How to make a 40-team FIFA World Cup work

How about if only 8 teams go home and the last 32 play a knock out 10 groups of 4 so all the semifinalist play 8 games. That will guarantee the top teams like italy, england, sweden to always fight in the knock out stages always out of the group stage. I'd rather lower the standards to get the great teams into the knock ours than having them out in the group stage.

The host spot is included in one of confederations whichever it may be, meaning if you kept the above spots, a playoff between 2 confederations other than host confederation might be needed to see who kept their confederation spot.

36 teams is do-able under a totally new format. I googled a 36 team world cup format and found this idea. No more groups. Instead 3 pots of 12 teams. Pot 1 - 12 highest ranked teams Pot 2 - next 12 Pot 3 - last 12 Each teams still plays 3 games, one against a team from each pot, making a fair chance for every team to progress. All 36 teams included in one table of standings, best 16 go through. After two games, no one is guaranteed a place in the next round, or is eliminated meaning all last round games are meaningful and potentially no dead rubbers. Round of 16 seeded against position in standings, 1 v 16, 2 v 15 and so on. Forces teams to play for a win, draw at your own peril. Games should be more exciting. Every game practically matters. Disadvantages of this system are lack of geographic rules as per normal world cups, and possibly teams who met in phase 1 may meet again before the final, but this could be tweaked. The teams who play in the last couple of games in phase 1 might be through to next round before their game and might know what is needed to progress but could still be fighting for all important seed. All in all an extra 6 games is needed for the 'pot' phase. I like it the more I read about it. Time to think outside the square, or in this case 'groups'. This what thought up by a Chilean mathematician as in the link below. And I think the 36 spots would be: 1 Oceania 14 Europe 6 South America 5 Asia 6 Africa 4 Concacaf http://www.matchvision.net

Anything with best runners up isn't going to work. Groups will be of different strength and the teams playing in the later groups will have a definite advantage. There will also be more dead rubber games than at present, since some of the teams in the later groups will have no chance of getting a "good" second place. Platini's idea is a nonsense. The only way I can see to make it work is to give byes to the best 8 teams based on their record in the last two world cups. The format would then be Round one: 8 groups of 4 teams, top two teams qualify. Round two: The 8 teams that received byes play the runners up of each group. Round three: The 8 group winners from the first round play the second round winners. PROS - Only 8 games more need to be played in the tournament, compared to 32 more in Platini's plan. - Keeps a round of 32. Familiarity, last games kick off at the same time, 2 teams go through. - Maybe more competitive groups as the better teams would start one round later. - There's a real advantage for finishing top of the group, since group winners would get byes in round 2. - Weaker teams would be eliminated in the first round instead of getting thrashed by Brazil, Germany etc. CONS - The 8 best nations would get a rest in the early stages, giving them an advantage. - Some teams could be eliminated after just one game, though with global travel these days, that's less of a problem.

32 is perfect...if you want a 40 teams world cup no way 8 groups of 5: it's not acceptable a team waits powerless the results of other four team in last round...better 10 groups of four; advance the winners of the groups and the 2 best seconds; the other 8 seconds plays in single matches for the other 4 that advances. Think what you think soccer is mostly an European-Latin American sport: outside only USA in 1930 and South Korea in 2002 (this last one only with shameful helps from referees) have joined half-finals. Only three times African teams joined quarter-finals and only twice Asian teams. It's true South America has only 10 teams, but worst South American teams (Bolivia, Perù and Venezuela) are better than half of European teams, at least of 80% of Asian and African teams, and for sure of all Oceanian teams. Underrepresented is for sure Concacaf...

You've got 24 teams going home after the group stage. Depends some think that might be too much. 8x5 as many have said is not ideal. - 2 extra match days - One team sitting out the final matchday - Anything with odd number of teams in groups e.g. 3 or 5 will lead to extra factors to contend such as teams with a vast different amount of rest days - Would give a total of 96 games could be good/bad thing depending on quality of play - Group stage style essentially boils down to good team trying to break down bad teams with 2 bad teams playing snatching whatever they can - Increase the number of games in the group itself -> more dull games - Although can increase drama and intensity with 40% of teams going through Regarding allocation (OFC to be incorporated into the final stage of AFC qualifying) UEFA: 15 CAF: 7 AFC-OFC: 7 CONCACAF: 4.5 CONMEBOL: 5.5 Hosts: 1

10 Groups of 4 Winners go through the round of 16 (10 teams) Top 2 runners up also go through (2 teams) Remaining runners up (8 teams) have a playoff for a spot in the round of 16 (8/2 - 4 teams) - Adds more incentive for teams to top the group so to avoid playing an extra playoff game - Avoids teams fielding a weaker team in the final matchday (especially those that have already qualified with 6 points from 2 matchdays) - Only increases the total number of games for the tournament to 80 games which is a reasonable sound logistically good jump from 64 games - 10x6 games in group stage, 4 playoff games to get in R16, 8 R16, 4 quarterfinals, 2 semis, 3/4th place playoff and final - Probably only needs an addition of 2 stadiums

I do agree that it is a bit harsh when you have 4 out of 6 2nd finisher in the group eliminated. I have just brainstormed a solution that can give a 2nd chance for all the 2nd finisher in the group. This idea is derived from a lot of gaming tournament that using the double elimination & seeding process. Hear me out: World Cup Final Format: - 10 Groups of 4 teams Round Robin is to be used for seeding. - Top and second place in group will advance to the playoff round. However, their paths to final will be determined by the seeding number: Top finishers will start their playoff at the round of 16. Top finishers each group will be seeded from #1 to #10 by points (highest points seeds higher), then goal difference, and then gold scored, then FIFA rank (if there it is still a tie) in their group stage. 10 2nd finishers will be paired up and play one single elimination match. Winners of these 5 "Second place" matches will be seeded from #11 to #15 by the same rules as #1 to #10. And they will join the round of 16 with seeds #1 through #10. - Now, you may wonder there are only 15 teams in Round 16.... We will give the Seed # 1 a bye to Quaterfinal. The other 14 teams will play round of 16. - After this, the tournament will proceed with 8 teams in quarter finals and so on. Pro: - Avoid 8 groups of 5 teams which may some match fix scandals with 1 team receiving a bye in the last round. - The incentive of Seed #1 will make the group stage matches more competitive. Every match in the group stage counts. Those who win first two group stage matches will still play out their hearts in the last group stage match to try to get seed #1 for a bye to quarter final. - All 2nd placed teams in each group has a second chance. It will be more fair than only take 6 2nd placed teams out of 10 based on their group stage performance without letting them play against each other. - It will only make the tournament 3 days longer for the 5 matches between 2nd placed teams. - Every single match will be do or die. It encourage more goals and more positive, attacking play styles. Con: - 2nd placed team will play 8 matches if the team gets to the Final. While seed #1 team only need to play 6 matches if the team gets to the Final. The rest of teams will play an average of 7 matches if they get to the Final. - Since there is no set schedule of knowing who will be playing whom in the playoff round. There will be a few ballots happening for 10 2nd placed team, the Round of 16 between seed #2 to seed #15, and Quaterfinals. This process may take time but it makes the tournament have a bit more of more excitement of the unknowns. These kinds of seeding have been used in a lot of gaming tournaments to ensure that no meaningless matches being played, avoid match fix, and make gamers to play their A-game at each and every single game. What do you guys think about this? Of course, comments are welcome.

Round 1 section 1: 4 groups of 4 (winners and runners up progress to last 16) Round 1 section 2: 8 groups of 3 (3rd place in each group elimated, 1st and 2nd go into playoffs. Winners of playoffs join round 1 section 1 in last 16) This format ensure there wont be a ridiculous amount of games and means all teams in last 16 have played three games each. Match rigging could happen as per 1982 though

At present, the WC spots are as follows: UEFA: 13 CAF: 5 AFC: 4.5 OFC: 0.5 CONCACAF: 3.5 CONMEBOL: 4.5 Host: 1 ---------------------------------------- Total: 32 Now we need to increase WC spot to 40. In the finals, the ideal format is 8 Groups of 5-Teams each. Top 2 teams qualify to Pre-Quarters and so. Regarding qualification, we need to bring Automatic spots for Winners and Runners-Up along with Host. UEFA: 16 CAF: 6 AFC: 5 OFC: 1 CONCACAF: 4 CONMEBOL: 5 Winners/Runners/Hosts: 3 ---------------------------------------- Total: 40

Have the 10 group winners and top 2 best 2nd place finishers move on the round of 16. The remaining 8 2nd place finishers play one game play-in to determine the final four spots in the round of 16...boom....done....awesome tournament.

Make it a 64 team event ! 16 groups of 4 means LESS qualifying rubbish before the Main Event !! top spot in each group means more competition and LESS group/s of death SERIOUSLY has anyone BACKED Australia to make it out of the group stage ???? Spain/Netherlands....and Chile OUCH that has to be just about mission impossible 16.00 at the moment TRY 101.00 Need many results to go our way including our own ! ALSO there's never been an upstart in a final, we've always had a top/2nd tier seed, go and check for yourself!! An Australia vs Ghana Final Won't happen for another 5-10 world cups .....not at this rate under this format maybe 64 is overkill BUT 32 with the way the draw is done now.... Unfair to some, fair to others Depends what we want to see happen I guess.....

Thinking about it next step is 48 teams with 12 groups of 4 and two advancing from each group. That way everyone gets three games and a realistic chance of getting to round 2. The top 24 then play out 8 groups of 3 with just the winners advancing to the knockout qf. The bottom 8 qualifiers to round 2 are the ones who have to sit out the last group game in round 2. There it is 48 teams. A meaningful and fair first round. Attacking football in round 2 and only 8 games for the two teams who make the final. There is also a precedent for groups of 3 back in 1982 Uefa 19 Conembol 6 Concacaf 6 Ofc 1 Afc 8 Caf 8

I will say the disadvantage of the 6th best 2nd place team is that it does disadvantage teams that are placed in early groups Let say Group 1-5 are at a disadvantage compared to group 6-10 THis is because Group 6-10 have the luxury of knowing the results they need to be in the top 6 second place team. Whilst group 1-5 don't have that luxury as they play the games first. Whilst this isn't as bad as the 5 teams in a single group which severely disadvantage teams that has a bye in the final round, it does open up to certain amounts of unfairness.

If the FIFA rankings meant something, I wouldn't mind a WC with the 20 or 24 teams top teams automatically qualified then regional qualifiers (per zone) for the remaining spots. You would get all the big guns plus the guarantee of a regional representation. Again, I started with an 'IF".

Don't know that this would lead to more attacking football than an 8x5. Teams will have to perform better in an 8x5 than the current 8x4 as now they have to do better than 3 teams instead of 2.

Nothing wrong with the minnows trying for a draw. It's part of football and as boring as it might be for a neutral I'm sure the nations fans themselves will be absorbed by the contest. The fact is a team getting three (or four draws in platini's concept) isn't going to qualify for the second round - but they will have left with some pride and given their fans their money's worth. Your method hardly rules out a big nation shutting up shop - they may find themselves ahead on points or goal average needing just a draw in the last to secure top spot. If so, then so what?

Maybe 2 top in Oceania go into Asian qualifying. or even just the oceania winner.

I disagree on the grounds that the premise of the Olympics is very different to that of the World Cup. Although the Olympics have been bastardised over the years there is still a very strong effort at least preserve some of the qualities it held originally, like amateurism and the focus on participation. I don't think football has gone as far as you claim in your statement. Maybe in 20 years time Asia might be able to justify having 6 spots. But right now 3 or 4 is enough. Africa on the other hand is a different matter. It is a part of the world consistently producing world class players. I was looking at the CAF 3rd round this morning and was amazed at the quality on the verge of elimination. Can't ever see North and South America combining. The Americans would never agree to travel to Chile and Ecuador. They would probably never make another WC.