Yeah, I don't think UEFA needs fewer teams in the World Cup. In any given cycle, if you were to pick out the five best teams that failed to make it, at least 3 of 4 of them would be from UEFA. The competition is at its best when the majority of games are highly competitive, and a disproportionate number of the competitive teams come from Europe. To the point where UEFA, which fields less than half of the teams for each World Cup, has produced about two-thirds of the semifinalists in the past five cycles. The only confederation with a pretty legit argument in that department is CONMEBOL (which has produced almost all of the others...South Korea in 2002 is still the only non-UEFA/non-CONMEBOL squad to even reach the semis). Beyond Brazil and Argentina, they've fielded some highly-competitive teams in the past couple decades...Uruguay reached the semis and has gotten out of the group stage in three consecutive cycles, Colombia had in two consecutive (but didn't even qualify this year). CONCACAF and CAF in particular have produced a lot of top-level footballers, but really need to demonstrate the ability to hang with the big boys if we're going to have the red carpet rolled out for us.
In 2026 one of the US, Canada or Mexico will reach the semis. Possibly even two from those three if the draw is good to them.
I wonder if they will make all three seeds? I guess so? I was reading earlier about the new format and the suggestion is groups of three where the top two qualify could lead to collusion. I guess we will have to wait and see. If it is obvious hopefully the format will change. Although I guess on a delay so not until 2034. This one in 2022 is already a bit of a farce. Would a few farces in a row damage things permanently? I don’t personally think so
Possibly. Home-field and the group format will certainly provide an edge, and Canada/the US in particular should have a bunch of young talent hitting their prime at that point. Whether any of the three can compete on that level will depend on they can find international-quality players to fill their weakness: - for Canada, the defense (as good as it has been in qualifying, they definitely aren't WC semi good, and there aren't that many notables in the pipeline) and goalkeeping (Borjan is solid, but he's also old as hell); - for Mexico, their strikers (Raul Jimenez will be ancient by then, and they lack an obvious successor); - for the US, their ability to not inexplicably forget how to play football at inopportune moments, sometimes for months on end. The US is probably the most likely, just because there's no question they'll have a very good and fairly complete squad, at least on paper. They just need some measure of consistency, because a 48-team tournament is one where you need to win need to survive three knockout rounds to reach the semis, and it's been a while since they've managed to put together a stretch of good play (like, a decade or more).
UEFA give a spot to South America? Nooope, if anything they should be losing a spot. For the next World Cup at least 60% of their confederation gets to qualify, plus a play-off spot for 7th place. They are spoilt, the only confederation where the majority qualify. UEFA meanwhile will be on 29% and no play-off spots. 16/48 is probably a fair number going forward, even if the new WC format is garbage. Africa desperately needs more places though, luckily they will have 9 next time out.
To compete with the very best, you need nine good players, and two world class. And they need to play as a team etc. Denmark/Wales is the standard to follow for the US/Canada teams at the moment. With home advantage that's a semi-final possibility.
There will be 16 groups, and at current two of the three already would be getting top seeds simply by virtue of their FIFA ranking. I don't love anything about the new format, and giving a top seed to the home nation is just plain dumb at any time, but it's not likely to make a substantial difference in 2026.
Oh yeah I'd forgotten about the new format FFS. Literally ruining the best football tournament out there. I'm also not a fan of having 3 hosts in general. Especially when it covers such a vast area that its not really necessary. Can forsee a situation where a team has played their group matches in Canada/Northern US and then have to play a ko match in the heat of Mexico. Isn't this Mexico's third WC too? Why are they getting a third before many nations have even had a second. Bent as ****.
You’d think US and Canada could have done it together. Wonder if there is a reason Mexico were added I doubt that reason will be a “bent” one. Haven’t they only had two because they were a late replacement for one? Perhaps the USSR or something ?
Even within countries, there's a high degree of variation. Summer daytime highs in Edmonton are comparable to those in Mexico City...on average, a difference of 1.3 C. Toronto's actually significantly warmer than Mexico City in July, believe it or not. Meanwhile, Monterrey is like playing in a microwave oven. Even if only one of Canada, Mexico or the US hosted the tournament, you'd get wildly different conditions depending on venue. Travel's likely a bigger issue there, though I don't know how they intend to schedule that.
Apparently Mexico stepped in for Colombia at relatively late notice in 86 I can’t find anything from a quick search about why all three nations joined up for the bid. Other than seemingly trying to guarantee a win ?
Colombia iirc but the fact remains that they've already hosted 2 and this will be a third. Like you say it's not really necessary either as it could easily be done without them. Tbf I don't see why the US should have two in 32 years either (when their not even a nation of football fans) when you've got plenty of football nations who've either hosted none or haven't for decades.
Yeah I meant to add something in about travel but forgot. I didn't realise that regards Edmonton, I just recall reading an article pointing out the potential mismatches in humidity. Perhaps they chose a very specific example though which will be easy to avoid. I don't like the concept of it though as it's just completely unnecessary and far too big an area (same as last years round the continent Euros was ****e). This is all to fit the new format too which is clearly all about $ - wish they'd stop ****ing with the game and trying to fix things that aren't broke. Doubt we'll ever get a single host again which is a huge shame imo.
I would take: England Mexico Morocco Saudi Arabia Worst case: England Uruguay Senegal Wales/Scotland/Ukraine Based on the fact you can't have teams from the same confederation in a group, apart from Europe where 5 of the 8 groups will have two UEFA teams.
Rumour was that FIFA wanted a ‘North American’ joint bid and USA/Mexico/Canada complied knowing it would almost certainly win. But yeah it would have made sense to just have USA/Canada given Mexicos previous tournaments… along with the fan culture being a little extreme at the moment. I understand the desire to expand, but the groups of 3 is a pending disaster as it won’t create enough variation in teams results i.e they will need some stupid rules to pull teams apart at the end of the group stage, teams going through on disciplinary record or deliberately ‘Gijoning’ will be an issue (this even happened in the last World Cup under current rules). I have a feeling they might have to introduce penalties to the group stage or something equally ridiculous. Honestly they should have gone with 40 Teams and 8 Groups of 5, or just run it like the current Euros, Asian Cup and AFCON with best third places. I mean I absolutely hate that system but it’s more functional than the chosen arrangement. I think this is just a step towards a final format of 64 Teams anyway,
Don't think I could agree with a post more than I do this one. Spot on. It says it all that I'm now really looking forward to Qatar because the next few are gonna be ****e.
Hosting a 64 team tournament seems kind of unfeasible. It will have to work like the last Euros and be multi location. But could be even worse for travel if it is global (surely it won’t be)
Wonder who the other two hosts for 2030 will be alongside Uruguay. Edit - apparently its 3 others. Argentina, Chile, Paraguay & Uruguay. Apparently there's going to be a 5 nation bid from Asia for 2034
Honestly I didn’t think it was possible but Infantino has been so much worse for the sport than Blatter was. Blatter was corrupt, but he knew not to mess around with the formula. Under Infantino so far: 1. 48 Team WC format with groups of 3. 2. Removed Confederations Cup for some unwanted Club World Cup expansion. 3. Attempted (and failed… so far) to make the World Cup biennial.
