FAI and FIFA

Territorial wrote: Shedite wrote: I don't want more European teams in the WC group stages for the same reason I don't want more English/Spanish clubs in Champions League group stage. Sounds like I'm in the minority here, but I prefer watching Egypt/Nigeria/Colombia in the WC than Sweden/Slovakia/Ukraine. I watch Sweden/Slovakia/Ukraine on Nations League highlights show 6 times a year. If it's a trade-off between watching competitive games involving  European teams with whom we're familiar, versus new, but third rate, teams from Africa or Asia in uncompetitive or  meaningless games, then I am going for the former. Bear in mind, too, that there will be 63 games in this Finals, whereas 2026 will have 80 games i.e. even if every one was a cracker, there simply isn't enough time in the day to keep up with all of them. And that's if they don't stick with the format of 16 groups of 3 teams etc. There is talk now of reconfiguring 2026 to involve 12 groups of 4 teams. This would produce 104 games! https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/dec/01/world-cup-organisers-consider-ditching-three-team-group-format-for-2026 So Ivory Coast versus Denmark might be preferable to you over Switzerland versus Denmark, for imstance. But Ivory Coast versus Bolivia, kicking off at the same time as Kenya versus Iraq and New Zealand versus El Salvador, with none of them having any hope of progressing? What would Dunphy have to say about that!

Yeah I've said from the off that I'm against expanding to 48, and as ya said even FIFA have already seen the stupidity in the groups of 3, that'll be canned anyway.

Probably some of the more senior posters on here can explain better but even in my life time, football was exclusively the GAA variety in most of the country outside the traditional cities. The success of the Charlton era in the late 80s early 90s opened up the sport in very rural places where kids were suddenly wearing football jerseys or pretending to be Packie Bonner, which would have been unheard of ten years before in Ballygobackwards. You can argue whether they should have been wearing LOI jerseys instead of Liverpool, but that was the legacy of the Charlton era. Look at the place the chap who scored the winning goal against Germany in 2015 comes from. Back in the day, I doubt anybody there saw a game of association football, let alone played it. 

Edited by dangere_here - 05 Dec 2022 at 4:55pm

Edited by Territorial - 05 Dec 2022 at 3:25pm

Territorial wrote: Shedite wrote: They want to get in countries with large populations China - 1.5bn India - 1.4bn Indonesia - 273m Pakistan - 220m Bangladesh - 165m Ethiopia - 115m Philippines - 110m Vietnam - 97m DR Congo - 86m Tanzania - 60m Myanmar - 54m They'll be expanding the 2030 WC to 200 teams then, so. Shedite wrote: ... an opportunity to build a strong domestic league Did nothing for domestic leagues in Mexico (1970, 1986), USA (1994), South Africa (2010) or Russia (2018). While even South Korea/Japan (2002) havent shown great progress domestically, considering how populous, wealthy and well-organised those countries are more generally. And as for Qatar - every single one of their squad this year plays in the Qatari league, where they earn decent money.. And every one of them was sh*te. Fact is, even if they spout this argument at regular intervals, I dont' think even the blazers at FIFA believe that hosting a World Cup creates a legacy for countries which don't have a strong footballing culture already. Instead it's quite simply Infantino "buying" votes from the non-UEFA/CONMEBOL members by offering extra invites to the Big Party every four years. And along with the 3 team group format, I predict (a ) expansion in 2026 will backfire badly, at least as regards the quality of matches, and (b ) Infantino won't give a stuff.

Each to their own, but I don't think football belongs to the established countries. Every team should have a chance to playat a World Cup. Euros going to 8 and World Cup to 24 in the 80's allowed Ireland to qualify, you don't think that had a legacy on the popularity on the game here?

Edited by Shedite - 05 Dec 2022 at 2:30pm

notpropaganda73 wrote: what about some ridiculously convoluted "AN Other" spots for all of us around the world not good enough to qualify via our own traditional means, something like that mad playoff competition for the women's world cup that we thankfully avoided by beating Scotland  that way the likes of New Zealand and Peru can duke it out against Ukraine and Norway for the last couple spots

Shedite wrote: BrendanD88 wrote: Shedite wrote: BrendanD88 wrote: newrynyuk wrote: So rather than more African and Asian teams embarrassing themselves in an expanded World Cup, you'd rather see more European teams embarrassing themselves in an expanded World Cup instead? Put it this way; how do you think Ireland would be doing in this World Cup against Morocco or Japan? UEFA/Europe without doubt should be getting more places for the next World Cup. This year 8 European teams qualified for the last 16. In 2018 10 European teams qualified for the last 16. In 2014 6 European teams qualified for the last 16. In 2010 6 European teams qualified for the last 16. In 2006 10 European teams qualified for the last 16. In 2002 9 European teams qualified for the last 16. In 1998 10 European teams qualified for the last 16. That’s over 50% of European teams in the last 16 over the past 24 years with European sides winning 5 out of 6 of those World Cups. Do you agree with teh same logic for Champions League? 4 English teams get in the last 16 every year, so they should have 8 of the 32 group stage teams? That's what you're saying should happen for WC Where did I say UEFA should get over 50% of the spots for the World Cup? It’s not unreasonable to suggest more places should be accommodated for European sides, even if that means they have to face play offs against teams from other confederations.   You said they deserve more than 16, more than 16 is getting close to 24 (which is 50%)

Bandwagon wrote: Shedite wrote: The point of expanding the tournament is to let more teams their chance of getting in, like China had in 2014, North Korea in 2010, Trinidad in 2006 etc. Expanding it isn't about changing who wins it, the best team will still win. The challenge of the World Cup is to beat teams with all different styles of football, so if they're going to 48 (which I don't agree with), they're doing it the right way IMO. Expanding it is purely for money reasons. It has nothing to do with improving the game or the tournament, if anything it'll do the opposite. With the new allocations its clear they're trying more or less assure the largest populated countries qualify every time.

Yeah they're hoping the countries with the biggest Tv audience is going to get in. They want to get in countries with large populations and an opportunity to build a strong domestic league

Shedite wrote: The point of expanding the tournament is to let more teams their chance of getting in, like China had in 2014, North Korea in 2010, Trinidad in 2006 etc. Expanding it isn't about changing who wins it, the best team will still win. The challenge of the World Cup is to beat teams with all different styles of football, so if they're going to 48 (which I don't agree with), they're doing it the right way IMO.