FIFA Men's World Cup expansion
Posts: 1855 1/11/17 8:36:33 AM
Posts: 44654 1/11/17 8:48:52 AM
Posts: 1855 1/11/17 8:53:00 AM
Yeah, it's always about money. That's a certainty.
Posts: 826 1/11/17 9:55:18 AM
Posts: 1855 1/11/17 10:41:09 AM
I'm all about opening opportunities for teams to compete at the pinnacle of their sport. It's why I'm disgusted with the ICC for contracting their showpiece event (oddly enough, both groups are doing the exact opposite thing so that they can make more money, go figure). But I digress. (Stupid ICC)
48 at a Finals, though. I don't know of any team sport in the world that has anything close to that many in one tournament.
At least there's no "play-in" game, as was suggested in some circles. 32 teams in straight knockout though, not fond of this. And some fans may feel aggrieved that say France stumbled early and got paired with Italy in the Round of 32. The loser will have a very early exit. The good news is that there are no dead rubber matches at all - every contest will have meaning (unlike the next ICC CWC).
Posts: 44654 1/11/17 10:55:04 AM
you had 24 teams in EURO 2016 and that is one Federation.
Posts: 44328 1/11/17 11:10:44 AM
Posts: 44654 1/11/17 11:26:55 AM
all about money!
Posts: 5486 1/11/17 12:12:29 PM
Posts: 9549 1/11/17 1:15:03 PM
You just eliminating those inter confed playoffs
Concacaf getting six and a half places?
Football is global so allow the fans around the world to support their teams on the big stage
Forget the 'fans' who only want to see so called big teams
How did big teams Holland and England fare last rongs?
Posts: 1855 1/11/17 2:05:20 PM
And it was a delight to see how Iceland performed. So fair argument on Euros.
I imagine Concacaf will replace the single Hex with two groups of 6 (while hoping to get Mexico and the US in the same group because, Rivalry) and remove the second group phase.