You could do it where 1st place teams get a bye to R16 and 2nd and 3rd place teams play each other to go to R16, so 50% of teams advance to the knockouts
that sounds solid. plus it still adds high stakes games that fifa can market. in my opinion while these 6 team groups have some great matches, adding 2 extra games is too much of a strain on the players, and bigger teams have more room for error with 5 matches compared to 3, they would almost always advance. the only thing is how to reward 2nd place teams, it feels a bit annoying that teams in that range now almost get bumped down for their efforts, maybe having them play geographically closer to their camp, to limit travel, or maybe they get to play in the same stadium at they played their 3rd group stage game. maybe not a big deal, but i feel like what stops a 2nd place team from even trying if theyve already secured 3rd place at least and it's too risky to go for 1st.
@@someperson3883 You could also just have Instead of 32 teams pass the group stage, just have 16 pass like you said but in a simpler way. Essentially you could have all 12 group winners and 4 2nd best to a round of 16. The pressure would certainly be on and it would reduce the tournament matches by 16 which I think is more sensible.
Nah it’s called the World Cup because it’s the world get that first world teams get automatic privilege bs outta here n get in line like everyone else. Rich your capitalistic scheme for colonial high stakes games. The magic lies in the fact any team can come from nothing and win don’t kills the players dreams for fantasy futbol.
I'm definitely no expert, but agree that the thrill of the World Cup is that "it matters". Increasing the jeopardy of every game makes a lot of sense to me!
9 games in a short stretch of time is pretty challenging. During the African Cup for instance, my observation of the final was that the Nigerian team in particular looked exhausted in the final. It felt a little that the last couple of games dipped in quality as player fatigue set in. So, if you expand the competition with 2 more games at group stage, I reckon you need to expand the tournament duration by 10 - 14 days to allow for adequate rest.
I would like to show my proposal for the 48-team cup: Similar to what FIFA proposed, it starts at 12 groups of 4, but only the best 2 of each group qualify. The 24 remaining teams will be divided into 3 groups of 8, each playing their own, separate knockout stage. The finals will be played by the 3 teams who win the knockout stages of their respective group, where each team will play once against the 2 others, making three final games. In the end, the team with the highest Goal Net (goals scored minus goals received) Wins the cup! This system requires 96 games, 8 games less than the proposed 104 of FIFA's plan. Whaddaya think?
I liked 8 grups of 6 teams idea but my idea is a bit different to yours. How about 3 out of 6 teams making the knockout rounds? This means total 24 teams will reach knockout round. So, out of those 24, whoever tops the group, meaning 8 teams will get bye. Then, second and third seeds will face each other to determine 8 more teams. for example A2 vs B3, A3vs B2 and so on. Then winners of 2vs3 will plays 1s. Hope yall understand
I agree, I would also organize a competition that way. the problem is that there are too many matches in the format of 6 teams in a group where everyone plays each other! maybe the group should be divided into two sides, as if you have two groups in which everyone plays with everyone from the other group, and you rank them all together who collected the most points. If you understand me. instead of five games in the group, the teams would play three!
@@glavatazelvathat's an interesting proposal, don't even have to be 6 team groups, just the old 16 groups of 3 but instead of the team playing 2 matches against their own group, they play 3 matches against a different group
Your take IS the solution. But it's missing something: having each team play 5 matches induces fatigue. Solution: 8 groups x 6 teams, but seed the teams of each group based on current form and the latest FIFA Ranking at the time of the draw. Then, split each group into two halves - what you should have is teams ranked 1 - 6, in two "divisions", 1 - 3 and 4 - 6. Then each team plays round-robin within their division, making 6 games, as well as one game with an opponent in the other division - what opponent that will be would be determined at the draw beforehand, to be based on the rankings of the teams after 2 games. Final group positions are resolved over all games played. Thus each team plays just 3 teams, not 5. Then, group winners get a bye into the final R16, while 2nds and 3rds are paired in the first R16.
Imo your proposal comes with two problems: 1) It’s an increase by two games for the champion over the current format. Leagues and clubs would fight that hard 2) That’s the bigger one for me: While the group stage in Fifas proposal is too easy, in yours it is too hard. A lot of teams would be knocked out after three games, with two dead rubber matches still to go. Something along the lines of 50% of teams would already know their fate going into the last group stage match. Overall the group stage would be stretched out and prolonged, with a lot of the additional matches being meaningless. For some reason I love to think up tournament systems, so I have tried everything in my head but I couldn’t come up with a realistic system that satisfies me. The quality will indeed barely be lowered but the tournament system is a problem, 32 teams is just the perfect number unfortunately
I agree. maybe you like this system. 8 groups of 6 teams, divided into two camps of 3 in which the teams play each of the three teams from the other camp. then you rank all 6 teams in the group by points, the first place goes to the round of 16, and the second and third in the group go to the round of 32. thus, each team would play 3 instead of 5 games in the group stage of the competition, and 50% of the teams would go to the knockout stage! the winner of the competition would play 7 or 8 matches in the tournament, depending on their position in the group. the entire tournament would have 95 games if I'm not mistaken.
@@glavatazelva Cool idea, it does adress some common problems but right now, I feel like that would have little acceptance because fans would constantly whine about how much harder their schedule is compared to the the similar team from the other camp and as long as the Fifa rankings remain so useless in representing the true strength of the teams, the fans would have a point.
@@Brandon-qd2lb One more than in the planned format for 2026 but two more than in the 32-team format, which I was referring to. I am not crazy about increasing the duration of the World Cup but the bigger issue for me with the proposal from the video would be the big amount of meaningless matches
Brilliant format. I love the idea of 6-team groups. It would make the last round of the group matches even more exciting. I have just one adjustment. 8 groups of 6 teams, with the two best progressing to a round of 16 is a lot of matches (136 to be exact). This puts a lot of strain on the host nation. What if the first two rounds of group matches were played as soon as in april or may, and hosted by all the 48 qualified teams? One home game for every nation qualified, which would undoubtedly bring a little piece of the world cup fever and exhilirate the anticipation for the "round proper" of the world cup in june. So basically, I would split the group stage in matchday 1 and 2 played prior to the main world cup event, and matchday 3, 4 and 5 to be played in june. This would reduce the number of games hosted by the host to 88. Still, a lot more than 64 that we're used to, but a lot less than the 104 games to be played in 2026. I feel like this idea would please all parties involved. If you like this format, share the idea with every football fan, and even Gianni Infantino, if you happen to know him.
I feel like top 4 teams qualifying from 8 group of 6 would be better since I've figured this out before and removing the old rules of only 2 uefa nations will can be in the same group. 12 groups of 4 teams will be confusing and will have to make playoff league to determine the missing teams to complete the 32 finalists.
I 100% agree with the 8 group format. I think that 6 teams per group is an under rated format, and I think the upside is worth the tradeoff in these very large global tournaments. I also think that the inter-confed playoffs should be massively expanded. I would favor something like 8 play-in spots that are up for grabs, with an expanded tournament involving 32 teams or so. And that would probably happen 1 year prior to the World Cup. For the play in tournament, let's say you have 32 teams. Multiple teams from each confed, but the largest amount probably comes from Europe and South America. Let's go with four groups, eight in each group, and everyone plays everyone in their group twice. So we probably need four international windows to do that, right? Maybe this takes a bit over a year to do. After all of that, the first place team from each group is in automatically. The second place team from each group is matched with the third place team of a different group, and they match up in a single elimination event to determine the last four that get in. This type of massively expanded play-in thing would give us a lot more play in the qualification process. If a certain confed is weak at the moment, they just don't get as many teams in. If Asia or Africa get extra strong, they can get three of four more teams in. This is likely to become the third or fourth most watched soccer thing on the entire calendar- certainly more than what we currently do with the inter-confed playoffs- and it's entirely likely that high population countries like India or China are going to be in this tournament. Along with all of that, it flattens out the competition in the actual World Cup. This is important when you expand a tournament by so much- you don't want to have too many qualified that aren't highly ranked. We need to be careful about diluting the depth of the competition. So instead of breaking our brains in order to predict which confeds will do the least amount of harm to the depth, we do a huge under-card qualification tournament and let them sort it out in the field. The eleventh best team in Europe mixes it up with the seventh best team in South America, while the sixth best team in Africa gets into it with the eighth best team from Asia. It would be something like that, and I'm here for it.
I think another alternative for a 48 team World Cup is a second group stage replacing the current round of 16. First group stage with 12 groups of 4 teams each with the top 2 teams advancing. The remaining 24 teams would be split into 8 groups of the 3 teams each with the top team advancing to the quarterfinals.
I think that is a great idea. In my opinion it would be even better, if the second group stage replaced the quarter finals insteadof rhe round of 16. There would be 12 teams divided into 4 groups of 3, with the first team of each group advancing to the semi-finals. This would make the second group stage even more attractive, as there would be top teams fighting for one spot inside a group.
@@henrydanger06 For me it seems childish to have second group stage and thoese absolutely small groups seem boring, when you already know which ones are going through in there, when you know the best footballing country competing in that group.
I like this a lot and it gets rid of the mutual advancement through drawing that can occur with 2 teams advancing from groups of 3. It keeps high jeapordy in each phase of group play. I’d just hope there would be a fixed draw to determine who would go where for the second group phase, and from the second onto the third. When there are random draws, I dislike it since I can’t make future champion hypotheticals from before the first matchday. Additionally, it’s the same amt of games for the winner compared to FIFA’s format (8), and all teams will still play atleast 3 games!
My wild idea of an extended World Cup: There are 49 teams qualified to the World Cup. The first match of the tournament is between the reigning Euro champion and the reigning Copa America champion. The winner is awarded a special trophy and qualifies directly to the playoffs. The loser and the other 47 play a Swiss system qualifier : each round matches teams with equal W-L records (that's why the UCL "Swiss" format isn't really Swiss: the core of the Swiss system is that every new round is drawn after the previous round ends based on its results), and each match is played to a winner with overtime and penalty series if needed. Teams with 3 victories qualify, teams with 2 defeats are eliminated. Here's how it would go: Round 1. Everyone has a 0-0 record, 24 matches are played. Round 2. 12 matches in the 0-1 group. 12 matches in the 1-0 group. Round 3. 12 teams eliminated with 0-2 record, 12 matches in the 1-1 group, 6 matches in the 2-0 group. Round 4. 12 more teams eliminated with 1-2 record, 6 teams qualified with 3-0 record, 9 matches in the 2-1 group. Result: 16 teams in the playoffs: 1 wildcard, 6 teams with 3-0 record, 9 teams with 3-1 record. The benefits: every match is meaningful, the stakes are high but at the same time everyone has a right to make a mistake, no need for indirect tiebreakers. The drawbacks: the fastest teams to be eliminated only play 2 matches instead of 3, and it may be harder logistically as each team doesn't know where geographically is it playing next round.
I'd be tempted to take a page from the 1982 format and have 12 groups of four, with the top two of each group qualifying for a second group stage of eight groups of three, and the eight group winners playing in the quarter finals. That would mean that finalists would play eight games - the same as under the proposed format. It would make reaching the knockouts a major achievement. And those second phase groups were amazing in 1982: the Italy/Argentina/Brazil Group C is legendary, of course, but two of the others were highly competitive, and only France winning group D was relatively boring. Now, having eight rather than four groups means that they are unlikely to be quite as spectacular as in Spain, but having a level where top-ten sides are guaranteed to go out is going to make for some spectacularly competitive high-level games. Also, this has the benefit that each finalist only plays three (rather than five) games that can go to extra time and penalties, making it significantly less demanding on the players: one reason why the two-leg format is so popular in UEFA competitions is that it hugely reduces the number of extra times that players play. FIFA ran away from three-team groups because they mean the final games can't be played simultaneously, and that was their solution to Gijon - but if they're groups with just one winner, then there's no possibility to do deals where both teams get through. The biggest danger with six-team groups is that some of the weaker teams will have two points or less from their first three games, which almost certainly puts them out of the tournament but with two games still to go. In a four-team group, a team only has a dead rubber game if they lose both their first two games. One reason that the final game of a four-team group is so exciting is that all four teams usually go in with some chance of qualifying in first or second. In a six-team group, at least one team is near-certain to be out before the last game, and there's a very good chance that two teams will be out. Unless they're playing each other, that means that there's only one game involving two teams that both have more than pride to play for.
@@OkOk-rn7to Three group teams are also very boring, because so little amount of games in so small group where the best teams know they will already easily get through.
This is a good idea but i think it would be best if instead of expanding the tournament they made a europa/ sudamericana equivalent. With 4 groups of 4 and the winners runners up and world cup 3rd place group stage teams qualifying for a round of sixteen. This would make a bunch of money, represent more teams and wouldn't force players to play more games .
I agree that the problem of expanding the competition is not "watering down the quality of competitors", but the way the competition is organized. I thought the same about 8 groups of 6 teams, but the groups would be divided into two camps, from which each team would play against all three teams from the other camp and where the first place from the whole group would go to the 1/16, and the second and third would qualify for the 1/32 competition. in this way, 50% of the teams would go to the knockout phase of the competition! if I'm not mistaken, the total number of matches would be 95, and the winner of the competition would play 8 or 7 matches depending on the position in the group stage.
Arsene Wenger suggested as one of the options to split the World Cup into two separate halves of 24, each featuring six groups of four teams. The winner of each half would meet in the final. Personally, I would go a step beyond and split them into three 16-team "mini-cups" with each of the hosting nations in one of them. Each mini World Cup would have the same dynamic as when it was last played with this number of teams (Argentina 78 I believe), best two teams of the group stage advancing to quarter finals, then winning their way into semi-finals and finals or a third place match in each mini cup. The eight best teams from all three cups (The three champions, three second places and the two best third places) will then play a knock out stage to decide the definitive champion amongst the three cups (this time with no pointless third place match like in past World Cup editions) 103 matches in total would be played, one less match than what is being proposed and with my idea the "weaker teams" would be out earlier and the more interesting teams would get more matches and chances to keep competing and this time around the third place matches will actually matter and won´t be simple consolation prizes.
I liked it when there was a second group stage (70's wc) though it had some controversial games, it reduced the chances of best teams getting eliminated. 5 ko games seems a stretch.
I very much like the uniformity of 16 groups of 3, with the top two emerging. This keeps the number of max games the same and if done correctly the doubling of numbers of groups can be used to remove “groups of death.” So the extra game for top teams should be very comfortable match up for them. To me, the biggest issue I see with major tournaments is how lopsided the brackets are which often result in underwhelming semi finals and finals. I also believe the issue raised about this format inviting teams to collude on the final can easily be remedied in a number of different ways, perhaps even ranking teams simply based on their goal differential.
my solution is this: make another "World Cup" but like a Europa League or Copa SurAmerica. Keep the actual WC 32 teams. This other 2nd tier WC will be 48 teams and invitational only. Teams in the World Cup can't play and a certain number of teams from each conference can be invited. We'll call it the International Invitational Cup. Use 2022 as a template, you would have have competition with Salah and Egypt vs European champions Italy, or Alexis and Chile vs Nigeria, or Haaland and Norway vs Colombia. We could do a group stage OR Copa Sur America with just straight Knock out round. Everyone wins. WC keeps their prestige and FIFA can still make money
IMO, part of the excitement and jeopardy of the group stage is the much smaller set of games each team plays. Having 5 games each in the group stage just allows the bigger teams more opportunity to recover from a mistake, reducing the number of upsets of teams getting out of the group. The early games are less exciting because they mean less, and with only 2 teams qualifying, the bottom 2 teams could already be eliminated by the 3rd match, especially with a greater difference in quality in each group. I do believe 8 groups is best, however I think you need to find a way to limit the number of games so that not everyone plays everyone else, to increase the jeopardy and excitement, and to also limit the total number of games played. This is my proposal to fix that: Inspired by the new UCL format, I propose 8 groups of 6, but where not everyone plays everyone else in the group. In each group, 3 teams are drawn on the left side of the draw, and 3 teams are drawn on the right side of the draw. Every team on the left plays every team on the right, and vice versa, but left teams never play any other left teams and right teams never play any other right teams. This means a 6 team group stage is finished in 3 games per team rather than 5. This means you have to increase the number of teams qualifying out of the group, because, for example, all 3 left teams could beat all 3 right teams, but with only 2 qualifying spots, one team would win all their matches and still get eliminated. Using the same example, increasing it to 4 spots would mean a right team who lost all 3 games could still qualify for the knockouts. So 3 is the perfect number for jeopardy and fairness. This means you have 24 teams in the knockout stage, meaning you add an extra round where 1st place teams receive a bye and 2nd and 3rd place teams play each other in a playoff round before the round of 16, however this is still 1 game less for an eventual winner even if they have to go through the playoff round, and 2 games less if they top the group, when comparing to a pure 8 groups of 6 format.
The logistical challenges alone makes it a strong argument against expanding. The obvious answer to football becoming more global is to have a Europa League type tournament
The UK can easily host a world cup, it already has enough recognised stadiums and facilities, as well as good public transport and accommodation, on top of this its a small country and easily travelled compared to say the USA or Mexico. The only reason itll never be held in the UK again is because FIFA has clear resentment towards the UK / England.
My proposal Keep the 12 groups of 4. Only the top 2 from each group qualify. Top 8 1st place teams automatically make RO16 Other 4 1st place + 12 2nd place teams play in playoff to make RO16. Extra rest for best performing teams in a tournament with fixture congestion issues The group stage stays interesting throughout. The World Cup gets a little Europa league flavor The tournament is identical from the round of 16 onwards Only real issue I can see is the amount of time it’ll take for teams to know if they’re in the top 8 or not. Perhaps the groups are split so it’s the top 4 group winners from the first 6 groups and the same for the next 6 groups.
It’s a good point about nations needing to co host except USA did not need Canada and Mexico to help host. It only needed them to not have a competing bid.
I have different ideas tbh, 2 in fact IDEA 1 - 8 groups of 6 - Arrange each group into a table with 3 columns and 2 rows - Teams won't play every other team in the group, only the ones in the same row/column (basically a swiss model) - 1st-3rd on each group advance to second group stage - In second group stage, there will be 8 groups of 3 With the following order of matches to ensure every match matters: m1 = 2 random teams m2 = team 3 vs m1 loser m3 = team 3 vs m1 winner - Winners of each group advance to quarterfinals - From QF up to final it's just like normal Total matches = 72 (Groups, Phase 1) 24 (Groups, Phase 2) 8 (Knockouts) Total = 104 Pros = - Every match matters (in Phase 2, even the matches of other teams) - Not as much burnout as in your format (In your format teams play 9 matches, in mine teams play 8. In 1998-2022 format teams play 7.) - Teams don't get eliminated before the final match - No major risk of collusions (Phase 2 works because only the winners go to knockouts, therefore no point in working together with another team in that phase) - No need for inter-group rankings (unlike the 2026- format) - No decreased revenue for FIFA because there are the same amount of matches Cons = - More matches per team, increasing player fatigue - Swiss format and 2 group stages can be confusing to newcomers - Fixtures in Phase 2 aren't set in stone IDEA 1B - Identical to idea 1, except : - There will be a playoff instead of a second group stage - Playoff contested by 2nd and 3rd placed teams in a group - Playoff winners and group winners go to round of 16 - From QF to final, identical to idea 1 Total matches = 72 (groups) 24 (knockouts) total = 96 matches Pros = - Similar enough to 1998-2022 format that people understand the format relatively quickly - Even when teams already booked their place in knockouts, games still matter for them because group winners get a bye Cons = - Less matches for FIFA, decreasing their revenue IDEA 2 - 12 groups of 4 - Winner advance to round of 16, runner-up go to second group stage - In second group stage, there will be 4 groups of 3 With the following order of matches to ensure every match matters: m1 = 2 random teams m2 = team 3 vs m1 loser m3 = team 3 vs m1 winner - Winners of each group (phase 1 and phase 2) go to round of 16 - From round of 16 to finals, identical to 1998-2022 format Total matches = 72 (groups, Phase 1) 12 (groups, Phase 2) 16 (Knockouts) Total = 100 matches Pros = - Mostly familiar format - No increased burnout for top teams - No inter-group rankings Cons = - Even more burnout for group runners-up (9 matches, 2 more matches than 1998-2022 format) - Less matches overall, decreasing FIFA's revenue IDEA 2B - 12 groups of 4, BUT : - The extra 16 teams will be treated differently, with them going to "silver groups", other teams go to "gold groups" - Gold groups winners go directly to round of 16 - Runners-up of all groups AND winners of silver groups go to playoffs (instead of second group stage), playoffs winners go to round of 16 - From round of 16 to final, identical to 1998-2022 format Pros : (Look idea 2 Pros) - Teams that wouldn't qualify without the expansion will be seperated from the teams that'd still qualify without, weakening the "quality dilution" argument Cons : (Look idea 2 Cons) - Extra burnout is less severe (8 matches as opposed to 9) for non-top teams that advanced from groups Sadly there are no quick and good solutions to this 48 team mess, but these ideas are the best I can come up with
To make this fair the distribution of teams should be; Europe 20, S.America 6, Africa 6, Asia 5, N.America 5, Oceania 1, Inter-continental playoffs 5 teams. Host 3 of the 6 from N.America.
that would go against the whole point of expansion, being to better spread the sport outside of Europe, also only 6 teams for africa is way too few, there are 50 or so african nations and seeing the success of morocco makes clear that african nations aren’t pushovers, also having a limited number of teams 16 rather than 20 qualify from europe continues to make qualification competitive, as there are 20ish of the 54 uefa nations that cannot even compete with teams like scotland and turkey who sit around 20th in europe, at least expanding in africa and asia will mean competitive qualification
@@jhs99990Europe is just that good + CONCACAF and AFC are filled with mediocre teams who don’t deserve a World Cup so maybe they get plenty of play off spots but not an actual direct spot
to your point about 5 teams getting to round of 16 is not that surprising you know . Being a world cup regularly would do that , these teams are there to compete and not just be happy to be there
Yes the more competition there is groups the larger the group is. Small three team groups feel absolutely, when it dosent really have any competition and you already know which countries are preatty much going through.
@@Jout8-re1ij honestly I feel not all the so called big teams or favorites are going to make it past the round of 32 and 16 , I mean 5 knockouts rounds to lift the trophy? Yeah teams will slip up there , the margin for error is high in these high pressure situations
My proposal would be to go back to 24 teams. Just the right level of craziness with best thirds and all. 48 is just too many. It makes qualifiers an afterthought for many countries.
The simplest solution: the twelve group stage winners and the select four top runners-up in match points or goal differential to make a round of 16. The plain and simple fact is that there isn't going to be an even, ideal solution to this mess that will satisfy everyone. Best option is to go with a solution with the least complication attached to it.
Clearly the original plan to expand to 40 and have 8 groups of 5 was the best, but because it got shot down due to politics and bad marketing, they couldn't reuse it, so now we're stuck with this 48 team monstrosity.
Did you just look at the AFC teams in Qatar and assume that's their quota? They had 6 because being the host ( Qatar) and Australia winning the playoff, until 2022 they had 4.5 not 6
The argument that the expansion dilutes the quality of play is over-played. The quality of teams in the 25 to 50 rank has dramatically increased over the past couple of decades. For example, Canada, who is currently ranked in the 40s, was very competitive in their group containing Belgium, Croatia and Morocco. Sure they didn't win any matches, but they played very entertaining football and weren't far from winning. I for one think the 32 team format is the best, but my objection against 48 teams - that it requires too much infrastructure for most countries to handle - is completely neutralized when hosted by countries with massive infrastructure, such as the USA, and to a lesser degree Mexico and Canada.
I think 64 team format brings back the symmetry of 32 team format, so I think 64 team format in the future will be the ideal the one. Still countries with millions or tens of millions population will get to the competition for first time ever and support hard fori their own country, so thats how you see every game having a lot of country fans in there, while only the two top footballing countries of the group itself follow for round of sixteen then.
It is very likely that the 2030 World Cup will likely end up having a difrent fromat from the 2026 (while still keeping 48 teams) as it happened between 1982 and 1986 when it was expanded from 16 to 24 teams. FIFA experimented with the 3 team groups in 82. That did not work, so they changed it to groups of 4 with some 3rd place teams advancing as the new 48 team format will have. As mentioned in this video, and in HITC Sevens video that just doesn't have enough stakes.
Yep I agree and I hope. I hate this 48 team edition because it makes it a lot more difficult for countries to host. In the next 3 editions the US may host it again.
It was also 6 groups of 4 teams in 1982, they just had another group stage after the first one for which the Top 2 qualified. That's how Germany and Austria managed to throw Algeria out of the Tournament.
My proposal would be 16 groups of 3 teams and everyone plays each other. The top team from each group qualifies for the round of 32 while the 2nd and 3rd place teams play in a playoff to qualify. Every team would both play a minimum 3 games as the old format also guaranteed and every team is guaranteed a knockout match. Meaning in theory, a team could lose its first two games and go on to win the whole thing. It would make it exciting for all fans and give smaller countries a chance to grow into the tournament and not feel like their last match is for nothing if they’ve already lost their first 2 matches.
My proposal would be similar to World Cup 1982: 12 groups of 4, top 2 qualify. Next round 24 qualify teams will be split into group of 3 with only winner qualify. Then with 8 teams it's a simple knockout. Number of match is still 104 but we can keep the intensity of first group stage and additional second group stage with no dead rubber match.
I dont agree with the statement that the group stage is the most entertaining round. Definitely the knockout stage is. In my opinion the best change in all of this would be de round of 32. But a group of 6 with 4 qualifyng doesnt feel right. Sadly, if the new Champions League format succeeds being profitable, we eventually will have that format in the World Cup. And also, in a few decades im sure the world cup will gradually became a global event like de olympics. Is what Infantino wants at the end.
I would say make it 40 teams. Format would be 8 groups of 5. There would be concerns over match fixing with this however this should be eliminated if there was a system where the 1st placed group team got a bye to the round of 16, whereas the 2nd and 3rd place teams go onto a playoff round as this would mean all the teams on the last day are likely to have something to play for.
The WC format is fine as it is. The quality of the teams has improved overall...as you correctly pointed out. As the 2023 AFCON tournament has shown us, even with 67% of teams qualifying for the knockout stages you can still have a number of high-stakes matches in the final round of group games.
But still the best countries in the tiny group will get easily through and thats why it dosent feel that competitive and it feels more to watch, because of the tiny groups.
@@Jout8-re1ij Don't be so sure...there are a lot of good teams in the 🌎 and the talent gap between the traditional powers and other countries has narrowed since the last expansion of the WC in 1998. We're in an age where any team can lose on any given day in a WC.
Why not reintroduce the Confederations Cup and make it a 32 team qualifying event for the FIFA World Cup? Let the best 4 teams qualify for the World Cup subsequently
While I support 8 group of 6 teams, I believe it should go with Swiss format. Groups will have 2 top, 2 middle and 2 bottom level teams and every team will play against one each from 3 levels. So teams will play 3 group matches, "best 3rd place teams" system will be removed and number of matches will even stay the same. Lİke many said in comments; 8 group winners qualify for Last 16, while teams finishing 2nd and 3rd place will play Round 24 to qualify for Last 16. With that, group stage will be even more exciting and match quality will be better in knockout stage.
Top 20 world cup nations who deserve Compressport full legs(as an athlete): 1 Spain 2 France 3 Switzerland 4 Italy 5 Finland 6 United States 7 Brazil 8 Sweden 9 Norway 10 Portugal 11 Belgium 12 Uruguay 13 Canada 14 Japan 15 Mexico 16 Russia 17 Israel 18 Argentina 19 Taiwan 20 Colombia
For the 64 country World Cup I have myself proposed plane how it could play. 64 country World Cup is not bad still, because its great to see countries, that rarely get in the World Cup to play in there and make it feel like bigger competition overall. In my 64 country World Cup proposal I think they could be eight groups of eight countries in there and only the top two from each group gets through with most points that you get from draw with one point and with win three points. Each country will play against all the other seven countries once in their group with every fourth day new game played by them, that in 25 days they will have played all the group stage games and the group starts in the first day of June. Then after the group stage the six remaining countries are eleminated with getting less points with total of 48 countries eleminated. It will make the World Cup feel bigger for all these countries being able to play seven, instead of three group stage games and, while not all the countries get through after the group stage. They can prove which countries they are better at football by finshing with more points after the group stage phase, so the group stage dosent feel as small and bland as it feels in nowdays World Cup. Then in first July starts the knockout stage with only one game played for one day, so people want to see all the knock-out games wont miss them and there is four day rest, when moving from round of sixteen to qutarfinals, while otherwise its only one game for day and same four day rest, when moving to semi-finals and then to bronze game where is still four day rest, unitil the final and the biggest of the World Cup should come in at 28 day of July, while the bronze game was played 24 day og July. The World Cup final will feel much bigger considering, that they will be the two top countries to come top of 64 country World Cup, so there will be a lot of people watching and, because they can after resting a lot from the group stage games. In the 28 day of July the winner will be crowned and the World Cup ends there then as two month tournament, so its feels preatty big with how much games will be played with total of 464 games at the World Cup increasing the game count by four times, but it makes the World Cup still feel much bigger and more epic. It wont feel like too shorth or too long tournament, when in August starts the football players club games anyway, so the World Cup feels likes its just as long as it should be making it feel like the biggest football tournament in the world.
I don't know I was on the same boat as you, however looking at how Ivory Coast won, the suspense of barely making it through on the 3rd place teams allows smaller teams to actully make it to theknockout stage and gives a chance to knock out bigger nations aamazingly for most ccontinental tournaments, a another knockout round is super suspenseful, as its harder for bigger nations to "breeze through the competition"
Bigger groups still give more competition for the top spot of the group, that makes it more exciting to watch and there might happen some upsets like south-korea beating Germany again. Still the ones who finish bottom of the group you really expect them to win the whole tournament beating all the big teams in the knock-out stages.
5:34 are you kidding? Do you know who didier deschamps is and what he’s accomplished? Even before is back to back world cup finals, he was an excellent club level coach.
@@pessi9554 it’s such a joke 😭 deschamps brought monaco to a champions league final, and lost to jose mourinho’s porto, and he’s being compared to ‘bournemouth’s coach.
Yeah I don't see a big difference between the current format and the 8 groups of 6 format proposed. The problem with the 8x6 format is that it requires too many matches. Also, it has always been a part of World Cups that teams need a match or two to find their stride. The current format allows for that whereas the 8x6 could see top teams dropping out too early. The author here seems to think that is a benefit, but I would content it's not.
Have 16 groups of three teams. Each team plays the two others in that group. The 16 winners of the group stage advance to a knockout round of 32. 2nd and 3rd place teams in each group play each other again. Those 16 winners advance to the 32 team knockout round. The most games a team would play would be eight. Problem solved.
This is the format I think should have been used from the beginning. The 3 team groups was just terrible and having 8 out of 12 "best thirds" makes the group stage meaningless.
Your proposal is awful. After the 2nd group game, many teams would be effectively eliminated, leaving 3 more meaningless, boring games. Having 3rd place teams qualify makes it way better since the last group stage game will always matter since any team could still advance.
The whole purpose of modern sport is to reduce jeopardy so the bigger teams stay in longer or in baseball becomes a total crapshoot so owners can spend less
So they want reduce jeopardy, but with more jeopardy the football games more unpredictable and so become more exciting games to watch, that brins more fans to watch it, that then brings more profit for Fifa.
If you want to up the challenge and stakes you could keep the 2024 format but instead of having 32 teams pass the group stage you could have 16 pass. Essentially you would all 12 group winners and 4 2nd best to a round of 16. The pressure would certainly be on and it would reduce the tournament matches by 16 which I think is more sensible.
5:34 Deschamps is more capable than that coach you compared him to, there is NOT a single coach in the EPL making back-to-back World Cup finals while having some of their best players missing the second WC
I like your 8 group format, but I don't like so many matches in the groups. How about each group split into subgroup e.g. Group A split into A1 and A2, with teams from Pot 1, 4, 5 in one group and 2, 3, 6 in another. And then from each subgroup, 2 teams advance to next stage. - I know what you'all thinking. There is a problems associated with 3 teams per group, which 2 teams can make coalition to decide the fate of another team when all things allowed. My proposal prevent that, e.g. If A1 subgroup contain France, Egypt and China, and France and Egypt beat China in previous two matches, the matchup result between France and Egypt seems negligible because China is already out; but this match is actually very important for each teams for next stage, because the result will be carried over. So, if France and Egypt qualify from A1, their matchup result will be carried over for next stage which is Group Final. Let's say from A2, Germany and South Korea advanced, their result also be carried over. So the Group Final contains the real 32 caliber-proven teams, with 16 teams out. The Group Final A now contains France, Egypt, Germany and South Korea. And they have already played 1 match already which been carried over from subgroup match, so they don't need to played each other again. From this Group Final A, each teams only need to meet teams which they haven't played before. And only 2 teams advance from this Group Final to Round 16 as usual. e.g. Subgroup A1 = France (p1), Egypt (p4), China (p6) Subgroup A2 = Germany (p2), South Korea (p3), Paraguay (p5) Results: Subgroup A1 = 1. France (6 pts), Egypt (3 pts), China (0 pts) - eliminated (Fr v Eg = 3-1, Fr v Ch = 3-0, Eg v Ch = 3-1) - France and Egypt advance, so France v Egypt (3 - 1)(France: 3 pts, Egypt: 0 pts) result is carried over. Match results against China is not carried over. Subgroup A2 = 1. Germany (4 pts), South Korea (4 pts), Paraguay (0 pts) - eliminated (Ge v SK = 2-2, Ge v Pg = 3-1, SK v Pg = 2-1) - Germany and South Korea advance, so Germany v South Korea (2 - 2)(both team get 1 pts) result is carried over. Match results against Paraguay is not carried over. Group Final A (initial) = France (3 pts, 3 goals), Germany (1 pts, 2 goals), South Korea (1 pts, 2 goals), Egypt (0 pts, 1 goal) - the remaining matches will be between A1 teams and A2 teams: France v Germany, South Korea v Egypt France v South Korea, Germany v Egypt The top 2 teams qualify for Round 16 per usual So each teams will only need to play 8 matches; 2 (subgroup) + 2 (Group Final) + 4 (KO round; R16 to Final), which only increase 1 match from previous WC 32-teams with 7 matches. And the early eliminated teams can played at least 2 matches which IMO is enough for WC experience for preparation to next WC. And the most important things, any coalition is actually detrimental because each match matters. And the advancement route is more clear because there is no need for matchup shenanigans of which 8 teams of 3rd position is qualified.
come on bra some of these african team chosen are so weak like how can there not be Congo or Angola after the afcon they had, and this shows me that u didnt watch neither afcon or the asian cup
Your redesign and comments seem to be supporting the World Cup's prestige, football quality, sense of achievement and entertainment. I understand this view, and despite its flaws, your format looks interesting. Also, I also grasp all the external issues unrelated to football that the new format raises (financial costs, infrastructures, accommodation, calendar...) However, if we could support the current format, this is what I would say. Let's please ignore the football quality and sense of achievement arguments. For so many years, 2/3 of FIFA's member nations have never qualified for the tournament, and would surely wish to. This format allows some of them to make a World Cup debut, which should make them very happy. Finally will these nations be able to compete at a WC. Also, 48/211 nations is barely 23% of FIFA members, meaning qualifying remains an achievement nonetheless. I equally think watching the new styles of football offered by the new nations will still bring entertainment. For the 8 best 3rd place teams, it may dilute the group stage entertainment, but at least we let some smaller nations play more WC games. That should allow them to gain more experience and improve their football level, meaning they can come back stronger in future tournaments. So the issues we see today might go away in the future, just like when the previous expansions happened. Anyway, we can only be sure about what the new brings once it happens.
lol we seen teams like iceland panama jamica el salvadar angola even bolvia has qualified for a world cup we seen small nations before 😂😂😂😂😂32 is a fine number
@@captainfalconmain6576 What about Mali, Venezuela, South Africa (last time was 1998, and 2010 doesn’t count as they were hosts), RD Congo, Zambia, China, New Zealand, Hungary (last time was 1986), Norway (1998) and more ? Most of these teams either have trophies or a great level, and have never qualified, for many years for those who did in the past.
@@captainfalconmain6576 I feel like 48 is still okay, but anything over that number would not be. From a logistical and financial perspective, this is worse, but not from a football POV. Many great teams missed the last WC and would have deserved a spot.
@@tonybaihao4178norway can’t even qualify for a 24 team euros hungry we’re massively disappointed an 2022 world cup qualifiers they got third an their group
@@tonybaihao4178south africa couldn’t even qualify for a 24 team afcon 2021 mali haven’t become good till recently venzula this is the weakest argument even brazil 2014 teams had an extra spot 6 teams and no brazil playing venzula failed to qualify still what else do you want
The best thing is to simply combine all the FIFA windows into the summer. Currently there are a total of 86 FIFA calendar days. By having the FIFA calendar start on the 3rd Friday of May. You could have nonstop International football season that would finish on the 2nd Sunday of August with the finals of International competition. With FIFA windows removed leagues could have a continuous 36 week club season with no interruptions. From the 4th Friday in August to the first Sunday in May hosting Club finals. This gives players 2 needed breaks. 11 days in May & 11 days in August.
@@LeoJG6bigger nations have a natural advantage; if you add the fact that only big nations can host, that natural advantage is now even bigger. that goes against sport fairness. Home & away makes it more fair, and would share the financial profits of the game better among nations.
@@LeoJG6 doesn't have to be 15 days, and consider that we would be getting rid of qualifiers. another choice that makes a lot of sense, is Confederation Cups doubling as qualifiers.
The unfair representation between confederation, why others have more representation than others, that's the real issue. Like why add more European teams, looks rigged.
Football* and how many people make it to such a high level? Not many. I could tell you don’t have a clue about football as soon as I read your comment.
You could do it where 1st place teams get a bye to R16 and 2nd and 3rd place teams play each other to go to R16, so 50% of teams advance to the knockouts
Yeah but that’s 24 teams so not a round of 16
that sounds solid. plus it still adds high stakes games that fifa can market. in my opinion while these 6 team groups have some great matches, adding 2 extra games is too much of a strain on the players, and bigger teams have more room for error with 5 matches compared to 3, they would almost always advance. the only thing is how to reward 2nd place teams, it feels a bit annoying that teams in that range now almost get bumped down for their efforts, maybe having them play geographically closer to their camp, to limit travel, or maybe they get to play in the same stadium at they played their 3rd group stage game. maybe not a big deal, but i feel like what stops a 2nd place team from even trying if theyve already secured 3rd place at least and it's too risky to go for 1st.
@@aranchuica965 Yeah. The best team doesn’t always come first, so if 2 advance there is not enough advantage of coming 1st instead of 2nd
@@someperson3883 You could also just have Instead of 32 teams pass the group stage, just have 16 pass like you said but in a simpler way. Essentially you could have all 12 group winners and 4 2nd best to a round of 16. The pressure would certainly be on and it would reduce the tournament matches by 16 which I think is more sensible.
Nah it’s called the World Cup because it’s the world get that first world teams get automatic privilege bs outta here n get in line like everyone else. Rich your capitalistic scheme for colonial high stakes games. The magic lies in the fact any team can come from nothing and win don’t kills the players dreams for fantasy futbol.
I'm definitely no expert, but agree that the thrill of the World Cup is that "it matters". Increasing the jeopardy of every game makes a lot of sense to me!
champions league is dead tho no one actually likes the new format
swiss model format is the dumbest thing im ever seen uefa do
@261i7aight bro we get it
@261i7Bro replied the same answer in a different phrasing 5 times
9 games in a short stretch of time is pretty challenging. During the African Cup for instance, my observation of the final was that the Nigerian team in particular looked exhausted in the final. It felt a little that the last couple of games dipped in quality as player fatigue set in. So, if you expand the competition with 2 more games at group stage, I reckon you need to expand the tournament duration by 10 - 14 days to allow for adequate rest.
Yes there should be atleast four day rests between the games, so the players wont look tired in the final, if they can rest well enough for it.
At the same time teams need to also use more of their rosters. Allow goalkeepers to be substituted but without counting as a sub.
I didn’t really like hitc seven’s new proposed design, but this one here is actually great
I would like to show my proposal for the 48-team cup:
Similar to what FIFA proposed, it starts at 12 groups of 4, but only the best 2 of each group qualify.
The 24 remaining teams will be divided into 3 groups of 8, each playing their own, separate knockout stage.
The finals will be played by the 3 teams who win the knockout stages of their respective group, where each team will play once against the 2 others, making three final games.
In the end, the team with the highest Goal Net (goals scored minus goals received) Wins the cup!
This system requires 96 games, 8 games less than the proposed 104 of FIFA's plan.
Whaddaya think?
I liked 8 grups of 6 teams idea but my idea is a bit different to yours. How about 3 out of 6 teams making the knockout rounds? This means total 24 teams will reach knockout round. So, out of those 24, whoever tops the group, meaning 8 teams will get bye. Then, second and third seeds will face each other to determine 8 more teams. for example A2 vs B3, A3vs B2 and so on. Then winners of 2vs3 will plays 1s. Hope yall understand
I think about it too. The big question is if it would be too many matches or not
I agree, I would also organize a competition that way. the problem is that there are too many matches in the format of 6 teams in a group where everyone plays each other!
maybe the group should be divided into two sides, as if you have two groups in which everyone plays with everyone from the other group, and you rank them all together who collected the most points. If you understand me. instead of five games in the group, the teams would play three!
@@glavatazelvathat's an interesting proposal, don't even have to be 6 team groups, just the old 16 groups of 3 but instead of the team playing 2 matches against their own group, they play 3 matches against a different group
Your take IS the solution.
But it's missing something: having each team play 5 matches induces fatigue.
Solution: 8 groups x 6 teams, but seed the teams of each group based on current form and the latest FIFA Ranking at the time of the draw. Then, split each group into two halves - what you should have is teams ranked 1 - 6, in two "divisions", 1 - 3 and 4 - 6.
Then each team plays round-robin within their division, making 6 games, as well as one game with an opponent in the other division - what opponent that will be would be determined at the draw beforehand, to be based on the rankings of the teams after 2 games. Final group positions are resolved over all games played.
Thus each team plays just 3 teams, not 5.
Then, group winners get a bye into the final R16, while 2nds and 3rds are paired in the first R16.
Imo your proposal comes with two problems:
1) It’s an increase by two games for the champion over the current format. Leagues and clubs would fight that hard
2) That’s the bigger one for me: While the group stage in Fifas proposal is too easy, in yours it is too hard. A lot of teams would be knocked out after three games, with two dead rubber matches still to go. Something along the lines of 50% of teams would already know their fate going into the last group stage match. Overall the group stage would be stretched out and prolonged, with a lot of the additional matches being meaningless.
For some reason I love to think up tournament systems, so I have tried everything in my head but I couldn’t come up with a realistic system that satisfies me. The quality will indeed barely be lowered but the tournament system is a problem, 32 teams is just the perfect number unfortunately
I agree. maybe you like this system. 8 groups of 6 teams, divided into two camps of 3 in which the teams play each of the three teams from the other camp. then you rank all 6 teams in the group by points, the first place goes to the round of 16, and the second and third in the group go to the round of 32.
thus, each team would play 3 instead of 5 games in the group stage of the competition, and 50% of the teams would go to the knockout stage!
the winner of the competition would play 7 or 8 matches in the tournament, depending on their position in the group. the entire tournament would have 95 games if I'm not mistaken.
It’s only one extra game relax
@@glavatazelva Cool idea, it does adress some common problems but right now, I feel like that would have little acceptance because fans would constantly whine about how much harder their schedule is compared to the the similar team from the other camp and as long as the Fifa rankings remain so useless in representing the true strength of the teams, the fans would have a point.
@@Brandon-qd2lb One more than in the planned format for 2026 but two more than in the 32-team format, which I was referring to. I am not crazy about increasing the duration of the World Cup but the bigger issue for me with the proposal from the video would be the big amount of meaningless matches
Brilliant format. I love the idea of 6-team groups. It would make the last round of the group matches even more exciting. I have just one adjustment.
8 groups of 6 teams, with the two best progressing to a round of 16 is a lot of matches (136 to be exact). This puts a lot of strain on the host nation.
What if the first two rounds of group matches were played as soon as in april or may, and hosted by all the 48 qualified teams? One home game for every nation qualified, which would undoubtedly bring a little piece of the world cup fever and exhilirate the anticipation for the "round proper" of the world cup in june.
So basically, I would split the group stage in matchday 1 and 2 played prior to the main world cup event, and matchday 3, 4 and 5 to be played in june.
This would reduce the number of games hosted by the host to 88. Still, a lot more than 64 that we're used to, but a lot less than the 104 games to be played in 2026.
I feel like this idea would please all parties involved. If you like this format, share the idea with every football fan, and even Gianni Infantino, if you happen to know him.
I feel like top 4 teams qualifying from 8 group of 6 would be better since I've figured this out before and removing the old rules of only 2 uefa nations will can be in the same group. 12 groups of 4 teams will be confusing and will have to make playoff league to determine the missing teams to complete the 32 finalists.
I 100% agree with the 8 group format. I think that 6 teams per group is an under rated format, and I think the upside is worth the tradeoff in these very large global tournaments.
I also think that the inter-confed playoffs should be massively expanded. I would favor something like 8 play-in spots that are up for grabs, with an expanded tournament involving 32 teams or so. And that would probably happen 1 year prior to the World Cup.
For the play in tournament, let's say you have 32 teams. Multiple teams from each confed, but the largest amount probably comes from Europe and South America. Let's go with four groups, eight in each group, and everyone plays everyone in their group twice. So we probably need four international windows to do that, right? Maybe this takes a bit over a year to do.
After all of that, the first place team from each group is in automatically. The second place team from each group is matched with the third place team of a different group, and they match up in a single elimination event to determine the last four that get in.
This type of massively expanded play-in thing would give us a lot more play in the qualification process. If a certain confed is weak at the moment, they just don't get as many teams in. If Asia or Africa get extra strong, they can get three of four more teams in. This is likely to become the third or fourth most watched soccer thing on the entire calendar- certainly more than what we currently do with the inter-confed playoffs- and it's entirely likely that high population countries like India or China are going to be in this tournament. Along with all of that, it flattens out the competition in the actual World Cup. This is important when you expand a tournament by so much- you don't want to have too many qualified that aren't highly ranked. We need to be careful about diluting the depth of the competition. So instead of breaking our brains in order to predict which confeds will do the least amount of harm to the depth, we do a huge under-card qualification tournament and let them sort it out in the field. The eleventh best team in Europe mixes it up with the seventh best team in South America, while the sixth best team in Africa gets into it with the eighth best team from Asia. It would be something like that, and I'm here for it.
I think another alternative for a 48 team World Cup is a second group stage replacing the current round of 16. First group stage with 12 groups of 4 teams each with the top 2 teams advancing. The remaining 24 teams would be split into 8 groups of the 3 teams each with the top team advancing to the quarterfinals.
I think that is a great idea. In my opinion it would be even better, if the second group stage replaced the quarter finals insteadof rhe round of 16. There would be 12 teams divided into 4 groups of 3, with the first team of each group advancing to the semi-finals. This would make the second group stage even more attractive, as there would be top teams fighting for one spot inside a group.
It's not a great idea, in my opinion. A similar format happened in Spain 82, only happened once during the 24 team world cups
@@henrydanger06
For me it seems childish to have second group stage and thoese absolutely small groups seem boring, when you already know which ones are going through in there, when you know the best footballing country competing in that group.
I like this a lot and it gets rid of the mutual advancement through drawing that can occur with 2 teams advancing from groups of 3. It keeps high jeapordy in each phase of group play. I’d just hope there would be a fixed draw to determine who would go where for the second group phase, and from the second onto the third. When there are random draws, I dislike it since I can’t make future champion hypotheticals from before the first matchday. Additionally, it’s the same amt of games for the winner compared to FIFA’s format (8), and all teams will still play atleast 3 games!
My wild idea of an extended World Cup:
There are 49 teams qualified to the World Cup. The first match of the tournament is between the reigning Euro champion and the reigning Copa America champion. The winner is awarded a special trophy and qualifies directly to the playoffs. The loser and the other 47 play a Swiss system qualifier : each round matches teams with equal W-L records (that's why the UCL "Swiss" format isn't really Swiss: the core of the Swiss system is that every new round is drawn after the previous round ends based on its results), and each match is played to a winner with overtime and penalty series if needed. Teams with 3 victories qualify, teams with 2 defeats are eliminated. Here's how it would go:
Round 1. Everyone has a 0-0 record, 24 matches are played.
Round 2. 12 matches in the 0-1 group. 12 matches in the 1-0 group.
Round 3. 12 teams eliminated with 0-2 record, 12 matches in the 1-1 group, 6 matches in the 2-0 group.
Round 4. 12 more teams eliminated with 1-2 record, 6 teams qualified with 3-0 record, 9 matches in the 2-1 group.
Result: 16 teams in the playoffs: 1 wildcard, 6 teams with 3-0 record, 9 teams with 3-1 record.
The benefits: every match is meaningful, the stakes are high but at the same time everyone has a right to make a mistake, no need for indirect tiebreakers. The drawbacks: the fastest teams to be eliminated only play 2 matches instead of 3, and it may be harder logistically as each team doesn't know where geographically is it playing next round.
I'd be tempted to take a page from the 1982 format and have 12 groups of four, with the top two of each group qualifying for a second group stage of eight groups of three, and the eight group winners playing in the quarter finals. That would mean that finalists would play eight games - the same as under the proposed format. It would make reaching the knockouts a major achievement. And those second phase groups were amazing in 1982: the Italy/Argentina/Brazil Group C is legendary, of course, but two of the others were highly competitive, and only France winning group D was relatively boring. Now, having eight rather than four groups means that they are unlikely to be quite as spectacular as in Spain, but having a level where top-ten sides are guaranteed to go out is going to make for some spectacularly competitive high-level games.
Also, this has the benefit that each finalist only plays three (rather than five) games that can go to extra time and penalties, making it significantly less demanding on the players: one reason why the two-leg format is so popular in UEFA competitions is that it hugely reduces the number of extra times that players play. FIFA ran away from three-team groups because they mean the final games can't be played simultaneously, and that was their solution to Gijon - but if they're groups with just one winner, then there's no possibility to do deals where both teams get through.
The biggest danger with six-team groups is that some of the weaker teams will have two points or less from their first three games, which almost certainly puts them out of the tournament but with two games still to go. In a four-team group, a team only has a dead rubber game if they lose both their first two games. One reason that the final game of a four-team group is so exciting is that all four teams usually go in with some chance of qualifying in first or second. In a six-team group, at least one team is near-certain to be out before the last game, and there's a very good chance that two teams will be out. Unless they're playing each other, that means that there's only one game involving two teams that both have more than pride to play for.
3 team groups will result in many possible ties that would have to be resolved.
@@OkOk-rn7to
Three group teams are also very boring, because so little amount of games in so small group where the best teams know they will already easily get through.
This is a good idea but i think it would be best if instead of expanding the tournament they made a europa/ sudamericana equivalent. With 4 groups of 4 and the winners runners up and world cup 3rd place group stage teams qualifying for a round of sixteen.
This would make a bunch of money, represent more teams and wouldn't force players to play more games .
I agree that the problem of expanding the competition is not "watering down the quality of competitors", but the way the competition is organized.
I thought the same about 8 groups of 6 teams, but the groups would be divided into two camps, from which each team would play against all three teams from the other camp and where the first place from the whole group would go to the 1/16, and the second and third would qualify for the 1/32 competition. in this way, 50% of the teams would go to the knockout phase of the competition!
if I'm not mistaken, the total number of matches would be 95, and the winner of the competition would play 8 or 7 matches depending on the position in the group stage.
Arsene Wenger suggested as one of the options to split the World Cup into two separate halves of 24, each featuring six groups of four teams. The winner of each half would meet in the final.
Personally, I would go a step beyond and split them into three 16-team "mini-cups" with each of the hosting nations in one of them. Each mini World Cup would have the same dynamic as when it was last played with this number of teams (Argentina 78 I believe), best two teams of the group stage advancing to quarter finals, then winning their way into semi-finals and finals or a third place match in each mini cup.
The eight best teams from all three cups (The three champions, three second places and the two best third places) will then play a knock out stage to decide the definitive champion amongst the three cups (this time with no pointless third place match like in past World Cup editions)
103 matches in total would be played, one less match than what is being proposed and with my idea the "weaker teams" would be out earlier and the more interesting teams would get more matches and chances to keep competing and this time around the third place matches will actually matter and won´t be simple consolation prizes.
How about
40 teams
4× 10groups
Group winners + 6 best second place teams go to the Ro16
I liked it when there was a second group stage (70's wc) though it had some controversial games, it reduced the chances of best teams getting eliminated. 5 ko games seems a stretch.
I very much like the uniformity of 16 groups of 3, with the top two emerging. This keeps the number of max games the same and if done correctly the doubling of numbers of groups can be used to remove “groups of death.” So the extra game for top teams should be very comfortable match up for them. To me, the biggest issue I see with major tournaments is how lopsided the brackets are which often result in underwhelming semi finals and finals. I also believe the issue raised about this format inviting teams to collude on the final can easily be remedied in a number of different ways, perhaps even ranking teams simply based on their goal differential.
i like your constructive criticism and that you are balanced
my solution is this: make another "World Cup" but like a Europa League or Copa SurAmerica. Keep the actual WC 32 teams. This other 2nd tier WC will be 48 teams and invitational only. Teams in the World Cup can't play and a certain number of teams from each conference can be invited. We'll call it the International Invitational Cup. Use 2022 as a template, you would have have competition with Salah and Egypt vs European champions Italy, or Alexis and Chile vs Nigeria, or Haaland and Norway vs Colombia. We could do a group stage OR Copa Sur America with just straight Knock out round. Everyone wins. WC keeps their prestige and FIFA can still make money
IMO, part of the excitement and jeopardy of the group stage is the much smaller set of games each team plays. Having 5 games each in the group stage just allows the bigger teams more opportunity to recover from a mistake, reducing the number of upsets of teams getting out of the group. The early games are less exciting because they mean less, and with only 2 teams qualifying, the bottom 2 teams could already be eliminated by the 3rd match, especially with a greater difference in quality in each group. I do believe 8 groups is best, however I think you need to find a way to limit the number of games so that not everyone plays everyone else, to increase the jeopardy and excitement, and to also limit the total number of games played.
This is my proposal to fix that:
Inspired by the new UCL format, I propose 8 groups of 6, but where not everyone plays everyone else in the group. In each group, 3 teams are drawn on the left side of the draw, and 3 teams are drawn on the right side of the draw. Every team on the left plays every team on the right, and vice versa, but left teams never play any other left teams and right teams never play any other right teams. This means a 6 team group stage is finished in 3 games per team rather than 5.
This means you have to increase the number of teams qualifying out of the group, because, for example, all 3 left teams could beat all 3 right teams, but with only 2 qualifying spots, one team would win all their matches and still get eliminated. Using the same example, increasing it to 4 spots would mean a right team who lost all 3 games could still qualify for the knockouts. So 3 is the perfect number for jeopardy and fairness.
This means you have 24 teams in the knockout stage, meaning you add an extra round where 1st place teams receive a bye and 2nd and 3rd place teams play each other in a playoff round before the round of 16, however this is still 1 game less for an eventual winner even if they have to go through the playoff round, and 2 games less if they top the group, when comparing to a pure 8 groups of 6 format.
The logistical challenges alone makes it a strong argument against expanding. The obvious answer to football becoming more global is to have a Europa League type tournament
A second tier wc you mean?
Thing about world cup though is it has national hope on the line...club footy in Europe is the best but nothing matches that part of World Cup
The UK can easily host a world cup, it already has enough recognised stadiums and facilities, as well as good public transport and accommodation, on top of this its a small country and easily travelled compared to say the USA or Mexico. The only reason itll never be held in the UK again is because FIFA has clear resentment towards the UK / England.
My proposal
Keep the 12 groups of 4.
Only the top 2 from each group qualify.
Top 8 1st place teams automatically make RO16
Other 4 1st place + 12 2nd place teams play in playoff to make RO16.
Extra rest for best performing teams in a tournament with fixture congestion issues
The group stage stays interesting throughout.
The World Cup gets a little Europa league flavor
The tournament is identical from the round of 16 onwards
Only real issue I can see is the amount of time it’ll take for teams to know if they’re in the top 8 or not. Perhaps the groups are split so it’s the top 4 group winners from the first 6 groups and the same for the next 6 groups.
Think they wanted everyone to start on the same level for the last 32
There is going to be an AFCON and Gold Cup going on at the same time as the Club World Cup and the Gold Cup will be in the same country
It’s a good point about nations needing to co host except USA did not need Canada and Mexico to help host. It only needed them to not have a competing bid.
I have different ideas tbh, 2 in fact
IDEA 1
- 8 groups of 6
- Arrange each group into a table with 3 columns and 2 rows
- Teams won't play every other team in the group, only the ones in the same row/column (basically a swiss model)
- 1st-3rd on each group advance to second group stage
- In second group stage, there will be 8 groups of 3
With the following order of matches to ensure every match matters:
m1 = 2 random teams
m2 = team 3 vs m1 loser
m3 = team 3 vs m1 winner
- Winners of each group advance to quarterfinals
- From QF up to final it's just like normal
Total matches =
72 (Groups, Phase 1)
24 (Groups, Phase 2)
8 (Knockouts)
Total = 104
Pros =
- Every match matters (in Phase 2, even the matches of other teams)
- Not as much burnout as in your format (In your format teams play 9 matches, in mine teams play 8. In 1998-2022 format teams play 7.)
- Teams don't get eliminated before the final match
- No major risk of collusions (Phase 2 works because only the winners go to knockouts, therefore no point in working together with another team in that phase)
- No need for inter-group rankings (unlike the 2026- format)
- No decreased revenue for FIFA because there are the same amount of matches
Cons =
- More matches per team, increasing player fatigue
- Swiss format and 2 group stages can be confusing to newcomers
- Fixtures in Phase 2 aren't set in stone
IDEA 1B
- Identical to idea 1, except :
- There will be a playoff instead of a second group stage
- Playoff contested by 2nd and 3rd placed teams in a group
- Playoff winners and group winners go to round of 16
- From QF to final, identical to idea 1
Total matches =
72 (groups)
24 (knockouts)
total = 96 matches
Pros =
- Similar enough to 1998-2022 format that people understand the format relatively quickly
- Even when teams already booked their place in knockouts, games still matter for them because group winners get a bye
Cons =
- Less matches for FIFA, decreasing their revenue
IDEA 2
- 12 groups of 4
- Winner advance to round of 16, runner-up go to second group stage
- In second group stage, there will be 4 groups of 3
With the following order of matches to ensure every match matters:
m1 = 2 random teams
m2 = team 3 vs m1 loser
m3 = team 3 vs m1 winner
- Winners of each group (phase 1 and phase 2) go to round of 16
- From round of 16 to finals, identical to 1998-2022 format
Total matches =
72 (groups, Phase 1)
12 (groups, Phase 2)
16 (Knockouts)
Total = 100 matches
Pros =
- Mostly familiar format
- No increased burnout for top teams
- No inter-group rankings
Cons =
- Even more burnout for group runners-up (9 matches, 2 more matches than 1998-2022 format)
- Less matches overall, decreasing FIFA's revenue
IDEA 2B
- 12 groups of 4, BUT :
- The extra 16 teams will be treated differently, with them going to "silver groups", other teams go to "gold groups"
- Gold groups winners go directly to round of 16
- Runners-up of all groups AND winners of silver groups go to playoffs (instead of second group stage), playoffs winners go to round of 16
- From round of 16 to final, identical to 1998-2022 format
Pros :
(Look idea 2 Pros)
- Teams that wouldn't qualify without the expansion will be seperated from the teams that'd still qualify without, weakening the "quality dilution" argument
Cons :
(Look idea 2 Cons)
- Extra burnout is less severe (8 matches as opposed to 9) for non-top teams that advanced from groups
Sadly there are no quick and good solutions to this 48 team mess, but these ideas are the best I can come up with
I agree that groups of 6 would be much better. Each team would play at least 5 games which would be great for smaller countries who qualify.
To make this fair the distribution of teams should be; Europe 20, S.America 6, Africa 6, Asia 5, N.America 5, Oceania 1, Inter-continental playoffs 5 teams. Host 3 of the 6 from N.America.
that would go against the whole point of expansion, being to better spread the sport outside of Europe, also only 6 teams for africa is way too few, there are 50 or so african nations and seeing the success of morocco makes clear that african nations aren’t pushovers, also having a limited number of teams 16 rather than 20 qualify from europe continues to make qualification competitive, as there are 20ish of the 54 uefa nations that cannot even compete with teams like scotland and turkey who sit around 20th in europe, at least expanding in africa and asia will mean competitive qualification
@@jhs99990Europe is just that good + CONCACAF and AFC are filled with mediocre teams who don’t deserve a World Cup so maybe they get plenty of play off spots but not an actual direct spot
to your point about 5 teams getting to round of 16 is not that surprising you know . Being a world cup regularly would do that , these teams are there to compete and not just be happy to be there
Yes the more competition there is groups the larger the group is. Small three team groups feel absolutely, when it dosent really have any competition and you already know which countries are preatty much going through.
@@Jout8-re1ij honestly I feel not all the so called big teams or favorites are going to make it past the round of 32 and 16 , I mean 5 knockouts rounds to lift the trophy? Yeah teams will slip up there , the margin for error is high in these high pressure situations
My proposal would be to go back to 24 teams. Just the right level of craziness with best thirds and all. 48 is just too many. It makes qualifiers an afterthought for many countries.
they should also fix the euros, the same 3 teams qualify just lowers fun of group stage
The AFCON had a great group stage despite having best 3rd placed teams
i understand this, but the previous world cups have a very clear eurocentrism, it was unfair how many european nations got to qualify
The simplest solution: the twelve group stage winners and the select four top runners-up in match points or goal differential to make a round of 16. The plain and simple fact is that there isn't going to be an even, ideal solution to this mess that will satisfy everyone. Best option is to go with a solution with the least complication attached to it.
Clearly the original plan to expand to 40 and have 8 groups of 5 was the best, but because it got shot down due to politics and bad marketing, they couldn't reuse it, so now we're stuck with this 48 team monstrosity.
Odd number of teams in a group can lead to controversies
Did you just look at the AFC teams in Qatar and assume that's their quota? They had 6 because being the host
( Qatar) and Australia winning the playoff, until 2022 they had 4.5 not 6
The argument that the expansion dilutes the quality of play is over-played. The quality of teams in the 25 to 50 rank has dramatically increased over the past couple of decades. For example, Canada, who is currently ranked in the 40s, was very competitive in their group containing Belgium, Croatia and Morocco. Sure they didn't win any matches, but they played very entertaining football and weren't far from winning. I for one think the 32 team format is the best, but my objection against 48 teams - that it requires too much infrastructure for most countries to handle - is completely neutralized when hosted by countries with massive infrastructure, such as the USA, and to a lesser degree Mexico and Canada.
I think 64 team format brings back the symmetry of 32 team format, so I think 64 team format in the future will be the ideal the one. Still countries with millions or tens of millions population will get to the competition for first time ever and support hard fori their own country, so thats how you see every game having a lot of country fans in there, while only the two top footballing countries of the group itself follow for round of sixteen then.
@@Jout8-re1ij I think 64 teams will create tournaments that are too big to handle for most countries...
32 team is actually the best your gonna have 8th 3rd places which isn’t great
It is very likely that the 2030 World Cup will likely end up having a difrent fromat from the 2026 (while still keeping 48 teams) as it happened between 1982 and 1986 when it was expanded from 16 to 24 teams. FIFA experimented with the 3 team groups in 82. That did not work, so they changed it to groups of 4 with some 3rd place teams advancing as the new 48 team format will have. As mentioned in this video, and in HITC Sevens video that just doesn't have enough stakes.
Yep I agree and I hope. I hate this 48 team edition because it makes it a lot more difficult for countries to host. In the next 3 editions the US may host it again.
It was also 6 groups of 4 teams in 1982, they just had another group stage after the first one for which the Top 2 qualified. That's how Germany and Austria managed to throw Algeria out of the Tournament.
My proposal would be 16 groups of 3 teams and everyone plays each other. The top team from each group qualifies for the round of 32 while the 2nd and 3rd place teams play in a playoff to qualify. Every team would both play a minimum 3 games as the old format also guaranteed and every team is guaranteed a knockout match. Meaning in theory, a team could lose its first two games and go on to win the whole thing. It would make it exciting for all fans and give smaller countries a chance to grow into the tournament and not feel like their last match is for nothing if they’ve already lost their first 2 matches.
My proposal would be similar to World Cup 1982: 12 groups of 4, top 2 qualify.
Next round 24 qualify teams will be split into group of 3 with only winner qualify. Then with 8 teams it's a simple knockout.
Number of match is still 104 but we can keep the intensity of first group stage and additional second group stage with no dead rubber match.
i’m still very questionable about this
I dont agree with the statement that the group stage is the most entertaining round. Definitely the knockout stage is. In my opinion the best change in all of this would be de round of 32. But a group of 6 with 4 qualifyng doesnt feel right.
Sadly, if the new Champions League format succeeds being profitable, we eventually will have that format in the World Cup.
And also, in a few decades im sure the world cup will gradually became a global event like de olympics. Is what Infantino wants at the end.
I would say make it 40 teams. Format would be 8 groups of 5. There would be concerns over match fixing with this however this should be eliminated if there was a system where the 1st placed group team got a bye to the round of 16, whereas the 2nd and 3rd place teams go onto a playoff round as this would mean all the teams on the last day are likely to have something to play for.
The WC format is fine as it is. The quality of the teams has improved overall...as you correctly pointed out. As the 2023 AFCON tournament has shown us, even with 67% of teams qualifying for the knockout stages you can still have a number of high-stakes matches in the final round of group games.
lets see how it goes before complaining
But still the best countries in the tiny group will get easily through and thats why it dosent feel that competitive and it feels more to watch, because of the tiny groups.
@@Jout8-re1ij Don't be so sure...there are a lot of good teams in the 🌎 and the talent gap between the traditional powers and other countries has narrowed since the last expansion of the WC in 1998. We're in an age where any team can lose on any given day in a WC.
@@dcapitan7he ain’t wrong tho remember when the world cup was 24 teams msn it was stupid
It would be too many games. The actual mode is the Best. 12 groups with 4 teams
Why not reintroduce the Confederations Cup and make it a 32 team qualifying event for the FIFA World Cup? Let the best 4 teams qualify for the World Cup subsequently
While I support 8 group of 6 teams, I believe it should go with Swiss format. Groups will have 2 top, 2 middle and 2 bottom level teams and every team will play against one each from 3 levels. So teams will play 3 group matches, "best 3rd place teams" system will be removed and number of matches will even stay the same.
Lİke many said in comments; 8 group winners qualify for Last 16, while teams finishing 2nd and 3rd place will play Round 24 to qualify for Last 16. With that, group stage will be even more exciting and match quality will be better in knockout stage.
Top 20 world cup nations who deserve Compressport full legs(as an athlete):
1 Spain
2 France
3 Switzerland
4 Italy
5 Finland
6 United States
7 Brazil
8 Sweden
9 Norway
10 Portugal
11 Belgium
12 Uruguay
13 Canada
14 Japan
15 Mexico
16 Russia
17 Israel
18 Argentina
19 Taiwan
20 Colombia
Some of those 6 team groups looked absolutely terrifying
that group f is crazy stacked 😂😂😂😂 afcon champions 3 world cup winners and 2019 afcon champions
For the 64 country World Cup I have myself proposed plane how it could play. 64 country World Cup is not bad still, because its great to see countries, that rarely get in the World Cup to play in there and make it feel like bigger competition overall. In my 64 country World Cup proposal I think they could be eight groups of eight countries in there and only the top two from each group gets through with most points that you get from draw with one point and with win three points. Each country will play against all the other seven countries once in their group with every fourth day new game played by them, that in 25 days they will have played all the group stage games and the group starts in the first day of June. Then after the group stage the six remaining countries are eleminated with getting less points with total of 48 countries eleminated. It will make the World Cup feel bigger for all these countries being able to play seven, instead of three group stage games and, while not all the countries get through after the group stage. They can prove which countries they are better at football by finshing with more points after the group stage phase, so the group stage dosent feel as small and bland as it feels in nowdays World Cup. Then in first July starts the knockout stage with only one game played for one day, so people want to see all the knock-out games wont miss them and there is four day rest, when moving from round of sixteen to qutarfinals, while otherwise its only one game for day and same four day rest, when moving to semi-finals and then to bronze game where is still four day rest, unitil the final and the biggest of the World Cup should come in at 28 day of July, while the bronze game was played 24 day og July. The World Cup final will feel much bigger considering, that they will be the two top countries to come top of 64 country World Cup, so there will be a lot of people watching and, because they can after resting a lot from the group stage games. In the 28 day of July the winner will be crowned and the World Cup ends there then as two month tournament, so its feels preatty big with how much games will be played with total of 464 games at the World Cup increasing the game count by four times, but it makes the World Cup still feel much bigger and more epic. It wont feel like too shorth or too long tournament, when in August starts the football players club games anyway, so the World Cup feels likes its just as long as it should be making it feel like the biggest football tournament in the world.
I don't know I was on the same boat as you, however looking at how Ivory Coast won, the suspense of barely making it through on the 3rd place teams allows smaller teams to actully make it to theknockout stage and gives a chance to knock out bigger nations aamazingly for most ccontinental tournaments, a another knockout round is super suspenseful, as its harder for bigger nations to "breeze through the competition"
Bigger groups still give more competition for the top spot of the group, that makes it more exciting to watch and there might happen some upsets like south-korea beating Germany again. Still the ones who finish bottom of the group you really expect them to win the whole tournament beating all the big teams in the knock-out stages.
Yes
Only 33% of this video talks about ways to fix the wold cup. The other 66% is just explaining what we already know.
HITC Sevens mentioned
I choose to look at it from the positive point of view.
More slots means more countries to qualify, so everyone can get more chances to win the cup. 😊
Should be at least 10/16 competitive new entrants into the World Cup right??
5:34 are you kidding? Do you know who didier deschamps is and what he’s accomplished? Even before is back to back world cup finals, he was an excellent club level coach.
british football fans try not to be biased challenge (impossible)
@@pessi9554 it’s such a joke 😭 deschamps brought monaco to a champions league final, and lost to jose mourinho’s porto, and he’s being compared to ‘bournemouth’s coach.
Yeah I don't see a big difference between the current format and the 8 groups of 6 format proposed. The problem with the 8x6 format is that it requires too many matches. Also, it has always been a part of World Cups that teams need a match or two to find their stride. The current format allows for that whereas the 8x6 could see top teams dropping out too early. The author here seems to think that is a benefit, but I would content it's not.
there should be no excuse for the so call big teams and favorites then
@@samplingmastersxlr8660 Agreed. With 32 of 48 advancing, no excuses.
@@djknox2 honestly the real tournament begins in the round of 32 anyway
I agree to your accessment
32 teams with group stages ain't a perfect competition format. Get rid of the group stage and it would be perfect.
*Change my mind*
Have 16 groups of three teams. Each team plays the two others in that group. The 16 winners of the group stage advance to a knockout round of 32. 2nd and 3rd place teams in each group play each other again. Those 16 winners advance to the 32 team knockout round. The most games a team would play would be eight. Problem solved.
This is the format I think should have been used from the beginning. The 3 team groups was just terrible and having 8 out of 12 "best thirds" makes the group stage meaningless.
Your proposal is awful. After the 2nd group game, many teams would be effectively eliminated, leaving 3 more meaningless, boring games. Having 3rd place teams qualify makes it way better since the last group stage game will always matter since any team could still advance.
The whole purpose of modern sport is to reduce jeopardy so the bigger teams stay in longer or in baseball becomes a total crapshoot so owners can spend less
So they want reduce jeopardy, but with more jeopardy the football games more unpredictable and so become more exciting games to watch, that brins more fans to watch it, that then brings more profit for Fifa.
If you want to up the challenge and stakes you could keep the 2024 format but instead of having 32 teams pass the group stage you could have 16 pass. Essentially you would all 12 group winners and 4 2nd best to a round of 16. The pressure would certainly be on and it would reduce the tournament matches by 16 which I think is more sensible.
5:34 Deschamps is more capable than that coach you compared him to, there is NOT a single coach in the EPL making back-to-back World Cup finals while having some of their best players missing the second WC
I like your 8 group format, but I don't like so many matches in the groups. How about each group split into subgroup e.g. Group A split into A1 and A2, with teams from Pot 1, 4, 5 in one group and 2, 3, 6 in another. And then from each subgroup, 2 teams advance to next stage.
- I know what you'all thinking. There is a problems associated with 3 teams per group, which 2 teams can make coalition to decide the fate of another team when all things allowed.
My proposal prevent that,
e.g. If A1 subgroup contain France, Egypt and China, and France and Egypt beat China in previous two matches, the matchup result between France and Egypt seems negligible because China is already out; but this match is actually very important for each teams for next stage, because the result will be carried over.
So, if France and Egypt qualify from A1, their matchup result will be carried over for next stage which is Group Final. Let's say from A2, Germany and South Korea advanced, their result also be carried over. So the Group Final contains the real 32 caliber-proven teams, with 16 teams out. The Group Final A now contains France, Egypt, Germany and South Korea. And they have already played 1 match already which been carried over from subgroup match, so they don't need to played each other again. From this Group Final A, each teams only need to meet teams which they haven't played before. And only 2 teams advance from this Group Final to Round 16 as usual.
e.g.
Subgroup A1 = France (p1), Egypt (p4), China (p6)
Subgroup A2 = Germany (p2), South Korea (p3), Paraguay (p5)
Results:
Subgroup A1 = 1. France (6 pts), Egypt (3 pts), China (0 pts) - eliminated (Fr v Eg = 3-1, Fr v Ch = 3-0, Eg v Ch = 3-1)
- France and Egypt advance, so France v Egypt (3 - 1)(France: 3 pts, Egypt: 0 pts) result is carried over. Match results against China is not carried over.
Subgroup A2 = 1. Germany (4 pts), South Korea (4 pts), Paraguay (0 pts) - eliminated (Ge v SK = 2-2, Ge v Pg = 3-1, SK v Pg = 2-1)
- Germany and South Korea advance, so Germany v South Korea (2 - 2)(both team get 1 pts) result is carried over. Match results against Paraguay is not carried over.
Group Final A (initial) = France (3 pts, 3 goals), Germany (1 pts, 2 goals), South Korea (1 pts, 2 goals), Egypt (0 pts, 1 goal)
- the remaining matches will be between A1 teams and A2 teams:
France v Germany, South Korea v Egypt
France v South Korea, Germany v Egypt
The top 2 teams qualify for Round 16 per usual
So each teams will only need to play 8 matches; 2 (subgroup) + 2 (Group Final) + 4 (KO round; R16 to Final), which only increase 1 match from previous WC 32-teams with 7 matches. And the early eliminated teams can played at least 2 matches which IMO is enough for WC experience for preparation to next WC. And the most important things, any coalition is actually detrimental because each match matters. And the advancement route is more clear because there is no need for matchup shenanigans of which 8 teams of 3rd position is qualified.
come on bra some of these african team chosen are so weak like how can there not be Congo or Angola after the afcon they had, and this shows me that u didnt watch neither afcon or the asian cup
I think there should be a different format of 6 teams of 8 groups with top 2 of each group qualify for ro16. 16 groups of 3 is very dull in my opinion
bournemouth mentioned 🥳
i don’t think you don’t really know the actual format their gonna be penalty shootout an the group stage who thought this was a good idea
Im ok with nations getting more chance as the good teams anyway wil win most games.
Your redesign and comments seem to be supporting the World Cup's prestige, football quality, sense of achievement and entertainment. I understand this view, and despite its flaws, your format looks interesting.
Also, I also grasp all the external issues unrelated to football that the new format raises (financial costs, infrastructures, accommodation, calendar...)
However, if we could support the current format, this is what I would say.
Let's please ignore the football quality and sense of achievement arguments.
For so many years, 2/3 of FIFA's member nations have never qualified for the tournament, and would surely wish to. This format allows some of them to make a World Cup debut, which should make them very happy. Finally will these nations be able to compete at a WC. Also, 48/211 nations is barely 23% of FIFA members, meaning qualifying remains an achievement nonetheless. I equally think watching the new styles of football offered by the new nations will still bring entertainment.
For the 8 best 3rd place teams, it may dilute the group stage entertainment, but at least we let some smaller nations play more WC games. That should allow them to gain more experience and improve their football level, meaning they can come back stronger in future tournaments.
So the issues we see today might go away in the future, just like when the previous expansions happened. Anyway, we can only be sure about what the new brings once it happens.
lol we seen teams like iceland panama jamica el salvadar angola even bolvia has qualified for a world cup we seen small nations before 😂😂😂😂😂32 is a fine number
@@captainfalconmain6576 What about Mali, Venezuela, South Africa (last time was 1998, and 2010 doesn’t count as they were hosts), RD Congo, Zambia, China, New Zealand, Hungary (last time was 1986), Norway (1998) and more ? Most of these teams either have trophies or a great level, and have never qualified, for many years for those who did in the past.
@@captainfalconmain6576 I feel like 48 is still okay, but anything over that number would not be. From a logistical and financial perspective, this is worse, but not from a football POV. Many great teams missed the last WC and would have deserved a spot.
@@tonybaihao4178norway can’t even qualify for a 24 team euros hungry we’re massively disappointed an 2022 world cup qualifiers they got third an their group
@@tonybaihao4178south africa couldn’t even qualify for a 24 team afcon 2021 mali haven’t become good till recently venzula this is the weakest argument even brazil 2014 teams had an extra spot 6 teams and no brazil playing venzula failed to qualify still what else do you want
The best thing is to simply combine all the FIFA windows into the summer. Currently there are a total of 86 FIFA calendar days. By having the FIFA calendar start on the 3rd Friday of May. You could have nonstop International football season that would finish on the 2nd Sunday of August with the finals of International competition. With FIFA windows removed leagues could have a continuous 36 week club season with no interruptions. From the 4th Friday in August to the first Sunday in May hosting Club finals. This gives players 2 needed breaks. 11 days in May & 11 days in August.
Do the World Cup needs a host(s)? Why not home and away all the way?
I don't know if traveling from Australia to Europe twice in 15 days is the best
@@LeoJG6what if Comfederation Championships like Copa America & Euros doble as WC Qualifiers? Then 32 teams; home & away?
@@LeoJG6bigger nations have a natural advantage; if you add the fact that only big nations can host, that natural advantage is now even bigger. that goes against sport fairness. Home & away makes it more fair, and would share the financial profits of the game better among nations.
@@bohiodigital ok, pero darle la vuelta al mundo dos veces en 15 días terminará matando a los futbolistas
@@LeoJG6 doesn't have to be 15 days, and consider that we would be getting rid of qualifiers. another choice that makes a lot of sense, is Confederation Cups doubling as qualifiers.
12:10 group f what the heck is this
12:05 this sounds cool i guess i do see players complaining
The unfair representation between confederation, why others have more representation than others, that's the real issue. Like why add more European teams, looks rigged.
International friendlies > club football
bro got less ball knowledge than ishowspeed
No body gives a damm
its soccer. just a bunch of overpaid lawn fairies
Football* and how many people make it to such a high level? Not many. I could tell you don’t have a clue about football as soon as I read your comment.