Why a 48-team FIFA World Cup is quite possibly the dumbest decision ever

And Australia aren't even in the top 32 so hardly convincing that they are a top nation

I support a more inclusive World Cup of 48 teams. Aussies can't complain about the tournament quality being diluted because having a country like Australia (with no hope of getting past the group stages) does precisely that. When Australia played in the 2014 WC they were ranked 100 in the world.

"It should be a tournament for the best nations from each continent" "don’t call it a World Cup call it a European/Sth American Cup" rubbish arguments. Sorry, I really cannot help writing these. How can 8 teams from Asia be more "the best of the Asian Continent". Would you be ask kind to read dictionary on the word "best" There is no absolute right or wrong. People debate to find the better argument and find hidden perspective. However, your argument is obviously wrong. You just argue for the "sick" of needing an argument.

LOL when I read " primary school sports carniva" I love it . LOL is not necessarily negative.

My "more easily graspable Final Eight" was meant to be 'more easily graspable Top 4 + Second 4 Final Eight'. A copying & pasting miskick.

Interesting interpretation, Mr Mahon, of the once-every-four-yeas FIFA WC as a "quadrennial tournament" (like a 47-month league competition) with a deciding one-month "'finals tournament'", with structural similarities to the NFL's divisions-in-conferences regular season + playoffs (to use its own terminology), Just as in annual competitions like our AFL and NRL the onfield teams will vary over the pre-finals qualifying period, While the entities (clubs or nations) remain the same. Whether this insight is mostly yours, Mr Mahon, or you had the sense to present it to us readers from another source, doesn't really matter much overall, but congrats if it is yours.. I tried explain the AFL's 1994-1999 McIntyre Final Eight (also used by the NRL during 1999-2011) as follows: Week 1 = a seeded qualifying round for a 'normal' McIntyre Final Six (as used 1991-1993); Weeks 2 & 3 = four games to determine the GF clubs per the McIntyre Final Six arrangements; and Week 4 = the Grand Final. It made sense to me - just; and to some very patient listeners - sort of; but in needing to envisage a three-part premiership season it lacked 'boundary line' (let alone pub-) cred. (For another Big Problem, see ^ below.) From season 2000 (and from 2012's in the NRL) Professor McIntre's Final Eight^ was replaced by a more easily graspable Final Eight, despite the professor's mathematical evidence of its being more accurate in terms of statistical probability. Wonder whether or not your '47 months + 1 month WC tournament' may also be an interpretative (aka US 'interpretive') step too far? ^ the McIntyre Final Eight's biggest problem was that teams ranked 3 and 4 could be eliminated in its Week 1, which made it seem too unfair and unacceptably draconian to sell, especially as the corollary was that 7 and 8 would go on to Week 2. Will FIFA's expanded WC eventually reveal something similar?

It's important to keep in mind that he quadrennial tournament that captivates the entire planet is the World Cup 'finals tournament' only. The world championship of football, unlike in any other sport, is genuinely a world championship as all nations participate over the qualification rounds of the championship. These are not lesser 'tounaments', they are simply earlier rounds of a single, global football competition. All this latest change is concerned with is how many participants go into the finals series and, frankly, that number is completely arbitrary. There is no number of finalists other than two which has any particular sporting or mathematical argument that makes it better than any other. At the end of the day, this is about the greatest sport on the planet expanding the final stage of its show piece competition to include more finalists, make shed loads of cash and grow the game further, particularly in new markets. It's a completely rational thing for FIFA to do. Conservative instincts of many football fans aside (which I share), I suspect much of the concern from some comes from the thought of football growing further at the expense of European football interests or other sports. it's anathema to them.

What have you got against Burkina Faso?

Yes but more money is being made from TV rights, so the higher operating costs will be covered.

A bigger world cup gives the Euro snobs a few more spots and keeps UEFA happy, as well as giving Africa and Asia more spots. The world cup is massive more teams have a right to be part of it. Geoff you seem to think Euro 2014 was not a success with more teams.

#Nemesis You said "So your input becomes as relevant as my offering suggestions on changes to the AFL season." Ah - so - quite relevant then. Or perhaps you're being facetious. For me though - I value the opinions of people with a different perspective. The irony is that as a follower of Australian Football I am often categorised as having a silo/blinkered mentality. That was 'irony' (just in case it was too subtle). by the way - well avoided - the main point, around pulling you up on a somewhat odd assertion which you've completely ignored and gone for your usual MO of attacking the man. All class!!! (that was facetious).

Precisely, they are Best of series, where as Origin is a 3 match series, not a best-of 3.

Like what Italy did to Australia

Would you prefer it go back to a 16 team comp, or make qualification based purely on rankings? For a 16 team comp, Asia would have 1.5 or 2 spots, and I would pencil in the Roos as being favourites to directly qualify or get the half spot. If it is based on rankings, then you have to totally revamp the International calendar to allow the currently middle ranked nations a lot more games against top opposition, and at home too. With the Euros and Copa America and WC qualifying, top nations always play each other and boost their rankings accordingly (See Wales' rapid rise as an example). Hard to move up the ladder when you are stuck playing only second-tier Euro nations and similarly ranked Asian countries, with the odd away game against Germany.

I watched a lot of the Euro games and most of them were trash. Poland v Switzerland anyone? The level of football was very poor in the main, and not just amongst the second tier like Russia, Poland, Sweden and Turkey. Even the Belgians (who I think are vastly overrated) and Germany had lengthy periods of blah. That such a limited team like Wales, who rely so heavily on Bale to score, made the semis tells you all you need to know about Euro 2016 and the depth of European football at the moment.

Indeed, CG, you will find no arguments from me. They are, however, three national sides Johnno raised as examples of sides he felt were there at the expense of more deserving opposition. I find a tiresome consistency from the proponents of a restricted competition that is weighted towards Europe & South America, in that they raise examples of teams that they feel are undeserving that have, almost without exception, exceeded the results of those they feel that are. A simple Wikipedia search, the most vapid of evidence mechanisms, would unveil their fallacy; but they do not bother with such trifles. The reason is that they feel these nations are superior football nations and this feeling supersedes other aspects, such as fact. As boring as it may appear, fact sometimes matters.

For those who finish in the final four, it actually works out to the same amount of games as the present system.

Any relation to the Toecutters?

The difference is that those teams earned their right to participate in 32-team World Cups.

Don't forget the Stonecutters!