World Cup expansion: Why stop at 48?
By Clemente Lisi – MEXICO CITY (Oct 10, 2016) US Soccer Players – Any trip to Mexico City should involve a tour of Templo Mayor, the ancient site used by the Aztecs thousands of years ago as a gathering place to appease the gods in the capital of their vast empire then known as Tenochtitlan. A stop in this sprawling city should also include a trip to a modern-day temple where Mexicans worship their soccer gods. The Estadio Azteca is history and sacred ground for fans across the country.
The legendary stadium is the only one to have hosted two World Cup finals. It’s the place where Mexico’s opponents have traditionally had a difficult time. The altitude and searing heat – along with loud, passionate crowds – have made the Coloso de Santa Ursula one of the best places in the world to see a game. Pele won a World Cup in this city. So did Diego Maradona. The stadium was also the site of what’s referred to as “The Game of the Century” – Italy’s 4-3 extra time victory versus West Germany in the semifinals of the 1970 World Cup – and Maradona’s infamous “Hand of God” goal versus England at the 1986 World Cup quarterfinals. It’s also the place where fans invented “the wave.” As you can see, the list goes on.
My stay in Mexico coincides with the recent proposal by FIFA President Gianni Infantino of expanding the World Cup to 48 teams. My first thought was that tinkering with the World Cup in any way would be terrible. The current 32-team format evolved over time and it has worked well. The rationale for expanding the field is that FIFA’s membership has also grown and that more countries want to get in on the quadrennial event.
This past summer’s European Championship – with an expanded field of 24 teams – gave us some great moments, including Cinderella teams like Iceland and Wales. I’m not so naive as to think that the idea floated last week by Infantino isn’t part of a money grab or meant to appease smaller federations (there are currently 211 teams that took part in trying to qualify for Russia 2018) that will never get a chance to qualify for the tournament. It may be pandering on Infantino’s part, but it is also something worth looking at and discussing. Under Infantino’s plan, 32 teams would play a single-game elimination round. The 16 winners would join the other 16 teams already qualified for the finals.
If the World Cup has to expand, why stop at 48. The tournament could feature 64 teams, emulating the format of the NCAA basketball tournament. March Madness is by far the non-soccer sporting event I enjoy most every year. Why not marry the world’s biggest and most-watched sporting event with the best format in all of sports.
Under this revamped scenario, it would be entirely possible for teams like Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Jamaica, China, and even Canada to make the tournament on a regular basis. Think of the shot in the arm the sport would get in Canada as a result of playing in even one World Cup match. The build-up alone would generate interest in a sport that is in much need of one. Here’s what the revamped tournament could look like:
What would World Cup Qualifying look like?
Like the NCAA, FIFA has rankings it uses to regularly determine the pecking order of world football. Albeit flawed, the rankings already matter. They determine World Cup seeding, so their importance is already in place. The ranking should count. However, there would still be a need for a qualifying tournament to whittle down the field.
Asia currently gets four spots. That number would jump to eight. Africa has five sports that would grow to 10. CONMEBOL has four spots, doubling to eight. As a result, South America, with 10 teams trying to qualify, would send all but two teams to the finals.
Oceania, currently at one spot pending a tie-breaker, would get two spots. CONCACAF, at three sports (plus another from a tie-breaker) would get eight – eliminating the need for the much-loved Hexagonal. Europe, which gets 13 spots, would send 37 teams to the World Cup. Essentially, you’d be doubling the number of teams from each confederation that send teams to the finals. Europe, which has 55 members, would still have the most teams in the finals.
How would seeding work?
Here’s where the FIFA rankings could play a part. Using a formula that would combine a team’s record during qualifying and the last year of rankings, FIFA would seed the nations – one through 64 – just like the NCAA does for its Division I tournament. The first of the No. 1 seeds would be the host nation, followed by the three other best teams, regardless of what part of the world they hail from.
What would the World Cup look like?
First round games that end in a draw would feature a replay, like the FA Cup, played the first week of the tournament. If that second game is also a draw, the teams would go to extra time and penalties to determine a winner. The incentive would be to win the game outright and avoid the fatigue that would come with having to play an extra game. From the second round on, all games would be single-elimination game. Again, draws would go to overtime and penalty kicks to get a winner.
The World Cup would still need multiple venues. Any host nation would still need to have nine to 12 stadiums available to host games. Better still, venues could host “brackets” and that would cut down on travel. The semi-finals (and that much-hated third-place game) could all take place at one venue.
How long would the tournament run?
The World Cup is typically a 30-day event and that would remain largely the same. Without a team playing three first-round games, there would be more days to rest. Staggering games would mean no need for simultaneous matches.
Will my 64-team World Cup ever happen? It’s highly unlikely. Will a 48-team World Cup ever take place? That’s more likely. Nonetheless, soccer’s ultimate goal is to entertain the millions upon millions who watch. The passion this tournament exudes is unique. What needs to ultimately happen is that this passion needs to involve the most teams as possible. Soccer has always prided itself as a global game. Expansion would combine that passion and need to spread the sport to more countries.
Based in New York City, Clemente Lisi is a regular contributor to US Soccer Players. He covers all topics relating to American soccer, including Major League Soccer. He has covered the last two World Cups for the site. He is also the author of A History of the World Cup: 1930-2014. Clemente began writing for our site in July 2007. Find him on Twitter:http://twitter.com/ClementeLisi.
More from Clemente Lisi:
