| all_in_six_weeks_sean_burke_april_2021.pdf |
All In, Six Weeks, No Second Chances: The Future of the FIFA World Cup
Sean David Burke, April 2021
Sean David Burke, April 2021
|
THE FIFA WORLD CUP NEEDS TO BECOME A TRULY INCLUSIVE PEAK WORLDWIDE EVENT, WITH EVERY COUNTRY INVITED TO A WHOLLY KNOCKOUT COMPETITION PLAYED OVER SIX WEEKS EVERY FOUR YEARS IN A HOST COUNTRY |
|
International Football is the most popular sport in the world. The peak competition in International Football is the World Cup, run since 1930 by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”), with the finals hosted every four years in a country or countries chosen by the association.
Presently, the competition is arranged so that only 32 of the 210 countries registered with FIFA will attend the finals in Qatar in 2022. This number will increase to 48 for the North American-hosted finals in 2026.
The current system involves three years of qualifying matches, then the top teams in each of the six regional confederations go to the host country for the finals where they play in a qualifying stage in seeded groups before a knockout stage to decide the champion.
It is time for FIFA to reorganise the World Cup Finals so that it becomes a truly inclusive and worldwide peak competition, with every country invited to field a team in a wholly knockout competition played out over six weeks in the host country.
The case for change can be made on many grounds, including;
This article makes the case for change and suggests a way to move gradually to the inclusive system over the course of the next five finals competitions.
World Cup History
The history of the World Cup itself shows that the competition has been expanding steadily and gradually since its inception. In 1930, only 13 nations competed in Uruguay for the first trophy. The graph shows the increase in participation at the hosted finals over time.
Reasons for the gradual change include the growth of the game internationally, increases in wealth, increased accessibility of air travel, globalisation, and growing demands for inclusion from the football community over time. The expansion itself is evidence to suggest that further expansion will continue to occur (Findlay 2016; Madu 2017).
Each expansion has allowed more new teams to qualify and to have the valuable experience of the tournament (Madu 2017). Madu suggests that the expansion to the number 48, with its inherent problems, will bring about a further expansion to 64, which is a more ‘divine formula’ (Madu 2017).
The Women’s World Cup has expanded even more quickly, from 12 teams in the first tournament in 1991, to 24 at France 2019, and 32 teams at Australia/ New Zealand in 2023.
FIFA have recently made bullish statements about future growth. In the current vision document, FIFA president Gianni Infantino says, “Our key mission is to truly globalise, popularise and democratise football for the benefit of the entire world,” (FIFA 2020). Infantino put a figure on that, too, saying “one day, we will have at least 50 national teams and 50 clubs from all continents at a top competitive level,” (FIFA 2020).
The 2026 finals will have 48 teams. This will see a qualifying stage to reduce the number to 32, and then knockout, so already in 2026 there will be an expansion not just of the total number of teams, but also of the knockout stage, which stage will have only 16 teams at Qatar 2022. Opinions on the expansion are divided (Stevens 2017).
In the end, the form of a tournament needs to match the goal of the tournament. If the World Cup is simply for the demonstration of the very best football, then a smaller competition might be better. Arguably, however, the standard would never be able to match the best club clashes in Europe. If, alternatively, the aim of the World Cup is to celebrate the game at the international level, then including every team makes sense.
The Success of Knockout Tournaments in Other Regions and Sports
Wholly knockout tournaments are widespread in sports. Examples include the English Football Association Cup (football) since 1871, the Coppa Italia (football) since 1922, the Copa Del Rey (football) since 1903 and Wimbledon (tennis) since 1877. These are well-known, popular and successful competitions, each of which is older than the World Cup.
With more on the line in every match from the outset, the cup itself will be harder to win. Slow starters will be penalised. Schelles suggests that “a knockout tournament generates more competitive balance, most likely because every single game is decisive”(Schelles 2017). The champion will truly be undefeated, unlike say, winners Spain in 2010, who dropped a match in the qualifying round against Switzerland.
A wholly knockout competition for the World Cup would involve accommodating more players than presently, and would be a greater logistical exercise for the host country. Assuming each squad has 23 players, which is the current FIFA standard, an all-in competition with all 210 registered nations would see 4830 players attending. As for the 2026 changes, the proposal would “present new logistical challenges for potential host nations, which will have to accommodate training sites and housing for 16 additional squads and their fans” (Keh 2017). At first glance, this might seem a difficult task, but new systems are already being developed for Qatar 2022 (AS English 2020), and the Olympics provide an existing example of such an exercise, with over 11,000 athletes attending the Rio 2016 Summer Games. Even the Winter Games hosts almost 3000 athletes.
The all-in World Cup will be logistically easier than the summer olympics, as it has fewer athletes to organise, and involves a single sport. Additionally, the tournament will be spread over six weeks, not crammed into three like the olympics, and the scope of the initial logistical exercise halves with each knockout stage.
Part of the reason for the success of the 2026 bid by USA, Canada and Mexico was that the bid partners were able to point to a surplus of already existing stadia and training facilities to accommodate the increased number of teams, as well as sufficient infrastructure (Long 2018). Not every country in the world will have the capacity to host the all-in tournament, but any country that has hosted an Olympics, or even a winter Olympics, must be assumed to be capable, and, with continued development in infrastructure, logistics and technology, there will be many more.
Economic Savings
There are great savings to be made from a wholly-knockout competition. Such a competition would require only 210 matches over six weeks. The Qatar World Cup, in contrast, will use a total of 936 matches over about three years, composed of 872 Confederation qualifiers, 48 qualifying stage games and 16 knockout stage games. That large number of Confederation qualifiers involves mainly home and away legs, where one team travels to another country for the match, almost invariably by air.
International fixtures cost money. Lots of money. Some of the costs include:
The real savings are to be made in the total expenses of the national federations and FIFA itself over each four year period. Since FIFA is a non-profit organisation, this means that more money can be given by FIFA to support the many national teams that do not have deep pockets.
Taking the number of matches as a guide, those savings to be expected are in the order of (936-210)/936, being 77%, or even more, given that a more compact, six week event will lead to savings across the board.
To the savings, can be added profits. The World Cup is arguably the most marketable event in the global sporting calendar (Sportspro 2020). The television rights to a 210 game tournament across 210 invested nations will bring about increases in revenue for the finals themselves (Keh 2017), and the increased number of fans attending will also swell ticket sales, already over 3 million for each tournament since 2006 (FIFA 2018), and have a positive impact on tourism revenues (Access 2010).
Removing conflict between club and international fixtures
Clubs dislike releasing top players for international fixtures. It is disruptive to the club’s planning and disadvantages the club in its league. The players often have to travel great distances and are not necessarily match fit immediately upon return. Chances of injury may be heightened. FIFA generally requires that clubs and national associations release players for important national games. In this respect, money also talks. Players do not generally earn their main income from representing their countries, but rather from their clubs. National teams want their best players available, of course, and indeed want them to attend prematch training camps and so forth, in order to have them meld well with the team.
Disruptions to both league and FIFA qualifying schedules during Covid-19 have exacerbated this issue (Vickery 2020; Harwood 2020). Some clubs have refused to release players for international matches due to these concerns (Carlisle 2020).
A six week World Cup removes this conflict for the three-year leadup of the World Cup, while it may remain for other events, such as each regional Confederation Cup. The dates for the World Cup are known at least three years ahead, and often six or more years ahead. National leagues can arrange themselves so that there is no overlap in those years and players have time to engage in national training camps prior to the event. Clubs will love it.
Health Benefits for Players
The air travel necessitated by a large number of international fixtures carries an extra health burden for players. Air travel is known to have an array of negative health effects (DeHart 2003) and the more air travel, the greater the chance that these effects are compounded.
Less travel for players will lead to better health outcomes. This is especially true in a covid world, where risks are increased with travel. In the proposed model, each player would need to take single return flight to the host country for the finals. In the current system, players take varying numbers of flights depending on their Confederation in the qualification leadup, and then the qualified countries’ players also fly to the host for the finals. For example, the South American playoffs have the lowest number of matches, with a total of 90. Each player needs to travel 9 times, not including the extra travel from and back to Europe for the players based there (which also involves changing season twice in a short period). The disruption of this extra travel to players can largely be avoided.
These considerations also apply to coaches and support staff travelling with the team, as well as others, such as the match officials and media.
The issue of crowded fixtures and their effects on player wellbeing has been raised by team managers. Liverpool boss Klopp said, “…these guys have two weeks off a year. In a physically demanding job…” (Myznikova 2020). Proposals that will reduce that congestion, reduce stress and help improve player health should be considered.
Environmental Benefits
The great reductions in travel will have enormous environmental benefits. If a squad plus essential support staff totals, say, forty, and one squad has to travel for every international fixture, then the current system uses 30,000 more return international flights than the system proposed, and that is only counting the squad, not family, officials, fans or media. Carbon Independent.org (2019) estimates the carbon emitted for a short range international flight is about a quarter ton per passenger hour. Assuming 2 hour average flight times within regions, then each return flight sees 1 ton added to the atmosphere in the current system, so an extra 30,000 tons of CO2 in total. That’s just the flights.
The proposed all-in tournament might be seen as a way for FIFA and the international soccer community to do their bit for the environment. Climate change has the capacity to disrupt football fixtures to a much greater extent than Covid-19 has (NASA 2020). It is in the interests of the game to be part of the solution.
Greater Covid-Resilience
Sport, and particularly international sport provides a medium for the transmission of coronavirus. At the time of writing, FIFA president Infantino is self-isolating with a positive diagnosis (Wright 2020). During 2020, most qualifying matches had to be postponed (Vickery 2020; Harwood 2020; Rugari 2020). Because the finals are still more than two years away, this was possible. It nevertheless caused disruption and there is no way of telling how many more delays will occur between now and November 2022. Matches are beginning to bunch up in the calendar, and this will have an impact on league fixtures. Further, clubs are concerned about allowing their players to travel for qualifying matches, especially in regions where the virus is widespread. FIFA have agreed with the clubs’ perspective (ESPN 2020). Quarantine periods at either end of travel further disrupt player lives and club planning.
Clubs and Confederations have had the extra expense of chartering flights in order to lessen the covid risks to players and meet international restrictions on cross-border travel (Vickery 2020). The negative effects of the covid crisis on the sport in every country mean that there is less money to allocate to these expenses (Gill 2020) . Cloth will need to be cut.
A six week tournament, rather than one which plays out over years, is more likely to occur without delays. If the tournament itself needs to be postponed, then only a six week window will be needed.
An example of a sport bowing to Covid necessities is the Irish Hurling Championships (Liddy 2020). Liddy states, “fixture contingency plans due to the Covid-19 pandemic has effectively confirmed that a straight knockout championship format looks the most likely option.”
The Tokyo Olympics reschedule is also instructive. The 2020 games has been delayed until a two and a half week window starting from 23 July 2021. A tournament of a short, definite length can have a window of time found for it.
The Best Players Will All Be There
Surely the best players should all be present at a World Cup? Football, however, is a team sport. If the team fails to qualify, then nomatter how great the star, he will stay home and perhaps end up watching the games on television.
This has occurred on many occasions. In 2006, one of the greatest players in the world was the Uruguayan, Recoba. Uruguay failed to qualify, losing out to Australia. Other famous players who never played in a world cup include George Best (Northern Ireland), Eric Cantona (France) and Alfredo Di Stefano (Argentina, Spain, Colombia).
Any tournament is likely to be better, and more interesting, if the greatest players are all present. It is more just for the player, too. It will be better for the fans of those players, and each of the great players has millions of fans. Both Christiano Ronaldo (Portugal) and Lionel Messi (Argentina) have over 200 million social media followers (Smythe 2020). If either of those countries failed to qualify, interest in the tournament would lessen as a result.
Moreover, the world cup affords an international spotlight for outstanding young players at the start of their careers. Weaker teams may lose, yet field an outstanding individual who makes a difference for his country and is noticed. The world cup provides the greatest forum for talent to shine in, so it should be open enough to ensure that great new talent is not missed. As HITC Sevens (2020) saliently notes, in 1958:
“…at the age of seventeen, Pele arrived at that tournament unknown to the rest of the world and departed as the finest footballer on the face of the earth…”
More Cupsets, More Interest
“…more romance, more drama and more excitement...” (Findlay 2016)
A cupset is an upset outcome in a knockout tournament, where a much less favoured team overcomes a more feted rival (Robbins 2008). Apart from being interesting on the day, and memorable afterwards, cupsets make both the sport and the tournament more compelling for fans over time. As Brains4Breakfast (2018) suggests, “anyone can win on the day, which makes knockout play more exciting”.
The last thing a world cup should be is boring. One of the problems with the qualification stage of the cup is that sometimes a team is already in a position where they do not need to win in order to progress. This writer was present at Holland v Ireland in Palermo at Italy 1990. In the other group match, the English had defeated the Egyptians, and that information was relayed to Palermo, where the score was 1-1. The two teams then basically stopped playing for the last ten minutes, indulging in a game of kick to kick, as they were both assured of progression with a draw. Egypt may have felt aggrieved, and that sort of lame approach should never be part of a World Cup. Similar instances are recorded by Guyon (2020), such as West Germany v Austria in 1982. Unfortunately, it remains a possibility in 2026, when proposed groups of three in the qualifying stage will sometimes allow the two teams playing last to agree an outcome (Monkovic 2018). In a straight knockout competition, the problem will not occur.
Guyon notes that FIFA has considered banning draws in qualifying matches in order to deter collusion (Guyon 2020), but if it isn’t possible to draw a qualifying match, then why have them at all?
The English FA cup, which is a pure knockout competition open to both league and non-league clubs in England, provides many wonderful examples of cupsets, with non-league clubs sometime knocking out first/premier division clubs. Hereford v Newcastle in 1972 is a classic example. The most important thing about these matches, however, is the way in which they engender support for the game, as every local club can draw inspiration from the stories of the others.
These giant-killer stories happen in the world game, too; such as North Korea’s defeat of Italy in 1966, Senegal’s defeat of reigning champions France in 2002 and Iceland’s surprise against England at Euro 2016. Croatia’s second place in 2018 is another great example, as that nation was ranked 20th before the competition and were the smallest nation since 1930 to play in a final. On other occasions, the giant killer story will be one where a tiny nation defeats a massive one, such as Costa Rica’s 2-0 defeat of China in 2002. Farrell urges the same change for the UEFA champions’ league, stating that “fairness, quality and excitement would all improve” (Farrell 2010). The World Cup will be made more interesting through a knockout only system that encourages these cupsets.
Removing friction between regional confederations
The number of places at the finals allocated to each confederation is a matter which is debated among the stakeholders. Generally, the stronger the confederation is in the sport, the more places they have. This has led to a situation where the more established regions of Europe and South America dominate, especially Europe, where the most money is invested in the sport and the highest salaries are payed.
In relation to the 2026 cup, with the expansion to 48 teams, as Keh suggests “the charged question of how to allocate the 48 slots among the sport’s six continental confederations has yet to be determined, but it is certain to be the subject of fraught discussion, intense negotiation and high-stakes political calculus” (Keh 2017). This friction, and the resolution of competing claims, takes a great deal of energy, time, attention and, indeed, money. Imagine a World Cup where all of those resources are instead directed toward the positive development of the game at home and abroad.
FIFA has already discarded consideration of the relative strength of the confederations from the calculation of the team rankings (FIFA 2020). Questions of fairness between regions remain (Csato 2020). The proposed changes would remove the question of home region from the cup entirely.
More popular, more inclusive, more democratic
Including every country in the tournament, regardless of size and prowess, will be popular with national teams that never manage to qualify, and with their billions of supporters. Not millions, billions. It is salient to note that India has never qualified and China appeared only in 2002. Many other large countries often miss out, such as Indonesia. It is difficult to claim the World Cup Finals is truly a ‘world’ event if more than half of the world’s population is forced to support another team.
The other aspect to inclusion is that having every country there means that every strong team is present, too. Every world cup buildup sees teams that are generally strong but which have a slump, and fail to qualify. France, for example, champions in 1998, did not qualify in 1994. Italy, four time winners, did not qualify for 2018. When a soccer power does not qualify, interest in the world cup in that country evaporates prior to the finals. An all-in tournament avoids this. In a rough poll on Facebook in late 2020, members of the open group WORLD CUP QATAR 2022: News and Results were mainly in favour of the changes proposed in this paper (Facebook 2020). A screenshot of the poll is included here. While the results cannot be said to be representative, it is interesting to note where the participants live. Of the votes in favour of the change, more than 90% live in countries that have never qualified for the tournament.
FIFA is based in Europe, the home of the game, and it is likely that FIFA’s attitudes have historically been Euro-centric. 12 of the 21 cups have been won by European teams, only 3 teams outside of Europe have ever won, and Europe has 13 of the 32 places at Qatar 2022 (FIFA 2020). In the leadup to the FIFA decision to expand the competition for 2026, the European Club Association, in opposition to the proposed expansion, stated that the current 32-team format was “the perfect formula from all perspectives” (Keh 2017). Players and fans outside of Europe may beg to differ.
Choudhury suggests that “the recent decision to expand to 48 teams in 2026 is a continuation of Fifa’s policy of championing the sport beyond its traditional strongholds of Europe and South America” (Choudhury 2018). Keh concurs, noting that, “smaller soccer nations, particularly those in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean that often feel underrepresented at the World Cup” (Keh 2017). Smaller and less developed nations have historically had to agitate for greater representation, against the opposition of entrenched European interests and worldviews (Anaman 2020).
This ni-Vanuatu fan’s reaction to the 48 team expansion is instructive: “ ‘A 64-team tournament would have been better. Eight leagues of eight and a straight knock-out from the group stage, with the top four teams in each group going through. I don’t ever imagine seeing us in a World Cup though, no matter how many expansions Fifa plan in the future.’ Wally, Vanuatu” (Stevens 2017).
Other reactions to the expansion indicate that a lack of access to the world’s peak tournament may have a tendency to stunt development of the game in the countries that miss out (Stevens 2017).
Experience counts. The more times a country has the experience of competing at the peak tournament, the more likely that country is to do well, or better, in it. The current system, which in practice bars most teams in the world from ever gaining that peak tournament experience, mitigates against the development of the game in those countries. As Brain4Breakfast (2018) suggests, “experience is correlated with success”.
The other thing that is correlated with success is money. Teams with more expensive players do better (Burke 2018). Larger and wealthier countries are more likely to qualify (Madu 2017). Very recently, on 16 November 2020, the Gabon team players and staff had to stay overnight in the hall of the airport in Gabon as they were not picked up as expected (Facebook 2020). This sort of problem, detrimental for both team morale, health and performance, cannot occur for teams with good financial reserves, and should not happen in World Cup qualifiers if FIFA sees their role as encompassing every country in the game.
In an open invitiation knockout tournament, the wealth and size advantages are minimised. At the 2018 finals, each team present received a minimum of US$9.5 million (FIFA 2017, in Csato 2020). That’s money for the game in countries that are already well-developed in the game, and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. The World Game requires a more global outlook.
A Truly Global Festival for the World Game
“Football is more than just Europe and South America. Football is global.”
(Infantino, in Keh 2017)
Football fans may find the World Cup Final more compelling than the Olympics, but there is something to be said for the latter, in that it is currently much more of a whole world event, party and festival. This is because every country on Earth sends athletes. Sometimes there are just a handful representing a small nation, but they hold their flag proudly nonetheless, and engender the support of their fans, families and supporters. The new World Cup Tournament would become more like the Olympics, an event that is held only across a few months every four years and which therefore becomes the sole focus of the game at that time.
International Football, which is the most popular international sport (Shvili 2020), deserves to have such a festival, and the way in which to create that is simply to invite everyone to attend. FIFA president Infantino himself accentuated the fact that the 2026 expansion will see more teams “go to the party” (Saab 2016). The World Cup Festival will allow for greater connections to develop between players, officials and supporters from all over the world. These greater connections will have ramifications for many areas of life, and also for the development of the game itself. At present, too many countries, and their people, are missing out.
Players will get to represent their country on the world’s biggest stage, even if they come from the world’s smallest island nation. Fans will get to see their own team on that stage, even if they have to follow a different team after the first match. There will be cupsets along the way, perhaps some that set the world on fire. Attendees will know they are there, in the host country, alongside players and fans from every nation on earth, not a mere selection.
What would the All-in Knockout Tournament Schedule Look Like?
A mock schedule for the tournament proposed is included below. It includes all 210 of the FIFA registered federations, and uses the FIFA rankings (FIFA 2020). The preliminary round will see the top 45 teams having a bye, so that the numbers can be brought down to 128, allowing the formal knockout process to continue. This also allows for the true minnows to be eliminated early on, and for any robust minnow to cause an upset and earn their first round berth against sturdier opposition.
Presently, the competition is arranged so that only 32 of the 210 countries registered with FIFA will attend the finals in Qatar in 2022. This number will increase to 48 for the North American-hosted finals in 2026.
The current system involves three years of qualifying matches, then the top teams in each of the six regional confederations go to the host country for the finals where they play in a qualifying stage in seeded groups before a knockout stage to decide the champion.
It is time for FIFA to reorganise the World Cup Finals so that it becomes a truly inclusive and worldwide peak competition, with every country invited to field a team in a wholly knockout competition played out over six weeks in the host country.
The case for change can be made on many grounds, including;
- the historical development of the competition.
- purely knockout tournaments are common and effective in football and in many other sports.
- significant economic savings to FIFA and to national teams and governments.
- greatly reducing conflict between club (national league) and international fixtures.
- less air and other travel, with health benefits and fewer environmental impacts.
- avoiding the current conflict over the levels of representation of the six regional confederations.
- creating a competition that is likely to be more resilient in the face of Covid-style disruptions.
- providing more quality players a forum to shine in, and allowing more young talent to be recognised.
- a knockout system will engender more upsets, which will make the competition more interesting.
- it will be very popular, especially in developing nations where football is widespread and is a significant part of culture, many of which do not currently qualify for the finals.
- it will create a truly global, whole world festival.
This article makes the case for change and suggests a way to move gradually to the inclusive system over the course of the next five finals competitions.
World Cup History
The history of the World Cup itself shows that the competition has been expanding steadily and gradually since its inception. In 1930, only 13 nations competed in Uruguay for the first trophy. The graph shows the increase in participation at the hosted finals over time.
Reasons for the gradual change include the growth of the game internationally, increases in wealth, increased accessibility of air travel, globalisation, and growing demands for inclusion from the football community over time. The expansion itself is evidence to suggest that further expansion will continue to occur (Findlay 2016; Madu 2017).
Each expansion has allowed more new teams to qualify and to have the valuable experience of the tournament (Madu 2017). Madu suggests that the expansion to the number 48, with its inherent problems, will bring about a further expansion to 64, which is a more ‘divine formula’ (Madu 2017).
The Women’s World Cup has expanded even more quickly, from 12 teams in the first tournament in 1991, to 24 at France 2019, and 32 teams at Australia/ New Zealand in 2023.
FIFA have recently made bullish statements about future growth. In the current vision document, FIFA president Gianni Infantino says, “Our key mission is to truly globalise, popularise and democratise football for the benefit of the entire world,” (FIFA 2020). Infantino put a figure on that, too, saying “one day, we will have at least 50 national teams and 50 clubs from all continents at a top competitive level,” (FIFA 2020).
The 2026 finals will have 48 teams. This will see a qualifying stage to reduce the number to 32, and then knockout, so already in 2026 there will be an expansion not just of the total number of teams, but also of the knockout stage, which stage will have only 16 teams at Qatar 2022. Opinions on the expansion are divided (Stevens 2017).
In the end, the form of a tournament needs to match the goal of the tournament. If the World Cup is simply for the demonstration of the very best football, then a smaller competition might be better. Arguably, however, the standard would never be able to match the best club clashes in Europe. If, alternatively, the aim of the World Cup is to celebrate the game at the international level, then including every team makes sense.
The Success of Knockout Tournaments in Other Regions and Sports
Wholly knockout tournaments are widespread in sports. Examples include the English Football Association Cup (football) since 1871, the Coppa Italia (football) since 1922, the Copa Del Rey (football) since 1903 and Wimbledon (tennis) since 1877. These are well-known, popular and successful competitions, each of which is older than the World Cup.
With more on the line in every match from the outset, the cup itself will be harder to win. Slow starters will be penalised. Schelles suggests that “a knockout tournament generates more competitive balance, most likely because every single game is decisive”(Schelles 2017). The champion will truly be undefeated, unlike say, winners Spain in 2010, who dropped a match in the qualifying round against Switzerland.
A wholly knockout competition for the World Cup would involve accommodating more players than presently, and would be a greater logistical exercise for the host country. Assuming each squad has 23 players, which is the current FIFA standard, an all-in competition with all 210 registered nations would see 4830 players attending. As for the 2026 changes, the proposal would “present new logistical challenges for potential host nations, which will have to accommodate training sites and housing for 16 additional squads and their fans” (Keh 2017). At first glance, this might seem a difficult task, but new systems are already being developed for Qatar 2022 (AS English 2020), and the Olympics provide an existing example of such an exercise, with over 11,000 athletes attending the Rio 2016 Summer Games. Even the Winter Games hosts almost 3000 athletes.
The all-in World Cup will be logistically easier than the summer olympics, as it has fewer athletes to organise, and involves a single sport. Additionally, the tournament will be spread over six weeks, not crammed into three like the olympics, and the scope of the initial logistical exercise halves with each knockout stage.
Part of the reason for the success of the 2026 bid by USA, Canada and Mexico was that the bid partners were able to point to a surplus of already existing stadia and training facilities to accommodate the increased number of teams, as well as sufficient infrastructure (Long 2018). Not every country in the world will have the capacity to host the all-in tournament, but any country that has hosted an Olympics, or even a winter Olympics, must be assumed to be capable, and, with continued development in infrastructure, logistics and technology, there will be many more.
Economic Savings
There are great savings to be made from a wholly-knockout competition. Such a competition would require only 210 matches over six weeks. The Qatar World Cup, in contrast, will use a total of 936 matches over about three years, composed of 872 Confederation qualifiers, 48 qualifying stage games and 16 knockout stage games. That large number of Confederation qualifiers involves mainly home and away legs, where one team travels to another country for the match, almost invariably by air.
International fixtures cost money. Lots of money. Some of the costs include:
- The construction and maintenance of stadia
- The administration and running of stadia
- Transport and accommodation of teams and support staff
- The provision of training venues
- Insurance
- Provision of match officials
- Security
- Drug Testing
The real savings are to be made in the total expenses of the national federations and FIFA itself over each four year period. Since FIFA is a non-profit organisation, this means that more money can be given by FIFA to support the many national teams that do not have deep pockets.
Taking the number of matches as a guide, those savings to be expected are in the order of (936-210)/936, being 77%, or even more, given that a more compact, six week event will lead to savings across the board.
To the savings, can be added profits. The World Cup is arguably the most marketable event in the global sporting calendar (Sportspro 2020). The television rights to a 210 game tournament across 210 invested nations will bring about increases in revenue for the finals themselves (Keh 2017), and the increased number of fans attending will also swell ticket sales, already over 3 million for each tournament since 2006 (FIFA 2018), and have a positive impact on tourism revenues (Access 2010).
Removing conflict between club and international fixtures
Clubs dislike releasing top players for international fixtures. It is disruptive to the club’s planning and disadvantages the club in its league. The players often have to travel great distances and are not necessarily match fit immediately upon return. Chances of injury may be heightened. FIFA generally requires that clubs and national associations release players for important national games. In this respect, money also talks. Players do not generally earn their main income from representing their countries, but rather from their clubs. National teams want their best players available, of course, and indeed want them to attend prematch training camps and so forth, in order to have them meld well with the team.
Disruptions to both league and FIFA qualifying schedules during Covid-19 have exacerbated this issue (Vickery 2020; Harwood 2020). Some clubs have refused to release players for international matches due to these concerns (Carlisle 2020).
A six week World Cup removes this conflict for the three-year leadup of the World Cup, while it may remain for other events, such as each regional Confederation Cup. The dates for the World Cup are known at least three years ahead, and often six or more years ahead. National leagues can arrange themselves so that there is no overlap in those years and players have time to engage in national training camps prior to the event. Clubs will love it.
Health Benefits for Players
The air travel necessitated by a large number of international fixtures carries an extra health burden for players. Air travel is known to have an array of negative health effects (DeHart 2003) and the more air travel, the greater the chance that these effects are compounded.
Less travel for players will lead to better health outcomes. This is especially true in a covid world, where risks are increased with travel. In the proposed model, each player would need to take single return flight to the host country for the finals. In the current system, players take varying numbers of flights depending on their Confederation in the qualification leadup, and then the qualified countries’ players also fly to the host for the finals. For example, the South American playoffs have the lowest number of matches, with a total of 90. Each player needs to travel 9 times, not including the extra travel from and back to Europe for the players based there (which also involves changing season twice in a short period). The disruption of this extra travel to players can largely be avoided.
These considerations also apply to coaches and support staff travelling with the team, as well as others, such as the match officials and media.
The issue of crowded fixtures and their effects on player wellbeing has been raised by team managers. Liverpool boss Klopp said, “…these guys have two weeks off a year. In a physically demanding job…” (Myznikova 2020). Proposals that will reduce that congestion, reduce stress and help improve player health should be considered.
Environmental Benefits
The great reductions in travel will have enormous environmental benefits. If a squad plus essential support staff totals, say, forty, and one squad has to travel for every international fixture, then the current system uses 30,000 more return international flights than the system proposed, and that is only counting the squad, not family, officials, fans or media. Carbon Independent.org (2019) estimates the carbon emitted for a short range international flight is about a quarter ton per passenger hour. Assuming 2 hour average flight times within regions, then each return flight sees 1 ton added to the atmosphere in the current system, so an extra 30,000 tons of CO2 in total. That’s just the flights.
The proposed all-in tournament might be seen as a way for FIFA and the international soccer community to do their bit for the environment. Climate change has the capacity to disrupt football fixtures to a much greater extent than Covid-19 has (NASA 2020). It is in the interests of the game to be part of the solution.
Greater Covid-Resilience
Sport, and particularly international sport provides a medium for the transmission of coronavirus. At the time of writing, FIFA president Infantino is self-isolating with a positive diagnosis (Wright 2020). During 2020, most qualifying matches had to be postponed (Vickery 2020; Harwood 2020; Rugari 2020). Because the finals are still more than two years away, this was possible. It nevertheless caused disruption and there is no way of telling how many more delays will occur between now and November 2022. Matches are beginning to bunch up in the calendar, and this will have an impact on league fixtures. Further, clubs are concerned about allowing their players to travel for qualifying matches, especially in regions where the virus is widespread. FIFA have agreed with the clubs’ perspective (ESPN 2020). Quarantine periods at either end of travel further disrupt player lives and club planning.
Clubs and Confederations have had the extra expense of chartering flights in order to lessen the covid risks to players and meet international restrictions on cross-border travel (Vickery 2020). The negative effects of the covid crisis on the sport in every country mean that there is less money to allocate to these expenses (Gill 2020) . Cloth will need to be cut.
A six week tournament, rather than one which plays out over years, is more likely to occur without delays. If the tournament itself needs to be postponed, then only a six week window will be needed.
An example of a sport bowing to Covid necessities is the Irish Hurling Championships (Liddy 2020). Liddy states, “fixture contingency plans due to the Covid-19 pandemic has effectively confirmed that a straight knockout championship format looks the most likely option.”
The Tokyo Olympics reschedule is also instructive. The 2020 games has been delayed until a two and a half week window starting from 23 July 2021. A tournament of a short, definite length can have a window of time found for it.
The Best Players Will All Be There
Surely the best players should all be present at a World Cup? Football, however, is a team sport. If the team fails to qualify, then nomatter how great the star, he will stay home and perhaps end up watching the games on television.
This has occurred on many occasions. In 2006, one of the greatest players in the world was the Uruguayan, Recoba. Uruguay failed to qualify, losing out to Australia. Other famous players who never played in a world cup include George Best (Northern Ireland), Eric Cantona (France) and Alfredo Di Stefano (Argentina, Spain, Colombia).
Any tournament is likely to be better, and more interesting, if the greatest players are all present. It is more just for the player, too. It will be better for the fans of those players, and each of the great players has millions of fans. Both Christiano Ronaldo (Portugal) and Lionel Messi (Argentina) have over 200 million social media followers (Smythe 2020). If either of those countries failed to qualify, interest in the tournament would lessen as a result.
Moreover, the world cup affords an international spotlight for outstanding young players at the start of their careers. Weaker teams may lose, yet field an outstanding individual who makes a difference for his country and is noticed. The world cup provides the greatest forum for talent to shine in, so it should be open enough to ensure that great new talent is not missed. As HITC Sevens (2020) saliently notes, in 1958:
“…at the age of seventeen, Pele arrived at that tournament unknown to the rest of the world and departed as the finest footballer on the face of the earth…”
More Cupsets, More Interest
“…more romance, more drama and more excitement...” (Findlay 2016)
A cupset is an upset outcome in a knockout tournament, where a much less favoured team overcomes a more feted rival (Robbins 2008). Apart from being interesting on the day, and memorable afterwards, cupsets make both the sport and the tournament more compelling for fans over time. As Brains4Breakfast (2018) suggests, “anyone can win on the day, which makes knockout play more exciting”.
The last thing a world cup should be is boring. One of the problems with the qualification stage of the cup is that sometimes a team is already in a position where they do not need to win in order to progress. This writer was present at Holland v Ireland in Palermo at Italy 1990. In the other group match, the English had defeated the Egyptians, and that information was relayed to Palermo, where the score was 1-1. The two teams then basically stopped playing for the last ten minutes, indulging in a game of kick to kick, as they were both assured of progression with a draw. Egypt may have felt aggrieved, and that sort of lame approach should never be part of a World Cup. Similar instances are recorded by Guyon (2020), such as West Germany v Austria in 1982. Unfortunately, it remains a possibility in 2026, when proposed groups of three in the qualifying stage will sometimes allow the two teams playing last to agree an outcome (Monkovic 2018). In a straight knockout competition, the problem will not occur.
Guyon notes that FIFA has considered banning draws in qualifying matches in order to deter collusion (Guyon 2020), but if it isn’t possible to draw a qualifying match, then why have them at all?
The English FA cup, which is a pure knockout competition open to both league and non-league clubs in England, provides many wonderful examples of cupsets, with non-league clubs sometime knocking out first/premier division clubs. Hereford v Newcastle in 1972 is a classic example. The most important thing about these matches, however, is the way in which they engender support for the game, as every local club can draw inspiration from the stories of the others.
These giant-killer stories happen in the world game, too; such as North Korea’s defeat of Italy in 1966, Senegal’s defeat of reigning champions France in 2002 and Iceland’s surprise against England at Euro 2016. Croatia’s second place in 2018 is another great example, as that nation was ranked 20th before the competition and were the smallest nation since 1930 to play in a final. On other occasions, the giant killer story will be one where a tiny nation defeats a massive one, such as Costa Rica’s 2-0 defeat of China in 2002. Farrell urges the same change for the UEFA champions’ league, stating that “fairness, quality and excitement would all improve” (Farrell 2010). The World Cup will be made more interesting through a knockout only system that encourages these cupsets.
Removing friction between regional confederations
The number of places at the finals allocated to each confederation is a matter which is debated among the stakeholders. Generally, the stronger the confederation is in the sport, the more places they have. This has led to a situation where the more established regions of Europe and South America dominate, especially Europe, where the most money is invested in the sport and the highest salaries are payed.
In relation to the 2026 cup, with the expansion to 48 teams, as Keh suggests “the charged question of how to allocate the 48 slots among the sport’s six continental confederations has yet to be determined, but it is certain to be the subject of fraught discussion, intense negotiation and high-stakes political calculus” (Keh 2017). This friction, and the resolution of competing claims, takes a great deal of energy, time, attention and, indeed, money. Imagine a World Cup where all of those resources are instead directed toward the positive development of the game at home and abroad.
FIFA has already discarded consideration of the relative strength of the confederations from the calculation of the team rankings (FIFA 2020). Questions of fairness between regions remain (Csato 2020). The proposed changes would remove the question of home region from the cup entirely.
More popular, more inclusive, more democratic
Including every country in the tournament, regardless of size and prowess, will be popular with national teams that never manage to qualify, and with their billions of supporters. Not millions, billions. It is salient to note that India has never qualified and China appeared only in 2002. Many other large countries often miss out, such as Indonesia. It is difficult to claim the World Cup Finals is truly a ‘world’ event if more than half of the world’s population is forced to support another team.
The other aspect to inclusion is that having every country there means that every strong team is present, too. Every world cup buildup sees teams that are generally strong but which have a slump, and fail to qualify. France, for example, champions in 1998, did not qualify in 1994. Italy, four time winners, did not qualify for 2018. When a soccer power does not qualify, interest in the world cup in that country evaporates prior to the finals. An all-in tournament avoids this. In a rough poll on Facebook in late 2020, members of the open group WORLD CUP QATAR 2022: News and Results were mainly in favour of the changes proposed in this paper (Facebook 2020). A screenshot of the poll is included here. While the results cannot be said to be representative, it is interesting to note where the participants live. Of the votes in favour of the change, more than 90% live in countries that have never qualified for the tournament.
FIFA is based in Europe, the home of the game, and it is likely that FIFA’s attitudes have historically been Euro-centric. 12 of the 21 cups have been won by European teams, only 3 teams outside of Europe have ever won, and Europe has 13 of the 32 places at Qatar 2022 (FIFA 2020). In the leadup to the FIFA decision to expand the competition for 2026, the European Club Association, in opposition to the proposed expansion, stated that the current 32-team format was “the perfect formula from all perspectives” (Keh 2017). Players and fans outside of Europe may beg to differ.
Choudhury suggests that “the recent decision to expand to 48 teams in 2026 is a continuation of Fifa’s policy of championing the sport beyond its traditional strongholds of Europe and South America” (Choudhury 2018). Keh concurs, noting that, “smaller soccer nations, particularly those in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean that often feel underrepresented at the World Cup” (Keh 2017). Smaller and less developed nations have historically had to agitate for greater representation, against the opposition of entrenched European interests and worldviews (Anaman 2020).
This ni-Vanuatu fan’s reaction to the 48 team expansion is instructive: “ ‘A 64-team tournament would have been better. Eight leagues of eight and a straight knock-out from the group stage, with the top four teams in each group going through. I don’t ever imagine seeing us in a World Cup though, no matter how many expansions Fifa plan in the future.’ Wally, Vanuatu” (Stevens 2017).
Other reactions to the expansion indicate that a lack of access to the world’s peak tournament may have a tendency to stunt development of the game in the countries that miss out (Stevens 2017).
Experience counts. The more times a country has the experience of competing at the peak tournament, the more likely that country is to do well, or better, in it. The current system, which in practice bars most teams in the world from ever gaining that peak tournament experience, mitigates against the development of the game in those countries. As Brain4Breakfast (2018) suggests, “experience is correlated with success”.
The other thing that is correlated with success is money. Teams with more expensive players do better (Burke 2018). Larger and wealthier countries are more likely to qualify (Madu 2017). Very recently, on 16 November 2020, the Gabon team players and staff had to stay overnight in the hall of the airport in Gabon as they were not picked up as expected (Facebook 2020). This sort of problem, detrimental for both team morale, health and performance, cannot occur for teams with good financial reserves, and should not happen in World Cup qualifiers if FIFA sees their role as encompassing every country in the game.
In an open invitiation knockout tournament, the wealth and size advantages are minimised. At the 2018 finals, each team present received a minimum of US$9.5 million (FIFA 2017, in Csato 2020). That’s money for the game in countries that are already well-developed in the game, and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. The World Game requires a more global outlook.
A Truly Global Festival for the World Game
“Football is more than just Europe and South America. Football is global.”
(Infantino, in Keh 2017)
Football fans may find the World Cup Final more compelling than the Olympics, but there is something to be said for the latter, in that it is currently much more of a whole world event, party and festival. This is because every country on Earth sends athletes. Sometimes there are just a handful representing a small nation, but they hold their flag proudly nonetheless, and engender the support of their fans, families and supporters. The new World Cup Tournament would become more like the Olympics, an event that is held only across a few months every four years and which therefore becomes the sole focus of the game at that time.
International Football, which is the most popular international sport (Shvili 2020), deserves to have such a festival, and the way in which to create that is simply to invite everyone to attend. FIFA president Infantino himself accentuated the fact that the 2026 expansion will see more teams “go to the party” (Saab 2016). The World Cup Festival will allow for greater connections to develop between players, officials and supporters from all over the world. These greater connections will have ramifications for many areas of life, and also for the development of the game itself. At present, too many countries, and their people, are missing out.
Players will get to represent their country on the world’s biggest stage, even if they come from the world’s smallest island nation. Fans will get to see their own team on that stage, even if they have to follow a different team after the first match. There will be cupsets along the way, perhaps some that set the world on fire. Attendees will know they are there, in the host country, alongside players and fans from every nation on earth, not a mere selection.
What would the All-in Knockout Tournament Schedule Look Like?
A mock schedule for the tournament proposed is included below. It includes all 210 of the FIFA registered federations, and uses the FIFA rankings (FIFA 2020). The preliminary round will see the top 45 teams having a bye, so that the numbers can be brought down to 128, allowing the formal knockout process to continue. This also allows for the true minnows to be eliminated early on, and for any robust minnow to cause an upset and earn their first round berth against sturdier opposition.
This system would allow for, say, a team like Pakistan (ranked 200th) to have a wonderful upset victory over, say, India (ranked 108th ), and then be drawn against Brazil (ranked 3rd) in the first knockout round. True, Pakistan are likely to have a difficult match there, but by that time (about 2 weeks into the six week tournament) their players and fans will have already had an amazing cup experience.
In order to win the cup, a team will have to play and win seven matches, or eight matches if they play in the preliminary round. This is not a more onerous schedule than applies now, as qualifying matches bring the current total to seven. This proposal sees the tournament run over six weeks, allowing players to rest sufficiently between games.
The schedule assumes the operation of a minimum of eight stadia, which is the number that Qatar will use. In 2026 it is likely that sixteen stadia will be employed across the three nations hosting (Straus 2020). As it is a knockout tournament, extra time and penalties will be used, as presently, to decide drawn matches, except perhaps the final, which could be replayed.
How do we get there from here?
Nothing good happens overnight. The organisation of an all-in tournament will be more complex and will benefit from gradual expansion, so that hosts and FIFA can learn from each experience (Preuss and Schnitzer 2012). Starting from Qatar 2022 and the changes already agreed for 2026, with the expansion to 48 teams and the extended knockout from 32 teams, I propose the following progressive steps, which will allow the host countries to learn and improve the logistics over time:
2022 Qatar. 32 teams with 16 to qualify for the knockout stage
2026 North America. 48 teams, with 32 to qualify for the knockout stage
2030 Host TBA. 64 teams, first 32 teams seeded, matches randomly drawn for first round, knockout only following a grid. Over four weeks, with a one month training camp period immediately prior.
2034 Host TBA. 128 teams, first 64 teams seeded, matches randomly drawn for first round, knockout only following a grid. Over five weeks, with a one month training camp period immediately prior.
2038 Host TBA. All in. 210 teams, with the first stage a knockout round for the minnows, to bring the number of teams to 128, then first 64 teams seeded and matches drawn randomly, then following a grid, knockout only. Over six weeks, following the schedule proposed above, with a one month training camp period immediately prior.
The Opportunity for Change
Football is the most popular sport in the world. The World Cup of Football should be an inclusive competition and the biggest party in the world. The reasons are many, and include considerations of fairness, economics, health and safety, the environment and the invigoration of the game.
Change is never easy, as it involves upsetting layers of entrenched interests. The Covid-19 crisis, affecting as it has every nation and every football league on Earth, perhaps affords the best opportunity to drive change in the World Cup, and create a truly inclusive and global festival of football and a more exiting and prestigious tournament.
Sean David Burke
April 2021
www.earthsideeducation.com
| all_in_six_weeks_sean_burke_april_2021.pdf |
References
Texts
Access Economics 2010, Cost benefit analysis of the 2022 FIFA World Cup [online] available at https://www.academia.edu/3819153/Cost_benefit_analysis_of_the_2022_FIFA_World_Cup
Anaman, F 2020, How Ghana’s 1966 World Cup boycott led to Africa’s inclusion [online] available at https://www.goal.com/en-us/news/how-ghanas-1966-world-cup-boycott-led-to-africas-inclusion/1jdy15i34dwi51todmjyu2qfcp
AS English 2020 World Cup 2022 stadiums with the smartest systems in the world [online] available at https://en.as.com/en/2020/09/28/football/1601296037_897471.html
Burke, S 2018, Money Talks: Predicting the Winner of the 2018 Russia World Cup based on Market Value [online] available at http://www.earthsideeducation.com/money-talks-predicting-the-winner-of-the-2018-russia-world-cup-based-on-market-value.html
Carbon Independent.org 2019, Aviation [online] available at https://www.carbonindependent.org/22.html
Carlisle, J 2020, MLS, CONMEBOL at odds over players for World Cup qualifiers [online] available at https://www.espn.com/soccer/major-league-soccer/story/4191607/mls-and-conmebol-at-odds-over-players-for-world-cup-qualifiers
Choudhury, A 2018, 10 teams or 48? Should a World Cup of sport be inclusive or expansive? [online] available at https://scroll.in/field/884602/10-teams-or-48-should-a-world-cup-of-sport-be-inclusive-or-expansive
Csato, L 2020, Quantifying the unfairness of the2018 FIFA World Cup qualification [online] available at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2007.03412.pdf
DeHart, R 2003, Health Issues of Air Travel Annual Review of Public Health [online] Vol. 24 pp.133-151 available at https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.24.100901.140853
ESPN 2020, Clubs can stop players from going to South American World Cup qualifiers [online] available at https://www.espn.com/soccer/fifa-world-cup-qualifying-conmebol/story/4197684/clubs-can-stop-players-from-going-to-south-american-world-cup-qualifiers
Facebook 2020, WORLD CUP QATAR 2022: News and Results [online] available at https://www.facebook.com/groups/262497828265765/permalink/350331476149066/
Farrell, C 2010, UEFA Champions League Would Be Fairer and Better Solely As A Knockout Tournament [online] available at https://bleacherreport.com/articles/460985-uefa-champions-league-would-be-fairer-and-better-solely-as-a-knockout-tournament
FIFA 2020, Website [online] available at https://www.fifa.com
FIFA 2018, 2018 FIFA World Cup Tickets Facts and Figures [online] available at https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/2018-fifa-world-cuptm-tickets-facts-and-figures.pdf?cloudid=uovvofswmbk28x69dknj
FIFA 2020, Making Football Truly Global: The Vision 2020-2023 [online] available at https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/making-football-truly-global-the-vision-2020-2023.pdf?cloudid=z25oyskjgrxrudiu7iym
FIFA 2020, Revision of the FIFA / Coca-Cola World Ranking [online] available at https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/fifa-world-ranking-technical-explanation-revision.pdf?cloudid=edbm045h0udbwkqew35a
Gill, K 2020, Wages halved, big clubs losing £750million EACH in TV money and one side's ENTIRE staff facing the axe: How the coronavirus crisis is already devastating football at all levels as revenues disappear [online] available at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-7265407/Inside-huge-financial-cost-coronavirus-crisis-football.html
Guyon, J 2020, Risk of Collusion: Will Groups of 3 Ruin the FIFA World Cup? [online] DOI: 10.3233/JSA-200414 available at https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-sports-analytics/jsa200414
Harwood, A 2020, Current World Cup 2022 qualifying format needs to be scrapped – now Soccer America Daily. [online] available at https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/86765/current-world-cup-2022-qualifying-format-needs-to.html?verified=1
Keh, A 2017, FIFA to Expand World Cup to 48 Teams in 2026. The New York Times. [online] Jan 10, 2017 available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/sports/fifa-world-cup.html
Liddy, W 2020, GAA Round Table: Anthony Daly & Dónal Óg Cusack on a knockout championship [online] available at https://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2020/0326/1126601-gaa-round-table-daly-cusack-on-knockout-championship/
Long, M 2018, United effort: Bid chief John Kristick on leading from the front to secure the 2026 World Cup Sports Pro [online] Issue 111 available at https://www.sportspromedia.com/from-the-magazine/united-2026-fifa-world-cup-north-america-john-kristick
Madu, Z 2017, No, FIFA did not ruin the World Cup by expanding it to 48 teams [online] available at https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2017/1/11/14237234/no-fifa-did-not-ruin-the-world-cup-by-expanding-it-to-48-teams
Monkovic, T 2018, FIFA, We Fixed Your World Cup Collusion Problem for You New York Times [online] June 26, 2018 available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/upshot/world-cup-fifa-collusion-readers.html
Myznikova, V 2020, Guardiola and Klopp hit out at schedule overload: 'FIFA, leagues need to think about players, not their wallets’ [online] available at https://tribuna.com/en/fcbarcelona/news/2020-03-06-guardiola-and-klopp-hit-out-at-schedule-overload-fifa-leagues-need-to-think-about-players/
NASA 2020, The Effects of Climate Change [online] available at https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
Preuss, H & Schnitzer, M 2012, Budgeting the FIFA World Cup: A benchmark analysis for the local organising committee budgets [online] available at https://www.sport.uni-mainz.de/Preuss/Download%20public/Working%20Paper%20Series/Working_Paper_No_6_Version_2_Budgeting%20the%20FIFA%20World%20Cup_a%20benchmark%20analysis%20for%20the%20local%20organising%20comite%20budgets.pdf
Robbins, S 2008, Cupset. Urban Dictionary. [online] available at https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cupset
Rugari, V 2020, 'Mateship' will steer Socceroos to Qatar as Arnold declares he's staying put [online] available at https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/mateship-will-steer-socceroos-to-qatar-as-arnold-declares-he-s-staying-put-20201028-p569er.html
Saab, B & Findlay, T 2016, The great debate: should the World Cup be expanded? [online] available at https://www.beinsports.com/au/football/news/the-great-debate-should-the-world-cup-be-expa/347006
Schelles, N 2017, Why 48 teams in the expanded FIFA World Cup could be a win for football [online] available at https://theconversation.com/why-48-teams-in-the-expanded-fifa-world-cup-could-be-a-win-for-football-74730
Shvili, J 2020, The Most Popular Sports In The World [online] available at https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-are-the-most-popular-sports-in-the-world.html
Smythe, A 2020, Top 10 football players with the most fans worldwide [online] available at https://ronaldo.com/football-news/football-players-most-fans-worldwide/
Sportspro 2020, Fifa World Cup named Most Marketable Property in global sport [online] available at https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/fifa-world-cup-most-marketable-property-2020-sport-rankings-sponsorpulse
Straus, B 2020, The Favorites to Become 2026 World Cup Host Cities as FIFA, U.S. Soccer Assess Potential Options [online] available at https://www.si.com/soccer/2020/07/06/2026-world-cup-usa-cities-planning-fifa
Steven, T 2017, Football fans from 48 countries react to the new 48-team World Cup format [online] available at https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jan/12/football-fans-48-countries-team-world-cup-fifa
Vickery, T 2020, CONMEBOL's dilemma with Europe-based players for World Cup qualifiers [online] available at https://www.espn.com/soccer/fifa-world-cup-qualifying-conmebol/story/4173791/conmebols-dilemma-with-europe-based-players-for-world-cup-qualifiers
Wright, J 2020, FIFA president Infantino tests positive for coronavirus [online] available at https://www.goal.com/en-us/news/fifa-president-infantino-tests-positive-for-coronavirus/1vypyzh413stj1fh81k1g9judc
Videos
Brains4Breakfast 2018, How to Win the World Cup [online] available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12gck3xr3C0
HITC Sevens 2020, Biggest Surprise From Every World Cup (1930-2018) [online] available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWEyyUBuZtY
Picture Credits
Fans at the 2014 World Cup in Brazil 2014, AFP/Getty Images [online] available at https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jan/12/football-fans-48-countries-team-world-cup-fifa
Graph: World Cup Participants 2020, Author, using https://www.canva.com
Gianni Infantino 2020, FIFA [online] available at https://www.fifa.com
Al Wakrah Stadium, Qatar 2019 [online] available at https://www.dezeen.com/2019/05/16/zaha-hadid-al-wakrah-stadium-world-cup-2022-qatar-complete/
Neymar and Messi, Barcelona 2020, Getty Images [online] available at https://sportstar.thehindu.com/football/lionel-messi-neymar-wants-barcelona-return-compliments-inter-lautaro-martinez/article30869702.ece
Messi and Neymar 2018, AP [online] available at https://www.timesnownews.com/sports/football/article/brazil-vs-argentina-neymar-glad-to-not-play-against-lionel-messi-but-admits-argentines-absence-is-a-pity/300068
Recoba 2020, [online] available at https://sempreinter.com/2020/04/11/ex-nerazzurri-attacker-alvaro-recoba-i-was-stupid-to-leave-inter/
World Cup Trophy 2010, Odd Andersen/AFP/Getty Images [online] available at https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/dec/02/qatar-win-2022-world-cup-bid
Texts
Access Economics 2010, Cost benefit analysis of the 2022 FIFA World Cup [online] available at https://www.academia.edu/3819153/Cost_benefit_analysis_of_the_2022_FIFA_World_Cup
Anaman, F 2020, How Ghana’s 1966 World Cup boycott led to Africa’s inclusion [online] available at https://www.goal.com/en-us/news/how-ghanas-1966-world-cup-boycott-led-to-africas-inclusion/1jdy15i34dwi51todmjyu2qfcp
AS English 2020 World Cup 2022 stadiums with the smartest systems in the world [online] available at https://en.as.com/en/2020/09/28/football/1601296037_897471.html
Burke, S 2018, Money Talks: Predicting the Winner of the 2018 Russia World Cup based on Market Value [online] available at http://www.earthsideeducation.com/money-talks-predicting-the-winner-of-the-2018-russia-world-cup-based-on-market-value.html
Carbon Independent.org 2019, Aviation [online] available at https://www.carbonindependent.org/22.html
Carlisle, J 2020, MLS, CONMEBOL at odds over players for World Cup qualifiers [online] available at https://www.espn.com/soccer/major-league-soccer/story/4191607/mls-and-conmebol-at-odds-over-players-for-world-cup-qualifiers
Choudhury, A 2018, 10 teams or 48? Should a World Cup of sport be inclusive or expansive? [online] available at https://scroll.in/field/884602/10-teams-or-48-should-a-world-cup-of-sport-be-inclusive-or-expansive
Csato, L 2020, Quantifying the unfairness of the2018 FIFA World Cup qualification [online] available at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2007.03412.pdf
DeHart, R 2003, Health Issues of Air Travel Annual Review of Public Health [online] Vol. 24 pp.133-151 available at https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.24.100901.140853
ESPN 2020, Clubs can stop players from going to South American World Cup qualifiers [online] available at https://www.espn.com/soccer/fifa-world-cup-qualifying-conmebol/story/4197684/clubs-can-stop-players-from-going-to-south-american-world-cup-qualifiers
Facebook 2020, WORLD CUP QATAR 2022: News and Results [online] available at https://www.facebook.com/groups/262497828265765/permalink/350331476149066/
Farrell, C 2010, UEFA Champions League Would Be Fairer and Better Solely As A Knockout Tournament [online] available at https://bleacherreport.com/articles/460985-uefa-champions-league-would-be-fairer-and-better-solely-as-a-knockout-tournament
FIFA 2020, Website [online] available at https://www.fifa.com
FIFA 2018, 2018 FIFA World Cup Tickets Facts and Figures [online] available at https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/2018-fifa-world-cuptm-tickets-facts-and-figures.pdf?cloudid=uovvofswmbk28x69dknj
FIFA 2020, Making Football Truly Global: The Vision 2020-2023 [online] available at https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/making-football-truly-global-the-vision-2020-2023.pdf?cloudid=z25oyskjgrxrudiu7iym
FIFA 2020, Revision of the FIFA / Coca-Cola World Ranking [online] available at https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/fifa-world-ranking-technical-explanation-revision.pdf?cloudid=edbm045h0udbwkqew35a
Gill, K 2020, Wages halved, big clubs losing £750million EACH in TV money and one side's ENTIRE staff facing the axe: How the coronavirus crisis is already devastating football at all levels as revenues disappear [online] available at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-7265407/Inside-huge-financial-cost-coronavirus-crisis-football.html
Guyon, J 2020, Risk of Collusion: Will Groups of 3 Ruin the FIFA World Cup? [online] DOI: 10.3233/JSA-200414 available at https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-sports-analytics/jsa200414
Harwood, A 2020, Current World Cup 2022 qualifying format needs to be scrapped – now Soccer America Daily. [online] available at https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/86765/current-world-cup-2022-qualifying-format-needs-to.html?verified=1
Keh, A 2017, FIFA to Expand World Cup to 48 Teams in 2026. The New York Times. [online] Jan 10, 2017 available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/sports/fifa-world-cup.html
Liddy, W 2020, GAA Round Table: Anthony Daly & Dónal Óg Cusack on a knockout championship [online] available at https://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2020/0326/1126601-gaa-round-table-daly-cusack-on-knockout-championship/
Long, M 2018, United effort: Bid chief John Kristick on leading from the front to secure the 2026 World Cup Sports Pro [online] Issue 111 available at https://www.sportspromedia.com/from-the-magazine/united-2026-fifa-world-cup-north-america-john-kristick
Madu, Z 2017, No, FIFA did not ruin the World Cup by expanding it to 48 teams [online] available at https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2017/1/11/14237234/no-fifa-did-not-ruin-the-world-cup-by-expanding-it-to-48-teams
Monkovic, T 2018, FIFA, We Fixed Your World Cup Collusion Problem for You New York Times [online] June 26, 2018 available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/upshot/world-cup-fifa-collusion-readers.html
Myznikova, V 2020, Guardiola and Klopp hit out at schedule overload: 'FIFA, leagues need to think about players, not their wallets’ [online] available at https://tribuna.com/en/fcbarcelona/news/2020-03-06-guardiola-and-klopp-hit-out-at-schedule-overload-fifa-leagues-need-to-think-about-players/
NASA 2020, The Effects of Climate Change [online] available at https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
Preuss, H & Schnitzer, M 2012, Budgeting the FIFA World Cup: A benchmark analysis for the local organising committee budgets [online] available at https://www.sport.uni-mainz.de/Preuss/Download%20public/Working%20Paper%20Series/Working_Paper_No_6_Version_2_Budgeting%20the%20FIFA%20World%20Cup_a%20benchmark%20analysis%20for%20the%20local%20organising%20comite%20budgets.pdf
Robbins, S 2008, Cupset. Urban Dictionary. [online] available at https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Cupset
Rugari, V 2020, 'Mateship' will steer Socceroos to Qatar as Arnold declares he's staying put [online] available at https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/mateship-will-steer-socceroos-to-qatar-as-arnold-declares-he-s-staying-put-20201028-p569er.html
Saab, B & Findlay, T 2016, The great debate: should the World Cup be expanded? [online] available at https://www.beinsports.com/au/football/news/the-great-debate-should-the-world-cup-be-expa/347006
Schelles, N 2017, Why 48 teams in the expanded FIFA World Cup could be a win for football [online] available at https://theconversation.com/why-48-teams-in-the-expanded-fifa-world-cup-could-be-a-win-for-football-74730
Shvili, J 2020, The Most Popular Sports In The World [online] available at https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-are-the-most-popular-sports-in-the-world.html
Smythe, A 2020, Top 10 football players with the most fans worldwide [online] available at https://ronaldo.com/football-news/football-players-most-fans-worldwide/
Sportspro 2020, Fifa World Cup named Most Marketable Property in global sport [online] available at https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/fifa-world-cup-most-marketable-property-2020-sport-rankings-sponsorpulse
Straus, B 2020, The Favorites to Become 2026 World Cup Host Cities as FIFA, U.S. Soccer Assess Potential Options [online] available at https://www.si.com/soccer/2020/07/06/2026-world-cup-usa-cities-planning-fifa
Steven, T 2017, Football fans from 48 countries react to the new 48-team World Cup format [online] available at https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jan/12/football-fans-48-countries-team-world-cup-fifa
Vickery, T 2020, CONMEBOL's dilemma with Europe-based players for World Cup qualifiers [online] available at https://www.espn.com/soccer/fifa-world-cup-qualifying-conmebol/story/4173791/conmebols-dilemma-with-europe-based-players-for-world-cup-qualifiers
Wright, J 2020, FIFA president Infantino tests positive for coronavirus [online] available at https://www.goal.com/en-us/news/fifa-president-infantino-tests-positive-for-coronavirus/1vypyzh413stj1fh81k1g9judc
Videos
Brains4Breakfast 2018, How to Win the World Cup [online] available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12gck3xr3C0
HITC Sevens 2020, Biggest Surprise From Every World Cup (1930-2018) [online] available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWEyyUBuZtY
Picture Credits
Fans at the 2014 World Cup in Brazil 2014, AFP/Getty Images [online] available at https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jan/12/football-fans-48-countries-team-world-cup-fifa
Graph: World Cup Participants 2020, Author, using https://www.canva.com
Gianni Infantino 2020, FIFA [online] available at https://www.fifa.com
Al Wakrah Stadium, Qatar 2019 [online] available at https://www.dezeen.com/2019/05/16/zaha-hadid-al-wakrah-stadium-world-cup-2022-qatar-complete/
Neymar and Messi, Barcelona 2020, Getty Images [online] available at https://sportstar.thehindu.com/football/lionel-messi-neymar-wants-barcelona-return-compliments-inter-lautaro-martinez/article30869702.ece
Messi and Neymar 2018, AP [online] available at https://www.timesnownews.com/sports/football/article/brazil-vs-argentina-neymar-glad-to-not-play-against-lionel-messi-but-admits-argentines-absence-is-a-pity/300068
Recoba 2020, [online] available at https://sempreinter.com/2020/04/11/ex-nerazzurri-attacker-alvaro-recoba-i-was-stupid-to-leave-inter/
World Cup Trophy 2010, Odd Andersen/AFP/Getty Images [online] available at https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/dec/02/qatar-win-2022-world-cup-bid
