With Saudi Arabia, why 48 teams in the World Cup?

[analyzer]

Brazil was thrashed 7-1 at home, but nobody asked this question
Cameroon went down 0-6 to Russia
Naija went down 1-4 to Denmark
All very disgraceful results

Leave the Saudi's alone. They were fasting

You realized this was not a group stage gm but a S/F gm.. so this example has low applicability to the argument IMO

[folem]

Every Team can actually win the World Cup

Fabulous, Turkey, South Korea have made semi-finals...the point is, if the likes of Saudi Arabia are watering down the contest, was are Nigeria and our African brethren doing, adding a shot of Wray and Nephew? Africa as a continent has failed at the Mundial and must be included in any discussion of dilution.

'Dilution' is good for the growth and commercialisation of the sport in new places.

Absolutely. There is no difference between 32, 48 and 64 for that matter, when the stones are shaken out of the rice, it’ll the same ol’ usual suspects remaining. The rest were merely there to fill the calendar. Nigeria included.

Only about 10 teams can really win the world cup.

Tell that to Saudi Arabia or Russia/Panama/Iceland.

[Rawlings]

Brazil was thrashed 7-1 at home, but nobody asked this question
Cameroon went down 0-6 to Russia
Naija went down 1-4 to Denmark
All very disgraceful results

Leave the Saudi's alone. They were fasting

You realized this was not a group stage gm but a S/F gm.. so this example has low applicability to the argument IMO

What difference does it make?
A disgraceful result is a disgraceful result

These are Group stage results

• Cameroon 0-6 Russia
  Zaire 0-9 Yugoslavia (1974)
  Germany 8-0 Saudi Arabia (2002)
  Hungary 10-1 El Salvador (1982)

[folem]

Brazil was thrashed 7-1 at home, but nobody asked this question
Cameroon went down 0-6 to Russia
Naija went down 1-4 to Denmark
All very disgraceful results

Leave the Saudi's alone. They were fasting

You realized this was not a group stage gm but a S/F gm.. so this example has low applicability to the argument IMO

What difference does it make?
A disgraceful result is a disgraceful result

These are Group stage results

• Cameroon 0-6 Russia
  Zaire 0-9 Yugoslavia (1974)
  Germany 8-0 Saudi Arabia (2002)
  Hungary 10-1 El Salvador (1982)

What year is that Lions fake result? No be 0-4 & 1-6 again?

[analyzer]

i am all for it however Europe has too many spots at the moment which increase the odds of a European nation winning.

Africa: 5
Asia: 4.5
Europe: 13
North, Central America and Caribbean: 3.5
Oceania: 0.5
South America: 4.5
Host: 1

the 16 slots should divided among the non European nations

my brother, this one no be straight line probability calculation. Even with no Euro slot allocation from the 16 additional slots, the "real" odds of an Euro team winning will not change significantly. Heck, it might actually increase as any team that wins the 48 team tourney (16 groups of 3) will only have to play 6 gms as opposed to 7 gms as it is. Same applies to SA teams.

48 teams in 16 groups means less chances of heavy weight teams being grouped together. The groups become really lopsided. Less games/chances to have bigger teams get knocked out at group stages. Portugal vs. Spain group openers or closers will be super rare as the best teams will each be in their own groups.

There is a threshold beyond which increasing the number of teams triggers law of diminishing returns. I feel 32 remains close enough to that threshold. A drastic increase by 16 teams is not a wise move. In the past, participants were increased by 4-8 teams not 16!!!!!

[Synopsis]

i am all for it however Europe has too many spots at the moment which increase the odds of a European nation winning.

Africa: 5
Asia: 4.5
Europe: 13
North, Central America and Caribbean: 3.5
Oceania: 0.5
South America: 4.5
Host: 1

the 16 slots should divided among the non European nations

my brother, this one no be straight line probability calculation. Even with no Euro slot allocation from the 16 additional slots, the "real" odds of an Euro team winning will not change significantly. Heck, it might actually increase as any team that wins the 48 team tourney (16 groups of 3) will only have to play 6 gms as opposed to 7 gms as it is. Same applies to SA teams.

48 teams in 16 groups means less chances of heavy weight teams being grouped together. The groups become really lopsided. Less games/chances to have bigger teams get knocked out at group stages. Portugal vs. Spain group openers or closers will be super rare as the best teams will each be in their own groups.

There is a threshold beyond which increasing the number of teams triggers law of diminishing returns. I feel 32 remains close enough to that threshold. A drastic increase by 16 teams is not a wise move. In the past, participants were increased by 4-8 teams not 16!!!!!

EXACTLY. People don’t understand. No more groups of death. Less entertainment.

Groups would look something like this:

Group A
Brazil
Northern Ireland
Saudi Arabia

Group B
Argentina
Cameroon
Honduras

Group C
Spain
USA
Iran

Group D
Portugal
Tunisia
Jamaica

Group E
Belgium
Nigeria
Panama

Etc etc

[1naija]

With Brazil in 2014 and at home, why have a WC at all?

[2drama]

i am all for it however Europe has too many spots at the moment which increase the odds of a European nation winning.

Africa: 5
Asia: 4.5
Europe: 13
North, Central America and Caribbean: 3.5
Oceania: 0.5
South America: 4.5
Host: 1

the 16 slots should divided among the non European nations

my brother, this one no be straight line probability calculation. Even with no Euro slot allocation from the 16 additional slots, the "real" odds of an Euro team winning will not change significantly. Heck, it might actually increase as any team that wins the 48 team tourney (16 groups of 3) will only have to play 6 gms as opposed to 7 gms as it is. Same applies to SA teams.

48 teams in 16 groups means less chances of heavy weight teams being grouped together. The groups become really lopsided. Less games/chances to have bigger teams get knocked out at group stages. Portugal vs. Spain group openers or closers will be super rare as the best teams will each be in their own groups.

There is a threshold beyond which increasing the number of teams triggers law of diminishing returns. I feel 32 remains close enough to that threshold. A drastic increase by 16 teams is not a wise move. In the past, participants were increased by 4-8 teams not 16!!!!!

I think they should make that 16 spots in a playoff and take the top 4 team

thus increasing the WC to 36 from 32

[Orion]

At some point, you begin to lose the novelty of the World Cup if it becomes too easy to qualify for it. With a lot more weaker teams, most of the early matches would become borefests between weak teams or lopsided games with a big team thrashing a weak team.

Right now, nearly every match is going to be interesting because there is still a good balance. It's still hard to qualify and all the qualified teams had to be at the very top of their game. Start adding more and more teams and you dilute the competition.

[folem]

i am all for it however Europe has too many spots at the moment which increase the odds of a European nation winning.

Africa: 5
Asia: 4.5
Europe: 13
North, Central America and Caribbean: 3.5
Oceania: 0.5
South America: 4.5
Host: 1

the 16 slots should divided among the non European nations

my brother, this one no be straight line probability calculation. Even with no Euro slot allocation from the 16 additional slots, the "real" odds of an Euro team winning will not change significantly. Heck, it might actually increase as any team that wins the 48 team tourney (16 groups of 3) will only have to play 6 gms as opposed to 7 gms as it is. Same applies to SA teams.

48 teams in 16 groups means less chances of heavy weight teams being grouped together. The groups become really lopsided. Less games/chances to have bigger teams get knocked out at group stages. Portugal vs. Spain group openers or closers will be super rare as the best teams will each be in their own groups.

There is a threshold beyond which increasing the number of teams triggers law of diminishing returns. I feel 32 remains close enough to that threshold. A drastic increase by 16 teams is not a wise move. In the past, participants were increased by 4-8 teams not 16!!!!!

I think having 16 groups of 3 means 7 matches to win, same as now but I prefer having 12 groups of 4. 16 teams will not have a very significant change since the 16 may possibly be: Italy, Netherlands, Czech Republic, New Zealand, Ghana, Cameroon, Algeria, Ivory Coast, USA, Honduras, Chile, Paraguay, Ecuador, China, North Korea & UAE.

[AreaDaddy]

48 is too much IMO not because of the quality argument but it will restrict the world cup hosting to a few countries and it will take too damn long

I think the current number is ideal and I have no problem with Saudis or any other non power house being at the world cup. For me that diversity is what one of the things I find compelling. Yes there will be blowouts but there will be magical moments like Saeed Owairan against Belgium.

[analyzer]

@Folem. You play 6 gms to win it all.
2 gms in group stages (playing 2 other teams in a gp of 3), rd of 16, q/f, s/f, F.

This is if only the group winners make it to the next rd. But if taking top 2 from each gp, then you are right that it is 7.

[folem]

@Folem. You play 6 gms to win it all.
2 gms in group stages (playing 2 other teams in a gp of 3), rd of 16, q/f, s/f, F.

This is if only the group winners make it to the next rd. But if taking top 2 from each gp, then you are right that it is 7.

It's a starting knockout round of 32 with 2 teams from each group.

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

At a meeting in Zurich, Fifa’s rule-making council unanimously passed the new format, which will create a first round of 16 groups, from which two of three teams will qualify and proceed to a knockout competition beginning with 32 countries.

Fifa has projected that the increase to 48 countries will generate around $1bn more income, and $640m profit, from greater television rights and sponsorship. Infantino said the money will be reinvested in football; he has promised all Fifa’s 211 member countries’ associations $5m a year to aid development.

Speaking after the meeting, Infantino argued that the expanded tournament will increase interest in football worldwide by involving more countries, while not burdening players with more matches.

Responding robustly to criticism from the German football association (DFB) and European Club Association (ECA), which derided Fifa’s decision as having been taken for “political reasons rather than sporting ones,” Infantino said: “We are in the 21st century, and we should shape the World Cup for the 21st century. Football is more than Europe and South America; football is global.”

[folem]

48 is too much IMO not because of the quality argument but it will restrict the world cup hosting to a few countries and it will take too damn long

I think the current number is ideal and I have no problem with Saudis or any other non power house being at the world cup. For me that diversity is what one of the things I find compelling. Yes there will be blowouts but there will be magical moments like Saeed Owairan against Belgium.

The challenges of having one host for 48 teams is enormous, but co-hosting is an option. Even at that, only a few can host or win it since forever.

[ohenhen1]

I told Yujam that Enyimba can beat Saudi Arabia, he didn't believe me.

[The YeyeMan]

I bet people said the same thing when Ilunga Mwepu and his band of jokers were spelled 9-1 by Yugoslavia in 1974. People asked what African teams are doing at the WC

44 years later, what have they done, fancy dances and swaggerific strips aside?

WE may just keep them out because they water down the World Cup. We should just keep the World Cup among Germany, Brazil, France, Argentina, Spain, and who ever else has shown the ability to win it. Ain't it a good suggestion for a helluva World Cup?

No. That's why the qualification process exists. Your expansionist approach leads to a logical dilution of quality.

[The YeyeMan]

The utterly shambolic performance of Saudi Arabia in today's match is a very bad sign of things to come when FIFA goes to a 48-team format World Cup. Useless nations like Ghana, Kenya, Andorra, San Marino may be assured of outings in the World Cup when 16 new places are added to the current 32, which already feature weak qualifiers.

If a poor Russia can put 5 unreplied goals past a pitiful Saudi Arabia, then the likes of Kenya will get 14 or 16 from Germany!

Funny that the result of today's game is a referendum on a 48-team World Cup. Let me remind you that the Saudis beat Japan 1-0 to get here and recently fell 1-2 to Germany in a friendly. IMHO, the Saudis are not going to be mistaken for a favorite to win the World Cup but better believe that the 5-0 today was just an aberration as Brazil's 1-7 loss to Germany was in 2014. I would suggest you hold your horses until the end of the World Cup to make a conclusive statement on what possibly a 48-team World Cup will look like. But funny enough, we did see a 9-0 and 7-0 result in a 16-team World Cup.

Brazil lost 7-1 to the eventual champions.

Saudi lost 5-0 to the lowest ranked team in the tournament.

[tippy]

I’ve always felt that the qualifiers should be opened up. Do a playoff of say the bottom 40 teams to get to 180. 30 groups of 6 teams. Winners qualify. Runners up playoff for the remaining 15 spots.

45 teams as no doubt the United teams will get automatic qualification. 45+3= 48.

-I think it would give countries a variety of games.
-Every team would truly deserve to be there and the arguments for weaker confederations would be removed
-every team would get to play on the world stage in a competitive game.
-The multi staged qualifiers often mean smaller nations aren’t playing any competitive football after a certain point but for instance, in Africa only 20 teams had anything to do after a certain point. This hinders then.
-chance for prestige games for smaller nations Imagine a Brazil v Ethiopia match at altitude (assuming Ethiopia play there)

Cons, more travel for players and costs for FAs but Fifa is going to make 11 billion so I’m sure they can give grants to the smaller teams. Could also be a logistical nightmare.

[Coach]

Egypt and Morocco good for a first round exit. #BringBackourBoys #Africa2018

[analyzer]

@Folem. You play 6 gms to win it all.
2 gms in group stages (playing 2 other teams in a gp of 3), rd of 16, q/f, s/f, F.

This is if only the group winners make it to the next rd. But if taking top 2 from each gp, then you are right that it is 7.

It's a starting knockout round of 32 with 2 teams from each group.

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

At a meeting in Zurich, Fifa’s rule-making council unanimously passed the new format, which will create a first round of 16 groups, from which two of three teams will qualify and proceed to a knockout competition beginning with 32 countries.

Fifa has projected that the increase to 48 countries will generate around $1bn more income, and $640m profit, from greater television rights and sponsorship. Infantino said the money will be reinvested in football; he has promised all Fifa’s 211 member countries’ associations $5m a year to aid development.

Speaking after the meeting, Infantino argued that the expanded tournament will increase interest in football worldwide by involving more countries, while not burdening players with more matches.

Responding robustly to criticism from the German football association (DFB) and European Club Association (ECA), which derided Fifa’s decision as having been taken for “political reasons rather than sporting ones,” Infantino said: “We are in the 21st century, and we should shape the World Cup for the 21st century. Football is more than Europe and South America; football is global.”

Thanks for the correction

[KB]

How else will the lesser nations grow if not through eating at the table of Kings? Breadcrumbs are a banquet to the starving, talk less of leftovers.

Did Cameroon grow from all their WC appearances?

[Mr. Piffington]

I bet people said the same thing when Ilunga Mwepu and his band of jokers were spelled 9-1 by Yugoslavia in 1974. People asked what African teams are doing at the WC

44 years later, what have they done, fancy dances and swaggerific strips aside?

WE may just keep them out because they water down the World Cup. We should just keep the World Cup among Germany, Brazil, France, Argentina, Spain, and who ever else has shown the ability to win it. Ain't it a good suggestion for a helluva World Cup?

Don't mind them. Football fans can be so annoying with this elitist nonsense sometimes. It's called the WORLD CUP for a reason.

[Synopsis]

I bet people said the same thing when Ilunga Mwepu and his band of jokers were spelled 9-1 by Yugoslavia in 1974. People asked what African teams are doing at the WC

44 years later, what have they done, fancy dances and swaggerific strips aside?

WE may just keep them out because they water down the World Cup. We should just keep the World Cup among Germany, Brazil, France, Argentina, Spain, and who ever else has shown the ability to win it. Ain't it a good suggestion for a helluva World Cup?

Don't mind them. Football fans can be so annoying with this elitist nonsense sometimes. It's called the WORLD CUP for a reason.

Let’s do away with qualifying and invite every FIFA federation. It is a World Cup after all.