FIFA World Cup

[Deuce]

https://defector.com/let-us-discuss-what-the-world-cup-final-means-for-new-york-new-jersey

[timeEd32]

39 minutes ago, Deuce said:

https://defector.com/let-us-discuss-what-the-world-cup-final-means-for-new-york-new-jersey

I just laughed out loud at least three times reading that but it’s probably because I’m from NJ. Fun fact: the hospital I was born in is just down swamp from where that picture was taken.

[Deuce]

4 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

I just laughed out loud at least three times reading that but it’s probably because I’m from NJ. Fun fact: the hospital I was born in is just down swamp from where that picture was taken.

 

Quote

DR: No one ever really understands why New Jersey people are upset. This is our charm, as I understand it. Just constantly seething and moping around and periodically yelling “it’s about respect” while waiting in a deli line.

 

[cubaricho]

[timeEd32]

At least in some cities I’m pretty sure these will be the hardest WC tickets ever even with there being more games.

[cubaricho]

I really want to go to Monterrey but Kansas is looking the most likely. 

[TheBrownBottle]

3 hours ago, cubaricho said:

I’m surprised that there are no QF / SF in Canada or Mexico.  Canada in particular (Mexico has at least hosted a couple of times before)

[NSG]

Hope we get Central region - assuming we qualify.

[54]

Just realised there is going to be 12 groups at the next World Cup, and they're doing the Euros this where 8 of the 3rd placed teams will make the knockout. Look at this shit

 

[TheBrownBottle]

28 minutes ago, 54 said:

Just realised there is going to be 12 groups at the next World Cup, and they're doing the Euros this where 8 of the 3rd placed teams will make the knockout. Look at this shit

 

This shite started with the World Cup - Italy got to the World Cup Final in 1994 despite finishing third out of four in the group stage.  82-94 were 24-team tournaments, and 86-94 had the ‘best third place teams’ shite

[Ben]

6 host teams ? Does that mean all 6 don't need to qualify ? How did that happen, did FIFA just want to bank all 6 brown paper bags ? 

[Kaizero]

Went down a Wikihole and ended up reading the 2030 WC Wiki, this has to be intentional:

 

 

   

 

"A goal... ...for thE WoOoOOLEEEEeee OFFF AFFFRIcCCAaa!"

[leffe186]

Not sure where we’re at now for the number of games players play in 12 months, but it’s becoming downright dangerous.

[Heron]

Nice and Green.

[Jaqen]

3 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

Not sure where we’re at now for the number of games players play in 12 months, but it’s becoming downright dangerous.

 

Think it's a big reason the Euro's has been so bad. Everyone is absolutely fucked 

[54]

10 hours ago, leffe186 said:

Not sure where we’re at now for the number of games players play in 12 months, but it’s becoming downright dangerous.

I was listening to the Football Ramble the other day, and they raised a good idea. Footballers should start specifying in their contract the maximum number of games they can play per year throughout all competitions, say 50 for example, then it's on the club to decide what games they want that player to play in.

[80]

1 hour ago, 54 said:

I was listening to the Football Ramble the other day, and they raised a good idea. Footballers should start specifying in their contract the maximum number of games they can play per year throughout all competitions, say 50 for example, then it's on the club to decide what games they want that player to play in.

Interesting, but I could see that becoming pretty perverse. An Mbappe would eventually negotiate the number down to 1 with subsequent matches being subject to additional negotiation. End of season title chases would be complex games of contract enforcement and haggling.

 

Seems a pretty likely outcome, actually.

[The Fountain]

4 hours ago, 54 said:

I was listening to the Football Ramble the other day, and they raised a good idea. Footballers should start specifying in their contract the maximum number of games they can play per year throughout all competitions, say 50 for example, then it's on the club to decide what games they want that player to play in.

Clubs have to maximise revenue as players want to maximise salaries 

[Upthemags]

5 hours ago, 54 said:

I was listening to the Football Ramble the other day, and they raised a good idea. Footballers should start specifying in their contract the maximum number of games they can play per year throughout all competitions, say 50 for example, then it's on the club to decide what games they want that player to play in.

This is a disastrous idea. It's already ruined basketball as a spectator sport in the USA, and the NBA doesn't know what to do about it, as star players will literally play half the season under the guise of "load management". If you're a fan and you bought a ticket to watch LeBron James play? Better hope he doesn't have the night off.

 

I would sooner have star players elect to sit out, restrict their playing time in national team matches before they start fiddling with their obligations to their professional club... But that's just me.

[Jonas]

2034 co hosts about to be confirmed as - every country on the planet

just do away with qualifying and call the whole thing the world cup

[80]

7 minutes ago, Jonas said:

2034 co hosts about to be confirmed as - every country on the planet

just do away with qualifying and call the whole thing the world cup

I think that would actually be pretty cool. Not monetizable enough though.

[Disco]

Better than having it in Saudi

[smootsmack]

9 hours ago, 54 said:

I was listening to the Football Ramble the other day, and they raised a good idea. Footballers should start specifying in their contract the maximum number of games they can play per year throughout all competitions, say 50 for example, then it's on the club to decide what games they want that player to play in.

 

3 hours ago, Upthemags said:

This is a disastrous idea. It's already ruined basketball as a spectator sport in the USA, and the NBA doesn't know what to do about it, as star players will literally play half the season under the guise of "load management". If you're a fan and you bought a ticket to watch LeBron James play? Better hope he doesn't have the night off.

 

I would sooner have star players elect to sit out, restrict their playing time in national team matches before they start fiddling with their obligations to their professional club... But that's just me.

 

I've never had the impression that footballers/basketball players want to sit out games... rotation/load management is usually a management decision that you can get away with more in American sports because you can lose over 50% of your games and still win the league

[Kaizero]

1 hour ago, Jonas said:

2034 co hosts about to be confirmed as - every country on the planet

just do away with qualifying and call the whole thing the world cup

 

Your post triggered my latent urge for sometimes jumping into discussions as the devil's advocate. The greed at the very top of the global game has pushed it far towards its inevitable demise sometime in the distant future, but when we think of future hosts of a "World Cup" we need to remember that over the last couple of decades, the game has advanced an insane amount and increased its global fanbase/viewership from its already outrageously high numbers into stratospheric numbers. 

 

• The 2022 World Cup Final was watched by 1 in 5 (rounding down from 5.3) of all living humans as it happened.
• The 1994 World Cup Final was watched by 1 in 176 (rounding down from 176.3125) of all living humans as it happened.
• The 1966 World Cup Final was watched by 1 in 8495 of all living humans as it happened.

 

I found and sourced the numbers by googling and I didn't spend any time proof-checking sources. Just saying that up front before someone on here decides to dedicate their weekend diving head first down a source-checking rabbit hole they end up returning from with the ability to say I was off by "this and this" fraction of an amount  That said - anyone willing to fact check are more than welcome to do so, of course 👍🏼

 

Given the exponential growth in the total amount of viewers across a World Cup tournament these days, knowing it will only grow in the future as well - I dare say it's borderline lunacy being against potential changes to the tournament, as long as those changes are undeniably good for all of the following: the tournament itself, the health of its players and the entertainment level for those watching in the stands and from home. 

However, when changes are made on the basis of increasing the personal wealth for a select few individuals at the top of he command chain running a corrupt organization that, time and time again, gets their pants pulled down to reveal the exact level of corruption happening that we were all already aware of, yet do nothing about. 

 

Given how the game has grown across the world and interest in the game having had the kind of exponential growth it has over the past couple of decades, the idea of a World Cup having 64 nations present shouldn't be an offensive thought. It would only add one extra game for players, and even then only for the players representing teams that in a 32 nation World Cup format advanced further than the Round of 16. It's a no brainer as whilst European nations can still pull up to the WC with the largest amount of quality nations able to partake, we won't see a growth in quality if young players never see their homegrown talent reach the biggest stage. The trade off for an extra game due to having 64 nations participating in a WC, on paper, seems to be a net positive gain for the sport, the tournament and player growth in nations without the successful history the "established greats" have on their resume. The only negative aspect for a change like this would, and even then arguably so, be the extra 90 to 120 minutes players have to go through at the tournament to reach the final. Those extra 90/120 minutes across a full season should be removed from somewhere else, in my opinion. They are better served taking place at a World Cup once every 4 years than at some random pre-season tournament et al.

 

If we, in an ideal world, had succeed in rooting out the corruption all through FIFA and appointed leaders that genuinely wanted the best for the sport, finding a host country for a 64 nation tournament that has enough stadiums of the required/expected standard and size already built and ready to go quickly start approaching zero. Based on the situation as is when it comes to having access to enough stadiums for a tournament the size of a World cup - all within the borders of a single country? It'd likely mean that country having to put a lot of money into getting their existing stadiums brought up to the standards and size required of a stadium if it were to host a WC match, or even worse - the footballing equivalent of what happens to the arenas after a city hosts either the summer or winter olympics as the demand for the arena size/the audience base isn't large enough to support them.

 

If I could choose based on my personal preference, the World Cup would always be hosted by one single country. The realist in me hope that when we inevitably will have to accept that the current reality of the game and world is as it is, meaning future bids to host the WC will more likely than not be two or more nations joining forces - presumably to avoid having to pay to refurbish/expand multiple stadiums in their country to meet the standard/requirement for stadiums deemed capable to host a WC match. However, I hope those bids are made by non-massive (hello north america) neighbouring countries and not more than three host nations in total - the nation with the historically "best" footballing resume of the two/three host nations should automatically get to host the final.

 

I fear we might end up seeing random countries all across the world end up teaming up to bid for a WC given FIFA's track record when it comes to turning down a big check even if them taking the cash directly makes the game itself suffer negatively. 

 

Going back to the middle ground scenario, I honestly don't think it's a bad idea in general - even if we removed FIFA's blatant corruption from the WC bidding process. Being Scandinavian, I'll never experience a WC being hosted this far north - but an EC shared between Norway, Sweden and Denmark? A bid like that would have potential to get off the ground if the bidding process weren't 100% ran on pure corruption, as we're stereotypically so shit we already know we're too shit to even attempt gaming the system like every other nation - as we'd undoubtedly fail and our schemes unravel for all to see. 

 

I feel like I've picked up the mantle from good 'ol HTT these days looking at the novella length of most of my posts, even copying his style when it comes to veering off the initial topic very quickly and rambling on about whatever comes to mind until I realize I need to do something else and abruptly stop writing without a proper conclusion to any of the points I discussed/raised in the novella-post   I mean, for fucks sake... throw me onto your ignore pile until I manage to check myself, hopefully before I wreck myself.

[gjohnson]

So a genuine "world cup". Assuming there'll be zero f**ks given for those who actually want to attend and not just watch on tv. Oh wait there only a minimum 6 hour time difference between the continents.

 

Seriously whoever thought of this idea wants a kick in the balls, and whoever approved it should be forced to live on whatever comes out of their own body for a year.