You knew when UEFA President (at least I think he's still the UEFA President) Michel Platini first brought it up that FIFA was going to consider expanding the World Cup from its current 32 teams to 40. And, despite seemingly everyone involved in FIFA being either investigated or arrested for some sort of corruption and/or bribery, the proposal seems to be gaining momentum once again. All five candidates to take over for disgraced President Sepp Blatter support it, so you'd figure World Cup expansion is inevitable. It's just a question of when.
On the surface, it makes sense. There are so many national teams recognized by FIFA that a number of strong ones are left at home each World Cup. The European Championships used to be a 16-team tournament. Next year's edition of the Euro will include 24 teams, but the Netherlands won't be one. The same Dutch team that has finished second and third at the last two World Cups. Like I said, it's not as if they'd be watering down the product by making sure all of the best teams are there.
We saw the effects of expansion from 16 to 24 during this summer's Women's World Cup. My argument then was that they needed to expand because 16 teams wasn't enough, but with the competitive state of the women's game, 24 may have been too many. Regardless, going to 24 teams for the Women's World Cup was the right move. It gave increased opportunities to federations that otherwise would've had no chance of qualifying, and eventually, they'll be more competitive against the likes of the United States and Japan.
If the men's World Cup expands, you won't have that talent disparity like we saw in the Germany-Thailand game over the summer. And, just like we'll see on the women's side, the increased number of bids will help grow the game. Likewise, it'll make qualifying easier for nations that can't get over the hump because they always run into traditional powers (Iceland and Albania will be making their debuts at a major senior-level competition at Euro 2016).
There's also always been an inherent unfairness that Oceania doesn't have an automatic bid into the World Cup. That's the main reason why Australia left and joined Asia. The federation's not strong. I get it. But New Zealand is penalized time and again because of where in the world it is. And none of those nations are going to get any better if the only competitions they're able to play in are against each other. (Personally, I think Oceania and Asia should be combined into one region, but that's a discussion for another day.)
Plenty of critics think the number of bids that go to Europe are disproportionate. Europe currently gets 13 berths, nearly half the field (in 2018, it'll be 14 since Russia's hosting). Of course, Europe has the most federations and the strongest teams, so all of those berths are deserved, but I do understand the frustration that the other regions have. You wouldn't be able to exclude Europe from the expansion, but if you give Europe one, you still have seven extra places in the World Cup to allocate to the other regions.
With the eight extra berths, I'd allocate one to each federation (including Oceania), with Asia and Africa each getting a second. I'd also eliminate the two cross-confederation playoffs and give an extra bid each to both of the Americas (although, I'll admit, six of the 10 South American teams would also be a bit disproportionate). So, assuming all current places are preserved, that would make the allotment look like this: Europe-14, Africa-7, Asia-6, South America-6, CONCACAF-5, Oceania-1, Host Nation-1.
Logistically, moving to 40 teams would actually be pretty easy. Instead of groups of four, you have groups of five. That's what the Rugby World Cup does already and it works fine. Sure, it creates a situation where one team in each group is done before the last day, but I'm sure that's something FIFA would be willing to accept. Likewise, you're probably expanding the length of the tournament by at least a week, probably two, which I'm sure FS1 and all the other broadcast partners would love. You'd probably need another stadium or two, as well (although I'm not sure how much the taxpayers of the host country would enjoy paying for those stadiums).
Most importantly, more games means more ticket revenue, which is good for everybody. And we all know how much FIFA loves money. They could even get wild & crazy and add a knockout game before the round of 16 by having three from each group advance and giving the group winners a bye into the round of 16.
While there are obviously plenty of logical reservations, all of those questions can easily be answered satisfactorily. And, like it or not, World Cup expansion is inevitable. The first tournament had 13 teams, and they went from 24 to the current 32 in 1998. I don't think I'd get any disagreement that the expansion made the tournament better each time, and going to 40 will likely do the same.
Is it necessary? Maybe, maybe not. Is it going to happen? Yes. Will it have a positive impact on not just the World Cup, but worldwide soccer as a whole? Most definitely. And I'm certainly not complaining about the possibility of a World Cup that lasts six weeks instead of a month.
No comments:
Post a Comment