Jump to content

World Cup 2026


Wade Garrett

Recommended Posts

State of the national side has been so dire recently that it has killed off any interest, and I am not really too fussed about other countries. Increasing it so that there are a lot more average sides joining the competition is I'm sure very nice, but it will make it even more boring and bloat the competition even more. I tend to go on merit rather than inclusivity, as otherwise it devalues the competition. We have suffered 2 excruciatingly boring round of qualifying for Brazil14 and Euro16, and I guess we have even more boringness to look forward to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This kind of nonsense is what happens when politics becomes the main driving force in decision making. Infantino knows he requires votes from the tiny countries, each with the same voting power as Germany or Brazil, to get re-elected. To accomplish this, he swells up the World Cup like a giant throbbing gangrenous appendage. The same thing has happened in UEFA as well with the Euros.

 

I am really starting to lose interest in international football. It admittedly does not help that England are awful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This kind of nonsense is what happens when politics becomes the main driving force in decision making. Infantino knows he requires votes from the tiny countries, each with the same voting power as Germany or Brazil, to get re-elected. To accomplish this, he swells up the World Cup like a giant throbbing gangrenous appendage. The same thing has happened in UEFA as well with the Euros.

 

I am really starting to lose interest in international football. It admittedly does not help that England are awful.

 

T'is true. There are already some pretty boring games at the WC. Now if you're going to add 16 teams not good enough to qualify for a 32 team final round it's not going to get better. The only major compensation might be less qualifying games, like the play-off round or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not necessarily against improving opportunities for nations to get to world cup.

Would have preferred it to go up to 40 personally.

I do fear this is political backhanders decision where too many places are to be added to overly weak zones.

They should be addressing nonsense that is oceania having its own qualification zone and viability of combining nth and sth american qualifying to increase depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So two draws means a great chance to go through. Get ready for defence minded games with low scores.

 

And I wonder what they'll do if all teams end up with the same points and goals - something that's more likely to happen with groups of just 3 matches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I wonder what they'll do if all teams end up with the same points and goals - something that's more likely to happen with groups of just 3 matches.

 

Penalty shoot outs in the last round of games is mooted. I notice that the really big beneficiaries of this increase in teams is the Concaf (US and Central America) who are predicted to go from 3.5 qualifiers to 6.5 qualifiers, an increase of almost 100% whereas Europe will only go from 13 to 16, that being only about 23%. I mean take away the USA, Mexico and Costa Rica and what have you left in the Concaf really? Perhaps they're planning for California's eventual secession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38565246

 

"Scottish FA chief executive Stewart Regan welcomed the expansion, saying it was a a "positive step"."

 

I suppose they have to try to get involved some how!

 

Won't make any difference to crap like Scotland though, Europe will probably go from 13 to 16 places, meaning that those who lost in the play-offs would be the sort of team to benefit from that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Penalty shoot outs in the last round of games is mooted. I notice that the really big beneficiaries of this increase in teams is the Concaf (US and Central America) who are predicted to go from 3.5 qualifiers to 6.5 qualifiers, an increase of almost 100% whereas Europe will only go from 13 to 16, that being only about 23%. I mean take away the USA, Mexico and Costa Rica and what have you left in the Concaf really? Perhaps they're planning for California's eventual secession.

 

CONCAF, call it 7 teams as opposed 6.5, and you have Costa Rica (17), Mexico (18], USA (28], Panama (58], Haiti (73), Honduras (75) and Curacao (75) filling the top 7, just ahead of Jamaica (77), Trinidad and Tobago (78], Guatemala (79) and St Kitts & Nevis (80). If you look at UEFA, the Netherland are 13th highest ranked (22 in the world) with 16th being Slovakia (25th in the world).

 

Someone sarcastically mentioned silly games like England vs Iceland. That would currently be, according to world rankings, 13 vs 21.

 

I know that some world rankings are completely mad, but even so, bringing in such lowly teams from CONCAF is just ridiculous. It will reinforce the fact that the Euros are by far the best standard of football competition in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CONCAF, call it 7 teams as opposed 6.5, and you have Costa Rica (17), Mexico (18], USA (28], Panama (58], Haiti (73), Honduras (75) and Curacao (75) filling the top 7, just ahead of Jamaica (77), Trinidad and Tobago (78], Guatemala (79) and St Kitts & Nevis (80). If you look at UEFA, the Netherland are 13th highest ranked (22 in the world) with 16th being Slovakia (25th in the world).

 

Someone sarcastically mentioned silly games like England vs Iceland. That would currently be, according to world rankings, 13 vs 21.

 

I know that some world rankings are completely mad, but even so, bringing in such lowly teams from CONCAF is just ridiculous. It will reinforce the fact that the Euros are by far the best standard of football competition in the world.

 

Cuco will probably be playing for Curacao in 10 years - bet he'd love a WC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many countries are going to have world-class training facilities to host 48 teams?

 

FIFA is a corrupt (very rich) waste of space. The European and South American countries should withdraw and have their own tournament.

I see that our proactive FA didn't even send their representative to the meeting because "he had another engagement".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many countries are going to have world-class training facilities to host 48 teams?

 

FIFA is a corrupt (very rich) waste of space. The European and South American countries should withdraw and have their own tournament.

I see that our proactive FA didn't even send their representative to the meeting because "he had another engagement".

 

Well as the 2026 WC seems to be a certainty for the old US of A I'd guess they'll put that forward as one of the reasons for giving the competion to them. That makes it even worse because if the plan goes ahead as foreseen the Concaf will have

8 or 9 teams in those finals. They're obviously trying to assure that current footballing non-entities like China and Canada are present solely for the TV and advertising revenues that would be generated. South America would also go to 7 teams under the proposed scheme, meaning that their qualifiers would be about as meaningful as a series of friendlies. It's all about the money and nothing else.

Edited by Window Cleaner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another problem with 3 team (3 game) groups is that a small country without great wealth - say Haiti, just to give a name - will have to somehow fund a 2-3 week trip to somewhere expensive (say Japan just as a random possible location) for a squad of 23 plus numerous hangers on, just for two games of football.

 

I wonder how, realistically, very small nations would fund their attendance without sponsorship of some kind. At least 4 team groups guaranteed 3 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another problem with 3 team (3 game) groups is that a small country without great wealth - say Haiti, just to give a name - will have to somehow fund a 2-3 week trip to somewhere expensive (say Japan just as a random possible location) for a squad of 23 plus numerous hangers on, just for two games of football.

 

I wonder how, realistically, very small nations would fund their attendance without sponsorship of some kind. At least 4 team groups guaranteed 3 games.

 

Don't FIFA give them money for participating then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Window, I believe it is actually to get China and INDIA there (rather than Canada). That's 2.5bn people they want to come to the party.

 

India isn't a football nation as would testify their 135 th ranking on the FIFA scale. Plus in their zone the concurrence is far greater than it is in the CONCAF where Canada ply their trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloody ridiculous. Unless California secedes of course, in which case I'm 100% on board.

 

If they are going to do this, at least avoid groups with an odd number of teams, otherwise we'll get a load of Austria vs. Germanys. FFS, with even numbers they still make sure all teams in a group play their final matches simultaneously. That's rather difficult with 3 teams in a group, unless they plan to have all 3 on the same pitch in the final match.

 

12 groups of 4, with the top 2 from each going through. The 8 best first-placed finishers get a bye into round two of the knockout stage, with the remaining 16 playing each other in round one of the knockout stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as the 2026 WC seems to be a certainty for the old US of A I'd guess they'll put that forward as one of the reasons for giving the competion to them. That makes it even worse because if the plan goes ahead as foreseen the Concaf will have

8 or 9 teams in those finals. They're obviously trying to assure that current footballing non-entities like China and Canada are present solely for the TV and advertising revenues that would be generated. South America would also go to 7 teams under the proposed scheme, meaning that their qualifiers would be about as meaningful as a series of friendlies. It's all about the money and nothing else.

 

I should protest about your characterization of Cananda as a footballing non-entity, but it is probably a fair assessment. Still, there's always hockey...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We haven't had a decent World Cup for years and there's little prospect of one for years either with the crap venues coming up and now this, not to mention that International football ceased to be the highest level of the game too about 15 years back (Barca/Real/Bayern would beat Brazil or Spain). Used to love following England but it's been downhill steeply since Euro '96.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 groups are utter sh*te. I still remember Spain-England-W. Germany in Spain '82. Two 0-0s and W. Germany went through because they beat Spain by 1 goal.

 

Keegan missed a sitter - tw*t.

 

So two draws means a great chance to go through. Get ready for defence minded games with low scores.

 

It's not going to provide an exciting spectacle of attacking football is it ?

 

On the plus side, it might mean less games for our English players, as they'll probably be coming home after two matches rather than three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})