If elected Figo would consider 48 teams in the world cup

Drexel

Former Barcelona, Real Madrid and Inter Milan winger Figo, who played at two World Cups, said on Thursday that the current format could be increased to 40 teams or Fifa could stage two 24-team competitions simultaneously on two continents, followed by a knockout phase in one nation.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/31531664

What do you make of this? I would love to see Blatter out as he has been in charge for far too long, but a 48 team world cup would include an awful lot of dross I think, although the idea of two simultaneous competitions is interesting.

I do like his views on bringing in more technology and reverting to the old once you are offside you are offside. No more interfering with play.

ebbsy

All depends if the other federations are happy to waive their bribes etc.

Which they are probably not.

rob316

48 teams, that would really dilute the competition. Some of them African nations are dire to watch.

Mr.Nice Guy

It sounds like a ploy to get votes from small nations in the regions where Blatter has a lot of support. He went on to say, "I believe that additional teams should come from non-European nations."

Europe is the one place that could do with more teams being represented; the European allocation was higher in past tournaments. Further minimising that influence will just lead to poor quality tournaments.

I welcome any effort to oust Blatter but this isn't the way to go about it.

Why don't they get rid of the qualifiers and have every team in the world qualify? They could then divide it into the various regions, maybe play it over 18 months, home and away and come up with the best 32 that could meet in...hold on...

iDave

48 the FAI only needed 33

iDave

iDave wrote: »

48 the FAI only needed 33

33 is a perfectly good number.

You could have 6 groups of 4, 1 group of 6 and a group of 3.

The winners in each group, plus 2 of the best runners up in the groups of 4 and the 3rd team in the group of 6 go forward to the last 11.

You then seed them, of course, and play 5 against 5, with the team seeded bang in the middle to enter into a play off with itself. This would produce 5, or 6, depending on that playoff.

And so on.

UnitedIrishman

Deleted User wrote: »

33 is a perfectly good number.

You could have 6 groups of 4, 1 group of 6 and a group of 3.

The winners in each group, plus 2 of the best runners up in the groups of 4 and the 3rd team in the group of 6 go forward to the last 11.

You then seed them, of course, and play 5 against 5, with the team seeded bang in the middle to enter into a play off with itself. This would produce 5, or 6, depending on that playoff.

And so on.

That reminded me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFOvldn_IRw

Liam O

jonny666 wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/31531664

What do you make of this? I would love to see Blatter out as he has been in charge for far too long, but a 48 team world cup would include an awful lot of dross I think, although the idea of two simultaneous competitions is interesting.

I do like his views on bringing in more technology and reverting to the old once you are offside you are offside. No more interfering with play.

The offside rule has changed by far for the better imo.

Drexel

Liam O wrote: »

The offside rule has changed by far for the better imo.

I disagree. If you are on the field you are interfering with play

LeBash

rob316 wrote: »

48 teams, that would really dilute the competition. Some of them African nations are dire to watch.

It could work if they seed continents based on performance per world cup. That way its fair to start and if Asian and African teams are out in group stages some form of seeding could start to get more European teams or others.

The Euros has far better quaility teams than the World Cup when you take it as a whole.

Schwiiing

If it was me I'd go back to 16 teams. No groups, all knockout football. No Iran V Nigeria dross to suffer either.

kryogen

jonny666 wrote: »

I disagree. If you are on the field you are interfering with play

You think that if the ball is in the opponents box at the feet of your striker and you are standing on the half way line you are interfering with play?

ronjo

Schwiiing wrote: »

If it was me I'd go back to 16 teams. No groups, all knockout football. No Iran V Nigeria dross to suffer either.

It would be over in two weeks and there would only be 16 games.

Wheres the fun in that?

RayCon

jonny666 wrote: »

I disagree. If you are on the field you are interfering with play

I kind of agree with your point ....

my biggest problem with the "not interfering with play" rule is it only favors the attacking team.

A forward can be in an off side position ("old definition" ) and be deemed to not interfere with play because he's not directly involved in that particular movement / passage of play ...

... however a defender "is playing everyone onside" - even if he is nowhere near the passage of play (ie. the opposite side of the pitch and would not have been able to influence the outcome of the movement).

But punters wants goals .... hence the rule change back when ... eh ..whenever it happened (can't remember).

Drexel

kryogen wrote: »

You think that if the ball is in the opponents box at the feet of your striker and you are standing on the half way line you are interfering with play?

They wouldnt be offside so it wouldnt really matter but yes.

A more realistic scenario would be a shot coming in and a player standing in an offside position. Even if he isnt standing near the keeper he would be, in my opinion, interfering with play. Maybe the keeper can see him in the corner of his eye or cant see him but is aware he is there. That is interfering with play. Maybe not directly but indirectly.

90% of the goals scored where this rule has been used are someone standing in the 6 yard box behind the defense. Even standing still, in the split seconds the keeper and or defense has to take some notice of him. Its goals like that I would like to see ruled offside.