World Cup 2026 - 48 teams

Australia would still qualify. They are among the best teams in AFC and with 8 spots on offer, it'd take as big an upset as NewZealand beating them for Aussies to not qualify.
They've made most of the qualifiers just a formality especially in cases of UEFA, Oceania, CONCACAF and CONMEBOL. Also, most of the teams ifrom AFC are going to be fixed as well. Only CAF qualifiers may rovide some serious upsets as very few African teams are consistent
 
uamini said:
I'm pointing out that your argument that regions should get automatic spots just because they make up a continent is flawed.
And for the record I do like a more diverse lineup, I'm just wondering what the ideal setup would be.
If it were up to me I'd let Asia and Oceania qualify together and I'd merge the American confederations. That would guarantee a proper world cup and a good Oceanian team would still have a good chance to get one of those 9 or 10 spots for that region.
Click to expand...

it's not flawed it's a world cup so varied participation should be one of the criteria. if quality is all you want then you'd end up with a bunch of SA and European teams.

You idea will never happen. Aside from that the fact that it would be a nightmare logistically (travel in specific) the federations would never agree to it. Taking the example of Australia, Asian countries are not a big fan of Australia being in the AFC and taking away their spot.
 
Samid said:
You want Turkey (ranked 16th in Europe, 26th overall) to be replaced by Tahiti (ranked 2nd in Oceania, 149th overall). Fantastic logic.
Click to expand...

I would, though maybe more if it was an Asian nation. Rather see an Asian nation than an average European nation that will bore the life out of everyone. See enough of that in the Euro's
 
uamini said:
So FIFA just released a press statement detailing how many teams per federation will qualify in 2026:

AFC: 8 teams (out of 50 odd)
CAF: 9 teams (out of 50 odd)
CONCACAF: 6 teams (out of 50 odd)
CONMEBOL: 6 teams (out of 10)
OFC: 1 team
UEFA: 16 teams (out of 50 odd)

2 additional teams will qualify through playoffs. These involve 1 team per federation (0 UEFA teams) plus an additional team from the host nation's federation. 2 of those 6 teams will be seeded and play the winners of the first round matchups.

I still don't get why CONMEBOL gets as many teams as CONCACAF. Are they this scared that the USA could mess up and not qualify?
Click to expand...
Seems fair to me. South America can have 7 teams qualifying right now (with the playoff), and even 8 if their hosting. If they want more teams to qualify, they can blimming well merge with the Northern lot
 
Too many , 48 is. Even the most dedicated won't be able to watch every match. Shame really as its going to be too diluted after this marketing play for China and India.
 
Damien said:
Click to expand...


I sense that the corruption in the Associations of Americas has truly been eliminated after the latest scandal. They only get 12 WC spots for 16 countries that actually field a proper football team, and I use the word proper very loosely here.
 
Makes no sense from a competitive viewpoint. Makes sense if you want to help the sport grow in certain parts of the world

Imho, europe should get 20 spots, south america 7, africa 8, Asia 6, North America 6, Oceania 1
 
uamini said:
I was wondering if Turkey would consider joining the AFC now...they'd qualify for the World Cup each time.
Click to expand...

They would have to leave the UEFA club competitions as well so no chance of that happening.
 
Samid said:
0.5 like they have right now is perfect. One means free passage for New Zealand every time.
Click to expand...

There should be, at least, one team from each continent at the WC imo so that would be fine.
 
Globule said:
I'd rather see Tahiti in the World Cup than another European team that simply coasted through qualification because it's harder to not qualify.
Click to expand...
Looking at the current standings when the qualification progress is halfway done.

A: Sweden is 1 point ahead of Bulgaria and 3 ahead of Netherlands
B: Portugal is 5 points ahead of Hungary. The group with the biggest gap between 2nd and 3rd but on the other hand they're contesting with Switzerland about 1st.
C: N-Ireland are 2 points ahead of Czechia and 3 points ahead of Azerbaijan
D: Serbia and Ireland are tied for 1st and Wales and Austria both follow 4 points behind. Lots of teams losing points in this group.
E: Montenegro and Denmark are tied but only 1 point ahead of Romania and Armenia
F: Slovakia are 1 point ahead of Slovenia and 2 points ahead of Scotland
G: Spain and Italy basically competing for 1st here. Can't afford to slip up in the race for 1st.
H: A group that's split down the middle. Belgium on 13, Greece on 11 and Bosnia & Herzegovina on 10. Cyprus, Estonia (who just beat Croatia in a friendly) and Gibraltar make up the bottom half.
I: Croatia lead Iceland by 3 points and Iceland sit above both Ukraine and Turkey with a 2 point difference.

So how many teams exactly are coasting here?
 
Globule said:
I'd rather see Tahiti in the World Cup than another European team that simply coasted through qualification because it's harder to not qualify.
Click to expand...

Snow said:
Looking at the current standings when the qualification progress is halfway done.

A: Sweden is 1 point ahead of Bulgaria and 3 ahead of Netherlands
B: Portugal is 5 points ahead of Hungary. The group with the biggest gap between 2nd and 3rd but on the other hand they're contesting with Switzerland about 1st.
C: N-Ireland are 2 points ahead of Czechia and 3 points ahead of Azerbaijan
D: Serbia and Ireland are tied for 1st and Wales and Austria both follow 4 points behind. Lots of teams losing points in this group.
E: Montenegro and Denmark are tied but only 1 point ahead of Romania and Armenia
F: Slovakia are 1 point ahead of Slovenia and 2 points ahead of Scotland
G: Spain and Italy basically competing for 1st here. Can't afford to slip up in the race for 1st.
H: A group that's split down the middle. Belgium on 13, Greece on 11 and Bosnia & Herzegovina on 10. Cyprus, Estonia (who just beat Croatia in a friendly) and Gibraltar make up the bottom half.
I: Croatia lead Iceland by 3 points and Iceland sit above both Ukraine and Turkey with a 2 point difference.

So how many teams exactly are coasting here?
Click to expand...

I guess he has a point if you consider England in recent tournament qualifiers. They coast through qualifying and end up displaying a miserable performance in finals, asking some serious questions about the whole European qualifying system.

I still believe the best way to go is to make it a two-tier qualification in Europe just like it is in Asia. More meaningful matches and less break in top European leagues for internationals.
 
Akash said:
I know. I bet New Zealand are laughing their asses of at Autralia right about now
Click to expand...
Not really. The argument for joining AFC was their qialifiers contributed nothing to them. No test = no improvement.

They will keep getting in anyway with AFC having 8 slots.
 
shahzadi said:
I guess he has a point if you consider England in recent tournament qualifiers. They coast through qualifying and end up displaying a miserable performance in finals, asking some serious questions about the whole European qualifying system.

I still believe the best way to go is to make it a two-tier qualification in Europe just like it is in Asia. More meaningful matches and less break in top European leagues for internationals.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that it's better to get a team that's likely to finish the group dead last with double figures in goals conceded rather than a team that qualifies from the group?

Asia actually has 3 stages. What would 2 stages accomplish in Europe? They have multiple stages in Asia because they have fewer places so they can't simply give a pass to a group winner.
 
Cannot believe people are arguing about giving two spots to Oceania. Without Australia they barely need one, New Zealand are the only team there with any chance of competing with professional football teams really, at times when they have a decent team. Technically it's a continent but it's about 10 million people and most teams are similar to San Marino and Gibraltar i.e. amateur sides. It's all fine saying that one spot is not enough for the whole confederation but you need to consider the size and level.
 
Snow said:
So are you saying that it's better to get a team that's likely to finish the group dead last with double figures in goals conceded rather than a team that qualifies from the group?
Click to expand...
I didn't suggest anything like that, two-tier qualification will result in Top ranked European teams playing in a group of 4 instead of 6 or 7.

Would you like to prefer a Top European country with a competitive league, involved in a qualifying group that consists of:

Spain
Italy
Israel
Albania
Macedonia
Liechtenstein

or a group of just:

Spain,
Italy,
Albania
and Israel ?

A first tier qualifier should eliminate weaker teams. There are so many advantages of that which includes:-

Less international fixtures every year.
Less breaks in their respective leagues.
More interest of fans in International football.
 
shahzadi said:
I didn't suggest anything like that, two-tier qualification will result in Top ranked European teams playing in a group of 4 instead of 6 or 7.

Would you like to prefer a Top European country with a competitive league, involved in a qualifying group that consists of:

Spain
Italy
Israel
Albania
Macedonia
Liechtenstein

or a group of just:

Spain,
Italy,
Albania
and Israel ?

A first tier qualifier should eliminate weaker teams. There are so many advantages of that which includes:-

Less international fixtures every year.
Less breaks in their respective leagues.
More interest of fans in International football.
Click to expand...
The international dates are set either way so instead of a competive fixture the few countries that don't play for the first time around would play friendlies instead. They don't have to but fewer games is bad for the team. You want to play together.

As for the current schedule, it's balanced around the different leagues. Some leagues take winter breaks, some can't play in the winter, some only play in the summer. It won't change the breaks at all and I don't think it would gain more interest but rather lessen it from the countries that aren't participating the 2nd time around.

Teams can evolve pretty quickly. Ahead of the 2010 WC Iceland finished bottom of their group with Netherlands winning every game in the same group. Only 6 years later and Iceland qualify for the Euros with Netherlands missing out in the same group. Why make it tougher for teams that are already behind?
 
Snow said:
The international dates are set either way so instead of a competive fixture the few countries that don't play for the first time around would play friendlies instead. They don't have to but fewer games is bad for the team. You want to play together.

As for the current schedule, it's balanced around the different leagues. Some leagues take winter breaks, some can't play in the winter, some only play in the summer. It won't change the breaks at all and I don't think it would gain more interest but rather lessen it from the countries that aren't participating the 2nd time around.

Teams can evolve pretty quickly. Ahead of the 2010 WC Iceland finished bottom of their group with Netherlands winning every game in the same group. Only 6 years later and Iceland qualify for the Euros with Netherlands missing out in the same group. Why make it tougher for teams that are already behind?
Click to expand...

The way I see it, once a two-tier qualification is set, it is obvious that there would be less international breaks. I just don't see a group of 4 competitive teams catching less interest of the fans. Competitiveness only creates more interest, nothing else.

That Iceland example is bit strange here, teams who improve can always join top teams in the 2nd qualifier after proving themselves in the first round. A two-tier qualification is not totally alien, the same model is being run very successfully in Asia not only for World Cup qualification but the Asian Championships (AFC) as well.

Another solution that I have mentioned in another thread, is to cut off international breaks completely during the 8-9 months of Top European Leagues. That will make leagues shorter (around 7 months) and a couple of months at the end of the league should be reserved for International Football (qualifying and other friendlies). It will increase the quality of International Football and interest of fans. We shall see improved displays and more rhythm in the performances of International Teams. Football fans don't care about Internationals primarily because that bring an annoying break in their respective club's fixtures/schedule. Once league season is finished and there is no club football around, a football fan will definitely pay attention to internationals.
 
shahzadi said:
The way I see it, once a two-tier qualification is set, it is obvious that there would be less international breaks. I just don't see a group of 4 competitive teams catching less interest of the fans. Competitiveness only creates more interest, nothing else.

That Iceland example is bit strange here, teams who improve can always join top teams in the 2nd qualifier after proving themselves in the first round. A two-tier qualification is not totally alien, the same model is being run very successfully in Asia not only for World Cup qualification but the Asian Championships (AFC) as well.

Another solution that I have mentioned in another thread, is to cut off international breaks completely during the 8-9 months of Top European Leagues. That will make leagues shorter (around 7 months) and a couple of months at the end of the league should be reserved for International Football (qualifying and other friendlies). It will increase the quality of International Football and interest of fans. We shall see improved displays and more rhythm in the performances of International Teams. Football fans don't care about Internationals primarily because that bring an annoying break in their respective club's fixtures/schedule. Once league season is finished and there is no club football around, a football fan will definitely pay attention to internationals.
Click to expand...
The Iceland example is relevant because if you won't get better by playing worse teams.

Northern Europe plays football during the summer. The Ukrainian league takes a break in the winter and plays both in July and June. Russian leagues starts in July. You can't arrange the international dates any better than what they already are. As of now it's only 5 dates in the calendar with a double header in September and October and a single header in November, March and June. How are the breaks going to be fewer exactly?

As a football fan I only care about international football regarding my own nation. I don't watch other nations any more than I watch the Bundesliga or Serie A when it's available to me.
 
Samid said:
0.5 like they have right now is perfect. One means free passage for New Zealand every time.
Click to expand...

When the WC went from 16 to 24 teams we hoped that Oceania would then get its own spot but that didnt happen, other confederations got increases. When it went from 24 to 32 teams we again hoped that Oceania would get 1 spot. But it didnt happen and again other confederations got increases. Since those 2 sets of increases Asia and Africa have seen a huge growth in the game which was the hope and intention of increased spots at the WC. Australia left in frustration because it was incredibly hard to qualify because Oceania had to qualify by beating the 5th place South American side ( Argentina with Maradona) or teams such as Scotland. They also left because Oceania didnt give it the strength of competition they hoped for.
The big problem is that during the years when the WC went from 16 to 24 to 32 all other confederations were helped by increased spots in growing the game, Oceania was left like some unwanted ugly child and its been a slower harder route to developing the game.
The last Confeds cup saw NZ missing out on qualification and in recent years NZ hasnt been winning by 13 goals against Island nations as we saw in the 70's and 80's so NZ isnt garaunteed an automatic spot. On top of that by increasing Europes quota for instance it will mean the some of the main big countries will in effect be given a similar expectation of qualification that NZ would with the automatic spot under the new format.
NZ still has 2 games to get through before the playoff games and they should qualify for the playoff games. Its entirely possible that in the playoff games NZ will face Argentina and Messi. When you look at what other regions of the world have to do to qualify then this is really much tougher and out of proportion.
Personally I think Oceania should be disbanded and combined with Asia but while FIFA sees fit to keep Oceania it should at least be trying to grow the game and allow Oceania its own spot in a larger format WC.
The idea of Oceania having half a spot with another increased format is daft. If it happened then it would mean for the 3rd succesive expansion one of the confederations has to qualify via a far tougher route than the majority of countries outside of Europe have to deal with.
 
Sarni said:
Cannot believe people are arguing about giving two spots to Oceania. Without Australia they barely need one, New Zealand are the only team there with any chance of competing with professional football teams really, at times when they have a decent team. Technically it's a continent but it's about 10 million people and most teams are similar to San Marino and Gibraltar i.e. amateur sides. It's all fine saying that one spot is not enough for the whole confederation but you need to consider the size and level.
Click to expand...

Who are you referring to here?
 
antohan said:
Not really. The argument for joining AFC was their qialifiers contributed nothing to them. No test = no improvement.

They will keep getting in anyway with AFC having 8 slots.
Click to expand...

The argument was primarily that the OFC qualifiers were plain stupid and still ate. Their chances of qualifying from AFC were far greater than from OFC. The quality angle was obviously a factor as well. But they'll probably qualify anyway, you're right.

....

The ignorance is mind boggling. Make every European team play off against the likes of Argentina and Uruguay and we'll see how many go through because that's what the Oceania have often had to do. And it's not like they've disgraced themselves. The last time Australia qualified from OFC they were knocked out by a diving cnut. The last time New Zealand qualified they went unbeaten. They need more chances not less. And to think people want to go back to a system where OFC isn't even guaranteed one spot. Just plan stupidity and ignorance.

Maybe, just maybe, if some of these teams actually had a realistic chance of qualifying they might improve in the long term.
 
Globule said:
Is there anything stopping them going back to Oceania with their tail between their legs? Or is the extra money and better competition they face on a more regular basis still worth their while.
Click to expand...
It's not like Australia have a big problem qualifying via AFC. Except Japan & Korea, they start off clear favourites in most matches anyway.
 
Cal? said:
So Fifa are screwing with Uefa again. :mad:
Click to expand...
How is this screwing. You have 16 teams! Thats the number of teams that were playing in the Euros in 2012, a number everyone was satisfied with as it meant all top teams qualified.
 
anant said:
How is this screwing. You have 16 teams! Thats the number of teams that were playing in the Euros in 2012, a number everyone was satisfied with as it meant all top teams qualified.
Click to expand...
Because the 17th best European team is significantly better than the 9th best side in Africa, 8th best side in Asia (in fact the 17th best European side are probably better than the 4th best Asian side), etc
 
Cal? said:
Because the 17th best European team is significantly better than the 9th best side in Africa, 8th best side in Asia (in fact the 17th best European side are probably better than the 4th best Asian side), etc
Click to expand...

Who cares? If people wanted to just European team after European team, they could watch the EUROs.

I love the idea of spreading the WC out so that more teams from around the world are involved.
 
africanspur said:
Who cares? If people wanted to just European team after European team, they could watch the EUROs.

I love the idea of spreading the WC out so that more teams from around the world are involved.
Click to expand...
I understand the need to spread it out a little and am not suggesting they go with the best 48 teams in the world (which would probably mean 24+ from Europe). But a balance needs to be drawn. Asian teams except those 3 and occasionally Iran will show up and get trashed in every match, what exactly is the point of them 'competing'?
 
Sarni said:
Cannot believe people are arguing about giving two spots to Oceania. Without Australia they barely need one, New Zealand are the only team there with any chance of competing with professional football teams really, at times when they have a decent team. Technically it's a continent but it's about 10 million people and most teams are similar to San Marino and Gibraltar i.e. amateur sides. It's all fine saying that one spot is not enough for the whole confederation but you need to consider the size and level.
Click to expand...
Can not agree more.

I can give one example. Thailand comfortably beat New Zealand twice in recent years. They are still capable of continuing doing so. But according to the new quota New Zealand is going to WC ( it would be extremely surprising if they are not the best team in Oceania after Australia joining AFC) and Thailand, however, is highly going to miss as getting into top 8 in Asia (including Australia) is still a tough task for them.
 
Cal? said:
Because the 17th best European team is significantly better than the 9th best side in Africa, 8th best side in Asia (in fact the 17th best European side are probably better than the 4th best Asian side), etc
Click to expand...
So? 17th best European team as it is doesn't stand a chance of reaching the later stages. You may as well give it to a team where football isn't that popular or they don't have the infrastructure so that the game reaches those parts of the globe as well
 
africanspur said:
Who cares? If people wanted to just European team after European team, they could watch the EUROs.

I love the idea of spreading the WC out so that more teams from around the world are involved.
Click to expand...

Just like with the extended Euros, they will likely just stop watching a lot of games alltogether.
This will be a shitshow. A bunch of sides will just get stuffed and send home. What's the point.
 
Cal? said:
I understand the need to spread it out a little and am not suggesting they go with the best 48 teams in the world (which would probably mean 24+ from Europe). But a balance needs to be drawn. Asian teams except those 3 and occasionally Iran will show up and get trashed in every match, what exactly is the point of them 'competing'?
Click to expand...

fcbforever said:
Just like with the extended Euros, they will likely just stop watching a lot of games alltogether.
This will be a shitshow. A bunch of sides will just get stuffed and send home. What's the point.
Click to expand...

Did people stop watching the Euros altogether? Speaking from my own experience, I didn't watch any more or less football than I usually do in these tournaments?

And countries like Iceland pulled quite a surprise. I wouldn't be shocked if that wasn't an unusual occurrence.

Don't worry, you'll still get your all European/ South American semis onwards I'm sure.

I'm also not saying the rations are exactly right at all. But there is a certain attitude that if they're gonna expand it, they should just put in loads more UEFA teams. How boring is that?
 
africanspur said:
Did people stop watching the Euros altogether? Speaking from my own experience, I didn't watch any more or less football than I usually do in these tournaments?

And countries like Iceland pulled quite a surprise. I wouldn't be shocked if that wasn't an unusual occurrence.

Don't worry, you'll still get your all European/ South American semis onwards I'm sure.

I'm also not saying the rations are exactly right at all. But there is a certain attitude that if they're gonna expand it, they should just put in loads more UEFA teams. How boring is that?
Click to expand...

Iceland would have qualified under the old system as well, people forget that. And yes, percentagewise I watched less games. Maybe the same number overall, but there were more games overall as ou know. Pointless games are pointless, it's the same idiocy that still allows Gibraltar and consorts to partcipate in the normal qualification. Useless games without any value.
And then Uzbekistan at a WC? Good fecking look. We should at least try to keep the competetiveness up in these tournaments. If you have seen the Euros, you clearly see the results of inflating tournaments like that. A lt of pointless games where shitty team just puts all 11 players inside the box whithout even trying to attack. Number of goals per game dropped significantly, same will happen here.
 
fcbforever said:
Iceland would have qualified under the old system as well, people forget that. And yes, percentagewise I watched less games. Maybe the same number overall, but there were more games overall as ou know. Pointless games are pointless, it's the same idiocy that still allows Gibraltar and consorts to partcipate in the normal qualification. Useless games without any value.
And then Uzbekistan at a WC? Good fecking look. We should at least try to keep the competetiveness up in these tournaments. If you have seen the Euros, you clearly see the results of inflating tournaments like that. A lt of pointless games where shitty team just puts all 11 players inside the box whithout even trying to attack. Number of goals per game dropped significantly, same will happen here.
Click to expand...

If all you care fr is competitveness, lets have a 16 team or rather an 8 team world cup. When was even the last time that a team not considered among the top 8 favourites won the WC?
Let every WC be Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Italy, France, Germany and the remaining 2 spots to be filled in by qualifying- No pointless games by tis format as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.