6 ms·
While I agree with your view on hydration breaks, I have to disagree that 48 teams was a bad thing. It led to wonderful stories like Cape Verde (and their goali
by bluedevil2k 2mo ago
While I agree with your view on hydration breaks, I have to disagree that 48 teams was a bad thing. It led to wonderful stories like Cape Verde (and their goalie) who were competitive against Argentina. They wouldn’t even have qualified under the old system. We saw Congo almost beat England (again, a non-qualifier in the old days). Conversely, scoring goals is exciting and Germany’s 7-1 over Curaçao let us see some amazing goals.
More teams means more underdogs, more chances for greatness and more high points. I know it was purely for money, but I think the move to 48 teams really worked.
- iforgetti 2mo agoCape Verde would have qualified under the 32 team cup as well. Agreed with both you and parent on the commercial, I mean hydration, breaks. What a disaster.
- chirau 2mo agoCape Verde would have qualified for the World Cup even if there were 32 teams. Cape Verde topped its group, beating usual world cup teams like Cameroon. The narrative that Cape Verde is a beneficiary of the 48-team setup is completely and utterly false.
- caminante 2mo agoEven if they wouldn't have made the 32 team bracket, these Cinderella stories are propaganda like the NCAA uses to monetize "student athletes". It's an excuse to squeeze more money out of the brand with a lower quality product. It's shrinkflation.
- croes 2mo agoMore teams means only big nations can be the host venue.
- bluedevil2k 2mo agoHosting is a financial disaster for smaller countries (economically, like Brazil), it’s a good thing if they can’t host them.
- croes 2mo agoIt’s only a financial disaster he you don’t have the power to force FIFA for a fair share. And that would become worse with investors. Not only for host nations but for the players and fans too