FIFA World Cup 2026 - Discussion Thread

PES4eva said:
I think if they want to expand they should just remove the group stage entirely because let's face it, it's the most boring phase of the tournament. Have 64 nations go directly into a knockout system. The team you draw is based on the usual pre world cup qualifications. That would add instant jeopardy and make it exciting from start to finish. Remove extra time and go straight to penalties too while they're at it.
Click to expand...

keep extra time but with silver goal
 
I don't know about the extra time. When accumulated, it just guarantees injury.
Look at Argentina's substitutions during the final: 3 center backs had to step into the pitch. Whole team looking exhausted at the initial whisthle. That alone sealed the win for Spain.
By giving extra time you are condemning a team to play valuable extra minutes AFTER a full game, exposing players to fatigue and injury just because the result is a tie (which could be a slow paced 0-0 or a maximum effort 5-5). It completely destroyed Argentina, and the final as a show.
90 mins + penalties should be the norm.
 
Chris Davies said:
To defend as perfectly as Argentina did for nearly 120 minutes is a skill, and a physical toll. It was a masterclass from them in how to shut a game down. But it seemed like a strange decision - you're both clearly good enough to be there, why not try and play? They must have huge regrets now.

Their aggression after the final whistle, Paredes running at Spain players to push them over, is unreal. Trying to spoil their moment because you lost? How can you argue about losing a game you didn't have a shot in until you went a goal down? Have some class, seriously.
Click to expand...
What I don't understand is Arg played against Eng and England lost because of playing too defensive. Did they went insane and thought, "Yeah, lets follow the same strategy as England"?
 
I think a 64 team tournament is better than 48, removes the concept of teams scraping through in 3rd place having only won one game (as a Scot, that's like a turkey voting for Christmas but still...). I think you'd need to have multiple games being played at once though, otherwise it would take an age to complete. We're already in a situation where competitive football had returned for a week before the WC final in Scotland, and 1st round UEFA qualifiers started last week as well. One thing that power makers do not seem to give a damn about is player burnout - I think it was Haaland who mentioned just how many games he had played this year; I'd definitely be in favour of scrapping extra time with the exception of the semi-final/finals.

I don't think going straight into a knock-out is logistically or financially viable; teams and fans are traveling halfway around the world and spending thousands of £ in the process for potentially one game so you have to guarantee 3 games minimum to make it worth their while travelling. Also, FIFA aren't going to be happy if one of their big boys gets binned after just one game.

I also think that removes some of the romance of the World Cup, seeing smaller nations get a crack at the big boys but knowing it won't come down to a one off hit out. You could potentially give higher ranked teams a by to the next round, but the aforementioned lack of guaranteed games remains an issue. To be honest, the bigger nations get it too easy as it is - I'd do away with all seeding and have absolutely mental groups drawn totally at random.
 
Last edited:
This World Cup ended up surpassing my expectations. I think all World Cups are great (even my first, 1990, which objectively wasn't a great start) and have a different flavor to them, each with high points and low points. To determine a "best" or "worst" World Cup is silly.

It’s striking to see how far the sport has come in this country since 1994 (see my username) — mostly in good ways, though not without a few frustrations. I’ll admit I started off annoyed after striking out in three ticket lotteries, and by the time I turned to the resale market, the prices were absurd (a familiar reality for big events here). Still, I managed to luck into fantastic seats for Cape Verde–Saudi Arabia in Houston. It turned out to be one of the rare scoreless matches of the tournament, but I genuinely enjoyed watching Cape Verde make history and advance.

The Cape Verde–Argentina match was the moment of the tournament for me. I’ll never forget literally rolling off my couch laughing when Lopes Cabral scored, with my dog licking my face to check if I was okay. I was more than okay — I had just witnessed the goal of the tournament!

I was skeptical about expanding to 48 teams, but I ended up loving it. Living in the Pacific time zone meant I could finally watch evening football, and I absolutely geeked out seeing teams like Algeria and Jordan kicking off at 7, 8, or 9pm — instead of during work hours for me. The momentum dipped a bit here after the U.S. (deservedly) went out and the schedule shifted to daytime matches for European audiences (and I was stuck watching games like England-Argentina huddled around my phone on my lunch break), but the tournament still felt like a massive, joyful spectacle.

One last thing that stood out: how many Americans embraced the teams staying in their host cities, and how much international visitors seemed to enjoy being here. Lawrence, Kansas adopting the Algerian team was incredible to watch. My own city was supposed to host Iran, but our government is a shitshow and they understandably chose to stay in Mexico instead.
 
Last edited:
bsmaff said:
If FIFA now decide to have 64 nations in the WC it just means the first 3 weeks of the tournament will be pointless.
Spain will be in a group with Jamaica, Caracao and Botswana, with the top 2 going through.
So then the round of 32 will then be a complete walkover for the best nations.
It is all well and good having more teams but the teams will be seriously uncompetitive, I even reckon Exeter City would get out the group stages at a 64 team World Cup.
Click to expand...
64 teams format isn't a good deal since it only reduces the pre-season football time even more due to the almost 2 months long of this tournament, and FIFA have to adjust the international break scheduling even more in order to accomodate that new circumstances regarding the World Cup expansion, while also increasing the injury risk (check someone's post above regarding Argentina's CB injuries vs Spain). For the record, the first international break after this World Cup was moved from the first week of September to the last one and concluded on the first week of October, in order to accomodate the new season for the domestic league which was started later than usual due to the expanded World Cup schedule. This led to this September-October window having 2 more games than the usual. This, in addition to the expanded UEFA club competitions (league phase) and the new Club World Cup (which will be held a year before the World Cup), only guarantees injuries for certain footballers; some of which were serious (like ACL torn).

PES4eva said:
I think if they want to expand they should just remove the group stage entirely because let's face it, it's the most boring phase of the tournament. Have 64 nations go directly into a knockout system. The team you draw is based on the usual pre world cup qualifications. That would add instant jeopardy and make it exciting from start to finish. Remove extra time and go straight to penalties too while they're at it.
Click to expand...
Adding this. If you still want the World Cup to have a group stage first, there will be no drawn games in the group stage, and it must be settled by penalty shootout. The team that wins that penalty shootout in the group stage are rewarded with 2 points.

I think EFL Trophy and Scottish League Cup have this kind of rule, and nothing else. It should be implemented on the other major international football tournaments, too.
 
Argentine newspaper Clarin:
'As never before, the Argentine team displayed, both on and off the field, a range of values that are rare these days. From the pitch and beyond, they gave several lessons and showed the face of a country that we would like to see away from the football pitch.

'A team that was polite and respectful, despite a few unfortunate isolated incidents in the last match; that didn't speak ill of its rivals or try to justify its own mistakes by blaming others.'
 
Last edited:
bsmaff said:
Argentine newspaper Clarin:
'As never before, the Argentine team displayed, both on and off the field, a range of values that are rare these days. From the pitch and beyond, they gave several lessons and showed the face of a country that we would like to see away from the football pitch.

'A team that was polite and respectful, despite a few unfortunate isolated incidents in the last match; that didn't speak ill of its rivals or try to justify its own mistakes by blaming others.'
Click to expand...

I'm just thinking if this was an English report about England in the same situation it probably would have read:

"Disgrace! After a dismal display in the World Cup final, England become sore losers and shame the nation with aggressive, unsportsmanlike conduct. A sad day for England and English football"

They'd probably fabricate something in about racism too.
 
bsmaff said:
Argentine newspaper Clarin:
'As never before, the Argentine team displayed, both on and off the field, a range of values that are rare these days. From the pitch and beyond, they gave several lessons and showed the face of a country that we would like to see away from the football pitch.

'A team that was polite and respectful, despite a few unfortunate isolated incidents in the last match; that didn't speak ill of its rivals or try to justify its own mistakes by blaming others.'
Click to expand...
BBC have just shared some Enzo Fernandez quotes... I mean, if you say too much, you risk being accused of schadenfreude. But it's a fact of life that (more than ever) some people live in an alternative reality. All you can do is shrug.

BBC Sport: Fernandez defends Argentina - "For years, this group has represented the team in the best possible way."
 
Entertaining games.
Thats one, and probably the only positive thing about this WC. IMO.
The format with 48 teams are shite.
How the host nations are positioned ranking wise is shite.
The scandals are shite, ref not being let in, how Iran was treated, how VAR was used and the red card that got called back when Trump called Infantino is beyond fucking shite.
I probably forgot one or two scandals.
The extended halftime is a joke, having Tom Cruise doing a extremely weird speach on how football unite us and creates peace and understanding while someone (you know whom) keeps bombing countries left and right is also beyond bizarre.

And the host nation Usa being suprised on how good people from other countries really are, shouldnt really be a suprise right?
Unless you have an agenda of talking down and suspecting the rest of the world are horrible countries (you know by whom) 24/7

So good and entertaining games, thats my silverlining, and i pray to whom ever that the US never ever gets their hands on our beloved sport ever again.
Edit, how Argentina finished their WC is also fucking shite and disgraceful, that being said as a fan of them normally
 
marqisspes6 said:
With this you have said everything, there's a very popular phrase here "Clarin miente" = "Clarín lies" they have a very long history helping facto gov
Click to expand...
Ah, we have "The Sun" newspaper which sounds familiar. Seems like every country has one of these (and in some countries, no alternatives)!
 
Football is tribal. Or course Argentina won't think there's much wrong with how they played the game or behaved. By the same token, there's quite a few things English players could be criticised for, but aren't (Kane's diving, Bellingham's cowardly slap, appeals for fouls and cards etc).

Look, there's obviously a fair bit of needle between England and Argentina due to history but there have been some absolutely wild takes about players having visas revoked or being sacked.

Argentina has a style of play they thought would work for them, it was enough to beat England but they pushed it too far and were found out against Spain.
 
scottish_carson said:
By the same token, there's quite a few things English players could be criticised for, but aren't (Kane's diving, Bellingham's cowardly slap, appeals for fouls and cards etc).
Click to expand...
Two wrongs don't make a right though, do they? Both things are true, though I don't really see how their constant aggression on and off the pitch can be compared to what you mention. Comparing those final-whistle scenes with one incident of retaliation seems like comparing apples and oranges.

One thing we can all agree on, however:



Join in everyone, 1, 2, 3... Bring back Blatter! Bring back Blatter! Bring back...

...never mind.
 
Chris Davies said:
Two wrongs don't make a right though, do they? Both things are true, though I don't really see how their constant aggression on and off the pitch can be compared to what you mention. Comparing those final-whistle scenes with one incident of retaliation seems like comparing apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

Oh, don't get me wrong the scenes at full time in the final were a complete and utter disgrace, 100% and FIFA should launch the book at them for it (it'll be some wishy washy fine and 3 game ban, of course).

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of condemning one but not the other. Both are violent conduct as a result of losing the head - the severity of that conduct is somewhat immaterial to the point I am making. The punishments shouldn't be the same by any stretch.

We obviously share a lot of the same media outlets as our neighbours south of the border, and it just seems there's been a bit of a head loss reaction and quite a bit of hypocrisy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom