RugbyRebels

The Fifa Council has rubber-stamped plans to expand the World Cup to 48 teams from 2026 onwards, with the Fifa president Gianni Infantino’s revamp plan receiving unanimous backing.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... -from-2026

All the more reason for rugby to go to 24 in 2023 or 2027.

What's really interesting about the FIFA World Cup expansion proposal is that for the first time in the post-War era (ie since the first few tournaments), I believe, they are going to dispense with four-team pools and reduce them to 3. Sounds pretty crazy to me, and it wouldn't work in rugby because of the grossly unfair scheduling issues.

Can't help but think this is just way too many teams. Asia 8, CONCACAF 6 and Oceania 1 (remembering Australia has moved to Asia) looks very dodgy. There could be some very average teams coming through on that basis. Europe and Africa are at least capable of fielding competitive sides but it's really going to take the edge off the qualifying process having that number of places available. South America is also quite capable of fielding 6 competitive sides. But if I'm not mistaken they only have 10 teams involved, meaning just 4 will miss out. What kind of a qualifying series is that going to be? Anyway, maybe I'm just getting conservative in my old age. We'll have to see how it all pans out in 9 years' time, I guess . . .

Two months after FIFA decided to expand the 2026 World Cup from 32 teams to 48, football’s world governing body has revealed its allocation plan for the competition.

Should the proposals be ratified, Europe would get 16 direct places, Africa nine, Asia eight, South America six, CONCACAF six and Oceania one, totalling 46 teams.

The host nation would qualify automatically and its slot would be taken from its confederation’s quota.

The two remaining places would be decided by a six-team playoff tournament which would take place in the World Cup host nation, with November 2025 suggested as a possible date

The proposals will be submitted to the FIFA Council at its next full meeting in Bahrain in May for a final decision.

http://www.euronews.com/2017/03/30/fifa ... -world-cup

So the Oceania spot means that NZ should pretty much always get in, right? If Aussie ever drops out of the top 8 in Asia for an extended period expect them to come crawling back to Oceania.

An automatic spot for Oceania is pretty ridiculous, given that OFC's 11 active members are ranked from 112th to 205th (last=).

The top 48 are split:
Europe 26
Africa 9
South America 8
Nth/Cent America 3
Asia 2

Lizard wrote:An automatic spot for Oceania is pretty ridiculous, given that OFC's 11 active members are ranked from 112th to 205th (last=).

The top 48 are split:
Europe 26
Africa 9
South America 8
Nth/Cent America 3
Asia 2

Yes, Australia might be kicking itself now. If it had stayed in Oceania it would have had that slot wrapped up most of the time; no disrespect to the Kiwis. But, yes, now we're going to have the All Whites showing up as a matter of course. & I just wonder how this new format is going to effect teams' motivation to improve when so many of them will now be able to take their place at the big event almost for granted. Of course, we already have exactly that problem in rugby, which I've touched upon on other threads - 2nd tier teams like Canada, Romania and Samoa still showing up even when they're at the bottom of their game. So quantity over quality is clearly the preference and just how all this works out remains to be seen.

& guess who wants to host it . . .

In a rare show of unity, the US, Mexico and Canada have announced a joint bid to stage the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

It’s a series of debuts for the tournament. As well as being the first official proposal, if successful it will be the only time that the World Cup competition will have been shared between three nations.

What’s more, 2026 will also be the first to include 48, rather than 32, teams.



http://www.euronews.com/2017/04/11/us-m ... d-cup-2026

48 teams is a joke, the standard of matches will be worse, greed is the only thing to gain here

paddy no 11 wrote:48 teams is a joke, the standard of matches will be worse, greed is the only thing to gain here

Craziest thing I ever heard of. It's going to be 16 groups of 3 leading directly to the knock-out rounds, but obviously one team is going to get a doubly long break between their two pool games because that's how 3-team groups work. Also, 48 teams is going to turn qualification into a stroll in the park for many teams. The majority of teams in both Europe and South America will now qualify, with only a minority missing out, while New Zealand needs only beat a bunch of Pacific Islands to fill what is sure to be a customary spot. We'll have to wait and see, of course. Up until now FIFA has done a pretty good job with its tournament formats (if nothing else), so maybe they know something we don't . . .

Wonder how the current ruckus in Qatar might effect the 2022 World Cup. Media reports are already suggesting this could be the end of tiny gulf state as we know it . . .

So another idea the current FIFA administration has is a 'Mini World Cup,' involving the winners of the 6 Confederations, the host nation and the defending champion in a quadrennial 8-team tournament in between regular World Cups - ie 2020, 2024, 2028 and so on. Looks exactly like the Confederations Cup to me but apparently it's going to be a little different, if it goes ahead, and will actually be regarded as a bona fide world championship.

How would that work for rugby? I wonder. We could take the winners of The Rugby Championship, the 6 Nations, the ENC first division winner, the Americas Rugby Championship, the Asian champ, the Pacific (PNC?) winner, and the African Cup winner, plus the defending RWC champion. Currently that might entail NZ, Australia (invited as TRC runner-up, as NZ are both RWC & TRC champions), Ireland, Georgia, Argentina, Japan, Fiji, Namibia.

Location - Argentina
Pool A: NZ, Argentina, Georgia, Japan
Pool B: Australia, Ireland, Fiji, Namibia
Final between group winners.

rowan wrote:Wonder how the current ruckus in Qatar might effect the 2022 World Cup. Media reports are already suggesting this could be the end of tiny gulf state as we know it . . .

The award of the 2022 FIFA World Cup to Qatar was such an obvious stitch up...only FIFA it seems couldn't see how transparently Qatar bought the world cup.
In fact they probably could but football is so corrupt at international level they just don't care so long as they're not caught.


The Olympics are whiter than white by comparison to FIFA.

I can see midnight kick offs and teams flying in from all over just to play a game then fly back out.

People (fans) will die because of this. A few construction workers already have.

The FIFA world cup needed to expand from 16 teams but 32 was/is the right number. The next most logical number is 64 teams.

Does anyone remember the Mexico 86 FIFA World Cup ?

24 teams, 6 groups of 4...

...36 games in the first round, just to eliminate 8 teams.

32 really had to be the maximum number of teams. In fact, I was more comfortable with 24 because I could still take an interest in every team and easily keep track of their fortunes. Once it went to 32 that was a little too much to maintain an interest in the entire tournament at the group stages, and in fact I couldn't wait for them to be over so we could get down to the knock-out rounds. It's a good point about playing 36 games just to eliminate 8 teams. I hadn't looked at it that way before. But it was still the best formula, for my money. The 82 tournament featured 24 teams as well, with the top 12 going into 4 groups of 3, but that led to unfair scheduling, dead rubbers and teams simply playing for draws.

People (fans) will die because of this. A few construction workers already have.


1200 was the official estimate given about six months ago, and the Qatar World Cup is still more than 4 years away

Mexico-USA-Canada win the right to host this.

It will be the first time the tournament has been staged by three countries. The only time the tournament has been staged in more than one country before was in 2002, when Japan & Korea co-hosted. Mexico will also become the first nation to be involved in hosting for a 3rd time, having already hosted in 1970 and 1986 (the latter after Colombia were axed).

So Morocco missed out.

I wonder who will be in the running for 2030 - the centennial tournament. Maybe a combined European bid, if the 2020 Euros (to be held across Europe) works out succesfully...

Trump's wall could prove to be a logistical nightmare...if it gets built that is.

WaspInWales wrote:Trump's wall could prove to be a logistical nightmare...if it gets built that is.

Morocco has already announced its candidature for the centennial tournament in 2030. They might need some help! A Maghreb tournament with Tunisia and Algeria co-hosting perhaps?

Wow, just stumbled across a Wiki page that explains the likely future hosting bids right up to 2034. & perhaps not too surprisingly a joint South American bid involving Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay appears to be considered the frontrunner for 2030 at this very early stage. It's the centenary of the inaugural tournament, which was hosted by Uruguay. Morocco has already thrown its hat into the ring, after failing to secure the 2026 tournament, and may even team up with Algeria and Tunisia in a combined 'Maghreb' bid, which is something I mentioned as a possibility earlier.

Apparently South East Asia (collectively) is considered the frontrunner to host 2034, with rival bids expected to come from China and Zimbabwe. I sense Europe will get at least one of these two tournaments, however. I wouldn't mind seeing a pan-European tournament with the final at Wembley.

This report from Yahoo News gives a glimpse of what the World Cup may look like in 8 years time...

What a 48-team World Cup would look like in 2018
Based on the 2018 qualification cycle and the October 2017 FIFA rankings, and keeping actual 2018 groups together where possible, here’s what a 48-team 2018 World Cup might have looked like:

Group A: Russia, Uruguay, Saudi Arabia
Group B: Portugal, Iran, Morocco
Group C: France, Congo DR, Australia
Group D: Argentina, Iceland, Nigeria
Group E: Brazil, Serbia, Uzbekistan
Group F: Germany, Sweden, South Korea
Group G: Belgium, Tunisia, Panama
Group H: Poland, Senegal, Japan
Group I: Spain, Paraguay, Burkina Faso
Group J: Peru, Denmark, Honduras
Group K: Switzerland, USA, Uganda
Group L: Mexico, Ireland, UAE
Group M: England, Costa Rica, Syria
Group N: Colombia, Northern Ireland, Zambia
Group O: Italy, Egypt, Trinidad and Tobago
Group P: Chile, Croatia, New Zealand

The best 32-team World Cup groups will be stripped of one of their favorites. The worst will become our only hopes. Balance will become imbalance. Brazil-Costa Rica – a game that brought a stoppage-time winner and sobs of relief – will become Brazil-Uzbekistan. Germany-Mexico will be replaced by Mexico-United Arab Emirates.

Will we get an earth-shaking upset or two? Yeah, sure. But very few. And with two of three teams advancing, upsets will essentially be mulligans.

Just as it seemed the rest of the world was catching up to the bluebloods – a big reason the past 15 days were as special as they were – the new format will artificially deepen the divide. The group stage – still three-fifths of the tournament – will die before our eyes.