To say FIFA made some folks angry this week would be an understatement. The decision to expand the World Cup from 32 to 48 teams prompted a seething response.
The most popular comments to a post on the FIFA Facebook page included: “FIFA needs to be boycotted”, “what a bunch of money grabbing morons FIFA really are!” and “congrats on destroying football and the World Cup just for the money you basterds (sic).”
Reading the responses to this FIFA Tweet, apart from learning how to swear in 14 languages, I couldn’t find a single fan of the call despite hundreds weighing in.
“Making a 48-team World Cup is like inviting your aunts, uncles and grandpa for [your] 18th b-day. It’s only going to be fun when they leave,” wrote one wisecracking gentleman.
It went on and on like this.
When deciding on a new format for the 2026 World Cup, the FIFA Council was unanimous on 48 teams. The response has been unanimous, too.
Well, almost unanimous. I read about the new format and found myself in the awkward position of not quite being in the same boat as everyone else.
Yes, it’s a big change. Yes, it has the appearance of being purely financially motivated.
But maybe – just maybe – it’s actually a good thing the World Cup is going to feature more of, you know, the world.
Australians know what it’s like to be on the outside looking in. And we can all confirm that yes, the event does take on extra significance when we have the privilege of being able to watch the Socceroos take on the world’s best.
On a macro level, it’s hard to see how inviting more nations in won’t increase significance to many more people.
Some say the change weakens prestige and importance. The opposite may in fact be true.
The idea that teams will go through all the preparation required for a World Cup and then leave after two matches has also been a point of contention.
But even in the 32-team format, you get the odd few teams who deserve to be put on a plane after two matches.
Under the new model, 32 teams will still play a minimum of three games, which makes you feel this change isn’t as drastic as it’s being made out.
Concerns for the players have also been highlighted, but again, the level of change is being overblown here too. The length of the tournament stays the same and teams still play a maximum of seven matches.
From an entertainment viewpoint, the 48-team format is a winner because do-or-die matches arrive earlier in the tournament.
Then there’s the romance of nations who might’ve previously looked at qualification as an impossible dream, but as of now can dare to believe in that dream.
It’s a good bet the new format will produce more minnow fairytales.
Oh, and yes, there’s the money. FIFA stand to make more of it. At this point, nothing about that should shock you.
Even so, something tells me the mood might be a little more enthusiastic come 2026.
northerner
Guest
anon - do you understand where these terrorist groups are coming from? Have a little read of the issues in countries like Nigeria, Algeria, Egypt, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, parts of India, the Phillipines, Indonesia etc etc. The groups are mobile, they're dedicated, and they will most certainly target any major events where the security is lax and where there are locals who support their goals. And that is much of Asia and a good part of Africa as well.
Cool and Cold
Guest
How do you know those people are casual football fans or actively dislike football? How many post you have made on this 48-teams issue? How can you say "Well, I would have more interest in discussing the photosynthetic reactions that result in the growth of grass"? Actually, you are very interested in protecting FIFA's decision.
anon
Roar Pro
"I would have thought both financial and security issues would have been a far bigger concern in both Asia and Africa than in Europe. " Yes, Africa I agree. However, I was thinking the World Cup in South Africa that went off without a hitch. 15 terror attacks were foiled before Euro 2016. There's no way Western Europe is handed a global event again while sleeper terror cells are waiting to attack. Asia is definitely far safer than Western Europe in terms of personal safety and security from terrorism.
punter
Guest
Be careful Pete, he might spread porky pies, he hates porky pies.
pete4
Guest
Someone is just trying to spread porky pies I think
Nemesis
Guest
The level of interest for changes to the FIFA World Cup from people who are either casual football fans, or actively dislike football, is astounding. I'll be honest. Head Offices could change the format of Rugby World Cup Cricket World Cup (T20, 1 day, backyard) RL World Cup And, my reaction would be? Well, I would have more interest in discussing the photosynthetic reactions that result in the growth of grass.
pete4
Guest
Would you pay big money for something you have little interest in?
punter
Guest
I know you were talking about football, I was talking Australian rules, AFL. the fact remains, half the country don't know who the pies are that you hate or ate.
I hate pies
Guest
That's because China is massive and has lots of money, not because the general public are mad soccer fans.
I hate pies
Guest
huh? I was talking about soccer, not aussie rules. Comprehension peeps, it's a really important part of reading.
I hate pies
Guest
I assumed the Yanks and Mexico would get in. Costa Rica can duke it out for the remaining spot with countries that couldn't give a toss, like New Zealand and Samoa.
Michael DiFabrizio
Expert
You sure know how to make a bloke feel welcome, Brian.
Magnus M. Østergaard
Roar Guru
bear in mind IHP, that while the CONCACAF isnt the strongest region, they do have 3 pretty competitive teams in Costa Rica, USA and Mexico. USA will only get stronger as well. the South AMerican conference only has 10 teams, but it could be argues around 7 or 8 of them are pretty good.
Sydneysider
Guest
Loving the comments from the football haters.... classic stuff.
BrainsTrust
Guest
iRB give majority of their money to the top 10 not developing nations, Great Britain gets 3 shares sort of. The Pacific islands would be top 10 easily but can;t even pay for airfares. The voting system favours the top nations, who control it. ICC you have exagerrated the distributions India , England and Australia get about 45% of the money, with India getiing about 20%. The the rest of the top 10 get 45% and the rest get 10%. The ICC is a hidden dictatorship with the president elected similiar to rugby having no real powers. IF the IRB and ICC had any nations that would add greatly to the revenue pool they would get direct entry to the world cup regardless of ability. Pacific islands are excluded from southern hemisphere rugby competitions because they are poor, and instead they go as far including Japan who are richer. FIFA is too democratic, its one member one vote, they give all 200+ an equal share of some funding. This encourages a whole lot of minor nations with no economic benefit to FIFA to participate. North Korea going to the world cup , giving the African nations so many spots , does not make any economic sense.
j binnie
Guest
Michael - Although not always true there is some evidence when one looks back through the last 8 in each tournament that the "home" nation always appear to perform above their standard in the world ranking of the game. Without going into too much detail there has been in my memory 6 "home" nations who have won the cup in 17 competitions since 1950. Cheers jb.
j binnie
Guest
Waz - Have been reading these comments, going through them with ,amazement,wonder, derision and of course some knowledge gained. One thing is apparently missing and that is the influence coming out of London, or New York, where the real "bosses "of football now reside. Money earned from TV now "shores up" the game all across the world and there is little doubt in my mind they would have had a major influence on this decision,more games,more viewing,more repeats,more re-runs etc etc etc. Now your latest statement in that "the World Cup has never been an elitist competition" is not borne out when one takes into consideration ,the winners list in the last 67 years. Looking at it from that angle there has only been 17 winners out of an increasing number of countries,the increases not being caused by popularity only,but rather from political changes around the world. So today, we have 17 winners in 17 World Cup competitions (of various sizes) but the "waters get slightly more muddied" when it is realiised that out of those 17 winners there are only 8 countries represented. It could be argued further that even that group of 8 may well not be indicative of the "elitism" evident for out of the 17 Cups actually 4 countries have supplied 13 winners. That brings us to the obvious question. What sort of odds would one get from those "men of money',the bookies ,that the next winner of the 18th World Cup would not come from Brazil,Germany,Argentine or Italy. That to me backs up the "elitist "tag. Cheers jb.
BrainsTrust
Guest
Polo is not elitist, its more like English cricket in the old days. The game is really run by rich amateurs who employ the professionals. If your hopeless you can get a game with the best as long as your rich and pay for the whole team. Argentina are as dominant in polo as the US is in basketball, but there is no equivalent to the NBA.
punter
Guest
Pete4, you are trying to reason with him, big mistake.
pete4
Guest
You know in China that 4 of the top 10 highest paid footballers in the world are playing there now right? Maybe google the word football with those countries next time before posting