Football (World Cup 26)

[thetime]

2 hours ago, charlierc said:

Gianni Infantino hints at expansion to 64-team World Cup before 2030 event | World Cup | The Guardian

 

He's lost confidence in the 48 team idea already huh.

 

64 team world cup been mooted for a while, 100 year anniversary and all that. 

[steviewevie]

[pink_triangle]

44 minutes ago, thetime said:

 

64 team world cup been mooted for a while, 100 year anniversary and all that. 

It’s neater than 48. The situation where Scotland didn’t know they needed a draw in their last game is unfair.

[charlierc]

9 hours ago, thetime said:

 

64 team world cup been mooted for a while, 100 year anniversary and all that. 

I'm aware that's the next logical step with expansion and that it would be cleaner as we wouldn't be pissing about with best third place teams. But there comes a point where this is all too much right? It's like going from treating yourself to a slice of cake to eating a whole one in one go. 

[lost]

FIFA wrestled control of the game from England using the excuse we didn't develop it well enough outside of Europe and they'll continue to use that accusation when the older countries complain about any rule changes that are made to bring more countries in e.g. expansion of the numbers , drinks breaks etc.

 

I think its clear its not motivated by altruism rather the bigger the pool the money is generated (with some skimmed off for themselves) but they always seem to have that deflection tactic when anything is questioned.

 

Just look what happened when England bid for the world cup in 2018 and the press found potential evidence of bribery from Russia. It was quickly shut down with the usual accusations about England.

[Ben7amin_]

 

10 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

It’s neater than 48. The situation where Scotland didn’t know they needed a draw in their last game is unfair.

 

Strong Agree 

64 works better as a tournament than 48 -  Not a fan of 3 teams getting out of a group at all 

 

 

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, charlierc said:

I'm aware that's the next logical step with expansion and that it would be cleaner as we wouldn't be pissing about with best third place teams. But there comes a point where this is all too much right? It's like going from treating yourself to a slice of cake to eating a whole one in one go. 

I guess the argument is it’s easy to use the that argument when you support a team who qualifies every time whatever the system. Most of the people in the world are not that fortunate and to many seeing their nation in the World Cup would be a dream come true.

 

I feel in the group stage nobody is forcing anyone to watch every game, so be selective if you think it’s too much.

[Skip997]

The whole thing is a load of old shite.

 

Not long until proper football resumes 

[xxialac]

It's crazy that India and China account for 1 in 3 people on the planet, yet they cannot qualify for the World Cup whilst countries like Cabo Verde with a population smaller than Sheffield can.

[steviewevie]

18 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

The whole thing is a load of old shite.

 

Not long until proper football resumes 

petrodollar footy

[fred quimby]

59 minutes ago, Skip997 said:

The whole thing is a load of old shite.

 

Not long until proper football resumes 

You're starting walking football then 😁

[charlierc]

1 hour ago, Skip997 said:

The whole thing is a load of old shite.

 

Not long until proper football resumes 

Honestly for all of FIFA's many many many faults, I've enjoyed this more than the last Premier League season. 

[charlierc]

1 hour ago, xxialac said:

It's crazy that India and China account for 1 in 3 people on the planet, yet they cannot qualify for the World Cup whilst countries like Cabo Verde with a population smaller than Sheffield can.

Tbf China seems to have given up on football after that brief flurry in the 2010s and India never really got started after they opted not to bother with the 1950 tournament. Both just seem to care more about other sports and that's fine but I'm sure that both could rustle up half decent 11s out of such substantial populations if their way of nurturing of said players was something other than truly bad. 

[pink_triangle]

30 minutes ago, charlierc said:

Tbf China seems to have given up on football after that brief flurry in the 2010s and India never really got started after they opted not to bother with the 1950 tournament. Both just seem to care more about other sports and that's fine but I'm sure that both could rustle up half decent 11s out of such substantial populations if their way of nurturing of said players was something other than truly bad. 

You look at the countries who have won world cups and they generally have decent (barring Uruguay) populations, investment and history. I also guess it’s a case of prioritisation. In USA the best athletes are sent to other countries sports the country prioritises more, suspect same in India and China.

[Skip997]

1 hour ago, fred quimby said:

You're starting walking football then 😁

Not a bad idea to be fair. I used to play in goal, so not much running anyway 

[xxialac]

21 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

You look at the countries who have won world cups and they generally have decent (barring Uruguay) populations, investment and history. I also guess it’s a case of prioritisation. In USA the best athletes are sent to other countries sports the country prioritises more, suspect same in India and China.

France has the 23rd highest population in the world.

And England, Spain and Argentina are in the 30s!

 

All are miles behind the truly populous countries.

 

It's kind of bizarre how there isn't as much correlation as you'd expect - it is the world's most popular sport after all.

[pink_triangle]

29 minutes ago, xxialac said:

France has the 23rd highest population in the world.

And England, Spain and Argentina are in the 30s!

 

All are miles behind the truly populous countries.

 

It's kind of bizarre how there isn't as much correlation as you'd expect - it is the world's most popular sport after all.

I said population with investment and history. I would say there is significant correlation within continents. The populations of the European countries who have won the would cup are 3rd, 4th , 5th and 6th and 7th in the population chart. In South America it is 1st, 3rd and (the outlier) 10th.

 

That suggests to me within at least Europe and South America population is the main factor.

[charlierc]

12 hours ago, lost said:

Just look what happened when England bid for the world cup in 2018 and the press found potential evidence of bribery from Russia. It was quickly shut down with the usual accusations about England.

Tbf that joint 2018/22 World Cup bidding process was a shitshow and ended up with the resignation of everyone involved at FIFA's boardroom level. So it wasn't totally wide of the mark to say that there was a suspicion of foul play.

 

But then equally one could make the case England tried to play the game and were bad at it, as happened with the failed bid in the 90s to be 2006 WC hosts. Though that was a different case given that was England giving Germany a quid pro quo deal regarding the hosting of Euro '96 and the WC '06, then going back on it and trying to host both anyway.

Edited July 13 by charlierc

[charlierc]

4 hours ago, xxialac said:

France has the 23rd highest population in the world.

And England, Spain and Argentina are in the 30s!

 

All are miles behind the truly populous countries.

 

It's kind of bizarre how there isn't as much correlation as you'd expect - it is the world's most popular sport after all.

 

4 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I said population with investment and history. I would say there is significant correlation within continents. The populations of the European countries who have won the would cup are 3rd, 4th , 5th and 6th and 7th in the population chart. In South America it is 1st, 3rd and (the outlier) 10th.

 

That suggests to me within at least Europe and South America population is the main factor.

Exactly - it reflects level of investment proportionate to interest in these assorted countries. Football is f**king huge in the UK as a sport, so it makes sense it gets a lot of attention and money, and with it, money to create an academy system that allows the footballers of the future to just keep on coming. Same with France, Germany, Spain, Italy (once upon a time), etc.

 

As said, China seemed to be flirting with the idea of trying to get in on it during the 2010s when you had the Chinese Super League boom and Chinese billionaires buying European clubs, along with Xi saying he wanted China to be World Cup winners by the 2050s, only for that to be put into reverse almost as soon as it started. I think India is a different case - some would cite the huge popularity of cricket, which is obviously a factor, but from anecdotal evidence, there does seem to be more interest in football in India than it's given credit for. It just seems held back by a poorly managed FA to the point where they now regularly lose games to places like Singapore, which has a fraction of a fraction of India's population.

[kaosmark2]

On 09/07/2026 at 08:51, thetime said:

 

People forget utd only won 3 trophies in 22 years. When utd won there first title in 26 years, that feeling has not been matched since. 

Yeah, it's before my time so it's not as socially embedded.

 

On 09/07/2026 at 12:01, thetime said:

I would hazard a guess, not many on here born/live by the team they support. 

 

If your parent supports them thats fair enough.

 

I started supporting utd around 81/82, but did not live in manc. My dad never liked football, all my family supported Rangers through my mom's side (Glasgow based). 

 

So on that basis I am a glory hunter, although its not something that bothers me. Usually shuts people up with my encyclopedia knowledge of utd. 

 

My first major footballing memory is of the absolute buzz around the city the day Shearer signed for Newcastle. I think I was 7. We moved to Oxford a couple of years later and then almost every kid around me was a Man U fan plus a handful of Liverpool fans. A couple of them were kids of parents who'd moved from Manchester, but the Man U + Liverpool dominance was insane. The worst was that I knew a West Ham fan, who in 2003 switched to Chelsea (I wonder why). 

 

I still don't know any Man U fans from Manchester (some where their parents were from there and it's the family team), or Liverpool fans from Liverpool, or Chelsea fans from east London. Everyone I know from each of them is City/Everton/Fulham. I just kind of assume that Man U/Liverpool/Chelsea fans are glory hunters until I'm told otherwise.

 

Weirdly less the case with Arsenal, although that's probably partially generational. The Arsenal fans I know that aren't from North London are all from abroad, but where their fav player from their country as a kid had signed for Arsenal. I can't really begrudge that as a reason. Arsenal supporters on the internet are absolutely insufferable, with only Liverpool coming close, but that's only really online. 

[steviewevie]

Jeez man...all these sniffy/snotty cliches and generalisations.

There are loads of Man U fans in Manchester, there just also happen to be sh*t loads of them all over the place. Maybe there are more City fans in the city of Manchester, but across Gtr Manc Man U definitely dominate.

[Ben7amin_]

8 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Jeez man...all these sniffy/snotty cliches and generalisations.

There are loads of Man U fans in Manchester, there just also happen to be sh*t loads of them all over the place. Maybe there are more City fans in the city of Manchester, but across Gtr Manc Man U definitely dominate.

 

When I first moved to Manchester -  a Man City fan told me that Manchester was all Blue - and no Utd fans live here..

 

If i was to take a guess after a decade living here -  Id say Manchester is about 95% Red - and i am CIty Center 

Edited July 14 by Ben7amin_

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Ben7amin_ said:

 

When I first moved to Manchester -  a Man City fan told me that Manchester was all Blue - and no Utd fans live here..

 

If i was to take a guess after a decade living here -  Id say Manchester is about 95% Red - 

you're in Salford too, right?

Very red.

[kaosmark2]

3 minutes ago, Ben7amin_ said:

When I first moved to Manchester -  a Man City fan told me that Manchester was all Blue - and no Utd fans live here..

 

If i was to take a guess after a decade living here -  Id say Manchester is about 95% Red - and i am CIty Center 

I mean, there clearly are plenty of Man U fans there, but personal experience shapes your beliefs.

 

Also, if I said the sky is blue, stevie would subtweet me about it.

[Ben7amin_]

Just now, steviewevie said:

you're in Salford too, right?

Very red.

 

Yes in the quays Near borh Old Trafford and the City Center  -  We do have the stadium - but ive lived in South Manchester aswell - suposedly a city stronghold - and that was much more Utd aswell