The 48 Team World Cup. Good or Bad?

Ben Arthur

Ben Arthur

Elite Member
Jr. VIP
Joined
Sep 9, 2023
Messages
3,003
Reaction score
1,788
Watching some of these early stage group games (like Germany smashing 7 goals on Curacao) has helped me form this opinion. I get the idea behind wanting to expand the World Cup to 48 teams with the goal of getting more countries involved, but the way it’s going right now, it feels like the competition is just going to get worse.

Would you say you like seeing more games, and having more countries involved? Or would you say you prefer the old 32-team version where most of the group games were competitive?

I want to know your opinions. :)
 
Advertise on BHW
iFreelancer said:
Don't you think big teams need a warm-up game before the battle begins?
Click to expand...
Totally understand what you're saying, but there's a difference between a warm-up game and watching a public execution. When you see an elite striker scoring the fifth goal against a part-time accountant who has been used as a training cone, it gets boring.

I get that the big teams want to flex their muscles before the important games. But is it really necessary to go and traumatize an entire small island country while playing on global television?
 
I've always been for everyone participating in the World Cup, but maaan, some of the participants (Curacao and Haiti, for example) are just not ready yet!

Now granted, this flaw could be fixed by taking these 2 spots from CONCACAF (the weakest region in the world) and giving them to UEFA or CAF... or even Asia, why not? Anybody but CONCACAF (at least until CONCACAF becomes competitive, I have nothing against this region, but it was obvious before the WC started that these 2 nations would be the weakest ones in this WC, so let the region develop for a few more years / decades, and then we can give them more spots).

Instead of Curacao and Haiti we could have had any of these nations and it would have been better: Denmark, Poland, Nigeria, Cameroon...
 
tazarbm said:
I've always been for everyone participating in the World Cup, but maaan, some of the participants (Curacao and Haiti, for example) are just not ready yet!

Now granted, this flaw could be fixed by taking these 2 spots from CONCACAF (the weakest region in the world) and giving them to UEFA or CAF... or even Asia, why not? Anybody but CONCACAF (at least until CONCACAF becomes competitive, I have nothing against this region, but it was obvious before the WC started that these 2 nations would be the weakest ones in this WC, so let the region develop for a few more years / decades, and then we can give them more spots).

Instead of Curacao and Haiti we could have had any of these nations and it would have been better: Denmark, Poland, Nigeria, Cameroon...
Click to expand...
I agree. I'd rather watch Nigeria or Denmark actually make a game out of it than watch any more CONCACAF teams getting turned into a 90 minute training exercise.

Moving those spots to UEFA or CAF is logical based on the actual game, but of course FIFA doesn't actually think about entertaining games when it comes to making decisions. It is all about global politics and the money from the broadcasts.

For now, watching these one sided contests is our only option while the more threatening teams are forced to sit at home just like the rest of us.
 
Ben Arthur said:
FIFA doesn't actually think about entertaining games when it comes to making decisions. It is all about global politics and the money from the broadcasts.
Click to expand...
of course! I think Infantino has not even been a footballer (or a sporting man in general), he's here just for the cheques, and it shows :)
 
tazarbm said:
of course! I think Infantino has not even been a footballer (or a sporting man in general), he's here just for the cheques, and it shows :)
Click to expand...
Exactly. He isn’t a player. He’s a lawyer by trade. He applies that same attitude to the game. He views the game through the same lens as he does a corporate balance sheet. Growing the tournament is all about getting more TV money and more votes. It has nothing to do with growing the sport. :)
 
I can see both sides More countries get a chance to participate which is great for global football but some group matches do feel less competitive The 32 team format had more high quality games from the start Personally I like the extra opportunities for smaller nations but I hope the tournament stays competitive as it grows.
 
I’d suggest not dismissing it too soon based on the biggest mismatches. The more countries that get a chance to compete can be good for the sport in the long run even if some of the group games are lop-sided in the beginning. My advice would be to see how the knockout stages go and how future tournaments play out before deciding the expansion was a mistake.
 
ads studio said:
The more countries that get a chance to compete can be good for the sport in the long run
Click to expand...
that's valid only for leagues and inter-continental competitions that run year 'round, not for a tournament that has 3 games every 4 years.

Also, you speak in too general and vague terms, are you sure that you're not one of those useless AIs??
 
I am not a big sports fan, but I like the idea of everyone getting a chance since there may be some amazing athletes we never knew in other countries.

But if that keeps happening it will be 24hr a day with no offseason, and it would be too much to handle for everyone and possibly make it less fun and not enough fans to support all team costs
 
@tazarbm is right about the money side of things. FIFA is basically just running a massive reach campaign. They don't care if the group stage matches are unwatchable as long as they can sell broadcasting rights to more countries that wouldn't have qualified otherwise. Honestly watched about ten minutes of that Germany game before switching it off... it was painful. i remember seeing similar expansion stuff in other sports and it always ruins the early stages. more teams just dilutes the brand but i guess the sponsors only care about the extra eyeballs.
 
Bad, it should be 64 teams, more random countries...and less europeans, Turkey is already out,, worse than Curacao, Portugal/Spain couldn't handle Congo/Cape Verde, Belgium terrible, Czech almost out, etc, very overrated
 
Ben Arthur said:
Watching some of these early stage group games (like Germany smashing 7 goals on Curacao) has helped me form this opinion. I get the idea behind wanting to expand the World Cup to 48 teams with the goal of getting more countries involved, but the way it’s going right now, it feels like the competition is just going to get worse.

Would you say you like seeing more games, and having more countries involved? Or would you say you prefer the old 32-team version where most of the group games were competitive?

I want to know your opinions. :)
Click to expand...
In my opinion, more teams/countries participating would always be better. It can't be THE WORLD cup if only a handful of countries are allowed in. It'll be like Americans calling that thing they've got going a world series even though it's just cities in the US competing.

Inclusiveness is part of what makes it a world cup.
 
Advertise on BHW
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sign up now!

Main Menu

Home Main Forum List Black Hat SEO White Hat SEO BHW Newbie Guide Blogging Black Hat Tools Social Media Downloads

Marketplace

Account Selling Content / Copywriting EBooks / Methods Hosting Misc Proxies For Sale SEO - Link building SEO - Packages Social Media Social Media - Panels Web Design More

Making Money

Affiliate Programs Hire a Freelancer IM Journeys Making Money Pay Per Click Site Flipping Want to Buy

BlackHat World

Dispute Resolution Forum Suggestions & Feedback Introductions Lounge
Back
Top