After all the drama, lies, twists and scandals that have plagued this World Cup, you would think FIFA would like to get a break from embarrassment and look ahead to the 2026 tournament with clarity and optimism.
Alas, FIFA continues to shock us with new incompetency.
Three-and-a-half years out from the next World Cup we don’t know what the format, or therefore, total number of matches will be.
In January 2017, FIFA decided to expand the 2026 World Cup to 48 teams, with 16 groups of three going through to a Round of 32.
Unsurprisingly, this was met with criticism that expanding to 48 teams will dilute the quality of teams competing and the format leaves open the risk of collusion.
Six years later, FIFA has listened.
Which, crucially, is after some of the confederation qualification pathways have already been determined (AFC and CONMEBOL) and changing the number of teams from 48 is essentially too late, conveniently leaving FIFA’s hands tied in considering other formats.
The two alternatives FIFA recently proposed would require 104 matches. That is utterly absurd. And yet is seriously being considered.
The current format has 64 matches and is already on the high side. To nearly double that would make all the matches until the late knockout rounds lose much of their spectacle.
It would also mean eight matches for the semi-finalists instead of the current seven, despite FIFA originally boasting that expanding to 48 teams doesn’t require more matches per team.
A generous and naïve evaluation would be to say FIFA simply made a mistake and are now doing their best to rectify it. However, anyone who knows a little of FIFA’s ways would suspect something worse.
The parallels with the mockery of the Qatar bid are clear. Qatar was supposedly going to host the tournament in the typical June-July window. That was the stipulation by FIFA all bids had to follow. Qatar was chosen despite the searing heat and then, three years later, the tournament was changed to a Northern Hemisphere winter for the first time ever.
(Photo by Robbie Jay Barratt – AMA/Getty Images)
Of course, it was conveniently too late to strip Qatar of hosting the World Cup, so a compromise was found. To stage the tournament at a time of year humane for players and fans, but creating an even more over-crowded season, a compressed World Cup with matches moving too fast for fans to keep up with, and only a week for national squads to assemble and prepare.
Now we have another compromise. Expanding to a gluttonous number of matches for the good of keeping the fair and popular four-team groups, while also expanding the workload on players and host nations.
FIFA are fortunate that the main host country, USA, are so stadium rich. Imagine a smaller nation being suddenly thrust with the requirement of hosting an additional 24 matches.
Fans cherish and adore the FIFA World Cup. It is the beautiful tournament for the beautiful game. Yet FIFA’s reckless and stubborn leadership continue to show contempt for the fans while always putting money first.
Robert Pettit
Guest
The headline says it all: greed and selfishness plus a power play with UEFA. Ideally should revert to a 32 team format in 2030 with the final held in Montevideo; to honour the centenary of the first final. Very little chance that FIFA, though, will respect the traditions of football given the overriding decision making rationale of $. One essential change to a 32 team format, given the global nature of football and to partially reflect the economics of football is for the UEFA contingent to be reduced by 2 nations. Africa and Asia would each receive one extra qualification place. Also Infantino must go and the sooner the better. A weak leader who does not respect player welfare.
Micko
Roar Rookie
One less game doesn't seem too drastic.
Garry
Roar Rookie
Morrocco’s succes might help them change their mind – and Tunisia’s failure! Would the extra spots be worth the cost of qualifying to play only 2 games??
Gary David
Roar Rookie
I wish it were so but there's no way Africa and Asia are going to give up their extra spots now. They stand to gain the most, their spots are almost doubling. Huge difference to go back to 32 for them now.
Garry
Roar Rookie
done properly would take an extra month..with 48 teams too much comprormise is required.
Garry
Roar Rookie
Difficult but NOT impossible..as it stands they have to deal with a lot of teams only playing 2 games before going home with related accommodation issues.
Garry
Roar Rookie
"Which, crucially, is after some of the confederation qualification pathways have already been determined (AFC and CONMEBOL) and changing the number of teams from 48 is essentially too late, conveniently leaving FIFA’s hands tied in considering other formats." if they truly listen I dont see this as an block to reverting to the much loved and well tried 32 team comp. They have three years to adjust this. Sure therell be hassles but theres hassles either way.
Gary David
Roar Rookie
I don't mind the 3 big host nations or 48 teams in principle, but find a way for it to work. The formats suggested so far don't work. And if you need to increase the number of matches per team, then plan on that from the outset and make room for it. Just sneaking in more matches at the 11th hour is not fair for the players.
M20
Guest
I'm fine with it as long as Asia, Africa and North America get more spots. 8 groups of 6 can work
NoMates
Roar Rookie
Crazy, but money is everything.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
Every time they expand the world cup people say the same thing. Hosting it across three such big countries is unprecedented to give everyone a piece of the action 48 teams groups of 4, then a round of 32, makes sense. Until it happens you cant tell what it will be like,
Marcel
Guest
Alas 3 host nations makes it difficult to retreat back to 32 without seriously pi55ing off a couple of confederations. It will end up being like the Cricket WCs where no one really gets interested until mid tournament.
Pull
Guest
What is it with football administrators and smooth brained decision making of late?