There are five proposals on the table, but all indications are that they're going to opt for Infantino's preferred format of 16 groups of three. Two of the other options propose a modest expansion to 40 teams, while the third is Infantino's original proposal of a 32-team playoff round that would eliminate 16 teams after just one game. Leaving the tournament as-is with 32 teams is also an option, but it seems highly unlikely that they won't vote for expansion.
Of the four expansion proposals, the one that seems likely is also the one that makes the most sense. It seems easy to just add one team to each group and have eight groups of five, but that would lead to a number of meaningless group games. It would also extend group play at least another week. And, based on the proposal, they'd drop the round of 16 (likely as a means of controlling the number of games), which means only group winners would advance. It just doesn't seem right that you could finish second in a competitive five-team group and be left out in the cold.
The other 40-team proposal is just messy. They'd have 10 groups of four, which would mean the group winners and the top six second-place teams advance. That system works in qualifying, but I don't like the idea of second-place teams having to sit there and wait out other results for advancement in the World Cup proper.
Likewise, the "playoff round" is basically the "First Four" of the NCAA Tournament. Except it's worse. Because these teams would go through the grueling two-year process of qualifying to potentially play just one game and go home before the top European and South American teams even start playing. It looked like that was going to be the format, but I'm glad enough people realized how unfair that ultimately was. Besides, the new proposal is much better.
So how is this new format going to work? Instead of eight groups of four, it'll be 16 groups of three, with the top two in each group advancing to the round of 32. Teams would be guaranteed only two games instead of three, but the maximum number of games a team would play will remain at seven. And, despite the addition of 16 games, the overall duration of the tournament wouldn't be much longer than Brazil 2014 was or Russia 2018 is scheduled to be.
Much like the expansion of the Euro from 16 teams to 24, this gives smaller countries a better opportunity to qualify. And, to be fair, there are currently 211 national associations in FIFA plus 12 federations that play at the continental level but aren't yet recognized by FIFA. When they last expanded the World Cup, prior to the 1998 tournament, there were 174 teams that attempted to qualify (compared to 147 in 1994 and 116 in 1990).
Iceland, Northern Ireland and Wales were the talk of Euro 2016. Not only will those nations have a better chance of qualifying for the World Cup now, with just two group games, they'll also be better equipped to make a similar run. Sure, the additional African and Asian teams probably wouldn't be at the same level as some of the top European clubs, but you run into that problem at every World Cup. And with only two games instead of three, those teams that don't necessarily belong will be weeded out more quickly.
All of this is an obvious money grab. FIFA estimates a $1 billion increase in revenue and a rise in profits of nearly $650 million. And, since the final group games wouldn't be played simultaneously, all 80 games would have exclusive TV slots. Not to mention the extra revenue that would go into the host country by the fans traveling in from 47 other nations as opposed to 31.
Although, the costs of hosting this expanded World Cup would seem to be somewhat prohibitive to all but a handful of nations. FIFA claims that you could still get it done with 12 stadiums (which is the minimum requirement now), but some countries have a problem fulfilling even that requirement. Sure, it's not a problem for nations like the United States or Germany or England or Italy, but what about a Japan or an Australia or even somewhere like a Mexico? That's one of the reasons Euro 2020 doesn't have a specific host country, and that's one of the reasons nobody wants to host the Olympics. What this likely means is that we'll see the return of joint World Cup bids, too (the only co-hosted World Cup was Japan/South Korea 2002).
We're going to see this expansion, though, mainly because no one seems opposed to it. The European club coaches are worried about the length of the tournament, but FIFA has assured them the tournament won't cut into training camps. The English are opposed, but resigned to the fact that it's going to happen. The only nation that's been vocal in its opposition is Germany, which just happens to be the defending champions.
Not surprisingly, all of the continental confederations are in favor, mainly because it means they're getting a greater slice of the World Cup pie. Even UEFA is willing to come on board as long as Europe's number of bids increases, too. Seeing as Europe accounts for nearly half of the tournament field (13 plus host Russia next year) and a number of good European teams are always left at home, that sounds like a reasonable request. And you'd think FIFA will honor it. Because if the whole point is to include more deserving teams, you can't exclude the largest and most successful federation just because you're trying to make it "fair" for everybody. Although, I do like it that Oceania will, presumably, at long last be given a guaranteed place in the finals, even if that means it'll be New Zealand every time.
I'm sure they're worried about getting the approval first before figuring out how qualification for the expanded tournament will work (and I'm sure the continental confederations will be jockeying for those extra berths). Here's how I think World Cup allocation can work moving forward, though:
- Host (1)
- Oceania (1)
- Europe (20)
- Africa (7)
- Asia (7)
- CONCACAF (6)
- South America (6)
- Notice no inter-confederation playoffs
They won't even announce the host for this 48-team, 80-game World Cup until probably 2020, but the United States (which most people agree should've been selected for 2022) is the overwhelming favorite. There's talk of a combined bid with Mexico and Canada, but that's not necessary. Besides, 2026 is America's 250th birthday. Can you think of a better way to celebrate than an 80-team futbol extravaganza?
No comments:
Post a Comment