Going through after one game will kinda suck though. England beat USA. Brazil beat USA. Brazil and England are through, after one game.
World Cup 2026 - 48 teams
- Thread starter top1whoisman
- Start date
I was taking the piss. FIFA have actually made a huge mistake because they have now limited the number of countries that would be capable of hosting the tournament. 48 countries is a huge number of sports tourists. How many countries do you reckon have the infrastructure to deal with a tournament of that size?
Minor problem. The number of games is the actual one. Increases from 60+ to 90+.
That means essentially it's the big 5 leagues + USA, Brazil, Japan, China and Russia. Even Brazil is doubtful.
No, not in the case I suggested. A draw and followed by a victory is hardly a very unlikely scenario. In which case it wouldn't be a team with nothing to play for, it would be teams both incentivised to play for a draw.
But if you take draws out of the equation you're still left with the shitty situation that a lot of the time a team will be out before the third match.
It's all academic really because no one is going to bother watching the group stage saturated with nothing teams and pointless matches.
Terrible idea .. Is not the number of games but the let my of time the tournament will take note..32 days . That's going to have a huge impact on clubs preparation for the new season ...Then the other major problem of how fkn crap and boring international football is ..32 days of sheer shit watching your fave players getting knackered for the season ahead .
Maybe we will see more multi-nation hosts? Some random examples.... S.Korea and Japan? Spain-France? Belgium-Netherlands-Denmark-Germany (honestly no clue as to the size of any stadiums in Belgium, Netherlands or Denmark)? US-Canada-Mexico?
Read that Europe will increase their teams from 13 to 16, but their percentage will descrease, as there will be 48 teams in 2026. Africa and North America are the biggest winners.
Yeah I imagine so.
2018 - Russia
2022 - Qatar
2026 - USA
2030 - England and France
2034 - China
2038 - Brazil and Argentina
If its so crap then dont watch it.
personally I love international football.
Curacao and not Scotland 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...onkers-48-team-World-Cup-today-s-line-up.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...onkers-48-team-World-Cup-today-s-line-up.html
I like it, at least we get knock out games one game sooner, and there's more football to watch. I don't have a problem with it.
Teams are already out of it by the final set of games as it is, how is this any different?
Also, I disagree. In your scenario both teams will still have the top spot to fight for, which should provide them with an easier game in the first knockout round. The team that drew risks getting knocked out if they concede a goal, and the team that won risks finishing second if they lose.
As I said, there are plenty of instances of teams having 'nothing' to play for but still giving it a go. Towards the end of every league season there are certainly a few teams with little hope of European qualification, but are very safe from relegation, but they still give it a go.
It's official - the football is going on forever. This is how International Football declines, not with racist remarks, biting or match fixing but with Iraq vs Faroe Islands in the World Cup.
I have a slightly different idea to format the world cup better with 48 teams that also keeps the total number of games same (i.e. 80).
1st Group Stage
16 groups of 3 teams each - total 48 games (16 X 3)
2nd group stage
Only the 16 winners of the 1st group stage continue, from which 4 groups of 4 teams each are formed - total 24 games (6 X 4)
2 teams from each of the 4 groups continue to play quarter finals. Rest remains the same - total 8 games
Total number of games = 48 + 24 + 8 = 80
Some positives:
1. Each game in the 1st group stage is important as a team can only make it certain to top by winning both games
2. Number of high quality games increases
Obviously there are negatives as 2/3rd of the teams (i.e. 32) go home after playing only 2 games each (so unlikely it will be approved). Also all semi-finalists have to play one game more i.e. 8 instead of 7. However this format still allows a large number of teams to participate, but at the same time also tries to strike a balance by increasing the number of good quality games. In addition, number of KO games decreases as I personally like to see a good battle between the great teams where their hopes are not dashed by just an odd poor performance or a bad decisions (red card, offside, penalty etc).
Obviously the preference depends on individual choice so there is no 'best' way to please everyone!
1st Group Stage
16 groups of 3 teams each - total 48 games (16 X 3)
2nd group stage
Only the 16 winners of the 1st group stage continue, from which 4 groups of 4 teams each are formed - total 24 games (6 X 4)
2 teams from each of the 4 groups continue to play quarter finals. Rest remains the same - total 8 games
Total number of games = 48 + 24 + 8 = 80
Some positives:
1. Each game in the 1st group stage is important as a team can only make it certain to top by winning both games
2. Number of high quality games increases
Obviously there are negatives as 2/3rd of the teams (i.e. 32) go home after playing only 2 games each (so unlikely it will be approved). Also all semi-finalists have to play one game more i.e. 8 instead of 7. However this format still allows a large number of teams to participate, but at the same time also tries to strike a balance by increasing the number of good quality games. In addition, number of KO games decreases as I personally like to see a good battle between the great teams where their hopes are not dashed by just an odd poor performance or a bad decisions (red card, offside, penalty etc).
Obviously the preference depends on individual choice so there is no 'best' way to please everyone!
I've still no idea why we haven't applied for a UK one yet. Add in Hampden Park, Celtic Park & the Principality to England's and its incomparable globally (though post-Brexit we might find it even more difficult to get votes).
3 teams in a group....?
I have the solution:
I have the solution:
Brilliant news imo - if we learnt anything from the recent Euro's it was that when smaller nations get a chance to play in a major tournament's finals they bring joy and pride with them that makes the atmosphere which imo can be missing from the most successful nations. They can also spring the odd upset and I think will really add to the tournament.
The fact many people in England hate international football kinda sums up what I mean tbh - no passion for it, no real interest in it = boring and lifeless performances from players and some fans.
Smaller nation who is genuinely delighted to be at the tournament = excited and fun fans - great atmosphere and although perhaps a lack of quality on the pitch compared to the 'big teams' they will fight hard and are capable of causing an upset.
Bring it on I say.
The fact many people in England hate international football kinda sums up what I mean tbh - no passion for it, no real interest in it = boring and lifeless performances from players and some fans.
Smaller nation who is genuinely delighted to be at the tournament = excited and fun fans - great atmosphere and although perhaps a lack of quality on the pitch compared to the 'big teams' they will fight hard and are capable of causing an upset.
Bring it on I say.
Gibraltar vs Sierra Leone will be a belting match
It will be if you are from either Gibraltar or Sierra Leone to be fair, which is the entire point.
Which will make a farce out of what was supposed to be the best football tournament in world football.
Rubbish idea.
I think if they or any other small nation manage to qualify then they deserve to be there just as much as the 'big sides'. You haven't made any argument why it would be a farce other than shout it a bit.
Maybe the 16 bottom placed teams could get put into groups of 4 after they are knocked out, play 3 more games, top 2 go through to last eight, winners through to the last 4, and the winners of that get to a final to see who is the 33rd best side in the world.
The bottom 2 teams in each of those groups could then be put into another 2 groups of 4, top 2 in each group go through to a semi final, and the winners of that are the 41st best team in the world.
Last edited:
I agree if they qualify they should be there in a 32 team competition.
It will be long winded and of poor quality.
Will ruin what was an amazing competition.
I know this was a joke, but I actually think there is some merit to having a 2nd tier international competitions. I wouldn't run it alongside the World Cup or any of the Continental Championships, but I don't see why there couldn't be an additional 8/16 team tournament, even just a couple of weeks after the main one, for those that just missed out on Euros qualification.
I was joking but that's actually a fair comment. Maybe a similar format to the champions league and Europa league based on final qualifier positions. Essentially, a world champions cup for the top 24 clubs, and a second string tournament for the rest.
Increasing beyond 32 is full of mathematical difficulty, because the next easy number to work with really is 64.
I'm not sure 48 / 16 with only 1 from 3 failing to progress is a solution really, although there is some anomalies within the 2 from 4 system too. After trying hard for 2 games but losing, the less good teams do have a tendency to lose more badly in the pointless (to them) 3rd game. This favours whoever they are playing, I suppose. Maybe you just can't really have a Group qualification system where every game matters.
64 Team KO with a unseeded draw all the way through is a winning idea for me. Cancel the Euros, have it every two years.
I'm not sure 48 / 16 with only 1 from 3 failing to progress is a solution really, although there is some anomalies within the 2 from 4 system too. After trying hard for 2 games but losing, the less good teams do have a tendency to lose more badly in the pointless (to them) 3rd game. This favours whoever they are playing, I suppose. Maybe you just can't really have a Group qualification system where every game matters.
64 Team KO with a unseeded draw all the way through is a winning idea for me. Cancel the Euros, have it every two years.
The most recent World Cup was played over 30 or 31 days was it not?
Having rethought this through. I fecking hate the 16 group idea.. how are you meant to keep track as a fan of 16 bloody groups? and most of those groups someone put together look terrible.
Look if we want 48 teams, start the tournament off with straight knockouts, maybe even 2 knockout games and then we go into a group stage of 12 sides. it would lead to a Italy 1982 scenario with some cracking group games and if you want the pens after a draw go for it.
Group A
Ivory Coast
Argentina
Brazil
Group B
Germany
Chile
Belgium
Group C
Italy
France
Portugal
Group D
Uruguay
Spain
Netherlands
Then it goes into QF's, with one team eliminated from those groups or you could go straight into SF's, and make it top team goes through. Or if we are doing only one knockout round, followed by group stage of 24 (6 groups of 4), then we can do group winners and 2 best runners ups going through.
It would decrease the ability for the likes of Burkino Faso and Qatar to stink up the tournament whilst increasing the chances of big teams having games against each other.
Look if we want 48 teams, start the tournament off with straight knockouts, maybe even 2 knockout games and then we go into a group stage of 12 sides. it would lead to a Italy 1982 scenario with some cracking group games and if you want the pens after a draw go for it.
Group A
Ivory Coast
Argentina
Brazil
Group B
Germany
Chile
Belgium
Group C
Italy
France
Portugal
Group D
Uruguay
Spain
Netherlands
Then it goes into QF's, with one team eliminated from those groups or you could go straight into SF's, and make it top team goes through. Or if we are doing only one knockout round, followed by group stage of 24 (6 groups of 4), then we can do group winners and 2 best runners ups going through.
It would decrease the ability for the likes of Burkino Faso and Qatar to stink up the tournament whilst increasing the chances of big teams having games against each other.
Maybe give the smaller Nations a bit more chance by having the first team that scores a long range goal is immediately qualified for the next stage, 
.
.My idea is to split it up into 8 groups of 6 with each group divided into two 'halves'. Then teams only play teams not in their half.
Let's name 6 teams A, B, C, D, E and F. The first half is A, B and C, the second half is D, E and F. The matchdays would be as follows:
MD1: AvD, BvE, CvF
MD2: AvE, BvF, CvD
MD3: AvF, BvD, CvE
Then the top 2 teams qualify and the tournament proceeds as usual.
Let's name 6 teams A, B, C, D, E and F. The first half is A, B and C, the second half is D, E and F. The matchdays would be as follows:
MD1: AvD, BvE, CvF
MD2: AvE, BvF, CvD
MD3: AvF, BvD, CvE
Then the top 2 teams qualify and the tournament proceeds as usual.
First post in the mains I feel blessed
Anyways the only positive thing I can see about this is more games to watch and Bulgaria possibly qualifying. We still won't though, we're terrible.
With 32 teams there are already some lower quality teams but it's ok because it's nice to watch them try to upset the big boys. But 48 is too much and will really lower the quality of what is supposed to be the best football event on earth (yes I know club football is higher quality but let me be romantic). Furthermore, as others have mentioned, with only 3 teams per group we won't have the final group games at the same time which could lead to collusion or boring dead rubbers. Finally, since there are more teams and a round of 32 the world Cup will finish later so players will come back to their clubs even later and transfers won't get going until later. Dissapointed in FIFA and Infantino for making yet another purely money motivated decision but not much we can do.
Anyways the only positive thing I can see about this is more games to watch and Bulgaria possibly qualifying. We still won't though, we're terrible.
With 32 teams there are already some lower quality teams but it's ok because it's nice to watch them try to upset the big boys. But 48 is too much and will really lower the quality of what is supposed to be the best football event on earth (yes I know club football is higher quality but let me be romantic). Furthermore, as others have mentioned, with only 3 teams per group we won't have the final group games at the same time which could lead to collusion or boring dead rubbers. Finally, since there are more teams and a round of 32 the world Cup will finish later so players will come back to their clubs even later and transfers won't get going until later. Dissapointed in FIFA and Infantino for making yet another purely money motivated decision but not much we can do.
Is this some kind of response to UEFA? With its two big club tournaments and an international tournament that is only 6 nations shy of the World Cup's current 30, it's easy to see why FIFA must be somewhat envious of UEFA's position.
I don't think this is such a bad idea. The dross will get knocked out in the group stage but England still won't make it to the last 16.
Yeah there's an element of that. But between 1982 and 1994 you had 24-team tournaments where the second round was made of 16 teams. From 1998 it was basically the same, but with a cleaner format in 32 going down to 16. 16 and 32 are the magic numbers. 24 was always a bit clunky and the Euros we've just had were much worse than anything in the 16-team era.
Yeah, I'm less arsed about changing the group stages - they were generally fairly predictable and typically had a couple of dead rubbers by matchday 3. The new group stages are okay IMO - they keep it fairly tight by ensuring big quality divergences going-through-the-motions are over and done with in two games. Penalties seems like a silly idea though. We saw a mostly tedious qualification process for the 24-team Euros over the last couple of years - you wouldn't want that replicated across the board, especially in South America where the balance is just right.
Was it ? I just really hate international football it is just so dull and slow.I don't understand how anyone could ever prefer it out even enjoy it that much.
There is nothing worse than international breaks in the middle of the season you know you have two weeks of nothing before you can se your team again or any decent football.The idea of making more matches or bigger tournaments' just fills me with dread
Well the thing about international football isn't generally about the actual quality of the football being played which naturally is of a lower standard (generally) than the top club teams because the players do not get the same chance to play together/be coached collectively as they do in their day to day clubs. Having said that, what International football has over club football is the prestige, the history and the pride to represent your own country - makes it (imo) feel more special than most club matches apart from the knock-outs of Champions league to the final.
I love international football despite my own country generally not having many decent players and mostly failing to qualify for major competitions throughout my lifetime - makes our successes when they do come feel all the more special and there is nothing like it to get some good feeling around the place and everybody excited.
Spot allocation
So FIFA just released a press statement detailing how many teams per federation will qualify in 2026:
AFC: 8 teams
CAF: 9 teams
CONCACAF: 6 teams
CONMEBOL: 6 teams
OFC: 1 team
UEFA: 16 teams
2 additional teams will qualify through playoffs. These involve 1 team per federation (0 UEFA teams) plus an additional team from the host nation's federation. 2 of those 6 teams will be seeded and play the winners of the first round matchups.
I still don't get why CONMEBOL gets as many teams as CONCACAF. Are they this scared that the USA could mess up and not qualify?
AFC: 8 teams
CAF: 9 teams
CONCACAF: 6 teams
CONMEBOL: 6 teams
OFC: 1 team
UEFA: 16 teams
2 additional teams will qualify through playoffs. These involve 1 team per federation (0 UEFA teams) plus an additional team from the host nation's federation. 2 of those 6 teams will be seeded and play the winners of the first round matchups.
I still don't get why CONMEBOL gets as many teams as CONCACAF. Are they this scared that the USA could mess up and not qualify?
Long been a advocate of this. It was this or reducing the quota of European teams. Ad glad to see OFC finally have 1 guaranteed spot. Was an absolute farce that in a world cup you could have one continent entirely absent from proceedings. Should be at least 2 imo.
Pity we'll still not qualify. Then again, we wouldn't qualify if there were a 100 teams.
Pity we'll still not qualify. Then again, we wouldn't qualify if there were a 100 teams.
Based on FIFA's rather terrible world cup ranking this would give us the following line up:
Egypt
Senegal
Cameroon
Burkina Faso
Tunisia
Congo DR
Nigeria
Ghana
Cote D'Ivoire
Mexico
Costa Rica
USA
Panama
Honduras
Haiti
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Uruguay
Peru
New Zealand
Iran
Korea Republic
Japan
Australia
Saudi Arabia
Uzbekistan
UAE
Qatar
Germany
Belgium
France
Portugal
Spain
Switzerland
Wales
Portugal
England
Italy
Croatia
Netherlands
Iceland
Ireland
Slovakia
Turkey
Playoffs:
Ecuador (22)
Morocco (49)
St. Kitts and Nevis (73)
Curacao (74) [if the World Cup ends up taking place in the USA]
China (86)
Taihiti (149)
Looks like the playoffs would be a rather easy matchup for South American teams. The same thing would apply to a European team whenever there's a World Cup in Europe.
Egypt
Senegal
Cameroon
Burkina Faso
Tunisia
Congo DR
Nigeria
Ghana
Cote D'Ivoire
Mexico
Costa Rica
USA
Panama
Honduras
Haiti
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Uruguay
Peru
New Zealand
Iran
Korea Republic
Japan
Australia
Saudi Arabia
Uzbekistan
UAE
Qatar
Germany
Belgium
France
Portugal
Spain
Switzerland
Wales
Portugal
England
Italy
Croatia
Netherlands
Iceland
Ireland
Slovakia
Turkey
Playoffs:
Ecuador (22)
Morocco (49)
St. Kitts and Nevis (73)
Curacao (74) [if the World Cup ends up taking place in the USA]
China (86)
Taihiti (149)
Looks like the playoffs would be a rather easy matchup for South American teams. The same thing would apply to a European team whenever there's a World Cup in Europe.