UEFA President Michel Platini last week suggested that the World Cup expand to 40 teams as early as Russia 2018.
This comes after FIFA President Sepp Blatter hinted that in future World Cups, there will be a reduction of European countries in the touramant to allow for more African and Asian teams to come in.
In Brazil 2014, the allocation of spots is 13 teams from UEFA, 5.5 from Conmebol (South America), 5 from CAF (Africa), 4.5 from the AFC (Asia), 3.5 from Concacaf (North and Central America) and 0.5 from the OFC (Oceania).
Blatter’s proposal of reducing teams in Europe to allow more African and Asian countries is flawed. Why should 57th ranked Asian country Australia have an easier time qualifying, compared to 26th ranked European nation Denmark?
What’s interesting is that Denmark has missed out on qualification for Brazil, thus giving an indication of how tough qualifying from Europe really is.
Platini’s alternative solution is to expand to 40 teams, to allow more nations from Asia and Africa to compete and help preserve the European countries in the event.
“I totally agree with Mr Blatter that we need more African and Asian [teams],” Platini told ESPN. “But instead of taking away some European, we have to go to 40 teams in the World Cup. We can add two African, two Asiatic, two American and one from Europe. I support this idea totally.”
So how does a 40-team World Cup work?
According to Platini, the tournament will increase by three days to 35 days overall – an even five weeks. There will be eight groups of five, with five match days, an increase from the current three.
Each team will have a bye, with one team finishing its group matches before the final match day.
There will be an increase of group matches from 48 to 80. It is possible that for the first 20 or 21 days, there could be four matches a day scheduled.
Reading about this proposal for a 40-team World Cup as a Socceroos fan, I do have mixed feelings about it.
Having two extra spots in Asia would make the Socceroos chances of qualifying a lot easier, but are we awarding mediocrity?
In the current FIFA rankings, the top 32 teams in the world consist of 20 from UEFA, six from Conmebol, three from CAF and Concacaf and none from the AFC or OFC.
Platini’s 40-team World Cup plan has more problems than you can shake a stick at.
There will be teams in the World Cup that don’t deserve to be there. It could mean more average football games and lopsided scorelines.
In a group of five, with one team finishing before the other four teams, there is always the possibility of some funny business happening on the fifth and final match day. Illegal bookmakers could come into play.
There are much bigger headaches off the field with regards to staging an increased World Cup. Could host countries have enough hotels and accommodation for an extra eight teams along with their fans and media?
And what about the stadiums?
Like the players, the stadium pitches need a minimum four days to recover from every game – otherwise you end up with wear and tear on the pitches, which in turn would ruin the spectacle of many matches.
Russia will have 12 stadiums built for the 2018 event, the event which Platini has said could feature 40 teams. Will 12 stadiums be enough to host 80 matches in 20 or 21 days?
By my calculations, if it takes 21 days to complete the group stages, each stadium will host close to seven matches in just three weeks. The stadium pitches will be roughed up.
So with that in mind, in future World Cups, more venues need to be built. An increase to 14 or 16 stadiums perhaps?
The cost of running a World Cup tournament could be escalating out of control. Countries bidding for a World Cup as a sole host could be a thing of the past. Joint bidding could be the rage.
Now what about Qatar in 2022? How could they possibly host a 40-team event in such a small country when they are struggling with great difficulty with issues surrounding a 32-team tournament?
Why do I have a feeling that Australia , Japan, Korea Republic and the USA have somewhat dodged a bullet with missing out on hosting 2022? Especially Australia.
Like many things in the past, it comes down to “FIFA politics”.
Platini will be contesting for FIFA president in 2015, and there is a fair chance that Blatter will go around again. Both men want extra countries from Africa and Asia in the tournament, which means both men are trying to get votes from CAF (Africa) and AFC (Asia).
Both men also want extra teams from Asia, so that it gives a country like China a better chance of qualifying.
At the inaugural World Cup in 1930 there were only 13 teams taking part, increasing to 16 teams in 1934. By 1982, it expanded to 24 teams.
When France ’98 came around, the event expanded to the right number of teams in 32. History does suggest that the World Cup does expand from time to time.
Platini, a Frenchman. has been UEFA President since 2007. In that time, Platini awarded Euro 2016 to France, where many thought it could have gone to Turkey.
The 2016 Euros will expand from 16 teams to 24. Dragging the Euros out with more teams is a terrible concept.
Guus Hiddink, the Turkish manager at the time, was forthright in his opinion on the expansion.
“This proves once again that in top-flight football the game is run by politics,” Hiddink said. “Turkey were one vote short for getting the organisation of Euro 2016.
“UEFA gave the Euro 2016 finals to France, who have already had the tournament twice and they also had the World Cup finals in 1998. This does not feel right.
“I get the feeling that the actual bid was about other things. Otherwise the choice for France as hosting nation, the country of UEFA president Platini, cannot be explained.”
Platini wasn’t disturbed by his home nation France getting Euro 2016. In fact, he was on the front foot,saying that “When there is a Turkish president, then you can host a major tournament.”
That is what I called arrogance personified. He might be a Frenchman, but his behaviour has been closer to that of a turkey.
Let’s not forget the Euro 2020 event will be held over 13 different cities in 13 different countries – another controversial madcap decision by Platini.
At the end of the day, expanding the World Cup comes down to politics. It is a real pity that FIFA and UEFA administration is run by individuals who seem to value personal gain above anything else.
As the old saying goes, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. The World Cup should remain as a 32 team event.
Don’t ruin it Platini!
Sean
Guest
In the current World Football ELO Ratings (which are mathematically much superior to the official FIFA ratings), there is only 1 Asian nation in the top 32, Japan at #29. All 4 Asian teams that qualified for the 2014 World Cup finished dead last in their group. Asia should lose spots in the WC, not get more. Europe is under represented as it is. Africa is also over represented, but not by as much as Asia. Unfortunately, it looks like politics will have way too much to do with the allocation of teams making the 2018 WC.
Akhil
Guest
A 40 team tournament will be too long and may have one sided matches but I do think that the improvement showing by the afc nations should be taken into consideration. By a wc window open, these teams can plan at high and can be good for the game in future. Not sure about the future of a 40 team wc, but it wud be better if these nations get more international space to play..
hg
Guest
I think we should go ahead with 40 because for the smaller teams it gives them a extra game where 3 seems short personally I like seeing the smaller nations playing because of the new players you have never heard of forget political stuff all FIFA want to do is to spread the game around the world
Thetoonarmy
Guest
40 teams in the World Cup would ruin the competition but Africa certainly deserves more places within the current 32 - 3 or 4 places, probably at the expense of CONCACAF (1), South America (1) and Europe (1 or 2). As for Asia, in no way does it deserve more spots right now. Beyond the 4 top teams that have qualified for the 2014 World Cup (Korea, Japan, Iran and Australia) the quality dips hugely as seen by Jordan getting so comprehensively turned over by Uruguay this week. Of course, wealthy Arab countries want places so their teams can maybe qualify but here its worth bearing in mind the woeful record of the last Arab team, Saudi Arabia, in 2002 and 2006. In six games they recorded 1 draw and 5 losses, goals scored 2, goals against 19. The prestige of the World Cup is going to be sullied enough by being staged in Russia and Qatar and can do without mismatches such as Germany 8 Saudi Arabia 0 as we saw in 2002.
roni
Guest
Brazil England France Germany Italy Holland Spain Argentina Czech Rep. Sweden Hungary Serbia Russia Uruguay Croatia Portugal Austria Paraguay Chile Nigeria Mexico Ivory Coast United States Cameroon Ghana South Africa Denmark Peru Belgium Poland Bulgaria Switzerland Scotland Japan Egypt Honduras Tunisia South Korea Morocco Saudi Arabia All Time Group play
Clark
Guest
Nz were the only unbeaten team at the last world cup. However it would feel hollow to basically be given a free ride to the world cup, i would rather we earned our place and be competitive like we showed in 2010. Without Winston Reid for our home/away games against Mexico, it looks like a tough ask indeed to get there again.
HardcorePrawn
Roar Guru
That's OK, I half expected someone to make a comment about that! :D
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Who can forget the Group of Life, where Italy has a golden path to the next round ...
Dylan Arvela
Roar Guru
I can't believe I read this whole article to be told the football is run by politics. Joe Blogs on Main Street could have told me that.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
Disagree in the first place with Blatter's project to reduce euro spots and increase Africa and Asia. IMO the American continent is the one who should give 1 or 2 spots if we stay at 32 (which would be my choice). That's if Africa and Asia really deserve more than what they already have, which I don't believe is the case. In 2014 we have: 13 teams from UEFA, 5.5 from Conmebol (South America), 5 from CAF (Africa), 4.5 from the AFC (Asia), 3.5 from Concacaf (North and Central America) and 0.5 from the OFC (Oceania). 9 from America (north, central + south) seems too many to me. Bring that to 7 (4.5 and 2.5). 8th and 9th (1 team from each confederation) could have a play off with the winner playing another one with an African or Asian nation if needed. Its clear Blatter doesn't want big nations missing out and would rather have China or USA rather than Switzerland or Serbia but perso I think a WC is or should be a balance between having countries from all continents and maintaining the quality of the tournament. And if you reduce the 13 nations euro contingent you will affect the overall level of the comp. Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Germany, Holland, England have often been SF contenders, add 1 or 2 Scandinavian teams, Russia, sometimes Ukraine, Belgium, Croatia, Serbia or Bosnia, Greece, Switzerland, the Czech Republic and a few others. Honestly, I don't think we should make it harder for them to qualify. 13 is a minimum imo.
Football_Wunderkind
Roar Pro
10 groups of 4 although it doesn't look good mathematically, is a sure fire winner for creating memorable games filled with attacking intent. Top team goes through... best 6 runner's up Put simply... you have to win and if every team has to win then there is not faffing about for a draw. And if you can't win, you have to bang in goals trying.
Football_Wunderkind
Roar Pro
A 40 team cup doesn't go into 16 so easily but still does in a semi convoluted way. The only way that would be plausible would be to have either 10 groups of 4 or 8 groups of 5. 8 Groups of 5 would be the easiest way mathematically. Round robin group with 4 games for each team and top 2 go through. However for pure football excitement. 10 groups of 4 would have to play out as -- 10 top teams go through and the best 6 runner up place getters. What this situation creates is the need to win. You have to shoot for top and to do that you have to win. Added to that is the need to get goals because goals for and goal difference are a big factor in deciding the table. Think about it everyone... Anyone trying to pull a Pim Verbeek and send out a Sci-Fi team to scratch a draw against Germany is going to look even more stupid. Put simply... going for the drawn match will not suffice = therefore teams will attack each other. 40 TEAM WORLD CUP FOR THE WIN! (with 10 groups of 4)
sheek
Roar Guru
Middy, I think most people would agree that 32 is the ideal number of teams for the FIFA world cup. At some point in the future 40 might become the appropriate number. But I would think that is still a long way off.
sheek
Roar Guru
Alright Fussball, Let's have a world cup of 208 countries if that makes you happy. Finals edition. I was wrong in thinking the whole purpose of having a finite number of teams was to give countries something to strive for, something that wasn't easy, that wasn't a 'walk in the park'. Oh, but heck, in the name of fairness, let's invite the whole world. Let's go back to being 5 year olds where everyone wins something. Unfortunately, life doesn't work like that. For every person or tam that wins, a lot of other people & teams have to lose. Besides, the Olympics isn't open to everyone. Every country might be able to participate in theory, but every sport has a minimum qualifying standard that has to be reached. In individual events, the Olympics doesn't give out positions according to continents. You have to meet the criteria. In actual fact, in team sports at the Olympics, the number of positions available for countries is severely restricted for obvious reasons.
Andy
Guest
I completely agree. Greece may have won the Euros in 2004 but they are not a side I want the pleasure of watching. The fact that so many other nations get a chance is a good thing. I love to watch counties you seldom see play, not the same old over and over.
AZ_RBB
Guest
that's only mildly different to what we have now haha only it lacks the pride and equity that comes with have 208 initial entrants.
Brian
Guest
Yeah take the top 120 into 15 global groups of 8. 14 Match Days everyone plays home and away and top 2 from each group qualify for World Cup joining the host and the previous winner. There aren't any WC quality teams outside the top 120.
Brian
Guest
was jk
HardcorePrawn
Roar Guru
It's hypothetical Brian, and we are talking about possible changes to a competition that will be hosted in 2018!
Johnno
Guest
I reckon qualifying should be done on seeds. The weak teams eg solomon islands,Solomon Islands etc do some quick internal qualifiers. Then the last 128 teams all go into groups. Then last 64 then last 32. Right now Brazil or spain are no 1. Namibia or Rwanda are 128. And San Marino is 207, and a few others on 207. So do that. So Brazil could be in the same group as Rwanda. Also I like the idea of the world cup winners get automatic spot bring that back, it's good and rewards countries who develop there football programmes. Good incentive like the old days. Then say the last 64 go into another group. eg 1st V 64 right now that would be Spain V Senegal. So 4 groups of 4. Then last 32. Hard to believe Brazil are ranked 11 right now on FIFA world rankings. Do you really believe Brazil is only the 11th best soccer team right now. Sweeped the confeds cup, and will make the world cup semi's almsot certain at home. Makes a joke of how rankings are worked out. But the other reason why the group process won't be changes is money. Home nations make good money from hosting world cup qualifers. Son in south america something like 18 qualifying games. Each country gets to host 9 qualifers so big money, they won't want to change that.