How FIFA's plan for a 48-team World Cup will allow teams to cheat without breaking the rules

FIFA president Gianni Infantino dropped a bombshell when he set in motion plans to expand the FIFA World Cup to 48 teams from the 2026 edition onwards. The current format that came into being in 1998 sees only 32 teams and Infantino is of the belief that increasing the number of teams in the finals will only benefit football development across the globe.

“There is nothing bigger in terms of boosting football in a country than participating in a World Cup.” – Infantino

The move to include more teams in the quadrennial competition is quite a noble endeavour but there is more to the idea than meets the eye. While nations who may never otherwise qualify for the World Cup may finally get to play alongside world champions, it is a format that could do more harm than good if they vote to put this system in place..

FIFA driven by financial incentives of 48-team World Cup

“The decision should not just be financially driven.” – Infantino

But, of course, it is. While FIFA is still trying to put behind them the years of corruption it has been associated with in the Sepp Blatter era, they do see a 48-team World Cup as the ideal platform to attract more sponsors and increase their profits.

According to their own study, the revenue from such a format could see a 19% increase. While the projections for the 2018 World Cup are predicted to be in the region of $5.52 billion, the 2026 World Cup with the 48-team format could see total revenues reach $6.5 billion.

Will the 2018 edition be the final one to have 32 teams?

Revenue could rise almost 20 percent to $6.5 billion, using the projected $5.5 billion income from the 2018 World Cup in Russia as a base comparison. The potential profit would increase by $640 million, the research claimed.

The numbers look good on paper but they will come at a cost. As will become clear, the format itself is unfair to at least one team in each group.

How does the 48-team format work?

The current format sees 32 teams split into eight groups of four teams. The four teams in each group play each other once and the top two teams from each group qualify for the knockout stages.

This is the ideal format for a tournament as the number of teams is halved after each round. 32 teams are reduced to 16, to eight and so on.

But FIFA’s plan for a 48-team World Cup will see a total of 16 groups of three teams each. Not only that, instead of allowing only the top side to qualify, the new format will see the top two sides qualify for the Round of 32. So while the group stage will still eliminate 16 teams like the current format, it still allows 32 teams to qualify for the knockout stages instead of 16 – twice the current number of teams that qualify now.

(There is also a possibility of a second 40-team format that could see 10 groups of four teams each with the toppers qualifying for the knockout followed by the six-best runners up. That again is unfair to some teams – especially those involved in a group of death).

The current format guarantees impartiality and rewards teams that play well

48-team format could see teams collude to qualify

The biggest problem with a group with three teams is that the odd number of teams will see undesirable outcomes. For starters, with only two games for each team to play in the group stage, the third match could see two teams play with the desired outcome in mind to ensure they both qualify.

Everyone remembers the 1982 Disgrace of Gijon where Algeria were denied a rightful place in the next round after West Germany and Austria worked in collusion to ensure they both qualified.

Both Austria and Algeria were on four points with the European side on top after they beat Algeria. West Germany were third with two points and needed a win to qualify. They did score via Horst Hrubesch but what followed was a game that saw the crowd jeer and whistle as Austria and West Germany simply refused to play their normal game.

In 1982, Algeria were denied a place in the knockouts because of West Germany and Austria

Back passes to the goalkeeper, wayward shots on goal and deplorable time-wasting tactics saw even the West German and Austrian fans up in arms. Commentators from both countries decried their tactics and one even asked the viewers to switch off their televisions.

West Germany and Austria qualified at the expense of Algeria and FIFA did not take any action whatsoever. The two teams had not broken any rules or laws but had let down the sport and did not play in the spirit of the game.

As a result, the two final group stage games are now played at the same time to avoid such a scenario. All four teams kick off at the same time at different venues so there is no way they can collude without knowing the goings-on in the other game.

With three teams in a group, the two teams playing the final game know exactly what scoreline will help them qualify. This is where it could be unfair to the third team who will be left watching helplessly if they have not won both their games.

“In the interest of the fans and the players, we urge Fifa not to increase the number of World Cup participants. Politics and commerce should not be the exclusive priority in football.” – European Club Association chairman Karl-Heinz Rummenigge

Penalty shootouts in group stages will cause more problems

A move to eliminate such a scenario has been FIFA’s plan to do away with draws as a full-time result and introduce penalty shootouts in the group stages. With only wins and losses as the only outcomes, FIFA thinks they can avoid such scenarios.

However, in such a case also the penalty shootout rule can be manipulated by the two teams playing on the final day. If all three games ended in draws and each team wins one shootout each, then the goal difference becomes a factor. In such a case, the teams playing on the last day can easily play out, say, a 1-1 or 2-2 draw before taking it to a shootout and allowing the scenario to unfold again.

Penalty shootouts in the group stage can also be exploited

Example: Group A – England, Uruguay, China

1. Match 1: England 0-0 Uruguay (England wins via a penalty shootout)
2. Match 2: China 0-0 England (China wins via a penalty shootout)
3. Match 3: Uruguay 2-2 China (Uruguay wins via a penalty shootout)

As you can see, Uruguay and China know that a draw followed by a shootout win for Uruguay will see both sides qualify at England’s expense – both teams playing on the final day qualify even if all three teams have won a game each. Teams that are not as strong as the higher ranked squads in the tournament can easily fall back on this tactic to prevent the top teams from qualifying.

So why change the format at all?

Ever since the first ever World Cup in 1930, the number of participating teams have increased from 13 teams to 32. The tournament has seen successful editions ever since they adopted the 32-team format (barring the few one-sided contests in the group stage when superpowers face off against relative minnows). So attempting to meddle with a system with absolutely no issues or complaints from national football associations is nothing but a step backward.

The 48-team system can easily be exploited and, in essence, will allow teams to cheat without actually breaking the rules.

---