WEEKLY WHINE

Men’s World Cup expansion: Why not?

by Gaby Gandalucci

Edvard, you have made a mistake.

Expanding the Men’s World Cup to 48 teams is not going to be the shitshow you think it is, so you can go ahead and crawl out of the Men in Blazers’ Panic Room.

Taking the schedule outline we have previously developed, we can see that there are some advantages to a larger Men’s World Cup: the level of play, greater participation, and the ability to reward higher seeds.

LEVEL OF PLAY

As Edvard pointed out last week, there are many good teams that have not had as many opportunities to compete in Men’s World Cups as their records would suggest. For example, Egypt have won seven Men’s African Nations Cups but have qualified for the Men’s World Cup only twice. Australia qualified only once as a member of the OFC, but since joining the AFC, they have not missed a tournament. New Zealand have been clearly the best team in the OFC since Australia’s move, but they have qualified only once in that time. The Czech Republic have qualified for every Men’s European Championship since the split of Czechoslovakia, but have only qualified for one Men’s World Cup in that time.

In addition, there are a number of teams that have made rapid leaps up the tables but did not get their opportunity at the Men’s World Cup. Poland and Peru, for instance, are both in the top twenty of the current Elo ratings. Poland have not qualified since 2006, and Peru have not qualified since 1982. Wales, Iceland, and Ireland Rep performed well at Euro 2016 and have moved up rapidly in the Elo ratings as a result, but to date they have a total of four Men’s World Cup appearances amongst them.

These teams can only lift the level of play. Take Edvard’s example from last week of a group containing the Netherlands, Costa Rica, and Egypt. How awesome would that group be: awesome, majorly awesome, or awesomely awesome? The correct answer, obviously, is: “Quiet! I’m watching the Costa Rica-Egypt match! I can’t believe how awesome this match is!”

Furthermore, with only three matches in every group, every match takes on much more importance. Admittedly, as Edvard pointed out, the last match could end up being unimportant, or it could even lead to an arranged outcome. But the team playing in the first two matches will be desperate to avoid such an outcome and will be going for broke in order to keep their fate in their own hands. Just as Edvard pointed out, as long as that team can emerge with a positive goal difference, their place in the round of 32 will be assured, and the last match will decide the other two teams’ fates.

There are two other factors playing against the possibility of arranged outcomes. First, if there is a tangible benefit to finishing first in the group, such as not having to travel for their round of 32 match [as we propose], the team that would finish second might be more willing to take a risk. Second, as we will discuss momentarily, at least one of the teams involved is likely to be less fancied, or to have less experience on the global stage. Such teams will be more likely to play positively; they will not want to be booed off the pitch in such a big opportunity.

PARTICIPATION

As we mentioned, expanding the Men’s World Cup will allow in several teams that should be there anyway. Let us take a look at the current Elo ratings and divide the teams into tiers, per Edvard’s suggestion. Here are the top five tiers:

1. Ranks 1-16: Brazil, Argentina, Germany, France, Chile, Spain, Italy, England, Portugal, Colombia, Uruguay, Mexico, Belgium, Netherlands, Croatia, Switzerland
2. Ranks 17-32: Ecuador, Poland, Peru, Korea Rep, Ireland Rep, Costa Rica, Iran, Turkey, Iceland, Ukraine, Japan, Wales, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Sweden, Slovakia, United States
3. Ranks 33-48: Serbia, Senegal, Australia, Denmark, Cameroon, Paraguay, Egypt, Czech Rep, Côte d’Ivoire, Russia, Hungary, Venezuela, Austria, Romania, Nigeria, Uzbekistan
4. Ranks 49-64: Panama, Scotland, Greece, Slovenia, Northern Ireland, Burkina Faso, Bolivia, Honduras, Israel, South Africa, Algeria, Morocco, Congo DR, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Montenegro
5. Ranks 65-80: Ghana, Tunisia, New Zealand, Belarus, Bulgaria, Albania, Norway, Qatar, Syria, Finland, Mali, Korea DPR, China PR, Canada, Jordan, Haiti

The teams in the first tier are likely to qualify no matter what. The teams in the second tier have at least an even chance at qualifying to a 32 team tournament, and would be even more likely to qualify to a 48 team tournament. The teams in the third and fourth tiers are the ones most likely to benefit from expansion, and some fifth tier teams are likely to sneak in as well.

Now, let’s try an experiment. Select a team at random from the first tier, one from the second, and one from the third. No matter whom you select, you are going to end up with a fascinating group. England, Iceland, and Uzbekistan, for example, would be a splendid opportunity for Uzbekistan to finally make that leap to the global stage. Chile, Korea Rep, and Austria would have some great matches, as would Switzerland, the United States, and Cameroon.

But let us now throw in some fourth and fifth tier spoilers. What about a group made up of Mexico, Burkina Faso, and Albania? Or Italy, Panama, and Mali? Viewers and supporters may flock to the matches involving Mexico and Italy, but the Burkina Faso-Albania and Panama-Mali matches are going to be epic encounters between teams that will be eager to capture the world’s attention.

Expansion is also an opportunity to recalibrate the allocations to each confederation. For instance, the OFC is one of FIFA’s six regional confederations and has a berth in all other FIFA tournaments. But it only has one half of a berth at the Men’s World Cup, which is, counterintuitively, the tournament that already has the most total berths. Australia had to change confederations just to get a fair shot at qualifying. Therefore, FIFA can, should, and most likely will give the OFC at least one full berth at the 2026 Men’s World Cup.

Let us also address inclusion of more potential host nations. When the Men’s World Cup expanded to 32 teams in 1998, the possibility of cohosting was also raised, and it happened for the first time in 2002. For a 32 team tournament containing 64 matches, eight to twelve host cities are generally required. But for a 48 team tournament containing 80 matches, ten to sixteen host cities will probably be needed.

This opens up the possibility of cohosting amongst several nations. We might see a very large nation provide eight host cities and two of its neighbours provide four each, as we proposed with the United States, Canada, and Mexico. We might see two nations contribute eight host cities each, four nations contribute four each, or eight nations contribute two each. We might see all ten CONMEBOL nations cohost the tournament, with more host cities in larger nations like Brazil and Argentina. We might even see sixteen nations contribute one host city each, something like the 2007 Men’s Cricket World Cup or Men’s Euro 2020.

SEEDING

Edvard has already discussed the potential for competitive imbalance in the group phase. But let us take a page from other sports like karate and wrestling. Let us turn our weakness into a strength.

One team in each group will have the disadvantage of not being able to play on the last matchday. However, if that team can accrue a positive goal difference in their two matches, they will earn advancement to the round of 32 regardless of what happens in the last match. Some teams, therefore, will want that opportunity to complete their two matches as soon as possible and have a rest date before the start of the round of 32. Other teams might be willing to forego their rest date and play the last two matches of the group, so that they can scout their opponents first.

So here is my proposal: After the draw, the highest seeded team in each group may select when to take their off date: the first, second, or third matchday. The second highest seeded teams select from the remaining choices, and the lowest seeded teams are stuck with the off date left them by their opponents.

Let us return once again to Edvard’s nightmare group of the Netherlands, Costa Rica, and Egypt. If the Dutch squad share Edvard’s apprehensions, they might opt to take their off date on the second matchday, so that they have an opportunity to set the tone of the group before their seven days of rest. They would then return to action on the last matchday knowing exactly what they need to do in order to advance.

Costa Rica would then be able to select either the first or the third matchday as their off date. Either way, they would play Egypt on the second matchday; the only question is whether they want their match against the Netherlands to come before or after that. Let’s say that the Ticos are feeling confident in their ability to take three points from at least one of their opponents and finish with a positive goal difference. They would then take their off date on the third matchday, leaving Egypt to take the first matchday off. The group schedule would then look like this:

There certainly is a competitive imbalance in a group of three teams. Not only should we accept this, we should embrace it.

SUMMARY: HOW CAN WE MAKE IT WORK?

The 2026 Men’s World Cup will be a nonstop glut of football the likes of which Earth has never seen, except for every single day of the year.

Let’s face it: There is always football going on, because we the viewing public are always watching it. If we really want less football on our televisions, we should watch less of it.

Expanding the Men’s World Cup will take it to places it has never been, with teams that have never before participated in it. And whilst we expand it, we can also take the opportunity to recognise that not all teams are equal, and accordingly give advantages to teams that have earned them.