La Tercera spoke to 10 former World Cup players from 48 teams in 40 days. A tie. The lack of competitiveness accuses the detractors and the widening of the options favors it.
FIFA got away with it. After various rumors, the International Federation has confirmed in the exotic African country of Rwanda the changes for the 2026 World Cup. The same as It will take place in the United States, Canada and Mexico with 48 teams participating in 40 days of the championship.
New format that divides opinions in the world of football. La Tercera consulted 10 ex-mundialistas, including four world champions. Half of them approved of the unprecedented invention of the Swiss-based body, with arguments as simple as expanding the range of equipment or delivering more commitments for the show.
On another side, detractors were talking about the health of the protagonists or having more parties which, at the end of the tournament, may be totally irrelevant to the competition. Of course, everyone agrees that the experience of dueling between November and December should come to an end.
A more open Cup
One of the reasons most heard by former World Cup fans is the feeling of openness that a World Cup brings with more teams.
“I don’t like the fact that 48 teams are playing. It is a very open vision of the World Cup, with more squads, which can finally make the most important event in football more attractive. explains Dino Zoff, champion with Italy in Spain ’82.
Nestor Clausen, winner of the title in 1986 with Argentina in Mexico, also supports the initiative. The former Independiente defender believes the changes must be respected and time will bear the necessary fruit.
“You have to have a positive view of the changes. This is great business for FIFA as well as national teams. It doesn’t seem bad to me that the groups are getting bigger, there were other situations that were criticized, but in the end it worked”, says the transandin.
An opinion very similar to that of another planetary monarch, the legendary Jairzinho, who won the title with Brazil in Mexico ’70. According to the former striker, who has scored in each of the seven games at this World Cup, it won’t be a sacrifice to play one more game.
“It’s a new experience and we’ll see what happens. The World Cup is a tournament in which everyone wants to play. It is true that there will be a large number of participants, but it can also be helpful to the show. I don’t think playing one more round affects the players much, if before there were seven, now there will be eight”, says the carioca.
Options for the modest
The other argument that sounds the most in favor of this mega competition is the opportunity to have teams that have almost always been left behind in the fight for this long-awaited final phase. So, for example, the legendary Enrique Borja, the former Mexican striker who launched the El Chavo del 8 program to glory and participated with El Tri in England in 1966 and in his country in ’70, adheres to the idea.
“FIFA tries to give lower level teams better opportunities, whether or not there is more quantity than quality in the tournament. Because the best will always reach the final stages. It is also an incentive for the teams to improve. I hope that football will be greatly promoted with measures like this”, warns the partner of Iván Zamorano on the TUDN channel.
A reasoning also shared by former striker Adolfo Valencia, who played in the 1994 World Cup in the United States and France 98 with the Colombian team. For the “Train”, the opening of the quotas somehow democratizes the fair.
“It gives possibilities to more teams, it’s a good way to widen the range. You can even do the most competitive playoffs, because there are more quotas for the teams which often have good teams, but it is not enough for them to reach the final phase of the World Cup. As it happened in Colombia, for example” the former Bayern Munich striker arrives.
Clausen adds that “it also gives more options to teams who are not always lucky enough to be in the final phase of a World Cup. It also gives a certain alternation in football. It will be played in almost six weeks, which is longer, but it’s not that much effort either. Just one more game.”
Lack of competitiveness
However, the arguments of the opponents of this new experiment are plausible. Here the one that is repeated the most is the lack of competitiveness that the contest will have with many teams that they will only be able to participate, with no real chance of reaching the final stages of the competition.
“It seems to me that there are too many selections. The World Cup is an important tournament for everyone and if you have more teams, it could lower the level of the competition,” said Goran Vlaovic, third with Croatia in France 98.
In turn, the Balkan explains that “the best must be in the World Cup. If you increase the number of countries, the qualifiers will lose their spirit, their competitiveness and also their quality. With 32 teams, it is not easy to qualify, now 16 more places will open up and that’s too many. The interest is lost.”
Uruguayan Rubén Sosa, one of Uruguay’s strikers in Italy ’90, also believes that increasing quotas could reduce the excitement of the event.
“This, in a way, will allow many lower quality teams to reach the final stage. Also in this way, there will be a lot of unimportant games in the first phase of the tournament,” the Uruguayan explains.
Similarly, the Peruvian Oswaldo “Cachito” Ramírez, holder in Mexico ’70, reinforces the argument. “About 30% of all the teams on the planet will go and that is stabilizing. There will be many games that may be inconsequential in the fight for the league title, “says the Inca.
“Fifa Business”
The expansion of the championship will result in higher revenues for the international organization. More competition days, higher screen shares, and a better amount of profit in marketing revenue. Here’s how opponents respond to this unreleased version.
“It’s another invention of FIFA. The only objective is to bring more marketing, more money to your finances. The economic question is privileged over sport. With 48 teams, there will be no than the best. They want to help in the classification of certain powers that do not participate in all the World Cups, such as the Netherlands or Italy itself, which makes two versions that are not in competition, ”warns Rubén Sosa.
Along the same lines, “Cachito” Ramírez adds that “they are doing it for the benefit of Europe rather than South America. They think that with this they are giving more options to smaller teams and that is not the case. Everything is to promote FIFA’s income, nothing more.
Player health
Beyond economic considerations, one of the major concerns of respondents is the effort of footballers.
“There are too many teams. Six weeks of competition is very demanding for the players. Footballers cannot be rushed like they are machines. With such a long competition, the competitive spirit is lost and the players are pushed to the physical limit, the real hosts of this spectacle,” said Miguel Pardeza, who played for Spain in Italy ’90.
The same considerations described by Thomas Berthold, champion with Germany in Italy ’90: “For me, 48 teams is too much for such an important competition. A six-week tournament is too much work for footballers. This is not an ideal situation and should be reconsidered.”
Vlaovic adds that “FIFA is the only institution that wins with this type of measure. They also don’t think about the health of footballers for these changes.
follow on Jock
Source: Latercera
I’m Scott Moore, a professional writer and journalist based in the US. I’ve been writing for various publications for over 8 years now, and have been working as an author at athletistic for the past five years. My work has been featured by some of the leading sports websites and magazines across Europe.
