Since 1986, group play has concluded with simultaneous final games, both to up the drama and avoid shenanigans. It has led to some memorable final days, most notably the last set of group games in Qatar, which were as manic as they were amazing. Group standings changing by the minute, teams going from advancing to not advancing, fans cheering goals in the other game as if their own team just scored. It made plenty of people in FIFA lament the fact that this would be the last World Cup with simultaneous final group games and wonder if there was a way to keep them moving forward.
With the World Cup expanding to 48 teams in 2026, the original plan was to do 16 groups of three. That would obviously mean there can't be simultaneous final group games, which has led to FIFA rethinking the format. Not only do they want to preserve the drama that comes with the simultaneous kickoffs, they're worried about the final games being meaningless for one or both teams, as well as possible collusion.
As a result, they're thinking about not doing 16 groups of three after all. A number of different alternative formats have been thrown out there, all of which involve keeping groups of four (12 groups of four seems to be the most popular). I'm not a fan of any of them. I say they stick with what was originally proposed: 16 groups of three.
That means the simultaneous final kickoffs will be lost, but that's a necessary sacrifice. And I don't think it'll be as big of a problem as FIFA thinks it will be. After all, it wasn't even a "problem" until it suddenly became an issue at the end of the 2022 World Cup...even though they had already approved the 80-game format for 2026, knowing what three-team groups meant.
There are several reasons why I'd prefer keeping the 16 groups of three for 2026, but that's the biggest one. The format was approved before the bidding started. The three North American countries signed on to host an 80-game tournament. Going from 16 groups of three to 12 groups of four would result in a 104-game tournament. That's 24 additional games! The U.S., Mexico and Canada can probably handle such an increase. But what about any potential future World Cup hosts? That's asking a lot.
For comparison, the 2022 World Cup featured 64 games. Instead of adding 16 more, they're talking about adding 40 more! That would obviously mean a lot more money for FIFA, which, let's be honest here, is probably the primary reason why they're now pushing for 104 instead of 80.
One of the reasons they originally went with groups of three was precisely because they didn't want the simultaneous kickoffs. The broadcasters don't like them. Not only does it split the audience, they need to find a second channel to broadcast the other game (and make sure viewers know where to find it). The appeal of the 80-game tournament was 80 dedicated kickoff windows. They obviously wouldn't have that if the 24 games to conclude group play were to kick off at the same time. It'd be 104 games in the same 80 TV windows.
I also have no idea when they plan to play these additional 24 games. The mock schedule in the United 2026 bid had either three or four games on every day of group play and the entire tournament taking five weeks. Four games is probably the max you can play in a day without crazy start times or simultaneous games, though. Even with simultaneous final games, they could cram a 104-game tournament into 36 or 37 days, so it would still fit within the window, but that would involve four games on every day of group play and six on the final four days (three double-game windows). Would the TV partners really sign on for that?
Now let's talk about what the groups of four would mean for the teams. Another reason why they opted for the groups of three was because it means that, even with the addition of the round of 32, the four semifinalists will still play seven games. (The third group game is simply being replaced by the round of 32.) There's no plans to not have a round of 32, so groups of four would mean the four semifinalists end up playing eight games instead of seven.
In the 32-team field that FIFA used for 24 years, qualification was nice and easy. Eight groups of four, with the top two in each advancing to the round of 16. If they go to 12 groups, then you've got third-place teams qualifying for the knockout stage (which brings the potential for shenanigans back in play). Or, if they were to opt to keep the number of games down by not adding the round of 32, then you've only got four of 12 second-place teams advancing. And that's not good, either.
Then there are the European teams, who I'm sure don't like this idea at all. When they allocated the additional 16 berths to the continents, UEFA was only given three, bringing their total from 13 to 16. That's all they wanted. They wanted 16 teams so that European teams wouldn't have to face each other in group play. Sixteen groups, 16 European teams. One per group. Nice and easy. If you're suddenly placing 16 teams in 12 groups, now you've got four groups with two European teams. Which is specifically what they didn't want in an expanded tournament!
FIFA's newfound concerns about the competitiveness and possibility of collusion in the final game seem to be a little unfounded, too. There won't be a Germany-Austria 1982 situation or even a France-Denmark 2018. They really shouldn't have anything to worry about. Because the final game will only be the second game, and nobody will have either already advanced or already been eliminated after just one game. Which means it'll matter to both teams either way!
Think about it. If you lose your first game, you need to win your second no matter what. If your first game is a draw, you don't want another one just to be safe. Really the only teams that can feel comfortable are those who win their first game in a blowout, but do you really want to take the chance on having your second game end up in a draw that potentially knocks you out of the top spot and giving you a stronger opponent in the round of 32?
Because of the odd number of teams in each group, one team's second and final game will be their opponent's opener. I'll admit that this is one thing about the 16-group format I don't like. You'll have teams sitting around for a long time waiting to either start the tournament or between games. But there's also no way around that. My point, though, is that this game between Team A and Team C will be Team A's second, meaning they need a result, and Team C's first, meaning they need a result. And, say Team A goes 2-0-0 (or 0-2-0), then the game between Team B and Team C matters a great deal to both of them!
So, hopefully the talk of changing the 2026 format to 12 groups of four ends up being just that. Talk. Because the "problems" they envision with the already-approved 80-game tournament simply aren't. Not to mention the fact that the United States, Mexico and Canada were expecting 80 games. Not 104.
No comments:
Post a Comment