World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...

[kalani JR]

Those saying 'no!'.....abeg, why not?
Any particular reason?

Because it's what they are used to. At least that's why I'm no.

[Damunk]

Those saying 'no!'.....abeg, why not?
Any particular reason?

Because it's what they are used to. At least that's why I'm no.

My instinctive reaction is 'No' too, but I'm asking what my reasons are.

[kalani JR]

Those saying 'no!'.....abeg, why not?
Any particular reason?

Because it's what they are used to. At least that's why I'm no.

My instinctive reaction is 'No' too, but I'm asking what my reasons are.

I think it's the same across the board, none of the stated reasons for opposition really make sense.

[The YeyeMan]

Why not do it every year?

[Mr. Piffington]

Not for me.

[Damunk]

Why not do it every year?

No!

[The YeyeMan]

Any particular reason?

[Benedict Iroha]

Infantino has ruin football. First, he got rid of the confederations cup which is actually a good tourney pre-world cup, he is increasing the number of teams to 48 teams which makes no sense. Now this, football as we know is going down the drain because of greed.

[kalani JR]

Infantino has ruin football. First, he got rid of the confederations cup which is actually a good tourney pre-world cup, he is increasing the number of teams to 48 teams which makes no sense. Now this, football as we know is going down the drain because of greed.

The Confederations Cup was a worthless tournament.

[Ipe Grams]

Same motivation as the super league

Hypocrisy from FIFA as expected. What ever happened to traditions, history and the best interest of the sport arguments they used to summarily bury the super league.

Money is what happened and the only driving force for it.

[The YeyeMan]

This guy should be flogged.

[ANC]

This guy should be flogged.

Wow

[Benedict Iroha]

First 48 countries now every too years, Sepp Blatter looks like a saint now.

[txj]

This guy should be flogged.

The cynicism in-built into his campaign is actually nauseating

[airwolex]

I was about to say no, then I realized that I had nothing concrete against it.

[Bigpokey24]

life is short , make we all get to enjoy the WC every 2 years

[txj]

tremendous from Peru

what a time to score on the road.

0-1 COL vs Peru

[txj]

the work rate here is off the chart. what a defensive performance.

Gareca's done wonders with this team since their naïve play at the WC Russia

[txj]

PERU
PERU
PERU

What a game!

[Kneedeep]

The naysayers have some valid points. We should all step back and ask the clubs and current players what they think about this UEFA Nations League. That seems like a better place to start since the effects of the Nations League are not hypothetical unlike the objections to the biennial World Cup.

[Tazmania]

I was suprised to read here that so many people are contrary to the idea of a biennial WC, particularly as all 54 members of CAF are super keen on the idea. I was also contrary initially until I read FIFA's feasibility study published in December.

If the tournament is held on a biennial basis there would be a massive revenue uplift for all parts of the world according to Nielsen's projections. The projected increase in FIFA's revenues of $4.4bn (USD) for the first 4-year cycle would all go to solidarity, with 0% being retained by FIFA. What this translates to is a $25m grant every 4 years to each member association for the first 4-year biennial cycle, rising to $30m for the second cycle (currently it is $6m per 4 year cycle, 5 years ago it was only $1m). The prize money at the WC is projected to increase by 50% from $0.6bn to $0.9bn (total of $1.8bn in a 4-year cycle).

It is worth remembering that at the last 24-team tournament in 1994 in the USA, UEFA was represented by 13 teams - or 54% - of the field, while CAF and AFC together had only 5 places. In 2026, when it returns to North America, AFC and CAF combined will have more places than UEFA, with the latter's share of the field (16) shrinking to 33%. Therefore FIFA's trajectory has been to grow the game outside Europe without undermining European soccer.

One final point which is very important given the impact it has on competitiveness: the feasibility study showed that in the current global men's NT economy, 69% of the revenue generated goes to UEFA countries (which only comprise 26% of FIFA's membership), with the Rest of the World sharing the other 31%. The biennial proposal and the reformed international match calendar (the latter proposal has been revised to have 8 qualifiers in the season before the WC or continental tournament in June, 6 matches in two windows in October and November and the final 2 matches in March) is projected to lead to a more even total revenue distribution of UEFA 57%:43% Rest of the World. UEFA countries' would still be better off than they are currently, but their share would fall so other countries would have an even more significant uplift in revenue. The other major advantages are that the significantly increased revene would enable associations outside Europe to plan their activities on a more stable basis while they themselves would have more commercially attractive qualifying games to monetise (more chance of qualifying not to mention more regular qualifiers).

In conclusion, it seems to me that everyone benefits from having the WC on a biennial basis because it would ultimately lead to a more competitive tournament with more higher quality teams from different continents reaching the latter stages.

[ANC]

nothing wrong with it

[Ugbowo]

I was suprised to read here that so many people are contrary to the idea of a biennial WC, particularly as all 54 members of CAF are super keen on the idea. I was also contrary initially until I read FIFA's feasibility study published in December.

If the tournament is held on a biennial basis there would be a massive revenue uplift for all parts of the world according to Nielsen's projections. The projected increase in FIFA's revenues of $4.4bn (USD) for the first 4-year cycle would all go to solidarity, with 0% being retained by FIFA. What this translates to is a $25m grant every 4 years to each member association for the first 4-year biennial cycle, rising to $30m for the second cycle (currently it is $6m per 4 year cycle, 5 years ago it was only $1m). The prize money at the WC is projected to increase by 50% from $0.6bn to $0.9bn (total of $1.8bn in a 4-year cycle).

It is worth remembering that at the last 24-team tournament in 1994 in the USA, UEFA was represented by 13 teams - or 54% - of the field, while CAF and AFC together had only 5 places. In 2026, when it returns to North America, AFC and CAF combined will have more places than UEFA, with the latter's share of the field (16) shrinking to 33%. Therefore FIFA's trajectory has been to grow the game outside Europe without undermining European soccer.

One final point which is very important given the impact it has on competitiveness: the feasibility study showed that in the current global men's NT economy, 69% of the revenue generated goes to UEFA countries (which only comprise 26% of FIFA's membership), with the Rest of the World sharing the other 31%. The biennial proposal and the reformed international match calendar (the latter proposal has been revised to have 8 qualifiers in the season before the WC or continental tournament in June, 6 matches in two windows in October and November and the final 2 matches in March) is projected to lead to a more even total revenue distribution of UEFA 57%:43% Rest of the World. UEFA countries' would still be better off than they are currently, but their share would fall so other countries would have an even more significant uplift in revenue. The other major advantages are that the significantly increased revene would enable associations outside Europe to plan their activities on a more stable basis while they themselves would have more commercially attractive qualifying games to monetise (more chance of qualifying not to mention more regular qualifiers).

In conclusion, it seems to me that everyone benefits from having the WC on a biennial basis because it would ultimately lead to a more competitive tournament with more higher quality teams from different continents reaching the latter stages.

Who are you and why is your first post on Cybereagles about this topic and how do you have so much detailed knowledge of the REVENUE associated with this plan?

Besides the MONETARY advantage, have you considered countering some of the arguments against it? The prestige of the WC, the impact on other continental tournaments, the impact on Women's football, the impact on youth football etc.

And your retort should not just be $$$$$. We are fans here not accountants.