64 team World Cup

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ing-world-cup-to-64-teams-for-2030-tournament

From a logistical point of view it's actually a lot better than 48, but the number of mismatches will be insane. I can see it now.

Spain 17 Lesotho 0
Bhutan 0 Argentina 23
Sri Lanka 2 Scotland 1

 

Just devalues the tournament in my eyes!
More teams = more income. That's the only reason.

 

I remember being excited when they extended it to 24 teams, at Spain '82.
But as in the '74 & '78 tournaments, that meant the ridiculous idea of Group stages again, in the 2nd round.
And this was instead of a Qtr final and Semi final.

 

But no one has heard of Lesotho.

 

call me old fashioned but 32 is enough.

How long before every country qualifies and the tournament lasts 3 months?

 

Excellent news for Scotchland and Wales lol.
Surely they will both finally make it, if its about 100 teams in the tournament.

 

Even Luxembourg and San Marino will get a sniff *guffaw*

 

I dunno, didn’t Saudi beat Argentina last time, who eventually won it.

More the merrier for me. Helps to grow the game in these smaller countries.

 

They had semi finals in 82.

 

I know they did, I was saying it about those 70s tournaments.

 

Whilst I agree it devalues the tournament. It gives the fans of those smaller countries, the opportunity to see their teams at such a prestigious event.

 

I think 32 teams should have been the limit.
Eight groups of 4, and the top two go through, and no messing about with 3rd placed teams.
Then its a straight knockout format from the Last 16 onwards. Simples!.

 

Why should they have an opportunity to see a rubbish team at a prestigious event?

The Olympics are prestigious. I'm rubbish at Javelin. I reckon I should get to chuck the thing there so my family get to see me do it.

The only reason it is prestigious is because the best teams play in it. And it's not like the poor teams have been excluded, it's not a closed shop, there is qualifying to get there. If you let anyone go, it is no longer, by definition, prestigious.

 

Just making the point. Teams like Wales.(once in 70 + yrs ) Northern Ireland and ireland (3 times each ) who rarely make the finals. But give the big hitters a game and throw up surprises. (I'm not talking Gibralter.) And the fans of those 3 would outnumber lots of bigger countries.
And as its spread across 3 countries (which I don't favour) it gives it more reason to involve more teams.

 

I thought you might have been, but only after I'd posted, couldn't be àrsed to edit.

 

I prefer the quality over quantity argument.
And I also agree, I think it devalues a tournament when just about anybody is let in.

 

I'm ok with it being expanded, more games on TV to watch over the summer.

 

And we/England could say that '82, was the only World cup where we got eliminated, despite not even losing a game!!.
And how did the hosts Spain feel, when they were already 'out'. But they still had another Group game to play against us.
And I remember Belgium exploiting the 3rd place rule in '86, and somehow making it to the Semis.
Surely teams who finish 3rd in a Group of 4, don't deserve to go through.

 

Check the swimming out at the Olympics, that literally happened to a countries rulers nephew