Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:32 am
My instinctive reaction is 'No' too, but I'm asking what my reasons are.
Cybereagles
The Undisputed Number One Home for All Super Eagles Fans
https://forum.cybereagles.com/
World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Page 2 of 3
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:45 am
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 11:23 am
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:11 pm
Why not do it every year?
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:49 pm
Not for me.
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:22 pm
No!
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2021 12:03 am
Any particular reason? 
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Sat Sep 18, 2021 9:36 pm
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.
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:17 pm
The Confederations Cup was a worthless tournament.Benedict Iroha wrote: ↑Sat Sep 18, 2021 9:36 pm 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.
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2021 6:34 pm
Money is what happened and the only driving force for it.green4life wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 4:21 pmHypocrisy 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.
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:04 pm
This guy should be flogged.
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:23 pm
Wow
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:42 pm
First 48 countries now every too years, Sepp Blatter looks like a saint now.
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:58 pm
The cynicism in-built into his campaign is actually nauseating
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:03 pm
I was about to say no, then I realized that I had nothing concrete against it.
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:18 pm
life is short , make we all get to enjoy the WC every 2 years
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 11:51 pm
tremendous from Peru
what a time to score on the road.
0-1 COL vs Peru
what a time to score on the road.
0-1 COL vs Peru
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 11:58 pm
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
Gareca's done wonders with this team since their naïve play at the WC Russia
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2022 12:03 am
PERU
PERU
PERU
What a game!
PERU
PERU
What a game!
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2022 9:05 am
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.
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:34 pm
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.
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.
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2022 2:19 am
nothing wrong with it
Re: World Cup Every 2yrs: Yes or No...
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2022 12:21 am
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?Tazmania wrote: ↑Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:34 pm 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.
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.