Part of the reason australia moved to the Asian confed was because there wasn’t any automatic qualifying spots in Oceania. We got sick of having to go through playoffs……..only to make the last 2 world cups because of a playoff 😅
@@greb3n Not if we have anything to say about it. The OFC only gives New Zealand as occasional competition, AFC gives us Japan, South Korea, the Saudis, and so on. We're no longer as reliant on getting players into the European leagues because our local guys get games against international teams that can challenge them on a much more regular basis.
No the reason they moved is because they Australia beat American Samoa 31 to zero back in 2001 so Australia demanded to move to the Asian Federation for more competition. ua-cam.com/video/1wg9ox9F7Vw/v-deo.html
@declan gaming 24 The travel logistics and costs of doing that would be detrimental to the Oceania teams. Most of the Oceania Federations are poorer than even some of the poorest of the Asian Federations, so for them to have to travel to places like Saudi Arabia, Mongolia, or Sri Lanka (just to name a few) for away matches would be nearly impossible for some of these teams. Hell they have a hard enough time traveling amongst the small closely knit islands that they are. The OFC World Cup Qualifiers, thanks to COVID, got delayed, Tonga had to withdraw because a volcanic eruption devastated their country, and several matches got canceled because teams tested positive for COVID, and all this after teams had already traveled to Qatar on FIFA's dime to play all the matches there to avoid the travel costs and logistics and COVID restrictions involved with traveling between each of the Oceanian island nations.
I'm definitely in support of this as long as there are 4 team groups and not 3, similar to how the EUROS do it with the best performing 3rd place teams. Would also be a better chance to see Bafana Bafana (South Africa) in another World Cup after 2010
The problem with 4 team groups is the extra game. This year France and Argentina played 7 games. With 3 team groups they'll play 7, with 4 team groups they'll play 8. And that's just an extra round of fixtures that'll just drag the tournament on. Meanwhile with three teams, every game is crucial. I haven't heard any good arguments in favour of 4 teams, maybe you have one
@@aok2075 the problem with 3 team groups is we'll have the exact same no. Of total games in the world cup but with 48 teams and the worst part about that is in final group stage game you can't have 2 simultaneous games means the team that is seating can't do anything if the 2 teams play safe and draw
@@rauhan_sheikh Yeah, I hadn't considered that. But collusion between two teams is only possible if you've clinched qualification. I don't think both teams can clinch qualification after one game. But I haven't looked into it
Once this change goes through, I can see a lot of good players declaring for Jamaica in the future now that they realistically should qualify regularly for the world cup
Absolutely, and that goes for places like Algeria etc. Who have many players in the french nt who would be more likely to join the country of their roots if this happens, and make intl. football more competitive.
@@micayahritchie7158 Also in general concacaf needs much better competition on a regular basis. Jamaica becoming a great team would be very healthy for Concacaf.
The problem is every money grab fifa and uefa try and implement just adds more games to the already packed football calendar, reducing the quality of football as players either just get burnt out and injured more or some competitions just become for reserve teams
I have to agree and disagree on that one. Yes we have one more match, on a 4 teams per group WC, but taking into account how much players prepare for the WC and want to participate in the WC you must wonder how they will prepare for that extra game. Yes schedule cramping that we saw for many reasons such as Covid, WC not being played during summer, etc... have caused many injuries. But FIFA will have to listen to players to lessen the amount of matches played because if not the star players are for sure getting injured. So yeah FIFA just wants money.
I like the video, the editing and the usual style. I can also agree with the point that quality of the teams added wouldn't diminish the World Cup and it would be a great thing for them. Personally, I would love to have Hungary have a bigger chance to qualify, so as a German-Hungarian I could perhaps see both teams at a WC again. I also love that Oceania finally gets at least 1 permanent spot, it was kind of unfair to that part of the world. But there are a few points that could more contentious and critical: 1. Competition format: if they stay with 3 teams/group, you get the issue that the last game can be rigged (1982 - Austria v. Germany in Gijon comes to mind). But it would mean a max. of 7 matches for a team at least, as now, no additional game. If it is 4 teams/group some 3rd place teams will have to qualify and an extra round is added, or not all 2nd place teams go through... But the first option is more probable which leads to it being less transparent and the bracket and the whole progression is less clear then in a 2 of 4 qualify format. Also it leads to: 2. Extra matches - there is a lot of congestion with the footballing calendar already and adding additional time and games to the WC won't help that. The excitement is great but it is just the wrong direction to add even more games. 3. Especially since FIFA won't stop here. They already announed the plans to extend the Club World Cup. They also mentioned doing the WC every 2 years and then they mentioned every 3 years. Apart from the conflict with continental competions and club competions and e.g. the Olympics, the issue is they just want to milk everything out of players and the audience, and don't care about the health of players, quality of games, etc. This leads back to point Nr. 2. as well. Players will be ever more tired and injury prone. And the danger of oversaturation feels real. 4. This all goes back to how FIFA presidents are voted for. Every FA that is member of FIFA has 1 vote. This means Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Uganda, Brazil and Spain have the same power. That's why Blatter and Infantino always promise and give boons towards Asia, Africa, etc., because they have the most votes. And these FAs can be won over by expansions, more tournaments and holding the WC in their country/continent. So, as mentioned in point Nr. 3 - they won't stop here and that is what is one of the issues. 5. Also, less countries will be able to hold the WC, or mostly countries that are big and/or have the infrastructure and/or money. Or, and this seems to be the way: co-hosted bids, which isn't an issue on its own either, but it makes it more difficult to organize. But this might be less of an issue. But it can also lead to countries and FAs like Qatar to be more inclined to come in with bids. Similarly to how the Olympics have issues finding good host cities. So, I think it can be great and it will always be great as it is the World Cup, but there are already signs of oversaturation and it could lose its special place if they don't watch out.
The moment they make the WC a 2 year tournament, FIFA will end. It would go against the 2 biggest Confederations of the sport(UEFA and CONMEBOL) at the same time and what would be FIFA without them ? If these two confederations secede from FIFA, FIFA ends.
I do agree that FIFA should move away from the idea of doing 16 groups of 3 teams each, and should instead do 12 groups of 4 teams each. However I am less into the idea of a Round of 32 including the best 8 3rd place teams from the group stage. I would rather see two Round of 16s where the 8 best first place teams get a bye to the second Round of 16, and the other 4 first place teams and 12 runners-up go to the first Round of 16. It would create more incentive on the final day of Group Stage matches for teams leading in their respective groups to put in more effort, regardless of whether they've already clinched advancement out of their group or not, because they'll want to be among the top 8 1st placers to get that bye to the second Round of 16. It would only be an added 8 matches to the knockouts rather than an added 16, but you're already adding an additional 24 matches to the tournament by increasing the total teams qualifying to 48 and adding an additional 4 groups of 4 teams. They need to consider the time constraints and travel logistics. Realistically though, I think they'll probably still go the Round of 32 route, because as Zealand already mentioned multiple times in this video, FIFA does things because of money.
One thing I don't like is the whole idea of 2/3 of the teams making it past the group stage. It's going to make cases where big teams get knocked out in the group stage much rarer.
True but I would mean that you get huge clashes in the last 16. For example if Brazil and Spain were the top seeds in their groups and won the group and last 32 match then they would play each other at that stage. Usually group winners meet at Quarter Finals. So there is that.
We could still do round of 16. There doesn't need to be a round of 32. If they do groups of 4 all the second place teams don't have to go through. FIFA won't do it but if you're concerned about fatigue or too many teams it certainly doesn't have to be that way. We could just have the 4 best second place teams go through
I think expansion makes sense, but it's going to be a really pity to lose the drama and story-line potential of the current group format. Just hate the idea of a 3-team group format, but a longer group stage is going to reduce the variance of 'worse' teams causing upsets and qualifying for knockouts. And I don't love the complexity introduced by qualifying 8 3rd place teams out of 12 4 team groups.
If you were the nationality of any team that would now qualify because of this change, you wouldn't be saying that. Not every change is made for your own personal enjoyment, let other people of other nationalities enjoy finally being and making the world cup, for once in FIFA's life they're actually making a change that benefits millions accross several nations, that never happens.
A longer group stage will not help at all. There will be far less drama. Look at Italia 90...rubbish group stage. Now imagine that but doubled. At least with groups of 3 you have jeopardy in every match.
I also don't like that it would mean in the round of 32 having 8 group winners vs 8 3rd place teams while 4 group winners play 4 runners up and the other 8 runners up face each other. It's unfair. In the 16 groups of 3 however it's the winners vs runners up all the way. As it should be.
@@cheddarcheeseplease2481 not true, I'm from NZ and qualifying for this tournament will feel cheap given how hard it used to be and how gutted I was when we lost to Costa Rica in the playoffs
@@danieleverett4213 Again, it's not for you. Not every NZ fan is represented by your opinion and all the other nations that will qualify. You, alone, do not decide the enjoyment of others and what they'll feel once they finally qualify.
I appreciate the video big Z. I think 32 nations is best. It just works best. 48 means only really large nations can host it. The best and unique thing about ⚽ is that it's hard to qualify. I've watched every match of 2014, 18 & 22 plus went to 06 & 2010. I'm just going to watch Australia play in the group stage and tune in when it is at the Round of 32 stage.
It will have more combined bits for the world cup. Spain gets together with Portugal for a bid, Greece gets Egypt and Arabia for a bid, there was the Balkan bid that was in thoughts and so was the Scandanavian one. It is not an extremely bad thing.
Those are all valid points and I like that you brought them up because you are the first one I have seen in favor of this, who is (hopefully) not payed by FIFA. I still disagree tho. I totally get the desire of smaller nations like Italy to make it to a World Cup once but it’s a sporting competition after all, with this argument expansion would theoretically never stop but eliminations need to happen. And while 48 teams don’t lower the quality that much, it does break a perfect tournament structure. 32 teams make so much sense, 48 with groups of 4 means waiting for days as a third placed teams whether you advance, an advantage for later groups because they know what they need to advance at 3rd place and an overall uninteresting group stage because so little elimination happens. And don’t get me started on groups of three, that would be even worse. In addition it creates a problem with hosting, it seems to be to much for one country to deal with. The next world cup is in all of North America, the one after that might be in half of South America. Why even bother with host nations at this point and not just rotate between host confederations? I will miss the world visiting one country that gets an opportunity to present itself to the whole world as organizer and host, with so many countries hosting together none of them will make such an impact
I'm totally with you here, I was really worried about the 3 groups thing and was relieved/hopeful about that potentially being changed. I might be in the minority with being perfectly happy with the 3rd place spots being a thing, but either way I agree on paper the expansion is cool and nice. And hey, it gives Canada a chance to not face apparently three of the top 10 teams in the world in their next group lol
I am Just worried about scheduling, the world cup ist a long and exhausting Tournament as it already is. If they find a good solution for this i am excited!
If they do groups of 3 where 2 advance, the max number of matches for each team stays the same (one less group game, one more knockout). If they do groups of 4 where 2 advance + the 8 best third-place teams (Ro16 knockouts), there's just one more knockout game. So I don't think this will make a huge difference in that regard If they want to be really brutal -- groups of 4 where only the winner advances automatically, along with the 4 best second-place teams. Same amount of games as now, and in a way quite exciting, but it's too easy to get a situation where the majority of the last-round group games are irrelevant for the final outcome.
@@sebastiansbarra6553 Yeah it may be just one, but take into account that it is another 90 minutes in the pitch. Teams usually do not change their starting 11 and even less so during an elimination game. We saw how a cramped schedule to accomodate for the world cup in Qatar led to many more injuries. One extra game should not be too much as you said, but we have to be careful with FIFA as they do not care about anything but money.
Hope they'll find a way to rearrange the entire 2026 football season so the world cup doesn't feel too cramped, and players don't accumulate too much fatigue and injuries. I wonder if making the cup last 1-2 weeks longer can be possible without affecting the schedule of league tournaments and other events.
As the tournament grows, we probably won't get to see single nations that host world cups anymore. I liked the spotlight that was given to a certain country each world cup but i also like how things are changing. If future world cups take place in regions that are shared by several countries, smaller countries that only have 2-3 proper stadiums get the chance to be co-hosts and have world cup games played in their country as well.
With the progression of football, the World Cup, and domestic leagues, I’ve become increasingly interested in the development of each individual country and their own development. It’s incredible to see the gap between the top teams shrink with every World Cup, but I think it’s at the point where nearly any national team could beat any other national team. I could totally see teams that didn’t qualify topple giants, and “underdog” teams push to win major tournaments. I’ve been so interested, I’ve been messing around with the idea of a 64 team tournament, how many teams from confederations would qualify, how a host could handle a tournament so large, how it could benefit to host such a large tournament, and how this could develop football globally. Logistically, I wouldn’t expect something like this to happen for at least another 15 years, and I would expect a changing in fifa World Cup host selection processes. Hosts would be announced 10-12 years before a tournament for preparation, and international football formats and competitions could be permanently altered. This is all for the better of football, in my own opinion, and it could be so entertaining to see non-traditional nations qualify or make runs in a World Cup, and how that would impact football in those or surrounding nations. Seeing an even more competitive African base in a World Cup, not just with more teams, but with more players. The development of Caribbean and Central American football, central and southeast Asian football, East African football, and Oceania. This could also allow for the improvement of domestic leagues, instead of the “top 5” leagues being the only ones loaded with talent, an outer reach of quality national teams would mean a stronger pool of quality players from within that country, thus likely a stronger national league. It would spread out the competition, allowing for also a less congested schedule in domestic and continental club competition, because there would be other competitions with strong clubs, so not needing to add extra clubs to certain competitions like the champions league because there is just too much quality. There is a lot more things but this is just briefly what I’ve been thinking about, and I’m just loving the possibilities of this whole thing.
I would definitely add for Jamaica that if they were going to a world cup then they would potentially have access to a lot of players who won't play for England but want a chance at the world cup
This and this alone is my biggest reason for wanting this. It breaks the strangle hold of big European nations on post colonial dual nationality players. More people will declare for places like Nigeria and Jamaica and Algeria and Morocco instead of waiting hoping for an England France or Spain call up. That being said you still won't see VVD booting up for Suriname but by far i think it makes the distribution of talent fairer which is good for the game as a whole When it was suggested I was highly skeptical of the European backlash for this reason and those stated in the video
@@micayahritchie7158 I'm Scottish myself and while we struggle to compete I am not against trying to find a good balance for football. Supporting a country who haven't been at a WC since 1998 even an expansion of 5 European teams wouldn't increase our chances anyways to be brutally honest
There should definitely be 12 groups of 4s with the 3rd place teams going through, it just seems like the traditional 4 team groups are pretty standard that most fans/players/managers seem to enjoy. I don’t really see that deterring teams from playing negatively especially since they seem pretty set on making sure the correct added time is given at the end of the game. Plus, you could definitely have an underdog story of a 3rd place team making a deep run like Portugal did at 2016 Euros
I actually enjoy more teams at the world cup. This is undoubtedly a decision based on wanting to get more money, but many smaller nations will be able to write their own stories. Cups tournaments should be more of a "free for all" with less hard qualification periods. Will be cool to have more Oceanian representation, most likely the Kiwis (which political fun fact have a political system surprisingly similar to Germany).
Just think about how many teams from Concacaf will make it for the next world cup. We have all thre northern countries of Canada, USA and México going through automatically. Correct me if I am wrong but we will have another three spaces for direct qualification in Concacaf, meaning teams like Costa Rica, El Salvador, Panamá, Guatemala (my own country), etc... have the chance of making it. Also the extra spot from international playoff. I expect some really good stories from Concacaf for the next WC. It is going to get interesting.
Every time you zoom on Central Asia I just think of your Sri Lanka video with the David Attenborough impression. “On the Central Asian steps, every national team is better than Sri Lanka… and they wear really cool hats. Really cool hats.”
I feel that the extra knockout round is debatable but one idea is groups of 6 and 1st reaches the last 16 then a 2nd v 3rd knockout the reach the last 16, would reward better group stages and 2 more games guaranteed for smaller countries while bigger countries have a better shot at winning
I really like this idea. People are proposing groups of 4 with 3 passing but I think this would reduce a lot the surprises and the emotion (just look at Argentina's drama or Germany's elimination). Your idea feels perfectly balanced in this regard.
If the team grows, surely many citizens will be proud to be able to see their country compete in the world cup. Putting aside FIFA looking for more profits, but the opportunities that will be given to small countries that can participate in the world cup will be more open.
I think from apart from those teams that you chosed Uzbekistan will make through the World Cup just because they have a lot players in European top leagues (Serie A, Bundesliga, Russian premier league, Turkish super league etc.)
I completely agree. More teams means more underdog stories and chances for craziness. The intercontinental playoffs are what I am most excited about. Seeing Paraguay vs Iraq or Tahiti vs El Salvador for a chance to make the tournament will be really fun
@@welowee7610 at the start, maybe. But as these countries get more money for their countries, encourage more people to play (hopefully), they should start to see an uptick in play. But, generally, I think a lot of international football is boring, so....
For Concacaf, and Asia there will be teams with lower quality. But for South America and African we’re gonna see quality teams actually make it because their world cup qualifying is extreme competitive.
Zanzibar (/ˈzænzɪbɑːr/; Swahili: Zanzibar; Arabic: زنجبار, romanized: Zainzibar) is an insular semi-autonomous province which united with Tanganyika in 1964 to form the United Republic of Tanzania Learnt something today! Every single point was exactly bang on Zealand! and was that the elder scrolls 5:SKyrim? It looked like the scene when you flee from the dragon at the start? Sorry for spoilers about a 12 year old game. :) The village that you go to on my longest save I killed the shopkeeper there. She started a fight and things got out of hand.. and every time I went back there I ept seeing her body slumped over the counter and yeah that ones on me...hmmm! I'm rambling. Great video and keep up the good work!
I always found it weird that despite rugby, which isn't played to a great standard outside of the top 25, 30 odd countries having 20 spots in the men's world cup, football (played in pretty much every country, and where the Euros winner didn't even qualify) has just 32... More spots is always good - even if it didn't make it more competitive (which it probably will) expanding to smaller nations that don't often get a shot is absolutely a good thing
That's the point of the tournament. If everything went as predicted then it would be boring. Most people expected teams like Belgium to make it far and maybe even win it. It was really exciting after those types of predictions didn't come true.
Not necessarily. More teams mean, for the better teams, there should be at least one group match against a pretty inferior side. That would give a chance to rest some guys.
@@kingvidster5637 The problem is that this makes the tournament more predictable, not less. Smaller teams can surprise big teams thanks to a strong and well trained first squad. These teams suffer more with intensity because the substitutes often arent as good. For example, compare the intensity Saudi Arabia put against Argentina compared to their next two matches where the players were visibly tired.
Small correction: the inter-continental play off will send 2 teams to the world cup, not 3. "A playoff tournament involving six teams will be held to decide the last two FIFA World Cup berths:[10] these consist of one team per confederation, except for UEFA, and one additional team from the confederation of the host countries (CONCACAF). Two of the teams will be seeded based on the World Rankings, and these seeded teams will play for a FIFA World Cup berth against the winners of the first two knockout games involving the four unseeded teams. The four-game tournament is to be played in one or more of the host countries and to be used as a test event for the FIFA World Cup." source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification
As someone else has mentioned, I can get behind this as long as the groups remain as groups of 4 with the best performing 3rd place teams making up the numbers. If the groups get cut back to being groups of 3 then for travelling fans, you're essentially forced into flying around the world to watch your country play 2 games - which is pretty ridiculous. And also it would take a lot of the excitement out of the final group stage match day since you could end up with two teams with nothing at all to play for being the final group match which is kind of a bummer.
What's the difference between 2 or 3 games? Plus in a group of 3 teams there are just 3 matches total....the final game is likely to have even more at stake! Just don't have the top team playing in it. If it's the two lower ranked teams they will not be playing for 0-0. Well one team might but not both.
@@stingersplash Difference is pretty easy: You don't get the final day drama that happened in so many groups during this World Cup. Let's talk about the group Japan freaking won, there were a couple of minutes where both Japan and Costa Rica were getting past their group stage. When Germany started scoring at the end of their match, there was this feeling that maybe Germany could get past the group if things kept going that way, not to mention that Spain started winning against Japan and, due to virtue of Japan losing, Spain and Germany would get through together. And it's not the first time something like all 4 teams had chances of getting through in a WC, and during this WC you had a lot of "final day" stories of what could have been. Mexico just needed one extra goal to get through and leave Poland behind, and since they didn't, the Polish players celebrated in other match after waiting for confirmation. Oh, and if Saudi Arabia won their match, it was them getting through. With three teams group you lose all of this, cause one team is resting, and the other two will have a very increased chance to go all 1982 W. Germany v Austria which sucks a whole lot, as there's that reason why the final day matches are played at the same time nowadays (and drama)
the one change i would make in the format (and i'm a US fan here) is to give one of the 3 extra concacaf spots to Africa to give them another spot because I feel like that would be a better balance in my opinion given how many good teams reside in Africa instead of seeing a different lower concacaf team
From a players perspective, this is torture and will put even more stress on to already stressed players. From a supporters perspective, it's great during the tournament, more games and more fun. But the stress and the packed calendar might cause disappointment after the WC, during club matches. If you fail to qualify for a tournament based on which country is the best country in world football, then the team that beat you deserves that spot more than you do. If you fail to qualify for a tournament based on which football club is the best club in world football, then the team that beat you deserves that spot more than you do. For some reason people hate the new CL system with more teams, but they don't hate the new WC system with more teams. THE BEST OF THE BEST GET TO PLAY, THE OTHERS DON'T. IF YOU MISSED YOUR CHANCE THAT YEAR, DO BETTER NEXT TIME. It's part of the game, it's part of the charm of football. Italy aren't bad, but they didn't deserve to go to the WC. Simple. This time I 100% disagree with Zealand. Doesn't happen ever but this is a bad all around.
Narrow it to the big leagues where basically there's football all year long. Some of the smaller countries that will qualify have less inflated calendars and will be less affected, especially if most of the capped players are from the national top league. It won't be a game changer in any way, but these countries will have less worn out players in the squad.
Seen this format on play out on football manager. I have a sim in 2060. The 16 group, 3 team per group tournament is a load of 💩 in the group stage. But like Zealand said, the 32- team KO stage is absolutely insane to watch. I can only imagine watching it for real In 2026.
I'm definitely excited for the expanded tournament. More countries making their first tournament (which is always a special event and feeling globally), more knockout rounds, more matches overall. There's definitely an argument to be made about over-stacking the games across all competitions players participate in, but that's a separate discussion honestly as this would only add one more game per team already qualifying (that extra knockout). They definitely should go with 4 team groups though, three is just a really bad idea.
@@aok2075 The number of games is the same, but in each group one team has double rest time between games, which is imo unfair. One more game over the entire tournament may not seem like much, but it's also one more game in a short timeframe, which is bound to cause more injuries and make players more tired for the final games.
I agree with you here from a fans perspective, but if you look at it from a players perspective or administration at clubs this is hard. It will make it so much harder for players because they just get so tired, look at Morocco in the last two games. So many injuries and tired players. Now imagine if they had to play another game still. You could argue that this makes it better for the smaller teams since they have a better chance of making it to the tournament but you could also argue that it actually favours the big teams even more since they are the ones who’ll be able to rotate players much more and not be as affected by the higher amount of games. But all in all I do agree that this is a good change all things considered. But I also understand that clubs especially probably aren’t too happy about this
I could be wrong but more teams surely equals a longer world cup and with players especially in the top 5 leagues playing 50-60 matches this just add more games to a busy calendar
I think a lot of people who live in countries that are traditional and current football powers have this mindset of “what’s the point of having teams there who don’t have a chance to win it all?” But that’s just not at all what the tournament is about, there are so many definitions of success in this tournament that will bring joy to so many countries and I’m happy more will get to experience that. Not to mention the financial resources smaller countries will get by making it.
Many definitions of success... like the Third Place game in Qatar. Neither Croatia nor Morocco had ever gotten so far in the World Cup before, and Morocco is the first African side to have achieved that, while for Croatia Third Place is the best finish they've managed in their entire footballing history. Both these national teams were punching way above their weight in this tournament.
@@Constanza235 I had forgotten. Lots of stuff happening in the intervening four years and you tend not to remember who came in second or even third from tournaments years ago.
And there won't be the super excitement of the group stage's final game anymore. We will miss those rollercoaster games, joyful fans, heart broken fans back and forth between 2 stadiums.
As an Irish fan, I like the bigger chance if qualifying, but it will feel shallow, it will also lower the quality. 32 is a great number as it simply divides by 2 all the way to 2, while 48 makes it complicated. Next, you will suggest the Champions League expands to 48?
I totally get the point that the teams likely to qualify now are going to be quality teams, but I think the problem here is that the World Cup is supposed to be, well, tough to qualify for. It's supposed to be a challenge for every team. The only teams that maybe don't at least get a challenge to qualify would be Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Spain, etc., but Italy's failure to qualify is a sign that it is a difficult tournament to get to, and you can't just expect that you'll get in. Also, the fact that teams like Austria, Bosnia, Norway, Greece, etc. would be on the outside looking in in terms of ranking, yet teams like Jamaica, Uzbekistan, New Zealand, etc. would be expected to qualify is kind of ridiculous.
Another thing to support your point is with these lesser teams now having a better chance of qualifying for the world Cup, you will likely see better players playing for the country of there birth or parents birth, like for example Raheem Sterling could've choose to represent Jamaica, and many of the other African players in Europe might do the same, all of sudden these lesser known teams get alot stronger.
Don't know, for the Euros I felt like the level of competition definitely suffered from them expanding from 16 to 24 teams in the 2016 Euros. Hopefully this won't be the case for the WC but I'm a bit skeptical. One more knockout round does sound good though I must admit.
this is good if we Africa don't use zonal qualifications because that would mean quality teams in the west and north don't have to fight for a limited spots. because imagine having African power houses cote d'ivoire, Ghana, Egypt, Senegal, Morocco, Nigeria, Tunisia , Algeria and South Africa all in the world cup.. the world would know why AFCON is unpredictable and very competitive
This would be fine if they gave Europe more spots instead of Asia and Africa. Teams like Sweden Norway Italy Bosnia Russia Hungary etc. are just miles above UAE Oman Lebanon and China.
This is great for most of us who come from smaller nations as it brings a bigger chance to qualify and experience knock out games even bails out powerful nations. Germany would’ve made it through as they were the best 3rd place team. Africa and Asia are going to get heavily benefited from this with their level improving this can only get better.
As an Australian, we made the round of 16 with a team filled with mostly A league and Scottish Prem players(who apart from one was playing for a good side in Scotland with Arron Mooy at Celtic, heck our best player was Harry Soutter who plays for Stoke in the championship) Jamaica has a better quality team then us and that is your most questionable team. The depth of football is only ever getting better, I hate fifa's money grubbing tactics but more sides is a good thing, that said I probably would of gave 4 more places to Europe at the expense of CONCACAF or Oceania(who should be merged with Asia already anyway to make it an Asian pacific region, I think NZ could qualify in asia anyway).
But June 8 - July 3? WHY? It should be 5 weeks. THEY ARE DREAMING. But actually given all the warm weather locations and domed stadiums they should do it at Christmas Time Again. THAT WAS FUN!
I haven't read through all the comments - there are lots now - but I disagree with what seems to be the consensus preferring 4 team groups to 3 team groups, but maybe that's because I'm old enough to remember how dire the group stage games often were in the 24-team World Cups when 4/6 3rd place teams went through. It often seemed to make not losing more important than winning, and meant that groups with a complete also-ran became too easy.
So what's the best structure when there are 48 teams? - 16 groups of 3 going into ro32. - 12 groups of 4 with 8 third places advancing into ro32. - 12 groups of 4 with 4 second places advancing into ro16. - 8 groups of 6 going into ro16. None of them seem great. I'd prefer the fairness of the last option, but it would create way too many group games. Maybe we should just start with 16 x 4 teams...
I agree with every point, but the 3rd point has a big downside, I think. More matches sounds great for us fans, but I'm not sure the players can handle so many games in such a short period. This final in Qatar turned out great in the end, but only because of Argentina's mistakes that allowed France to come back. In reality it was a pretty boring and one sided game for 80 minutes because the French team was nowhere near the level they can play at when they're not exhausted after so many games. So the quality of the semi-final and final games will obviously go down when you increase the number of games.
if my country Indonesia still can't qualify even after this expansion from 32 teams to 48 teams, then I'll be ultra mad. We have to fucking do this, it's our one chance
Hey Zealand, could you make a video comparing tactics in FM22 vs FM23? What works in FM22 that doesn't work as well in FM23 and vice versa? I'd really appreciate it.
Bringing more teams to the World Cup but keeping a R16 instead of a round of 32 would be best. More countries get to participate in the tournament but the same difficulty in terms of continuing
Expansion is ok but adding 2 more from conmebol to make 6 out of 10 nations. At this point lets put them all......or why not rearrange conmebol or merge it with concacaf
How I think they should fix the 48 team format: Have 8 groups of 6, draw half the teams in each group into the "left" side of the group and the other half into the "right" side, every team within a group plays all the teams on the opposite half but never any team on its own half, top team qualified automatically to the round of 16 while 2nd and 3rd quakily to a playoff round, the winner of which goes to the round of 16. This has 8 groups which makes the final draw very easy, still keeps the group stage to only 3 games instead of 5 which would be expected of a 6 team group and allows the final matches of all groups to be played at the same time. Qualifying 3 teams ensures that qualification is always in every teams' own hands, since you could have a scenario where every team on the left hand side wins all of their games, and if you only qualified 2 teams from the group, a team could win all of their games but still get knocked out, and if you qualified 4 teams, a team could lose all 3 games and still get through. Example group: Left half: Argentina (pot 1) Sweden (pot 3) Egypt (pot 5) Right half: Portugal (pot 2) South Korea (pot 4) Panama (pot 6) (Even teams wouldn't necessarily all be on one side of the draw, but it just happened for this one by chance) Argentina 2-1 Portugal Sweden 1-1 South Korea Egypt 2-1 Panama Argentina 4-0 Panama Sweden 0-2 Portugal Egypt 1-1 South Korea Argentina 1-0 South Korea Sweden 3-1 Panama Egypt 1-1 Portugal 1) Argentina 9 points +6 GD 2) Egypt 5 points +1 GD 3) Portugal 4 points +1 GD 4) Sweden 4 points 0 GD 5) South Korea 2 points -1 GD 6) Panama 0 points -7 GD Argentina qualify automatically to the RO16 and earn the benefit of being the best team in the group, Egypt play a 3rd place team in the playoff and Portugal play a 2nd place team in the playoff
The problem of a 48-team world cup is not the introduction of 16 new teams. Is the format problem that it creates, for a reason groups of 3 teams was the initial idea its because there are no good formats that work with 48 teams
Totally disagree - 32 is already too many. We won't be able to watch more as it's inevitable there will be more games on as the same time in the early stages.
I love expansion and I say screw it, go to 64 teams. 16 groups of four. You’d probably have to combine CONCACAF & CONEMBOL qualifying, otherwise South America might not even have qualifying. But 10 from Asia, 10 from Africa, 15 from the Americas, 25 from Europe, 2 from Oceania, leaving two for host automatic qualification, as every future hosting bid seems to be joint bids and would need to be to accommodate such a large tournament.
16 more teams will certainly not significantly lower the quality of the football due to the reasons mentioned in the video. However, what is concerning is the following increased demands on infrastructure and such that the hosts will need to provide and invest in. Of course that is not mainly driven by the number of teams but rather by the megalomania of FIFA. But I think FIFA will find the excuses they need to demand bigger and fancier stadiums (and more of them!) to the point where it will be almost reasonable to let Qatar or China host the World Cup every time. Because the rich democracies of the world will not accept much more of FIFA's sh*t, I think.
@@skippertheone3341 Of course but that is still bad. A tournament spread out over the ginormous distances between Vancouver, Boston and Mexico City is outrageous.
If the world Cup has 48 teams in 2026 there Is 2 options either have 2 groups of 24 they all play 23 games in both groups the top 8 in each group of 24 advance to the last 16 another option is expand the existing groups from 4 to 6 teams and they play 6 games 8 groups of 6 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H the top 2 advance which format do you think is better the 2 groups of 24 or groups of 6
Beitrag des Donnerstages, 2. März 2023 The spots of the FIFA World Championship could be allocated, via the results of the intercontinental matches! Every national team could reach a maximum of 2 points for the seat calculation. made up numbers! UEFA: 1.31 * 55 = 72.05 ... 19.21 ... 19 COMNEBOL: 1.47 * 10 = 14.70 ... 3.73 ... 4 CONCACAF: 0.84 * 35 = 29.40 ... 7.84 ... 8 CAF: 0.67 * 54 = 36.18 ... 9.65 ... 10 AFC: 0.53 * 46 = 24.38 ... 6.501 ... 6 OFC: 0.32 * 11 = 3.52 ... 0.93 ... 1 180.23 / 48 ~ 3.75 ... = divisor
my biggest issue with the Expansion is simply just the 3-team groups. I'm not saying it will, but it 'Could' cause serious issues with cheating; in case where (as not all teams can finish at the same time) where teams will not try to win, or similarly, play to draw as the result can suit both teams. If the 3-team groups stick, something needs to be done to prevent it. or atleast have it frowned upon.
It's highly unlikely that would happen. A draw in a 3 team group rarely benefits both. Plus the group would have one of the best 16 teams in the world, a mid team and a team like Qatar. You will be seeing lots of big teams with 6 points and the others trying for 3.
@@stingersplash It's incredibly likely to happen... Germany beats Colombia in the first game. Qatar then draws with Colombia... Qatar and Germany then know a draw gets them both through. Colombia would be sitting on their hands hoping Germany can do them a favour and beat Qatar by more than they beat Colombia but Germany has absolutely no incentive to do anything. It would be absolutely terrible and the above example would be the case more often than not.
Oh you're probably against my 12 groups of 4 going into Round of 16 idea then cause you like the knockout rounds XD My idea was to only qualify the 12 group winners and the best 4 2nd place teams to create the round of 16 and keep the knockout rounds the same.
Am I really the only one seeing a massive problem with the group systems with 12×4 and 16×3? Collusion with 16×3 should be clear. But having the best 3rds advance is also unfair. Teams in group L would have clear advantage compared to group A. How do you even fairly compare teams who had complety different opponents? A world cup with 48 teams is just stupid.
I feel like an extra knockout round adds more potential for upsets. I honestly believe through the next like 10 world cup cycles maybe we will see new countries win at a faster rate than before.
Part of the reason australia moved to the Asian confed was because there wasn’t any automatic qualifying spots in Oceania. We got sick of having to go through playoffs……..only to make the last 2 world cups because of a playoff 😅
R they gonna go back or smthn
@@greb3n Not if we have anything to say about it. The OFC only gives New Zealand as occasional competition, AFC gives us Japan, South Korea, the Saudis, and so on. We're no longer as reliant on getting players into the European leagues because our local guys get games against international teams that can challenge them on a much more regular basis.
No the reason they moved is because they Australia beat American Samoa 31 to zero back in 2001 so Australia demanded to move to the Asian Federation for more competition. ua-cam.com/video/1wg9ox9F7Vw/v-deo.html
@@twrampage but playing the cook islands and American samoa isn't good that's why they need to merge the OFC into the AFC
@declan gaming 24 The travel logistics and costs of doing that would be detrimental to the Oceania teams. Most of the Oceania Federations are poorer than even some of the poorest of the Asian Federations, so for them to have to travel to places like Saudi Arabia, Mongolia, or Sri Lanka (just to name a few) for away matches would be nearly impossible for some of these teams. Hell they have a hard enough time traveling amongst the small closely knit islands that they are. The OFC World Cup Qualifiers, thanks to COVID, got delayed, Tonga had to withdraw because a volcanic eruption devastated their country, and several matches got canceled because teams tested positive for COVID, and all this after teams had already traveled to Qatar on FIFA's dime to play all the matches there to avoid the travel costs and logistics and COVID restrictions involved with traveling between each of the Oceanian island nations.
I'm definitely in support of this as long as there are 4 team groups and not 3, similar to how the EUROS do it with the best performing 3rd place teams. Would also be a better chance to see Bafana Bafana (South Africa) in another World Cup after 2010
The problem with 4 team groups is the extra game. This year France and Argentina played 7 games. With 3 team groups they'll play 7, with 4 team groups they'll play 8. And that's just an extra round of fixtures that'll just drag the tournament on. Meanwhile with three teams, every game is crucial.
I haven't heard any good arguments in favour of 4 teams, maybe you have one
@@aok2075 no they'll still play 7 games, why would they play 8? 3 games in groups, 1 ro16, 1quarter, 1 semi, 1 final= 3+4 = 7
@@aok2075 the problem with 3 team groups is we'll have the exact same no. Of total games in the world cup but with 48 teams and the worst part about that is in final group stage game you can't have 2 simultaneous games means the team that is seating can't do anything if the 2 teams play safe and draw
@@rauhan_sheikh There will be a round of 32. So it'll be 8 games
@@rauhan_sheikh Yeah, I hadn't considered that. But collusion between two teams is only possible if you've clinched qualification. I don't think both teams can clinch qualification after one game. But I haven't looked into it
Once this change goes through, I can see a lot of good players declaring for Jamaica in the future now that they realistically should qualify regularly for the world cup
Absolutely, and that goes for places like Algeria etc. Who have many players in the french nt who would be more likely to join the country of their roots if this happens, and make intl. football more competitive.
And thank God for that. So many damn Jamaicans sitting waiting for England call ups 😭. I mean Sterling and Walker show that it works so why not
@@micayahritchie7158 Also in general concacaf needs much better competition on a regular basis. Jamaica becoming a great team would be very healthy for Concacaf.
The problem is every money grab fifa and uefa try and implement just adds more games to the already packed football calendar, reducing the quality of football as players either just get burnt out and injured more or some competitions just become for reserve teams
I have to agree and disagree on that one. Yes we have one more match, on a 4 teams per group WC, but taking into account how much players prepare for the WC and want to participate in the WC you must wonder how they will prepare for that extra game. Yes schedule cramping that we saw for many reasons such as Covid, WC not being played during summer, etc... have caused many injuries. But FIFA will have to listen to players to lessen the amount of matches played because if not the star players are for sure getting injured. So yeah FIFA just wants money.
I like the video, the editing and the usual style.
I can also agree with the point that quality of the teams added wouldn't diminish the World Cup and it would be a great thing for them. Personally, I would love to have Hungary have a bigger chance to qualify, so as a German-Hungarian I could perhaps see both teams at a WC again.
I also love that Oceania finally gets at least 1 permanent spot, it was kind of unfair to that part of the world.
But there are a few points that could more contentious and critical:
1. Competition format: if they stay with 3 teams/group, you get the issue that the last game can be rigged (1982 - Austria v. Germany in Gijon comes to mind). But it would mean a max. of 7 matches for a team at least, as now, no additional game.
If it is 4 teams/group some 3rd place teams will have to qualify and an extra round is added, or not all 2nd place teams go through... But the first option is more probable which leads to it being less transparent and the bracket and the whole progression is less clear then in a 2 of 4 qualify format. Also it leads to:
2. Extra matches - there is a lot of congestion with the footballing calendar already and adding additional time and games to the WC won't help that. The excitement is great but it is just the wrong direction to add even more games.
3. Especially since FIFA won't stop here. They already announed the plans to extend the Club World Cup. They also mentioned doing the WC every 2 years and then they mentioned every 3 years. Apart from the conflict with continental competions and club competions and e.g. the Olympics, the issue is they just want to milk everything out of players and the audience, and don't care about the health of players, quality of games, etc. This leads back to point Nr. 2. as well. Players will be ever more tired and injury prone. And the danger of oversaturation feels real.
4. This all goes back to how FIFA presidents are voted for. Every FA that is member of FIFA has 1 vote. This means Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Uganda, Brazil and Spain have the same power. That's why Blatter and Infantino always promise and give boons towards Asia, Africa, etc., because they have the most votes. And these FAs can be won over by expansions, more tournaments and holding the WC in their country/continent. So, as mentioned in point Nr. 3 - they won't stop here and that is what is one of the issues.
5. Also, less countries will be able to hold the WC, or mostly countries that are big and/or have the infrastructure and/or money. Or, and this seems to be the way: co-hosted bids, which isn't an issue on its own either, but it makes it more difficult to organize. But this might be less of an issue. But it can also lead to countries and FAs like Qatar to be more inclined to come in with bids. Similarly to how the Olympics have issues finding good host cities.
So, I think it can be great and it will always be great as it is the World Cup, but there are already signs of oversaturation and it could lose its special place if they don't watch out.
The moment they make the WC a 2 year tournament, FIFA will end. It would go against the 2 biggest Confederations of the sport(UEFA and CONMEBOL) at the same time and what would be FIFA without them ? If these two confederations secede from FIFA, FIFA ends.
I do agree that FIFA should move away from the idea of doing 16 groups of 3 teams each, and should instead do 12 groups of 4 teams each. However I am less into the idea of a Round of 32 including the best 8 3rd place teams from the group stage. I would rather see two Round of 16s where the 8 best first place teams get a bye to the second Round of 16, and the other 4 first place teams and 12 runners-up go to the first Round of 16. It would create more incentive on the final day of Group Stage matches for teams leading in their respective groups to put in more effort, regardless of whether they've already clinched advancement out of their group or not, because they'll want to be among the top 8 1st placers to get that bye to the second Round of 16. It would only be an added 8 matches to the knockouts rather than an added 16, but you're already adding an additional 24 matches to the tournament by increasing the total teams qualifying to 48 and adding an additional 4 groups of 4 teams. They need to consider the time constraints and travel logistics. Realistically though, I think they'll probably still go the Round of 32 route, because as Zealand already mentioned multiple times in this video, FIFA does things because of money.
excelent
8 groups of 6 is what I wish they’d go to
I'm choosing to believe Zealand put the Australian flag instead of the New Zealand flag on purpose
One thing I don't like is the whole idea of 2/3 of the teams making it past the group stage. It's going to make cases where big teams get knocked out in the group stage much rarer.
True but I would mean that you get huge clashes in the last 16. For example if Brazil and Spain were the top seeds in their groups and won the group and last 32 match then they would play each other at that stage. Usually group winners meet at Quarter Finals. So there is that.
that is a bit of a downside but more smaller teams would make it out of the group.
@@hkar4385 Merge CONMEBOL And Concacaf NOW 🎉 🎉 the only way to challenge evil UEFA
We could still do round of 16. There doesn't need to be a round of 32. If they do groups of 4 all the second place teams don't have to go through. FIFA won't do it but if you're concerned about fatigue or too many teams it certainly doesn't have to be that way. We could just have the 4 best second place teams go through
I think expansion makes sense, but it's going to be a really pity to lose the drama and story-line potential of the current group format.
Just hate the idea of a 3-team group format, but a longer group stage is going to reduce the variance of 'worse' teams causing upsets and qualifying for knockouts.
And I don't love the complexity introduced by qualifying 8 3rd place teams out of 12 4 team groups.
If you were the nationality of any team that would now qualify because of this change, you wouldn't be saying that. Not every change is made for your own personal enjoyment, let other people of other nationalities enjoy finally being and making the world cup, for once in FIFA's life they're actually making a change that benefits millions accross several nations, that never happens.
A longer group stage will not help at all. There will be far less drama. Look at Italia 90...rubbish group stage. Now imagine that but doubled. At least with groups of 3 you have jeopardy in every match.
I also don't like that it would mean in the round of 32 having 8 group winners vs 8 3rd place teams while 4 group winners play 4 runners up and the other 8 runners up face each other. It's unfair. In the 16 groups of 3 however it's the winners vs runners up all the way. As it should be.
@@cheddarcheeseplease2481 not true, I'm from NZ and qualifying for this tournament will feel cheap given how hard it used to be and how gutted I was when we lost to Costa Rica in the playoffs
@@danieleverett4213 Again, it's not for you. Not every NZ fan is represented by your opinion and all the other nations that will qualify. You, alone, do not decide the enjoyment of others and what they'll feel once they finally qualify.
I appreciate the video big Z. I think 32 nations is best. It just works best.
48 means only really large nations can host it. The best and unique thing about ⚽ is that it's hard to qualify.
I've watched every match of 2014, 18 & 22 plus went to 06 & 2010. I'm just going to watch Australia play in the group stage and tune in when it is at the Round of 32 stage.
It will have more combined bits for the world cup.
Spain gets together with Portugal for a bid, Greece gets Egypt and Arabia for a bid, there was the Balkan bid that was in thoughts and so was the Scandanavian one.
It is not an extremely bad thing.
48 doesn't really limit hosting more than 32 does currently and they're moving (sensibly imo) toward multi nation hosting anyway
Those are all valid points and I like that you brought them up because you are the first one I have seen in favor of this, who is (hopefully) not payed by FIFA.
I still disagree tho. I totally get the desire of smaller nations like Italy to make it to a World Cup once but it’s a sporting competition after all, with this argument expansion would theoretically never stop but eliminations need to happen.
And while 48 teams don’t lower the quality that much, it does break a perfect tournament structure. 32 teams make so much sense, 48 with groups of 4 means waiting for days as a third placed teams whether you advance, an advantage for later groups because they know what they need to advance at 3rd place and an overall uninteresting group stage because so little elimination happens. And don’t get me started on groups of three, that would be even worse.
In addition it creates a problem with hosting, it seems to be to much for one country to deal with. The next world cup is in all of North America, the one after that might be in half of South America. Why even bother with host nations at this point and not just rotate between host confederations? I will miss the world visiting one country that gets an opportunity to present itself to the whole world as organizer and host, with so many countries hosting together none of them will make such an impact
I'm totally with you here, I was really worried about the 3 groups thing and was relieved/hopeful about that potentially being changed. I might be in the minority with being perfectly happy with the 3rd place spots being a thing, but either way I agree on paper the expansion is cool and nice. And hey, it gives Canada a chance to not face apparently three of the top 10 teams in the world in their next group lol
rip canada november 2022 - november 2022
fifa rankings are bs tho also morocco wasn’t in the top 10
I think a majority of people like the 3rd place spots thing, the euro cup does it and i'm pretty sure the asian and african cups do it too
@@reda84.i hate the 3rd place spots you go to the knouckout while sucking at the group stages
I am Just worried about scheduling, the world cup ist a long and exhausting Tournament as it already is. If they find a good solution for this i am excited!
If they do groups of 3 where 2 advance, the max number of matches for each team stays the same (one less group game, one more knockout).
If they do groups of 4 where 2 advance + the 8 best third-place teams (Ro16 knockouts), there's just one more knockout game.
So I don't think this will make a huge difference in that regard
If they want to be really brutal -- groups of 4 where only the winner advances automatically, along with the 4 best second-place teams. Same amount of games as now, and in a way quite exciting, but it's too easy to get a situation where the majority of the last-round group games are irrelevant for the final outcome.
One factor you did not talk about is the fact the footballers themselves having to play even more games. Fatigue, injuries etc.
It's one more game, not much.
@@sebastiansbarra6553 Yeah it may be just one, but take into account that it is another 90 minutes in the pitch. Teams usually do not change their starting 11 and even less so during an elimination game. We saw how a cramped schedule to accomodate for the world cup in Qatar led to many more injuries. One extra game should not be too much as you said, but we have to be careful with FIFA as they do not care about anything but money.
they will adapt
Hope they'll find a way to rearrange the entire 2026 football season so the world cup doesn't feel too cramped, and players don't accumulate too much fatigue and injuries.
I wonder if making the cup last 1-2 weeks longer can be possible without affecting the schedule of league tournaments and other events.
Perfect
As the tournament grows, we probably won't get to see single nations that host world cups anymore. I liked the spotlight that was given to a certain country each world cup but i also like how things are changing. If future world cups take place in regions that are shared by several countries, smaller countries that only have 2-3 proper stadiums get the chance to be co-hosts and have world cup games played in their country as well.
4:49 that’s the Australian flag Zealand, Kiwi’s are coming for you
Grab your torch and pitchforks!
Ever watch Zealand play the flag game? If so, you know the man knows his flags (except Tuvalu lol). The editor however… 😂poor Smug wont forget now. 😊
With the progression of football, the World Cup, and domestic leagues, I’ve become increasingly interested in the development of each individual country and their own development. It’s incredible to see the gap between the top teams shrink with every World Cup, but I think it’s at the point where nearly any national team could beat any other national team. I could totally see teams that didn’t qualify topple giants, and “underdog” teams push to win major tournaments. I’ve been so interested, I’ve been messing around with the idea of a 64 team tournament, how many teams from confederations would qualify, how a host could handle a tournament so large, how it could benefit to host such a large tournament, and how this could develop football globally. Logistically, I wouldn’t expect something like this to happen for at least another 15 years, and I would expect a changing in fifa World Cup host selection processes. Hosts would be announced 10-12 years before a tournament for preparation, and international football formats and competitions could be permanently altered. This is all for the better of football, in my own opinion, and it could be so entertaining to see non-traditional nations qualify or make runs in a World Cup, and how that would impact football in those or surrounding nations. Seeing an even more competitive African base in a World Cup, not just with more teams, but with more players. The development of Caribbean and Central American football, central and southeast Asian football, East African football, and Oceania. This could also allow for the improvement of domestic leagues, instead of the “top 5” leagues being the only ones loaded with talent, an outer reach of quality national teams would mean a stronger pool of quality players from within that country, thus likely a stronger national league. It would spread out the competition, allowing for also a less congested schedule in domestic and continental club competition, because there would be other competitions with strong clubs, so not needing to add extra clubs to certain competitions like the champions league because there is just too much quality. There is a lot more things but this is just briefly what I’ve been thinking about, and I’m just loving the possibilities of this whole thing.
I would definitely add for Jamaica that if they were going to a world cup then they would potentially have access to a lot of players who won't play for England but want a chance at the world cup
This and this alone is my biggest reason for wanting this. It breaks the strangle hold of big European nations on post colonial dual nationality players. More people will declare for places like Nigeria and Jamaica and Algeria and Morocco instead of waiting hoping for an England France or Spain call up. That being said you still won't see VVD booting up for Suriname but by far i think it makes the distribution of talent fairer which is good for the game as a whole
When it was suggested I was highly skeptical of the European backlash for this reason and those stated in the video
@@micayahritchie7158 I'm Scottish myself and while we struggle to compete I am not against trying to find a good balance for football. Supporting a country who haven't been at a WC since 1998 even an expansion of 5 European teams wouldn't increase our chances anyways to be brutally honest
@@simplesimonhadapie You weren't that far off this time around
There should definitely be 12 groups of 4s with the 3rd place teams going through, it just seems like the traditional 4 team groups are pretty standard that most fans/players/managers seem to enjoy. I don’t really see that deterring teams from playing negatively especially since they seem pretty set on making sure the correct added time is given at the end of the game. Plus, you could definitely have an underdog story of a 3rd place team making a deep run like Portugal did at 2016 Euros
not bad but 16 groups of 3 can mean more small teams making it through
I actually enjoy more teams at the world cup. This is undoubtedly a decision based on wanting to get more money, but many smaller nations will be able to write their own stories. Cups tournaments should be more of a "free for all" with less hard qualification periods. Will be cool to have more Oceanian representation, most likely the Kiwis (which political fun fact have a political system surprisingly similar to Germany).
Just think about how many teams from Concacaf will make it for the next world cup. We have all thre northern countries of Canada, USA and México going through automatically. Correct me if I am wrong but we will have another three spaces for direct qualification in Concacaf, meaning teams like Costa Rica, El Salvador, Panamá, Guatemala (my own country), etc... have the chance of making it. Also the extra spot from international playoff. I expect some really good stories from Concacaf for the next WC. It is going to get interesting.
Can't wait to see Butan x Brasil.
lol Zealand, don't know if it was deliberate but showing the Australian flag when talking about New Zealand...pure green and gold ❤❤❤
love the fact that Zealand put the Australia flag up when he said New Zealand.
Yank 🤷
Perhaps that's the joke?
Every time you zoom on Central Asia I just think of your Sri Lanka video with the David Attenborough impression. “On the Central Asian steps, every national team is better than Sri Lanka… and they wear really cool hats. Really cool hats.”
I feel that the extra knockout round is debatable but one idea is groups of 6 and 1st reaches the last 16 then a 2nd v 3rd knockout the reach the last 16, would reward better group stages and 2 more games guaranteed for smaller countries while bigger countries have a better shot at winning
I really like this idea. People are proposing groups of 4 with 3 passing but I think this would reduce a lot the surprises and the emotion (just look at Argentina's drama or Germany's elimination). Your idea feels perfectly balanced in this regard.
I like the idea
If the team grows, surely many citizens will be proud to be able to see their country compete in the world cup. Putting aside FIFA looking for more profits, but the opportunities that will be given to small countries that can participate in the world cup will be more open.
I think from apart from those teams that you chosed Uzbekistan will make through the World Cup just because they have a lot players in European top leagues (Serie A, Bundesliga, Russian premier league, Turkish super league etc.)
I completely agree. More teams means more underdog stories and chances for craziness.
The intercontinental playoffs are what I am most excited about. Seeing Paraguay vs Iraq or Tahiti vs El Salvador for a chance to make the tournament will be really fun
More small teams means more boring football.
No thank you
@@welowee7610 at the start, maybe. But as these countries get more money for their countries, encourage more people to play (hopefully), they should start to see an uptick in play.
But, generally, I think a lot of international football is boring, so....
For Concacaf, and Asia there will be teams with lower quality. But for South America and African we’re gonna see quality teams actually make it because their world cup qualifying is extreme competitive.
Paraguay vs Iraq already happened in 1986
@@moluther2826 while that was just an example it would be cool to see it again.
Zanzibar (/ˈzænzɪbɑːr/; Swahili: Zanzibar; Arabic: زنجبار, romanized: Zainzibar) is an insular semi-autonomous province which united with Tanganyika in 1964 to form the United Republic of Tanzania
Learnt something today!
Every single point was exactly bang on Zealand! and was that the elder scrolls 5:SKyrim? It looked like the scene when you flee from the dragon at the start? Sorry for spoilers about a 12 year old game. :) The village that you go to on my longest save I killed the shopkeeper there. She started a fight and things got out of hand.. and every time I went back there I ept seeing her body slumped over the counter and yeah that ones on me...hmmm!
I'm rambling. Great video and keep up the good work!
As long as it’s groups of 4 I’m 100% in, great video as well.
By the way I love these new videos where you talk about what’s going on in the world of football
I always found it weird that despite rugby, which isn't played to a great standard outside of the top 25, 30 odd countries having 20 spots in the men's world cup, football (played in pretty much every country, and where the Euros winner didn't even qualify) has just 32...
More spots is always good - even if it didn't make it more competitive (which it probably will) expanding to smaller nations that don't often get a shot is absolutely a good thing
The only problem I have is that more games= more tired players and injuries, changing the outcome of the tournament
That's the point of the tournament. If everything went as predicted then it would be boring. Most people expected teams like Belgium to make it far and maybe even win it. It was really exciting after those types of predictions didn't come true.
Not necessarily. More teams mean, for the better teams, there should be at least one group match against a pretty inferior side. That would give a chance to rest some guys.
if you pay me what they earn, i will gladly play regardless of being tired or injured.
@@kingvidster5637
The problem is that this makes the tournament more predictable, not less.
Smaller teams can surprise big teams thanks to a strong and well trained first squad. These teams suffer more with intensity because the substitutes often arent as good. For example, compare the intensity Saudi Arabia put against Argentina compared to their next two matches where the players were visibly tired.
That was the biggest argument for 3 team groups. With that format the winner would still play 7 games
Small correction: the inter-continental play off will send 2 teams to the world cup, not 3.
"A playoff tournament involving six teams will be held to decide the last two FIFA World Cup berths:[10] these consist of one team per confederation, except for UEFA, and one additional team from the confederation of the host countries (CONCACAF).
Two of the teams will be seeded based on the World Rankings, and these seeded teams will play for a FIFA World Cup berth against the winners of the first two knockout games involving the four unseeded teams.
The four-game tournament is to be played in one or more of the host countries and to be used as a test event for the FIFA World Cup."
source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification
As someone else has mentioned, I can get behind this as long as the groups remain as groups of 4 with the best performing 3rd place teams making up the numbers.
If the groups get cut back to being groups of 3 then for travelling fans, you're essentially forced into flying around the world to watch your country play 2 games - which is pretty ridiculous. And also it would take a lot of the excitement out of the final group stage match day since you could end up with two teams with nothing at all to play for being the final group match which is kind of a bummer.
What's the difference between 2 or 3 games? Plus in a group of 3 teams there are just 3 matches total....the final game is likely to have even more at stake! Just don't have the top team playing in it. If it's the two lower ranked teams they will not be playing for 0-0. Well one team might but not both.
@@stingersplash Difference is pretty easy: You don't get the final day drama that happened in so many groups during this World Cup. Let's talk about the group Japan freaking won, there were a couple of minutes where both Japan and Costa Rica were getting past their group stage. When Germany started scoring at the end of their match, there was this feeling that maybe Germany could get past the group if things kept going that way, not to mention that Spain started winning against Japan and, due to virtue of Japan losing, Spain and Germany would get through together.
And it's not the first time something like all 4 teams had chances of getting through in a WC, and during this WC you had a lot of "final day" stories of what could have been. Mexico just needed one extra goal to get through and leave Poland behind, and since they didn't, the Polish players celebrated in other match after waiting for confirmation. Oh, and if Saudi Arabia won their match, it was them getting through. With three teams group you lose all of this, cause one team is resting, and the other two will have a very increased chance to go all 1982 W. Germany v Austria which sucks a whole lot, as there's that reason why the final day matches are played at the same time nowadays (and drama)
@@stingersplash Merge CONMEBOL And Concacaf NOW 🎉 🎉 the only way to challenge evil UEFA
the one change i would make in the format (and i'm a US fan here) is to give one of the 3 extra concacaf spots to Africa to give them another spot because I feel like that would be a better balance in my opinion given how many good teams reside in Africa instead of seeing a different lower concacaf team
thats is not fair , everyone gets more spots period
From a players perspective, this is torture and will put even more stress on to already stressed players.
From a supporters perspective, it's great during the tournament, more games and more fun. But the stress and the packed calendar might cause disappointment after the WC, during club matches.
If you fail to qualify for a tournament based on which country is the best country in world football, then the team that beat you deserves that spot more than you do.
If you fail to qualify for a tournament based on which football club is the best club in world football, then the team that beat you deserves that spot more than you do.
For some reason people hate the new CL system with more teams, but they don't hate the new WC system with more teams.
THE BEST OF THE BEST GET TO PLAY, THE OTHERS DON'T.
IF YOU MISSED YOUR CHANCE THAT YEAR, DO BETTER NEXT TIME.
It's part of the game, it's part of the charm of football. Italy aren't bad, but they didn't deserve to go to the WC. Simple.
This time I 100% disagree with Zealand. Doesn't happen ever but this is a bad all around.
Narrow it to the big leagues where basically there's football all year long. Some of the smaller countries that will qualify have less inflated calendars and will be less affected, especially if most of the capped players are from the national top league. It won't be a game changer in any way, but these countries will have less worn out players in the squad.
Seen this format on play out on football manager. I have a sim in 2060. The 16 group, 3 team per group tournament is a load of 💩 in the group stage. But like Zealand said, the 32- team KO stage is absolutely insane to watch. I can only imagine watching it for real In 2026.
I'm definitely excited for the expanded tournament. More countries making their first tournament (which is always a special event and feeling globally), more knockout rounds, more matches overall. There's definitely an argument to be made about over-stacking the games across all competitions players participate in, but that's a separate discussion honestly as this would only add one more game per team already qualifying (that extra knockout).
They definitely should go with 4 team groups though, three is just a really bad idea.
If it's 3 teams, there's no over stacking for players since each team plays the same number of games.
@@aok2075 The number of games is the same, but in each group one team has double rest time between games, which is imo unfair. One more game over the entire tournament may not seem like much, but it's also one more game in a short timeframe, which is bound to cause more injuries and make players more tired for the final games.
I agree with you here from a fans perspective, but if you look at it from a players perspective or administration at clubs this is hard. It will make it so much harder for players because they just get so tired, look at Morocco in the last two games. So many injuries and tired players. Now imagine if they had to play another game still. You could argue that this makes it better for the smaller teams since they have a better chance of making it to the tournament but you could also argue that it actually favours the big teams even more since they are the ones who’ll be able to rotate players much more and not be as affected by the higher amount of games. But all in all I do agree that this is a good change all things considered. But I also understand that clubs especially probably aren’t too happy about this
I could be wrong but more teams surely equals a longer world cup and with players especially in the top 5 leagues playing 50-60 matches this just add more games to a busy calendar
True but you could always rest players in the leuges and met someone else play
I think a lot of people who live in countries that are traditional and current football powers have this mindset of “what’s the point of having teams there who don’t have a chance to win it all?” But that’s just not at all what the tournament is about, there are so many definitions of success in this tournament that will bring joy to so many countries and I’m happy more will get to experience that. Not to mention the financial resources smaller countries will get by making it.
Many definitions of success... like the Third Place game in Qatar. Neither Croatia nor Morocco had ever gotten so far in the World Cup before, and Morocco is the first African side to have achieved that, while for Croatia Third Place is the best finish they've managed in their entire footballing history. Both these national teams were punching way above their weight in this tournament.
@@LordZontar Croatia reached the final in 2018, you need to pay more attention to football before talking about it.
@@Constanza235 I had forgotten. Lots of stuff happening in the intervening four years and you tend not to remember who came in second or even third from tournaments years ago.
@@LordZontarit’s not that hard to remember mexico beating croation3-1 on tv
@@captainfalconmain6576 It is when you've already got a lot on your plate and you're locked on just keeping track of today.
And there won't be the super excitement of the group stage's final game anymore. We will miss those rollercoaster games, joyful fans, heart broken fans back and forth between 2 stadiums.
8 groups of 6 teams with top 4 qualifying to the round of 32 will be a good set up in my opinion
The exitment in the last game of every group was better than most knockout matches, hope the new format doesnt destroy that
It would anyway. You wouldn't have the drama of Mexico vs Saudi Arabia or Germany going out. They would be through in 3rd place.
Oh boy cant wait for more North Macedonia vs Oman, trully the peak of game
As an Irish fan, I like the bigger chance if qualifying, but it will feel shallow, it will also lower the quality. 32 is a great number as it simply divides by 2 all the way to 2, while 48 makes it complicated. Next, you will suggest the Champions League expands to 48?
I totally get the point that the teams likely to qualify now are going to be quality teams, but I think the problem here is that the World Cup is supposed to be, well, tough to qualify for. It's supposed to be a challenge for every team. The only teams that maybe don't at least get a challenge to qualify would be Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Spain, etc., but Italy's failure to qualify is a sign that it is a difficult tournament to get to, and you can't just expect that you'll get in.
Also, the fact that teams like Austria, Bosnia, Norway, Greece, etc. would be on the outside looking in in terms of ranking, yet teams like Jamaica, Uzbekistan, New Zealand, etc. would be expected to qualify is kind of ridiculous.
You did the Australian flag for New Zealand. Just an FYI...
As long as, and only if, it's 4 teams a group then it's good
Another thing to support your point is with these lesser teams now having a better chance of qualifying for the world Cup, you will likely see better players playing for the country of there birth or parents birth, like for example Raheem Sterling could've choose to represent Jamaica, and many of the other African players in Europe might do the same, all of sudden these lesser known teams get alot stronger.
New Zealand should be invinted an the gold cup and copa America to improve
Don't know, for the Euros I felt like the level of competition definitely suffered from them expanding from 16 to 24 teams in the 2016 Euros. Hopefully this won't be the case for the WC but I'm a bit skeptical. One more knockout round does sound good though I must admit.
4:48 "New Zealand" and then shows australias flag
God dammit Zealand, you got our flag wrong🤣🤣🤣🤣
7:46 Unless they only have the top team from one group go through
this is good if we Africa don't use zonal qualifications because that would mean quality teams in the west and north don't have to fight for a limited spots. because imagine having African power houses
cote d'ivoire, Ghana, Egypt, Senegal, Morocco, Nigeria, Tunisia , Algeria and South Africa all in the world cup..
the world would know why AFCON is unpredictable and very competitive
4:49 thats the Australian flag
This would be fine if they gave Europe more spots instead of Asia and Africa. Teams like Sweden Norway Italy Bosnia Russia Hungary etc. are just miles above UAE Oman Lebanon and China.
I agree
This is great for most of us who come from smaller nations as it brings a bigger chance to qualify and experience knock out games even bails out powerful nations. Germany would’ve made it through as they were the best 3rd place team. Africa and Asia are going to get heavily benefited from this with their level improving this can only get better.
I’ll be behind it if there’s 4 team groups. It sucks about the extra matches tho, feel bad for the players
As an Australian, we made the round of 16 with a team filled with mostly A league and Scottish Prem players(who apart from one was playing for a good side in Scotland with Arron Mooy at Celtic, heck our best player was Harry Soutter who plays for Stoke in the championship) Jamaica has a better quality team then us and that is your most questionable team.
The depth of football is only ever getting better, I hate fifa's money grubbing tactics but more sides is a good thing, that said I probably would of gave 4 more places to Europe at the expense of CONCACAF or Oceania(who should be merged with Asia already anyway to make it an Asian pacific region, I think NZ could qualify in asia anyway).
But June 8 - July 3? WHY? It should be 5 weeks. THEY ARE DREAMING. But actually given all the warm weather locations and domed stadiums they should do it at Christmas Time Again. THAT WAS FUN!
Great points, as always Z!
I haven't read through all the comments - there are lots now - but I disagree with what seems to be the consensus preferring 4 team groups to 3 team groups, but maybe that's because I'm old enough to remember how dire the group stage games often were in the 24-team World Cups when 4/6 3rd place teams went through. It often seemed to make not losing more important than winning, and meant that groups with a complete also-ran became too easy.
So what's the best structure when there are 48 teams?
- 16 groups of 3 going into ro32.
- 12 groups of 4 with 8 third places advancing into ro32.
- 12 groups of 4 with 4 second places advancing into ro16.
- 8 groups of 6 going into ro16.
None of them seem great. I'd prefer the fairness of the last option, but it would create way too many group games. Maybe we should just start with 16 x 4 teams...
Definitely 12 groups of 4. Basically the Euros format, just doubled.
I agree with every point, but the 3rd point has a big downside, I think. More matches sounds great for us fans, but I'm not sure the players can handle so many games in such a short period. This final in Qatar turned out great in the end, but only because of Argentina's mistakes that allowed France to come back. In reality it was a pretty boring and one sided game for 80 minutes because the French team was nowhere near the level they can play at when they're not exhausted after so many games.
So the quality of the semi-final and final games will obviously go down when you increase the number of games.
I agree
2:05 it’s actually does their will be 3 hosts which means more games more traveling and even. 3rd 8th places make it
MESSI!!!!!
Is adding more games to an already overcrowded schedule a good thing?
Is the USA database coming to fm23?
8 groups of 6 -> Top 4 Advance
You could get 2 extra group stage games as well
Yeah very easy to fit in an extra 88 matches for each World Cup
@@stephendeane7509 Pretty easy
if my country Indonesia still can't qualify even after this expansion from 32 teams to 48 teams, then I'll be ultra mad. We have to fucking do this, it's our one chance
Hi z, i just wondering about the fifa world club cup revamp with 32 team arround the world is a good idea or not?
love this new i idea☺ it can be anyone's game
Hey Zealand, could you make a video comparing tactics in FM22 vs FM23? What works in FM22 that doesn't work as well in FM23 and vice versa? I'd really appreciate it.
Bringing more teams to the World Cup but keeping a R16 instead of a round of 32 would be best. More countries get to participate in the tournament but the same difficulty in terms of continuing
Expansion is ok but adding 2 more from conmebol to make 6 out of 10 nations. At this point lets put them all......or why not rearrange conmebol or merge it with concacaf
Some really good points
You showed the Australian flag when talking about New Zealand-
How I think they should fix the 48 team format:
Have 8 groups of 6, draw half the teams in each group into the "left" side of the group and the other half into the "right" side, every team within a group plays all the teams on the opposite half but never any team on its own half, top team qualified automatically to the round of 16 while 2nd and 3rd quakily to a playoff round, the winner of which goes to the round of 16. This has 8 groups which makes the final draw very easy, still keeps the group stage to only 3 games instead of 5 which would be expected of a 6 team group and allows the final matches of all groups to be played at the same time. Qualifying 3 teams ensures that qualification is always in every teams' own hands, since you could have a scenario where every team on the left hand side wins all of their games, and if you only qualified 2 teams from the group, a team could win all of their games but still get knocked out, and if you qualified 4 teams, a team could lose all 3 games and still get through.
Example group:
Left half:
Argentina (pot 1)
Sweden (pot 3)
Egypt (pot 5)
Right half:
Portugal (pot 2)
South Korea (pot 4)
Panama (pot 6)
(Even teams wouldn't necessarily all be on one side of the draw, but it just happened for this one by chance)
Argentina 2-1 Portugal
Sweden 1-1 South Korea
Egypt 2-1 Panama
Argentina 4-0 Panama
Sweden 0-2 Portugal
Egypt 1-1 South Korea
Argentina 1-0 South Korea
Sweden 3-1 Panama
Egypt 1-1 Portugal
1) Argentina 9 points +6 GD
2) Egypt 5 points +1 GD
3) Portugal 4 points +1 GD
4) Sweden 4 points 0 GD
5) South Korea 2 points -1 GD
6) Panama 0 points -7 GD
Argentina qualify automatically to the RO16 and earn the benefit of being the best team in the group, Egypt play a 3rd place team in the playoff and Portugal play a 2nd place team in the playoff
4:48 thats an Australian Flag, New Zealand flag is missing the bottem left star
No it has 4 instead of 6, 5 sided stars, and has red inside of it with white borders
@@sirtechno I wasn't gonna go into the full detail of the flag that the most notable difference, but thank you for the better detailed explanation
The problem of a 48-team world cup is not the introduction of 16 new teams. Is the format problem that it creates, for a reason groups of 3 teams was the initial idea its because there are no good formats that work with 48 teams
Totally disagree - 32 is already too many. We won't be able to watch more as it's inevitable there will be more games on as the same time in the early stages.
World Cup qualfiers used to be a lot a harder an 2000s and 1990ss
I'm fine with more countries in the tournament AS LONG as they don't use "3 in a group" format
Yeah the 3 team per group is a terrible idea. I do like more teams though.
How is no one talking about the fact that with an expanded world cup we might actual get to see Erling Haaland play in one someday?
If Norway don’t qualfy for the euros people will be sad😂
I love expansion and I say screw it, go to 64 teams. 16 groups of four. You’d probably have to combine CONCACAF & CONEMBOL qualifying, otherwise South America might not even have qualifying. But 10 from Asia, 10 from Africa, 15 from the Americas, 25 from Europe, 2 from Oceania, leaving two for host automatic qualification, as every future hosting bid seems to be joint bids and would need to be to accommodate such a large tournament.
AT 4:50 YOU PUT THE AUSTRALIA FLAG FOR NEW ZEALAND
16 more teams will certainly not significantly lower the quality of the football due to the reasons mentioned in the video. However, what is concerning is the following increased demands on infrastructure and such that the hosts will need to provide and invest in. Of course that is not mainly driven by the number of teams but rather by the megalomania of FIFA. But I think FIFA will find the excuses they need to demand bigger and fancier stadiums (and more of them!) to the point where it will be almost reasonable to let Qatar or China host the World Cup every time. Because the rich democracies of the world will not accept much more of FIFA's sh*t, I think.
Well, that's actually part of the reason why there are multiple host countries bidding for future tournaments, to split the cost of them stadiums
@@skippertheone3341 Of course but that is still bad. A tournament spread out over the ginormous distances between Vancouver, Boston and Mexico City is outrageous.
@@nummer3357 no one is forcing you to travel long distances. if you don't have the money or the time, other people do
If the world Cup has 48 teams in 2026 there Is 2 options either have 2 groups of 24 they all play 23 games in both groups the top 8 in each group of 24 advance to the last 16 another option is expand the existing groups from 4 to 6 teams and they play 6 games 8 groups of 6 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H the top 2 advance which format do you think is better the 2 groups of 24 or groups of 6
este wey
Beitrag des Donnerstages, 2. März 2023
The spots of the FIFA World Championship could be allocated, via the results of the intercontinental matches!
Every national team could reach a maximum of 2 points for the seat calculation.
made up numbers!
UEFA: 1.31 * 55 = 72.05 ... 19.21 ... 19
COMNEBOL: 1.47 * 10 = 14.70 ... 3.73 ... 4
CONCACAF: 0.84 * 35 = 29.40 ... 7.84 ... 8
CAF: 0.67 * 54 = 36.18 ... 9.65 ... 10
AFC: 0.53 * 46 = 24.38 ... 6.501 ... 6
OFC: 0.32 * 11 = 3.52 ... 0.93 ... 1
180.23 / 48 ~ 3.75 ... = divisor
🤣 showed an Australian flag for New Zealand 🤣 poor Kiwis
I would lovvvvve for there tp be more teams. Especially if it meant o could see different teams in the wc
my biggest issue with the Expansion is simply just the 3-team groups. I'm not saying it will, but it 'Could' cause serious issues with cheating; in case where (as not all teams can finish at the same time) where teams will not try to win, or similarly, play to draw as the result can suit both teams. If the 3-team groups stick, something needs to be done to prevent it. or atleast have it frowned upon.
It's highly unlikely that would happen. A draw in a 3 team group rarely benefits both. Plus the group would have one of the best 16 teams in the world, a mid team and a team like Qatar. You will be seeing lots of big teams with 6 points and the others trying for 3.
@@stingersplash It's incredibly likely to happen... Germany beats Colombia in the first game. Qatar then draws with Colombia... Qatar and Germany then know a draw gets them both through. Colombia would be sitting on their hands hoping Germany can do them a favour and beat Qatar by more than they beat Colombia but Germany has absolutely no incentive to do anything. It would be absolutely terrible and the above example would be the case more often than not.
Oh you're probably against my 12 groups of 4 going into Round of 16 idea then cause you like the knockout rounds XD
My idea was to only qualify the 12 group winners and the best 4 2nd place teams to create the round of 16 and keep the knockout rounds the same.
At this point why not just make it 68 teams and go full march madness style😂
Am I really the only one seeing a massive problem with the group systems with 12×4 and 16×3?
Collusion with 16×3 should be clear.
But having the best 3rds advance is also unfair. Teams in group L would have clear advantage compared to group A.
How do you even fairly compare teams who had complety different opponents?
A world cup with 48 teams is just stupid.
4:51 “And then of course there’s New Zealand”
*Shows Australian Flag 🇦🇺*
I feel like an extra knockout round adds more potential for upsets. I honestly believe through the next like 10 world cup cycles maybe we will see new countries win at a faster rate than before.
In the next 10 world cups you will see a tournament with 64 teams
bruh
putting up the australian flag for New zealand is dank, also considering this is Zealand him self, cant name the flag from the country :^)
It's really going to be awful. No need to expand it to 48, 32 has worked absolutely fine. .
You showed the Australian flag when talking about New Zealand
Probably because they’re the same country…
Poor man will be banned from entering there 😭
@@garethwinchester Kiwis practically think that already!
@Lefroy I think you’ll also be banned my guy 😂
I say that as an Australian, New Zealanders do not like the comparison 😅
Editor adds the flags and clearly Ayal didn’t edit this video 😂.