Part of the reason australia moved to the Asian confed was because there wasn’t any automatic qualifying spots in Oceania. We got sick of having to go through playoffs……..only to make the last 2 world cups because of a playoff 😅

I'm definitely in support of this as long as there are 4 team groups and not 3, similar to how the EUROS do it with the best performing 3rd place teams. Would also be a better chance to see Bafana Bafana (South Africa) in another World Cup after 2010

Once this change goes through, I can see a lot of good players declaring for Jamaica in the future now that they realistically should qualify regularly for the world cup

I'm choosing to believe Zealand put the Australian flag instead of the New Zealand flag on purpose

The problem is every money grab fifa and uefa try and implement just adds more games to the already packed football calendar, reducing the quality of football as players either just get burnt out and injured more or some competitions just become for reserve teams

I like the video, the editing and the usual style. I can also agree with the point that quality of the teams added wouldn't diminish the World Cup and it would be a great thing for them. Personally, I would love to have Hungary have a bigger chance to qualify, so as a German-Hungarian I could perhaps see both teams at a WC again. I also love that Oceania finally gets at least 1 permanent spot, it was kind of unfair to that part of the world. But there are a few points that could more contentious and critical: 1. Competition format: if they stay with 3 teams/group, you get the issue that the last game can be rigged (1982 - Austria v. Germany in Gijon comes to mind). But it would mean a max. of 7 matches for a team at least, as now, no additional game. If it is 4 teams/group some 3rd place teams will have to qualify and an extra round is added, or not all 2nd place teams go through... But the first option is more probable which leads to it being less transparent and the bracket and the whole progression is less clear then in a 2 of 4 qualify format. Also it leads to: 2. Extra matches - there is a lot of congestion with the footballing calendar already and adding additional time and games to the WC won't help that. The excitement is great but it is just the wrong direction to add even more games. 3. Especially since FIFA won't stop here. They already announed the plans to extend the Club World Cup. They also mentioned doing the WC every 2 years and then they mentioned every 3 years. Apart from the conflict with continental competions and club competions and e.g. the Olympics, the issue is they just want to milk everything out of players and the audience, and don't care about the health of players, quality of games, etc. This leads back to point Nr. 2. as well. Players will be ever more tired and injury prone. And the danger of oversaturation feels real. 4. This all goes back to how FIFA presidents are voted for. Every FA that is member of FIFA has 1 vote. This means Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Uganda, Brazil and Spain have the same power. That's why Blatter and Infantino always promise and give boons towards Asia, Africa, etc., because they have the most votes. And these FAs can be won over by expansions, more tournaments and holding the WC in their country/continent. So, as mentioned in point Nr. 3 - they won't stop here and that is what is one of the issues. 5. Also, less countries will be able to hold the WC, or mostly countries that are big and/or have the infrastructure and/or money. Or, and this seems to be the way: co-hosted bids, which isn't an issue on its own either, but it makes it more difficult to organize. But this might be less of an issue. But it can also lead to countries and FAs like Qatar to be more inclined to come in with bids. Similarly to how the Olympics have issues finding good host cities. So, I think it can be great and it will always be great as it is the World Cup, but there are already signs of oversaturation and it could lose its special place if they don't watch out.

One thing I don't like is the whole idea of 2/3 of the teams making it past the group stage. It's going to make cases where big teams get knocked out in the group stage much rarer.

I do agree that FIFA should move away from the idea of doing 16 groups of 3 teams each, and should instead do 12 groups of 4 teams each. However I am less into the idea of a Round of 32 including the best 8 3rd place teams from the group stage. I would rather see two Round of 16s where the 8 best first place teams get a bye to the second Round of 16, and the other 4 first place teams and 12 runners-up go to the first Round of 16. It would create more incentive on the final day of Group Stage matches for teams leading in their respective groups to put in more effort, regardless of whether they've already clinched advancement out of their group or not, because they'll want to be among the top 8 1st placers to get that bye to the second Round of 16. It would only be an added 8 matches to the knockouts rather than an added 16, but you're already adding an additional 24 matches to the tournament by increasing the total teams qualifying to 48 and adding an additional 4 groups of 4 teams. They need to consider the time constraints and travel logistics. Realistically though, I think they'll probably still go the Round of 32 route, because as Zealand already mentioned multiple times in this video, FIFA does things because of money.

One factor you did not talk about is the fact the footballers themselves having to play even more games. Fatigue, injuries etc.

I think expansion makes sense, but it's going to be a really pity to lose the drama and story-line potential of the current group format. Just hate the idea of a 3-team group format, but a longer group stage is going to reduce the variance of 'worse' teams causing upsets and qualifying for knockouts. And I don't love the complexity introduced by qualifying 8 3rd place teams out of 12 4 team groups.

I appreciate the video big Z. I think 32 nations is best. It just works best. 48 means only really large nations can host it. The best and unique thing about ⚽ is that it's hard to qualify. I've watched every match of 2014, 18 & 22 plus went to 06 & 2010. I'm just going to watch Australia play in the group stage and tune in when it is at the Round of 32 stage.

I'm totally with you here, I was really worried about the 3 groups thing and was relieved/hopeful about that potentially being changed. I might be in the minority with being perfectly happy with the 3rd place spots being a thing, but either way I agree on paper the expansion is cool and nice. And hey, it gives Canada a chance to not face apparently three of the top 10 teams in the world in their next group lol

love the fact that Zealand put the Australia flag up when he said New Zealand.

As the tournament grows, we probably won't get to see single nations that host world cups anymore. I liked the spotlight that was given to a certain country each world cup but i also like how things are changing. If future world cups take place in regions that are shared by several countries, smaller countries that only have 2-3 proper stadiums get the chance to be co-hosts and have world cup games played in their country as well.

I am Just worried about scheduling, the world cup ist a long and exhausting Tournament as it already is. If they find a good solution for this i am excited!

4:49 that’s the Australian flag Zealand, Kiwi’s are coming for you

Those are all valid points and I like that you brought them up because you are the first one I have seen in favor of this, who is (hopefully) not payed by FIFA. I still disagree tho. I totally get the desire of smaller nations like Italy to make it to a World Cup once but it’s a sporting competition after all, with this argument expansion would theoretically never stop but eliminations need to happen. And while 48 teams don’t lower the quality that much, it does break a perfect tournament structure. 32 teams make so much sense, 48 with groups of 4 means waiting for days as a third placed teams whether you advance, an advantage for later groups because they know what they need to advance at 3rd place and an overall uninteresting group stage because so little elimination happens. And don’t get me started on groups of three, that would be even worse. In addition it creates a problem with hosting, it seems to be to much for one country to deal with. The next world cup is in all of North America, the one after that might be in half of South America. Why even bother with host nations at this point and not just rotate between host confederations? I will miss the world visiting one country that gets an opportunity to present itself to the whole world as organizer and host, with so many countries hosting together none of them will make such an impact

I completely agree. More teams means more underdog stories and chances for craziness. The intercontinental playoffs are what I am most excited about. Seeing Paraguay vs Iraq or Tahiti vs El Salvador for a chance to make the tournament will be really fun

I would definitely add for Jamaica that if they were going to a world cup then they would potentially have access to a lot of players who won't play for England but want a chance at the world cup

By the way I love these new videos where you talk about what’s going on in the world of football

With the progression of football, the World Cup, and domestic leagues, I’ve become increasingly interested in the development of each individual country and their own development. It’s incredible to see the gap between the top teams shrink with every World Cup, but I think it’s at the point where nearly any national team could beat any other national team. I could totally see teams that didn’t qualify topple giants, and “underdog” teams push to win major tournaments. I’ve been so interested, I’ve been messing around with the idea of a 64 team tournament, how many teams from confederations would qualify, how a host could handle a tournament so large, how it could benefit to host such a large tournament, and how this could develop football globally. Logistically, I wouldn’t expect something like this to happen for at least another 15 years, and I would expect a changing in fifa World Cup host selection processes. Hosts would be announced 10-12 years before a tournament for preparation, and international football formats and competitions could be permanently altered. This is all for the better of football, in my own opinion, and it could be so entertaining to see non-traditional nations qualify or make runs in a World Cup, and how that would impact football in those or surrounding nations. Seeing an even more competitive African base in a World Cup, not just with more teams, but with more players. The development of Caribbean and Central American football, central and southeast Asian football, East African football, and Oceania. This could also allow for the improvement of domestic leagues, instead of the “top 5” leagues being the only ones loaded with talent, an outer reach of quality national teams would mean a stronger pool of quality players from within that country, thus likely a stronger national league. It would spread out the competition, allowing for also a less congested schedule in domestic and continental club competition, because there would be other competitions with strong clubs, so not needing to add extra clubs to certain competitions like the champions league because there is just too much quality. There is a lot more things but this is just briefly what I’ve been thinking about, and I’m just loving the possibilities of this whole thing.

The only problem I have is that more games= more tired players and injuries, changing the outcome of the tournament

There should definitely be 12 groups of 4s with the 3rd place teams going through, it just seems like the traditional 4 team groups are pretty standard that most fans/players/managers seem to enjoy. I don’t really see that deterring teams from playing negatively especially since they seem pretty set on making sure the correct added time is given at the end of the game. Plus, you could definitely have an underdog story of a 3rd place team making a deep run like Portugal did at 2016 Euros

Every time you zoom on Central Asia I just think of your Sri Lanka video with the David Attenborough impression. “On the Central Asian steps, every national team is better than Sri Lanka… and they wear really cool hats. Really cool hats.”

I feel that the extra knockout round is debatable but one idea is groups of 6 and 1st reaches the last 16 then a 2nd v 3rd knockout the reach the last 16, would reward better group stages and 2 more games guaranteed for smaller countries while bigger countries have a better shot at winning

As long as it’s groups of 4 I’m 100% in, great video as well.

I think from apart from those teams that you chosed Uzbekistan will make through the World Cup just because they have a lot players in European top leagues (Serie A, Bundesliga, Russian premier league, Turkish super league etc.)

Great points, as always Z!

lol Zealand, don't know if it was deliberate but showing the Australian flag when talking about New Zealand...pure green and gold ❤❤❤

As someone else has mentioned, I can get behind this as long as the groups remain as groups of 4 with the best performing 3rd place teams making up the numbers. If the groups get cut back to being groups of 3 then for travelling fans, you're essentially forced into flying around the world to watch your country play 2 games - which is pretty ridiculous. And also it would take a lot of the excitement out of the final group stage match day since you could end up with two teams with nothing at all to play for being the final group match which is kind of a bummer.

If the team grows, surely many citizens will be proud to be able to see their country compete in the world cup. Putting aside FIFA looking for more profits, but the opportunities that will be given to small countries that can participate in the world cup will be more open.

8 groups of 6 teams with top 4 qualifying to the round of 32 will be a good set up in my opinion

I actually enjoy more teams at the world cup. This is undoubtedly a decision based on wanting to get more money, but many smaller nations will be able to write their own stories. Cups tournaments should be more of a "free for all" with less hard qualification periods. Will be cool to have more Oceanian representation, most likely the Kiwis (which political fun fact have a political system surprisingly similar to Germany).

Small correction: the inter-continental play off will send 2 teams to the world cup, not 3. "A playoff tournament involving six teams will be held to decide the last two FIFA World Cup berths:[10] these consist of one team per confederation, except for UEFA, and one additional team from the confederation of the host countries (CONCACAF). Two of the teams will be seeded based on the World Rankings, and these seeded teams will play for a FIFA World Cup berth against the winners of the first two knockout games involving the four unseeded teams. The four-game tournament is to be played in one or more of the host countries and to be used as a test event for the FIFA World Cup." source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification

I always found it weird that despite rugby, which isn't played to a great standard outside of the top 25, 30 odd countries having 20 spots in the men's world cup, football (played in pretty much every country, and where the Euros winner didn't even qualify) has just 32... More spots is always good - even if it didn't make it more competitive (which it probably will) expanding to smaller nations that don't often get a shot is absolutely a good thing

I agree with you here from a fans perspective, but if you look at it from a players perspective or administration at clubs this is hard. It will make it so much harder for players because they just get so tired, look at Morocco in the last two games. So many injuries and tired players. Now imagine if they had to play another game still. You could argue that this makes it better for the smaller teams since they have a better chance of making it to the tournament but you could also argue that it actually favours the big teams even more since they are the ones who’ll be able to rotate players much more and not be as affected by the higher amount of games. But all in all I do agree that this is a good change all things considered. But I also understand that clubs especially probably aren’t too happy about this

Zanzibar (/ˈzænzɪbɑːr/; Swahili: Zanzibar; Arabic: زنجبار, romanized: Zainzibar) is an insular semi-autonomous province which united with Tanganyika in 1964 to form the United Republic of Tanzania Learnt something today! Every single point was exactly bang on Zealand! and was that the elder scrolls 5:SKyrim? It looked like the scene when you flee from the dragon at the start? Sorry for spoilers about a 12 year old game. :) The village that you go to on my longest save I killed the shopkeeper there. She started a fight and things got out of hand.. and every time I went back there I ept seeing her body slumped over the counter and yeah that ones on me...hmmm! I'm rambling. Great video and keep up the good work!

Some really good points

Seen this format on play out on football manager. I have a sim in 2060. The 16 group, 3 team per group tournament is a load of 💩 in the group stage. But like Zealand said, the 32- team KO stage is absolutely insane to watch. I can only imagine watching it for real In 2026.

the one change i would make in the format (and i'm a US fan here) is to give one of the 3 extra concacaf spots to Africa to give them another spot because I feel like that would be a better balance in my opinion given how many good teams reside in Africa instead of seeing a different lower concacaf team

I’ll be behind it if there’s 4 team groups. It sucks about the extra matches tho, feel bad for the players

As an Irish fan, I like the bigger chance if qualifying, but it will feel shallow, it will also lower the quality. 32 is a great number as it simply divides by 2 all the way to 2, while 48 makes it complicated. Next, you will suggest the Champions League expands to 48?

As long as, and only if, it's 4 teams a group then it's good

I'm definitely excited for the expanded tournament. More countries making their first tournament (which is always a special event and feeling globally), more knockout rounds, more matches overall. There's definitely an argument to be made about over-stacking the games across all competitions players participate in, but that's a separate discussion honestly as this would only add one more game per team already qualifying (that extra knockout). They definitely should go with 4 team groups though, three is just a really bad idea.

This would be fine if they gave Europe more spots instead of Asia and Africa. Teams like Sweden Norway Italy Bosnia Russia Hungary etc. are just miles above UAE Oman Lebanon and China.

Don't know, for the Euros I felt like the level of competition definitely suffered from them expanding from 16 to 24 teams in the 2016 Euros. Hopefully this won't be the case for the WC but I'm a bit skeptical. One more knockout round does sound good though I must admit.

Hey Zealand, could you make a video comparing tactics in FM22 vs FM23? What works in FM22 that doesn't work as well in FM23 and vice versa? I'd really appreciate it.

I could be wrong but more teams surely equals a longer world cup and with players especially in the top 5 leagues playing 50-60 matches this just add more games to a busy calendar

From a players perspective, this is torture and will put even more stress on to already stressed players. From a supporters perspective, it's great during the tournament, more games and more fun. But the stress and the packed calendar might cause disappointment after the WC, during club matches. If you fail to qualify for a tournament based on which country is the best country in world football, then the team that beat you deserves that spot more than you do. If you fail to qualify for a tournament based on which football club is the best club in world football, then the team that beat you deserves that spot more than you do. For some reason people hate the new CL system with more teams, but they don't hate the new WC system with more teams. THE BEST OF THE BEST GET TO PLAY, THE OTHERS DON'T. IF YOU MISSED YOUR CHANCE THAT YEAR, DO BETTER NEXT TIME. It's part of the game, it's part of the charm of football. Italy aren't bad, but they didn't deserve to go to the WC. Simple. This time I 100% disagree with Zealand. Doesn't happen ever but this is a bad all around.

I think a lot of people who live in countries that are traditional and current football powers have this mindset of “what’s the point of having teams there who don’t have a chance to win it all?” But that’s just not at all what the tournament is about, there are so many definitions of success in this tournament that will bring joy to so many countries and I’m happy more will get to experience that. Not to mention the financial resources smaller countries will get by making it.

And there won't be the super excitement of the group stage's final game anymore. We will miss those rollercoaster games, joyful fans, heart broken fans back and forth between 2 stadiums.

love this new i idea☺ it can be anyone's game

The exitment in the last game of every group was better than most knockout matches, hope the new format doesnt destroy that

This is great for most of us who come from smaller nations as it brings a bigger chance to qualify and experience knock out games even bails out powerful nations. Germany would’ve made it through as they were the best 3rd place team. Africa and Asia are going to get heavily benefited from this with their level improving this can only get better.

How is no one talking about the fact that with an expanded world cup we might actual get to see Erling Haaland play in one someday?

Here's me a South African still sad that even with this expansion, my country still doesn't make it🤣🥲

It took decades for a World Cup with 32 contestants to be truly competitive (minus Qatar) and now we’ll get 16 more subpar teams for mediocrity (at best) to return. Sorry zeel but I’m not with you on this one

It's really going to be awful. No need to expand it to 48, 32 has worked absolutely fine. .

I totally get the point that the teams likely to qualify now are going to be quality teams, but I think the problem here is that the World Cup is supposed to be, well, tough to qualify for. It's supposed to be a challenge for every team. The only teams that maybe don't at least get a challenge to qualify would be Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Spain, etc., but Italy's failure to qualify is a sign that it is a difficult tournament to get to, and you can't just expect that you'll get in. Also, the fact that teams like Austria, Bosnia, Norway, Greece, etc. would be on the outside looking in in terms of ranking, yet teams like Jamaica, Uzbekistan, New Zealand, etc. would be expected to qualify is kind of ridiculous.

Another thing to support your point is with these lesser teams now having a better chance of qualifying for the world Cup, you will likely see better players playing for the country of there birth or parents birth, like for example Raheem Sterling could've choose to represent Jamaica, and many of the other African players in Europe might do the same, all of sudden these lesser known teams get alot stronger.

Hi z, i just wondering about the fifa world club cup revamp with 32 team arround the world is a good idea or not?

I agree with every point, but the 3rd point has a big downside, I think. More matches sounds great for us fans, but I'm not sure the players can handle so many games in such a short period. This final in Qatar turned out great in the end, but only because of Argentina's mistakes that allowed France to come back. In reality it was a pretty boring and one sided game for 80 minutes because the French team was nowhere near the level they can play at when they're not exhausted after so many games. So the quality of the semi-final and final games will obviously go down when you increase the number of games.

No! this is not a good thing. The quality just doesnt cut it outside the top 30. This is coming from an Aussie too.

Is the USA database coming to fm23?

Bringing more teams to the World Cup but keeping a R16 instead of a round of 32 would be best. More countries get to participate in the tournament but the same difficulty in terms of continuing

So what's the best structure when there are 48 teams? - 16 groups of 3 going into ro32. - 12 groups of 4 with 8 third places advancing into ro32. - 12 groups of 4 with 4 second places advancing into ro16. - 8 groups of 6 going into ro16. None of them seem great. I'd prefer the fairness of the last option, but it would create way too many group games. Maybe we should just start with 16 x 4 teams...

2:05 it’s actually does their will be 3 hosts which means more games more traveling and even. 3rd 8th places make it

But June 8 - July 3? WHY? It should be 5 weeks. THEY ARE DREAMING. But actually given all the warm weather locations and domed stadiums they should do it at Christmas Time Again. THAT WAS FUN!

You did the Australian flag for New Zealand. Just an FYI...

I haven't read through all the comments - there are lots now - but I disagree with what seems to be the consensus preferring 4 team groups to 3 team groups, but maybe that's because I'm old enough to remember how dire the group stage games often were in the 24-team World Cups when 4/6 3rd place teams went through. It often seemed to make not losing more important than winning, and meant that groups with a complete also-ran became too easy.

At this point why not just make it 68 teams and go full march madness style😂

fifa should make a world nations league, all the teams of the world playing against each other in differenr groups

Is adding more games to an already overcrowded schedule a good thing?

Oh boy cant wait for more North Macedonia vs Oman, trully the peak of game

God dammit Zealand, you got our flag wrong🤣🤣🤣🤣

The problem of a 48-team world cup is not the introduction of 16 new teams. Is the format problem that it creates, for a reason groups of 3 teams was the initial idea its because there are no good formats that work with 48 teams

You showed the Australian flag when talking about New Zealand-

Hi, I am playing fm23 on Xbox and I wanted to know about individual training, is it best to train in the position/role/duty section the exact position you are playing your players or is it best to train a different position/role/duty? ATM my striker who plays as an advanced forward and has a training level at 3 stars for that position has high heading and jumping stats and I don't want that to drop so can I train him as a complete forward at only 1 star and try to build all of his attributes or should I just train him in the position he plays?

if my country Indonesia still can't qualify even after this expansion from 32 teams to 48 teams, then I'll be ultra mad. We have to fucking do this, it's our one chance

Sorry but I disagree with this, more teams takes away the special achievement of qualifying, too many games in the finals and dilutes the quality.

Honestly My only complaint was that the 3 team groups just wasnt right im fine with more teams as long as there is 4 team groups

The fact that you of all people got the New Zealand flag wrong has made me chuckle :D

Beitrag des Donnerstages, 2. März 2023 The spots of the FIFA World Championship could be allocated, via the results of the intercontinental matches! Every national team could reach a maximum of 2 points for the seat calculation. made up numbers! UEFA: 1.31 * 55 = 72.05 ... 19.21 ... 19 COMNEBOL: 1.47 * 10 = 14.70 ... 3.73 ... 4 CONCACAF: 0.84 * 35 = 29.40 ... 7.84 ... 8 CAF: 0.67 * 54 = 36.18 ... 9.65 ... 10 AFC: 0.53 * 46 = 24.38 ... 6.501 ... 6 OFC: 0.32 * 11 = 3.52 ... 0.93 ... 1 180.23 / 48 ~ 3.75 ... = divisor

Imagine being a good football player in 3 years time ... no vacations until u retire

In the current proposed system of 16 groups of 3 we will have same number of matches as before

Groups of 3 make me fear another Non Aggression pact of gijon

do the changes in champions league in fm23

7:46 Unless they only have the top team from one group go through

I disagree with the first point. I think this world cup proved that there can be plenty of upsets and Cinderellas with 32. And the quality won't diminish if you don't add more. No matter how you put it, it does lower the quality. As nice as it is to say more representation, I think if it ain't broke don't fix it. Most of these new countries are oversea territories that fifa , recognizes as separate countries. Like fr, the other expansions made sense. I don't think this one does.

this is good if we Africa don't use zonal qualifications because that would mean quality teams in the west and north don't have to fight for a limited spots. because imagine having African power houses cote d'ivoire, Ghana, Egypt, Senegal, Morocco, Nigeria, Tunisia , Algeria and South Africa all in the world cup.. the world would know why AFCON is unpredictable and very competitive

I would lovvvvve for there tp be more teams. Especially if it meant o could see different teams in the wc

Totally disagree - 32 is already too many. We won't be able to watch more as it's inevitable there will be more games on as the same time in the early stages.

Oh you're probably against my 12 groups of 4 going into Round of 16 idea then cause you like the knockout rounds XD My idea was to only qualify the 12 group winners and the best 4 2nd place teams to create the round of 16 and keep the knockout rounds the same.

bruh putting up the australian flag for New zealand is dank, also considering this is Zealand him self, cant name the flag from the country :^)

Did you show the Aussie flag when talking about the Kiwis at 4:50? oops

4:48 "New Zealand" and then shows australias flag

Did you ironically display Australia's flag when discussing NZ?

I'm fine with more countries in the tournament AS LONG as they don't use "3 in a group" format

concacaf getting more spots is insane

Thank you for this. More football is great.