[Football] World Cup 2026 returning to groups of 4 format.

[Lenny Rider]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjZx__o7dv9AhWeSEEAHSjpA_oQvOMEKAB6BAgLEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.football365.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-cup-2026-to-feature-104-games-include-72-game-sodding-group-stage&usg=AOvVaw3ilMh0KTCMHB8aBb17MRdf

Too much?

I know we missed out in 74 and 78 with the 16 team final format but does a 48 country finals actually dilute the product?

Best World Cup format 24 or 32 teams?

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Only 48 team's? How do you divide this in match format?

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Can the World Cup return to groups of 4 when it never left groups of 4? The idea of groups of 3 has been rightly rejected for being shite and removing all the drama from final group games.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Only 48 team's? How do you divide this in match format?

12 groups of 4, top 2 from each group plus the 8 best 3rd places teams go through to the knock-out stage which will now feature an extra round of 32. So the group stage actually only eliminates 16 countries.

 

[Eeyore]

12 groups of 4, top 2 from each group plus the 8 best 3rd places teams go through to the knock-out stage which will now feature an extra round of 32. So the group stage actually only eliminates 16 countries.

The first round does seem a little dull with that format.

 

[Lenny Rider]

12 groups of 4, top 2 from each group plus the 8 best 3rd places teams go through to the knock-out stage which will now feature an extra round of 32. So the group stage actually only eliminates 16 countries.

Which is my point Joey, are they overegging the pudding?

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Which is my point Joey, are they overegging the pudding?

Over-egging. Yes. Will they care? No.

 

[hart's shirt]

"The move expands the competition from its projected 80 matches to 104, including a new round-of-32 stage."

If only we could have someone to explain it clearly...

 

[Simster]

Which is my point Joey, are they overegging the pudding?

The answer is a blindingly obvious YES. They expanded from 16 to 24 to 32 and each meant the tournament gained more and more cache around the world.

If they wanted to make any change from that point, it should have been to open the tournament to co-host nations without looking at them as a negative bid (Korea/Japan only happened as a political decision). Otherwise hosting it is never an option for smaller nations.

48 teams across the whole of.North America is a dumb idea, not least because of the carbon footprint.

 

[Seagull27]

32 is clearly the best format, it just makes sense numbers wise.

Glad they've got rid of the 3 team groups, but 48 teams is going to mean a number of dull matches, and pretty much guarantees that all of the 'big' teams reach the knockouts. Which is a shame.

 

[Weststander]

Works well, the 2022 WC was great.

Ultimately, one day there will be 48 groups of 4 in WC Finals lasting three months. Only the likes of San Marino and Eritrea missing out.

 

[A1X]

FIFA, like UEFA, were always eventually going to look for a format which made sure it was almost impossible for the big teams to fail to qualify for their showcase tournament

 

[Swansman]

There's 48 teams that can perform adequatly to not look silly in a World Cup (on the men's side). No issues in that regard. But no doubt the group stage will be less dramatic however with everyone and their mother going through it.

 

[US Seagull]

32 is clearly the best format, it just makes sense numbers wise.

Well numbers-wise, there's only one bit that FIFA cares about. It's right here:

FIFA has projected that the increase to 48 countries will generate around $1bn more income from greater television rights and sponsorship.

 

[slartibartfast]

In my opinion, this is a mistake. The World Cup was at its best when just 16 teams, four groups of four until 1978. Quality teams throughout, with a few underdogs. Most groups were in the balance due to having a few top teams in each. Then they expanded to 24 teams in 1982 which left us with that strange format where most of the 3rd placed teams in the groups still went through to the next round (although never Scotland, even with this). Then in 1998, expanded to 32, which just about still worked at double the original, and at least regained that exciting "bottom two of each group are out". But this new version just seems hugely bloated, brings back the nonsense of most teams going through from the groups, and runs the risk of each group being so diluted with weaker teams it would resemble some of the qualifying rounds ! The World Cup is still a fabulous month, but FIFA seem determined to suck the life out it. More teams does not mean better !

 

[hart's shirt]

Ultimately, one day there will be 48 groups of 4 in WC Finals lasting three months. Only the likes of San Marino and Eritrea missing out.

And Scotland.

 

[Weststander]

And Scotland.

Calling @THPP

 

[amexer]

I only get into W/C when it reaches last 16. This is madness and once again all about making more money. Number of games will go from 80 to 104 So many of them meaningless. Do clubs and leagues round the world have a say.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

How many new stadiums will the Saudi's have to build to host this, because who else can afford to? Plus think of all that unaccounted money floating around.

 

[Weststander]

How many new stadiums will the Saudi's have to build to host this, because who else can afford to? Plus think of all that unaccounted money floating around.

Or it’s held in countries already with a plethora of big stadia eg England, USA, Germany, Brazil, Spain, China.