Me too. But as a Welshman the wait is 58 years and counting (notwithstanding the awesome Euros performance). However I read somewhere that European qualifiers will be increased from 13 only to 16, so percentage wise that is a deduction of nearly 8%. African nations will e.g. have their allocation doubled. So the overall average level of teams will probably go down and there will be more one sided matches.
Scotland still won’t qualify. We’re fourth seeds in the European group pools as it stands, and we’ve been going steadily down the ranking for the last 20 years or so. Even if European qualifiers were increased by 50% it’s unlikely that we’ll benefit from it.
I kinda prefer watching the major tournaments without Scotland. For the ones after 1982 or 86, the team was regularly outplayed on the field and it was a matter of hoping the opponent wouldn’t find a way around the parked bus.
Given that the plan is that there will be 16 groups of three, with the top two from each group going through; given that to ensure a result there will be a penalty shoot out in the event of a draw at the group stage, it seems likely that we will be seeing games where weak teams “park the bus” to try to ensure that they get through to that great leveller – penalty shoot-out.
So lots of boring matches to look forward to. But what do FIFA care about the quality? They’ve got quantity and they are going to be selling the TV rights.
I see. Schoolboy error on my part. In that case 48 games to Germany and the other 15.
(Also, if you eliminate draws using penalty shoot outs what happens in an A beats B, B beats C, C beats A scenario? Do they use the ” goal difference” from the shoot out?)
I think the demise of the World Cup has been exaggerated. I love a minnows v big team game. And this will give the small teams a chance to develop. I’m all for it.
Eventually there will be no qualifiers, everybody will be in the finals. 70 groups of 3. Only the absolute worst three eliminated before the next round of 69 groups of 3. Voila perpetual world cup finals. Perhaps the eventual winners can be protected from unlikely elimination in round one of the next iteration. Obviously rich clubs will refuse to release players for the perpetual tournament and the average player will need to be released back to their Sunday league clubs as and when required.
I like it.
I used to work with a Premiership club-supporting guy about 10 years ago. He told me he didn’t give a monkeys about England or any other international side. All he cared about was his own team.
Seemed quite a sensible view, except for the fact that he was paying £800 a year for his season ticket plus extra for cup games etc. Meanwhile he was constantly scrounging fags and cups of tea because he was so broke and he couldn’t afford to chip in for petrol for his lift to work.
Now here’s a thing. Les Murray an Australian football ‘identity’, and ex member of FIFA’s Ethics Committee (a bit like a Master of Hounds being a Basil Brush fan), described the proposal today as ‘wholly cynical.’
Just like, he didn’t say, the Australian FA manipulating geography by joining up with the Asian Foundation for purposes of easier WC qualification.
Self-interest, as ever, wins.
Why not 48 teams? The English FA and fans are up in arms at this “disgraceful” decision, diluting the quality of the football! England dilute the quality of the football every time they qualify for a tournament, what a load of condescending baloon heads.
Football fans seem to form their opinion on an international team based on how that team performed in the first couple of World Cups they can remember. So we think that the Dutch still play total football despite the fact that they’ve been a physical, counter-attacking team for almost 20 years. And we still think the Brazilians are going to dazzle us with joga bonito even if their midfield is full of ball-winners.
Bless them, did the F,A really say that ? The cretinous loons. Any international competition is immediately enhanced as soon as England bugger off, less hysteria for a start although I would miss all the pained and overwrought analysis of what’s wrong with our game.
How many countries have the facilities to cope with this number of matches & teams – grounds, hotels etc etc? It will end up as being shared between several neighbouring countries, and then it will be spread over a longer period and will be just like the current qualifying process.
Purely a commercial exercise, which will ultimately back-fire horrendously for international competition.
‘Mmm? China? Possibly, don’t quote me on that. Host country one of the forty-eight. New market. Kerchingg? Ron Manager on the China coaching staff? Marvellous! Look back at Blatter’s reign almost fondly? Infantino! Where did all these bald footballers come from, mmm? Combovers too good for them? Football needs a few more Ralph Coates, and fewer Ronald Ronaldinhos. Norman ‘Bites yer Legs’ Hunter rather more endearing than Julio ‘Scrapes his Bentley down the M62’s Armco’ Incognito? Ha-ha. Mmm?’
Jackthebiscuit says
I have just read this story on the BBC website.
Dreadful decision IMHO.
Bingo Little says
The World Cup died when it joined the army.
Dodger Lane says
Had a good chuckle earlier when I heard that the Scottish F.A welcomed this decision. The English F.A remain tight-lipped.
dai says
Me too. But as a Welshman the wait is 58 years and counting (notwithstanding the awesome Euros performance). However I read somewhere that European qualifiers will be increased from 13 only to 16, so percentage wise that is a deduction of nearly 8%. African nations will e.g. have their allocation doubled. So the overall average level of teams will probably go down and there will be more one sided matches.
Hawkfall says
Scotland still won’t qualify. We’re fourth seeds in the European group pools as it stands, and we’ve been going steadily down the ranking for the last 20 years or so. Even if European qualifiers were increased by 50% it’s unlikely that we’ll benefit from it.
I kinda prefer watching the major tournaments without Scotland. For the ones after 1982 or 86, the team was regularly outplayed on the field and it was a matter of hoping the opponent wouldn’t find a way around the parked bus.
Sewer Robot says
Woo hoo! 72 games to get to Germany and the other last 15.
Carl says
Given that the plan is that there will be 16 groups of three, with the top two from each group going through; given that to ensure a result there will be a penalty shoot out in the event of a draw at the group stage, it seems likely that we will be seeing games where weak teams “park the bus” to try to ensure that they get through to that great leveller – penalty shoot-out.
So lots of boring matches to look forward to. But what do FIFA care about the quality? They’ve got quantity and they are going to be selling the TV rights.
Sewer Robot says
I see. Schoolboy error on my part. In that case 48 games to Germany and the other 15.
(Also, if you eliminate draws using penalty shoot outs what happens in an A beats B, B beats C, C beats A scenario? Do they use the ” goal difference” from the shoot out?)
Carl says
I really don’t know.
It’s a stupid idea and that scenario is one of the consequences of their stupidity.
I favour a return to 16 teams. Let the finals be fought out by la crème de la crème.
Paul Wad says
You’re joking aren’t you? The 16 would be made up of one from North America, 2 from Africa, 3 from Asia, 2 from Europe and 8 from South America.
Carl says
Who knows? Anyway, it will not and could not, happen.
Uncle Wheaty says
The Faroe Islands must be rubbing their hands with glee!
Leedsboy says
I think the demise of the World Cup has been exaggerated. I love a minnows v big team game. And this will give the small teams a chance to develop. I’m all for it.
*ducks*
Moose the Mooche says
World Cup 2026:
“Echoes of 1966… as England hold the mighty Lichtenstein to a 1-all draw…”
Sitheref2409 says
Genuinely mixed feelings about it.
On the one hand, quality dilution.
On the other hand, I wonder if that reaction is a little “old white man” of me.
corganiser says
Eventually there will be no qualifiers, everybody will be in the finals. 70 groups of 3. Only the absolute worst three eliminated before the next round of 69 groups of 3. Voila perpetual world cup finals. Perhaps the eventual winners can be protected from unlikely elimination in round one of the next iteration. Obviously rich clubs will refuse to release players for the perpetual tournament and the average player will need to be released back to their Sunday league clubs as and when required.
I like it.
Mike_H says
I used to work with a Premiership club-supporting guy about 10 years ago. He told me he didn’t give a monkeys about England or any other international side. All he cared about was his own team.
Seemed quite a sensible view, except for the fact that he was paying £800 a year for his season ticket plus extra for cup games etc. Meanwhile he was constantly scrounging fags and cups of tea because he was so broke and he couldn’t afford to chip in for petrol for his lift to work.
bricameron says
You want to hurt Putin? Take The World Cup away from him.
garyjohn says
Now here’s a thing. Les Murray an Australian football ‘identity’, and ex member of FIFA’s Ethics Committee (a bit like a Master of Hounds being a Basil Brush fan), described the proposal today as ‘wholly cynical.’
Just like, he didn’t say, the Australian FA manipulating geography by joining up with the Asian Foundation for purposes of easier WC qualification.
Self-interest, as ever, wins.
Native says
The day edges closer that it becomes The Barclaycard World Cup.
Baron Harkonnen says
Why not 48 teams? The English FA and fans are up in arms at this “disgraceful” decision, diluting the quality of the football! England dilute the quality of the football every time they qualify for a tournament, what a load of condescending baloon heads.
Leedsboy says
This is the best point made on this thread.
Hawkfall says
Football fans seem to form their opinion on an international team based on how that team performed in the first couple of World Cups they can remember. So we think that the Dutch still play total football despite the fact that they’ve been a physical, counter-attacking team for almost 20 years. And we still think the Brazilians are going to dazzle us with joga bonito even if their midfield is full of ball-winners.
Dodger Lane says
Bless them, did the F,A really say that ? The cretinous loons. Any international competition is immediately enhanced as soon as England bugger off, less hysteria for a start although I would miss all the pained and overwrought analysis of what’s wrong with our game.
geedubyapee says
How many countries have the facilities to cope with this number of matches & teams – grounds, hotels etc etc? It will end up as being shared between several neighbouring countries, and then it will be spread over a longer period and will be just like the current qualifying process.
Purely a commercial exercise, which will ultimately back-fire horrendously for international competition.
GCU Grey Area says
‘Mmm? China? Possibly, don’t quote me on that. Host country one of the forty-eight. New market. Kerchingg? Ron Manager on the China coaching staff? Marvellous! Look back at Blatter’s reign almost fondly? Infantino! Where did all these bald footballers come from, mmm? Combovers too good for them? Football needs a few more Ralph Coates, and fewer Ronald Ronaldinhos. Norman ‘Bites yer Legs’ Hunter rather more endearing than Julio ‘Scrapes his Bentley down the M62’s Armco’ Incognito? Ha-ha. Mmm?’