Stay cool Timmy
Providing more vi$ion than Fred Hollows.
He really is a cunt
And thick as a brick also, he wouldnât even know what half the crap he said even means. Was obviously scripted for him
Iâd not really engaged on the pros and cons of a 2 year world cup cycle but thanks to Timmy coming out in favor I can now easily decide itâs a bad idea.
I honestly canât see how a 2-year cycle would be feasible. Each confederation would have to dedicate probably a solid month or two of international breaks for WCQs. Throw in your confederation tournaments (Asian Cup, Euros etc) and itâs going to get even more hectic than it is now. You can probably forget international friendlies ever taking place.
The only way I can see it working would be to have your qualifications run as a complete knock out tournament instead of having multiple group stages. That would make things interesting as inevitably big nations would get knocked out, and result in some new countries qualifying for the World Cup.
The only thing a biennale world cup does, is cheapens the process. Right now, teams and players dream about going to the world cup as they know they only have a limited number of possibilities to get in before theyâre inevitably too old. Imagine the differnce between, C. Ronaldo in his 5th world cup, vs C. Ronaldo in his 10th World Cup, doesnât have the same ring.
Throw in double the amount of years spent in qualifiers, double the amount of years spent in training camps etc with no breaks, on top of each of the regional competitions as well. The top players in the world are going to start dropping like flies
This smacks of the European Super League stuff, doesnât it?
Apparently FIFA make over 90% of their revenue from the menâs WC.
Given the approval or otherwise for it will be through the FIFA General Assembly, itâs hard to see anything but a resounding endorsement of this move. I mean what small nation wouldnât vote or it, and the extra development revenue, extra chance of qualifying etc.
Some of the changes proposed are good though. Fewer but longer international breaks makes lots of sense to me, because itâs the switching modes from club to international that I really hate. Also teams can work together for a solid 3-4 week block.
FIFA will not want any qualifying format that has the potential to have the big nations knocked out. They want them at every world cup.
I fucking hate international breaks.
I donât give a shit about 99% of international games and just get bored on the weekends waiting for club football.
I prefer club, and I certainly find the start of each international break hugely jarring. I can get into it though.
I also prefer Euros to WC, I just think itâs usually a better competition with better games.
Problem is that theyâll earn less money each tournament. Canât see the major companies wanting to shell out that sort of money as often
The only way it would work is if the ânew World Cupâ is for the lower tier nations, like the shield comp in Rugby 7âs. All the teams that miss out on qualification by 1 or 2 spots depending on their confederations qualifying format.
6th - 9th Conmebol (4)
3rd, 4th & 5th in both AFC groups (6)
10 CAF 2nd placed nations. (10)
2nd & 3rd placed Oceania (2)
10 3rd placed Euro teams (10)
That leaves a 32 team comp.
Still doesnât leave space for Euros, Copa America etc. though.
What do the mob at FIFA care?
I can see clubs being absolutely thrilled at the prospect of biennial World Cups.
I can stop caring. Thats an advantage
Only way it can work, having it the year after the world cup
The two biggest global sporting events (or events in general) are the summer Olympics and the WC.
Both being held every 4 years, offset by 2 years (pandemic notwithstanding) puts them at an equal level of importance in many peoples view.
Scarcity increases the perceived value.
Moving to a 2 year cadence implicitly signals that the WC is somehow less important or prestigious than the Olympics.
Itâs a no from me.