Not worthy of a thread - 2018 FIFA World Cup edition

[jdckelly]

Wonder if its 10 groups of 4, or 8 of 5.

Matt Dickinson ‏@DickinsonTimes 2h

 

@MiguelDelaney still 8 groups in Platini model. 8 x 5. Claims it's only 3 extra days. Can't say I agree, mind

 

another 3 days and the standards of the world cup lowered even more, hell lets just invite everyone and have one giant 209 team tournament!

[Deuce]

There are many reasons why Michel Platini's plan to expand the World Cup is a bad idea, chief among them is that it is Michel Platini's plan. It's nothing personal; I'm just not sure that there's another human being out there who is worse at organising competitions.

 

It was Platini who hit upon the idea of replacing the UEFA Cup with the Europa League, a competition that is just like the Champions League but without any of the glamour, excitement and prestige. While a normal person might have pushed for a competition with its own identity, like a giant unseeded knockout tournament, Platini tried to one-up a lager with a shandy.

 

In its original incarnation, the Europa League had eight groups of five with teams playing each other only once, their home and away fixtures chosen arbitrarily. Genius. In both versions, the entire group stage is rendered pointless by the policy of dropping Champions League failures into the knockout stages.

 

Since 1996, the European championships have often been more exciting than the World Cup. With only eight of 16 nations progressing to the knockout stage, every game counts and there aren't many whipping boys to smooth the way. There are just 31 fixtures in the entire tournament; it's swift, it's punchy and it's fun. So naturally, Platini has decided to change it.

 

In 2016, 24 nations will trudge through 51 games, many of which will be utterly pointless. Of the 24 qualifiers, 16 will progress to the knockout rounds. Four of them will have finished third in their four-team pool, quite possibly without winning a single game. This is the tiresome format that was introduced at the 1986 World Cup, something you would expect Platini to remember, given that he actually played in it. Even FIFA eventually recognised the flaws in the system, shifting to a more balanced -- though still undeniably hefty -- 32 nations in 1998. And now Platini wants to change that too.

 

Platini claims that the motivation behind his idea is that it will "make more people happy," but this is the kind of one-dimensional, emotive pap that wouldn't fool a small child. If 40 teams make people happy, why not have 60 and make them really happy? Hell, why not have all 209 nations there and send the planet into serotonin-charged convulsions? Because it's nonsense, that's why.

 

More teams won't make people happy -- it will make people bored. Sport is only exciting when it is tense. There must be risk, there must be danger, there must be something to lose. The only way a four-team group becomes a more exciting five-team group is if the fifth team is better than the others, but how can that be the case? Are we going to discover hidden islands where they cracked tiki-taka in the 1960s and have since developed styles of play more exciting than anything we can imagine?

 

The introduction of Venezuela or Scotland will not unduly concern Brazil or Spain. Throw a smaller fish into the pond and it will be gobbled up by the big fish. We're not making the football better; we're making it longer. And that doesn't make me happy.

 

But then, Platini's motivation was never to make people happy. Platini's motivation is to run FIFA. He believes that he will win the support of more nations if, firstly, he gives them a chance to reach a World Cup and secondly, if he squeezes more money out of that World Cup. The dramatic increase in fixtures will force up the price of TV rights and advertising revenue. Making people happy, or making football exciting, has nothing to do with it.

 

You only have to look at the disastrous ICC Cricket World Cup of 2007 to see what happens when you over-stretch a competition. That godforsaken dirge lasted six weeks, took in 51 games over two group stages and then a brief knockout, by which point the few remaining supporters there were begging for salvation. Viewing figures were low, seats went unsold in their thousands and the competition still hasn't recovered. In sport, as in so much else, more isn't necessarily better.

 

Platini has ruined the UEFA Cup and he is about to ruin the European championships. He must not be allowed to ruin the World Cup as well. It takes a hell of a candidate to make Sepp Blatter look like the sensible option for the future of world football, but even Blatter wouldn't try and pull a stunt like this.

 

http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/bootroom/id/543?cc=5901

[Magpie]

There are many reasons why Michel Platini's plan to expand the World Cup is a bad idea, chief among them is that it is Michel Platini's plan. It's nothing personal; I'm just not sure that there's another human being out there who is worse at organising competitions.

 

It was Platini who hit upon the idea of replacing the UEFA Cup with the Europa League, a competition that is just like the Champions League but without any of the glamour, excitement and prestige. While a normal person might have pushed for a competition with its own identity, like a giant unseeded knockout tournament, Platini tried to one-up a lager with a shandy.

 

In its original incarnation, the Europa League had eight groups of five with teams playing each other only once, their home and away fixtures chosen arbitrarily. Genius. In both versions, the entire group stage is rendered pointless by the policy of dropping Champions League failures into the knockout stages.

 

Since 1996, the European championships have often been more exciting than the World Cup. With only eight of 16 nations progressing to the knockout stage, every game counts and there aren't many whipping boys to smooth the way. There are just 31 fixtures in the entire tournament; it's swift, it's punchy and it's fun. So naturally, Platini has decided to change it.

 

In 2016, 24 nations will trudge through 51 games, many of which will be utterly pointless. Of the 24 qualifiers, 16 will progress to the knockout rounds. Four of them will have finished third in their four-team pool, quite possibly without winning a single game. This is the tiresome format that was introduced at the 1986 World Cup, something you would expect Platini to remember, given that he actually played in it. Even FIFA eventually recognised the flaws in the system, shifting to a more balanced -- though still undeniably hefty -- 32 nations in 1998. And now Platini wants to change that too.

 

Platini claims that the motivation behind his idea is that it will "make more people happy," but this is the kind of one-dimensional, emotive pap that wouldn't fool a small child. If 40 teams make people happy, why not have 60 and make them really happy? Hell, why not have all 209 nations there and send the planet into serotonin-charged convulsions? Because it's nonsense, that's why.

 

More teams won't make people happy -- it will make people bored. Sport is only exciting when it is tense. There must be risk, there must be danger, there must be something to lose. The only way a four-team group becomes a more exciting five-team group is if the fifth team is better than the others, but how can that be the case? Are we going to discover hidden islands where they cracked tiki-taka in the 1960s and have since developed styles of play more exciting than anything we can imagine?

 

The introduction of Venezuela or Scotland will not unduly concern Brazil or Spain. Throw a smaller fish into the pond and it will be gobbled up by the big fish. We're not making the football better; we're making it longer. And that doesn't make me happy.

 

But then, Platini's motivation was never to make people happy. Platini's motivation is to run FIFA. He believes that he will win the support of more nations if, firstly, he gives them a chance to reach a World Cup and secondly, if he squeezes more money out of that World Cup. The dramatic increase in fixtures will force up the price of TV rights and advertising revenue. Making people happy, or making football exciting, has nothing to do with it.

 

You only have to look at the disastrous ICC Cricket World Cup of 2007 to see what happens when you over-stretch a competition. That godforsaken dirge lasted six weeks, took in 51 games over two group stages and then a brief knockout, by which point the few remaining supporters there were begging for salvation. Viewing figures were low, seats went unsold in their thousands and the competition still hasn't recovered. In sport, as in so much else, more isn't necessarily better.

 

Platini has ruined the UEFA Cup and he is about to ruin the European championships. He must not be allowed to ruin the World Cup as well. It takes a hell of a candidate to make Sepp Blatter look like the sensible option for the future of world football, but even Blatter wouldn't try and pull a stunt like this.

 

http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/bootroom/id/543?cc=5901

 

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

I disagree with almost every single point made in that article. The Europa League isn't any more or less broken then before. You can talk about format all you want to, but the problems with that tournament will persist as long as monetary incentive is low in comparison to the league for clubs in higher tier leagues. When you factor in the fact that second tier teams in top leagues and top teams in the lower leagues generally have smaller squad than those of the CL behemoths, this is what you get as a result. A knockout may be more interesting, but surely less matches would mean less prize money, less money in gates, and less TV money for participating, all of which would exacerbate the original issues.

 

The author is quick to dismiss the likes of Venezuela and Scotland, but the truth is that there are definitely 40 teams in the world capable of contributing to a competitive World Cup. This isn't cricket either, it is one of the biggest events mankind has produced. I doubt interest will wane in any significant manner.

 

The 24 team Euro is stupid because 24 teams is simply a poor number for a tournament of this style. In fact, anything where we are comparing third place teams group by group is going to be tedious and a waste of time. I would propose a 20 team Euro, with a pre-group stage, knockout round, but this idea never seems to stick with anyone other than myself.

[Disco]

Any final tournament number that doesn't lend itself to a round robin format should be immediately discounted on terms of idiocy. 32 or 16. No mo', no less.

 

Baba is spot on about the UEFA Cup though.

 

Also...

 

Another day, another wearying proposal to ruin football. This time it was Michel Platini, the Uefa president who long ago surpassed Sepp Blatter as the global game's greatest nonsense machine, who shook the kaleidoscope of self-interest and came up with a proposal to expand the World Cup finals from 32 to 40 teams. More games! More countries! More fans! More money! More votes! Hurrah!

 

Let nobody be in any doubt what Platini's proposal, revealed on Monday in the Times, is about. It's about the Fifa presidency, whether in 2015, when it seems increasingly likely Blatter will stand again, using the issue of the Qatar World Cup in 2022 to pressure Platini (the main cheerleader for Qatar outside of Asia), or in 2019. Blatter's pre-hustings jockeying last week saw him promising extra places at the World Cup for Asia and Africa, and so Platini replied by suggesting more places for everybody, something he presumably hopes will gain him support in Africa and Asia without losing votes back in Europe.

 

The argument that the African and Asian confederations are underrepresented at the World Cup is ludicrous, as explained in detail here. To sum up the argument, though, at the 2014 finals, there will be 13 teams from Uefa, 5.5 from Conmebol (South America), 5 from CAF (Africa), 4.5 from the AFC (Asia), 3.5 from Concacaf (North & Central America) and 0.5 from the OFC (Oceania). The Fifa rankings show the top 32 teams in the world consist of 20 from Uefa, six from Conmebol, three from CAF and Concacaf and none from the AFC or OFC. Or, to take the Elo rankings, which many deem a better system, the top 32 comprises 18 from Uefa, 6 from Conmebol, three from CAF and Concacaf, two from the AFC and none from the OFC.

 

This raises the issue of what a tournament is. If the World Cup is aimed at gathering the best 32 teams in the world to battle each other for the right to be considered supreme, it turns out Uefa is already under-represented and AFC and CAF over-represented. But of course it's not as simple as that: there is a need to create a global spectacle and to offer encouragement to football regions that are still developing – while still possessing sufficient quality that the tournament retains a competitive edge. The CAF president Issa Hayatou's whines that only a tenth of his members qualify while half of Conmebol's do would carry a lot more credibility if five of the six CAF teams hadn't been eliminated in the group stage in South Africa while four of Conmebol's five made it to the quarter-finals.

 

But what about the practicalities? What would a 25% increase in the number of teams, a shift from eight groups of four to eight of five with the top two going through, mean in real terms? The early rounds are already packed with matches featuring moderate sides gamely holding out against better teams – and doing so relatively successfully because a defensive system is easier to organise than an attacking one, and the better side hasn't spent the time together that it would have had at club level to find the slickness and precision to outwit a massed rearguard. So we go from 48 group games to 80. Many would be stodgy, many would be dead rubbers and, because one team would have finished its games before the other four, the possibility of collusion in the final round would be enhanced.

 

Platini says the extra 32 games could be accommodated in just three additional days. In Brazil, the group stage will be played over 15 days. There's one game on the first day, one day of four games (the first Saturday) and nine days of three games before the final group games, when teams in the same group play simultaneously – four games a day but only two kick-off times.

 

Extrapolate that and, assuming the same arrangement for the opening fixture and final group games, you would need 21 days to cram in the other group matches – so a total of 26 days. Maybe they increase the pace, so there are four matches every day. That's possible and it would mean the group stage could be completed in 16 days – actually just a day longer than will be taken in Brazil (although you wonder how many people would have the patience for the day's fourth game). Except it would increase the pressure on stadiums. Assuming a pitch needs three days to recover after a game, you'd need 16 stadiums; 12 will be used in Brazil.

 

And that's when the logistics start to become a little hazy. How many nations, realistically, have 16 World Cup-standard stadiums? Obviously it's great news for the building industry but given the white elephants that already stand as decaying monuments to Fifa's gigantism in Japan and South Africa, you might have hoped they'd have sought to avoid throwing up others.

 

How many nations could cope with the logistics of accommodating a further eight sides and their fans and media? Brazil is a huge country with a well-developed tourist infrastructure and already flights from Europe for next June have doubled in price while hostels and hotels are charging extraordinary premiums.

 

Perhaps the ultimate plan is to move away from a single host – that romantic ideal of a festival in which players, coaches, fans, journalists and scouts could mingle while watching games – and to host the World Cup in multiple centres, as will happen at Euro 2020. That would at least have the advantage of allowing smaller nations to bid for chunks of a World Cup, and the logistics of travel could hardly be worse than they are now, but it's a solution for a problem that need not exist.

 

Perhaps Platini really does believe the upheaval, the dilution of the tournament, is worth it to ensure that we can get a game on between Venezuela and Armenia or Panama and Scotland (to take just four countries who are in the top 40 in the Fifa rankings but haven't qualified), in which case he is simply misguided. It seems far more likely, though, that he is toying with what ought to be the world's greatest sporting event for the sake of his political career.

[jdckelly]

I disagree with almost every single point made in that article. The Europa League isn't any more or less broken then before. You can talk about format all you want to, but the problems with that tournament will persist as long as monetary incentive is low in comparison to the league for clubs in higher tier leagues. When you factor in the fact that second tier teams in top leagues and top teams in the lower leagues generally have smaller squad than those of the CL behemoths, this is what you get as a result. A knockout may be more interesting, but surely less matches would mean less prize money, less money in gates, and less TV money for participating, all of which would exacerbate the original issues.

 

The author is quick to dismiss the likes of Venezuela and Scotland, but the truth is that there are definitely 40 teams in the world capable of contributing to a competitive World Cup. This isn't cricket either, it is one of the biggest events mankind has produced. I doubt interest will wane in any significant manner.

 

The 24 team Euro is stupid because 24 teams is simply a poor number for a tournament of this style. In fact, anything where we are comparing third place teams group by group is going to be tedious and a waste of time. I would propose a 20 team Euro, with a pre-group stage, knockout round, but this idea never seems to stick with anyone other than myself.

the problem with the Europa League change isn't that it was any better or worse before but that it did nothing to improve it or make it more attractive or create its own identity, now its simply the losers cup for those sides who fail in the champions league.

 

And as it stands there hasn't been a truly good world cup in the last 20 years at least while in comparison the EUROS is a fantastic tournament as it was. Now they're making it worse letting in more shit teams you think Ireland were bad last EURO's wait til 8 more of the same or even lower standard show up. Same deal with the World Cup letting in more sides will do nothing to improve the tournament and just make it more tedious and drawn out with ultimately less interest. 

[The College Dropout]

WC is just so high stakes

[leffe186]

I disagree with almost every single point made in that article. The Europa League isn't any more or less broken then before. You can talk about format all you want to, but the problems with that tournament will persist as long as monetary incentive is low in comparison to the league for clubs in higher tier leagues. When you factor in the fact that second tier teams in top leagues and top teams in the lower leagues generally have smaller squad than those of the CL behemoths, this is what you get as a result. A knockout may be more interesting, but surely less matches would mean less prize money, less money in gates, and less TV money for participating, all of which would exacerbate the original issues.

 

The author is quick to dismiss the likes of Venezuela and Scotland, but the truth is that there are definitely 40 teams in the world capable of contributing to a competitive World Cup. This isn't cricket either, it is one of the biggest events mankind has produced. I doubt interest will wane in any significant manner.

 

The 24 team Euro is stupid because 24 teams is simply a poor number for a tournament of this style. In fact, anything where we are comparing third place teams group by group is going to be tedious and a waste of time. I would propose a 20 team Euro, with a pre-group stage, knockout round, but this idea never seems to stick with anyone other than myself.

 

Have to disagree with you about the Europa League, Baba. It's more broken than it was when it was the UEFA.

 

Bottom line - what do you want it to be? Since the Champions League is not a league of champions (and has never been, since the end of the European Cup), then there is theoretically no need for any second european cup trophy. The also-rans still qualify for the CL, in the bigger leagues at least. If you really do want a trophy for those who just miss out - fifth place and cup winners in the big leagues, winners of the Moldovan league - then just a straight knockout (two-legged) trophy will do. Like the old UEFA Cup. I couldn't give a fuck if it generated no money at all, it would at least be more fun than the current slog. And for fucking fuck's sake, don't let the CL failures in.

[Guest Craig-NUFC]

Sepp Blatter: Qatar World Cup in 2022 could be shared by Iran and UAE

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/sepp-blatter-qatar-world-cup-in-2022-could-be-shared-by-iran-and-uae-8930196.html

 

This guy.

[Tiresias]

soon it'll be "qatar world cup doesn't even have to be in qatar at all"

[TheGuv]

I disagree with almost every single point made in that article. The Europa League isn't any more or less broken then before. You can talk about format all you want to, but the problems with that tournament will persist as long as monetary incentive is low in comparison to the league for clubs in higher tier leagues. When you factor in the fact that second tier teams in top leagues and top teams in the lower leagues generally have smaller squad than those of the CL behemoths, this is what you get as a result. A knockout may be more interesting, but surely less matches would mean less prize money, less money in gates, and less TV money for participating, all of which would exacerbate the original issues.

 

The author is quick to dismiss the likes of Venezuela and Scotland, but the truth is that there are definitely 40 teams in the world capable of contributing to a competitive World Cup. This isn't cricket either, it is one of the biggest events mankind has produced. I doubt interest will wane in any significant manner.

 

The 24 team Euro is stupid because 24 teams is simply a poor number for a tournament of this style. In fact, anything where we are comparing third place teams group by group is going to be tedious and a waste of time. I would propose a 20 team Euro, with a pre-group stage, knockout round, but this idea never seems to stick with anyone other than myself.

 

Have to disagree with you about the Europa League, Baba. It's more broken than it was when it was the UEFA.

 

Bottom line - what do you want it to be? Since the Champions League is not a league of champions (and has never been, since the end of the European Cup), then there is theoretically no need for any second european cup trophy. The also-rans still qualify for the CL, in the bigger leagues at least. If you really do want a trophy for those who just miss out - fifth place and cup winners in the big leagues, winners of the Moldovan league - then just a straight knockout (two-legged) trophy will do. Like the old UEFA Cup. I couldn't give a f*** if it generated no money at all, it would at least be more fun than the current slog. And for f***ing f***'s sake, don't let the CL failures in.

 

Totally agree

 

The old European cup format is a genuine eye watering concept these days. As is the old UEFA cup.

 

I fucking hate football now

[jdckelly]

Sepp Blatter: Qatar World Cup in 2022 could be shared by Iran and UAE

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/sepp-blatter-qatar-world-cup-in-2022-could-be-shared-by-iran-and-uae-8930196.html

 

This guy.

you know these sort of questions like "are they actually capable of hosting the tournament?" and "is it safe to host in the time the world cup is held and by which every bid is assessed" are usually handled before you give the tournament to somewhere that happens to have a shit load of cash you want to get your hands on you corrupt bastards.

[mrmojorisin75]

said it before, will say it again, how fucking hard would it be for leading federations like England, Germany, Spain etc. to get together and decide they're just not having it?  tell FIFA they'll not participate unless it's moved to another country or they manage to sort out how to play games in the heat safely

 

fuck FIFA, it's about time they were brought down to earth...this seems the perfect opportunity, no-one seems to care however

[oldtype]

Sepp Blatter: Qatar World Cup in 2022 could be shared by Iran and UAE

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/sepp-blatter-qatar-world-cup-in-2022-could-be-shared-by-iran-and-uae-8930196.html

 

This guy.

 

It's probable that other obscenely rich countries are also lobbying FIFA to let them join the party as as solution for the Qatar problem.

 

Solve corruption with more corruption. Makes perfect sense.

[Kaizero]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjkiebus/qatar-designed-a-stadium-shaped-like-a-vagina-for-the-2022-w

 

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2013-11/enhanced/webdr02/16/14/anigif_enhanced-buzz-32545-1384628769-1.gif

[Deuce]

Ugh, dammit. I made that vagina stadium comment days ago but I posted in the WC 2014 thread. Rats.

[Kaizero]

Only eight years off tbf.

[Deuce]

"If I could turn back time..." - Cher

[Kaizero]

Didn't even occur to me to check in that thread if I'd been giggsed to the punch tbh.

[LucaAltieri]

I think you're off the hook. You can't be held up for a public Giggsing when they couldn't be bothered to post it in the correct thread.

[Guest icemanblue]

http://www.starburstmagazine.com/images/311012/flight_of_the_navigator_review.jpg

[maybe_next_year]

The football World Cup will not be played in Qatar during the summer in 2022, Fifa secretary general Jerome Valcke has said.

 

The tournament  is now likely to be played during the winter months, said Valcke.

 

"The dates for the World Cup (in Qatar) will not be June to July," he told Radio France.

 

"To be honest, I think it will be held between November 15 and January 15 at the latest.

 

"If you play between November 15 and the end of December that's the time when the weather conditions are best, when you can play in temperatures equivalent to a warm spring season in Europe, averaging 25 degrees.

[Dr Colossus]

There's not been one good thing happen about this Qatar World Cup, since it was announced.

 

Fair enough this is better than having it in the height of their summer, but it still buggers up basically every league, and the African Nations.

[Nobody]

Will it be in 2021 to 2022 or 2022 to 2023?

[Dr Colossus]

Will it be in 2021 to 2022 or 2022 to 2023?