48 Team World Cup and Video Technology - latest from FIFA

[Kitchandro]

RIP the World Cup.

 

It just proves what I said when Blatter resigned. Infantino is no less immoral and greedy than he is. FIFA is just generally evil and we need to break away from it.

[Footballwipe]

31 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

The thing with FIFA changes to the tournament format are that they seem to be happening so quickly or so fast in succession - I think the majority of us have been rather fortunate that we've been able to witness relatively few changes in the 80ies, 90ies and Noughties - so we take that for granted, I suppose.

If we had a new format for a prolonged period of time we could determine whether it's worth it or not and it's worked out fine with 32 before.

But it's safe to say FIFA would probably go ahead and alter it straightaway and open up the competition to 64 nations in the foreseeable future.

 

I guess it's because they want to push in a direction where smaller nations can participate in a World Cup and get that "feeling", too. Whether that's for the good of the sport or simply a publicity or marketing stunt remains open for debate.

It's sweet that you think that. This is purely driven for two reasons.

 

A) The anticipated $1bn increase in revenue they estimate

 

and (this is absolutely, 100% the main reason of all)

 

B) Infantino isn't a sure fire President like Blatter. He needs to shore up smaller nations votes, and this is an appeasement to that. Giving the small nations more access to the World Cup, whilst also diluting the quality and overcomplicating the format is the answer. It's a vote winner, it's a legacy maker, it'll ensure he's re-elected in 2019. It is anything but for the good of the game.

 

It is utterly awful. I cannot say it enough.

[kingcarr21]

28 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

It's sweet that you think that. This is purely driven for two reasons.

 

A) The anticipated $1bn increase in revenue they estimate

 

and (this is absolutely, 100% the main reason of all)

 

B) Infantino isn't a sure fire President like Blatter. He needs to shore up smaller nations votes, and this is an appeasement to that. Giving the small nations more access to the World Cup, whilst also diluting the quality and overcomplicating the format is the answer. It's a vote winner, it's a legacy maker, it'll ensure he's re-elected in 2019. It is anything but for the good of the game.

 

It is utterly awful. I cannot say it enough.

Nail on the head.

 

 

[MC Prussian]

41 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

It's sweet that you think that. This is purely driven for two reasons.

 

A) The anticipated $1bn increase in revenue they estimate

 

and (this is absolutely, 100% the main reason of all)

 

B) Infantino isn't a sure fire President like Blatter. He needs to shore up smaller nations votes, and this is an appeasement to that. Giving the small nations more access to the World Cup, whilst also diluting the quality and overcomplicating the format is the answer. It's a vote winner, it's a legacy maker, it'll ensure he's re-elected in 2019. It is anything but for the good of the game.

 

It is utterly awful. I cannot say it enough.

Which is the point I was making. Emphasized by my last sentence in the previous post. Marketing and profit above everything else.

FIFA will then try to sell it as a "fairplay measure" to increase the possibility of smaller nations being able to participate in the tournament, but deep inside, we all know why they're doing it.

[Guest MattP]

So now the World Cup completely ruined.

 

FIFA clearly haven't read their history either, groups of three equals no simultaneous games, which in turn we lead to the inevitable games where two teams will need a draw to see both go through. 

 

A drop in standards, almost pointless first round and potential for corruption, bravo again FIFA you absolutely useless bunch of tossers.

[Manwell Pablo]

Best Enjoy Russia then, after that we've got Christmas world cups in the desert and this bull shit to look forward to.

 

Who said it wasn't a bad idea  get out son. 

Edited 10 January 2017 by Manwell Pablo

[RonnieTodger]

Amazing. Just goes to show no matter what the vast majority of fans think, it doesn't matter. Men in suits get their way because sensible people have no say. 

 

That means each group has just 3 games. There'll be a lot of tie breakers and it's gonna make wall-charts and sweepstakes shit. Sad day.

 

Why not just abandon the qualification and chuck all 200+ teams in.

 

[Dan LCFC]

Disgrace. I'd absolutely back England if we pulled out of this. Not that we will.

 

Well done to FIFA. Massive applause to them. They've somehow managed to ruin the World Cup.

[stripeyfox]

 

Current World Cup Confederation Allocations are as follows:

 

Asia                        4 or 5

Africa                    5             

N America           3 or 4

S America            4 or 5

Oceania                0 or 1

Europe                 13

 

 

So by going to 48 teams I reckon the carve up might look something like

 

Asia                        6

Africa                    7

N America           6

S America            8

Oceania                2

Europe                 19

 

And that’s being generous to Europe at 19 places. They may want to limit UEFA to 16 so there is only one European team per group!

 

In my imaginary (and crap) World Cup, look forward to seeing the likes of this lot:

 

 

Asia

Japan

China

South Korea

Australia (they might move back to Oceania if guaranteed a spot now)

Saudi Arabia

Iran

 

Africa

Cameroon

Nigeria

Algeria

Egypt

Morocco

South Africa

Mali

 

North America

USA
Canada

Mexico

Costa Rica

Honduras

Panama

 

South America

Brazil

Argentina

Colombia
Peru

Chile

Uruguay

Paraguay

Venezuela

 

Oceania

New Zealand

Fiji

 

Europe

Germany

France

Spain

England

Holland

Portugal

Italy

Sweden

Russia

Turkey

Croatia

Belgium

Switzerland

Norway

Denmark

Ireland

Czech Rep

Romania

Wales

 

I wonder what it would take for an elite group of say 8 or maybe 16 teams to up sticks and create their own tournament?

 

[kingcarr21]

6 minutes ago, stripeyfox said:

 

 

Current World Cup Confederation Allocations are as follows:

 

 

 

Asia                        4 or 5

Africa                    5             

 

N America           3 or 4

 

S America            4 or 5

 

Oceania                0 or 1

 

Europe                 13

 

 

 

 

 

So by going to 48 teams I reckon the carve up might look something like

 

 

 

Asia                        6

 

Africa                    7

 

N America           6

 

S America            8

 

Oceania                2

 

Europe                 19

 

 

 

And that’s being generous to Europe at 19 places. They may want to limit UEFA to 16 so there is only one European team per group!

 

 

 

In my imaginary (and crap) World Cup, look forward to seeing the likes of this lot:

 

 

 

 

 

Asia

 

Japan

 

China

 

South Korea

 

Australia (they might move back to Oceania if guaranteed a spot now)

 

Saudi Arabia

 

Iran

 

 

 

Africa

 

Cameroon

 

Nigeria

 

Algeria

 

Egypt

 

Morocco

 

South Africa

 

Mali

 

 

 

North America

 

USA
Canada

 

Mexico

 

Costa Rica

 

Honduras

 

Panama

 

 

 

South America

 

Brazil

 

Argentina

 

Colombia
Peru

 

Chile

 

Uruguay

 

Paraguay

 

Venezuela

 

 

 

Oceania

 

New Zealand

 

Fiji

 

 

 

Europe

 

Germany

 

France

 

Spain

 

England

 

Holland

 

Portugal

 

Italy

 

Sweden

 

Russia

 

Turkey

 

Croatia

 

Belgium

 

Switzerland

 

Norway

 

Denmark

 

Ireland

 

Czech Rep

 

Romania

 

Wales

 

 

 

I wonder what it would take for an elite group of say 8 or maybe 16 teams to up sticks and create their own tournament?

 

 

I love how with 48 teams you still have Scotland failing to qualify and Wales at the bottom

[Footballwipe]

6 minutes ago, stripeyfox said:

And that’s being generous to Europe at 19 places. They may want to limit UEFA to 16 so there is only one European team per group!

Bingo, according to an article I read (somewhere, can't recall) UEFA will only get three additional slots in any expanded World Cup. The priority is the other confederations, and I think there's something about other continents being annoyed Europe gets so many spaces in the first place.

 

It really is a farce.

 

USA 2026 can't come quick enough 

[stripeyfox]

3 minutes ago, kingcarr21 said:

I love how with 48 teams you still have Scotland failing to qualify and Wales at the bottom

Some World Cup traditions must remain!

 

 

[stripeyfox]

1 minute ago, Footballwipe said:

Bingo, according to an article I read (somewhere, can't recall) UEFA will only get three additional slots in any expanded World Cup. The priority is the other confederations, and I think there's something about other continents being annoyed Europe gets so many spaces in the first place.

 

It really is a farce.

 

USA 2026 can't come quick enough 

 

And that's where it gets really ridiculous. If Europe only gets 16 then there's another 3 places to allocate amongst the others (and I was already scraping the barrel in my example). Probably another one each from Asia, Africa and South America maybe?

 

[Dan LCFC]

You know what, why don't they just get on with it and chuck all 200+ countries there into the Romanian World Cup, get Romania to knock up 35 stadiums in six months, have 68 groups, African and Asian teams automatically start on 3 points to even it up, and we can all sit back and celebrate the "progression" the World Cup has made.

 

The World Cup's gone for me after Russia (and what a crap way to go out too). I'd absolutely support us doing a home nations every couple of years.

[Footballwipe]

3 minutes ago, stripeyfox said:

 

And that's where it gets really ridiculous. If Europe only gets 16 then there's another 3 places to allocate amongst the others (and I was already scraping the barrel in my example). Probably another one each from Asia, Africa and South America maybe?

 

There has been talk about combining CONCACAF and CONMEBOL qualifications into one, and giving them 13.5 spots. That would mean loads more South American teams along with USA, Mexico and other central American countries. I mean you could get the ridiculous scenario where all 10 countries from South America qualify if this happens (including the whipping boys of Venezuela and Bolivia.)

 

The problem is that if you give the places out as you deserve, Europe should probably get half, and then you've basically got an expanded Euros! But remember what the end game is here, it's Infantino, not football, so don't expect anything sensible.

[Leicesterpool]

Total joke was rejected by most nations around the world yet Fifa once again ignored that and gone ahead with it. Bet scotland still won't qualify. I hope some nations have the balls to pull out of this and form another sort of world cup.

 

Can just see Fifa's next big plan, the world cup on Mars 2026.

Edited 10 January 2017 by Leicesterpool

[goose2010]

to be honest International football is a joke the FA have ruined England and FIFA have ruined the rest, for me International football means a week or going to watch some non league football.

[Footballwipe]

Proper little post monster in this thread, but it looks like the favourite allocation format will be the following (to be decided in May) (source: Martin Ziegler, Twitter)

 

Europe 16 (13)

Africa 9 (5)

Asia 8.5 (4.5)

CONCACAF 6.5 (3.5)

CONMEBOL 6 (4.5)

Oceania 1 (0.5)

Host country 1 (1) 

[stripeyfox]

7 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

Proper little post monster in this thread, but it looks like the favourite allocation format will be the following (to be decided in May) (source: Martin Ziegler, Twitter)

 

Europe 16 (13)

Africa 9 (5)

Asia 8.5 (4.5)

CONCACAF 6.5 (3.5)

CONMEBOL 6 (4.5)

Oceania 1 (0.5)

Host country 1 (1) 

9 from Africa!
 

Currently the 9 best ranked African teams are:

 

Senegal

Ivory Coast

Tunisa

Egypt

Algeria

DR Congo

Burkina Faso

Nigeria

Ghana

 

 

Asia's 8 (or 9) would be:

 

Iran

S Korea

Japan

Australia

Saudi Arabia

Uzbekistan

UAE

China

(Qatar)

 

*next in the Asia list is Syria!

 

Can't wait to tune in for Burkina Faso v Uzbekistan from a half empty MetLife Stadium in New Jersey

 

EDIT - as they play out a 1-1 draw to eliminate England

 

Edited 10 January 2017 by stripeyfox

[Dan LCFC]

7 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

Proper little post monster in this thread, but it looks like the favourite allocation format will be the following (to be decided in May) (source: Martin Ziegler, Twitter)

 

Europe 16 (13)

Africa 9 (5)

Asia 8.5 (4.5)

CONCACAF 6.5 (3.5)

CONMEBOL 6 (4.5)

Oceania 1 (0.5)

Host country 1 (1) 

That is utterly atrocious.

[stripeyfox]

Using FIFA's own rankings the top 48 teams come from the following regions:

 

S America 8

Europe 27

Africa 6

Asia4

N America 3

Edited 10 January 2017 by stripeyfox

[Alf Bentley]

13 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

Proper little post monster in this thread, but it looks like the favourite allocation format will be the following (to be decided in May) (source: Martin Ziegler, Twitter)

 

Europe 16 (13)

Africa 9 (5)

Asia 8.5 (4.5)

CONCACAF 6.5 (3.5)

CONMEBOL 6 (4.5)

Oceania 1 (0.5)

Host country 1 (1) 

 

So they'd offer more places to Africa, Asia and North/Central America than to South America?! 

 

I know there are fewer nations in South America (and fewer FIFA votes ), but the 7th best South American nation would generally be on a par with the 2nd best, if not the best in any of those other 3 federations.

 

I can see a few positives in such an expansion:

- When I went to Germany 2006, one of the most enjoyable parts was meeting fans from all around the world. That would be even more true with 48 rather than 32 nations.

- Any half-decent team would still stand a high chance of playing 3 matches, including a last-32 knockout game 

 

However, the likelihood of convenient drawn matches is a massive risk, and would encourage corruption, as others have said.

Weaker teams could also play very negatively during the group stages as two 0-0 draws or even a 0-0 and a 0-1 could be enough to qualify.

 

Probably bollocks on the whole!

[boots60]

Well I'm happy. I've got shares in Panini.

[Detroit Blues]

This is terrible for a number of reasons. The first being that the groups have an odd number of teams. So there will always be teams at a disadvantage in terms of rest. The team that places first and third will have the most amount of rest in between games, while each of the other two teams will have to play back to back games.

 

Also, with an odd number of teams, not all of the teams will play at the same time on the last matchday of the group stage, which will allow scenarios where both teams can advance if they conspire.

 

For example:

Colombia defeats England 2-0 on matchday 1.

England defeats Nigeria 1 - 0 on matchday 2.

On matchday 3, both Colombia and Nigeria can advance if Nigeria wins 1-0.

 

Colombia would have 3 pts, 1 GD.

England would have 3 pts -1 GD

Nigeria would have 3 pts 0 GD

 

Even if both teams do not conspire to fix the result, if Nigeria scored first on the 3rd matchday, both teams would be in positions to advance so far as the result stays. What motivation would there be for either team to attack? if either team conceded, they would be in danger of not advancing. That would lead to boring, defensive football like we saw at the euros. 

Not to mention 48 teams waters down the pool of advancing teams, and it reduces the anxiety/excitement of world cup qualifying.

 

 

[MC Prussian]

5 minutes ago, boots60 said:

Well I'm happy. I've got shares in Panini.

Oh, great! Could you please put forward a motion in the next shareholder meeting, urging the company to implementing better/more high-quality material for their products?

I mean, after all the money they charge for stickers that get smaller and smaller with each WC/EURO edition...