almightygarlicdoggo t1_ixpygyh wrote
Reply to comment by lefix in TIL the 2026 World Cup will be the first Cup to host 48 teams instead of the usual 32. by hcbaron
I disagree, participating in the World Cup sould be a privilege for those teams that managed to classify, if more teams classify then it will make that process boring and being in the tournament will not be as special for some nations.
Also, more teams doesn't usually equals tougher competition, but rather weaker teams will play, therefore adding uninteresting matches, and better teams which used to play good football will now be more tired and won't play at their full potential to preserve more energy.
I hope I'm wrong but adding more teams just seems as a money grab from FIFA while the sport and show loses.
The same argument could be made that instead of adding more teams you add more games, so the World Cup instead of being every 4 years now turns into every 2 years. Sure, weaker teams now have a better chance, but the tournament wouldn't feel as special.
jdoyle87 t1_ixq0ttf wrote
I take it you were against the increase from 24 to 32 back in 1998?
and the increase from 16 to 24 in 1982?
My view is: there are more confederations able to compete and put forward good teams. Expansion makes sense.
In previous eras teams like Saudi Arabia and Japan would never have had a route to the finals because their confederation didn't get the spots, yet they've proven they can be there on merit.
As it stands, Oceania (11 countries, 0 qualified), AFC (46 countries, 6 qualified), CONCACAF (35 countries, 4 qualified) and CAF (54 countries, 5 qualified) are under-represented in a 32 team World Cup when you compare with Europe's slots (55 countries, 13 qualified). It's reasonable to think that the more teams that can participate, the more likely it is for football to improve in those countries.
almightygarlicdoggo t1_ixq1h3w wrote
You're right, this World Cup is proving to be great for the underdogs, and I wish them the best. As I said, I hope I'm wrong but I see it as a cash grab from FIFA to get more games crammed together. And as you said, I would change the representations from each continental division.
However, football is more than just some goals, and even though it's great to see underdogs winning, usually the bigger teams provide a better game style which is more beautiful to watch, and in my opinion that's what the World Cup is about, to provide the best spectacle possible.
Cold_Ice7 t1_iy9ialk wrote
If you're talking about best spectable, you can't act like Cameroon - Serbia, Ghana - South Korea weren't the 2 absolute bangers of this cup.
almightygarlicdoggo t1_iyak513 wrote
You're right, this world cup is proving me wrong. I feel like the level of smaller teams has increased over the last few years and I'm all for it.
bimbles_ap t1_ixq2qcn wrote
Reading this I thought you were wrong about Oceania because I believed I saw Australia playing in the World Cup.
Looked it up and they're part of the AFC, how does Australia qualify as part of the Asian federation? I get they switched to it, but I don't get why that's just allowed.
Zolba t1_ixq8o2o wrote
>Reading this I thought you were wrong about Oceania because I believed I saw Australia playing in the World Cup.
Just to point out, Oceania have 0.5 qualifying spots. The winner of the Oceania (OFC) World Cup Qualifiers meets the 4th placed CONCACAF(North&Central America and Caribbean). New Zealand lost against Costa Rica in that match.
-TheRightTree- t1_ixqojvv wrote
Aren't the World Cup qualifiers also part of the World Cup, and almost all countries precipitate in it? And representation shouldn't matter imo. You qualify if you win, don't if you lose. I'm not sure how the new slots will be divided, but of the top 50 countries that didn't qualify, most of them are European (Italy, Sweden, Austria, Hungary, Ukraine, etc).
48 countries just seem to to a bit too much, considering that there's only like 50~60 countries with a semi-decent football team and culture. Qatar, which is around 50th in the world ranking, is struggling in the current World Cup. Imagine similar ranking countries participating without the host nation advantage - it's going to be boring AF.
Expat1989 t1_ixqjkps wrote
We’ve seen more unexpected wins this World Cup than any other previously. More teams means more potential for unexpected wins which equals an exciting World Cup
almightygarlicdoggo t1_ixqkblw wrote
You're right, it's a very interesting world cup. Asian teams seem to be performing really well, and Canada was certainly a nice surprise. I hope this World Cup proves me wrong and underdogs get far.
The_Panic_Station t1_ixr9v4t wrote
3/19 matches so far were won by the underdog (looking at the betting market).
Outside of Japan and Saudi beating big nations the results have largely been fairly expected so far, and they were pretty lucky in doing so if you rewatch the games.
Belgium-Canada is the only big surprise in terms of how the match looked out of the 19 played. I wouldn't say this World Cup has been more unpredictable than the most previous editions.
Cold_Ice7 t1_iy9fgej wrote
Every 2 years is too much. As you implied, it's an event that has to be a build up of anticipation. You have to miss it. No way it would feel memorable with so many world cup songs along the way. 4 years feels like forever. It's why it's great.
Though, I disagree that it would be boring to have 48 teams. Perhaps for those who always have their teams represented, such as the Europeans, but for everyone else, it would be a dream and surreal to see their national team in the biggest sporting event. On top of that, it would also feel a lot more like a "World" Cup. Ask FIFA why they expanded it from 16 groups to 32. Same reason. Imagine seeing all the different flags, different cultures, different playstyles, different songs, all coming together. Surely you must be tired of always seeing the same EuroLeague players.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments