Hope they continue with the four team group format. The third round of the group stage was arguably the most interesting phase of the last World Cup, particularly the Spain, Germany, Japan, Costa Rica group where the permutations of who was qualifying for the knockouts was changing by the minute as the last two matches were being played.
@@stingersplash The U.S.A drew their first 2 games in group B and needed a win in their 3rd match to qualify from the group stage. Argentina lost their first group game and then went on to win the tournament. The world cup has always been about everyone getting a fair chance so why stop now.
I think they just absolutely have to keep 4-team groups. This past World Cup was magic on match day 3. Also, note: this would mean 8 out of 12 3rd place teams advance to the knockouts, not just the top half.
I think they absolutely cant. The only reason this last one was magic is because only 2 teams advanced. If 3 did then most of that drama was lost. Mexico wouldn't have needed another vs Saudi Arabia. Germany would have been through with any win vs Costa Rica. It just dilutes the groups more. At least with 3 team groups you still have last day drama because each group has only 3 games total so it's almost impossible for it to be for nothing and so easy to avoid mutually beneficial draws too. Trust me 12 x 4 will not be as close to dramatic as 2022 was. Also 80 games is much better than 104.
3 team groups are a huge mistake, one of the teams will have already played their final game before the final group stage games. So its likely that teams will play out 0-0s in the final game to ensure both go through (if a draw would see both go through that is), this happened before with Austria and Germany and is why the final games in a group have been played at the same time for decades
You fix that by having the top seed play the first two matches. Thus the final game is very unlikely to be a 0-0 to put both sides through. Both will want to win to advance. People just don't get it I suppose.
@@stingersplash that assumes the top seed always wins,it's just a stupid idea there's a reason why there is no league in the world with odd team number and no major competition that uses 3 team groups
@@logancosta3110 I agree, but it’s 1 semi final…in the entire history of the tournament. How does that equal them being “better than they’re given credit for”? They’re good, not great…and will never win the tournament, especially when they keep losing players to other nations! France springs to mind immediately
@@logancosta3110 they’ve had 1 semi final between them in the history of the tournament! How else should we judge “credit”? They are, up until 1 exception recently, quarter final teams at best. For which they are given adequate respect/credit for imo…it’s a BS, virtue signalling comment for likes!
I cry every time that Zealand mentions someone else apart from Guatemala in the Concacaf area. I really hope we do qualify to this world cup because chances of being so close to actually watch a match of my national team on the grandest stage is almost impossible if not for this world cup.
@@ravvsdsa5602 I don't really get your question, but if you mean if I prefer economic stability over a world cup qualification. World qualification my dude, we are so fucked that it does not matter anymore. But honestly I do not understan why you said to get raided and destroyed. Do you mean Ukraine or whatever?
The question on why CONCACAF gets an extra playoff spot is actually answered in the screenshot on screen, in the last line. "As hosts"... 🤣 Great vid, great editing and animation, let's go!
I know it's just to get more money for FIFA, but I am generally excited to see some proper random teams in the World Cup. Remember everyone you don't NEED to watch every single game
@@Tubsidio Sure, what could go wrong ? 1. Brazil may pair with San Marino, or maybe Luxemborg v Israel. 2. There would be no qualification rounds needed. 3. Many of the member countries would make a trip to the host nation only to play 1 game and come home the next day. 4. Are the TVs going to show 12 matches per day during the earlier rounds.
FIFA and UEFA are trying to destroy club football by making the top players play more and more games. TBF it's only the top few clubs with the most players at the World Cup that suffer. Barcelona (out of ECL), Bayern (smaller domestic lead) Man City (Trailing Arsenal), Utd (doing OK), Real (doing ok) Chelsea (midtable) Athletico Madrid (out of ECL) Spurs (Not in the top 4), PSG (smaller lead than normal). Liverpool are also struggling.
Groups of six in eight groups maybe? Everyone’s guaranteed five games. There’ll be 15 first round matches per group and 120 overall. Top two teams qualify. Each stadium will host 7-8 games (sounds like a reasonable utilisation).
It works in sports like basketball and volleyball, where you can play every other day, but football players need like 3 days to regenerate before the next game, which would make the group stages painfully long.
Yes and this would be a great way to make teams use their whole squad, what's the point in a 26 man squad if every team uses the same 11 every game? The fitness argument is BS, ROTATE!
The AFC qualification that you had up on Wikipedia was incorrect. Once it gets to the 3 groups of 6, the top 2 from each group automatically qualify for the world cup.
Stop making fun of small countries. Qualifying means a lot. Panamá was losing 6-0 to England. But in that game we scored our first ever World Cup goal. This for sure inspired the next generation of players that will want to win more. And we celebrated that goal like we won the world cup. It means a lot to be there and lets welcome more teams to join and play.
Gareth Bale was the reason Wales qualified for the 2022 world cup.he scored 3 goals in the play offs. He did recently retire from football/soccer at 33 years old.
And FIFA will be the reason all teams quilified for a full 200 nations only eliminations round around 2034. So dont worry, Wales will be back soon one way or another
How about play 12 groups of four where only the winner advances and only the BEST four 2nd place team advance to a Round of 16. That way we still have 7 matches and the games still become competitive cause you really gotta be good to win the group or at least end up as one of the best 4 2nd place teams!
Although we know this is all to do money from Fifa, actually most would agree this is great for national football! Looking forward to England meeting Fiji in a play off and pump them 30-0 😅
The World Cup format has been changing and expanding over the years. This is probably just the natural progression of things. It used to be 16 teams only in the 60s, which were 99% European and South American, with the occasional exception of Korea. The "best 3rd teams " concept was used before at World Cups, when it consisted of 24 teams, it's nothing new
In my eyes you speak bollocks! And I watched the WC sind 1982. I am sure there have been best four of... on the 3rd ranks. Of course you could exploit me to error, if I did one!
But is it good progression? It is good for most national associations as it generates income for the competing nations. But it is not good for the top players, who are being expected to play more and more and more games. It appears that the winter World Cup has been tough on the English teams in the Champions League with Manchester City, Liverpool and Chelsea significantly underperforming. Even in Europe Barca, Juve and Atletico have crashed out the Champions League, and Bayern and PSG and smaller leads that would normally be expected. Thus its bad for the big club teams. Neutrals might be pleased that smaller teams like Arsenal and Newcastle are doing better because the big teams suffer.
To answer your question about why CONCACAF gets two play-off spots: it's because they host the 2026 edition and the hosting confederation gets an extra play-off spot. So it's not permanent.
IMO the best format is: 12 groups of 4 top 2 advance in each group 8 best 1st place sides advance to the 2nd rd16 remaining 16 play in the 1st RD16. prevents teams fielding weaker squads and will still go for it in the final group game.
If it’s 4 teams groups it could be 12 groups of 4 with top 2 going through and 8 best 3rd place for a round of 32. Or 12 groups of 4 with all 12 winners going through and best 4 runner up to the round of 16.
I prefer four group format. However top 3 teams going through to the knockout seems to reduce tension from the group stage. I prefer Top 2 team to qualify to the knockout stage. The best 8 first place team to go straight to the round of 16. The bottom 4 first place team and all the second place team play an eliminator round to qualify to the round of 16. This give incentives to top the group as you can get a bye (see Belgium v England and France v Denmark in the 2018 World Cup where a potentially great match was ruin by lack of incentive to top the group) It also reduce incentives to rest players in the last game once the team already qualify and hence actually damaging the integrity of the group and unfairly disadvantage teams who are drawn to play the top team early in the tournament as teams need to dominate their group to finish in the top 8 first place team to get the bye in the knockout stage
The AFC qualifying confuses me. Cause all I hope is that the Aussies don't regress back far enough where qualifying is impossible cause with this expansion, we should realistically be at every world cup for the rest of history
The problem is more football =/= better football. Watching teams play more games squashed into the same amount of time will just lead to more boring games and more injuries.
I'd have preferred 6 team groups (so 8 groups still), where the winners get a bye to the last 16, and the 2nd & 3rd place teams have an additional knock-out round to see who advances to the last 16. This makes the group stage feel properly important, as finishing 1st gives even more benefits than it currently does, and you need to finish in the top half to advance (something I really dislike about the new format is that 3rd place teams in a 4 team group can qualify). There's no round of 32, but because the group stage consists of larger groups, there're actually even more games overall. 120 group stage games, 8 additional knock-out games, 15 proper knock-out games, and a 3rd place play-off. That's 144 games in total. The new format gives 104 total games, and the current (2022) format gives 80.
@@gazcomps619 It's at most 10 games for a team, which I don't think is unreasonable. Scheduling for TV during the group stage might be difficult, but it's entirely possible to have the full tournmant in that format in a period of 5 weeks while ensuring teams get at least 3 days of rest between matches.
I can imagine those heart attack matches where everyone in the group is just minutes away from going home or staying for 1 more match. Like how Japan, Spain, Germany, Costa Rica did but this time it's 6 teams.
Problem with this is you have 1 month tournament and you need to give 3-4 days rest for teams between games. so Group Stage would be taking somewhat 20 days, if they would play every 3 days (think they would have play multiple games at same time too, which they might have to anyways with 48 teams? and not just the last round). Playoffs would be taking another set of 20 days probably since have to remember Final would have to be on Sunday. I mean, what ever they do in 2026 it's not possible to do all of the same they did with 32 teams (Only games being played at same time will be Group Stage Last Round, Tournament last 1 month, which is basically from June 6th to July 6th etc.). Either they extend time period of the tournament by 1-2 week(s) or more games will be played at same time.
There are many ways in which a 48 team WC can be managed. Some of the most feasible ones can be like these: A) 6 teams per group in existing 8 group format. Top 4 teams from each group qualify for Round of 32. This will make going past group stages relatively easier than the current format, but it will also make qualifying equations even more dramatic in evenly contested groups. B) 4 teams per group in a 12 group format. The problem with this style is that only 2*12=24 teams will qualify in the usual manner. To add 8 more teams from 12 third placed teams, even on the basis of their respective points seem quite unfair, especially when none of the 3rd placed teams will be facing each other. C) 3 teams per group in a 16 group format. This will probably be the worst possible solution as teams from each group can easily tie up with 1 W and 1 D scenarios, where qualification will depend upon no. of goals scored, H2H, or fair play etc. Moreover, this will reduce the no. of group stage matches, although the path to final will still be of 7 matches, just like now. As and when the 64 team WC will take place (It will, eventually!), the qualifying equations will be just like the current format, where 16 groups of 4 teams each will battle it out as we know it, with only RO32 as an additional round.
Groups of 4 DO NOT necessarily imply a round of 32. It could just be that only 4 second place teams go through instead. It's more tension and more jeopardy. Obviously FIFA won't do that because it's fewer games
Honestly, I think the 32 teams divided into eight groups of four teams each has been working great for the last few world cups since 1998. I don’t think they should add more teams. I think that would diminish the quality of the World Cup a little bit and it makes it a little bit more complicated to divide 48 teams evenly into groups.
the best pitch ive heard for this tournament is 12 groups of 4 top 2 go through but the 8 qualifiers with the best record get a by to the round of 16 then the other 16 qualifiers play the 1st knockout rd its convoluted but it solves the issue of having 3rd place teams going which i do not like
Keep the 4-team groups. But I would limit the advancements to 16: the group winners plus the four second-place teams with the highest match point totals coming out of the group stage. Even if FIFA went with that scheme and ran knockouts the rest of the way from the Round of 16 to the third place and final that would still add up to 86 games total. It's going to be a bit of a problem scheduling this new format tournament in such a way that it does not extend the international break to where it interferes with the league seasons and FIFA have to keep that in mind.
The thing with 2 teams that are able to colude to draw to advance can still happen in groups of 4 and did happen as late as 2018, Denmark and France just needed to draw to advance and then Peru and Australia had nothing, tbf in the end Australia won against Peru so it didnt matter anyway
The matches are played at the same time so it's harder to collude if a goal scored on the other match changes the table. In 3 teams groups the last game happens with both teams already knowing which result could qualify both teams. The 1982 fiasco of Germany vs Austria happened in a 4 teams group but the other game of the group was already played when the match started. That led to FIFA scheduling the last matches of the group to be played at the same time after that Cup.
I mean there's always the "other" 3-team group (which will never happen because FIFA wants them moneys) that is 16 groups of three teams where only the first team in the group moves on: you'd have 16 teams (which means round of 16 as usual) and wouldn't have match fixing (at least in theory) in the third match because only one team can move on.
Advancing the third-place finishers in a group is kind of wack. Just make it like the FCS playoffs. 24 teams consisting of group winners and runner-ups. Seed the teams based on points and goal difference. Top 8 teams earn first-round bye.
Another 12x4 format (I think it would be the best): - top 8 group winners advance directly to round of 16 - remaining 4 group winners + 12 second place teams get seeded - these 16 teams play a knock-out game to decide the final 8 teams for round of 16 (teams from the same group cannot play each other) - top 8 teams are seeded for round of 16, their opponents are drawn randomly (teams from the same group must be drawn on the other side of the bracket) - the rest is played normally - 8 less matches than the other 12x4 format and I think it would make the groups much more competitive where every match matters even for the top teams - 72 group stage matches + 8 play-off matches + remaining 16 knock-out matches = 96 total matches - other 12x4 format is 72 group stage matches + 32 knock-out matches = 104 matches - 16x3 format is 48 group stage matches + 32 knock-out matches = 80 matches
i thought of a good solution im gonna try explain as much as possible so i hope it will be 12 groups of 4 so when the groups are finished being played, depending on which 3rd place team go through, the groups will kinda be split in 2 so for example let 3rd in groups A,C,D,G,H,J,K,L went through they will be split in 2, A,C,D,G and H,J,K,L. now to make it that no teams from the same group dont play until at least the quarter 3rd in G will go into match 2. 3rd in C will go into match 4. 3rd in D will go into match 6. 3rd in A will go into match 8 3rd in L will go into match 10. 3rd in J will go into match 12. 3rd in K will go into match 14. 3rd in H will go into match 16 these 8 teams will play the 4 groups which didn't have 3rd place going through so B,E,F,I, so if we work it out 1st in B will go into match 2, 2nd in B will go into match 10, 2nd in E will go into match 4, 1st in E will go into match 12, 1st in F will go into match 6, 2nd in F will go into match 14, 2nd in I will go into match 8, 1st in I will go into match 16. E and I were flipped to make all knockout matches equal from now on its easy, bring back the groups A,C,D,G,H,J,K,L it'll be 1st vs 2nd from now on so... 1st in A vs 2nd in C in match 1, 2nd in A vs 1st in C in match 9 1st in D vs 2nd in G in match 3, 2nd in D vs 1st in G in match 11 1st in H vs 2nd in J in match 5, 2nd in H vs 1st in J in match 13 1st in K vs 2nd in L in match 7, 2nd in K vs 1st in L in match 5
48 teams - means 8 games for the finalists. Many of these games will be 1/2 empty stadiums nobody wants to watch. Maybe like Australia v Honduras. Or a one-sided Brazil versus Fiji, or France versus Zambia. I would rather they stay with 32 teams, and replace round of 16 and quarterfinals, with 4 groups of 4 after the initial group stages with the top team playing in the semi-finals.
Don´t care a lot about how many teams will be there, but I think that groups of 4 must stay forever. It´s not fair to have a group of 3, no matter if 1 or 2 teams will go out. In both cases, some teams are screwed or given big advantage.
I hope that Suriname will qualify for WC2026 🇸🇷. I'm annoyed at how the drawings hasn't been in our favor. Hell we had Canada in the First Round, put us in the other groups then we would've at least been in the Final Round. Also interesting how we always get Jamaica from all the other Caribbean nations.
I'd like to mention a small mistake, it wouldn't be half of the third placed teams who would qualify, but the 8 best in order to make it 32, but otherwise spot on. It's not an easy decision, but could be the best case scenario to avoid another Disgrace of Gijon.
Plus some group winners get a 3rd place team and some a 2nd place team. And many 2nd place teams get each other. Really unfair. 16 x 3 and top 2 is fair.
It does bail out teams but this happened in other WCs 1986-1994 what’s funnier is that Argentina in 1990 and Italy in 1994 made the final after finishing 3rd in the GS
Dont worry... this format will last only 3 world cups... than FIFA will make the 64 teams world cup... and after 10 years will finally just take all the money that they can get, make a 200 teams world cup, all elimination rounds, with oval balls, new rules, armor, more comercial brakes and with shows in halftime
Haiti please take advantage of this opportunity I want to see us make it to the World Cup plus the WC location is perfect for Haitian to show out and support our nation.
Here's a new idea. Based on the new UEFA Champions League format, all 48 teams are placed in 1 group. Each team plays 3 games and the 16 teams with the best record progress to the last 16. The top 16 ranked teams at the WC will be kept apart from each other during this group stage to ensure they get easier games. This idea is so ridiculous that FIFA might consider using it
How about two group stages? Keep the three-team format in the first round but force them to take penalty kicks to curtail collusion. The second round is the old first round format of eight groups of four teams and then knockout rounds.
I would’ve rather seen them do a Europa league-esque type tournament to run along side the World Cup in a different part of the world. Space out games for tv so there’s always a game to watch, and gives the smaller nations a realistic goal to aim for
Maybe have the second tier world cup be held in the same country where the main world cup is held? I also came up with an idea to hold a real world cup but stretched out... My idea would be to make the Main world cup still keep its presitige... The stretched out world cup proposal would have 7 world cups, with 6 cups having 32 and 1 with 19... The confederations would be grouped into 4 zones: americas, europe, africa and asia pacific... It's just a thought i had 😁
1:40 CONCACAF gets an extra playoff spot for 2026 because they’re the host confederation. The automatic qualifiers as hosts eat into the confederation’s predetermined allocation, but in return they get an extra playoff spot
Concacaf will have 4 direct spots because Concacaf is the host and therefore gets 1 extra spot because the host is usually only 1 and is automatically qualified
Just imagine: England is drawn in a group with Uzbekistan, New Zealand and Mexico. Three wins later, with a goal difference of 15 and three clean sheets, they face Portugal in the knockouts and lose on penalties after a 2-2
01:30 ‘i don’t know why concacaf get an extra spot’ THIS WAS EXPLAINED… the hosting conference (NOT CONTINENT) will have an extra playoff spot. So for the next world cup the playoff spot will go somewhere else.
Not saying this would be a good idea but what about a 3-team group stage with 1st places going through. Then you put the remaining 16 teams into 4 groups of four and let them play with each other. The 1st places in those groups will move on to the semi-finals and then the finals (Maximum 7 games played)
I think they should do a 50 team World Cup. 50 out of 211 teams world wide. 10 groups of 5 teams. Grouped by Fifa ranking and current system. After Group stage the Playoff seeding done by ranking all the top 1st place finishers. Then seeding the 2nd place finishers in a group. Rank All the 3rd place finishers in a group. Then the top 2 4th place finishers. Then place the 32 round playoff based like the 1st, 1st place finisher vs 2nd, 4th place finisher. On the other side 2nd, 1st place finisher vs the 1st, 4th place finisher, and so on. And then play the tournament as is. More games, Every game counts because of seeding. No Secret ties because it affects seeding. Also allows 2 extra teams incase we have multiple country host. Also have the weakest Fifa ranked team in the group with the last bye as the other 4 teams play the final game of group stages. Also gives them extra time to get prepared if they do qualify out of the group stages. If not the last games will be nail biters. Your thoughts?
I think they'll have to choose a group of 4. Probably accompanies by a lot of bellyaching from clubs/players before people just suck it up. Given the top 8 of the 12 in the four groups could go through on goal differences etc. it could actually make the last round of games quite exciting. The second round in 1982 was groups of 3 and it was a disaster back when it was expanded to a 24 team format. In 1986 they quickly changed it to groups of 4 with 3rd place qualifications and I struggle to think why they would repeat a mistake they made before, but then again this is FIFA we are talking about.
Easy. Choose the groups of 3 format, but allow no draws between them, going to penalties if it happens. More excitement in the group stage. This prevents any boring game like the Austria-Germany fiasco.
Under the 4-team group system, your assertion that half of the third place teams would qualify is incorrect. Two-thirds of the third placed teams would qualify for the knockout stages.
48 teams will dilute the talent too much. World powers with fully stocked and healthy teams where goal difference is first tie breakers, get used to 12-1 or 10-0 scores, or 7+ difference blowouts. Some teams in FIFA rankings in the 60's will surely qualify, and looking currently that would mean likes of Albania, Cabo Verde, Montenegro for example. 1st round is going to be bad and not competitive, and groups of death will cease because seeded teams can now be spaced farther apart.
Outside shout: - 16 groups of 3 - Winner progresses (R16, not R32) - Each team still plays 3 games in group stage So let’s say Group A is Brazil, Iran, Costa Rica and Group I is France, Chile and China. 3 teams in a group means 1 team doesn’t play each matchday, however I think it would be best if on the day where a team can’t play against someone in their group, they play a team from their seeded pot instead, meaning everyone plays a Great, Good and Average team in the group stage. So: MD1: Iran v Costa Rica, Chile v China, Brazil v France MD2: Brazil v Iran, France v Chile, Costa Rica v China MD3: Brazil v Costa Rica, France v China, Iran v Chile 72 group games, 16 knockout games, but the group stage has more meaningful matches that a R32 that likely has teams of skill levels too vast to provide shocks. My weird way of doing a 48 man WC, instead of having 12 groups of 4 where teams are playing on Monday then waiting 6 days to find out if they were one of the better 3rd place teams to get into the next round.
8 groups with 6 teams. the winner of the group goes to 1/16 while 2nd and 3rd play 1/32! - in this format, after the group stage, 50% of teams were eliminated which means that the group stage is not without merit! -there is an incentive to win in the group because you play one less game -8 teams in 1/16 + 16 teams in 1/32 is 24 teams in the knockout stage better for spectators and teams! -the negative is that each team plays 5 games in the group stage and the finalist plays 9 or 10 games in the tournament!
3 team groups is a bad idea. It's probably best to keep the groups of 4 teams. As there's 3 hosts (USA, Canada and Mexico), I'm going to ASSUME that they're going to decide which team is in group A, B or C with a ball from a hat as it'll probably be fairer.
I don’t care that FIFA will be bringing in mega money. A 48 team world cup will be freaking awesome!!! However, they must, and I will repeat, must, keep four team groups. Collusions will not help the world cup continue to grow, especially North America. However, I do fancy the idea of having eight groups of six. The top four in each of the eight groups will move on. This way you would have 32 teams in the knockout, but you don’t have the controversy of only eight out of 12 3rd Place teams getting through.
How about this?!⚽️⚽️⚽️ Outisde the box idea. 48 teams split into 8 groups of 6 teams. Top two proceed to round of sixteen, just as they do now. Yes, this gives 136 games. BUT, we let the first two rounds of the group stage (48 games) be played prior to main World Cup event, for example as soon as in April or May. Every qualified team hosts an official World Cup game! That would be really interesting for the fans. This format secures that during the main World Cup event held in June/July: - we have 88 games, - every qualified team plays at least three games (+ two prior to the World Cup), - each team plays a maximum of seven games during the main event.
@@captainfalconmain6576 The league matches shouldn't end in March, obviously. The two rounds of World Cup games should be played in windows allocated for international friendlies.
Look at that map. Tell me FIFA isn't composed of those things from Signs with that fear of large bodies of fresh water. Signed a proud Great Lakes state resident.
Thanks for this video. I’m interested in what FIFA will do. Go with the tradition of four team groups, or the tradition of A playing B in that first match. The idea of three team groups A playing B last in a group will lesson the chances of the host country getting shafted might lead to this eventually. Also, I think your math might be a little off. If you have four team groups, that leaves 24 teams automatically qualifying. 24 plus half of the third place leaves 30 teams, so it would be 2/3rds of the third place teams. Having A vs B as the last match might be a ‘safer’ way for the hosts. And the hosts are those FIFA would want to consider. After all they’re the ones with the bribes. Plus those third place teams in the last four groups would know what they would need to advance. If FIFA insists on a host country, like the US, being placed in group A, they’d be at a disadvantage. Again, let’s not try to shaft the hosts.
@@dashtoroya2838 there won't be one on the last matches if they do the sensible thing. Example group. Brazil, Ghana, Lebanon. If Brazil play Ghana then Lebanon they should have enough points to be qualified. Final game is Ghana vs Lebanon they can't play for 0-0...it would only suit one side! So both will play like it's a knockout already. Plus the top seed get a longer rest before knockouts which is a perk. It's so simple. I guarantee you this way will be a much better group stage.
8 groups of 6 teams. So that each team play 5 games. And just 24 team knockout like the Europa league. Group winners get a by. 2nd places teams play third place teams.
I think they absolutely need to go to 4 team groups. 3 team group open up the very real possibility of a repeat of West Germany vs Austria in 1982, and nobody wants that
8 Best 3rd getting through is just as worse than 16×3. A team in group A would have a clear disadavantage compared to a team in group L! The team in group L would know exactly what result is needed to get through as 3rd, something team of group A could have never known. Comparing teams who had differant opponents is unfair in the first place anyways!
The teams that won't qualify from best 3rd place will be 2-3 point teams tho so they'll only have themselves to blame unlike 3 team groups where two teams can conspire to eliminate a third
@@superman-rz3vw but it's a lot harder for two teams to conspire here especially if you make it so the worse teams get better opponents in the round of 32. But there is no truely fair way to do it with 48 teams,still this is the better way,in the Euros you never saw teams of later groups playing strategicallky to get 3rd
CONCACAF gets more play off spots cos they're the host continent, if next world cup is in Conmebol, they get the extra playoff spot instead for example
As a European, I love to see a WC with fewer European teams (at least a lower ratio). I see European teams competing all the time, the WC is interesting because it brings variety. One change that I'd appreciate and that would go well with 12 groups of 4 would be a longer break between group stage and KO round. If you put an entire week in between there, not only do you get more freedom for scheduling (because every team will have had a long enough break to play - which is great for distributing the best 3rd place finishers) but you also get a breather in between to anaylze what has happened and get hyped for the knockouts.
To avoid teams from coluding as is mentioned in the 6 miin 42 second mark, I woul suggest taht the two top teams in the groups of 3, continue on with two other teams. But they will be playing two more games, with only the top finisher going to the quarter finals. The game that the top two teams in the group of 3, would matter in the now group of 4, as that game would count in the group of 4. this would allow all 32 teams taht advance to play 4 games.
![ROSÉ (로제) - number one girl [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A9oByH9Ci24/mqdefault.jpg)
Hope they continue with the four team group format. The third round of the group stage was arguably the most interesting phase of the last World Cup, particularly the Spain, Germany, Japan, Costa Rica group where the permutations of who was qualifying for the knockouts was changing by the minute as the last two matches were being played.
True. Exiting the tournament after only 2 games is a bit harsh
But that will completely change with 3 teams going through. The jeopardy is far less. The groups of 3 will have better jeopardy for sure.
@@BhBc8f8 but the teams getting knocked out are likely the teams that wouldn't qualify for a 32 team tournament anyway so 2 is better than 0.
@@stingersplash not when both teams need to draw the last game to go through it won’t, plus
@@stingersplash The U.S.A drew their first 2 games in group B and needed a win in their 3rd match to qualify from the group stage. Argentina lost their first group game and then went on to win the tournament. The world cup has always been about everyone getting a fair chance so why stop now.
I think they just absolutely have to keep 4-team groups. This past World Cup was magic on match day 3. Also, note: this would mean 8 out of 12 3rd place teams advance to the knockouts, not just the top half.
I think they absolutely cant. The only reason this last one was magic is because only 2 teams advanced. If 3 did then most of that drama was lost. Mexico wouldn't have needed another vs Saudi Arabia. Germany would have been through with any win vs Costa Rica. It just dilutes the groups more. At least with 3 team groups you still have last day drama because each group has only 3 games total so it's almost impossible for it to be for nothing and so easy to avoid mutually beneficial draws too. Trust me 12 x 4 will not be as close to dramatic as 2022 was. Also 80 games is much better than 104.
Why nobody is seeing that groups of 4 qualifying 3 is also a bad idea... the whole 48 teams is awfull
@@Tubsidio only fools who refuse to let big teams go home by surprise at group stage accept the Best 3rd place rule. Just ruins the fun
@@Haaton-of-the-Basement big teams might be better in knockout stage and the winner will be more likely to be the best team
I think 6 groups of 8 would be the best,with the top 4 team qualifying,we have 32 teams for round of 32.
3 team groups are a huge mistake, one of the teams will have already played their final game before the final group stage games. So its likely that teams will play out 0-0s in the final game to ensure both go through (if a draw would see both go through that is), this happened before with Austria and Germany and is why the final games in a group have been played at the same time for decades
This will happen 100%,probably with multiple groups at the first world cup
You fix that by having the top seed play the first two matches. Thus the final game is very unlikely to be a 0-0 to put both sides through. Both will want to win to advance. People just don't get it I suppose.
@@pitohui9430 I disagree. I think it won't happen at all if they have the top seeds play the first two games.
@@stingersplash and what if the top seed underperforms like Germany/ Spain and Belgium in Qatar
@@stingersplash that assumes the top seed always wins,it's just a stupid idea there's a reason why there is no league in the world with odd team number and no major competition that uses 3 team groups
It will be interesting to see how African teams will perform with more qualification spots; they're a lot better than they're given credit for.
They’ve literally just had their very first semi finalist…they’re obviously not that great, regardless of your opinion
@@GIBBO4182 A semi final is pretty good
@@logancosta3110 I agree, but it’s 1 semi final…in the entire history of the tournament. How does that equal them being “better than they’re given credit for”? They’re good, not great…and will never win the tournament, especially when they keep losing players to other nations! France springs to mind immediately
Sure, but the point was African teams are better than they're given credit for. Historical evidence doesn't really show how good they are now
@@logancosta3110 they’ve had 1 semi final between them in the history of the tournament! How else should we judge “credit”? They are, up until 1 exception recently, quarter final teams at best. For which they are given adequate respect/credit for imo…it’s a BS, virtue signalling comment for likes!
I cry every time that Zealand mentions someone else apart from Guatemala in the Concacaf area. I really hope we do qualify to this world cup because chances of being so close to actually watch a match of my national team on the grandest stage is almost impossible if not for this world cup.
What do you prefer more, seeing Guatelmala plays a world cup, or to see how your Country gets raidet and destroyed? (Nothing personally)
@@ravvsdsa5602 Argentina is in economic crisis and they seem very happy. Let people enjoy things.
@@ravvsdsa5602 I don't really get your question, but if you mean if I prefer economic stability over a world cup qualification. World qualification my dude, we are so fucked that it does not matter anymore. But honestly I do not understan why you said to get raided and destroyed. Do you mean Ukraine or whatever?
@@LyricsFred I am Argentinian and yes, I can say we are still very happy
@@ravvsdsa5602 Have you ever heard of the soccer war between Honduras and El Salvador? 🙄
The question on why CONCACAF gets an extra playoff spot is actually answered in the screenshot on screen, in the last line.
"As hosts"... 🤣
Great vid, great editing and animation, let's go!
That will rotate as the host nation goes to other confederations though. Just so happen that CONCACAF was 1st
@@jtp2007 What happens in Cross Confederation bids like Greece-Egypt-Saudi Arabia or Spain-Portugal-Morocco
@@iancypes5911 No clue honestly.
I know it's just to get more money for FIFA, but I am generally excited to see some proper random teams in the World Cup.
Remember everyone you don't NEED to watch every single game
but will i still? yes. yes i will.
It's just going to lead to a massive fall in quality
The 3 team group format does suck a little, but it's always great to have something refreshing.
@@kkirill4633 1 win for a small team in group stage and they are through
@LG92 talk for yourself mate, I NEED to watch it all
As a person from Curacao, I would be a dream come true to see our players play in a world cup
Italians too
3 or 4 team groups, a 32 team elimination round is just absolutely fire 🔥🔥 🔥
How about a world cup with all 200 teams... in all eliminations rounds around the world... wow... would be awesome.
@@Tubsidio😂
@@Tubsidio Sure, what could go wrong ? 1. Brazil may pair with San Marino, or maybe Luxemborg v Israel. 2. There would be no qualification rounds needed. 3. Many of the member countries would make a trip to the host nation only to play 1 game and come home the next day. 4. Are the TVs going to show 12 matches per day during the earlier rounds.
@@alexman8800don’t mind him he’s knows nothing
A round of 32 is already a massive W in my opinion
FIFA and UEFA are trying to destroy club football by making the top players play more and more games. TBF it's only the top few clubs with the most players at the World Cup that suffer. Barcelona (out of ECL), Bayern (smaller domestic lead) Man City (Trailing Arsenal), Utd (doing OK), Real (doing ok) Chelsea (midtable) Athletico Madrid (out of ECL) Spurs (Not in the top 4), PSG (smaller lead than normal). Liverpool are also struggling.
@@davidking9222super league is here nooo
Groups of six in eight groups maybe? Everyone’s guaranteed five games. There’ll be 15 first round matches per group and 120 overall. Top two teams qualify. Each stadium will host 7-8 games (sounds like a reasonable utilisation).
It works in sports like basketball and volleyball, where you can play every other day, but football players need like 3 days to regenerate before the next game, which would make the group stages painfully long.
Yes and this would be a great way to make teams use their whole squad, what's the point in a 26 man squad if every team uses the same 11 every game? The fitness argument is BS, ROTATE!
To many games
Extra spot for playoffs is Host Region so it will be changing every tournament.
The AFC qualification that you had up on Wikipedia was incorrect. Once it gets to the 3 groups of 6, the top 2 from each group automatically qualify for the world cup.
"Imagistan" just killed me 😂
Stop making fun of small countries. Qualifying means a lot. Panamá was losing 6-0 to England. But in that game we scored our first ever World Cup goal. This for sure inspired the next generation of players that will want to win more. And we celebrated that goal like we won the world cup. It means a lot to be there and lets welcome more teams to join and play.
Gareth Bale was the reason Wales qualified for the 2022 world cup.he scored 3 goals in the play offs. He did recently retire from football/soccer at 33 years old.
And FIFA will be the reason all teams quilified for a full 200 nations only eliminations round around 2034. So dont worry, Wales will be back soon one way or another
True 😂
Every host Confederation receives an extra Interconfederation playoff spot starting in 2026, that's why CONCACAF has 2 playoff spots.
With AFC teams extended to 8, we might see North Korea in the World Cup once again
as long as they dont withdraw again
How about China?
@@lamp2391 Merge CONMEBOL And Concacaf NOW 🎉🎉 the only way to challenge evil UEFA
Mongolia too💀
Thailand too? 👀
That hook to your Manscaped sponsor slot... I saw it coming from a mile off, yet it still had me chuckling. Great going Zealand. Love your work!
How about play 12 groups of four where only the winner advances and only the BEST four 2nd place team advance to a Round of 16. That way we still have 7 matches and the games still become competitive cause you really gotta be good to win the group or at least end up as one of the best 4 2nd place teams!
Although we know this is all to do money from Fifa, actually most would agree this is great for national football! Looking forward to England meeting Fiji in a play off and pump them 30-0 😅
I’m pretty Sure Fiji would destroy England 40-0
@@tristangamz2679 haha i’m sure they would 🫣
At last I can see Chad in the stage group!
Everything is about money but u have to ignore it. Or not enjoy anything.
If only a European team would be allowed into the playoffs :P
Boy im so excited, i've always wanted the WC to go for longer!
The World Cup format has been changing and expanding over the years. This is probably just the natural progression of things. It used to be 16 teams only in the 60s, which were 99% European and South American, with the occasional exception of Korea. The "best 3rd teams " concept was used before at World Cups, when it consisted of 24 teams, it's nothing new
In my eyes you speak bollocks!
And I watched the WC sind 1982.
I am sure there have been best four of...
on the 3rd ranks.
Of course you could exploit me to error, if I did one!
@@horscanigunger5098 I am not following. What are you trying to say?
But is it good progression?
It is good for most national associations as it generates income for the competing nations.
But it is not good for the top players, who are being expected to play more and more and more games. It appears that the winter World Cup has been tough on the English teams in the Champions League with Manchester City, Liverpool and Chelsea significantly underperforming. Even in Europe Barca, Juve and Atletico have crashed out the Champions League, and Bayern and PSG and smaller leads that would normally be expected. Thus its bad for the big club teams.
Neutrals might be pleased that smaller teams like Arsenal and Newcastle are doing better because the big teams suffer.
To answer your question about why CONCACAF gets two play-off spots: it's because they host the 2026 edition and the hosting confederation gets an extra play-off spot. So it's not permanent.
1:57 new Zealand's ticket to the tournament LMAO 🤣 😆 😂 😅 👌 😄
8 Groups of 6 would be interesting
IMO the best format is:
12 groups of 4
top 2 advance in each group
8 best 1st place sides advance to the 2nd rd16
remaining 16 play in the 1st RD16.
prevents teams fielding weaker squads and will still go for it in the final group game.
how do you decide which 8 are the best 1st place? That's the same problem with deciding the best 3rd place teams.
@@jasonwong2242 decide the order by points / GD / GF / GA and than discipline
Legend has it that they increased the number of teams so that Italy can finally qualify for the world cup
If it’s 4 teams groups it could be 12 groups of 4 with top 2 going through and 8 best 3rd place for a round of 32.
Or 12 groups of 4 with all 12 winners going through and best 4 runner up to the round of 16.
I prefer four group format. However top 3 teams going through to the knockout seems to reduce tension from the group stage. I prefer Top 2 team to qualify to the knockout stage. The best 8 first place team to go straight to the round of 16. The bottom 4 first place team and all the second place team play an eliminator round to qualify to the round of 16. This give incentives to top the group as you can get a bye (see Belgium v England and France v Denmark in the 2018 World Cup where a potentially great match was ruin by lack of incentive to top the group) It also reduce incentives to rest players in the last game once the team already qualify and hence actually damaging the integrity of the group and unfairly disadvantage teams who are drawn to play the top team early in the tournament as teams need to dominate their group to finish in the top 8 first place team to get the bye in the knockout stage
The only reason why I follow you is because you’re the only soccer RUclipsr I can understand, the others have funny accents.
I agree they do
The AFC qualifying confuses me. Cause all I hope is that the Aussies don't regress back far enough where qualifying is impossible cause with this expansion, we should realistically be at every world cup for the rest of history
It's the frenetic editing of your video that keeps me engaged, what with my limited attention span.
The problem is more football =/= better football. Watching teams play more games squashed into the same amount of time will just lead to more boring games and more injuries.
I'd have preferred 6 team groups (so 8 groups still), where the winners get a bye to the last 16, and the 2nd & 3rd place teams have an additional knock-out round to see who advances to the last 16.
This makes the group stage feel properly important, as finishing 1st gives even more benefits than it currently does, and you need to finish in the top half to advance (something I really dislike about the new format is that 3rd place teams in a 4 team group can qualify).
There's no round of 32, but because the group stage consists of larger groups, there're actually even more games overall. 120 group stage games, 8 additional knock-out games, 15 proper knock-out games, and a 3rd place play-off. That's 144 games in total. The new format gives 104 total games, and the current (2022) format gives 80.
Totally agree with this
Wayyy too many games for a month tournament
@@gazcomps619 It's at most 10 games for a team, which I don't think is unreasonable. Scheduling for TV during the group stage might be difficult, but it's entirely possible to have the full tournmant in that format in a period of 5 weeks while ensuring teams get at least 3 days of rest between matches.
I can imagine those heart attack matches where everyone in the group is just minutes away from going home or staying for 1 more match. Like how Japan, Spain, Germany, Costa Rica did but this time it's 6 teams.
Problem with this is you have 1 month tournament and you need to give 3-4 days rest for teams between games. so Group Stage would be taking somewhat 20 days, if they would play every 3 days (think they would have play multiple games at same time too, which they might have to anyways with 48 teams? and not just the last round). Playoffs would be taking another set of 20 days probably since have to remember Final would have to be on Sunday.
I mean, what ever they do in 2026 it's not possible to do all of the same they did with 32 teams (Only games being played at same time will be Group Stage Last Round, Tournament last 1 month, which is basically from June 6th to July 6th etc.). Either they extend time period of the tournament by 1-2 week(s) or more games will be played at same time.
New Zealand to Australia: "Who Laughing Now" 🤣
Australia made their biggest mistake. Now New Zealand can book their 2026 seat🤣🤣🤣
There are many ways in which a 48 team WC can be managed. Some of the most feasible ones can be like these:
A) 6 teams per group in existing 8 group format. Top 4 teams from each group qualify for Round of 32. This will make going past group stages relatively easier than the current format, but it will also make qualifying equations even more dramatic in evenly contested groups.
B) 4 teams per group in a 12 group format. The problem with this style is that only 2*12=24 teams will qualify in the usual manner. To add 8 more teams from 12 third placed teams, even on the basis of their respective points seem quite unfair, especially when none of the 3rd placed teams will be facing each other.
C) 3 teams per group in a 16 group format. This will probably be the worst possible solution as teams from each group can easily tie up with 1 W and 1 D scenarios, where qualification will depend upon no. of goals scored, H2H, or fair play etc. Moreover, this will reduce the no. of group stage matches, although the path to final will still be of 7 matches, just like now.
As and when the 64 team WC will take place (It will, eventually!), the qualifying equations will be just like the current format, where 16 groups of 4 teams each will battle it out as we know it, with only RO32 as an additional round.
There will definitely be more blow outs but also more upsets. I’m excited already!
Groups of 4 DO NOT necessarily imply a round of 32. It could just be that only 4 second place teams go through instead. It's more tension and more jeopardy. Obviously FIFA won't do that because it's fewer games
Honestly, I think the 32 teams divided into eight groups of four teams each has been working great for the last few world cups since 1998. I don’t think they should add more teams. I think that would diminish the quality of the World Cup a little bit and it makes it a little bit more complicated to divide 48 teams evenly into groups.
It won't, we already seeing more and more teams that aren't Europe or SA going to the knockouts and with 48 teams that will just get better
the best pitch ive heard for this tournament is 12 groups of 4 top 2 go through but the 8 qualifiers with the best record get a by to the round of 16 then the other 16 qualifiers play the 1st knockout rd its convoluted but it solves the issue of having 3rd place teams going which i do not like
That sounds nice ngl. Anything to avoid the 3rd place rule.
Keep the 4-team groups. But I would limit the advancements to 16: the group winners plus the four second-place teams with the highest match point totals coming out of the group stage. Even if FIFA went with that scheme and ran knockouts the rest of the way from the Round of 16 to the third place and final that would still add up to 86 games total. It's going to be a bit of a problem scheduling this new format tournament in such a way that it does not extend the international break to where it interferes with the league seasons and FIFA have to keep that in mind.
Ok formart I guess
Now that concacaf has more nations qualify maybe I will finally see both USA and Guatemala in the same World Cup🙏🙏🙏🙏
Guatmela 😂
🇬🇹🇬🇹🇬🇹🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
The thing with 2 teams that are able to colude to draw to advance can still happen in groups of 4 and did happen as late as 2018, Denmark and France just needed to draw to advance and then Peru and Australia had nothing, tbf in the end Australia won against Peru so it didnt matter anyway
But it's significantly rarer
@@pitohui9430 I mean yeah, probably true
The matches are played at the same time so it's harder to collude if a goal scored on the other match changes the table. In 3 teams groups the last game happens with both teams already knowing which result could qualify both teams. The 1982 fiasco of Germany vs Austria happened in a 4 teams group but the other game of the group was already played when the match started. That led to FIFA scheduling the last matches of the group to be played at the same time after that Cup.
I mean there's always the "other" 3-team group (which will never happen because FIFA wants them moneys) that is 16 groups of three teams where only the first team in the group moves on: you'd have 16 teams (which means round of 16 as usual) and wouldn't have match fixing (at least in theory) in the third match because only one team can move on.
Advancing the third-place finishers in a group is kind of wack. Just make it like the FCS playoffs. 24 teams consisting of group winners and runner-ups. Seed the teams based on points and goal difference. Top 8 teams earn first-round bye.
Looking forward to your video about the USMNT!! should be great fun!
@whatsappme4834 no bot
Another 12x4 format (I think it would be the best):
- top 8 group winners advance directly to round of 16
- remaining 4 group winners + 12 second place teams get seeded
- these 16 teams play a knock-out game to decide the final 8 teams for round of 16 (teams from the same group cannot play each other)
- top 8 teams are seeded for round of 16, their opponents are drawn randomly (teams from the same group must be drawn on the other side of the bracket)
- the rest is played normally
- 8 less matches than the other 12x4 format and I think it would make the groups much more competitive where every match matters even for the top teams
- 72 group stage matches + 8 play-off matches + remaining 16 knock-out matches = 96 total matches
- other 12x4 format is 72 group stage matches + 32 knock-out matches = 104 matches
- 16x3 format is 48 group stage matches + 32 knock-out matches = 80 matches
Your Concept ruins the importanst rule in FIFA.
@@ravvsdsa5602 more matches = more money?
i thought of a good solution
im gonna try explain as much as possible
so i hope it will be 12 groups of 4
so when the groups are finished being played, depending on which 3rd place team go through, the groups will kinda be split in 2
so for example let 3rd in groups A,C,D,G,H,J,K,L went through
they will be split in 2, A,C,D,G and H,J,K,L. now to make it that no teams from the same group dont play until at least the quarter
3rd in G will go into match 2. 3rd in C will go into match 4. 3rd in D will go into match 6. 3rd in A will go into match 8
3rd in L will go into match 10. 3rd in J will go into match 12. 3rd in K will go into match 14. 3rd in H will go into match 16
these 8 teams will play the 4 groups which didn't have 3rd place going through so B,E,F,I, so if we work it out
1st in B will go into match 2, 2nd in B will go into match 10, 2nd in E will go into match 4, 1st in E will go into match 12, 1st in F will go into match 6, 2nd in F will go into match 14, 2nd in I will go into match 8, 1st in I will go into match 16. E and I were flipped to make all knockout matches equal
from now on its easy, bring back the groups A,C,D,G,H,J,K,L
it'll be 1st vs 2nd from now on so...
1st in A vs 2nd in C in match 1, 2nd in A vs 1st in C in match 9
1st in D vs 2nd in G in match 3, 2nd in D vs 1st in G in match 11
1st in H vs 2nd in J in match 5, 2nd in H vs 1st in J in match 13
1st in K vs 2nd in L in match 7, 2nd in K vs 1st in L in match 5
BRUH
@@sumitsingh2349 lol, thats the most simple way
@@dylanward1597 yup mate I was not making fun of you I was admiring you writing that comment definitely took some time
@@sumitsingh2349 yep
I ain't reading that. You know what is simpler? Winners of Groups A-P vs Runners Up of Groups A-P
48 teams - means 8 games for the finalists. Many of these games will be 1/2 empty stadiums nobody wants to watch. Maybe like Australia v Honduras. Or a one-sided Brazil versus Fiji, or France versus Zambia.
I would rather they stay with 32 teams, and replace round of 16 and quarterfinals, with 4 groups of 4 after the initial group stages with the top team playing in the semi-finals.
Don´t care a lot about how many teams will be there, but I think that groups of 4 must stay forever. It´s not fair to have a group of 3, no matter if 1 or 2 teams will go out. In both cases, some teams are screwed or given big advantage.
I hope that Suriname will qualify for WC2026 🇸🇷. I'm annoyed at how the drawings hasn't been in our favor. Hell we had Canada in the First Round, put us in the other groups then we would've at least been in the Final Round. Also interesting how we always get Jamaica from all the other Caribbean nations.
I'd like to mention a small mistake, it wouldn't be half of the third placed teams who would qualify, but the 8 best in order to make it 32, but otherwise spot on. It's not an easy decision, but could be the best case scenario to avoid another Disgrace of Gijon.
Amazing video, but I hate if some 3rd places get through and some don't. That's double benefitting "easier" group teams.
Plus some group winners get a 3rd place team and some a 2nd place team. And many 2nd place teams get each other. Really unfair. 16 x 3 and top 2 is fair.
It does bail out teams but this happened in other WCs 1986-1994 what’s funnier is that Argentina in 1990 and Italy in 1994 made the final after finishing 3rd in the GS
Dont worry... this format will last only 3 world cups... than FIFA will make the 64 teams world cup... and after 10 years will finally just take all the money that they can get, make a 200 teams world cup, all elimination rounds, with oval balls, new rules, armor, more comercial brakes and with shows in halftime
@@stingersplash 16x3 will allow the last game to be played for draw which ruins the game competitive level.
@@stingersplash 16 x 3. The team that did not play last has a serious disadvantage.
Haiti please take advantage of this opportunity I want to see us make it to the World Cup plus the WC location is perfect for Haitian to show out and support our nation.
Always top tier content 💪
Here's a new idea. Based on the new UEFA Champions League format, all 48 teams are placed in 1 group. Each team plays 3 games and the 16 teams with the best record progress to the last 16. The top 16 ranked teams at the WC will be kept apart from each other during this group stage to ensure they get easier games.
This idea is so ridiculous that FIFA might consider using it
Sure I guess
How about two group stages? Keep the three-team format in the first round but force them to take penalty kicks to curtail collusion. The second round is the old first round format of eight groups of four teams and then knockout rounds.
That format would be cool but that would make the tournament way too long
I have the same idea, but reverse your format. First start with 4-team group, 2 advance. Then second with 3-team group, 1 advance
I would’ve rather seen them do a Europa league-esque type tournament to run along side the World Cup in a different part of the world. Space out games for tv so there’s always a game to watch, and gives the smaller nations a realistic goal to aim for
Maybe have the second tier world cup be held in the same country where the main world cup is held? I also came up with an idea to hold a real world cup but stretched out... My idea would be to make the Main world cup still keep its presitige... The stretched out world cup proposal would have 7 world cups, with 6 cups having 32 and 1 with 19... The confederations would be grouped into 4 zones: americas, europe, africa and asia pacific... It's just a thought i had 😁
1:40 CONCACAF gets an extra playoff spot for 2026 because they’re the host confederation. The automatic qualifiers as hosts eat into the confederation’s predetermined allocation, but in return they get an extra playoff spot
It's going to be USA group A, Mexico B, Canada C
Concacaf will have 4 direct spots because Concacaf is the host and therefore gets 1 extra spot because the host is usually only 1 and is automatically qualified
Just imagine: England is drawn in a group with Uzbekistan, New Zealand and Mexico. Three wins later, with a goal difference of 15 and three clean sheets, they face Portugal in the knockouts and lose on penalties after a 2-2
01:30 ‘i don’t know why concacaf get an extra spot’
THIS WAS EXPLAINED… the hosting conference (NOT CONTINENT) will have an extra playoff spot. So for the next world cup the playoff spot will go somewhere else.
I'm curious on concacaf qualifying. US, Mexico and Canada get a auto bid. There's 3 bids open plus 2 playoff spots available
Zealand earning those free meals
Not saying this would be a good idea but what about a 3-team group stage with 1st places going through. Then you put the remaining 16 teams into 4 groups of four and let them play with each other. The 1st places in those groups will move on to the semi-finals and then the finals (Maximum 7 games played)
I guess
If this is the way forward for the tournament then I say that the U.S. and western europe ought to host every WC from now on.
I think they should do a 50 team World Cup. 50 out of 211 teams world wide. 10 groups of 5 teams. Grouped by Fifa ranking and current system. After Group stage the Playoff seeding done by ranking all the top 1st place finishers. Then seeding the 2nd place finishers in a group. Rank All the 3rd place finishers in a group. Then the top 2 4th place finishers. Then place the 32 round playoff based like the 1st, 1st place finisher vs 2nd, 4th place finisher. On the other side 2nd, 1st place finisher vs the 1st, 4th place finisher, and so on. And then play the tournament as is. More games, Every game counts because of seeding. No Secret ties because it affects seeding. Also allows 2 extra teams incase we have multiple country host. Also have the weakest Fifa ranked team in the group with the last bye as the other 4 teams play the final game of group stages. Also gives them extra time to get prepared if they do qualify out of the group stages. If not the last games will be nail biters. Your thoughts?
I think they'll have to choose a group of 4. Probably accompanies by a lot of bellyaching from clubs/players before people just suck it up. Given the top 8 of the 12 in the four groups could go through on goal differences etc. it could actually make the last round of games quite exciting.
The second round in 1982 was groups of 3 and it was a disaster back when it was expanded to a 24 team format. In 1986 they quickly changed it to groups of 4 with 3rd place qualifications and I struggle to think why they would repeat a mistake they made before, but then again this is FIFA we are talking about.
I am really rooting for Curacao to make it. That would would be awesome.
2026 will be called the North America World Cup with USA, Mexico, Canada as hosts.
Easy. Choose the groups of 3 format, but allow no draws between them, going to penalties if it happens. More excitement in the group stage.
This prevents any boring game like the Austria-Germany fiasco.
Under the 4-team group system, your assertion that half of the third place teams would qualify is incorrect. Two-thirds of the third placed teams would qualify for the knockout stages.
One day San Marino will win the world cup, and go from worst team to best team
48 teams will dilute the talent too much. World powers with fully stocked and healthy teams where goal difference is first tie breakers, get used to 12-1 or 10-0 scores, or 7+ difference blowouts. Some teams in FIFA rankings in the 60's will surely qualify, and looking currently that would mean likes of Albania, Cabo Verde, Montenegro for example. 1st round is going to be bad and not competitive, and groups of death will cease because seeded teams can now be spaced farther apart.
12 groups of 4.
1st Place - Round of 16 (12 Teams)
2nd Places + 4 best 3rd (Playoff round)
Best ideia I could have. Three team groups is awful
Outside shout:
- 16 groups of 3
- Winner progresses (R16, not R32)
- Each team still plays 3 games in group stage
So let’s say Group A is Brazil, Iran, Costa Rica and Group I is France, Chile and China. 3 teams in a group means 1 team doesn’t play each matchday, however I think it would be best if on the day where a team can’t play against someone in their group, they play a team from their seeded pot instead, meaning everyone plays a Great, Good and Average team in the group stage. So:
MD1: Iran v Costa Rica, Chile v China, Brazil v France
MD2: Brazil v Iran, France v Chile, Costa Rica v China
MD3: Brazil v Costa Rica, France v China, Iran v Chile
72 group games, 16 knockout games, but the group stage has more meaningful matches that a R32 that likely has teams of skill levels too vast to provide shocks.
My weird way of doing a 48 man WC, instead of having 12 groups of 4 where teams are playing on Monday then waiting 6 days to find out if they were one of the better 3rd place teams to get into the next round.
I wasn’t expecting a Leroy Jenkins reference in this video, but alas we got one
8 groups with 6 teams. the winner of the group goes to 1/16 while 2nd and 3rd play 1/32!
- in this format, after the group stage, 50% of teams were eliminated which means that the group stage is not without merit!
-there is an incentive to win in the group because you play one less game
-8 teams in 1/16 + 16 teams in 1/32 is 24 teams in the knockout stage better for spectators and teams!
-the negative is that each team plays 5 games in the group stage and the finalist plays 9 or 10 games in the tournament!
I think there will still be 6 teams from Concacaf qualifying
3 team groups is a bad idea. It's probably best to keep the groups of 4 teams.
As there's 3 hosts (USA, Canada and Mexico), I'm going to ASSUME that they're going to decide which team is in group A, B or C with a ball from a hat as it'll probably be fairer.
I think they will allocate the 3 hosts and keep them apart... Usa in group 1 and mexico in group 16 with canada in group 8 or 9... 🙄
My suggestion is 1 group of 48. All teams qualify for the knockout round of 64 (the top 16 teams qualify twice).
One group, home and away.
Sup I love ur videos
I don’t care that FIFA will be bringing in mega money. A 48 team world cup will be freaking awesome!!! However, they must, and I will repeat, must, keep four team groups. Collusions will not help the world cup continue to grow, especially North America. However, I do fancy the idea of having eight groups of six. The top four in each of the eight groups will move on. This way you would have 32 teams in the knockout, but you don’t have the controversy of only eight out of 12 3rd Place teams getting through.
I rather have A 16 World Cup then 48
How about this?!⚽️⚽️⚽️ Outisde the box idea.
48 teams split into 8 groups of 6 teams. Top two proceed to round of sixteen, just as they do now.
Yes, this gives 136 games. BUT, we let the first two rounds of the group stage (48 games) be played prior to main World Cup event, for example as soon as in April or May. Every qualified team hosts an official World Cup game! That would be really interesting for the fans.
This format secures that during the main World Cup event held in June/July:
- we have 88 games,
- every qualified team plays at least three games (+ two prior to the World Cup),
- each team plays a maximum of seven games during the main event.
One question leagues matches happen 2 April and may so a 4 month break from leagues
@@captainfalconmain6576 The league matches shouldn't end in March, obviously. The two rounds of World Cup games should be played in windows allocated for international friendlies.
@@kacper9114🤦 bad idea
It is actually 12 groups, not 14. And ⅔ of the third placed teams qualify for the knockouts, not half.
It's 16 groups of 3 and 2 from each group qualify.
Yeah, someone should send the Italian federation a set of Manscaped shaving sets, to cheer them up. I'm pretty sure they would appreciate it, lol.
Look at that map. Tell me FIFA isn't composed of those things from Signs with that fear of large bodies of fresh water. Signed a proud Great Lakes state resident.
07:51 you mean like what they did in 1994 when it was 24 teams (best third places advanced)
Thanks for this video.
I’m interested in what FIFA will do.
Go with the tradition of four team groups, or the tradition of A playing B in that first match.
The idea of three team groups A playing B last in a group will lesson the chances of the host country getting shafted might lead to this eventually.
Also, I think your math might be a little off. If you have four team groups, that leaves 24 teams automatically qualifying.
24 plus half of the third place leaves 30 teams, so it would be 2/3rds of the third place teams.
Having A vs B as the last match might be a ‘safer’ way for the hosts.
And the hosts are those FIFA would want to consider.
After all they’re the ones with the bribes.
Plus those third place teams in the last four groups would know what they would need to advance.
If FIFA insists on a host country, like the US, being placed in group A, they’d be at a disadvantage. Again, let’s not try to shaft the hosts.
The 3 team group is a disaster.
I agree, can't wait for a spot fixed match.
It really isn't.
@@dashtoroya2838 there won't be one on the last matches if they do the sensible thing. Example group. Brazil, Ghana, Lebanon. If Brazil play Ghana then Lebanon they should have enough points to be qualified. Final game is Ghana vs Lebanon they can't play for 0-0...it would only suit one side! So both will play like it's a knockout already. Plus the top seed get a longer rest before knockouts which is a perk. It's so simple. I guarantee you this way will be a much better group stage.
The whole video was about your gayscape commercial
8 groups of 6 teams. So that each team play 5 games. And just 24 team knockout like the Europa league.
Group winners get a by.
2nd places teams play third place teams.
I think they absolutely need to go to 4 team groups. 3 team group open up the very real possibility of a repeat of West Germany vs Austria in 1982, and nobody wants that
Imagine, a Group with USA Ukraine and Irak.
@@ravvsdsa5602 I mean we nearly had USA, Ukraine and Iran this world cup which isn't much different.
8 Best 3rd getting through is just as worse than 16×3. A team in group A would have a clear disadavantage compared to a team in group L!
The team in group L would know exactly what result is needed to get through as 3rd, something team of group A could have never known.
Comparing teams who had differant opponents is unfair in the first place anyways!
The teams that won't qualify from best 3rd place will be 2-3 point teams tho so they'll only have themselves to blame unlike 3 team groups where two teams can conspire to eliminate a third
@@pitohui9430 still, a team in group A for example doesn't know by how many goals to win.
A team in Group L knows everything. Its just not fair?!
@@superman-rz3vw but it's a lot harder for two teams to conspire here especially if you make it so the worse teams get better opponents in the round of 32. But there is no truely fair way to do it with 48 teams,still this is the better way,in the Euros you never saw teams of later groups playing strategicallky to get 3rd
@@pitohui9430 thats my point.
You had a perfect format 32.
48 teams just create unnecassary problems.
@@pitohui9430 its not about playing stregetically.
Its a clear advantage teams in the later groups get compared to teams of group (A,B,C...).
CONCACAF gets more play off spots cos they're the host continent, if next world cup is in Conmebol, they get the extra playoff spot instead for example
Oh wait you said that later 😂
It makes quali more of a timewaste for the big nations but interesting to see more jabronis make it to the WC
As a European, I love to see a WC with fewer European teams (at least a lower ratio). I see European teams competing all the time, the WC is interesting because it brings variety. One change that I'd appreciate and that would go well with 12 groups of 4 would be a longer break between group stage and KO round. If you put an entire week in between there, not only do you get more freedom for scheduling (because every team will have had a long enough break to play - which is great for distributing the best 3rd place finishers) but you also get a breather in between to anaylze what has happened and get hyped for the knockouts.
If you do 3 team groups, remove draws in the group stage and go straight to penalties after FT?
To avoid teams from coluding as is mentioned in the 6 miin 42 second mark, I woul suggest taht the two top teams in the groups of 3, continue on with two other teams. But they will be playing two more games, with only the top finisher going to the quarter finals. The game that the top two teams in the group of 3, would matter in the now group of 4, as that game would count in the group of 4. this would allow all 32 teams taht advance to play 4 games.
Ok better than fifa format