It's possible to have too much of a good thing, even too
much of 'The greatest show on earth' as the World Cup has been described
(although not by me), and in 2026 the already bloated competition will be
over-inflated to a mind-boggling forty-eight teams. Rumours had been
circulating for some time that new FIFA president Gianni Infantino (who
replaced the discredited and banned former incumbent, Sepp Blatter last year)
favoured increasing the number of nations competing in the finals by fifty
percent: "We have to be more inclusive," he said at a sports
conference in Dubai in December 2016. Football federations were
"overwhelmingly in favour" of the expansion, he said, adding that a 48-team
tournament was the most "financially appealing," which rather gave
the game away. Infantino maintains that the decision was "a
football decision," and that, "Every format has advantages in
financial terms. We were in a comfortable situation to take a decision based on
sporting merit." Like his predecessor, Infantino is comfortable with the
Orwellian double-speak much loved by bureaucrats and administrators, where
language obscures, distorts, or reverses the meaning of
words.
FIFA president Gianni Infanto |
It was no surprise that this week FIFA voted to add sixteen
new teams to the finals when they are held in 2026, increasing the total number
of finalists to forty-eight and while part of the justification is that it allows
more countries to make their dream of competing at the finals come true, my
view is that it is about one thing and one thing only...money. For most of the
sixteen extra countries that will qualify for wherever FIFA decrees that the
2026 jamboree will be held, this is going to be a chance to play in a World Cup
Finals competition that they might not otherwise have had, but most will not be
good enough to be able to really compete. And competition is what sport is about;
without jeopardy, without the fear of defeat, then victories are cheap.
The current format may have grown - from sixteen in 1978, to
twenty-four in 1982 and most recently, to thirty-two in 1998 - but has the
competition got better, or is this just another case of 'never mind the
quality, feel the width?' The current group stage format, with four teams in each group remains fairly interesting and competitive, but the new format raises the prospect of a group stage that will be a
procession not a competition. FIFA's plan for a forty-eight team competition
starts with sixteen groups of three countries, so it is entirely likely that in
a group that consists of say, Spain, Chile and Senegal (with all due respect to
Senegal), if both European nations beat Senegal and play each other in the last
game, both know they will have qualified: potentially there are sixteen dead
rubbers - one per group. Oh, FIFA have hinted that even group games will be
played to an outcome, with penalty shoot-outs possibly deciding drawn games to
avoid any non-aggression pacts allowing teams to play out toothless draws in
their final games, but the reality is that this format promises more bland,
uncompetitive games.
Naturally, increasing the number of finalists makes
qualifying a bit less stressful too, but no decision has yet been made on how
the extra sixteen places will be allocated, but it is possible that Europe would
provide three additional teams, Africa an extra four and that six South
American countries would qualify - at present four are guaranteed
qualification, with a fifth competing in a play-off against an Asian country.
CONCACAF (Central and North America) would gain one additional qualifier. But
even three additional European nation still means that with UEFA having twenty-seven
of the top fifty football nations in the world, there will still be some top
sides watching rather than competing, while so-called minnows are able to take
part. On the other hand, and as I already mentioned, making qualification
easier takes away some jeopardy; the danger is that in making it harder not to qualify than to do so, the whole
thing gets devalued further than it already has been.
The Mane Garrincha Stadium in Brasilia, Brazil (shown here in April 2014), was the most expensive of the stadiums — at a cost of $550 million — and is now being used to park buses. |
And where is this shindig going to be held? We've already
had immense controversy over the venues for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, which
are scheduled for Russia and Qatar respectively, and since those venues debar
European or Asian nations from bidding for the 2026 finals, the smart money is
on the USA hosting again although a three-national finals with Mexico and
Canada also sharing the duties has been mooted. And frankly, the US are one of
the few nations that could afford to host a 48 team finals, which would require
a similar number of state-of-the-art training centres, and since twelve stadia
were needed for the 2014 World Cup, one imagines that around sixteen stadia
will be required for a forty-eight nation competition. The 2014 World Cup
required Brazil to build seven new grounds; the 2010 World Cup in South Africa
needed five new stadia, and the legacy for both countries has been debt and
stadiums that are subsequently unused. While the last two World Cups have been
significant financial burdens for the host nations, FIFA's gravy train carries
on blithely however and sixteen additional teams in the finals means 80 matches
instead of 64, which FIFA forecast will generate $1 billion extra income at
current rates from broadcasting and sponsor deals, plus ticket sales, compared
to $5.5 billion revenue forecast for the 2018 World Cup in Russia; an
increased profit of $640 million. The fiction that these plans are driven by anything
other than the pursuit of profit is entirely transparent, despite any claims to
the contrary from Gianni Infantino.
With 48 squads of 23 players, the Panini sticker album for 2026 is going to be massive! |
The World Cup finals used to be essential viewing, but in
all honesty, I haven't watched a tournament with anything more than mere
passing interest since Italy hosted the finals in 1990 and the prospect of a 48
team tournament does nothing to enthuse me. No doubt FIFA will declare the 2026
World Cup Finals a roaring success regardless, giving them an excuse to expand
the tournament still further, until the point is reached when the number of
nations reaching the finals exceeds the number not qualifying: fortunately by
that point I should be unable to take any interest in it anyway!
England take on Germany in the 1990 World Cup Semi-Final |
If FIFA really had the interests of the game at heart and
were more concerned with the quality of their 'product' than the amount of
money it generates, they would heed the expression, 'less is more' and reduce
the number of teams in the finals. I'd like to see them go back to the sixteen
nation format that served the competition so well in the days when it was about
football and not profit, but sadly I know that there is no possibility of that
happening.
No comments:
Post a Comment