Cybereagles

https://www.bbc.com/sport/africa/47571763

Fifa president Gianni Infantino, an ally of Caf vice-president Amaju Pinnick, has previously said he is 'optimistic' about expanding the 2022 World Cup to 48 teams

Meanwhile, the global footballers' union FifPro has called for a 'comprehensive review of the match calendar' and a 'minimum rest period between matches (of) 72 hours' after the feasibility study found the Qatar finals could still be played in their original time frame.

This would mean 80 matches being played in the same 28-day window between 21 November and 18 December.

With Caf President Ahmad unable to attend the Fifa Council meeting after being denied entry to the United States, Pinnick's role as Caf's first vice-president means he will head the continent's presence in Miami.

Ahmad was denied a visa to the United States although the reasons behind this decision are still unclear.

Bigpokey24 wrote:https://www.bbc.com/sport/africa/47571763

Fifa president Gianni Infantino, an ally of Caf vice-president Amaju Pinnick, has previously said he is 'optimistic' about expanding the 2022 World Cup to 48 teams

Meanwhile, the global footballers' union FifPro has called for a 'comprehensive review of the match calendar' and a 'minimum rest period between matches (of) 72 hours' after the feasibility study found the Qatar finals could still be played in their original time frame.

This would mean 80 matches being played in the same 28-day window between 21 November and 18 December.

With Caf President Ahmad unable to attend the Fifa Council meeting after being denied entry to the United States, Pinnick's role as Caf's first vice-president means he will head the continent's presence in Miami.

Ahmad was denied a visa to the United States although the reasons behind this decision are still unclear.

Ahmad has been given a Visa to enter the country.

I really hate the 48 team idea

Ugbowo wrote:I really hate the 48 team idea

I love it on the other hand. I think it is a wonderful idea since UEFA refused to give up spots in a 32-team format the only option to move deserving teams opportunity to get to the competition was to add slots. Imagine more than 10 or so evenly African teams fighting for a meagre 5 spots?

Ugbowo wrote:I really hate the 48 team idea

Why? The more games, the merrier.
I am all for democratizing football and giving otherwise non-favored teams a chance to compete for a WC.
In any case, the cream will rise to the top.

Ugbowo wrote:I really hate the 48 team idea

...but that is good for Naija

Ugbowo wrote:I really hate the 48 team idea

I think it is a good idea

Ugbowo wrote:I really hate the 48 team idea

I do too.
32 was the perfect number. 16 groups of 3 makes no sense at all.

48 team WC is a terrible idea.

Horrible idea! There isn't 48 teams out there deserving to be playing at the World Cup!

i see nothing wrong with it

Undertaker wrote:Horrible idea! There isn't 48 teams out there deserving to be playing at the World Cup!

Really? Ghana? Cameroon? Egypt? Ivory Coast? They don't deserve it? By the way all the teams mentioned above are to currently among the Top 48 according to FIFA ranking? Just think about that.

Though the ranking isn't the World Cup qualifiers but it supposedly lets us know the top 48 teams in the world. The fact of the matter is that beyond the Top 6 or so teams, it is often hard to differentiate between the next 40 or so teams in terms of performance. Should you then advise a World Cup restricted to only those top 6 or so teams? I think not.

Enugu II wrote:

Undertaker wrote:Horrible idea! There isn't 48 teams out there deserving to be playing at the World Cup!

Really? Ghana? Cameroon? Egypt? Ivory Coast? They don't deserve it? By the way all the teams mentioned above are to currently among the Top 48 according to FIFA ranking? Just think about that.

Though the ranking isn't the World Cup qualifiers but it supposedly lets us know the top 48 teams in the world. The fact of the matter is that beyond the Top 6 or so teams, it is often hard to differentiate between the next 40 or so teams in terms of performance. Should you then advise a World Cup restricted to only those top 6 or so teams? I think not.

Dude, when it is going to stop? In a few years it will be 68 teams? We all saw Panama and Saudi Arabia and even Egypt at the last World cup.They were very poor and had to business being there! 32 team is enough. There aren't 9.5 good teams in Africa. All those teams you mentioned have been to the World Cup. Egypt and Ivory Coast have never gotten out of their group talk less win the group! Cameroon haven't won a match since 2002?

Best format was 24 team WCs. So much quality. Third place teams with 4-6 points that would make a deep run.

32 is watered down but still good since you always have one strong team in a group and often two. Once you make it to the QFs its the cream of the crop.

With 48 teams there will be a lot of junk until the QF stage. Unfortunately FIFA prioritizes money over quality and fan experience. Before long this will become a 64 team tournament.

JACKAL wrote:What I would like to see is the teams playing more than 3 games at the WC.

They work so hard to get there and they are out before you know it. Its a month long competition, let them play for the other spots in the competition.... 5th place , 6th 7th placeetc..

This would be a waste of time, many teams barely care about placing 3rd in the first place make quarter final losers play an extra game would be a waste of everyone's time.

Enugu II wrote:

Undertaker wrote:Horrible idea! There isn't 48 teams out there deserving to be playing at the World Cup!

Really? Ghana? Cameroon? Egypt? Ivory Coast? They don't deserve it? By the way all the teams mentioned above are to currently among the Top 48 according to FIFA ranking? Just think about that.

Though the ranking isn't the World Cup qualifiers but it supposedly lets us know the top 48 teams in the world. The fact of the matter is that beyond the Top 6 or so teams, it is often hard to differentiate between the next 40 or so teams in terms of performance. Should you then advise a World Cup restricted to only those top 6 or so teams? I think not.

Non of those teams deserved to qualify. This is the World Cup not the Olympics where every nation gets to "participate". The quality of the tournament is at stake here.

bret- hart wrote:

Enugu II wrote:

Undertaker wrote:Horrible idea! There isn't 48 teams out there deserving to be playing at the World Cup!

Really? Ghana? Cameroon? Egypt? Ivory Coast? They don't deserve it? By the way all the teams mentioned above are to currently among the Top 48 according to FIFA ranking? Just think about that.

Though the ranking isn't the World Cup qualifiers but it supposedly lets us know the top 48 teams in the world. The fact of the matter is that beyond the Top 6 or so teams, it is often hard to differentiate between the next 40 or so teams in terms of performance. Should you then advise a World Cup restricted to only those top 6 or so teams? I think not.

Non of those teams deserved to qualify. This is the World Cup not the Olympics where every nation gets to "participate". The quality of the tournament is at stake here.

Interesting. So how many teams do you want because those teams were in 32 team tournaments. Should it be 16 teams? One thing you miss is that football is not stagnant. A 48 team tournament is perhaps stronger from 1 to 48 than 1 to 16 in 1966.

Enugu II wrote:

bret- hart wrote:

Enugu II wrote:

Undertaker wrote:Horrible idea! There isn't 48 teams out there deserving to be playing at the World Cup!

Really? Ghana? Cameroon? Egypt? Ivory Coast? They don't deserve it? By the way all the teams mentioned above are to currently among the Top 48 according to FIFA ranking? Just think about that.

Though the ranking isn't the World Cup qualifiers but it supposedly lets us know the top 48 teams in the world. The fact of the matter is that beyond the Top 6 or so teams, it is often hard to differentiate between the next 40 or so teams in terms of performance. Should you then advise a World Cup restricted to only those top 6 or so teams? I think not.

Non of those teams deserved to qualify. This is the World Cup not the Olympics where every nation gets to "participate". The quality of the tournament is at stake here.

Interesting. So how many teams do you want because those teams were in 32 team tournaments. Should it be 16 teams? One thing you miss is that football is not stagnant. A 48 team tournament is perhaps stronger from 1 to 48 than 1 to 16 in 1966.

32 teams is fine and balanced. The Ghanas and the Ivory coasts were poor so thus did not deserve to qualify.

bret- hart wrote:

Enugu II wrote:

bret- hart wrote:

Enugu II wrote:

Undertaker wrote:Horrible idea! There isn't 48 teams out there deserving to be playing at the World Cup!

Really? Ghana? Cameroon? Egypt? Ivory Coast? They don't deserve it? By the way all the teams mentioned above are to currently among the Top 48 according to FIFA ranking? Just think about that.

Though the ranking isn't the World Cup qualifiers but it supposedly lets us know the top 48 teams in the world. The fact of the matter is that beyond the Top 6 or so teams, it is often hard to differentiate between the next 40 or so teams in terms of performance. Should you then advise a World Cup restricted to only those top 6 or so teams? I think not.

Non of those teams deserved to qualify. This is the World Cup not the Olympics where every nation gets to "participate". The quality of the tournament is at stake here.

Interesting. So how many teams do you want because those teams were in 32 team tournaments. Should it be 16 teams? One thing you miss is that football is not stagnant. A 48 team tournament is perhaps stronger from 1 to 48 than 1 to 16 in 1966.

32 teams is fine and balanced. The Ghanas and the Ivory coasts were poor so thus did not deserve to qualify.

There is no doubt that they did not deserve to qualify for the 2018 World Cup. But that is not the idea nor is it a central point. Obviously, they and the likes of Italy and Holland were eliminated based on competition rules and cannot, therefore, be judged as deserving to be at the competition of 32. But the same line of argument would state that 16 of the the teams at the 2018 tournament would not have deserved to be there in a 16-team tournament. Note that in this scenario, teams that you acknowledge that would have led to a "fine and balanced" tournament would have been absent. Thus, the issue may not be that the teams that failed to make a 32-team tournament are "poor," as you claim, but that they just could not make it because of the number limitation of teams eligible for the tournament. This is in fact, the reason to argue for opening of additional spots especially in federations where competition for available spots is increasingly fierce e.g. in Africa.

Ultimately, the argument that a 48-team World Cup will water down the World Cup is not compelling on various fronts, including the following two key points:

1. There are teams that currently fail to qualify but are comparatively as strong as teams that make it to a 32-team World Cup.

2. The gap between teams has narrowed considerably for reasons that include technical/tactical transfer of knowledge, global youth competitions, and increased migration of football labor that have widely distributed football intelligence. Thus, the massacres often witnessed in 16-team World Cups are rarely seen in a 32-team World Cup and unlikely to be there in a 48-team World Cup. Thus, mere number counting to determine wether the tournament is watered down is illogical considering the above undeniable progress in knowledge distribution.