Another Dumb Idea

Just when you thought international soccer was out of dumb ideas after the two-day existence of the European Super League (sorry, Real Madrid, but it's not a thing!), you're in luck!  Because, as it turns out, there are still plenty of dumb ideas to be had!  This one comes to us courtesy of Saudi Arabia, where, for some reason, they think having the World Cup every two years is actually a good idea!

This isn't the first time a biennial World Cup has been floated.  It was first discussed by former FIFA President Sepp Blatter more than 20 years ago, when it, obviously, didn't go anywhere.  Current FIFA President Gianni Infantino hasn't been shy with his plans to grow the game.  He's spearheaded the expansion of both the men's (from 32 to 48 teams) and women's (from 24 to 32) tournaments, as well as the creation of a 24-team Club World Cup.  And Infantino, who values his close relationship with the Saudis, has promised to give it consideration.

Hopefully "we'll give it consideration" is a polite way of saying "your idea is stupid."  Because it is.  Although, to be clear, Saudi Arabia hasn't directly asked for the World Cup to move to a two-year cycle.  All they asked for was a feasibility study.  That study will almost certainly conclude that it isn't feasible.  For a number of reasons.

The most obvious reason is the FIFA calendar.  It's constructed very deliberately using the four-year World Cup cycle.  So, going from every four years to every two years would require making a lot of changes to that meticulously drawn schedule.  They'd basically have to condense the same number of games and competitions into half the time, which all of the different national and continental federations would need to then work around (while also leaving room for full club seasons and the Champions League).

If that sounds like a lot of soccer, that's because it is.  World Cup qualifying is a year-and-a-half to two-year process, sometimes even longer.  So, if this proposal were to pass, nations would be in a perpetual loop of World Cup qualifying and the World Cup itself, then immediately doing it all over again.  No break.

Then there's obviously the continental tournaments.  The Euro is scheduled when it is on purpose.  It's in the even year between World Cups.  If the World Cup were to move to a two-year cycle, the two most important tournaments would suddenly be held in the same year. 

They could conceivably use the one-year delay to change the Euro cycle and hold it in odd years moving forward (2025, 2029, etc.), but that wouldn't completely solve the problem.  In fact, it would probably create a bigger one since teams would still have to qualify for both, and the qualifying would almost certainly have to overlap.  Plus, UEFA has that stupid Nations League that they're obsessed with and would need to work into the schedule.

It's not just the Euro, either.  There's Copa America, which is nearly as big, and all of the other continental tournaments.  Those wouldn't just go away.  They're too important.  Especially for the African and Asian countries that really have no chance of winning the World Cup.  But, instead of being the focal point in the off-year between World Cups, they'd be squeezed in with everything else and probably become an afterthought for a lot of larger nations.

I'd be willing to bet that broadcasters wouldn't be too keen on shelling out the extra rights fees that would come with the World Cup happening twice as frequently.  Especially since many of them probably also air the continental tournaments and/or Olympics.  The World Cup takes a month!  That's a lot of programming they'd have to rearrange.  Not to mention the fact that the Olympics and World Cup are the two biggest sporting events on the planet!  Talk about overkill!

How many countries would be lining up to host all of these extra World Cups, too?  Putting on the World Cup is not an inexpensive proposition.  Especially now that it's 48 teams and 80 games.  There's only a handful of nations that can afford that, even as a co-host with a neighbor.  (And, let's not forget, everybody's finances have taken a major hit over the past 15 months, so that probably limits the options even more.)

There's also the very real risk of oversaturation.  It's true that soccer is the world's game and the World Cup is the biggest event in the sport.  But part of what makes the World Cup so special is the fact that it only happens once every four years.  That adds to the prestige of winning.  Only one country can, and they get to call themselves "World Champions" for the next four years.  Cutting that in half would mean they get virtually no chance to enjoy it, since they'd immediately have to start their qualifying campaign for the next one.  It would also water-down the achievement, since it would be almost immediately forgotten.

Of course, there are the people who are in favor of this plan.  They like the idea of players getting more opportunities to represent their countries in the World Cup.  That would be true in most cases, but I can also see the situation where players, after a long club season, decide to skip the World Cup, knowing that there'll be another one in just two years.

Being a world class soccer player is already a 12-month job.  Many of them end up playing more than 50 games a year between club and country.  And it's not like they ever get a year off, since the national teams always have a major tournament to either play in or qualify for throughout the four-year cycle.  Condensing that cycle into two years might not even be possible, but even if it is, you're asking a lot more of these players than you already do.

So, simply put, if it ain't broke, why fix it?  The World Cup is great.  But it doesn't need to be every two years.  Hopefully FIFA's "feasibility study" makes that clear.  Because there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.  And twice as many World Cups would definitely qualify.