World Cup 2026 - 48 teams

[fcbforever]

Did people stop watching the Euros altogether? Speaking from my own experience, I didn't watch any more or less football than I usually do in these tournaments?

And countries like Iceland pulled quite a surprise. I wouldn't be shocked if that wasn't an unusual occurrence.

Don't worry, you'll still get your all European/ South American semis onwards I'm sure.

I'm also not saying the rations are exactly right at all. But there is a certain attitude that if they're gonna expand it, they should just put in loads more UEFA teams. How boring is that?

Iceland would have qualified under the old system as well, people forget that. And yes, percentagewise I watched less games. Maybe the same number overall, but there were more games overall as ou know. Pointless games are pointless, it's the same idiocy that still allows Gibraltar and consorts to partcipate in the normal qualification. Useless games without any value.
And then Uzbekistan at a WC? Good fecking look. We should at least try to keep the competetiveness up in these tournaments. If you have seen the Euros, you clearly see the results of inflating tournaments like that. A lt of pointless games where shitty team just puts all 11 players inside the box whithout even trying to attack. Number of goals per game dropped significantly, same will happen here.

 

[anant]

Iceland would have qualified under the old system as well, people forget that. And yes, percentagewise I watched less games. Maybe the same number overall, but there were more games overall as ou know. Pointless games are pointless, it's the same idiocy that still allows Gibraltar and consorts to partcipate in the normal qualification. Useless games without any value.
And then Uzbekistan at a WC? Good fecking look. We should at least try to keep the competetiveness up in these tournaments. If you have seen the Euros, you clearly see the results of inflating tournaments like that. A lt of pointless games where shitty team just puts all 11 players inside the box whithout even trying to attack. Number of goals per game dropped significantly, same will happen here.

If all you care fr is competitveness, lets have a 16 team or rather an 8 team world cup. When was even the last time that a team not considered among the top 8 favourites won the WC?
Let every WC be Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Italy, France, Germany and the remaining 2 spots to be filled in by qualifying- No pointless games by tis format as well

 

[fcbforever]

If all you care fr is competitveness, lets have a 16 team or rather an 8 team world cup. When was even the last time that a team not considered among the top 8 favourites won the WC?
Let every WC be Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Italy, France, Germany and the remaining 2 spots to be filled in by qualifying- No pointless games by tis format as well

Stupid as well and you know that. It's leaves out the "world" aspect a lot more and would allow less surprises. But there are certain limits and if you look at the teams that would currently make it under the 48 teams role, 32 seems pretty reasonable. And even about that there's still debate and yes, I wouldn't be against only having 24 teams.

 

[africanspur]

Iceland would have qualified under the old system as well, people forget that. And yes, percentagewise I watched less games. Maybe the same number overall, but there were more games overall as ou know. Pointless games are pointless, it's the same idiocy that still allows Gibraltar and consorts to partcipate in the normal qualification. Useless games without any value.
And then Uzbekistan at a WC? Good fecking look. We should at least try to keep the competetiveness up in these tournaments. If you have seen the Euros, you clearly see the results of inflating tournaments like that. A lt of pointless games where shitty team just puts all 11 players inside the box whithout even trying to attack. Number of goals per game dropped significantly, same will happen here.

Yes I know they have. My point was that these teams can cause upsets and they provide a whole new element to these competitions.

Personally, I enjoy watching Iceland knocking out England, Senegal knocking out France etc etc as much as, if not more than the heavyweights coming together in the semis etc. And I enjoy watching the flavour of different countries at the competition. We still have the favourites coming together in the later stages like I said.

But obviously different people have different priorities and that's fair enough.

 

[anant]

Stupid as well and you know that. It's leaves out the "world" aspect a lot more and would allow less surprises. But there are certain limits and if you look at the teams that would currently make it under the 48 teams role, 32 seems pretty reasonable. And even about that there's still debate and yes, I wouldn't be against only having 24 teams.

But having 26-27 teams from Europe+ south America out of 48 teams doesn't leave out the world aspect?
I mean, I get why you'd say the quality drops, and I agree with you on that point, but the romanticism of the sport dies if there are no minnows, no upsets. The best part out of Euros was a non elite side winning, Wales reaching the semis and Iceland reaching the quarters. None of this would've happened had the Euros been 16 team affair.
There will be boring one sided affairs but there will also be more fantastic stories

 

[fcbforever]

Yes I know they have. My point was that these teams can cause upsets and they provide a whole new element to these competitions.

Personally, I enjoy watching Iceland knocking out England, Senegal knocking out France etc etc as much as, if not more than the heavyweights coming together in the semis etc. And I enjoy watching the flavour of different countries at the competition. We still have the favourites coming together in the later stages like I said.

But obviously different people have different priorities and that's fair enough.

Iceland and Senegal qualified fair and square. If you are always just reducing the requirements though, you will get the really shitty teams. Uzbekistan won't to anything, neither will whatever will be the last two qualified teams from NA. It's just the one step too far.

But having 26-27 teams from Europe+ south America out of 48 teams doesn't leave out the world aspect?
I mean, I get why you'd say the quality drops, and I agree with you on that point, but the romanticism of the sport dies if there are no minnows, no upsets. The best part out of Euros was a non elite side winning, Wales reaching the semis and Iceland reaching the quarters. None of this would've happened had the Euros been 16 team affair.
There will be boring one sided affairs but there will also be more fantastic stories

Why wouldn't it? NI came top of the group in the 2016 qualifiers, Iceland and Wales would have reached the play offs with a good chance of advancing. They did not profit from the new rules.

Profitting were Sweden, Ukraine, Ireland and Hungary, two of which came last in their group in a tournament where even third place qualified you for the knockout stages. What was the use of that?

 

[anant]

Why wouldn't it? NI came top of the group in the 2016 qualifiers, Iceland and Wales would have reached the play offs with a good chance of advancing. They did not profit from the new rules.

Profitting were Sweden, Ukraine, Ireland and Hungary, two of which came last in their group in a tournament where even third place qualified you for the knockout stages. What was the use of that?

There were 6 groups! So it's not necessary that the teams that finished 2nd in their group would have qualified! Portugal would've been out in the group stages and Iceland that finished 2nd in their group may have been 3rd had it been a 16 team tournament.

 

[fcbforever]

There were 6 groups! So it's not necessary that the teams that finished 2nd in their group would have qualified! Portugal would've been out in the group stages and Iceland that finished 2nd in their group may have been 3rd had it been a 16 team tournament.

That Portugal could win this was maybe the greatest insult to competetiveness ever. And there was a very good chance for Wales and Iceland to qualify even under the old rules, that's all I said. I didn't talk about the group stages as such. Which were piss easy, as I said.
This has been widely perceived as the single worst EURO ever.
In German, public viewing and TV rates dropped a lot. That alone should tell you enough.

 

[Nighteyes]

That Portugal could win this was maybe the greatest insult to competetiveness ever.

 

[antohan]

The argument was primarily that the OFC qualifiers were plain stupid and still ate. Their chances of qualifying from AFC were far greater than from OFC. The quality angle was obviously a factor as well. But they'll probably qualify anyway, you're right.

....

The ignorance is mind boggling. Make every European team play off against the likes of Argentina and Uruguay and we'll see how many go through because that's what the Oceania have often had to do. And it's not like they've disgraced themselves. The last time Australia qualified from OFC they were knocked out by a diving cnut. The last time New Zealand qualified they went unbeaten. They need more chances not less. And to think people want to go back to a system where OFC isn't even guaranteed one spot. Just plan stupidity and ignorance.

Maybe, just maybe, if some of these teams actually had a realistic chance of qualifying they might improve in the long term.

Agreed. With 48 teams we will get loads of shite anyway but a second slot for OFC would make it wide open and create realistic chances of qualifying.

Oz being out helped, removing the playoffs too, a second slot would make wonders (maybe have them play off with Asia).

If you want standards improving you have to make the two years of qualification competitive. I'd rather that and just ignoring the 3 team group stage as a dead rubber. 2 years of football trump one week of potential dead rubbers.

 

[Cal?]

So? 17th best European team as it is doesn't stand a chance of reaching the later stages. You may as well give it to a team where football isn't that popular or they don't have the infrastructure so that the game reaches those parts of the globe as well

By that logic you might as well just draw lots to see who gets to qualify other than 10 teams or so with a realistic chance.

 

[antohan]

Just like with the extended Euros, they will likely just stop watching a lot of games alltogether.
This will be a shitshow. A bunch of sides will just get stuffed and send home. What's the point.

Making two years of qualifying a lot more competitive because there's skin in the game.

I'm actually happy Conmebol didn't get more than 6 spots (although there's an argument for 7 in terms of relative strength). The qualifiers would stop serving a purpose.

Even with 6 there's a danger the big NTs (Arg & Bra) switch off completely.

 

[anant]

By that logic you might as well just draw lots to see who gets to qualify other than 10 teams or so with a realistic chance.

I was responding to one of the posters who felt that since European countries are better, they should get more than 'just' 16 slots. I, personally feel 48 teams isn't that bad

 

[Cal?]

Did people stop watching the Euros altogether? Speaking from my own experience, I didn't watch any more or less football than I usually do in these tournaments?

And countries like Iceland pulled quite a surprise. I wouldn't be shocked if that wasn't an unusual occurrence.

Don't worry, you'll still get your all European/ South American semis onwards I'm sure.

I'm also not saying the rations are exactly right at all. But there is a certain attitude that if they're gonna expand it, they should just put in loads more UEFA teams. How boring is that?

I'm not advocating Uefa getting 7/8 out of the new 16 places if we go by competitiveness.

But onto getting 2 out of 16 when Asia get 4.5 is just crazy.

 

[The Outsider]

But having 26-27 teams from Europe+ south America out of 48 teams doesn't leave out the world aspect?
I mean, I get why you'd say the quality drops, and I agree with you on that point, but the romanticism of the sport dies if there are no minnows, no upsets. The best part out of Euros was a non elite side winning, Wales reaching the semis and Iceland reaching the quarters. None of this would've happened had the Euros been 16 team affair.
There will be boring one sided affairs but there will also be more fantastic stories

Couldn't say it better myself and if people don't rate this then they can wait until the knockout stages begin before watching or going to the matches.

 

[Cal?]

I was responding to one of the posters who felt that since European countries are better, they should get more than 'just' 16 slots. I, personally feel 48 teams isn't that bad

Europe should get more than 16 slots, because the 17th placed side are still significantly better than the 9th Africa. Or 8th Asian side.

Whilst there's a need to spread it out, the qualify of the teams should still be a big factor.

Personally I'd suggest having 1 slot per confederation that play off with the lesser European sides. So if they're good enough, they'd get there, but if they can't beat the 17th best side from Europe. They have no right being there.

Also does this 48 team WC mean only a handful of countries will ever host it?

 

[Stack]

Can not agree more.

I can give one example. Thailand comfortably beat New Zealand twice in recent years. They are still capable of continuing doing so. But according to the new quota New Zealand is going to WC ( it would be extremely surprising if they are not the best team in Oceania after Australia joining AFC) and Thailand, however, is highly going to miss as getting into top 8 in Asia (including Australia) is still a tough task for them.

When was this?
Last time Thailand beat NZ was 1969 and 1976

 

[anant]

Europe should get more than 16 slots, because the 17th placed side are still significantly better than the 9th Africa. Or 8th Asian side.

Whilst there's a need to spread it out, the qualify of the teams should still be a big factor.

Personally I'd suggest having 1 slot per confederation that play off with the lesser European sides. So if they're good enough, they'd get there, but if they can't beat the 17th best side from Europe. They have no right being there.

Also does this 48 team WC mean only a handful of countries will ever host it?

Neither the 17th placed European side nor the 9th best African side nor 8th best Asian side stand a chance of winning the WC. I'd much rather give the opportunity to an African or Asian country where the sport isn't as popular or there isn't enough money so that they become a superpower rather than a European country where football is considerably popular.
Most WC's are remembered for the side stories as much as they are for the winners. 2014 WC will be remembered as much for Costa Rica upsetting England and Italy in Group stages and almost reaching the Semis as much as they are about 7-1 or Germany winning the WC. 2010 will be remembered for NZ going unbeaten in a decently tough group and North Korea fighting bravely against Brazil as much as they will be about that infamous final. 2006- Serbia and Montenegro playing as a single nation and so on.

 

[Cal?]

Neither the 17th placed European side nor the 9th best African side nor 8th best Asian side stand a chance of winning the WC. I'd much rather give the opportunity to an African or Asian country where the sport isn't as popular or there isn't enough money so that they become a superpower rather than a European country where football is considerably popular.
Most WC's are remembered for the side stories as much as they are for the winners. 2014 WC will be remembered as much for Costa Rica upsetting England and Italy in Group stages and almost reaching the Semis as much as they are about 7-1 or Germany winning the WC. 2010 will be remembered for NZ going unbeaten in a decently tough group and North Korea fighting bravely against Brazil as much as they will be about that infamous final. 2006- Serbia and Montenegro playing as a single nation and so on.

So you're discriminating against European countries for the sport already being popular in Europe?

Like I said, a balance needs to be drawn and I believe having everybody play off against Europe for their final place is a reasonable solution.

 

[Stack]

So you're discriminating against European countries for the sport already being popular in Europe?

Like I said, a balance needs to be drawn and I believe having everybody play off against Europe for their final place is a reasonable solution.

It completely ignores the geographical problems. For example NZ playoff against Austria, how about the travel involved for both sides, a silly idea in reality.

 

[antohan]

I'm not advocating Uefa getting 7/8 out of the new 16 places if we go by competitiveness.

But onto getting 2 out of 16 when Asia get 4.5 is just crazy.

4.5 billion consumers vs. .7 billion

Not crazy at all really. Sound business.

 

[antohan]

Europe should get more than 16 slots, because the 17th placed side are still significantly better than the 9th Africa. Or 8th Asian side.

Whilst there's a need to spread it out, the qualify of the teams should still be a big factor.

Personally I'd suggest having 1 slot per confederation that play off with the lesser European sides. So if they're good enough, they'd get there, but if they can't beat the 17th best side from Europe. They have no right being there.

Also does this 48 team WC mean only a handful of countries will ever host it?

Good point.

 

[antohan]

So you're discriminating against European countries for the sport already being popular in Europe?

Like I said, a balance needs to be drawn and I believe having everybody play off against Europe for their final place is a reasonable solution.

Yes, from a FIFA standpoint.

Yes also from a neutral standpoint in that 10 of the 16 have zero entertainment to offer.

I actively avoid games featuring Greece, Switzerland and the likes.

 

[Globule]

So are you saying that it's better to get a team that's likely to finish the group dead last with double figures in goals conceded rather than a team that qualifies from the group?

You weren't replying to me, but it was someone sharing my argument. Yes, I would rather have a country bringing something new to the world cup rather than seeing the same mid-tier European teams play off against each other every couple of years. Look at the 2010 World Cup - one of my abiding memories was being in a bar in Poland watching North Korea almost cause an upset against Brazil. They didn't, Brazil eventually got that second goal to win 2-1 and North Korea went home without a single point. But that was a lot more interesting and entertaining to me than the fact Switzerland and Greece almost got out of the group.

The World Cup is more than just a tournament to decide who is the best team in the world. If that were the case there's no reason for 3 quarters of those nations to be there in the first place. It's a festival of football, a celebration of a sport that is unrivalled in narrowing geographical and cultural barriers. Expanding to 48 teams can't be justified on the grounds of competitiveness, but it does provide the opportunity to bring another national team, another set of fans to the party. Regardless of how the team fares, I'm pretty sure Tahiti or any other second-placed nation in Oceania would bring more to the experience than the 3 extra European clubs.

 

[SCP]

That Portugal could win this was maybe the greatest insult to competetiveness ever.

Not our fault that you couldn't beat France, sorry if you feel insulted for the lack of competetiveness, I enjoyed a lot.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

That Portugal could win this was maybe the greatest insult to competetiveness ever. And there was a very good chance for Wales and Iceland to qualify even under the old rules, that's all I said. I didn't talk about the group stages as such. Which were piss easy, as I said.
This has been widely perceived as the single worst EURO ever.
In German, public viewing and TV rates dropped a lot. That alone should tell you enough.

This is the truest statement ever posted on here.

 

[SCP]

This is the truest statement ever posted on here.

Is it?

Explain that to me and I give you my point of view.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

Is it?

Explain that to me and I give you my point of view.

They won one game in 90 minutes during the entire tournament.

 

[Lay]

Yes, from a FIFA standpoint.

Yes also from a neutral standpoint in that 10 of the 16 have zero entertainment to offer.

I actively avoid games featuring Greece, Switzerland and the likes.

This. Majority of European teams are dreadful to watch. I do not care to see majority of the European nations.

 

[SCP]

They won one game in 90 minutes during the entire tournament.

Always the same argument, here we go, let me ask you an question, are you English or American?

In Italia 90, there was an certain team who played 7 matches like Portugal played in the last Euros, who didn't win the competition but the media said they made an great WC, and they happened to win an match in 90 minutes, an miserable 1:0 against Egypt, guess who they were and then I can say to you what were the good and bad things about Portugal, of course in my perspective.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

Always the same argument, here we go, let me ask you an question, are you English or American?

In Italia 90, there was an certain team who played 7 matches like Portugal played in the last Euros, who didn't win the competition but the media said they made an great WC, and they happened to win an match in 90 minutes, an miserable 1:0 against Egypt, guess who they were and then I can say to you what were the good and bad things about Portugal, of course in my perspective.

I am not English so I do not care what they did in 1990. Portugal finished third in their group so in a proper tournament they go home after 3 matches. Then they had a really easy run to the final and still were not impressive.

 

[Cal?]

It completely ignores the geographical problems. For example NZ playoff against Austria, how about the travel involved for both sides, a silly idea in reality.

How is that a problem at all, at the moment you have NZ plays off against S Americans and Asian sides playing off against N Americans. NZ to Austria is no further than Bahrain to Costa Rica.

4.5 billion consumers vs. .7 billion

Not crazy at all really. Sound business.

China & India should be allowed to send 3 teams each by that logic. Also, what about the GDP per capita or spending power to those 0.7b compared to the 4.5?

Yes, from a FIFA standpoint.

Yes also from a neutral standpoint in that 10 of the 16 have zero entertainment to offer.

I actively avoid games featuring Greece, Switzerland and the likes.

Many actively avoid games involving the also rans from Asia, Africa and the likes too.

You think more people will be interested in Syria (the current 8th placed side in AFC qualifying)?

I am not English so I do not care what they did in 1990. Portugal finished third in their group so in a proper tournament they go home after 3 matches. Then they had a really easy run to the final and still were not impressive.

The tournament rules were decided BEFORE the Euro, so Portugal did what they needed to do to make the knockout round. They could have tried harder and maybe won the final group game IF they needed to

 

[fcbforever]

Not our fault that you couldn't beat France, sorry if you feel insulted for the lack of competetiveness, I enjoyed a lot.

A country which lost on home turf against Greece should maybe be a bit more quit about such matters.

 

[anant]

So you're discriminating against European countries for the sport already being popular in Europe?

Like I said, a balance needs to be drawn and I believe having everybody play off against Europe for their final place is a reasonable solution.

I think @Globule has written a brilliant post regarding this.
Tbh, if you are to do this thing, there would be 2 north american teams, 2 or asian teams and another 2 African teams the remaining 40 odd spots would be filled by south american and european sides. Would you watch say 25th best european side play against Argentina? Probably not. But a lot of people would be interested in watching say a war torn Syria play in the world cup. Football is more about just results. It's about passion and world cup is a great carnival of the sport. Why should only the select elite be invited to this party!

 

[SCP]

I am not English so I do not care what they did in 1990. Portugal finished third in their group so in a proper tournament they go home after 3 matches. Then they had a really easy run to the final and still were not impressive.

You don't care but the same media has 2 different points of view about each team's performances, but anyway...

It is true that Portugal finished third, as in other tournaments when the WC was 24 teams other teams who were third made an good knockout stage and I do not remeber anyone saying lack of competetiveness, like Belgium in 1986, Argentina in 1990, Italy in 1994, those are rules and Portugal played by the rules, what is the problem?

Regarding the group stage it is true there were 3 draws, but in none of these matches, maybe only in the final minutes of the last match Portugal played to draw.

What happened is simple and at the same time longer to explain and probably will happen and happened in the past even if only now some media or fans see the problem started with Portugal.

First match we started playing in a sort of 4/4/2 diamond against Iceland because Fernando Santos rightly so understood that as we only had Eder as an striker it would be pointless to start playing in 4/3/3, in the first half we were better, in the second half Iceland was better, fair result, none of the teams played to draw, even if in Portugal point of view there were problems with the defensive line and midfield.

Second match, Santos changed the system to 4/3/3, put William in the place of Danilo and an front 3 of Quaresma, Nani and Ronaldo, we probably played our best match of the tournament, outplayed Austria, hit 2 balls in the post, and missed 1 penalty, should have won that match by 2 or 3 and in the end it was an draw, fair enough, it never happened in the story of Euros and WC, only the bad Portuguese team made this, pesky lucky bastards.

Third match against Hungary, return to 4/4/2 and lots of problems in midfield and defensive line, Hungary were 3 times ahead and final result was 3:3, awfull match, lots of defensive mistakes in my point of view, and the analysis here and in the media was cracking match, probably by the same ones who say that an certain league is the best in the world, go figure, maybe coaching and tactics are not needed.

To simplify this I only say if Santos did not had the right perception and did not made radical changes in the starting eleven against Croacia not only we would lose, but we would lose heavily if we played like in the group stage, the defensive line changed to Cedric/Fonte/Pepe/Guerreiro, and the midfield changed to 3 players from Sporting and Sanches from Benfica, and in that match in my opinion at an defensive level we were perfect and we shut down Modric and Rakitic, while the other teams didn't.

The rest is history, I will only say to you that we certainly were not the best, we had better squads in the past who were in semifinals and one final in the Euro and they didn't won, we were/are in an transitional phase, we brought to the competition Cedric and Danilo who were finalists in the under 20 WC in 2011, William, Guerreiro, Joao Mário, André Gomes from the team who was finalist in the Under 21 Euros in 2015, and Sanches who only had experience in an under 17 Euros in 2014, and we had also bad luck with Bernardo Silva injury before the tournament, hopefully Santos will start using him instead of Nani or Quaresma.

Certainly in my point of view the best team was France, they had better squad but lost, it never happened this in the Euros and WC playing better and losing, only this time probably, the second one was Germany, who has not only great individual players but also works with the same coach since 2004, even if Klinsmann was there between 2004 and 2006, and an football history who speaks for itself, and Italy who had by long distance the best coach of the tournament, the rest was balanced, it was hard against Croatia and Poland, the games were hard for us and for them.

As I said in a lot of posts, my 5 favourites for Russia are: 1- France 2 - Brasil 3 - Germany 4 - Argentina 5 - Italy, so you see no Portugal here, no delusion or arrogance, my only doubt is if I switch Spain for Argentina if Bauza does not change.

Enjoy.

 

[SCP]

A country which lost on home turf against Greece should maybe be a bit more quit about such matters.

So we lost against an intelligent German coach at the time, Rehhagel, you should take this as an greeting to Germany you know?

 

[Cal?]

I think @Globule has written a brilliant post regarding this.
Tbh, if you are to do this thing, there would be 2 north american teams, 2 or asian teams and another 2 African teams the remaining 40 odd spots would be filled by south american and european sides. Would you watch say 25th best european side play against Argentina? Probably not. But a lot of people would be interested in watching say a war torn Syria play in the world cup. Football is more about just results. It's about passion and world cup is a great carnival of the sport. Why should only the select elite be invited to this party!

Like I've already said many times, there needs to be a balance, and the current one just about works.

The 15th European side are probably still better than the 4th placed Asian side, etc, but at least they don't make a fool of themselves in the tournament itself.

But the proposal for the 48 team WC, I have no doubt the likes of 8th Asian, 9th African, etc, will make a farce of being at the finals.

 

[Claude Makélélé]

When was this?
Last time Thailand beat NZ was 1969 and 1976

2009 and 2014 also, they beat NZ 3-1 and 2-0 respectively.

 

[antohan]

China & India should be allowed to send 3 teams each by that logic. Also, what about the GDP per capita or spending power to those 0.7b compared to the 4.5?

If you were managing the FIFA business Europe would be your cash cow and Asia the rising star to invest in. It's common sense to give them more slots than they even remotely warrant on current strength.

Many actively avoid games involving the also rans from Asia, Africa and the likes too.

You think more people will be interested in Syria (the current 8th placed side in AFC qualifying)?

Yes. At least there would be goals there. For starters, the Americans will likely prefer that.

 

[Cal?]

If you were managing the FIFA business Europe would be your cash cow and Asia the rising star to invest in. It's common sense to give them more slots than they even remotely warrant on current strength.

Yes. At least there would be goals there. For starters, the Americans will likely prefer that.

You can just about argue the money angle to give Asia as many places as it takes to get China to qualify. But that exact same argument falls apart with Africa and N America.

Actually, if you look at the statistics, West Asian sides are very low scoring. If you just mean them getting trashed, you can rely on the weaker Europeans to do the same.