Guest firetotheworks Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 The game is growing. Is it really still growing? I know China are getting in on the act and so on, but it's seemed to me that in football's bedrock of Europe its popularity is finally waning in terms of attendances and TV viewing figures. I've got the impression that the bubble bursting is getting nearer and nearer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 The game is growing. Is it really still growing? I know China are getting in on the act and so on, but it's seemed to me that in football's bedrock of Europe its popularity is finally waning in terms of attendances and TV viewing figures. I've got the impression that the bubble bursting is getting nearer and nearer. My statement about growth was primarily focused on Asia. The largest population center in the world, with five of the thirteen leaders in nominal GDP (economy size) only having four guaranteed places currently. Europe, Africa, and South America have already reached saturation point, football cannot "grow" anymore in these places. It is already king with no viable challenger. However TV markets can grow, and you will see this throughout Africa, North America, Asia, developing parts of Europe, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Expansion of the World Cup was always likely and probably necessary. The game is growing and I don't really think there will be a significant drop in the quality of the sides. There seems to be a good amount of competition in each federation and decent sides that will not qualify for 2018. Considering this with the money to be made from more matches and it makes too much sense to ignore. The format, however, is complete rubbish. It is possible to expand without bastardising the whole process. Why not have a 40 team tournament with 8 groups of 5 (two advancing from each group)? This only adds one match and creates and interesting dynamic with the group permutations. If we must have 48 teams, why not 12 groups of 4 (two advancing), with either the sides with the 8 best group records being rewarded with a "bye" (to the knockout round of 16) or the 8 best third placed teams qualifying for a round of 32, like in the Euro? All of these formats only add one match, while maintaining the symmetry of a tournament. FIFA hve somehow managed to select the single worst format available to them. I agree with your comments regarding the format and there being obvious better alternatives, but why is the World Cup expansion 'necessary'? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 well done fifa I now actively hope the world cup dies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marmoset Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Why wouldn't you just actively hope it actually improves everything and turns out to be a roaring success? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Good to know they are making the majority of the World Cup irrelevant like they did with the Euros last year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 My big worry is that it now pushes the prospect of Canada getting the World Cup further away. Canada only have 3 stadiums that are suitable for a World Cup, well 4. Some of these are going to need renovating and extensions as well. I guess other countries will have a similar problem, but instead of having to gain half a dozen stadium they now probably need to add another 2-3 stadiums to that list. I think a Canada bid will now have to include baseball and CFL stadiums. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 My big worry is that it now pushes the prospect of Canada getting the World Cup further away. Canada only have 3 stadiums that are suitable for a World Cup, well 4. Some of these are going to need renovating and extensions as well. I guess other countries will have a similar problem, but instead of having to gain half a dozen stadium they now probably need to add another 2-3 stadiums to that list. I think a Canada bid will now have to include baseball and CFL stadiums. Or they'll just have to build new ones like most countries bidding for the World Cup outside Europe do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Expansion of the World Cup was always likely and probably necessary. The game is growing and I don't really think there will be a significant drop in the quality of the sides. There seems to be a good amount of competition in each federation and decent sides that will not qualify for 2018. Considering this with the money to be made from more matches and it makes too much sense to ignore. The format, however, is complete rubbish. It is possible to expand without bastardising the whole process. Why not have a 40 team tournament with 8 groups of 5 (two advancing from each group)? This only adds one match and creates and interesting dynamic with the group permutations. If we must have 48 teams, why not 12 groups of 4 (two advancing), with either the sides with the 8 best group records being rewarded with a "bye" (to the knockout round of 16) or the 8 best third placed teams qualifying for a round of 32, like in the Euro? All of these formats only add one match, while maintaining the symmetry of a tournament. FIFA hve somehow managed to select the single worst format available to them. I agree with your comments regarding the format and there being obvious better alternatives, but why is the World Cup expansion 'necessary'? That may be a strong word to use, the World Cup can obviously continue in the same format with no problem. With the incentives on the table, the move toward expansion was always "inevitable", maybe this is a superior word. Right now, we have competitive qualifiers, but this benefits no one. No one is making money from African giants clashing early in winner take all groups, teams struggling through the grind of South America, European powers being relegated to attempts to qualify via playoff, or a difficult North American hex. If there is more money to be made by FIFA and networks showing these matches, while maintaining competitive balance, that will always be the option taken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Would've been so much better if they just had that knockout thingy that was being discussed for the WC. Basically 24 teams make the World Cup and 16 teams have a sort of knockout to make the groupstages with 8 winners going to a group they've been drawn into. Would increase it to 8 more games and wouldn't mess with the perfect 8 groups of 4 teams. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 penalties thing? Yesterday there were reports that there would be penalties for drawn group games That's such a bad idea well the group stages did work perfectly i suppose Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 My big worry is that it now pushes the prospect of Canada getting the World Cup further away. Canada only have 3 stadiums that are suitable for a World Cup, well 4. Some of these are going to need renovating and extensions as well. I guess other countries will have a similar problem, but instead of having to gain half a dozen stadium they now probably need to add another 2-3 stadiums to that list. I think a Canada bid will now have to include baseball and CFL stadiums. Why should Canada get a world cup? Just in the Americas there's Chile, Peru, Argentina and Colombia who have a much richer footballing tradition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 16 groups of 3 apparently. No skulduggery going to happen there then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 My big worry is that it now pushes the prospect of Canada getting the World Cup further away. Canada only have 3 stadiums that are suitable for a World Cup, well 4. Some of these are going to need renovating and extensions as well. I guess other countries will have a similar problem, but instead of having to gain half a dozen stadium they now probably need to add another 2-3 stadiums to that list. I think a Canada bid will now have to include baseball and CFL stadiums. Why should Canada get a world cup? Just in the Americas there's Chile, Peru, Argentina and Colombia who have a much richer footballing tradition. I'm not saying they should. They should have a suitable bid with a lasting legacy. The problem is though the new format makes it harder for nations who are wanting to create a legacy now have more difficulty doing so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 My big worry is that it now pushes the prospect of Canada getting the World Cup further away. Canada only have 3 stadiums that are suitable for a World Cup, well 4. Some of these are going to need renovating and extensions as well. I guess other countries will have a similar problem, but instead of having to gain half a dozen stadium they now probably need to add another 2-3 stadiums to that list. I think a Canada bid will now have to include baseball and CFL stadiums. Why should Canada get a world cup? Just in the Americas there's Chile, Peru, Argentina and Colombia who have a much richer footballing tradition. What's heritage got to do with it. It's who's willing to pay FIFA the most isn't it ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 My big worry is that it now pushes the prospect of Canada getting the World Cup further away. Canada only have 3 stadiums that are suitable for a World Cup, well 4. Some of these are going to need renovating and extensions as well. I guess other countries will have a similar problem, but instead of having to gain half a dozen stadium they now probably need to add another 2-3 stadiums to that list. I think a Canada bid will now have to include baseball and CFL stadiums. what the fuck is this post? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcjb Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 What's the actual format? I read the winners would still play only 7 games? So it'll be the same? I thought by having a group of 3, it would mean 1 less game? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 My big worry is that it now pushes the prospect of Canada getting the World Cup further away. Canada only have 3 stadiums that are suitable for a World Cup, well 4. Some of these are going to need renovating and extensions as well. I guess other countries will have a similar problem, but instead of having to gain half a dozen stadium they now probably need to add another 2-3 stadiums to that list. I think a Canada bid will now have to include baseball and CFL stadiums. what the fuck is this post? http://i66.tinypic.com/1183kap.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 What's the actual format? I read the winners would still play only 7 games? So it'll be the same? I thought by having a group of 3, it would mean 1 less game? 2 of 3 in each group go through leaving 32 in knockout stage. This will require one extra game for the knockout stage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 which shouldn't be much extra stress because every final group game will be fixed anyway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 I mean it was obvious, but at least it's been admitted. Because obviously you don't make this move if you care one little bit about the product on the field. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 I am broadly in favour of the changes. Half of the third group matches are shit, i.e Argentina and Netherlands playing for a 0-0 draw as both teams are through, or an already eliminated Poland second team beating Iran 2-1 with both teams already out. Shit teams and stalemates will be removed quickly. Almost all second games will have a knockout flavour. Beyond whichever team you support, the final, and the semis, the best matches have always been with the plucky underdogs knocking out England/France/whoever. We will get more of these matches. Whilst th existing format has existed most of my life it has changed with the times before and we do need to see more places. I doubt it will happen but I would have even more suppport if there was somewhat more of a possibility to reduce the number of international games in a domestic season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 My big worry is that it now pushes the prospect of Canada getting the World Cup further away. Canada only have 3 stadiums that are suitable for a World Cup, well 4. Some of these are going to need renovating and extensions as well. I guess other countries will have a similar problem, but instead of having to gain half a dozen stadium they now probably need to add another 2-3 stadiums to that list. I think a Canada bid will now have to include baseball and CFL stadiums. what the fuck is this post? http://i66.tinypic.com/1183kap.jpg wonder if any canadians have as much passion for their country getting a WC as stifler does? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Many were against expanding the World Cup previously. Havelange basically got in in 74 because the stuffy bigwigs wanted to keep it as a European and South American event. But it made sense in the 70s with the mass decolonization that had taken place in the previous decades and did again in the 1990s after the fall of USSR and Yugoslavia. Football is the undisputed global game, and one of the reasons for its success is because its continually expanding and inclusionary. Compared to sports like cricket that seem happy to stay as the colonial boys club that Stanley Rous wanted football to be. So broadly on a principle I'm not against the expansion of tournaments. My reservations come for 3 reasons. One is that with the state FIFA is in right now, the motivations are far more in line with making money and using the 'democratic' nature of FIFA to retain power across many smaller confederations. This makes it very difficult for any decision that FIFA makes to sit easily. Secondly, the format is an issue. Expanding the Euros wasn't so much reducing quality that was the issue but the format that made it dull. Big teams stunk out the group stages just as much as the newcomers, because the format allowed and even encouraged negative football to flourish - look at Portugal getting through with 3 draws and then going on the win the tournament. So the solution is either to have groups of 3, or to have a preliminary round before the main group stage. I'd prefer the former as starting a World Cup in stages ruins it - it should always open with the hosts. Finally, an expanded World Cup of 48 teams is difficult to host. You can see with a 24 team Euros that nobody is willing to host it. Only a handful of large nations probably have the capacity to do so. However a 48 team World Cup does make co-hosting more workable, so even though that was never supposed to happen again it may need to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now