13 spots. UEFA has 55 members. In a 48 team World Cup both Africa & Asia will probably get somewhere around 9 spots. The Confederation of African Football has 56 members and the Asian Football Confederation has 47 members. So in percentage terms it will still be harder to qualify from Africa & Asia in a 48 team tournament than it was from Europe in a 32 team tournament. Also the European Championships have just been expanded to 24 teams and the Netherlands (semi finalists at the previous World Cup) didn't qualify, so qualification is still wouldn't be guaranteed.
Regarding reducing the enjoyment of fans. Will it reduce the enjoyment of the fans from the extra 16 countries that make the World Cup? Also the format will lead to the introduction of an extra knockout round. In terms of watching a round robin game or a knock out game I know what I would prefer. Plus there will be an extra 16 games, something football fans might enjoy.
The format proposed is for 16 groups of 3. The top 2 qualify for the knockout stage. Then there is a knockout stage for these 32 teams. This will lead to an extra 16 matches compared to the 32 team model (the number of group games is unchanged, the extra 16 games being the extra round of knockout games).
This model keeps the maximum number of games per team as 7 and apparently the tournament can be scheduled in the same period (with more games per day).
Other models were considered. There was a proposal where of the 48 qualifiers, 16 of them would go straight into the groups. Then the other 32 teams would have 16 knockout qualifying games. This was simply a horrendous proposal which rightly derided. Not only would it increase the the length of the tournament, playing one game was hardly a fair reward for the efforts of players from 16 teams as well not being much of a reward for the fans of those countries.
It has been suggested only having the top team from each group qualify and then have a knockout with 16 teams. This would keep mean the number of matches didn't change, I see some problems with this proposal. The first is if the team who played in the first 2 games won both of their matches. This would make the last game of the group a meaningless match. The other problem is that it gives a massive advantage to the teams playing in the last game. Lets say Germany beat Australia 2-0 in the first game, Then Germany draws 1-1 with Ghana in the next game, In the last game between Australia and Ghana, Australia has nothing to play for and Ghana knows exactly what result they need to qualify.
I think a better schedule would be 12 groups of 4 where the top 2 teams go through plus the 8 best 3rd placed teams, Then have a knockout of these 32 teams, Essentially it is a doubling of the schedule used in the 24 team tournaments from 1990 to 1998. However it does come back with one big downside which probably eliminates as a possibility and that is the length of the tournament. Not only would it increase the maximum number of games a team plays from 7 to 8, it would increase the number of games by 40. Even if you increased the number of games per day at the group stage so that this part of the tournament didn't take longer, the extra 16 games at the first knockout stage would add at least 4 days to the tournament (and probably a bit longer than that).
One of the shortfalls of the proposed plan is that it does increase the size of collusion. Lets say Germany and Australia draw the first game 1-1. Then Germany draws 1-1 with Ghana. It means the winner of Australia vs Ghana would qualify whilst the loser gets knocked out. However a 2-2 draw would put both teams through, There would be a temptation to arrange a 2-2 draw.
Is that really that fanciful an idea?
Another possibility is Australia beats Germany 2-0 (it's possible!) and then Germany beats Ghana 3-2. Ghana takes an early 1-0 lead vs Australia in the last game. At that stage both Australia and Ghana would qualify. Ghana knows if Australia equalise then Ghana will be knocked out. Australia knows if Ghana scores 2 more goals then Australia will be knocked out. Ghana and Australia then go on to produce a game whether neither teams appears to be trying and the games finishes 1-0. Both Australia and Ghana qualify and Germany go homes feeling mightily aggrieved. Couldn't happen? In the section below read about the 1982 World Cup game between West Germany and Austria.
FIFA's plan to get around this is to eliminate draws by having penalty shootouts for every game, I'm not sure this totally eliminates the problems spoken about. In the case of Germany drawing 1-1 with Australia and then Ghana. Lets say Australia beat Germany in a penalty shootout and Germany beat Ghana on penalties. Then a 2-2 draw between Australia and Ghana where Ghana wins the penalty shootout still guarantees that both teams would qualify.
In the case of the second scenario previously mentioned, the introduction of penalty shootouts doesn't change the likelihood of any shenanigans because no games were drawn.
There is another problem with introducing penalty shootouts. Lets say Australia draws 1-1 with Germany but loses the penalty shootout. Germany then beats Ghana. Australia then draw 1-1 with Ghana in the last game, Ghana wins the penalty shooutout 9-8 with their goalkeeper scoring the winning penalty and in some way making up for the
loss in the 2015 African Cup of Nations.
So Germany and Ghana progress despite Australia not losing a game. Also Australia's record of 2 draws (before the penalty shootouts) stands in comparison to Ghana's record of one draw and one loss. I fear it would bring about more games like the
1986 European Cup final between Barcelona and Steaua Bucharest where one teams decides their best chance of a victory is to try for a 0-0 draw and then win the penalty shootout.
There is another downside to penalty shootouts, especially if like me you are a England fan.
After going through these short comings I think that if there is a move to a 48 team tournament then it really has to be with 12 groups of 4.
So where will the extra countries come from? According to the
Guardian, Asia & Africa will get an extra 4, Africa 4, North America 3, Europe 3, South America 1.5 & Oceania 0.5.
That would mean that Europe would have 16 spots, Africa 9, Asia 8.5, South America 7, North America 6.5 & Oceania 1. That would leave a playoff between Asia and North America for one pot. I'm not sure how final these numbers are.
For the 2014 World Cup this might have meant that the extra qualifiers would have been: Denmark, Austria, Hungary, Venezuela, Senegal, Ethiopia, Tunisia, Egypt (or maybe Burkina Faso might have replaced one of these African teams), Jordan, Uzbekistan, Oman, Qatar, New Zealand, Panama & Jamaica. The last spot would have filled by either Guatemala, El Salvador, Canada, Lebanon or Iraq.
Not much chance that the winners would have come from one of teams. well unless
Lord Bendtner played like how he thinks he normally plays. However if we want the came to continue to develop outside of Europe and South America more spots need to be given to countries from outside of these regions.
Below is a brief summary the structure used for each World Cup. My rating is just in regard to the structure of the tournament, although not taking into account the composition of the countries that competed.
1930
13 teams
South America 7, Europe 4 & North America 2
Format: 1 group of 4 & 3 groups of 3. Winners of groups into semi finals. Then a final
Number of knockout games: 3
Were the last group games played at the same time? Only relevant for one group: no
My rating: 7. 13 is a horrible number run a fair tournament with. I probably would have gone with the top 2 from each group qualified, seeing that 6 of the teams who traveled to Uruguay only played 2 games.
Fact: Of the 18 games played there were no draws. Indeed only 8 of the 18 games had a 2 goal or less winning margin.
1934
16 teams
Europe 12, South America 2, North America 1 & Africa 1
Format: Straight knockout
Number of knockout games: 15
Were the last group games played at the same time? Not relevant
My rating: 3. I like knock out games, but not to have a group stage which meant that 8 teams only had one game.
1938
15 teams
Europe 12, South America 1, North America 1 & Asia 1.
Format: Straight knockout
Number of knockout game: 14
Were group games played at the same time? Not relevant
My rating: 2.5 (half a point less than 1934 for having 15 teams)
Fact: Austria qualified, but being in 1938 they unified with Germany. FIFA in their infinite wisdom decided to not to invite another team
1950
13 teams
Europe 6, South America 5 & North America 2
2 groups of 4, 1 group of 3 and 1 group of 2. Winners into a final group of 4. No final.
Number of knockout game: 1
Were group games played at the same time? Two teams had 4 teams. One group did.
My rating: 0. There were withdrawals. However to have 2 groups of 4, 1 of 3 and another of 2 was ridiculous. The only knockout game was the game between Uruguay & Bolivia in the only game in group 4. Then there was no final, instead there was a round robin. Luckily the top 2 teams played in the last game.
1954
16 teams
Europe 12, South America 2, North America 1 & Asia 1.
Format: 4 groups of 4. Top 2 into the quarter finals. Each team played 2 games in the group not 3. No goal difference (playoff games used). Knockout from then.
Number of knockout game: 9 (including 2 playoff games at the group stage)
Were group games played at the same time? Yes
My rating: 6. A big markdown for each team not playing each other in the group stage, However they had the good sense not to use goal difference to determine the second team to qualify. Two groups had playoffs and in both cases this was the second match between these sides (and in both cases the same team won)
1958
16 teams
Europe 12, South America 3, North America 1
Format: 4 groups of 4. Top 2 into the quarter finals. No goal difference (playoff games used). Knockout from then.
Number of knockout games: 10 (including 3 playoff games at the group stage)
Were group games played at the same time? Yes for 3 groups (and therefore no for one group)
My rating: 9. Almost perfect. To use playoff games rather than goal difference was the only negative (although with England & the Soviet Union having exactly the same goal difference a playoff was the best option to separate them).
1962, 1966 & 1970
16 teams
1962: Europe 10, South America 5 & North America 1
1966: Europe 10, South America 4, North America 1 & Asia 1
1970: Europe 9, South America 3, North America 2, Africa 1 & Asia 1.
Format: 4 groups of 4. Top 2 into the quarter finals. Goal difference used. Knockout from then.
Number of knockout games: 7
Were group games played at the same time? No
My rating: 9 - loses a point for not having the last group games played at the same time.
1974 & 1978
16 teams
1974: Europe 9, South America 4, North America 1, Africa 1 & Oceania 1
1978: Europe 10, South America 3, North America 1, Africa 1 & Asia 1.
Format: 4 groups of 4. Top 2 go through into different 2 groups of 4. Winners into the final.
Number of knockout games: 1
Were group games played at the same time? Yes for 4 of the 6 groups & no for 2 groups
My rating: 4. FIFA after having almost a perfect structure for the previous World Cups (only let down by not having simultaneous kick offs for the last round of group games) changed the format this year. This system does lead to more games (6 more).
1974: This system does lead to more games (6 more), however, the games lose meaning (East Germany vs Argentina and Sweden vs Yugoslavia in the second group stages were pointless games). FIFA got lucky in that the top 2 teams in each of the second lot of group games met in the last match which turned the games into defacto semi finals. The lack of knockout games is a major step backwards.
1978: The lack of not playing all of the group games at the same time had a serious impact on the tournament. In the first of the group in the second stage the last 2 games were played at the same time. However in the second group they were not. Going into the last game between Argentina & Peru, Brazil had 5 points and a goal difference of +5 and Argentina had 3 points and a goal difference of +2. Argentina knew they had to win by 4 goals to qualify for the final. In rather dubious circumstances Argentina won 6-0. Brazil were knocked out after being unbeaten in their 6 games
1982
24 teams
Europe 14, South America 4, North America 2, Africa 2, Asia 1 & Oceania 1
Format: 6 groups of 4. The top progress. Then 4 groups of 3. Winners into the semi finals.
Number of knockout games: 3
Were group games played at the same time? No
My rating: 5. The first real expansion in World Cup history (the first tournament did only have 13 teams but this was less due to design than to a lack of interest by European countries). The re-introduction of semi finals was an improvement. However the second group stage was a misstep, although luckily all of the last 4 matches of this stage were meaningful games and the Italy vs Brazil game is one of the clssic World Cup games. England, like Brazil in 1978, reached the second stage of the World Cup and were knocked out despite being unbeaten. Also the problem of not playing the last round of group games at the same stage again reared it's ugly head in the match between
West Germany & Austria.
1986, 1990 & 1994
24 teams
1986 & 1990: Europe 14, South America 4, North America 2, Africa 2 & Asia 2.
1994: Europe 13, South America 4, Africa 3, North America 2 & Asia 2.
Format: 6 groups of 4. The top 2 teams from each qualify plus the 4 best third place finishers. Knockout from there.
Number of knockout games: 15
Were group games played at the same time? Yes
My rating: 8. It's difficult to have a great format with 24 teams, but this is probably the best option. I'm not a fan of some third place teams qualifying and others not (especially as even one win at the group stage would have seen a team qualify so the teams who drew say Canada were virtually ensured of making the final 16). However there isn't an obvious alternative. Of the 4 teams who qualified as the 3rd best teams, 3 were knocked out at the next stage and Belgium made it all the way to semi finals when they fell to the brilliance of Diego Maradona.
Opinion: 1986 is probably the best World Cup ever. There were as many as 10 teams who made the final 16 who could have been considered serious chances of winning the tournament (Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, England, France, Italy, the Soviet Union, Spain & West Germany). In the end the brilliance of Diego Maradona proved vital in securing Argentina's victory.
1998, 2002, 2006, 2010 & 2014
32 teams
1998 & 2002: Europe 15, South America 5, Africa 5, Asia 4 & North America 3.
2006: Europe 14, Africa 5, South America 4, Asia 4, North America 4 & Oceania 1 (Australia were part of Asia when the tournament took place but qualified through Oceania).
2010: Europe 13, Africa 6, South America 5, Asia 4, North America 3 & Oceania 1
2014: Europe 13, South America 6, Africa 5, Asia 4 & North America 4.
Format: 8 groups of 4. The top 2 teams qualify for the knockout stage. Knockout from there.
Number of knockout games: 15
Were group games played at the same time? Yes
My rating: 10. A almost perfect system. A minimum of 3 games per team. Lots of knockout games.
