Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

[Gratius Falsius]

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

Incacakes wrote:

Verehrung des Lahm Gottes wrote:

Aye, so what? Not every part of the World is of equal strength. Six African teams this time, yet only one has progressed to the 16 in each of the last four tournaments.

Indeed. New Zealand is no worse than Italy, and Japan and South Korea kicked some European ass.

FIFA will have to look at the confed allocations. [strike]Seven[/strike] Six of UEFA's 13 have qualified but one was a squeaker and one was pretty much a case of a father given a helping hand by a kind son as it were.

AFC/OFC should get six places on the basis of population and area and CONEMBAL should go to six or seven if you take one off CAF.

[Donnchadh Ghairdinéir]

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

Gratius Falsius wrote:

FIFA will have to look at the confed allocations

They have, surely? Europe 13, South America 5.5, Africa 5, Asia 4.5, North America 3.5, Oceania 0.5. The only change is South America getting an African place because Brazil take over as hosts.

Seven of UEFA's 13 have qualified but one was a squeaker and one was pretty much a case of a father given a helping hand by a kind son as it were

Only six Europeans through (Germany, England, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Slovakia). Watching the snorefest that was the last 20 minutes of Spain- Chile last night, Suisse might have a claim for a Hispanic stitch-up? It was like Germany- Austria in 1982.

AFC/OFC should get six places on the basis of population and CONMEBOL should go to six or seven if you take one off CAF

On the basis of population, India, China and Indonesia should be in it every time, notwithstanding that they're all pretty mediocre?

[West End Zuma]

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

Why stop at 16? Just limit it to the top 8 teams in the world, essentially Argentina & Brazil plus 6 Euros, then we won't have to listen to people bitch and moan about how the Asia, Oceania and Concacaf countries are not good enough to take part and how boring the tournament is, blah blah blah. Then the World Cup will really be about the best of the best and you won't have to bother playing all those pesky minnows that clutter up the tournament and don't deserve to be there.

[Donnchadh Ghairdinéir]

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

Sixpence Mandelatree wrote:

Why stop at 16?

It's the optimum number, matching a decent-sized tournament with affordability, competitiveness and boredom threshold.

then we won't have to listen to people bitch and moan about how the Asia, Oceania and Concacaf countries are not good enough to take part

Er, you don't have to listen. I'm suggesting Europe gets the biggest proportionate cull, by the way.

and how boring the tournament is, blah blah blah

I've suggested one aspect of it is boring, but more than that it risks the future success of the tournament. If you disagree say so, if you're bored ignore the thread.

Then the World Cup will really be about the best of the best

Aye, I know. It's a real left-field idea, that one.

and you won't have to bother playing all those pesky minnows that clutter up the tournament and don't deserve to be there

Not sure why so defensive/ sarky, the World Cup worked well enough with 16 or 24 teams for decades. Reverting to that would be quite feasible, while you'd still be able to see everyone else in regular continental competitions. It's all good, baby.

[shadsworth cloud]

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

Watching the snorefest that was the last 20 minutes of Spain- Chile last night, Suisse might have a claim for a Hispanic stitch-up? It was like Germany- Austria in 1982.

i think more likely the whole world would have a claim against the swiss for stinking out the world cup. if switzerland had got off their arses and scored a goal, or perish the thought 2 goals, it would have soon raised the tempaerature at chile v spain.

the nightmare scenario was that switzerland had won 2-0 and chile would have been eliminated on 6 points.

[dalliance]

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

A tournament whose runners-up have to cheat to re-qualify, and then go on to go home bottom of their group, isn't in this position, I suggest.

Are we still doing this cheating thing 7 months on then. Can we limit the definition of cheating to what it should really mean and not apply it because a team got lucky with a refereeing decision as teams do in most games that are played.

[N est à?]

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

Wow, Gratius Falsius hasn't been banned yet?

Anyway, after this week, it seems downright weird to want to see a halving of numbers, after, what four total knife edge group finishes, and only two teams knocked out before their last game- compared with Germany, which had 7, and only one really tense finish (Graham Poll's Croatia-Australia calvary).

Maybe the problem is with hosting world cups in Europe, where the rest of the world feels beaten before they even kick off. Happily the next one is in Brazil, and after that maybe Russia, which might be far enough away for the west-european metropole to avoid the europe home advantage effect.

Africa could do with losing a place or two, I think, might help focus some minds as to the stagnation of international football there.

[jason voorhees]

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

VDLG - You're serious ? You're actually serious ? You're not taking the piss ? Whoa, I thought this was a joke.

Not sure why so defensive/ sarky, the World Cup worked well enough with 16 or 24 teams for decades. Reverting to that would be quite feasible, while you'd still be able to see everyone else in regular continental competitions. It's all good, baby.

For decades, countries had leagues that had almost no foreigners playing in them. For decades, the goalkeeper was allowed to bounce the ball all over the penalty area, not to mention allowed to pick up back-passes and not wearing goalkeeper gloves. For decades, the World Cup was not able to be viewed live in many countries, not to mention having football federations with very little structure.

The serious idea of 16 teams is not good by any stretch of the imagination.

But if those locals in Kosice or Invercargill prefer ice hockey or rugby union, that's fine too. Realistically those fans probably won't be turned by finishing 18th or 21st in the World Cup, just like New Zealand or Ireland punching above their weight in cricket still won't make it a major spectator sport in those countries.

Have you read one story about the effect of this on New Zealand ? The Prime Ministers ? The parades ? The feeling of the All-Whites as New Zealands team, instead of the corporate All-Blacks ? Have you talked to anyone in New Zealand ? Or are you actually trying to compare the footballing World Cup to the cricket World Cup ?

The trick is to attempt a modicum of research before making a statement like that.

The cup is fine as it is. It only gets better. Oceania v Asia playoff was great, as was Concacaf v Conmebol.

[E10 Rifle]

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

Suisse might have a claim for a Hispanic stitch-up? It was like Germany- Austria in 1982.

All Switzerland needed was to score a goal and play some effective attacking football. That this was beyond them all tournament was no one's fault but their own.

And to add to Wyatt's rugby world cup example, I'd add the cricket world cup, whose group stages are as interminable as they are (mostly) predictable. Football's one gets it right, both in event terms, and in quality terms. And, importantly, as Dalliance points out, in spreading the game's appeal terms.

If we were still at 16 teams, as we were in 1978, then it's likely the game wouldn't have grown in the same way, and a whole generation of players would not have emerged on the world stage.

[SydneyToon]

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

It is so true - I remember every single scorer from Mexico 1986.

Even Stopyra for France against Italy. Yet, before that game nobody had ever heard of Stopyra.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

24, with only 8 going through to the second phase? Teams that don't win the group or come a very close second can go home. Teams would have to win 2 out of their first 3 games at least.

[jason voorhees]

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

"Suisse might have a claim for a Hispanic stitch-up? It was like Germany- Austria in 1982."

Thanks VDLG. I knew you were taking the piss.

The only Hispanic conspiracy was that Honduras' keeper conspired with his teammates to save any shot or punch away any ball that was near his goal area.

[Outside Agent]

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

32 is the perfect number of participants. Not only does it make mathematical sense for the purpose of running the competition, but it strikes the right balance

If people think that anything more than 16 teams crosses the public's boredom threshold, or that three games a day over two weeks is just too much, then just don't watch every bloody game then. And why should countries around the world have their chances of competing in the greatest football event reduced because the viewing public, many of whose own country won't have even qualified for the thing, might get bored watching them? I don't care if Greece or Switzerland stink the tournament out. They were good enough to qualify in a competitive qulification process, so they deserve to be there.

And it's the World Cup. Football strives on opportunity. When there were just 16 participants at the WC, there were vast swathes of the world where organised semi/fully professional football did not exist. That's not the case now. The sport is so widespread now, and the WC is considered the highest stage, that it deserves to be represented by more than a couple of African and Asian teams. And, as I've argued on other threads relating to European qualifying campaigns, we now have four or five teams genuinely in the running in European qualifying groups.

32 all the way. No more, no less.

[Reed John]

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

32 is perfect, I think. After all, it's really a much much larger tournament. What we usually call the World Cups is just the final stages of the event, but its the stages that are on TV in every country. So the more games that are in the Finals, the more chances for the whole world to see teams they might not normally see. Plus, its an opportunity for one of the "lesser" national sides to upset a traditional power in a neutral (unless they're the hosts) venue and that's how a cup competition should be.

But more than 32 would get a bit unwieldy. Either the competition would have to be longer, which would mean teams would have to sit for a long time between matches and worldwide economic productivity would drop to worrying levels. Or they'd have to play more than three matches a day. Three is the ideal number, I think, for TV viewing/work shirking.

Sure their are some dud matches, but that's going to be true regardless. More matches at least increases the odds of a classic that can be replayed on TV soon thereafter.

The quality of the teams doesn't necessarily indicate the quality of the match. Brazil-Portugal was pretty dire after the first few minutes while I thought Cameroon-Denmark has been the most entertaining game that I've seen in this tournament.

[Donnchadh Ghairdinéir]

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

Anyway, after this week, it seems downright weird to want to see a halving of numbers

I've explained consistently why I'd cut. At most it's slightly eccentric, but there you go. For me, the disadvantages of 32 teams outweigh the advantages.

Maybe the problem is with hosting world cups in Europe, where the rest of the world feels beaten before they even kick off

That's a different problem. As mentioned above, I'm suggesting culling Europe more than the Americas, Africa or Asia. Given that European club football is the strongest, and most players from most WC finalists play there, that might be overstated as a factor in the rest of the World's relative weakness?

Happily the next one is in Brazil, and after that maybe Russia, which might be far enough away for the west-european metropole to avoid the europe home advantage effect

I don't get this. The big western European countries don't have a significant advantage to playing away or neutrally in each other's countries. Partly, as above, as everyone's players tend to be there during the club season anyway, and partly because er, they're playing away. West European Metropole sounds good, I'll grant you.

Agreed about Brazil and Russia if it happens- I was also hoping Turkey would get Euro 2016. However, 32 teams does pose a problem for say Chile or Colombia. They simply can't hope to stage it in the future. With 16 finalists, they could. Apply similarly to Africa and I suspect eastern Europe too. Consider the problems Ukraine and Poland are having even before the Euros expand.

Africa could do with losing a place or two, I think, might help focus some minds as to the stagnation of international football there

I'd give them two places out of 16, which based on only one round of 16 side in each of the last four World Cup weights more for population size than results.

VDLG - You're serious ? You're actually serious ? You're not taking the piss ? Whoa, I thought this was a joke

Spare us the pretend outrage. I've explained in detail why I would cut, both for future World Cups and the Euro championships.

For decades, countries had leagues that had almost no foreigners playing in them. For decades, the goalkeeper was allowed to bounce the ball all over the penalty area, not to mention allowed to pick up back-passes and not wearing goalkeeper gloves. For decades, the World Cup was not able to be viewed live in many countries, not to mention having football federations with very little structure

Not sure of your point here. Changes and improvements like the above are always possible over time. They don't invariably have to include expanding the size of the finals, nor even maintain them if that isn't working.

The serious idea of 16 teams is not good by any stretch of the imagination

I wouldn't claim the idea is particularly imaginative, many others have suggested it even if we are a minority. You aren't stretching anything by shouting 'troll!' just because you disagree.

Have you read one story about the effect of this on New Zealand ? The Prime Ministers ? The parades ? The feeling of the All-Whites as New Zealands team, instead of the corporate All-Blacks ?

Yes thanks, I read about it on the web. Whatever the prime minister says (I think he was drunk when I heard him interviewed) the effect will likely be short-lived. Rugby union will remain the most popular sport there, because the sport's strength means they start every World Cup, and pretty much every other game against a European country, as a favorite to win. In football, their likely future is either a play-off with an Asian mid-ranker, or actually joining the Asian confederation and probably not qualifying very often.

Have you talked to anyone in New Zealand ?

Yes, one or two as well as reading their media. I used to play five a side with one of their press guys who is there. But, possibly unlike you, I don't take everything they say in the excitement of the moment as gospel.

Or are you actually trying to compare the footballing World Cup to the cricket World Cup ?

Yes, if indirectly. New Zealand often do better than expected there, and also manage regular wins against Australia and England in the short game. But for all that, cricket remains largely a participant rather than mass spectator sport. Allowing for the greater scale of football, I reckon something similar will happen. The domestic league will remain part-time and the national side will lose out to Japan, Korea and co. in future. And what's wrong with that? I don't begrudge them the achievement this time, they can aspire to repeat it in future.

The trick is to attempt a modicum of research before making a statement like that

Oh, sorry. I didn't realise a PhD from Jambalaya University was necessary before starting an internet forum debate.

The cup is fine as it is. It only gets better. Oceania v Asia playoff was great, as was Concacaf v Conmebol

One or two exciting games in qualifying play-offs aren't a justification for 16 more mid-rank teams in the finals.

All Switzerland needed was to score a goal and play some effective attacking football. That this was beyond them all tournament was no one's fault but their own

Their negativity only explains half their shortfall- Spain's decision to basically stop playing against a knackered 10 men doubled what Switzerland needed to do.

And to add to Wyatt's rugby world cup example, I'd add the cricket world cup, whose group stages are as interminable as they are (mostly) predictable

Cricket (and I assume rugby?) have a big drop off in quality beyond the top eight or nine teams. As I've said here many times, I'd have only 12 teams in the cricket finals, which gives a target for the top associate teams without there being too many mismatches. No-one denies the quality is spread more widely in football, but not to the extent suggested by 32 finalists.

Football's one gets it right, both in event terms, and in quality terms. And, importantly, as Dalliance points out, in spreading the game's appeal terms.If we were still at 16 teams, as we were in 1978, then it's likely the game wouldn't have grown in the same way, and a whole generation of players would not have emerged on the world stage

Football's popularity has grown enormously in countries like Indonesia and Thailand who haven't qualified even with 32 teams. Doesn't the Champs' League and its marketing take much of the credit for this?

24, with only 8 going through to the second phase? Teams that don't win the group or come a very close second can go home. Teams would have to win 2 out of their first 3 games at least

I could live with that as a compromise. No need for a round of 16.

32 is the perfect number of participants. Not only does it make mathematical sense for the purpose of running the competition, but it strikes the right balance

Well, 16- or eight- are just as artihmetically sensible.

And why should countries around the world have their chances of competing in the greatest football event reduced?

I've explained why, the quality is diluted otherwise and the event is unwieldy and self-limiting.

I don't care if Greece or Switzerland stink the tournament out. They were good enough to qualify in a competitive qulification process, so they deserve to be there

They were good enough to compete with Latvia and Luxembourg and so deserved to progress (ideally to a second European quali stage, I'd say). That both of them basically set out to draw every finals game suggests to me they wouldn't have progressed beyond that second stage. I mean, it's pretty much making my point that most people expected them to approach the finals like that?

The sport is so widespread now, and the WC is considered the highest stage, that it deserves to be represented by more than a couple of African and Asian teams

Well, at risk of repeating myself if in tournament after tournament only one African country progresses to the 16, it doesn't deserve four or five others in the finals. It'd be comparable to Sweden and Norway getting extra teams in the Champions' League, just because Scandinavia is a big unit in Europe.

What we usually call the World Cups is just the final stages of the event, but its the stages that are on TV in every country

This isn't really true any more, is it? Everything, potentially, is on TV (or at least a dodgy web stream) everywhere. Bravo to iraqgoals.tv!

[West End Zuma]

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

A 32 team WC reflects the worldwide state of the game. I think the balance is just about right.

Going back to a 16 team tournament would be a step backwards. The worldwide game has expanded and moved on and this world cup has proved that the so called minnows might not be so small after all and justly deserve to be there.

The 2nd round speaks for itself: 2 Asian teams, 2 Concacaf teams, 1 African, 5 S. Am, and 6 Euros. The rest of the world is slowly catching up and this would not have been possible with a a smaller WC because these countries would not have had the benefit of playing in the WC. The exposure and the experience has been key to progressing and improving their game.
 

[Duncan Gardner]

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

The perennial favorite, new contributors always welcome...

[Reed John]

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

32 is fine.

[Jah Womble]

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

The last tournament felt a bit of a sprawl, but that was down to the inconsistent quality of the football. The previous three World Cups also featured 32 teams, and all of these - 1998 in particular - threw up some good matches.

Sixteen teams? Perhaps. But you'd likely just see the same old faces every tournament.