The easiest way to separate teams with identical head-to-head record in the group phase is to incorporate the FIFA Bribe Coefficient. Each team slips a brown envelope to Infantino and whichever amount is greater, that team can progress.
@@Kafei01 Maybe. But most players, managers and countries are cerebral enough to know everyone can't win the World Cup. Whether that be Japan/China wanting to win it in 50 years, to people hyping up star players like Halland(Norway)/Demarai Gray(Jamaica) as being a golden ticket to finally winning a World Cup for their country (okay, the Gray one is a personal example as a Jamaican. An absolutely brain-dead take, but I've heard it way too much). Alloting all your energy towards the World Cup can't be healthy for anyone involved cause not everyone can reap the glory (took the 'G.O.A.T.' Messi like seven tries across different star-studded squads to finally win it). Best to treat it like another completion where you do your best as a professional, make it to Round of 16 before you really start to see the trophy
16 groups of 3 would have been better. The same number of group games as before + an extra round of 32 sounds decent. 12 groups of 4 will be painfully boring. Infinite matches and hardly any jeopardy for most of them.
It should be 12 groups of 4. What’s the big deal if one more game is played? Only the two best teams are gonna be playing 8 games. All the rest will play 7 games, or less than 6 games. So the tournament increases by 3 more days, is that such a big deal?
@@Nemanja_P. My dictionary said this about corruption: Definition: dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers). Synonyms: FIFA, UEFA, select Serie A clubs (Juventus). I use Merriam-Webster's dictionary
The problem with only the group winners (+4) advancing is that a) most teams will be out of the running even before their last game b) the draw would be incredibly crucial - which is already a big issue
Both those are true but playing 60 odd games used to eliminate one third of the field seems pointless as well. The whole 48 team WC seems poorly thought out to be honest.
@@nickvickers3486 In truth, a WC that has enough games to be fair, feature a lot of players and a "calendar footprint" large enough to properly rest players in between would be great for football - but we would need to cut back on some other stuff in turn. The problem is that the leagues don't want to cut anything back themselves, UEFA doesn't want to cut anything back and FIFA can't cut anything. Ideally, you'd find a way in which during a WC year, fall/winter international games are completely cut out (by reducing qualification games for the upcoming continental stuff and NL), the season start in leagues comes a few weeks later and the extra freed up time is given to the WC to fit in 1-2 more games and a lot more break in between.
@@IsaacHenryinAK Football has improved too much in the last few years though. How are you gonna have a world cup with many important countries missing from africa, asia and europe?
Pre 2000 champions league had similar format 6 groups of 4 teams 6 group winners plus best 2 runners up United treble winners were one of the 2 best runners up with 2 wins & 4 draws
Since I have been old enough (Germany 2006), I have watched almost every world cup match possible. With more games in the 2026 group stage than the entirety of the previous tournaments, I'll be missing out on so many games. The current format was perfect, right in the Goldilocks zone.
FIFA wants $$$$, not you and your perfect format. That game, the quality, the viewing experience, everything else is secondary to $$$$. I predict that within a decade or two there will be a 64-team WC so that FIFA can make even more $$$$.
I was just too young to remember Mexico 70 but I remember all the fuss about Pele and Brazil. West Germany 74 was the first World Cup I watched and I've been to France 98. I was outraged for political reasons when Russia and especially Qatar were awarded the tournaments and swore not to watch Qatar....But I was too weak, the drama got to me...
24 in six groups was better. It meant third place teams with two wins advanced as wild cards, not sent packing despite winning games as the current system allows. If there were 12 groups of three (36 teams), you could have 12 group winners and 4 wild cards.
@@gregorybiestek3431 64 would've been a lot more logical than 48. I'm not keen on third-placed qualifiers and obviously the original three team group idea was absurd
@@retardeddragapultyeah and having 495 possible combinations makes it really difficult to schedule who's playing who to make sure they have enough rest, especially as there are no rest days between the group stage and the round of 32.
depends which region. Africa's qualification is super difficult. the teams pretty much cannot lose a single game or they risk not qualifying: you have to win your group to get in (it was true in 2006 and still is, even though qualification structure is different now). but with Oceania getting a permanent spot, New Zealand is guaranteed to qualify for every tournament until they change the format (again) or move them into the Asian confederation like they did with Australia. and NZ is terrible! but they're still way better than everyone else in Oceania...
@@bigmanbarry9761Australia thinking "Oceania is unworthy enemy". So, if you play with dumb people, make you become dumb too (not improved because you always win) 😅
@@haidarsurya6879 i guess asia is better competition, but would they really throw away free qualification, also why is it even Australia's choice, surely fifa would force them to compete in the continent they actually reside in
@@bigmanbarry9761 Australia lobbied to join Asia as they have direct qualification and a weaker repechage system . When they were in Oceania the top Qualifier had to play the highest non qualified South American team. But the laughs on them with Oceania having direct qualification now . That Oceania place will go to Kiwi now.
Your idea for turning 12 groups into 12 group winners + 4 best second-placers is savage, and I approve, but there's gotta be a better way. Sadly, that way is 8 groups, 32 teams. Maths is maths
@syncretismistruth2023 it won't be fair because let's say on the final match day both teams have a chance of qualifying and they agree to have a draw, it won't be fair for for the third team. Hence the reason they play the final group games simultaneously to avoid the teams not knowing the results of the other match. This happened in some WC explained in the above video
I'd honestly just expand to 64 at this rate and do the same format as before just with a round of 32 added in. Then you get more games and more revenue but also have the group stages actually matter.
Not necessarily. New Zealand haven’t won every OFC Nations Cup (excluding Australia), so it’s not in conceivable that another team like Solomon Islands could qualify
There's basically no point in the OFC conference existing since Australia left, I say that as someone from NZ. Or well, there are a few greedy people that benefit financially from it's existence
Other Oceanian teams other than New Zealand (apart from American Samoa, Samoa, Cook Islands and Tonga) can compete for the intercontinental play-offs (which they would lose anyway)
A 48 team tournament is just so logistically challenging and overrides the incredible product we get from a 32 team tournament (this format was recently used for the womens world cup and it made it a much better tournament). The obvious answer to football becoming more global is to just make a Europa League type for international competition
Exactly what I’ve come to embrace. It scratches FIFA’s financial itch and provides a competition that’s still entertaining and meaningful to the 32 next best nations- the Austria’s, Peru’s, DRC’s, of the world that are all passionate about their nations playing and achieving glory.
@@alexchimi7093 Not at all. Most of the best players in the world play in a few European leagues on teams that are together training over long periods of time. That's where the real competition is. International football is an irrelevant throwback to a pre-Internet and pre-widespread global travel time when different countries played different and often surprising styles. I just watched AFCON. It was exactly like every other competition: long periods of play with no chances on net, no one dribbling past more than one player, no team showing any real flair. But I admit: I find nationalism annoying and also irrelevant, considering that there are really only two countries in the world: the rich, and everyone else.
'Meaning 32 teams will still progress'. Missed an opportunity to put a picture of Will Still in there. I expect this level of humour from you. Keep up please (great videos as always, thanks).
You're wrong about the Euro group stages, particularly that France / Germany / Portugal group in Euro 2020. That group ended up being dramatic on the final day, as Germany needed a late equaliser v Hungary just to qualify.
Yeah, he lost me a little bit on that one. And really, the sample groups does not seem bad. Plus, his suggestions of only the winner + 4 second place team qualifies would mean even less meaningful games on the final round of the group stages as many of the teams already knocked out...
@@peterkapusi5882 100% agree. Alfie’s idea is horrible. Less spots for the knockout stages would actually mean a-lot more meaningless games on the last group stage match.
This is my issue with his criticism in general. Football is incredibly hard to predict. Argentina lost to Saudi Arabia, ffs. Every tournament there is hard to predict outcomes multiple times. "More likely" doesn't mean guaranteed. I'd rather see a lot of upsets than just the same 4 teams in the final round every time
A few notes: 1. Regarding your claim that the "Group of Death" in 2020 was a formality: it wasn't. Hungary only lost out at the last minute and kept it really close against most of the teams. I specifically remember the game against Portugal in fact. 2. Upsets can still happen. Talking about another group stage (you may mention this later, I'm only at minute 24), the group of death in 2014. Costa Rica was definitely the whipping boy coming into the group, yet they ended up winning it outright. It's more unlikely, sure, which does suck, but it's not impossible. 3. One big positive of more teams is that in general this could push the overall standard of football in countries to a higher level. The World Cup will definitely suffer at first, but as the dream to play for their own nation is more realistic now, they won't just go to use an uncle who lived in Qatar or England or whatever for a few months as justification to play for the big countries, but instead play for their actual home nation. One big example is Erling Haaland, who can now carry Norway. It is Fifa so it's a poorly thought out plan, and I do agree with most of what you said, but those are a few points.
Norway couldn't even qualify for the 24 team Euro 2024, how is Erling Haaland going to guarantee their qualification as one of just 16 European teams at the 2026 World Cup?
Remember English fans bitched about expanding to 32 and were wrong. They cried about expanding to 24 and were wrong. They also didn't like the creation of the World Cup itself. It's pretty safe to disregard their opinions on it as they are consistently wrong about it.
I don't think the World Cup will suffer at first. There is ZERO chance we get a 9-0 or 10-1 victory like Yugoslavia Zaire and Hungary El Salvador. even if France draws Mali or England draws Honduras, I think the gap has closed.
You forgot one thing, with more games played, especially against weaker opponents, players will have more chances at achieving scoring records (currently held by Miroslav Klose), so the record set by previous stars will be easily broken
If this year’s Afcon has shown me one thing, it’s that having best third team places is actually a good thing because it gives teams a fighting chance till the end and serves as a great motivator to push harder
100% Agree. Afcon 2023 was one of the BEST tournaments i’ve ever watched. 3rd place teams advancing means more motivation for teams try harder to qualify for the knockout stages.
It turns the group stage essentially in a friendly tournament as it doesn't matter. A team finishing third in a group of four should be eliminated. Period
@@fresagrus4490 That's not true, only the top 8 of 3rd place group-phase teams will go to the KO-Phase. And at the end of the tournament there is still only 1 winner. Why are you complaining? Nothing really changes. Except that maybe weaker teams have a chance to go further in the tournament than ever before, is that really so bad?
Mexico has had arguably the best world cups, seeing Pele and Maradona be crowned champions, so I’m excited for this next world cup putting aside the changes made in the format recently
Too bad for America has the best stadiums in the world and we’ll host most of the events. I know people hate to admit, but America has the best Stadium infrastructure by far. 75 Stadiums with over 60,000 capacity. Europe only has 36 stadiums with over 60,000 capacity
It’s literally closer to NYC than Sofi or the Rose Bowl are to LA or AT&T is to Dallas. The only reason anyone even notices it’s in a suburb rather than the city proper is because NJ people are loud and annoying about it. The vast majority of large modern American stadiums are built outside of city limits.
@@kalmenbarkin5708SoFi is only about 1 mile away from the city of Los Angeles at its closest point, and Inglewood is in Los Angeles County and is bordered by the city of LA on 3 sides. AT&T is about 5 miles from Dallas and Arlington isn't bordered by the city of Dallas or even in Dallas County. MetLife is also about 5 miles from NYC and East Rutherford neither borders NYC nor is even in the same state, let alone county.
@@IDub nobody gives a shit where the county or even state border is. It’s a suburb because of NYC because it’s a suburb of NYC. Inglewood is a suburb of LA because it’s a suburb of LA. Paradise where the SB is today is a suburb of Vegas because it’s a suburb of Vegas. Landover Maryland is a suburb of Washington because it’s a suburb of Washington. These are small areas just outside the city whose economy and population are based on the city. I don’t care who’s in charge of their garbage collection. County state or DC borders have precisely zero relevance to whether something is functionally a suburb.
For the purposes of sports, New Jersey is New York. If you were standing in Times Square or Columbus Circle, you could reach Met Life stadium in New Jersey much faster than either Yankee Stadium or Citi Field, which are technically in New York City. When the Super Bowl was at Met Life, all of the pre-week hoopla was in Manhattan.
Alfie's made that point in previous videos. The only nations that could host it, needing either or both of wealth and existing infrastructure, is the US, Gulf States or select European countries like England, Germany or Italy to name a few.
New Jersey might as well be NYC in this case Alfie. Technically, you are correct but in practice the stadium they are going to use is the same stadium used by both of NYC's NFL teams.
New Jesey isn't trash. NJ plays a major role in US shipping, gasoline production, farming, and is headquarters for many major corporations. NYC wouldn't be what it is today without NJ. It's marketed as NY because NY has more appeal around the world.
The best we can hope is an AFCON 2023 outcome for the best third placed teams. It was very suspenseful and gave the incredible journey of Ivory Coast to the finals. Smaller countries shocked the big ones. So let's hope that the standard is as high for the next World Cup (not so likely though).
Let’s hope after 2026 they will revert to old format. We need to see dogfight games in group stages and AFCON is perfect example of that,so much suspense.
I have to disagree strongly with your assessment of the group of death from the 2016 EUROs, Hungary was extremely close to causing an upset and it was one of the most exiting groups at that tournament
Best solution (other than leaving things as they are) would be 16 groups of 3, with only the winners qualifying automatically. The 2nd and 3rd place teams then go into a knockout play off round (i.e. 2nd from group A vs 3rd from group B and vice versa etc.) That way group winners are rewarded with only 7 games and no dead rubbers.
ooh, I have a similar idea! In my idea, there will be two kinds of groups, "Golden" and "Silver", both are 4 team groups, with there being 8 Golden groups, and 4 Silver groups Basically, the Silver groups will contain the extra 16 teams from the expansion, while the Golden Groups will contain the other 32. In both kinds of groups, top 2 will advance to knockouts. However, the winners of each Golden group will go straight to Round of 16, while the other 16 teams will have to battle it out on play-offs for the other 8 ticket to the round of 16, after that it's just like the good ol' World Cup knockouts
Groups of 3 are ALWAYS unfair because there is no last matchday that all teams participate in. In addition, they are way too often decided after two games.
@@syncretismistruth2023 Unfair is maybe not the correct word. Unweighted because of what I said. Outrageous differences between the breaks that teams get, that gets unfair. For example, one team has 6 days between their two games, another team can arrive 3 days after the other two... 3 team groups are inherently purposeless and skewed.
@@syncretismistruth2023 the group winners would only have max 7 games (2 group + 5 knockout), any 2nd/3rd team would have any extra knockout round so up to 8 games. It's still dumb but there is no good way to have a 48 team tournament. At least this way only winners of the 3 team groups get rewarded so there should be no reason for two teams to play out a draw.
Over the course of the 9 tournaments with the 24-team format to which we are now used, 5 teams that finished 3rd in the group phase reached the final: Jordan at the 2023 Asian Cup , Côte d'Ivoire at the 2023 AFCON , Portugal at 2016 Euro, Italy at the 1994 WC and Argentina at the 1990 WC
My favorite part about the expansion is the possibility for more African countries to qualify. With the former format, it was a brutal battle. I feel like 14 countries have what it takes to go to the WC but now, it will be 9 teams instead of 5. As a surprise, Comoros, my country of origin, is leader of its qualifying group, ahead of Ghana and Mali but there were only 2 games played and 8 need to be played, including two tough away games in Ghana and Mali. My theory : this is a preparation for an expansion at 64 teams by 2036 or 40.
I like the old format better, but ... The old format had 32 teams, and the new format, after the group stage is left with 32 teams. I think that an extra knockout stage increases the probability of a big team messing up. In the new format, the chances of a big team not reaching the ro 16 is higher than the old format.
No that isnt, a big team or first place team will play a third place team, and many second places will play second places in R32. I think you all still didnt find out the logic behind that
Anything that reduces the chances of big teams is a good thing for the World Cup, the best stories are always when small underdogs manage to pull a miracle run. Nobody wants the final 8 to always be the same France, Spain, Brazil, Germany etc, underdogs are what make it so exciting.
yeah, 32 was perfect. 8 groups, top 2 go through, more competitive groups. with 48 and having 8 best 3rd places in groups makes the group games less important.
@@BGwControlStop 64 teams is still more reasonable than 48 teams. And every number of teams that is not a power of 2 can only be a step towards the next power of 2.
I would love to see a 24 team knockout where the top two in each group advance but the 8 best teams receive a bye to the round of 16. I think that would make the group stage stakes still high and every game would matter.
best comment i have read so far, congratulations, very well, you should put that forward to FIFA, amazingly as obvious as it sounds, i have never heard about it before. Essentially college football FCS in USA has such a system.
9:40 easy solution to make sure no team ever has what happened to Senegal happen again, no draws in the group stage. 90 mins, no extra time, straight to penalties, winner gets 2 points instead of 3. They already use this system in lower league English cups.
There's always the possibility that teams perceived as 'weak' and not traditionally gifted in football will surprise everyone in their performance. That'd make things way more interesting, from a spectator pov, and make the whole tournament more exciting overall. Plus, I love the idea of the World Cup lasting longer, as it is one of my favorite events to watch every 4 years. ^^
A format idea I heard floated around for a while before we got the new official one, was that you have the 12 groups of 4, but instead of a Round of 32 and then a Round of 16, you have two Rounds of 16. Essentially, the top 8 group winners get a bye to the second Round of 16, and the bottom 4 group winners and all 12 group runners-up advance to the first Round of 16. It means that the amount of games one team would have to play to win the World Cup would be 7 or 8 rather than just 7 in 32-team format, or just 8 in the new official one. However, it would bring back the stakes of the group stage as in a 32-team format, and still give the increase in overall tournament fixtures from 64 in 29 days of a 32-team format, to 96 in this version of a 48-team format, and with 8 less matches than the new official format, it would mean they could schedule with 4-6 fewer calendar dates, so you could have a 33-35 days long tournament, which would benefit clubs as the quote-unquote calendar footprint would be less. However, as we know, 8 more games is 8 more opportunities for revenue that FIFA were definitely going to want, so we digress.
I hate to break the news of the upcoming English and the especially brutal Senegalese civil wars to you like this, but you were going to find out eventually.
33:20 fwiw-there arent any stadiums in NYC, or at least any that would work for the world cup. the two american football teams in “new york” play in new jersey, where there will be games (and the final)
My plan for 48 teams is 12 groups of 4, top 2 advance. That's 24 which doesn't work for a full knockout, so give the 8 with the most points/best goal diff a bye. Then even if someone wins their first 2 group stage matches, they are still motivated to get a result in the 3rd match to ensure a bye into the round of 16.
Yep. I've said something similar in this thread. It also means that players from the top countries will still only play a max of 7 games, if they perform well
It’s obvious,if more “underdog” teams advance to the knockouts, there will be more sustained viewership from countries that would have otherwise not made it out of the group stage. It’s not just about including more teams but also making sure the usual ones have a longer run and thus keep more countries engaged in the tournament.
For me the worst part of a competition is when it's a foregone conclusion who will progress. So keeping that in mind I find it quite refreshing to have more teams at the world cup competing. I am also glad they went back to the group of 4.
@@MarcosGarcia-pj3pq Yeah, they did...for now... But also a number of teams that is not a power of 2 can only be a temporary format on the way to the next power of 2. At least with groups with 4 teams.
I live in Gijón, there's a plaque outside the ground with the signatures of the German, Austrian and Algerian squads on it. Hopefully the World Cup will be back at the Molinón in 2030!
The 3-teams group format makes sense if only 1 team proceeds. Btw, the Gijon's disgrace was part of a 4-teams group but with different timing. These arrangements are mainly possible if two teams benefit. If only one team proceeds, a game arrangement is unlikely to happen, though not impossible. However, this is the case with the 4-teams groups also. Think of the Spanish fiasco last WC as referred here.
@@todorkesarovski8342 You are indeed correct. España 82 was before my time but I've always assumed that the game took place in round 2 which made up of 3 team groups. And that's what so many people have said over the years and it has been used as one of the main argument against 3 team groups! So a Mandela effect has taken place there.
I don't think that the Word Cup is prestigious because of the way you qualify for it but rather the symbol of participating in the biggest international football reunion. Even if the level might decrease, it still only involves less than 25% of all federations which means that it remains fairly selective.
@@matteoluisrizzo the USA was literally at the last World Cup, Italy, despite having won 4 World Cups and 2 Euros was not at the 2018 or 2022 world cups thats why i said it lol
I mean as someone living in Los Angeles I’m excited to meet all the new fans and hopefully I can go to one game (USMNT or any game for that matter). I do wish we got the final instead but I guess the Europeans don’t want to stay up late because of the 8 hour difference.
I will probably be frowned upon, but the best way to solve this is to create 8 groups of 6 teams, 5 matches for each team, top 4 progressing. That way you'll have way more matches and the group stage will be something memorable. Countries that don't generally stand a chance will get to see their team in more matches (revenues). In addition securing the top 4 from each group in the knock-out round, we'll have a better (quality-wise) pick for the knockout stage, not influenced by a terrible group drawing, which is often the case. Moreover, you lessen the risk for fixed matches, which is unfathomably increased with this poor excuse of a format that they proposed.
Based on this year’s AFCON and Asia Cup, I don’t think diluting the quality is a valid complaint about a 48-team format… Instead of thinking about top teams’ chance of failure I think it’s better to think of less highly-evaluated teams’ chance of success.
48 teams for FIFA still provide a whole lot more quality than Euro with 24 teams, i just get a sleep attack when thinking of having to watch iceland, scotland, bulgaria, northern ireland, etc etc in Euro matches. that tournament has essentially been killed when getting bloated
@@spacedoge6540with that argument why not reduce the spots? Cause if the team is good enough they’ll still qualify right? There’s a reason the champions league also expanded. If I know anything about football fans it’s that they’ll complain about any change till it turns out to be good. This is not the first time the competition has been expanded
What i always hated about the world cup was the fact that coming into the third group game you can know exactly which teams you are going to play if you finnish 1st or 2nd i think that is something that has to be eliminated cause in the last world cup i couldnt help but feel like spain purposely didnt play well in the last game to finnish second to get into what was seemingly the better side of the draw
33:55 You probably mean the winners of the 12 groups, not 14, and the 4 best second places progress to the round of 16. There aren't "14 groups" of 4 in a 48 team tournament - there's 12 of them.
Content, content, content, content! That’s why I love this channel! What I don’t love is that you always say: “change of tact” when the correct saying is “change of tack” - it’s a sailing term! But you continually getting it wrong gets my goat! 😂
Would love to see a 7 video series of his ideal World Cup. 1 video per confederation qualification format and one for the finals itself. Alfie’s the only football content creator that’ll find a way to fix how a conmebol nation can win 5/18 matches and qualify whilst you can win 7/10 games in UEFA and CAF and still fail to qualify
If you had 24 teams automatically qualifying for a group place and the remaining 24 having play-offs for the last group places you could then play the tournament as normal and the weaker teams could come into the group stages with a bit of momentum.
in the end, it's all about money. they don't care if its 32 or a 100 teams. all that matters is how many games there are and therefore how much money can be earned. end of story
I came up with this format couple of years ago when I tried to think of one that would solve some issues: - 12 groups of 4 - 8 best group winners go straight to round of 16 - other 4 group winners + all second placed teams play a 'qualification' elimination game for round of 16 (pairings drawn form 2 pots or randomly) - the rest is standard Positives: - all group stage games matter (even more than in past tournaments since teams would like to skip the qualifier round) - still keeps 1 more elimination round (4 fewer matches played, but possible of better quality since only the best 24 teams play instead of 32) - does not increase tournament length (4 fewer matches played compared to the proposed format) Negatives: - Differences in group strength would impact which winners go directly to round of 16, not only the team's quality - 8 teams would have an advantage for the rest of the tournament for playing 1 fewer game (which ties to the point above) - Format is more confusing for the fans
I know somone already said it. Best format would be 8 group of 6 - top of the group get a bye to Round of 16 - 2nd place & third place will advance to play off. Winner of the Play Off to Round of 16. That way: every team will fight until the end. There won't be dead matches.
As someone who opposed the idea of groups of 3 from the get go, I'm satisfied with the format. If I was FIFA president, I don't know if I would have the resolve to say, yeah, we are kicking 32 of you after the group stage to keep the traditional round of 16. That's the only way I can reason (deludedly) the idea of having 8 third place teams go through. Here's for the 64 team world cup in 2042!!
The best format nobody is talking about: who said every team that makes the knockout round had to play in the first knockout round? Keep the 12 groups of 4, but the top 2 teams from each group advance. The 8 best group winners automatically to the round of 16, and the rest + the 12 2nd place teams make up a play in round to the round of 16. This keeps the drama of the 2022 World Cup in 2026, while also giving an extra incentive for teams to push for the top of their group and beyond, especially when that benefit is extra rest.
As an American, I’m really excited for the extra games and am looking forward to seeing a packed Sounders Pitch (at Lumen Field) in Seattle go nuts for a national team home game, because they almost never play here, much less with so much on the line. Lumen Field is known for its ear bleeding fan noise and a local seismic station which regularly records earthquakes when the fans get excited. I pity the poor saps that end up facing off against us there. I also appreciate that the format is giving Seattle two extra games and hope that our atmosphere wins you over at least a bit. Soccer is thriving in the PNW so this should be less development fodder and more of a coming of age. I also want to thank the World Cup for finally getting us to replace our awful turf with real grass permanently. The stadium was designed so grass could be added at any point, but the Seahawks were dragging their feet.
Great video. Other repercussions to this is that the world cup qualifiers become *almost* redundant with the number of teams being increased. South America only has 10 teams, and now 7 can potentially qualify. 70% of the teams. Meaning they're just playing to determine who's the couple of unlucky teams that are *not* going to qualify.
FWIW FIFA isn't the only organization trying their hardest to ruin a good thing to make some cash. The expansion of the NFL playoffs and the College Football Playoff are lowering the quality of play and the importance of the regular season, respectively. I know the answer is "money" but why not have 24 teams advance to the knockouts but the top 8 group winners get byes to the Ro16? Good teams will still play for wins in the last group games, and nobody's advancement or elimination is determined by results outside your group.
TBH if the ongoing AFC & CAF championships are anything to go by, the new WC expansion would be a blessing in disguise. That argument is dead on arrival. There are no more big teams walking through easily. Everyone has to earn their keeps.
Very true. Football has matured into a global phenomenon with more participants than ever, so I believe expanding it will only increase it's impact and reach around the world. I say this with the complete understanding that FIFA's motives are financial, but more football is more football.
FIFA could have made it 8 groups of 6 and 2-3 advance to the knock-out round and the first place goes directly to the round of 16, or stay with the 12 groups of 4, top 2 qualify from each group and the 8 best first places skip the knock-out round, that could help that some teams already qualified play for something, also with this, half of the teams are still eliminated in groups
Ya'll Americans don't even know how to locate most of your 50 states on a map, we see it on Jimmy Kimmel and every other talk show where they ask random Americans "locate Iowa on this map", "locate Nebraska on this map" e.t.c , it's always pure comedy to see. How then are people from outside the U.S supposed to perfectly pinpoint locations over there when their own citizens seem to deem it not important ?
@@ochomunna270 I seriously doubt you could point to Iowa or Nebraska on a map, or 90% of states, something that 95%+ of people in the us could do, you know the people that aren’t dumb enough to wind up on the show.
Even with this new format, I'm highly doubt that ASEAN countries (including, of course, our country Indonesia) will qualify for the 2026 World Cup. That's really a shame. The ASEAN countries in Asian Cup this year didn't disappoint at all, like Thailand going unbeaten in group stage without conceding a goal and Malaysia playing an entertaining 3-3 draw against South Korea.
ASEAN is kind of in a weird spot. Vietnam and Thailand are the titans of the region yet they’ve had many issues with qualifying over the years (Vietnam I would say has an easier group than Thailand but even if they make it to the third round they’ll likely run into the giants). But it will be fun to see them in and maybe this has a positive knock on effect.
Just wait until FIFA finds out how much $$$$ they can make if they allow Super Leagues with closed membership, no pro/rel, and salary caps. The amount of media money is 5 times what they get now.
You are comeing to the usa we now how to put on/host events and sports we do it every day ok and 2 the usa is big from the uk to iraq if you drove a car that how much you would need to drive just east coast to west coast ok so we need a big team and a lot of matches to be played and you adding mexico and canda on top of the usa
Yes!!! The winner of every group goes through and then the 4 best second place teams also go through I feel like that would make the group stage way more exciting and with so much at stake even dropping points to a team could make you go home. That would be a much better format
By FAR my favourite football channel. LOVE this guys humour....and well written and informative too. Doesn't follow boring msm diatribe without being (directly) insulting. Huge thanks for all your hard work.
Going from 32 teams to 48 teams is insane. A quarter of the world is now qualified for the world cup! 40 teams would have been perfect. With so many teams and games in the WC there's no point in watching the group stage because only those teams which make it to the next stage will be considered genuinely good enough.
I kind of disagree. The World cup is the most important sporting event in the world, so it really doesn't matter what football clubs say. People are always resistant to change, even when the world cup was expanded last time. You can criticize the number of games being played and such imo but the expansions is a great idea. The world of football is becoming increasingly more competitive, and we need to adjust with those factors in mind. An extra round of football will just increase the chances of an upset so i disagree with that point as well. The third-place team concept works very well, we seen it in AFCON this year. It keeps every team playing very hard even on the last matchday because they have a chance. So, the 4th place team will really not give up because they have a chance to qualify in 3rd place. Even the 3rd place team has to try hard because all 3rd place teams don't qualify. FIFA tried to find a way to satisfy everyone instead of just being assertive in its position from the get-go and caused too much confusion.
I like this new format of including some third place teams in the knock out stages. I think all tournament which have groups + knockouts should have some placement for the third place (or whatever).
TBF it is called a world cup, so having more teams involved would make it feel more like a world cup and grand thing. It will also help spread football and develop football in the lesser nations which is what FIFA is here for.
As a Canadian this new format is great because there is potential for them to make the round of 32 however I understand this waters down. The competition of the group stage.
That'd be interesting! We might at last see good teams with stronger competitors from their own confederation like Colombia, Senegal or even Croatia or Austria win a cup that way! A second tier world cup would certainly be interesting, and it would also allow small Asian and North American sides (like Jamaica, Uzbekistan or Thailand for example) to play against decent European, African and South American opposition for the first time ever... I'd totally watch that tournament!
I like the idea of only the winner goes through from each group. UEFA diluted the Champions League and that has become dull. The old European Cup format was fantastic, the winner goes through is what made the tournament exciting.
Go back to the best 16 teams and the format of 1974/78. Play all the games at the same time and there would no shoot-outs. Filter out the minnows by playing them off against the strongest European teams that failed to qualify in their groups (as with Hungary v Bolivia in 1978) and then any that survive deserve to be there. Of course it won't happen though.
The easiest way to separate teams with identical head-to-head record in the group phase is to incorporate the FIFA Bribe Coefficient. Each team slips a brown envelope to Infantino and whichever amount is greater, that team can progress.
Infantino votes for that.
And infantino gets to keep the losing teams envelope too of course. It's only fair.
😂😂😂😂😂
Infantino: “You son of a bitch, I’m in!”
Nice one 😂😂😂
It hurts me to think of how long they considered 16 groups of 3, instead of the very obvious and logical 12 groups of 4.
Problem being 12 groups of four adds another game and 10+ days to players away from there clubs. Something most plays do not want.
Bro it's the world cup, there is nothing more important.
I think they already changed this format in 2022 or 2023 for the 12 groups with 4 teams
@@Kafei01
Maybe. But most players, managers and countries are cerebral enough to know everyone can't win the World Cup. Whether that be Japan/China wanting to win it in 50 years, to people hyping up star players like Halland(Norway)/Demarai Gray(Jamaica) as being a golden ticket to finally winning a World Cup for their country (okay, the Gray one is a personal example as a Jamaican. An absolutely brain-dead take, but I've heard it way too much).
Alloting all your energy towards the World Cup can't be healthy for anyone involved cause not everyone can reap the glory (took the 'G.O.A.T.' Messi like seven tries across different star-studded squads to finally win it). Best to treat it like another completion where you do your best as a professional, make it to Round of 16 before you really start to see the trophy
16 groups of 3 would have been better. The same number of group games as before + an extra round of 32 sounds decent. 12 groups of 4 will be painfully boring. Infinite matches and hardly any jeopardy for most of them.
If Infantino really had the balls, he would jump straight to a 64 team world cup with 16 groups of 4
It's coming.
He might not have any balls but he has got a big shiny dome.
2038
It should be 12 groups of 4. What’s the big deal if one more game is played? Only the two best teams are gonna be playing 8 games. All the rest will play 7 games, or less than 6 games. So the tournament increases by 3 more days, is that such a big deal?
@@MikeCee7 The problem with 12 groups of 4 is that it does not neatly become 16/32 teams
When i looked up the term "corruption" in the dictionary, next to it stood "FIFA".
lol, it was UEFA in my dictonary, how different those little books are, but there was a second entry which had UEFA as answer, 'bloody racism'
@@dakota-c1h I am using an Oxford dictionary, while you must be using a Cambridge one.
@@dakota-c1hhow is the UEFA “racist” ?
Facebook ass comment
@@Nemanja_P. My dictionary said this about corruption:
Definition: dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers). Synonyms: FIFA, UEFA, select Serie A clubs (Juventus).
I use Merriam-Webster's dictionary
The problem with only the group winners (+4) advancing is that
a) most teams will be out of the running even before their last game
b) the draw would be incredibly crucial - which is already a big issue
Both those are true but playing 60 odd games used to eliminate one third of the field seems pointless as well.
The whole 48 team WC seems poorly thought out to be honest.
Correct. The best thing to have done was to keep it at 32 teams and never expand it to 48.
@@nickvickers3486 In truth, a WC that has enough games to be fair, feature a lot of players and a "calendar footprint" large enough to properly rest players in between would be great for football - but we would need to cut back on some other stuff in turn. The problem is that the leagues don't want to cut anything back themselves, UEFA doesn't want to cut anything back and FIFA can't cut anything.
Ideally, you'd find a way in which during a WC year, fall/winter international games are completely cut out (by reducing qualification games for the upcoming continental stuff and NL), the season start in leagues comes a few weeks later and the extra freed up time is given to the WC to fit in 1-2 more games and a lot more break in between.
@@IsaacHenryinAK Football has improved too much in the last few years though. How are you gonna have a world cup with many important countries missing from africa, asia and europe?
Pre 2000 champions league had similar format
6 groups of 4 teams
6 group winners plus best 2 runners up
United treble winners were one of the 2 best runners up with 2 wins & 4 draws
And Scotland STILL won't be able to qualify for the second stage
It ain't coming home too. Common Pengland L.
True but now it won't be their fault. They'll likely be shoved in a group with 3 massive teams knowing they'll be destroyed
@@TP_TheOneWhoDreams nice tournament runs
@@JoDyMa yeah like isreal and jordan or somet...
Scotland and serbia are the two European countries on the rise and could be underdogs
Since I have been old enough (Germany 2006), I have watched almost every world cup match possible. With more games in the 2026 group stage than the entirety of the previous tournaments, I'll be missing out on so many games. The current format was perfect, right in the Goldilocks zone.
FIFA wants $$$$, not you and your perfect format. That game, the quality, the viewing experience, everything else is secondary to $$$$. I predict that within a decade or two there will be a 64-team WC so that FIFA can make even more $$$$.
@@gregorybiestek3431do NOT let them see what you have wrote, please
I was just too young to remember Mexico 70 but I remember all the fuss about Pele and Brazil.
West Germany 74 was the first World Cup I watched and I've been to France 98.
I was outraged for political reasons when Russia and especially Qatar were awarded the tournaments and swore not to watch Qatar....But I was too weak, the drama got to me...
24 in six groups was better. It meant third place teams with two wins advanced as wild cards, not sent packing despite winning games as the current system allows. If there were 12 groups of three (36 teams), you could have 12 group winners and 4 wild cards.
@@gregorybiestek3431 64 would've been a lot more logical than 48. I'm not keen on third-placed qualifiers and obviously the original three team group idea was absurd
Tbf, the new 48-team format for the World Cup is effectively just the Euros but with twice the teams and more than double the matches, right?
The new Euros format is absolutely abysmal so if true that's bad enough.
@@retardeddragapultyeah and having 495 possible combinations makes it really difficult to schedule who's playing who to make sure they have enough rest, especially as there are no rest days between the group stage and the round of 32.
Current euro format is suck
Much worse than euros
@@Cream147playerI mean it’s not that bad. Issue is the tiebreakers and deciding who goes where
Qualifying for the World Cup is a prize itself, the 1st time ever Ghana qualified for the WC in 2006, it was a week of celebration.
depends which region. Africa's qualification is super difficult. the teams pretty much cannot lose a single game or they risk not qualifying: you have to win your group to get in (it was true in 2006 and still is, even though qualification structure is different now). but with Oceania getting a permanent spot, New Zealand is guaranteed to qualify for every tournament until they change the format (again) or move them into the Asian confederation like they did with Australia. and NZ is terrible! but they're still way better than everyone else in Oceania...
@@ianism3 may i ask why Australia is in the Asian conference instead of Oceania?
@@bigmanbarry9761Australia thinking "Oceania is unworthy enemy". So, if you play with dumb people, make you become dumb too (not improved because you always win) 😅
@@haidarsurya6879 i guess asia is better competition, but would they really throw away free qualification, also why is it even Australia's choice, surely fifa would force them to compete in the continent they actually reside in
@@bigmanbarry9761 Australia lobbied to join Asia as they have direct qualification and a weaker repechage system . When they were in Oceania the top Qualifier had to play the highest non qualified South American team. But the laughs on them with Oceania having direct qualification now . That Oceania place will go to Kiwi now.
I don't know what's worse: the new format for 2026 - or seeing Infantino in a matching beige hoodie and blazer
Your idea for turning 12 groups into 12 group winners + 4 best second-placers is savage, and I approve, but there's gotta be a better way. Sadly, that way is 8 groups, 32 teams. Maths is maths
@syncretismistruth2023 it won't be fair because let's say on the final match day both teams have a chance of qualifying and they agree to have a draw, it won't be fair for for the third team. Hence the reason they play the final group games simultaneously to avoid the teams not knowing the results of the other match. This happened in some WC explained in the above video
That idea sounds awful
I'd honestly just expand to 64 at this rate and do the same format as before just with a round of 32 added in. Then you get more games and more revenue but also have the group stages actually matter.
8 groups of 6, let the smaller countries have some fun.
48 teams, 8 group winners to R16. Next 4 teams and all second places play in an extra game. Would solve “fraudulent group winners”.
There is basically no point in holding the Oceania qualifiers, It's just going to be an automatic New Zealand slot every time
Not necessarily. New Zealand haven’t won every OFC Nations Cup (excluding Australia), so it’s not in conceivable that another team like Solomon Islands could qualify
There's basically no point in the OFC conference existing since Australia left, I say that as someone from NZ. Or well, there are a few greedy people that benefit financially from it's existence
@@milesjcarterProblem is if they join AFC the travel times from Syria to Tahiti
Tahiti qualified for Confederations Cup remember
Other Oceanian teams other than New Zealand (apart from American Samoa, Samoa, Cook Islands and Tonga) can compete for the intercontinental play-offs (which they would lose anyway)
Alfie, in a world of shorts, reels and tiktoks these viedo essays are a shining light. Thank you
i’m american, and i detest mexico as a rivalry, but the azteca should absolutely host the final in 2026
It's a historic venue, and no mxexico fan here
I'd put it in the Rose Bowl.
NYC is a cooler city than MXC
It should be in the AT&t Stadium, or SoFi. Azteca is an old decrepit and outdated stadium
A 48 team tournament is just so logistically challenging and overrides the incredible product we get from a 32 team tournament (this format was recently used for the womens world cup and it made it a much better tournament). The obvious answer to football becoming more global is to just make a Europa League type for international competition
Exactly what I’ve come to embrace. It scratches FIFA’s financial itch and provides a competition that’s still entertaining and meaningful to the 32 next best nations- the Austria’s, Peru’s, DRC’s, of the world that are all passionate about their nations playing and achieving glory.
I think it's also bad for the players health.
The more obvious answer is to abandon international football completely.
@@TT-fq7pl i hope you're joking, for your own sake
@@alexchimi7093 Not at all. Most of the best players in the world play in a few European leagues on teams that are together training over long periods of time. That's where the real competition is. International football is an irrelevant throwback to a pre-Internet and pre-widespread global travel time when different countries played different and often surprising styles. I just watched AFCON. It was exactly like every other competition: long periods of play with no chances on net, no one dribbling past more than one player, no team showing any real flair. But I admit: I find nationalism annoying and also irrelevant, considering that there are really only two countries in the world: the rich, and everyone else.
'Meaning 32 teams will still progress'. Missed an opportunity to put a picture of Will Still in there. I expect this level of humour from you. Keep up please (great videos as always, thanks).
You're wrong about the Euro group stages, particularly that France / Germany / Portugal group in Euro 2020. That group ended up being dramatic on the final day, as Germany needed a late equaliser v Hungary just to qualify.
Yeah, he lost me a little bit on that one. And really, the sample groups does not seem bad. Plus, his suggestions of only the winner + 4 second place team qualifies would mean even less meaningful games on the final round of the group stages as many of the teams already knocked out...
@@peterkapusi5882 100% agree. Alfie’s idea is horrible. Less spots for the knockout stages would actually mean a-lot more meaningless games on the last group stage match.
Ugh yeah but in the end all 3 favorites still got through. If only 2 got throigh there would have been higher stakes.
This is my issue with his criticism in general. Football is incredibly hard to predict. Argentina lost to Saudi Arabia, ffs. Every tournament there is hard to predict outcomes multiple times. "More likely" doesn't mean guaranteed. I'd rather see a lot of upsets than just the same 4 teams in the final round every time
A few notes:
1. Regarding your claim that the "Group of Death" in 2020 was a formality: it wasn't. Hungary only lost out at the last minute and kept it really close against most of the teams. I specifically remember the game against Portugal in fact.
2. Upsets can still happen. Talking about another group stage (you may mention this later, I'm only at minute 24), the group of death in 2014. Costa Rica was definitely the whipping boy coming into the group, yet they ended up winning it outright. It's more unlikely, sure, which does suck, but it's not impossible.
3. One big positive of more teams is that in general this could push the overall standard of football in countries to a higher level. The World Cup will definitely suffer at first, but as the dream to play for their own nation is more realistic now, they won't just go to use an uncle who lived in Qatar or England or whatever for a few months as justification to play for the big countries, but instead play for their actual home nation. One big example is Erling Haaland, who can now carry Norway.
It is Fifa so it's a poorly thought out plan, and I do agree with most of what you said, but those are a few points.
yeah Hungary was really close to knocking one of the others out. It usually would be a formality but was not in this case.
Norway couldn't even qualify for the 24 team Euro 2024, how is Erling Haaland going to guarantee their qualification as one of just 16 European teams at the 2026 World Cup?
Remember English fans bitched about expanding to 32 and were wrong. They cried about expanding to 24 and were wrong. They also didn't like the creation of the World Cup itself. It's pretty safe to disregard their opinions on it as they are consistently wrong about it.
I don't think the World Cup will suffer at first. There is ZERO chance we get a 9-0 or 10-1 victory like Yugoslavia Zaire and Hungary El Salvador. even if France draws Mali or England draws Honduras, I think the gap has closed.
Saudi Arabia literally beat Argentina, it's crazy to claim upsets won't happen
48 team format is such a cash grab from FIFA, 32 team is way better and it limits amount of games played which means players won’t get injured as much
6 countries from concaf is a clown show already
@@captainfalconmain6576 USA and Mexico in the corner:
64 teams is better than 32
You forgot one thing, with more games played, especially against weaker opponents, players will have more chances at achieving scoring records (currently held by Miroslav Klose), so the record set by previous stars will be easily broken
Well yes, but Klose did the same thing when he broke Muller's record. Also Uruguay won the very first WC having played like 4 games
Klose actually broke Ronaldos record. R9 that is, of course @@ramadita1410
And somehow, Thogden will still manage to watch all the World Cup matches.
didn't that moron watch like 15 minutes of a match before taking a car to another stadium in qatar?
Yeah, if he clones himself
Sure. In a three country WC 😂 Qatar was literally the smallest host nation ever.
who the hell cares about that prick
If this year’s Afcon has shown me one thing, it’s that having best third team places is actually a good thing because it gives teams a fighting chance till the end and serves as a great motivator to push harder
100% Agree. Afcon 2023 was one of the BEST tournaments i’ve ever watched. 3rd place teams advancing means more motivation for teams try harder to qualify for the knockout stages.
to be honest these days AFCON is far better than Euro
It turns the group stage essentially in a friendly tournament as it doesn't matter. A team finishing third in a group of four should be eliminated. Period
@@fresagrus4490 I'm guessing you didn't watch the Afcon huh? it literally proves your point to be mute
@@fresagrus4490
That's not true, only the top 8 of 3rd place group-phase teams will go to the KO-Phase.
And at the end of the tournament there is still only 1 winner. Why are you complaining? Nothing really changes. Except that maybe weaker teams have a chance to go further in the tournament than ever before, is that really so bad?
Mexico has had arguably the best world cups, seeing Pele and Maradona be crowned champions, so I’m excited for this next world cup putting aside the changes made in the format recently
Wrd
Too bad for America has the best stadiums in the world and we’ll host most of the events. I know people hate to admit, but America has the best Stadium infrastructure by far. 75 Stadiums with over 60,000 capacity. Europe only has 36 stadiums with over 60,000 capacity
One thing to note is that the New Jersey Final site is, yes, not in NY, but it's 200% in the NY metro area and plays to 2 New-York-Labeled NFL teams.
It’s literally closer to NYC than Sofi or the Rose Bowl are to LA or AT&T is to Dallas.
The only reason anyone even notices it’s in a suburb rather than the city proper is because NJ people are loud and annoying about it.
The vast majority of large modern American stadiums are built outside of city limits.
@@kalmenbarkin5708SoFi is only about 1 mile away from the city of Los Angeles at its closest point, and Inglewood is in Los Angeles County and is bordered by the city of LA on 3 sides. AT&T is about 5 miles from Dallas and Arlington isn't bordered by the city of Dallas or even in Dallas County. MetLife is also about 5 miles from NYC and East Rutherford neither borders NYC nor is even in the same state, let alone county.
@@IDub nobody gives a shit where the county or even state border is.
It’s a suburb because of NYC because it’s a suburb of NYC. Inglewood is a suburb of LA because it’s a suburb of LA. Paradise where the SB is today is a suburb of Vegas because it’s a suburb of Vegas. Landover Maryland is a suburb of Washington because it’s a suburb of Washington.
These are small areas just outside the city whose economy and population are based on the city. I don’t care who’s in charge of their garbage collection.
County state or DC borders have precisely zero relevance to whether something is functionally a suburb.
@@kalmenbarkin5708 Here's how I would explain it to a European: "We name our professional sports teams the way you name your airports."
@@kalmenbarkin5708 But you do care enough about distance to lie about it, at least
For the purposes of sports, New Jersey is New York. If you were standing in Times Square or Columbus Circle, you could reach Met Life stadium in New Jersey much faster than either Yankee Stadium or Citi Field, which are technically in New York City. When the Super Bowl was at Met Life, all of the pre-week hoopla was in Manhattan.
Exactly. We all know it is in New Jersey, but it was chosen for its proximity to New York's hotspots.
Money, money, money is all Infantino ever thinks about. He will gladly destroy all the joy of the game in the chase of 💰 🤑
he already has
And yet here you are, ready to watch in 2026.
The game was already broken before Infantino took over.
@261i7 Growing popularity doesn’t equal quality.
but it works, everyone is watching and cheering
Alfie providing the breakfast viewing. Thanks mate.
26:21 was clearly directed to Maqwell lol
It seems certain that all future World Cups will be hosted by multiple countries.
The costs are astronomical, all the countries that hosted it collapsed (except Qatar)
@@MatheusFernandes-xf4zm The USA will not collapse. The USA could host it all.
Alfie's made that point in previous videos. The only nations that could host it, needing either or both of wealth and existing infrastructure, is the US, Gulf States or select European countries like England, Germany or Italy to name a few.
@@QueintyI'm pretty sure China could host it solo too.
if not even the USA can stage it on their own, it would be smart to bet on that
New Jersey might as well be NYC in this case Alfie. Technically, you are correct but in practice the stadium they are going to use is the same stadium used by both of NYC's NFL teams.
it is new jersey, which is trash state of the USA, dont know why it is marketed as NYC
New Jesey isn't trash. NJ plays a major role in US shipping, gasoline production, farming, and is headquarters for many major corporations. NYC wouldn't be what it is today without NJ.
It's marketed as NY because NY has more appeal around the world.
The best we can hope is an AFCON 2023 outcome for the best third placed teams. It was very suspenseful and gave the incredible journey of Ivory Coast to the finals. Smaller countries shocked the big ones. So let's hope that the standard is as high for the next World Cup (not so likely though).
Let’s hope after 2026 they will revert to old format. We need to see dogfight games in group stages and AFCON is perfect example of that,so much suspense.
I have to disagree strongly with your assessment of the group of death from the 2016 EUROs, Hungary was extremely close to causing an upset and it was one of the most exiting groups at that tournament
100% Agree. I don’t what alfie’s has been smoking.
Best solution (other than leaving things as they are) would be 16 groups of 3, with only the winners qualifying automatically. The 2nd and 3rd place teams then go into a knockout play off round (i.e. 2nd from group A vs 3rd from group B and vice versa etc.) That way group winners are rewarded with only 7 games and no dead rubbers.
ooh, I have a similar idea!
In my idea, there will be two kinds of groups, "Golden" and "Silver", both are 4 team groups, with there being 8 Golden groups, and 4 Silver groups
Basically, the Silver groups will contain the extra 16 teams from the expansion, while the Golden Groups will contain the other 32.
In both kinds of groups, top 2 will advance to knockouts. However, the winners of each Golden group will go straight to Round of 16, while the other 16 teams will have to battle it out on play-offs for the other 8 ticket to the round of 16, after that it's just like the good ol' World Cup knockouts
Groups of 3 are ALWAYS unfair because there is no last matchday that all teams participate in.
In addition, they are way too often decided after two games.
@@syncretismistruth2023 Unfair is maybe not the correct word. Unweighted because of what I said. Outrageous differences between the breaks that teams get, that gets unfair. For example, one team has 6 days between their two games, another team can arrive 3 days after the other two...
3 team groups are inherently purposeless and skewed.
@@syncretismistruth2023 Because the last teams will know others results before hand and adjust a strategy accordiling
@@syncretismistruth2023 the group winners would only have max 7 games (2 group + 5 knockout), any 2nd/3rd team would have any extra knockout round so up to 8 games. It's still dumb but there is no good way to have a 48 team tournament. At least this way only winners of the 3 team groups get rewarded so there should be no reason for two teams to play out a draw.
I think you should make a part 2 of this vieo talking about all the things you didn't have the time for in this one. Sounds interesting and important.
Over the course of the 9 tournaments with the 24-team format to which we are now used, 5 teams that finished 3rd in the group phase reached the final: Jordan at the 2023 Asian Cup , Côte d'Ivoire at the 2023 AFCON , Portugal at 2016 Euro, Italy at the 1994 WC and Argentina at the 1990 WC
My favorite part about the expansion is the possibility for more African countries to qualify. With the former format, it was a brutal battle. I feel like 14 countries have what it takes to go to the WC but now, it will be 9 teams instead of 5. As a surprise, Comoros, my country of origin, is leader of its qualifying group, ahead of Ghana and Mali but there were only 2 games played and 8 need to be played, including two tough away games in Ghana and Mali.
My theory : this is a preparation for an expansion at 64 teams by 2036 or 40.
I like the old format better, but ...
The old format had 32 teams, and the new format, after the group stage is left with 32 teams.
I think that an extra knockout stage increases the probability of a big team messing up. In the new format, the chances of a big team not reaching the ro 16 is higher than the old format.
No that isnt, a big team or first place team will play a third place team, and many second places will play second places in R32. I think you all still didnt find out the logic behind that
Anything that reduces the chances of big teams is a good thing for the World Cup, the best stories are always when small underdogs manage to pull a miracle run. Nobody wants the final 8 to always be the same France, Spain, Brazil, Germany etc, underdogs are what make it so exciting.
The 32 team format is perfect no worry about best third place and all that besides playing in the World Cup should be a privilege not a right
Exactly. The current format is the best possible. Too many teams and matches devalue the product and how is qualifying ever gonna work.
yeah, 32 was perfect. 8 groups, top 2 go through, more competitive groups. with 48 and having 8 best 3rd places in groups makes the group games less important.
I think fifa kinda knows that, but they dont care, they will take all the money they can. @@holmbjerg
Wait til they want to expand to the 64 team world cup
@@BGwControlStop 64 teams is still more reasonable than 48 teams. And every number of teams that is not a power of 2 can only be a step towards the next power of 2.
I would love to see a 24 team knockout where the top two in each group advance but the 8 best teams receive a bye to the round of 16. I think that would make the group stage stakes still high and every game would matter.
best comment i have read so far, congratulations, very well, you should put that forward to FIFA, amazingly as obvious as it sounds, i have never heard about it before. Essentially college football FCS in USA has such a system.
9:40 easy solution to make sure no team ever has what happened to Senegal happen again, no draws in the group stage. 90 mins, no extra time, straight to penalties, winner gets 2 points instead of 3. They already use this system in lower league English cups.
The state of that hoodie suit that Infantino is clowning about in.
this guy is so cool, i even considered shaving my head, best thing that happened to FIFA since the advent of Blatter. Grüezi
Will never forgive him for the Salt Bae nonsense
21:13 finally my home country mentioned in an Alfie video 🇿🇲
But not in a good way 😅
Imagine a 64-club World Cup...
Well thats just it - there are so many Games that it becomes meaningless - so our poor brains can't 'imagine' it.
16 groups of 4, only top 2 qualify, 32 team knockout. It'll only be one more knockout with very little difference from the 2022 format
at this point just make a 197 country world cup
Imagine the cardinals winning a playoff game…
The Holy See, winner of the World Cup of the year 2058
There's always the possibility that teams perceived as 'weak' and not traditionally gifted in football will surprise everyone in their performance. That'd make things way more interesting, from a spectator pov, and make the whole tournament more exciting overall. Plus, I love the idea of the World Cup lasting longer, as it is one of my favorite events to watch every 4 years. ^^
A format idea I heard floated around for a while before we got the new official one, was that you have the 12 groups of 4, but instead of a Round of 32 and then a Round of 16, you have two Rounds of 16.
Essentially, the top 8 group winners get a bye to the second Round of 16, and the bottom 4 group winners and all 12 group runners-up advance to the first Round of 16.
It means that the amount of games one team would have to play to win the World Cup would be 7 or 8 rather than just 7 in 32-team format, or just 8 in the new official one.
However, it would bring back the stakes of the group stage as in a 32-team format, and still give the increase in overall tournament fixtures from 64 in 29 days of a 32-team format, to 96 in this version of a 48-team format, and with 8 less matches than the new official format, it would mean they could schedule with 4-6 fewer calendar dates, so you could have a 33-35 days long tournament, which would benefit clubs as the quote-unquote calendar footprint would be less.
However, as we know, 8 more games is 8 more opportunities for revenue that FIFA were definitely going to want, so we digress.
33:05 it's a good job that ain't the real world cup draw as you got England playing in 2 groups and Senegal playing in 3 groups
I hate to break the news of the upcoming English and the especially brutal Senegalese civil wars to you like this, but you were going to find out eventually.
@@HITCSevens I wonder how the republic of Northern England will do.
@@SirAntoniousBlock Please, we all know it's Cornwall and Yorkshire teaming up to breakaway together.
33:20 fwiw-there arent any stadiums in NYC, or at least any that would work for the world cup. the two american football teams in “new york” play in new jersey, where there will be games (and the final)
It’s 7 miles outside of NYC
My plan for 48 teams is 12 groups of 4, top 2 advance. That's 24 which doesn't work for a full knockout, so give the 8 with the most points/best goal diff a bye. Then even if someone wins their first 2 group stage matches, they are still motivated to get a result in the 3rd match to ensure a bye into the round of 16.
Yes! This is the right answer.
Yep. I've said something similar in this thread. It also means that players from the top countries will still only play a max of 7 games, if they perform well
It’s obvious,if more “underdog” teams advance to the knockouts, there will be more sustained viewership from countries that would have otherwise not made it out of the group stage. It’s not just about including more teams but also making sure the usual ones have a longer run and thus keep more countries engaged in the tournament.
For me the worst part of a competition is when it's a foregone conclusion who will progress. So keeping that in mind I find it quite refreshing to have more teams at the world cup competing. I am also glad they went back to the group of 4.
3 team groups means we'll have loads of "Gijons"...
they switched it back to 4 team groups no?
@@MarcosGarcia-pj3pq Yeah, they did...for now... But also a number of teams that is not a power of 2 can only be a temporary format on the way to the next power of 2. At least with groups with 4 teams.
I live in Gijón, there's a plaque outside the ground with the signatures of the German, Austrian and Algerian squads on it. Hopefully the World Cup will be back at the Molinón in 2030!
The 3-teams group format makes sense if only 1 team proceeds. Btw, the Gijon's disgrace was part of a 4-teams group but with different timing. These arrangements are mainly possible if two teams benefit. If only one team proceeds, a game arrangement is unlikely to happen, though not impossible. However, this is the case with the 4-teams groups also. Think of the Spanish fiasco last WC as referred here.
@@todorkesarovski8342 You are indeed correct. España 82 was before my time but I've always assumed that the game took place in round 2 which made up of 3 team groups. And that's what so many people have said over the years and it has been used as one of the main argument against 3 team groups!
So a Mandela effect has taken place there.
I don't think that the Word Cup is prestigious because of the way you qualify for it but rather the symbol of participating in the biggest international football reunion. Even if the level might decrease, it still only involves less than 25% of all federations which means that it remains fairly selective.
Thanks to this new group stage my country will finally be able to qualify for a World Cup!!!!!!! (I'm Italian...)
me too but also american
@@matteoluisrizzo the USA was literally at the last World Cup, Italy, despite having won 4 World Cups and 2 Euros was not at the 2018 or 2022 world cups thats why i said it lol
Oh yeah forgot about that 😂😂😂😂😂
@@matteogrutman9489jesus christ what happened to italy?
A counter argument is that power teams will have a bigger runway to give us more quality football in the latter stages of a world cup, imo
😂
I mean as someone living in Los Angeles I’m excited to meet all the new fans and hopefully I can go to one game (USMNT or any game for that matter). I do wish we got the final instead but I guess the Europeans don’t want to stay up late because of the 8 hour difference.
I will probably be frowned upon, but the best way to solve this is to create 8 groups of 6 teams, 5 matches for each team, top 4 progressing. That way you'll have way more matches and the group stage will be something memorable. Countries that don't generally stand a chance will get to see their team in more matches (revenues). In addition securing the top 4 from each group in the knock-out round, we'll have a better (quality-wise) pick for the knockout stage, not influenced by a terrible group drawing, which is often the case. Moreover, you lessen the risk for fixed matches, which is unfathomably increased with this poor excuse of a format that they proposed.
Based on this year’s AFCON and Asia Cup, I don’t think diluting the quality is a valid complaint about a 48-team format… Instead of thinking about top teams’ chance of failure I think it’s better to think of less highly-evaluated teams’ chance of success.
Well said.
If they're good enough they can qualify like normal
48 teams for FIFA still provide a whole lot more quality than Euro with 24 teams, i just get a sleep attack when thinking of having to watch iceland, scotland, bulgaria, northern ireland, etc etc in Euro matches. that tournament has essentially been killed when getting bloated
@@spacedoge6540with that argument why not reduce the spots? Cause if the team is good enough they’ll still qualify right? There’s a reason the champions league also expanded. If I know anything about football fans it’s that they’ll complain about any change till it turns out to be good. This is not the first time the competition has been expanded
What i always hated about the world cup was the fact that coming into the third group game you can know exactly which teams you are going to play if you finnish 1st or 2nd i think that is something that has to be eliminated cause in the last world cup i couldnt help but feel like spain purposely didnt play well in the last game to finnish second to get into what was seemingly the better side of the draw
Yes it happens every single world cup
I think the 32 teams format was perfect and I low-key hope they will change it back after the 2026 edition
33:55 You probably mean the winners of the 12 groups, not 14, and the 4 best second places progress to the round of 16. There aren't "14 groups" of 4 in a 48 team tournament - there's 12 of them.
Helding the Final at MetLife is an... interesting idea.
I wanted Azteca... but... yeah...
Especially when it's a dump & is well known for having poor turf.
@@octavianpopescu4776 the fact that the US would host the final has been known for years so you were deluding yourself by hoping that.
Why? I like that the final of a mostly US World Cup is held in a typically American stadium.
@@BrianStorm742 Honestly, I didn't know that.
"if they don't sink into the ocean"
That was an ice cold dose of satire you're not getting away with mate...
Well done.
Content, content, content, content! That’s why I love this channel! What I don’t love is that you always say: “change of tact” when the correct saying is “change of tack” - it’s a sailing term! But you continually getting it wrong gets my goat! 😂
Would love to see a 7 video series of his ideal World Cup. 1 video per confederation qualification format and one for the finals itself.
Alfie’s the only football content creator that’ll find a way to fix how a conmebol nation can win 5/18 matches and qualify whilst you can win 7/10 games in UEFA and CAF and still fail to qualify
If you had 24 teams automatically qualifying for a group place and the remaining 24 having play-offs for the last group places you could then play the tournament as normal and the weaker teams could come into the group stages with a bit of momentum.
the USA-Iran match nearly killed me lmao
Make it a 64 or 32 team straight KO tournament, job done
in the end, it's all about money. they don't care if its 32 or a 100 teams. all that matters is how many games there are and therefore how much money can be earned. end of story
i agree
I came up with this format couple of years ago when I tried to think of one that would solve some issues:
- 12 groups of 4
- 8 best group winners go straight to round of 16
- other 4 group winners + all second placed teams play a 'qualification' elimination game for round of 16 (pairings drawn form 2 pots or randomly)
- the rest is standard
Positives:
- all group stage games matter (even more than in past tournaments since teams would like to skip the qualifier round)
- still keeps 1 more elimination round (4 fewer matches played, but possible of better quality since only the best 24 teams play instead of 32)
- does not increase tournament length (4 fewer matches played compared to the proposed format)
Negatives:
- Differences in group strength would impact which winners go directly to round of 16, not only the team's quality
- 8 teams would have an advantage for the rest of the tournament for playing 1 fewer game (which ties to the point above)
- Format is more confusing for the fans
I know somone already said it.
Best format would be 8 group of 6
- top of the group get a bye to Round of 16
- 2nd place & third place will advance to play off. Winner of the Play Off to Round of 16.
That way: every team will fight until the end. There won't be dead matches.
As someone who opposed the idea of groups of 3 from the get go, I'm satisfied with the format. If I was FIFA president, I don't know if I would have the resolve to say, yeah, we are kicking 32 of you after the group stage to keep the traditional round of 16. That's the only way I can reason (deludedly) the idea of having 8 third place teams go through.
Here's for the 64 team world cup in 2042!!
The best format nobody is talking about: who said every team that makes the knockout round had to play in the first knockout round?
Keep the 12 groups of 4, but the top 2 teams from each group advance. The 8 best group winners automatically to the round of 16, and the rest + the 12 2nd place teams make up a play in round to the round of 16. This keeps the drama of the 2022 World Cup in 2026, while also giving an extra incentive for teams to push for the top of their group and beyond, especially when that benefit is extra rest.
Indeed. It's been used in several other sports already and also in the Conference League.
As an American, I’m really excited for the extra games and am looking forward to seeing a packed Sounders Pitch (at Lumen Field) in Seattle go nuts for a national team home game, because they almost never play here, much less with so much on the line. Lumen Field is known for its ear bleeding fan noise and a local seismic station which regularly records earthquakes when the fans get excited. I pity the poor saps that end up facing off against us there.
I also appreciate that the format is giving Seattle two extra games and hope that our atmosphere wins you over at least a bit. Soccer is thriving in the PNW so this should be less development fodder and more of a coming of age.
I also want to thank the World Cup for finally getting us to replace our awful turf with real grass permanently. The stadium was designed so grass could be added at any point, but the Seahawks were dragging their feet.
The Seahawks field.those earthquakes were at Seahawks games.im a sounders fan but they’ve never equaled the beast quake.
Great video. Other repercussions to this is that the world cup qualifiers become *almost* redundant with the number of teams being increased. South America only has 10 teams, and now 7 can potentially qualify. 70% of the teams. Meaning they're just playing to determine who's the couple of unlucky teams that are *not* going to qualify.
FWIW FIFA isn't the only organization trying their hardest to ruin a good thing to make some cash. The expansion of the NFL playoffs and the College Football Playoff are lowering the quality of play and the importance of the regular season, respectively.
I know the answer is "money" but why not have 24 teams advance to the knockouts but the top 8 group winners get byes to the Ro16? Good teams will still play for wins in the last group games, and nobody's advancement or elimination is determined by results outside your group.
it was the right decision, 16 groups of 3 would have been horrible. We might all moan about it now but I can't wait for the feast of football
TBH if the ongoing AFC & CAF championships are anything to go by, the new WC expansion would be a blessing in disguise. That argument is dead on arrival.
There are no more big teams walking through easily. Everyone has to earn their keeps.
Very true. Football has matured into a global phenomenon with more participants than ever, so I believe expanding it will only increase it's impact and reach around the world. I say this with the complete understanding that FIFA's motives are financial, but more football is more football.
They earn their keeps by actually qualifying for the World Cup.
Also San Marino in November 2023 scored more goals than Brazil
I’m personally fine with 48 teams but I think they should still do top 2 from each group. 24 team knockout can be done with byes for the top seeds.
oh don’t really agree with your idea
FIFA could have made it 8 groups of 6 and 2-3 advance to the knock-out round and the first place goes directly to the round of 16, or stay with the 12 groups of 4, top 2 qualify from each group and the 8 best first places skip the knock-out round, that could help that some teams already qualified play for something, also with this, half of the teams are still eliminated in groups
@30:55 that pin is not even close to the MetLife stadium
It's a lot closer than any pin an American could place, if asked, to locate a country anywhere outside America.
@@mdcs1992you think people from outside the us could point to every state?
Ya'll Americans don't even know how to locate most of your 50 states on a map, we see it on Jimmy Kimmel and every other talk show where they ask random Americans "locate Iowa on this map", "locate Nebraska on this map" e.t.c , it's always pure comedy to see.
How then are people from outside the U.S supposed to perfectly pinpoint locations over there when their own citizens seem to deem it not important ?
@@ochomunna270 I seriously doubt you could point to Iowa or Nebraska on a map, or 90% of states, something that 95%+ of people in the us could do, you know the people that aren’t dumb enough to wind up on the show.
not knowing where your provinces are is not nearly as embarrasing as not knowing where whole other countries are
Even with this new format, I'm highly doubt that ASEAN countries (including, of course, our country Indonesia) will qualify for the 2026 World Cup.
That's really a shame. The ASEAN countries in Asian Cup this year didn't disappoint at all, like Thailand going unbeaten in group stage without conceding a goal and Malaysia playing an entertaining 3-3 draw against South Korea.
The thing is you have to play the world cup to grow as a team.
@syncretismistruth2023 Canada still shit tho
ASEAN is kind of in a weird spot. Vietnam and Thailand are the titans of the region yet they’ve had many issues with qualifying over the years (Vietnam I would say has an easier group than Thailand but even if they make it to the third round they’ll likely run into the giants). But it will be fun to see them in and maybe this has a positive knock on effect.
I know this world cup format thing is absolutely insane, but we're in an era where insanity has become the new normal.
IDK what to say anymore, man 🤷
How about, "It is wrong".
Exactly. Saudi princes pay money to piss and shit on young european girls, and nobody bats an eyelid. A truly horrible world to live in.
Just wait until FIFA finds out how much $$$$ they can make if they allow Super Leagues with closed membership, no pro/rel, and salary caps. The amount of media money is 5 times what they get now.
The blue card is the biggest joke
No one asked for it
You are comeing to the usa we now how to put on/host events and sports we do it every day ok and 2 the usa is big from the uk to iraq if you drove a car that how much you would need to drive just east coast to west coast ok so we need a big team and a lot of matches to be played and you adding mexico and canda on top of the usa
Yes!!! The winner of every group goes through and then the 4 best second place teams also go through I feel like that would make the group stage way more exciting and with so much at stake even dropping points to a team could make you go home. That would be a much better format
it would
By FAR my favourite football channel. LOVE this guys humour....and well written and informative too. Doesn't follow boring msm diatribe without being (directly) insulting. Huge thanks for all your hard work.
Going from 32 teams to 48 teams is insane. A quarter of the world is now qualified for the world cup! 40 teams would have been perfect.
With so many teams and games in the WC there's no point in watching the group stage because only those teams which make it to the next stage will be considered genuinely good enough.
I'll watch the group stage because I like watching football.
@@mydreaminorbit9297more games = more fun, at least for me
I kind of disagree. The World cup is the most important sporting event in the world, so it really doesn't matter what football clubs say. People are always resistant to change, even when the world cup was expanded last time. You can criticize the number of games being played and such imo but the expansions is a great idea. The world of football is becoming increasingly more competitive, and we need to adjust with those factors in mind. An extra round of football will just increase the chances of an upset so i disagree with that point as well. The third-place team concept works very well, we seen it in AFCON this year. It keeps every team playing very hard even on the last matchday because they have a chance. So, the 4th place team will really not give up because they have a chance to qualify in 3rd place. Even the 3rd place team has to try hard because all 3rd place teams don't qualify. FIFA tried to find a way to satisfy everyone instead of just being assertive in its position from the get-go and caused too much confusion.
The Cash Grab Cup.
Keep crying
I don't get emotional about dudes kicking a ball.@@roberttorres8477
ironic
tru
@@roberttorres8477bruh about what? you are now telling someone to keep crying about the format?
I like this new format of including some third place teams in the knock out stages. I think all tournament which have groups + knockouts should have some placement for the third place (or whatever).
I don't understand why you would have penalty kicks at the end of EVERY game 🤔
the world cup final is on my birthday bro it would be sick to go
TBF it is called a world cup, so having more teams involved would make it feel more like a world cup and grand thing. It will also help spread football and develop football in the lesser nations which is what FIFA is here for.
It's absurdly stupid to say that this current format is worse than 3 team groups where sequels to the Disgrace of Gijón would be possible
As a Canadian this new format is great because there is potential for them to make the round of 32 however I understand this waters down. The competition of the group stage.
I have no doubt that Mr. Infantino will watch all 104 games
Keep the 32-team world cup but make a new competition which would be the Europa League equivalent of world cup.
That'd be interesting! We might at last see good teams with stronger competitors from their own confederation like Colombia, Senegal or even Croatia or Austria win a cup that way!
A second tier world cup would certainly be interesting, and it would also allow small Asian and North American sides (like Jamaica, Uzbekistan or Thailand for example) to play against decent European, African and South American opposition for the first time ever... I'd totally watch that tournament!
Didn't realise Al-Kheleifi was ECA president until now :(
Not trying to be rude, but where were you during the whole Super League scandal? 😅😅
Only 16 teams should be at a World Cup. And no guaranteed spot for a host.
Too little. 32 was perfect
@@Shibalayah 32 was too many. Letting in a lot of lower quality teams that have no business being involved.
@@spencergwin9454terrible take undogs derseved to be an the world cups the best option is 24 teams this means we could still a round of. 16
I like the idea of only the winner goes through from each group. UEFA diluted the Champions League and that has become dull. The old European Cup format was fantastic, the winner goes through is what made the tournament exciting.
agreed
Go back to the best 16 teams and the format of 1974/78. Play all the games at the same time and there would no shoot-outs. Filter out the minnows by playing them off against the strongest European teams that failed to qualify in their groups (as with Hungary v Bolivia in 1978) and then any that survive deserve to be there. Of course it won't happen though.