2026 changes: Potential Group Stage for the 48-team format

[Rob1981]

Lots of chat earlier about the move to 48 teams... came up in a couple of the match threads, and there was a bit of sneering on one of the TV commentaries.  Talking about how many lesser players and how many lesser teams they would have to cover... not that they will do much research either way.

But always the fear that it dilutes the quality, and we will get loads of group games where it's just two no-hopers playing each other. 

So.  Earlier on I thought I would try and prove the doubters wrong.

And frankly I'm not sure whether it's gone well.  But this is what a 48 team group stage could look like.

QUALIFYING

For ease, I've had to base this on the current FIFA rankings.  But just humour me and assume that all the highest-ranked teams qualify from each part of the world.  Then this is who is getting through... based on the new increased allocations for each confederation.

ASIA (8+1)
Qualifiers: Iran, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates
Playoffs: Oman

CAF (9+1)
Qualifiers; Senegal, Morocco, Tunisia, Nigeria, Algeria, Egypt, Cameroon, Mali, Ivory Coast
Playoffs: Burkina Faso

CONCACAF (3+3+2)
Hosts: Canada, Mexico, USA
Qualifiers: Costa Rica, Panama, Jamaica
Playoffs: El Salvador, Honduras

CONMEBOL (6+1)
Qualifiers: Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia, Peru, Chile
Playoffs: Ecuador

OCEANIA (1+1)
Qualifiers: New Zealand
Playoffs: Solomon Islands

UEFA (16)
Qualifiers: Belgium, France, England, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal, Denmark, Germany, Croatia, Switzerland, Wales, Serbia, Sweden, Poland, Ukraine

PLAYOFFS

So if you're keeping count, that's 46 places filled automatically.  Then six teams left playing for the two remaining playoff spots.

Playoff teams are Ecuador (FIFA ranking 44), Burkina Faso (54), Oman (77), El Salvador (74), Honduras (80), Solomon Islands (136).

Effectively these playoffs are two mini-tournaments of three teams to decide the last two places.  The two top seeds get a bye to their 'final' while the other two teams in their section playoff first.  A bit like the National League playoffs but with probably some weaker teams involved.  But let's just assume that the two highest-ranked teams get through.  And therefore it's Ecuador and Burkina Faso off to the World Cup.

DRAW SEEDING

Standard stuff here.  The three co-hosts in Pot 1 automatically, then below that everything is done according to FIFA rankings:

Pot 1: Canada, Mexico, USA, Brazil (1), Belgium (2), Argentina (3), France (4), England (5), Italy (6), Spain (7), Netherlands (8), Portugal (9), Denmark (10), Germany (11), Croatia (12), Uruguay (14)

Pot 2: Switzerland (15), Colombia (17), Senegal (18), Wales (19), Iran (20), Serbia (21), Morocco (22), Peru (23), Japan (24), Sweden (25), Poland (26), Ukraine (27), South Korea (28), Chile (29), Tunisia (30), Costa Rica (31)

Pot 3: Nigeria (32), Algeria (37), Australia (38), Egypt (39), Cameroon (43), Ecuador (44), Mali (46), Ivory Coast (48), Qatar (50), Saudi Arabia (51), Burkina Faso (54), Panama (60), Jamaica (64), Iraq (68), United Arab Emirates (70), New Zealand (105).

THE DRAW \o/

And now the big reveal.  Yes, I actually did my own "draw" in the lull before the Croatia-Canada game.  Using Excel and one of those internet randomisers.  And working from these Pots above, but also respecting the rules that keep teams from the same confederation apart.  So the 16 European teams are split across each of the 16 Groups; then beyond that you can't have two CONMEBOL teams meeting or two CONCACAF teams meeting etc.

GROUP A: Canada, Switzerland, Egypt
GROUP B: Mexico, Wales, Nigeria
GROUP C: USA, Sweden, Iraq
GROUP D: Italy, Chile, Saudi Arabia
GROUP E: Croatia, Colombia, Mali
GROUP F: Brazil, Ukraine, Jamaica
GROUP G: Spain, Tunisia, Australia
GROUP H: Uruguay, Poland, Cameroon
GROUP I: Belgium, South Korea, Ecuador
GROUP J: Denmark, Morocco, Qatar
GROUP K: Argentina, Serbia, New Zealand
GROUP L: England, Japan, Ivory Coast
GROUP M: Germany, Senegal, Panama
GROUP N: France, Peru, Burkina Faso
GROUP O: Netherlands, Iran, Algeria
GROUP P: Portugal, Costa Rica, United Arab Emirates

Edited December 16, 2022 by Rob1981

[Rob1981]

Remember the new Group Stage format is 16 groups of three... top TWO in each group go into a new Round of 32. So 48 matches here... to get from 48 teams back down to 32 that we normally start with.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Rob1981

[Coulthard's Jaw]

16 extra knockout games is a good thing imo.

[PMLF]

5 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

GROUP A: Canada, Switzerland, Egypt
GROUP B: Mexico, Wales, Nigeria
GROUP C: USA, Sweden, Iraq
GROUP D: Italy, Chile, Saudi Arabia
GROUP E: Croatia, Colombia, Mali
GROUP F: Brazil, Ukraine, Jamaica
GROUP G: Spain, Tunisia, Australia
GROUP H: Uruguay, Poland, Cameroon
GROUP I: Belgium, South Korea, Ecuador
GROUP J: Denmark, Morocco, Qatar
GROUP K: Argentina, Serbia, New Zealand
GROUP L: England, Japan, Ivory Coast
GROUP M: Germany, Senegal, Panama
GROUP N: France, Peru, Burkina Faso
GROUP O: Netherlands, Iran, Algeria
GROUP P: Portugal, Costa Rica, United Arab Emirates

Groups A, C and J are awful, but overall decent groups, shame that it’s 3-team groups though.

[Rob1981]

4 minutes ago, Coulthard's Jaw said:

16 extra knockout games is a good thing imo.

Yeah definitely, plus you may not get as many dead rubbers in the groups or teams going into games thinking a draw is enough.

I’m in favour overall.

Not sure you can dispute there is a drop in quality though. Not if the group stage is throwing up ties like Ukraine v Jamaica, Sweden v Iraq and Peru v Burkina Faso.

There are quite few matchups here between countries that didn’t even qualify this year. Always kind of assumed the “extra” teams would get distributed out by the seedings and then wouldn’t necessarily have to play each other.

[GunmaN1905]

Three team groups would be an unmitigated disasters for many reasons we're all aware of and already mentioned.

8 groups with 6 teams would be way better.

If having two teams advance from each group and having two more matches total for finalists would be too much, then make it so that only one team from each group advances.

Have first two seeds play h2h on the final matchday, so they can't play for GD etc.

Then straight two quarter-finals, 8 matches instead of 7.

[SouthCoastRed]

Main purpose of the first group stage, is to remove all the extra countries you just added. 
 

Makes sense somewhere I guess

[PMLF]

Ideally should have the lesser teams play against each other first, then the first seeds debut later:

Ex: Ukraine vs Jamaica first, then Brazil vs Ukraine and then Jamaica vs Brazil

[Rob1981]

6 minutes ago, PMLF said:

Ideally should have the lesser teams play against each other first, then the first seeds debut later:

Ex: Ukraine vs Jamaica first, then Brazil vs Ukraine and then Jamaica vs Brazil

Might be more chance of collusion on the last matchday if they do that? If the weakest team has dropped points and already finished their games.

Plus you’d have the first four or five days of the tournament without any of the big names playing.

[PMLF]

1 minute ago, Rob1981 said:

Might be more chance of collusion on the last matchday if they do that? If the weakest team has dropped points and already finished their games.

Plus you’d have the first four or five days of the tournament without any of the big names playing.

Either you risk having collusions or dead rubbers….

[The_jagster]

Main reason I'm not a fan is twofold.

1. More matches between lower ranked teams. I don't think this can be disputed, given we will have a knockout round with 32 teams, so even in the knockouts we will have more Denmark or Switzerland vs Cameroon or Tunisia type matches.

2. Favouring negative tactics and general fairness. Seed 1 beats seed 2/3. Seed 2 draws with seed 3. Last match, both teams are happy to draw as seed 1 goes through as winners and seed 2/3 go through in second. It avours the team playing in the final match much more as they know what they need to do. That obviously happens to some extent now but not to the same extent imo.

Positive is more knockout matches, but I don't know if twice as many knockout games will be good when there are less exciting matches to get there. In all honesty I suspect they will try and bump it up to 64 at some point, doing the rugby world cup groups with 8 groups of 5, two qualify would at least have enough jeopardy to penalise defensive football. The Euros group stages are worse for allowing 3 teams of 4 to qualify from a group. 40-50% of teams qualifying from a group should avoid too many dead rubbers, but making draws less valuable.

Edited November 27, 2022 by The_jagster

[PaulHartman71]

Guess what they’ve gone with is probably fairer and better than 12 groups of 4, with either best four 2nd place sides going though or a 1 match playoff between the eight 2nd place sides as that adds a game and massively helps 1st place sides in giving them a few days rest compared to 2nd place ones. 

An extra round of knockout games should be good on paper and in theory creates potential for more upsets and pressure on winning it. 

You do wonder how many dead rubbers there ends up being on the final day of group stages though. 

[Rob1981]

12 groups of four or 8 groups of six sounds great in theory, but there just isn’t the space in the calendar. No way that they can add another week or so onto the length of the tournament without all the top clubs kicking off.

The 16 x 3 format is the best compromise, gets more teams in and gets you from 56 TV slots to 80 TV slots which is huge in commercial terms. But doesn’t take up any more room in the diary.

[Mr Wallin]

3 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

Not sure you can dispute there is a drop in quality though. Not if the group stage is throwing up ties like Ukraine v Jamaica, Sweden v Iraq and Peru v Burkina Faso.

Of course there is a drop, you're adding 16 teams to the mix and the drop in quality in AFC and OFC is quite drastic and both CAF and CONCACAF have a lot of teams that varies wildly in quality from year to year.

That said I have to say that the groups you got was a lot better than I expected. Not that it will make me think 48 teams and 3 team groups is in any way a good change.

[Mahzun_Savas]

I don't like the change to 48 teams, it is just too many teams. Groups of 3 do not look enticing either

As far as the qualifiers in the opening post go I highly doubt Ecuador will miss out on automatic qualification given the quality they have shown and the fact they have a very young team which should only improve. Also I think there is a decent chance Qatar will fail to qualify.

[PaulHartman71]

The best thing about the extra teams is definitely more African sides. They’re the hardest done by IMO. This World Cup alone you’ve got no Nigeria, Egypt, Ivory Coast or Algeria who all have pretty decent sides. The drop off between the sides who qualified isn’t much at all. Same with Europe and South America. 

It’s the extra Asian sides and North American teams plus New Zealand guaranteed a slot that drop the quality. Obviously fair to have it split evenly and maybe at some point in the next few decades with all the money Asia at least improves to a better quality. 

[Mr Wallin]

33 minutes ago, SouthCoastRed said:

Main purpose of the first group stage, is to remove all the extra countries you just added.

Yea it is basically just moving the intercontinental qualifying step to be doe at the WC instead of ahead of it.

 

 

26 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

Might be more chance of collusion on the last matchday if they do that? If the weakest team has dropped points and already finished their games.

Few games with not all teams being involved in the last matchday is a just an invitation for trouble.

[PMLF]

18 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

But doesn’t take up any more room in the diary.

You will still have three matchdays in each group, although each team will play two games instead of three. And you’ll have one extra round of playoffs. So the WC should either be a couple of days longer or there will be less days off between games.

[adhikapp]

32 is already the sweet spot for a World Cup honestly. It's just very symmetrical. 4 groups of 8, halved for the knockouts. Plus 32 countries is already a logistical nightmare in its self. And we have a good mix of powerhouses & dark horses, that even the worst teams can still look pretty decent. Probably the slots for African teams could be higher, but overall 32 is perfect as it is.

48 is just too many teams. I don't like the idea of some countries bringing 23-to-26-man squads to travel a World Cup and only getting to use them for 2 matches. Plus 3 nations per group? That's silly. There's one team that won't play each matchday, and thats way too few teams to call it a 'group'. Even when playing the 48-team World Cup on FM, I think it's kinda boring until the at least round of 16.

If FIFA wanted to add more teams, 40 should be the max number, and make it 8 groups of 5 countries so the competitiveness still be intact. If they wanna be more greedy, make the 48 go into 8 groups of 6 so there can be more matches to create revenue from.

[Rob1981]

2 minutes ago, PMLF said:

You will still have three matchdays in each group, although each team will play two games instead of three. And you’ll have one extra round of playoffs. So the WC should either be a couple of days longer or there will be less days off between games.

It’s set to be held over 32 days, same as Brazil 2014 and Russia 2018.

New Group Stage plus R32 is 64 games. So assume it is four matches a day for the first 16 days, then into the same schedule for the R16 onwards. 

Days 1-12: Group Stage

Days 13-16: R32

Days 17-20: R16

Days 21-22: Off

Days 23-24: QF

Days 25-26: Off

Days 27-28: SF

Days 29-30: Off

Days 31-32: 3PP and final

And on days 1-12 they only play two of the three matchdays for their group and get the other one off.

Just about works.

tbh, I’d rather they made it a longer tournament and had the “double Euros” format. 12 groups of four, then top two in each group and the best 8/12 third place teams into a R32.

But then the eventual finalists need to play eight games instead of seven and you probably need 36-37 days to hold it instead of 32.

[Rafalution]

How are you going to schedule the games? The team that doesn't play on the middle fixture in each group Is going to have a week between games

Gonna have lots of pointless part games too

[XuluBak]

I think more teams would be fine, with a better format, but three-team groups is absolutely moronic. 

[Rob1981]

Just now, Rafalution said:

How are you going to schedule the games? The team that doesn't play on the middle fixture in each group Is going to have a week between games

Yeah assume they will have 12 days for the groups stage with four games per day. Same as Qatar.

And your group plays on Day 1, 5, 9. Or Day 2, 6, 10 etc.

But you’re right. Come the final matchday in a group one team will have had four days off and one team will have had eight days off.

Same in the R32 I suppose. You might get an R32 tie where one team has only had four days since their last group match. Whereas their opponent maybe didn’t play on matchday 3 in their group and has therefore had over a week off.

[Aitutaki]

Don't have an issue with more teams, particular from Africa who deserve many more spots, but hard no to three team groups - this has been done before (e.g. 1982) and everyone knows the issues.

Do twelve groups of four, top teams and four best second placed teams go through.

[Rob1981]

2 hours ago, The_jagster said:

Favouring negative tactics and general fairness. Seed 1 beats seed 2/3. Seed 2 draws with seed 3. Last match, both teams are happy to draw as seed 1 goes through as winners and seed 2/3 go through in second

To reduce the change of a stitch up, you probably want Seed 2 v Seed 3 playing on the final match.

Even if they’ve both lost to the top team they both go into the final game knowing they can beat the other and qualify. But unless the strongest team has had a shocker in both games, the likelihood is they will have some points on the board as well. So harder for Seed 2 and Seed 3 to play out a draw in that scenario because likely one of them would still finish 3rd.

You want to avoid the situation where the weakest team least likely to pick up points is the one that finishes first.

I very much doubt FIFA will match the schedule to the seedings though, almost certain to just be a random draw.

[error username in use]

3 team groups is silly.

Why don’t they do it the other way round

If you base it on a 3 seeded format

Seed 1s get a bye in Qualifying Round

Seeds 2 play 3

Winners advance to face seed 1 in SuperFIFA qualifying

Winners make the groups ie 16 teams

Losers face losers from Qualifying 1 in a FIFAGulag round

Winners go through to the groups and we have 32 from 48 with everyone having 2 games minimum

[Rafalution]

The issue with that is the qualifying round is going to have no big teams which means you are kicking it off with the 'smaller' teams for a few days first, and then the planning for that will be a bit of a mess with teams not knowing if they are just going to go and play 1 or 2 games, or if they might be there for the whole thing. at least with how it is now everyone knows they'll be there for half of it - and you're gonna have long stretch for the losers having to wait for the other round too happen

Especially for travelling fans for those countries it could be a right mess

Edited November 28, 2022 by Rafalution

[Darren Moores Mum]

Hate the groups 

Teams going home after 2 games of a World Cup is ****. Sure we have teams that can't qualify after 2 games this tournament, but at least they get another game for their fans to enjoy. 

Then you have the likely negativity in matches as already mentioned.

Awful setup 

Edited November 28, 2022 by ginnybob

[Rafalution]

Really if you want to expand it just go to 64 team and don't be afraid of having it in multiple countries where needed. 

Or if you are set on 48 still start with a group stage and just have winners and 4 best placed runners up go through (or all first and second places and 8 best 3rd places if you can fit in the extra round)

[pearcey_90]

They’ve not increased this to increase quality etc.

Just been increased as it brings FIFA more money and secures more votes for Gianni from the lesser nations. 

If argument is about having more teams the chance to play in it etc, then keep it 32 and do it bi-annually, so then you are not having to spread it across three countries and will hopefully reduce the counties putting themselves in a financial mess just to host. 

Lose 3+ first game, you are screwed for next game. Other country gets a point, they just shut up shop final game to only lose by one less. No incentive to attack at all.

If it was Wales/Iran/England in a group, England would be group winners going into final game after one game. As they’re not losing by 4 goals. 

[oche balboa]

Not a fan of this at all, You don't get the last matchplay excitement of who's qualifying

32 Teams is fine as it is. Rework the criteria to get one more African team involved and that's it 

[georginho_juventusygr]

I think it will be 12 groups of four. With 8 third-placers to go to the second round.

It will be one more knock-out round. And the World Cup will last 1.5 months. What the hell?

Or there will be six matches a day to squeeze it to one month!

[oche balboa]

40 minutes ago, georginho_juventusygr said:

I think it will be 12 groups of four. With 8 third-placers to go to the second round.

It will be one more knock-out round. And the World Cup will last 1.5 months. What the hell?

Or there will be six matches a day to squeeze it to one month!

It would take longer for 12 groups of 4 to be completed then 16 groups of 3 

[Rob1981]

2 hours ago, georginho_juventusygr said:

I think it will be 12 groups of four.

The format has already been decided. It going to be 16 groups of three, then two from each group into a R32.

So if you get to the final, you play the same number of games. And 16 teams will go home after two matches instead of playing three, but these are only the extra teams that wouldn’t previously have qualified at all. 

[georginho_juventusygr]

26 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

The format has already been decided. It going to be 16 groups of three, then two from each group into a R32.

So if you get to the final, you play the same number of games. And 16 teams will go home after two matches instead of playing three, but these are only the extra teams that wouldn’t previously have qualified at all. 

Oh sorry. 

What an awful format.

[Coulthard's Jaw]

15 hours ago, Rob1981 said:

GROUP A: Canada, Switzerland, Egypt
GROUP B: Mexico, Wales, Nigeria
GROUP C: USA, Sweden, Iraq
GROUP D: Italy, Chile, Saudi Arabia
GROUP E: Croatia, Colombia, Mali
GROUP F: Brazil, Ukraine, Jamaica
GROUP G: Spain, Tunisia, Australia
GROUP H: Uruguay, Poland, Cameroon
GROUP I: Belgium, South Korea, Ecuador
GROUP J: Denmark, Morocco, Qatar
GROUP K: Argentina, Serbia, New Zealand
GROUP L: England, Japan, Ivory Coast
GROUP M: Germany, Senegal, Panama
GROUP N: France, Peru, Burkina Faso
GROUP O: Netherlands, Iran, Algeria
GROUP P: Portugal, Costa Rica, United Arab Emirates

Just looking at this, the last 32 has the potential for some really tasty match ups doesn't it?

I also like that you don't have two European countries meeting before the knockout stage as well.

[Orzelek]

The whole idea about 48 teams just get worse and worse. 

 

3 team groups are crap. Take 12 groups of 4 instead with top 3 going through. I know that there would also be mant games, where both teams would just try to avoid to lose, but still better than 3 teams groups IMO.

[deltablue]

I am not a fan of the expansion or 3-team groups myself. Maybe it's just because it's what I am used to but 32 teams (and 16 for the Euros) seems right to me, and I think 3 games for each team sounds about right to make it worthwhile. Having a bunch of 3rd placed teams go through would be the lesser of two evils for me.

[sebsy]

Yeah, really not a fan at all about moving to 48 teams/Groups of 3. Awful decision. Very different reasons to why I haven't watched this World Cup, but already feel like I absolutely won't bother with the next.

[forameuss]

I'll go and read the rest of it in a minute, but I really hate the idea that adding teams that were on the fringes of qualifying automatically makes it a less interesting tournament to watch.  Plenty of unfancied sides over the years have contributed moments that make World Cups memorable, and plenty of the "bigger" sides - often when playing each other - contribute to some of the more forgettable.  Some of the added sides will stink the place out, that's unavoidable, but they'd hardly be alone in that.  Some of them are going to light the place up.  If I wanted top-notch technical skills at all times I certainly wouldn't go to Firhill every other weekend.  There's more to football than that. 

EDIT: Perfect examples today.  Serbia, Cameroon, Ghana and South Korea.  Four countries that would be, at best, in the middle ranking of nations at the tournament.  Nowhere near the top, no realistic chance of going deep.  Yet two very watchable games.  

Edited November 28, 2022 by forameuss

[git2thachoppa]

We saw the real problem in the Euros - everyone will aim not to lose and will have to defend with 11 and a bus.

Example: Team A is a Spain, England, Argentina etc., Teams B and C are non-top seeds, 'lower quality' nations.

Team A can play conservatively knowing 2 cleans sheets will likely see them through, but they will be given time and space (in their half anyway) and are more likely to nick a goal on quality alone, ESPECIALLY if the 'lower quality' two teams play each other first and someone wins there - then Team A knows even 1 point can be qualification.

Meanwhile, teams B & C will be aiming for a point against the big team and hope to do the job against each other. If one opens up and goes for a win against England, and loses, then the other only needs to defend with 11 against BOTH opponents to deservedly qualify with 2 points.

It'll be 0-0s and 1-0s everywhere rather than the 3-3s, 4-1s etc. we've been seeing in open games.

Edited November 28, 2022 by git2thachoppa

[forameuss]

Should also add that I don't think they've confirmed the 3 team groups, and that 4 team ones are still an option.  Obviously brings its own problems though.

[Mr Wallin]

Nah they did decide on 3-team groups at the same time as they decided on it being 48 teams. It was one of several options of #teams and system they choose between.

It has been reported that some on the Exec board are looking to change that but afaik there have been no official FIFA statement about it. There is still time though as they still haven't decided on the specifics of the qualification competitions.

[Rob1981]

I can’t see any other format that’s feasible. Sure, you could have twelve groups of four going straight into a R16. And the maths of it works. But then only the group winners and 4/12 group runners up go through and 8/12 runners up go out. Going to be loads of teams going into their third group game with nothing to play for if you do that.

Plus you’d need 104 games (I think?) instead of 80, so probably the only way to get it done within the month is if you have 5-6 kickoffs a day and then the TV audiences cannibalise each other.

[pearcey_90]

12 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

I can’t see any other format that’s feasible. Sure, you could have twelve groups of four going straight into a R16. And the maths of it works. But then only the group winners and 4/12 group runners up go through and 8/12 runners up go out. Going to be loads of teams going into their third group game with nothing to play for if you do that.

Plus you’d need 104 games (I think?) instead of 80, so probably the only way to get it done within the month is if you have 5-6 kickoffs a day and then the TV audiences cannibalise each other.

Think more games shown day to day probably is a thing that will happen. 

 

[georginho_juventusygr]

Broadcast some of the matches at 9 pm in New York.

[Rob1981]

tbf, when it's hosted in US and Canada and Mexico, they could push it to 5-6 kickoff times a day if they were clever with the time differences.  Because they are such big countries.  But they can't do this in 2030 if came back to, say, Spain and Portugal.  Four kickoffs a day is really the limit for hosts that are all in the same time zone... 12pm, 3pm, 6pm, 9pm local time.  And the last thing they want is more than one game on at the same time.  That immediately splits the TV audience and hits the revenue, which is the whole point of making it bigger in the first place.

[Mr Wallin]

27 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

I can’t see any other format that’s feasible. Sure, you could have twelve groups of four going straight into a R16. And the maths of it works. But then only the group winners and 4/12 group runners up go through and 8/12 runners up go out. Going to be loads of teams going into their third group game with nothing to play for if you do that.

Plus you’d need 104 games (I think?) instead of 80, so probably the only way to get it done within the month is if you have 5-6 kickoffs a day and then the TV audiences cannibalise each other.

One of the options they had (instead of the 48 team/3team groups) was to make it 40 teams and have 8 groups of 5. Would have meant 88 games (instead of 80). But predictably they went for more teams and a ****** format instead. Got to get those votes you know. 

[georginho_juventusygr]

7 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

tbf, when it's hosted in US and Canada and Mexico, they could push it to 5-6 kickoff times a day if they were clever with the time differences.  Because they are such big countries.  But they can't do this in 2030 if came back to, say, Spain and Portugal.  Four kickoffs a day is really the limit for hosts that are all in the same time zone... 12pm, 3pm, 6pm, 9pm local time.  And the last thing they want is more than one game on at the same time.  That immediately splits the TV audience and hits the revenue, which is the whole point of making it bigger in the first place.

2030 will be subscription-based. Two games will be broadcast at the same time. If you want to see the match with bigger teams, you have to pay slightly more.

[PaulHartman71]

1 hour ago, Rob1981 said:

tbf, when it's hosted in US and Canada and Mexico, they could push it to 5-6 kickoff times a day if they were clever with the time differences.  Because they are such big countries.  But they can't do this in 2030 if came back to, say, Spain and Portugal.  Four kickoffs a day is really the limit for hosts that are all in the same time zone... 12pm, 3pm, 6pm, 9pm local time.  And the last thing they want is more than one game on at the same time.  That immediately splits the TV audience and hits the revenue, which is the whole point of making it bigger in the first place.

To be fair could they theoretically have: 

12pm kick off

2.30pm kick off 

5pm kick off 

7.30 pm kick off 

10pm kickoff 

Lot of games kick off at 10PM in Spain anyway