Pros and Cons of a 48-team World Cup

15 January 2017

After all the years of squabbling among the confederations for World Cup places, FIFA took the obvious answer to a surprising conclusion. While the World Cup was ripe for an increase in World Cup teams, to go from 32 teams now to 48 teams for 2026 was a drastic leap. The one caveat is the last increase was in 1998 when 32 teams participated, up from 24 in 1994. The World Cup probably should be 40 teams already, and by 2026 it will be 28 years since the last change. The format will be 16 groups of 3 teams with the top 2 progressing to the knockout phase, which adds a round of 32 to its schedule. While the number of matches overall in the tournament increases from 64 to 80, the maximum number of matches per team remains at seven.

PROS

1) More teams

This is the clear reason for expansion. Regions like Africa and Asia desperately wanted more places, and with the huge amount of money in Asia these days, it means more money for FIFA. Expect both regions to get an extra 4 spots, so Africa’s 5 becomes 9 and Asia’s 4.5 becomes 8 or 9. Oceania is certain to finally get the spot that a full member confederation deserves. They have a spot at every other FIFA tournament and the World Cup should be no exception.

2) More dreams

Teams that once had no hope to qualify now finally can dream about it. Oceania is a classic example, with the likes of Fiji, Vanuatu and Tahiti now only required to get past New Zealand, while in Asia the likes of China, Thailand, Vietnam and Uzbekistan can expect to regularly challenge for a World Cup spot. More than that, it will be nice to see these new teams at the World Cup. Look at the intrigue and excitement the likes of Iceland and Wales created in Euro 2016 when it expanded from 16 to 24 teams, or when Tahiti was Oceania’s representative at the 2013 Confederations Cup.

3) More excitement

The format means there’s one less group game and one more knockout game. While teams could often grind their way through the group phase with defensive tactics, now they need to tackly the group head on. Not so much to qualify, as 2 out of three is statistically an easier task, it’s for seeding purposes so to avoid stronger teams in the early rounds of knockout phase. There’ll also be far fewer, if any, dead matches. With 4-team groups, teams could often be qualified with one match remaining.

4) More representative of the world

Football is not a European and South American sport anymore. If they won’t cede spots to the likes of Asia and Africa to make the World Cup a fairer representation, then the number of teams must increase. Current speculation is Europe with have 16 spots (up from 13), Africa 9 (5), Asia 8.5 (4.5), South America 6 (4.5), Concacaf 6.5 (3.5), Oceania 1 (.5) and 1 for the host. The only inter-continental playoff will be Asia vs Concacaf.

CONS

1) Too many teams

Nearly a quarter of FIFA’s members will now qualify, which dilutes the basic challenge in the first place. Where’s the prestige in qualifying? Also, after two years and many qualifying games, your reward is only two games at the World Cup, not three as currently. That aspect seems an imbalance at least. In percentages terms, the number teams qualifying still quite low, particularly compared to other sports. Under a quarter of teams at football’s World Cup, compared to often 100% of Test level nations at cricket’s and all of tier 1 and most of tier 2 at rugby’s.

2) Less dreams

Sure, while the minnows are now guppies, guppies like Australia become piranhas. So much of the joy when qualifying for 2006 was that it was the first such qualification in 32 years. That mountain to conquer is already a hill in Asia, and the hill will become rubble with the extra four spots allocated. Being perennial World Cup qualifiers is not ideal for a developing nation like Australia. We need the kick up the backside occasionally, much like our youth program is now receiving after recent debacles of multiple failed qualifying campaigns at youth and Olympic level. With the move into Asia I was already prepared to accept missing one World Cup out of every 3, or even missing two in a row if the sport was in malaise. Most top European countries occasionally miss major tournaments, and if it’s ok for them to bomb out at times it should be good enough for us.

3) No 4-team group

Even with the increase of teams over the years, one time honoured staple remained: groups of 4 teams. The change to 3-team groups means each team plays only 2 matches and the odd number of teams means the final games of a group can’t be played simultaneously. This means teams can play for certain results to help others progress. While this ethical problem is quite rare in practice and still possible in a 4-team group, FIFA were always so adamant in preventing it… until now. Tied groups will also become a problem. FIFA are talking about penalty shootouts to split drawn games. That would be a disaster as weaker teams will play for draws. Goal difference and other tie-breaking mechanisms must still be used. In the worst case scenario, maybe 30 minute playoffs are introduced.

4) The squabble for spots will continue

Everyone will be happy in the short term with the extra spots. After that, watch the squabbling resume. South America are so greedy they will probably want all their countries represented. Already if you consider they will get at least 1.5 extra spots, that’s 6 out of 10 teams going. Ridiculous. As mentioned in these pages many times, spots should be based on past performances, with confederations streamlined to facilitate this. That means the Americas should be one confederation and Oceania should merge with Asia. That leaves roughly four regions of 50 teams. To each goes 8 direct spots with 1 to the host. The remaining 15 spots are allocated by previous World Cup performances over the past 3 Cups. If Asia/Oceania get 6 teams among the top 15 best performed teams, that’s six spots to them. Typically they get zero or one, so they’ll sit on 8 or 9, while Europe with usually 8 teams through will get 16 spots in total.

COMPROMISE

My personal preference is four 40 teams over 10 groups. So you still keep the 4-team group and, more importantly, make each match extra important because only 6 of the 10 second placed teams progress to the knockout phase.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Pros and Cons of a 48-team World Cup

  1. I guess that an extra point to add is that… for the top 32 teams at least, the world cup would still provide for them a minimum of 3 matches, comprising of 2 ‘live’ groups and one sudden death elimination. Therefore, for those ‘fringe’ qualified teams (33rd-48th), getting to play only 2 matches at the biggest stage is still better than nothing.

    The smaller group and extra round of knockouts (R32) should also benefit the teams (and weaker confeds). In all, I do agree that 32>48 in a single leap do seem excessive, but then I’m also not sure about only 6/10 2nd placed teams in group getting through into R16 under your 40 teams model. Cheers.

    • The model for 40 teams is realistically the only one that can work. That’s another reason FIFA jumped to 48 teams – to keep it all simple and streamlined.

      Yes, strong teams still most likely get 3 matches. I try not to make such pronouncements out of respect to other nations, so deliberately didn’t mention it. That’s up to readers to conclude. I also considered long term top that teams may not have that luxury of almost certain progression to the last 32 anyway.

  2. I believe FIFA is also considering co-host of USA, CAN & MEX for 2026. That should mean removal of 2x CONCACAF spots from the 2026 allocation. Also can’t ever see CONCACAF and CONMEBOL merging into AMERICAS confederation… it would mean wiping out the cushy position currently enjoyed by USA and MEX.

    • It wouldn’t be a merge. It would be FIFA regarding it as a region and allocating spots accordingly. The two confederations can then split those spots as they like.

  3. Here’s something a bit different to get around the problem of the qualification “mountain becoming a hill, then becoming a pile of rubble”… how about this…

    In order to encourage teams to go beyond just simply qualifying (Australia finishing 8th in AFC, Mexico finishing 6th in CONCACAF), what about FIFA allocating two tiers of qualifying slots for each Confederations?

    Example… out of 8.5 Asian slots, 4.0 are Gold slots, 4.5 are Silver slots. Thus, if Australia qualifies in Gold position (top 4), it will receive either preferential treatment in the final draw OR is awarded an ‘immunity card’ in the event of finishing in a tie position with another Silver Q team in the shortened group OR, received preference treatment if tied during the knockout.

    What do you think???

    • It certainly has merit in terms of seeding. In terms of breaking ties you don’t want anything that can preordain results. If a gold team knows their status means a draw is sufficient, they’ll play accordingly.

      I can foresee the AFC will have a shorter qualifying phase with an emphasis on smaller groups and fewer margins for error.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s