I mean I want to see more action.Like teams playing all over the globe.32 ain't enough for me.
2007-10-27 16:54:36 · 11 answers · asked by CFC4Life 5 in Sports ➔ Football ➔ FIFA World Cup (TM)
srry i meant 64
2007-10-27 18:01:53 · update #1
no
2007-10-27 16:59:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
First of all let me say that the world cup is not just the finals. The world cup is a world wide tournament that comprises all of the football playing countries of the world and the best 32 go to the finals. Having said that with the information age most of these qualifying games are now televised as opposed to the past when only the finals was so there is alot more football for us to watch apart from the finals alone
2007-10-28 05:13:39 · answer #2 · answered by Dapper 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
64 teams would be too complicated for the finals. If you went with 16 groups of four with the top 2 making it to a 32 team knockout phase, the knockout phase would become even more prone to fluke upsets and bad early pairings. If you went to a second quickly drawn group phase, that would extend the tournament by three weeks (in addition to three more games with clubs already upset about the national team obligations of their players).
The only change that I would suggest would be to the qualifying numbers from each confederation. I would start with each confederation getting one spot automatically, and then another spot for each 10 associations after the first 10. This would give 5 automatic slots to UEFA, 5 automatic slots to CAF, 4 automatic slots to AFC, 3 automatic slots to CONCACAF, 1 to CONMEBOL, and 1 to OFC for 19 automatic slots. The twentieth spot would go to the host nation. The next eight slots would go to the confederations of the teams that made the quarterfinals in the previous world cup. The remaining four spots would go to the confederations of the teams that got eliminated in the first knock-out round with a half of a spot for each team. This formula would emphasize results rather than the current system which emphasizes traditional dominance over current results.
2007-10-28 03:18:30 · answer #3 · answered by Tmess2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. If there were 64 teams it would mean that FIFA would need double the amount of sponsorship. It would be difficult to get that kind of money. Also it would be almost impossible to follow all 64 teams in the group stage. The only up side would be more viewers because ppl from 64 nations would have a stake in the cup.
2007-10-27 23:59:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The world cup is in a great format right now....if they were to expand it....I would not support for 64 teams.....I think that would be overkill and would really make the qualifiers meaningless.
People fail to forget that Qualifying for the World Cup is part of the entire process of winning.
For South American teams....the entire journey is a 3 year process.......
2007-10-28 02:19:20 · answer #5 · answered by al 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well it'd have to be 64, but yea why not, i love the world cup and having another round would be awesome.
2007-10-27 23:58:08 · answer #6 · answered by Taze 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i say yes because 32 games is enough but of course the world wants to see more action. i vote yes and no.
2007-10-28 01:31:48 · answer #7 · answered by ubaldosoccer 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
more teams would be better for us fans...but the club teams these players play for would not like the extra round....they dont want to waste there money on one of there players getting hurt....so no it shouldnt be changed...although i would like more matches...i watched every match in 2006...skipped classes....scheduled work around the games
2007-10-28 00:18:32 · answer #8 · answered by nick c 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
well maybe they can start WCQ's a bit earlier and play more meaningful games.
2007-10-28 07:53:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yea that would be great. Especially because it would give my country(Guatemala) a better chance of qualifying since we suck!!!
2007-10-28 01:38:36 · answer #10 · answered by madrid 4 life 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
BAD IDEA. YOU WILL MAKE THE TOURNAMENT TWICE AS LONG.
2007-10-28 02:48:08 · answer #11 · answered by Stan I Sebastian 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋