It's okay I fixed it, see above
World Cup 2026 - 48 teams
- Thread starter top1whoisman
- Start date
I think this is a terrible idea.I can remember the 1970 World Cup when there were just 16 teams involved, that was a great tournament.perhaps 16 teams was too few but 48? Give me a break.
75 teams entered qualifications for WC 1970. It'll be almost triple that for 2026.
Would 40 teams WC, with 8 groups of five teams work better? Wasn't that a proposal some time ago...by Platini maybe?
Too many matches probably...80 in group stage + 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 + 1. 96 if I summed them correctly. Semi-finalists again87 matches.
Too many matches probably...80 in group stage + 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 + 1. 96 if I summed them correctly. Semi-finalists again
Last edited:
How about this?
Groups of three - all teams play each other using half they squad at the same time.
So let's say you had England, Brazil and USA
England vs Brazil (Hart, Sturridge, Vardy, etc)
at the same time: England vs USA (Forster, Rashford, Kane, etc)
at the same time: USA vs Brazil
That way twice as many fans can watch their team, by using two stadiums at once. This will also help sell Samsung Triple-TV-TVs for fans that want to watch everything.
Then to make sure no one goes out unfairly, all three teams play another double-match against teams from "grouped groups". (Groups A-D are grouped, groups E-H are grouped, and so on)
Group A winner plays Group B third place and Group C third place
Group A runner up plays Group B runner up, and Group C runner up.
and so on.
That will mean each set of 12 teams have each played 4 matches. Top 8 go through.
Groups of three - all teams play each other using half they squad at the same time.
So let's say you had England, Brazil and USA
England vs Brazil (Hart, Sturridge, Vardy, etc)
at the same time: England vs USA (Forster, Rashford, Kane, etc)
at the same time: USA vs Brazil
That way twice as many fans can watch their team, by using two stadiums at once. This will also help sell Samsung Triple-TV-TVs for fans that want to watch everything.
Then to make sure no one goes out unfairly, all three teams play another double-match against teams from "grouped groups". (Groups A-D are grouped, groups E-H are grouped, and so on)
Group A winner plays Group B third place and Group C third place
Group A runner up plays Group B runner up, and Group C runner up.
and so on.
That will mean each set of 12 teams have each played 4 matches. Top 8 go through.
48 squads of 23 = 1104 players involved.
This will wreak havoc on people that try to complete Panini sticker albums
(From Reddit)
This will wreak havoc on people that try to complete Panini sticker albums
(From Reddit)
This wouldn't have happened under Blatter.
They should make each game a triple threat match.
Does this mean that some teams will qualify, prepare and travel to play only two matches (not that three is much more, as it is now)?
Ladder match, why not
Yes, the 16 of them who will finish bottom of their groups.
That would depend on how things are going in groups they cross over with.
You know, like how England got the easy draw vs. Iceland will never stop laughing at all the delusional posts on how easy that would be or the surprise at thw outcome
Although to be fair, right now you can go over there, lose twice and be knocked out before the third. Or even lose and draw, and be knocked out in uefa matches
Might be a bit to complicated for the average bloke off his tits down the pub
Thing is, unless you are sure you are going to avoid someone like Brazil, you can end up doing more harm than good. It's never very exciting to watch two teams who dont care very much
In fairness, that also often happens with four team groups.
When will this meeting happen, @top1whoisman ?
When I sober up. Forgot to add quotation marks. Guess they'll come up with official statements and more info later today.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Huge jumps for Asia and Africa. 60% of South America will be there.
Apart from South America who should get 4 and two halves (two playoffs against other continents) thats not so bad. As disparaging as we all like to be about Asia, Africa, etc, they need extra places
With that, nothing too great will change with European qualifications - they wont become irrelevant.
Rumors have it that Ifantino's proposal about penalty shootouts in the group phase when a game ends in a draw has been accepted. This means that there will be no shared points between opponents in the group games and it kind of solves the problem you mention.
To put this idiocy another way, you can qualify after 1 match
3 team groups sound really shit
Absolutely disgraceful decision.
The European and South America qualifying will likely not change very much.
The additional places up for grabs will go to the confederations who voted for the change in the first place. Namely, African, Asian and Oceania.
Brown envelope brigade.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The European and South America qualifying will likely not change very much.
The additional places up for grabs will go to the confederations who voted for the change in the first place. Namely, African, Asian and Oceania.
Brown envelope brigade.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Could easily be resolved if they made long range goals count as double
As a long suffering Scotland supporter, I gladly welcome the extra 3 European places (for us to miss out on). Still sounds like an awful idea overall though.
Sounds shit.
Yeah that does make things (marginally) better.
I think it does introduce another problem though, that a team has failed to qualify, but still has to suffer a penalty shootout
Matchday 1 - England vs USA 2-0
Matchday 2 - USA vs Brazil 2-0
After Matchday 2; Eng (3pts, +2 GD), USA (3pts, +0GD), BRA (0 pts, -2 GD)
Matchday 3 - England vs Brazil. 0-0 after 90 minutes. Brazil can't go through, even if they win the pens because they will still have a worse GD than England and USA.
Last edited:
Just one more +16 expansion and Finland might just have a shot qualifying.
Poor England
Highly dislike the idea of everytime having potential for pens
48 group games, I like a shoot out as much as the next person, but it might get a bit dull if we've already had 20 of them before we get to the knock outs (which there's an extra round of too)
48 group games, I like a shoot out as much as the next person, but it might get a bit dull if we've already had 20 of them before we get to the knock outs (which there's an extra round of too)
Quality will go down, just like the last euros.
Groups of three will be terrible.
In this scenario Brazil's only motive would be to finish their tournament with at least one win, even in penalties. For Brazil it probably won't mean a thing but all for the small countries (small in the football world, that is) for whom the participation in the tournament itself is seen as an achievement, a win, even in a shootout, would mean the world. This might generate some good matches, in general.
But it's just a rumor. Let's wait for the official announcements.
Stupidest changes in a long time. Now the minnows who can qualify easily will just play for draws for the whole match, aiming to win on penalties. The games will be immeasurably boring.
I can just see teams doing a N Ireland or Plymouth for the whole match, sitting back for the penalties. Even worse you could have two of them doing the same. Great entertainment, not.
La Liga is not happy & talking about legal action of some sort. If the four big leagues revolt & go their own way, the whole pack of cards would come crumbling down. Come on La Liga, Premiership, Bundasliga, & Serie A show some b*lls.
7?
Existing - 3 in group stage, one in round of 16, one in QF, one in semi and one in third place/final
Now - 2 in group stage, one in round of 32, one in round of 16, one in QF, one in semi and one in third place/final
Indeed, of course, @prath92, counted for one team both bronze and finals, but team plays just in one. Pardon me.