World Cup 2026: FIFA to expand competition to 48 teams

[James]

An initial stage of 16 groups of three teams will precede a knockout stage for the remaining 32 when the change is made for the 2026 tournament.

The sport's world governing body voted unanimously in favour of the change at a meeting in Zurich on Tuesday.

The number of tournament matches will rise to 80, from 64, but the eventual winners will still play only seven games.

Thoughts on this new format?

 

[tombrown]

Groups of 3 teams, mean only 1 match per group can be played at a time, which gives an advantage to the two teams who play the 3rd (final) group match, as they will know exactly what they have to do to qualify.

Being as FIFA always previously had final group games played simultaneously to minimize such an advantage, it seems odd to me that they have now made it impossible to address that

 

[James]

Seems there will be only two group games and a thirty two team knockout.

 

[Markeh]

"According to Fifa's own research, revenue is predicted to increase to £5.29bn for a 48-team tournament, giving a potential profit rise of £521m."

 

[Comical Aly]

Groups of 3 teams, mean only 1 match per group can be played at a time, which gives an advantage to the two teams who play the 3rd (final) group match, as they will know exactly what they have to do to qualify.

Being as FIFA always previously had final group games played simultaneously to minimize such an advantage, it seems odd to me that they have now made it impossible to address that

There was some talk of penalty shoot outs in the group games to stop this but I just can't see how it would work without changing the dynamic of the group games considerably. I presume the idea is that there are no draws so something will always rest on the last game. Actually I think this would Americanise the World Cup too much for me.

 

[Kay Age El]

I am torn.

A part of me wants the format to stay as it is - or be even more competitive with lesser teams qualified and perhaps larger groups hence more top games to watch.

On the other hand I actually like that more teams can get a sniff of the fun. And the 3 teams group thing could - apart from the obvious banana-skin Tom Brown mentioned - be rather good viewing with loads of important knock-outs. As two teams progress how big a threat for the quality and fairness of games is the delayed game format really?

In example: If either Team A or B wins their first game against each other it would eventually mean that the losing part have GOT to win their last game to progress. Unless of course if say B (loser) and C draws. Then both A and C would progress from draw in the last game but B would make it if A also beat C.

What if A and B draw then in the first game of the group? Then another draw between B & C could lead to potential trouble as A and C with yet another draw would put all three teams on even points.

As they'd all have +0 in GD then it will be 'goals for' that'll decide who's through why a potential 4-4 in the last game could tip the balance in favor of A and C. Is this a highly likely scenario though? No, I don't think so, and if you draw your two games you are really in no position to be too bothered that you've been knocked out either.

Should all teams beat each other, hence end up 3 points all, then it would again be down to the most scoring teams and this one is more straightforward as I see no possible way teams could speculate in either loosing or winning big, at least not without influencing their opponents either negatively or positively. Meaning that to teams facing each other could not both gain an advantage.

So yeah while it's perhaps not very likely to happen a lot, delayed games could prove to be an issue under the 'right' circumstances.

 

[Kay Age El]

There was some talk of penalty shoot outs in the group games to stop this but I just can't see how it would work without changing the dynamic of the group games considerably. I presume the idea is that there are no draws so something will always rest on the last game. Actually I think this would Americanise the World Cup too much for me.

Oh like in Ice hockey, that would be fun.

3 points for a win in normal time
2 points for a win after extra-time/penalties
1 point for a draw in normal time

This would really pan out some of the dangers of having delayed games. I like that idea.

 

[HC]

its shit, they should leave it as be. as if the cunts even need any more tv/ sponsorship money from a bigger/ longer tournament.

 

[Insignificance]

Couldn't care less. Norway would still not make it!!! Bring on the 84 team World Cup!!!!

 

[Comical Aly]

Yeah I see what you mean. I suppose the other thing it might do is make the knockout phase games more of a lottery which could add to the fun.

 

[tombrown]

I am torn.

.

So is Natalie Imbruglia

 

[tombrown]

On the other hand I actually like that more teams can get a sniff of the fun. And the 3 teams group thing could - apart from the obvious banana-skin Tom Brown mentioned - be rather good viewing with loads of important knock-outs. As two teams progress how big a threat for the quality and fairness of games is the delayed game format really?

F'ck - you're the second person today who has worked out my real name. I need a more cunning disguise for this internet thing

 

[Dreambeliever]

Love the new format as it doesn't increase the number of games for the winner.

 

[StevieM]

I am torn.

Are you lying naked on the floor?

 

[StevieM]

So is Natalie Imbruglia

Damn you Tom - damn you to hell!!!!!

 

[Leo]

The only two good things about International tournaments is the penalty shootouts and heartbreak.
More teams more heartbreak.