A few weeks ago, I wrote an article on this site with regards to whether the FIFA World Cup should expand to 40 teams. Football fans who responded to that article in the main favoured the World Cup to remain as a 32-team tournament.
This author also believes that 32 is the right number.
UEFA President Michel Platini came up with the idea of having a 40-team World Cup which would have eight groups of five, with the top two going to the round of 16.
However, as I explained in my previous article, the problem with Platini’s system, is that the group matches would increase significantly from 48 to 80.
There would need to be a couple more venues to be built to avoid the wear and tear of the pitches thanks to increased traffic.
And of course the possibility of collusion where one team has already finished their group matches while the remaining four teams could be in a position where in one game, for example, both teams could settle for a draw on purpose, so that another team gets knocked out.
Well, here is an idea or system that I have come up with to cater for 40 teams.
There will be ten groups of four teams.
Each group winner will progress directly to the round of 16, along with the two best runners up from the ten groups.
While the remaining eight runners up teams will progress to a round called “the knockout eights” (lame name, I know) where it would comprise of four matches.
The winners of those four matches go through to the round of 16 and join the other 12 teams.
From there the familiarity of knock-out stages commences.
The positives
It rewards teams that finish as group winners and the two best runners up teams. It gives those countries a few more days off to recover from the group matches, while the other eight runners up teams have to fight it out.
There would only be an extra 12 group matches to be played, plus the four matches from “the knockout eights”, which overall, would be an extra 16 matches to the World Cup schedule, instead of 32 matches which Platini is proposing.
I would add another three or four days to the event schedule to accommodate the extra match day, and there wouldn’t be the need to build more stadiums. And there is no threat of collusion.
The negatives
Fans worldwide might find it difficult following who are the two best ranked runners up teams.
Extending the event by another four days, could make the tournament less watchable, while teams involved in the “the knockout eights”, have to win five knockout matches to win the event, an increase from the current four.
As for the extra eight spots, the distribution should be, two UEFA , two CAF, one Concacaf, one Conmebol, and two AFC spots, provided that AFC and Oceania merge to create one confederation, AFC Pacific.
However, here is the real benefit of a 40 team World Cup.
With eight extra spots, there is enough leverage to have two countries joint host a World Cup, and for those two countries to automatically qualify.
Instead of having one country hosting the World Cup, where they have to provide 12 stadiums, with joint hosting, countries may only provide a 50/50 ratio or 6:6 (six stadiums each).
Or maybe a ratio of 7:5, 8:4 or 9:3 in terms of stadiums from two countries. That way you cut down costs, and you avoid building stadiums which may end up been white elephants after the World Cup.
Over a 40-year period, rather then seeing 10 countries host the event, you could see 20.
Football fans might actually see a World Cup in their own country in their lifetime.
When you look at the recent bids for 2018/22, a country like Australia struggled to scrap together 12 stadiums with 40,000 minimum capacity in their bid book.
A football powerhouse like Spain opted not be a sole host. Instead they had a joint bid with neighbours Portugal. In their bid, it was the assumption that Spain would provide nine stadiums, while Portugal would provide the remaining three.
Netherlands and Belgium also had a joint bid for 2018.
In 2002, Korea/Japan staged a successful World Cup as joint hosts. Thus far, it is the only World Cup that as had joint hosts.
Countries like USA, England and Germany as proven in ’06, can host World Cups on their own. But few other countries can do this.
In 2010, South Africa held the tournament.
While the World Cup brought smiles to the African continent, the real problems for South Africa are emerging after the event. There have been many stadiums that have become white elephants as they are not being continually used after the event.
An example of this is Cape Town’s Green Point Stadium.
It is home to a small South African Premier League team, and hosts a handful of concerts.
With high operational costs and low income streams, there have been calls for the stadium to be demolished, and in it’s place have affordable housing.
Similar issues could arise for Brazil post World Cup.
Arena da Amazonia, a stadium which is located in the city of Manaus, will host four group stage matches.
The likely tenants for the stadium after the event could be minor third or fourth division sides, which is far from ideal.
There have been suggestions for the stadium to be turned into a prison after the event.
The question I pose is, why did they build a stadium in that location in the first place?
The argument for having a 40-team World Cup, is that we may see countries joint bidding and hosting, and avoid having stadiums becoming white elephants once the event is over.
For mine that is the real issue here, rather then the system to cater for 40 teams.
There are positives in an expanded World Cup if it’s done with good intentions. I do believe that countries joint hosting a World Cup is the way of the future.
Brian
Guest
Not very workable. Also the team that finished second in group j would be highly disadvantaged in rest days compared to second lplace in group a. Indeed with the extra round the winner of group a might have an unhealthy week and a half off. As for hosting well you just need to bribe FIFA. Qatar proved that stadiums, ability to ever qualify, climate, human rights are all irrelevant. I hear Greenland could host 2026. Regarding increased format I think it needs a balance between those who want to get there and attacking football. Eventually I would go to 48, 12 groups of 4 play the groups. Then we get serious 8 groups of 3 winners to quarter-finals.
Arto
Guest
@ Jamesb: I like your format and it certainly does alleviate to some extent the biggest criticism of the Platini model - too many crap games! Becuase it essence that's going to be one of the bigger challenges which the WC hosts have NO control over. They can plan for future use of stadiums (legacy of the WC and whatnot), and they can make it environmentally friendly, etc. but they can't determine who's actually playing and frankly I can't see a lot of people getting excited for 2 teams ranked between 30-60 playing each other in a Group game (other than fans of the 2 countries in question). The other challenge with increasing to 40 teams which I don't know if you've addressed/thought about is the geo-restrictions on groups - how will you be able to implement the current rules in this new 10 x 4-team group system? I definitely like the idea of co-hosting though - I mean lets face it, currently it's not the 32 BEST teams in the world competing, it's 32 from FROM ALL AROUND the world competing so co-hoisting can comply smoothly with that principle quite easily, IMO. Eg: a joint AUS-NZ bid would have appeal across the ditch and would strengthen the 'legacy' card FIFA likes bidding countries to play and could have a 9-3 or even 10-2 stadium ratio that would also probably reduce the chances of a blue over stadiums between foorball and the other codes like we had recently.
Steven McBain
Roar Guru
Yeah I remember that '86 format and it was lousy. Was very hard to get knocked out but Scotland still managed.
jamesb
Guest
thanks mate.
jamesb
Guest
actually that 1982 format is not bad. In 1986, they reverted to a format where four third placed teams out of 6 groups qualified to the round of 16. IMO, that is the worst format in World Cup history. They were rewarding teams coming third out of a group of 4 to the next round! They used that same format in 1990 and 1994. In 1998, the event expanded to 32 teams, and has used the format we have today.
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
I have never been a fan of "# best runners up go through' stuff but have to admit that your model is probably the best or least bad with this format I have seen as all runners up are still in the mix after the pool stages (always feel its unfair to lose some and keep others). Then we have to decide who play who in this knockout 8. random draw? But have to say that's pretty good jamesb!
Steven McBain
Roar Guru
Not sure the concept is stupid Cappuccino. Football is an ever widening and more popular world game and FIFA's thirst for revenues is not going to abate either. That means more and more expansion. We can debate the rights and wrongs and the diluting of the product but I don't think it's stoopid mate, it may well happen. It's far more palatable to me than say a 24 team Euro and that's gonna happen................
Steven McBain
Roar Guru
It is one possible solution you right James. I remember one of the interesting formats was the '82 World Cup where you had 24 teams, top 2 qualified and went into 4 groups of 3 with the winner of each group going straight into the semi, very cut throat. A personal nostalgic favourite because of the group it threw up with Italy, Brazil and Argentina. Classic stuff. But on a less self indulgent note that was an example of getting around the symmetry whilst keeping the excitement going. I think the key thing is that as much as I love the World Cup and never want it to end once it starts, you need to limit the number of games to keep the product the best it can be. Adding an additional 'losers' round, I dunno.............
jamesb
Guest
Hey guys, in my article I mentioned this format for a 40 team world cup: "There will be ten groups of four teams. Each group winner will progress directly to the round of 16, along with the two best runners up from the ten groups. While the remaining eight runners up teams will progress to a round called “the knockout eights” (lame name, I know) where it would comprise of four matches. The winners of those four matches go through to the round of 16 and join the other 12 teams." So, what's your feedback
Cappuccino
Roar Guru
Please can we just leave this stupid concept alone... 32 teams is the perfect number.
Steven McBain
Roar Guru
I think there's scope for a wider World Cup as the point Pete makes the 208 associations is a valid one. I think however you have to weigh it up against diluting the product further. The cricket and rugby world cups suffer interminably from a lack of competition in the opening rounds with the cricket world cup in particular seeming to go on forever. There were a lot of positive comments about the Confederations Cup this Summer being excellent due to it being short and sharp and a quality product. I think as long as you come up with a format that doesn't drag on much more then you can broaden it slightly. UEFA's going to 24 teams for the Euros so 40 for the entire World doesn't sound too unfeasible. Who knows, my beloved Scotland might finally qualify again.......!
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
well the positive aspect of your first 2 proposals AZ is that FIFA would save money on fireworks. Perso, I would love a Scandinavian world cup organized in Denmark, Sweden, Norway (and maybe Finland too). they have the infrastructures, they love football, summers aren't too hot and you have daylight till 11pm in some parts. Tick all the boxes for me (plus the female supporters, that's an extra tick).
pete4
Guest
I think the idea of having a 40 team World Cup would be broadly supported when you consider FIFA has 208 football associations. On calls about Cape Town’s Green Point Stadium being replaced by affordable housing is a very long shot IMO. Around there is some of the most expensive suburbs on the continent
jamesb
Guest
In Spain '82, they had 17 stadiums in 14 cities. Nou Camp had a capacity of 120,000. The smallest venue was Oviedo's Carlos Tartiere with 23,000. There was only 24 teams.
AZ_RBB
Guest
Future World Cups 2026: Iran/Iraq 2030: Israel/Palestine 2034: North Korea/South Korea 2038: Australia/NZ :P
nickoldschool
Roar Guru
In all fairness, Spain could host a WC on their own (they actually did it in 1982). I think the main advantage of co-organising such an event is that it kills 2 birds with one stone. Belgium and the Netherlands 'go together' (ad Luxembourg too) and although either of them will never be given a WC or a euro, a single bid gives them more chances to organise a major comp. Same as Poland and Ukraine who got the euro 2012. Spain and Portugal are part of the Iberian peninsula and again having a common bid does increase their chances (particularly Portugal who would have near no chance of getting a WC on its own). The whole world dreams of organising a WC thing is you only have a WC every 4 years so teaming up with the neighbour and sometimes enemy does make sense.