|
Post by Gods on Jan 10, 2017 14:38:47 GMT
Apart from developing the game globally I think FIFA are desperate to ensure China make the finals so they can enjoy all the new revenue opportunities that would bring Just imagine one and half billion cheery chinamen tuned in (that's a mouthful !) but it's over a quarter of the frigging planet and they have a fast growing consumer class. Exactly right. It's also the power of democracy with so many countries wanting in from Africa, Eastern Europe, etc. FIFA is turning into football's version of the European song contest. It will result in a number of top 25 countries from Western Europe not qualifying and African countries outside the top 50 getting a place, and officials from countries you have never heard of officiating matches at a level way beyond their ability. There will be more cases of countries sharing holding the competition and ridiculous travel demands on fans. The only surprise to me is they still allow the UK to have 4 countries teams enter. Apologies if this sounds xenophobic but I'm "they" will make moves to cut the UK entries. Good post. On your final point I think I read one reason the 4 so called 'Home nations' resist putting a joined up team in to the Olympics under the "GB" banner is that it may appear to be a tacit acceptance of some kind of one-nation principle which might then be applied elsewhere if you see what I mean?!
|
|
|
Post by enuntio on Jan 10, 2017 14:54:35 GMT
Apart from developing the game globally I think FIFA are desperate to ensure China make the finals so they can enjoy all the new revenue opportunities that would bring Just imagine one and half billion cheery chinamen tuned in (that's a mouthful !) but it's over a quarter of the frigging planet and they have a fast growing consumer class. Exactly right. It's also the power of democracy with so many countries wanting in from Africa, Eastern Europe, etc. FIFA is turning into football's version of the European song contest. It will result in a number of top 25 countries from Western Europe not qualifying and African countries outside the top 50 getting a place, and officials from countries you have never heard of officiating matches at a level way beyond their ability. There will be more cases of countries sharing holding the competition and ridiculous travel demands on fans. The only surprise to me is they still allow the UK to have 4 countries teams enter. Apologies if this sounds xenophobic but I'm "they" will make moves to cut the UK entries. Has Mr Coke ever seen a Jock of Taffy's reaction when they have been called "English" by someone from abroad? They most definitely don't like it The U.K. Is a group of countries, not counting Northern Ireland for a minute, England, Scotland and Wales have their own languages and borders which makes them 3 separate countries. How could we not have a Wales football team when we have the likes of Lichtenstein and San Marino playing international football? Another issue regarding future World Cups is why can't these 3 nations get together and stage a combined World Cup? I can think of at least 4 Scottish grounds and only 1 Welsh ground that are currently upto the standards, plenty of English grounds are readily available and the travel time between the 3 countries isn't overly long
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jan 10, 2017 16:28:28 GMT
Exactly right. It's also the power of democracy with so many countries wanting in from Africa, Eastern Europe, etc. FIFA is turning into football's version of the European song contest. It will result in a number of top 25 countries from Western Europe not qualifying and African countries outside the top 50 getting a place, and officials from countries you have never heard of officiating matches at a level way beyond their ability. There will be more cases of countries sharing holding the competition and ridiculous travel demands on fans. The only surprise to me is they still allow the UK to have 4 countries teams enter. Apologies if this sounds xenophobic but I'm "they" will make moves to cut the UK entries. Has Mr Coke ever seen a Jock of Taffy's reaction when they have been called "English" by someone from abroad?They most definitely don't like it The U.K. Is a group of countries, not counting Northern Ireland for a minute, England, Scotland and Wales have their own languages and borders which makes them 3 separate countries. How could we not have a Wales football team when we have the likes of Lichtenstein and San Marino playing international football? Another issue regarding future World Cups is why can't these 3 nations get together and stage a combined World Cup? I can think of at least 4 Scottish grounds and only 1 Welsh ground that are currently upto the standards, plenty of English grounds are readily available and the travel time between the 3 countries isn't overly long Yes - I have relatives and friends who are Scottish and I've lived in Wales 3 times in my life and fully aware of their nationalism and patriotism. I have also spent years chairing a European committee and highly conscious that many Europeans believe we are one political country, the UK (unless we split up/devolve), and as such they feel we should have only one voice/representation. To use your analogy they believe on political national issues (as opposed to cultural national issues) that Lichtenstein = San Marino = UK (the U stands for united). There are some European countries who don't want to see Scottish devolution or separate rights for (e.g.) Scotland like a football team, because they can see a precedent for separate rights in their own country, e.g. Basques in Spain and France are most often quoted but there are scores of others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe As has been correctly pointed out above, the Welsh and Scottish FAs oppose a Great Britain football team entering the Olympics as they are afraid FIFA will strip them of the right to have a national team. www.theguardian.com/football/2015/mar/31/fa-disappointed-great-britain-olympic-football-teams-rio-2016I repeat my original post, many in FIFA would like to put an end to the UK have 4 national teams entering competitions. You seem to assume this is my desire, it is not. It is my belief of what a lot of other foreign nationals desire having spent a a great deal of time with them.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Jan 10, 2017 18:11:06 GMT
I feel this really devalues when smaller nations genuinely qualify for tournaments. Look at Costa Rica last time. Well, think of it like this. We have qualified for Europe 3 times in our history. (definately "a smaller team" and Europe qualification seen as a mighty achievement. Now they expand the tournament so that the top 9 teams in the league qualify. For the last 3 years we would have qualified every year. Would you see that as wonderful from Stoke's point of view or devalued because it is easier to qualify? ME, I'd be all for it!
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Jan 10, 2017 18:20:35 GMT
I feel this really devalues when smaller nations genuinely qualify for tournaments. Look at Costa Rica last time. Well, think of it like this. We have qualified for Europe 3 times in our history. (definately "a smaller team" and Europe qualification seen as a mighty achievement. Now they expand the tournament so that the top 9 teams in the league qualify. For the last 3 years we would have qualified every year. Would you see that as wonderful from Stoke's point of view or devalued because it is easier to qualify? ME, I'd be all for it! I'd see it as completely devalued. You'd be playing games for games' sake against other lesser teams around Europe, then trying to nullify the big boys if you go through. Euro 2016 was a dreadful tournament in terms of entertaining football because of this, far too easy to go through, you could do it with 2 draws. It's supposed to be a higher level of competition, expanding it doesn't make it a higher level of competition, it literally lowers it.
|
|
|
Post by enuntio on Jan 10, 2017 18:30:49 GMT
Has Mr Coke ever seen a Jock of Taffy's reaction when they have been called "English" by someone from abroad?They most definitely don't like it The U.K. Is a group of countries, not counting Northern Ireland for a minute, England, Scotland and Wales have their own languages and borders which makes them 3 separate countries. How could we not have a Wales football team when we have the likes of Lichtenstein and San Marino playing international football? Another issue regarding future World Cups is why can't these 3 nations get together and stage a combined World Cup? I can think of at least 4 Scottish grounds and only 1 Welsh ground that are currently upto the standards, plenty of English grounds are readily available and the travel time between the 3 countries isn't overly long Yes - I have relatives and friends who are Scottish and I've lived in Wales 3 times in my life and fully aware of their nationalism and patriotism. I have also spent years chairing a European committee and highly conscious that many Europeans believe we are one political country, the UK (unless we split up/devolve), and as such they feel we should have only one voice/representation. To use your analogy they believe on political national issues (as opposed to cultural national issues) that Lichtenstein = San Marino = UK (the U stands for united). There are some European countries who don't want to see Scottish devolution or separate rights for (e.g.) Scotland like a football team, because they can see a precedent for separate rights in their own country, e.g. Basques in Spain and France are most often quoted but there are scores of others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe As has been correctly pointed out above, the Welsh and Scottish FAs oppose a Great Britain football team entering the Olympics as they are afraid FIFA will strip them of the right to have a national team. www.theguardian.com/football/2015/mar/31/fa-disappointed-great-britain-olympic-football-teams-rio-2016I repeat my original post, many in FIFA would like to put an end to the UK have 4 national teams entering competitions. You seem to assume this is my desire, it is not. It is my belief of what a lot of other foreign nationals desire having spent a a great deal of time with them. Countries come and go, maps redrawn, rules changed. Belgium predates the World Cup. Wales and Scotland both predate Belgium. My point being that the United Kingdom is historically and factually an amalgamation of several countries. These countries have not combined to form a larger country, in essence the U.K. Is something of a precursor to the EU. There is no logical assumption of what is and is not a country according to UEFA, indeed UEFA changed its rules on the criteria for membership after Gibraltar was admitted, which must have really miffed the Spanish. As it stands now Gibraltar is here to stay as are England, Scotland and Wales, (2 of which even have their own parliamentary elections). Internationally recognised is now what is needed to be a new member of UEFA To call a Taffy, British, or a U.K. citizen, is one thing, but to call a Taffy English is a whole different ball game. The fragmentation of countries is an ongoing issue, I'm sure there are some people who want their part of Belgium to become French or part of the Netherlands again, or how about letting them play under the EU flag, now that would allow for a larger share of World Cup places to Asian and African countries
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2017 18:42:10 GMT
Look on the bright side. It'll be a pisser when Scotland still don't qualify
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2017 18:53:25 GMT
Although I think we should continue with all the Home Nations having individual national football teams I feel we do leave the door ajar slightly for FIFA to propose an amalgamated team when we compete at the Olympics as Team GB in almost everything but football. We can't have it both ways just to suit ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Jan 10, 2017 20:31:44 GMT
It's a shit idea, countries will be able to qualify from the group with 1 draw which is going to mean no interest in attacking, 2 draws will guarantee progression.
There will be way too many shit teams in it. Fifa talk of giving more slots to Africa and Asia but those sides that do qualify currently generally aren't doing that well and they are out qualifying the additional teams fifa now want there.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jan 11, 2017 9:27:53 GMT
Yes - I have relatives and friends who are Scottish and I've lived in Wales 3 times in my life and fully aware of their nationalism and patriotism. I have also spent years chairing a European committee and highly conscious that many Europeans believe we are one political country, the UK (unless we split up/devolve), and as such they feel we should have only one voice/representation. To use your analogy they believe on political national issues (as opposed to cultural national issues) that Lichtenstein = San Marino = UK (the U stands for united). There are some European countries who don't want to see Scottish devolution or separate rights for (e.g.) Scotland like a football team, because they can see a precedent for separate rights in their own country, e.g. Basques in Spain and France are most often quoted but there are scores of others: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe As has been correctly pointed out above, the Welsh and Scottish FAs oppose a Great Britain football team entering the Olympics as they are afraid FIFA will strip them of the right to have a national team. www.theguardian.com/football/2015/mar/31/fa-disappointed-great-britain-olympic-football-teams-rio-2016I repeat my original post, many in FIFA would like to put an end to the UK have 4 national teams entering competitions. You seem to assume this is my desire, it is not. It is my belief of what a lot of other foreign nationals desire having spent a a great deal of time with them. Countries come and go, maps redrawn, rules changed. Belgium predates the World Cup. Wales and Scotland both predate Belgium. My point being that the United Kingdom is historically and factually an amalgamation of several countries. These countries have not combined to form a larger country, in essence the U.K. Is something of a precursor to the EU. There is no logical assumption of what is and is not a country according to UEFA, indeed UEFA changed its rules on the criteria for membership after Gibraltar was admitted, which must have really miffed the Spanish. As it stands now Gibraltar is here to stay as are England, Scotland and Wales, (2 of which even have their own parliamentary elections). Internationally recognised is now what is needed to be a new member of UEFA To call a Taffy, British, or a U.K. citizen, is one thing, but to call a Taffy English is a whole different ball game. The fragmentation of countries is an ongoing issue, I'm sure there are some people who want their part of Belgium to become French or part of the Netherlands again, or how about letting them play under the EU flag, now that would allow for a larger share of World Cup places to Asian and African countries I'm sure sure I follow you now, and think we are talking at cross purposes. I think you are mixing the terms country and nation. We British know we are a group of nations, we expect that each nation will have its own football team. Many foreigners, don't see it that way. They think of us as one country, as many have a mix of nations in their own countries, and some of them think we should only have one football team. I don't think there are any fast rules on what constitutes either a country of nation. I would point out that the Isle of Man has its own parliament (the oldest?) and the Cornish do not regard themselves as English. I return to my original 2 points on this subject: 1. Increasing to 48 entries will result in very low ranked countries from Asia and Africa qualifying, and higher ranked countries from Europe and South America will not. 2. I expect a lot of countries will try and stop the UK having 4 entries, if it improves their chances of qualifying. For example, Russia, China, Finland, Norway are very lowly ranked currently and may not qualify and would not be happy to see UK having, in their opinion, 4 teams qualifying. I'm saying don't be surprised if they use their political clout to try and reduce the UK to "one country" and only one team can enter. If I remember correctly, it was once proposed many years ago that the UK country teams would constitute one qualifying group. naturally Scotland objected.
|
|
|
Post by enuntio on Jan 11, 2017 9:53:06 GMT
Countries come and go, maps redrawn, rules changed. Belgium predates the World Cup. Wales and Scotland both predate Belgium. My point being that the United Kingdom is historically and factually an amalgamation of several countries. These countries have not combined to form a larger country, in essence the U.K. Is something of a precursor to the EU. There is no logical assumption of what is and is not a country according to UEFA, indeed UEFA changed its rules on the criteria for membership after Gibraltar was admitted, which must have really miffed the Spanish. As it stands now Gibraltar is here to stay as are England, Scotland and Wales, (2 of which even have their own parliamentary elections). Internationally recognised is now what is needed to be a new member of UEFA To call a Taffy, British, or a U.K. citizen, is one thing, but to call a Taffy English is a whole different ball game. The fragmentation of countries is an ongoing issue, I'm sure there are some people who want their part of Belgium to become French or part of the Netherlands again, or how about letting them play under the EU flag, now that would allow for a larger share of World Cup places to Asian and African countries I'm sure sure I follow you now, and think we are talking at cross purposes. I think you are mixing the terms country and nation. We British know we are a group of nations, we expect that each nation will have its own football team. Many foreigners, don't see it that way. They think of us as one country, as many have a mix of nations in their own countries, and some of them think we should only have one football team. I don't think there are any fast rules on what constitutes either a country of nation. I would point out that the Isle of Man has its own parliament (the oldest?) and the Cornish do not regard themselves as English. I return to my original 2 points on this subject: 1. Increasing to 48 entries will result in very low ranked countries from Asia and Africa qualifying, and higher ranked countries from Europe and South America will not. 2. I expect a lot of countries will try and stop the UK having 4 entries, if it improves their chances of qualifying. For example, Russia, China, Finland, Norway are very lowly ranked currently and may not qualify and would not be happy to see UK having, in their opinion, 4 teams qualifying. I'm saying don't be surprised if they use their political clout to try and reduce the UK to "one country" and only one team can enter. If I remember correctly, it was once proposed many years ago that the UK country teams would constitute one qualifying group. naturally Scotland objected. If they were to dissolve the Home Nations football teams then I'm thinking BrUKit will soon follow and I'm pretty sure the Jocks won't be REMOANERS on that vote.
|
|
|
Post by enuntio on Jan 11, 2017 10:20:05 GMT
It's a shit idea, countries will be able to qualify from the group with 1 draw which is going to mean no interest in attacking, 2 draws will guarantee progression. There will be way too many shit teams in it. Fifa talk of giving more slots to Africa and Asia but those sides that do qualify currently generally aren't doing that well and they are out qualifying the additional teams fifa now want there. Is Mr Basingstokie opposed to extra teams in the finals or just to the ridiculously low amount of group games? I'm guessing that more group games equals more revenue for TV and fewer group games equals more chance of upsets and as you say. More draws I'd like to know what the bigger/richer fooball associations and the TV companies think of this. I'm thinking it's going to lead to less entertaining and unexciting World Cups
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on Jan 11, 2017 11:09:17 GMT
It's a shit idea, countries will be able to qualify from the group with 1 draw which is going to mean no interest in attacking, 2 draws will guarantee progression. There will be way too many shit teams in it. Fifa talk of giving more slots to Africa and Asia but those sides that do qualify currently generally aren't doing that well and they are out qualifying the additional teams fifa now want there. Sorry to be pedantic, nut not strictly true. If all 3 teams draw both their games, 1 of them will not progress. But I support the overall point you're making. If they do this, only 1 team from each group should go through.
|
|
|
Post by kentpotter on Jan 11, 2017 11:11:02 GMT
Instead of holding the World Cup Finals ever four years, they should play a whole world knockout competition over the four years and then we only need a final (if we can be bothered to watch it!) Introduce a bit more of a cup giant killing element
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Jan 11, 2017 13:58:06 GMT
A few things to consider regardless of all the underhand motives:
Games between the so called established nations don't necessarily produce great football. Look at Argentina v Netherlands, Argentina v Germany in the last World Cup
Secondly, this will give more players from a wider pool the opportunity to play in a World Cup final. That will be wonderful news for them.
This will also widen interest in the World Cup globally. The World Cup has been unfairly dominated by European & South American teams. I think the inclusion of more African nations is long overdue and only fair. It will and the development of football in those parts of the world.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Jan 11, 2017 14:26:07 GMT
Although I think we should continue with all the Home Nations having individual national football teams I feel we do leave the door ajar slightly for FIFA to propose an amalgamated team when we compete at the Olympics as Team GB in almost everything but football. We can't have it both ways just to suit ourselves. as long as we don't compete as Team GB in football at the Olympics then what we do/don't do at the Olympics has, literally, fuck all to do with FIFA. in Athletics we have one governing body for the UK (remember, "Team GB" isn't actually for Great Britian, it's for Great Britain and N.Ireland i.e. the UK....but Team GB & NI doesn't have the same ring to it), but in football we have individual governing bodies for the individual home nations.
|
|
|
Post by Will_75 on Jan 11, 2017 15:45:04 GMT
From yesterday's fiver (Guardian):
Hugh McIlvanney, the great sportswriter once of this parish, called it right. “Of course,” he wrote, “the political and financial pressures that persuaded the organisers to raise the number of competing nations to this outrageous figure leave the World Cup desperately flawed. There has been too much dilution of the basic elements of death-or-glory drama and rough, instant justice that have always been regarded as inseparable from cup football. No amount of hard-nosed accountancy can justify the anomalies created.” The year was 1982. The outrageous figure was 24. As of Tuesday morning, we know the 2026 tournament will include 48 teams.
|
|
|
Post by basingstokie on Jan 11, 2017 18:48:04 GMT
If they want a 48 game tournament just do it as a straight knockout with no seeding at all, path to final is defined at the draw (otherwise hotels and flights would be a tfn). That would make it interesting
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Jan 11, 2017 21:16:09 GMT
If they want a 48 game tournament just do it as a straight knockout with no seeding at all, path to final is defined at the draw (otherwise hotels and flights would be a tfn). That would make it interesting Agreed, Its seeding that kills most competitions
|
|
|
Post by enuntio on Jan 12, 2017 9:57:13 GMT
If they want a 48 game tournament just do it as a straight knockout with no seeding at all, path to final is defined at the draw (otherwise hotels and flights would be a tfn). That would make it interesting Agreed, Its seeding that kills most competitions 48 would lead to an odd number in a straight knockout. Why not have 48 teams in 8 groups of 6 - the top 2 qualify having played 5 games on a normal league format of points, goal difference / goals scored. Then it's a further 4 games knockout for the eventual finalists
|
|