FIFA approves 48 team World Cup for 2026 (updated)

[wazobia]

Infantino supports 48 team World Cup with 16 groups of 3 teams. Might not actually be bad considering same number of games as now and more spots for the confederations under-represented now. The Groups stages would be easier as well ( 2 of the 3 teams would qualify for the second round) However, it will be harder than ever for African teams to reach Semi-Finals/Finals/Win. This is being proposed for 2026 World Cup

[Tunisian Gooner]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... -proposals

Gianni Infantino has suggested having 16 three-team groups if the World Cup expands to 48 countries. Members of the Fifa Council received a recommendation from world football’s governing body setting out five proposed formats for its showpiece event from 2026: two 48-team team options, two 40-team options and sticking with 32.

Infantino first advocated a new, opening playoff round for 32 of the 48 finalists. Before a meeting of Asian soccer nations in Singapore this week, he drew up a new configuration for a 48-team World Cup that Fifa hopes is easier to understand.

All qualifying nations would start out in 16 groups of three teams. The top two teams advance to a new round of 32, with the bottom-place team going home after two matches. The finalists would still play a total of seven games, limiting potential opposition from clubs who send their players on international duty.

But only having three games in each group raises the possibility of teams being hard to separate on points, goals scored or goal difference. Fifa is exploring how to determine which teams advance in that scenario, with administrators weighing up if penalty shootouts could be used for bonus points.

Infantino championed a mathematically-clunky 40-team World Cup before being elected in February.

Although Sepp Blatter’s successor no longer backs this plan, two options will still be on the table when the Fifa Council meets in January. There could be eight groups of five teams or 10 groups of four.

For the World Cup in Russia in 2018 and Qatar in 2022, there will be no change to the 32-team format that has existed since 1998.

However, with Infantino’s term ending in 2019, giving more countries a chance to play on world soccer’s biggest stage would be a popular move among many federations.

“Everyone sees that the increase of the participation for the World Cup is really a tool to promote football in more countries,” Infantino said last month.

[Rawlings]

Good for Naija

[kajifu]

Africa should have 10 slot then for the 48 teams.

[Rawlings]

Africa should have 10 slot then for the 48 teams.

we can't even get to semis with 5 teams
African slots should be reduced to 3, until we show we deserve to play with the best

[Workman]

Does not look well thought out. 32 teams is just fine. This is not the Olympics where the more participants is always the better.

[Tunisian Gooner]

Does not look well thought out. 32 teams is just fine. This is not the Olympics where the more participants is always the better.

[Enugu II]

Does not look well thought out. 32 teams is just fine. This is not the Olympics where the more participants is always the better.

32 teams is not fine based on current allocation of spots which privileges Europe. It only makes sense if Europe is willing to give up spots which it has refused to do. Thus, the need to increase the number to give allocations to other confederations like CAF and Asia which form the bulk of FIFA membership.

[Enugu II]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... -proposals

Gianni Infantino has suggested having 16 three-team groups if the World Cup expands to 48 countries. Members of the Fifa Council received a recommendation from world football’s governing body setting out five proposed formats for its showpiece event from 2026: two 48-team team options, two 40-team options and sticking with 32.

Infantino first advocated a new, opening playoff round for 32 of the 48 finalists. Before a meeting of Asian soccer nations in Singapore this week, he drew up a new configuration for a 48-team World Cup that Fifa hopes is easier to understand.

All qualifying nations would start out in 16 groups of three teams. The top two teams advance to a new round of 32, with the bottom-place team going home after two matches. The finalists would still play a total of seven games, limiting potential opposition from clubs who send their players on international duty.

But only having three games in each group raises the possibility of teams being hard to separate on points, goals scored or goal difference. Fifa is exploring how to determine which teams advance in that scenario, with administrators weighing up if penalty shootouts could be used for bonus points.

Infantino championed a mathematically-clunky 40-team World Cup before being elected in February.

Although Sepp Blatter’s successor no longer backs this plan, two options will still be on the table when the Fifa Council meets in January. There could be eight groups of five teams or 10 groups of four.

For the World Cup in Russia in 2018 and Qatar in 2022, there will be no change to the 32-team format that has existed since 1998.

However, with Infantino’s term ending in 2019, giving more countries a chance to play on world soccer’s biggest stage would be a popular move among many federations.

“Everyone sees that the increase of the participation for the World Cup is really a tool to promote football in more countries,” Infantino said last month.

The highlighted suggested by Infantino a few weeks ago was a nonstarter. I am glad he has come to his sense with presenting better options.

[folem]

Infantino supports 48 team World Cup with 16 groups of 3 teams. Might not actually be bad considering same number of games as now and more spots for the confederations under-represented now. The Groups stages would be easier as well ( 2 of the 3 teams would qualify for the second round) However, it will be harder than ever for African teams to reach Semi-Finals/Finals/Win. This is being proposed for 2026 World Cup

Looks good but only 1/3 should qualify for next round of 16. 64 total games but max of 6 matches for winners.

[nanijoe]

Its the WORLD cup...I like this idea. More countries will get to participate, every game will mean something, and it does not increase the maximum number of games that any one team can possibly play.

[folem]

Its the WORLD cup...I like this idea. More countries will get to participate, every game will mean something, and it does not increase the maximum number of games that any one team can possibly play.

Since the Euros has expanded to 24 teams, it is inevitable for the WC to expand too.

[Enugu II]

Its the WORLD cup...I like this idea. More countries will get to participate, every game will mean something, and it does not increase the maximum number of games that any one team can possibly play.

Since the Euros has expanded to 24 teams, it is inevitable for the WC to expand too.

I am not sure the expansion of Euro matters except as an added justification. The underlying issue is that agitation has gone on for years because of the ridiculous allocation of World Cup spots which privileges one confederation.

[kalani JR]

Ruins the competition, the Euro expansion was bad look at how one side of the knockout round was top heavy.

[Enugu II]

Ruins the competition, the Euro expansion was bad look at how one side of the knockout round was top heavy.

You get that even in a 16-team tournament because some seeded teams fail to achieve. It has little to do with the number of teams in the tournament.

[folem]

Its the WORLD cup...I like this idea. More coudisposable isget to participated every game will mean something, and it does not increase the maximum number of games that any one team can possibly play.

Since the Euros has expanded to 24 teams, it is inevitable for the WC to expand too.

I am not sure the expansion of Euro matters except as an added justification. The underlying issue is that agitation has gone on for years because of the ridiculous allocation of World Cup spots which privileges one confederation.

The reality is that an expanded WC will lead to more European teams not less. They have more disposable income for match tickets and travels that make the competition the spectacle it is.

[Enugu II]

Its the WORLD cup...I like this idea. More coudisposable isget to participated every game will mean something, and it does not increase the maximum number of games that any one team can possibly play.

Since the Euros has expanded to 24 teams, it is inevitable for the WC to expand too.

I am not sure the expansion of Euro matters except as an added justification. The underlying issue is that agitation has gone on for years because of the ridiculous allocation of World Cup spots which privileges one confederation.

The reality is that an expanded WC will lead to more European teams not less. They have more disposable income for match tickets and travels that make the competition the spectacle it is.

Depends on how you calculate the numbers. If it is by proportional comparison, UEFA will have less. While the point you made above is well taken, there is also key political issues involving fair allocation of spots that had long been agitated by CAF and Asia that has garnered promises from Infantino. It is left to see if he is willing to see that through because UEFA will battle.

[ohenhen1]

More money,

more poor games.

I say hell no, keep it at 32.

[Rawlings]

More money,
more poor games.
I say hell no, keep it at 32.

I agree keep it at 32, with 10 guaranteed slots

• 5 Europe: Germany, Italy, Spain, France, England(world cup without them is like a woman without a _____)
  2 South America: Brazil, Argentina
  2 Africa: Ghana & Naija (I want to leave the forum alive)
  1 Asia: Japan

[folem]

-------

[Workman]

Does not look well thought out. 32 teams is just fine. This is not the Olympics where the more participants is always the better.

32 teams is not fine based on current allocation of spots which privileges Europe. It only makes sense if Europe is willing to give up spots which it has refused to do. Thus, the need to increase the number to give allocations to other confederations like CAF and Asia which form the bulk of FIFA membership.

CAF and Asia have more members, but One Federation supplies the bulk of FIFA money. We all focus on EPL, European leagues and Champions League because for the most part - soccer is played in Europe. It is not fair, and the tension between UEFA and FIFA is not new. It just seems the current proposal may just sacrifice quality for the expansion (and by this I mean the schedule format, not that a CAF/Asia team would be necessarily of less quality than the UEFA team).

[ohenhen1]

More money,
more poor games.
I say hell no, keep it at 32.

I agree keep it at 32, with 10 guaranteed slots

• 5 Europe: Germany, Italy, Spain, France, England(world cup without them is like a woman without a _____)
  2 South America: Brazil, Argentina
  2 Africa: Ghana & Naija (I want to leave the forum alive)
  1 Asia: Japan

No guaranteed spots.

But why should England get a guaranteed spot, WTH

[Enugu II]

Does not look well thought out. 32 teams is just fine. This is not the Olympics where the more participants is always the better.

32 teams is not fine based on current allocation of spots which privileges Europe. It only makes sense if Europe is willing to give up spots which it has refused to do. Thus, the need to increase the number to give allocations to other confederations like CAF and Asia which form the bulk of FIFA membership.

CAF and Asia have more members, but One Federation supplies the bulk of FIFA money. We all focus on EPL, European leagues and Champions League because for the most part - soccer is played in Europe. It is not fair, and the tension between UEFA and FIFA is not new. It just seems the current proposal may just sacrifice quality for the expansion (and by this I mean the schedule format, not that a CAF/Asia team would be necessarily of less quality than the UEFA team).

Workman

Please can you elaborate on how Europe supplies the bulk of FIFA money.

Note that FIFA makes the bulk of its money from the World Cup and media rights are sold worldwide. Further, the huge football market is actually in ASia and not Europe. See Manchester United and Beckham at his heights. Thus I am not sold on the claim that Europe currently provides bulk of FIFA money. This isn't the 1990s anymore. Moreover while European leagues have promoted themselves well, this is about the World Cup and not about those leagues. A large number of those who watch those leagues will focus on their Nts at the World Cup.

What Europe has are privileges based on tradition and the power of some top clubs. Those are the political leverage for Europe that exist but revenue challenges exist from the Americas and Asia and the votes are in Asia and Africa.