FIFA World Cup 2026 opinion poll + discusion about new format & rules

[snipie]

FIFA president should be stopped because he became a businessman rather than the president of people's favourite sport. This guy relationship with the US president is weird and he should be questioned about the potus interference with the FIFA decision. Now he came with a silly idea about 20% external investment in which the main investor is a guy from the family.
The amount of hypocrisy is incredible and they don't even bother to hide that. I am worried that we are witnessing the end of the World Cup as we used to know.

[KTChampions]

FIFA president should be stopped because he became a businessman rather than the president of people's favourite sport. This guy relationship with the US president is weird and he should be questioned about the potus interference with the FIFA decision. Now he came with a silly idea about 20% external investment in which the main investor is a guy from the family.
The amount of hypocrisy is incredible and they don't even bother to hide that. I am worried that we are witnessing the end of the World Cup as we used to know.

When I read the news about this, I was really pissed off. The scheme is simply fucked up:
FIFA is a non-profit organization -> so we will create a subsidiary that will be engaged in commercial activities -> we will sell a share in the structure to private investors.
And yes, Trump's relatives will be among the private investors. Fucking clowns, I don't understand where they get so much impudence from 
I'm glad that UEFA is strongly opposed to these plans and is even threatening to boycott the next World Cup. And by the way, I'd be happy if UEFA held its own World Cup (perhaps directly inviting some teams from the outside world). Without UEFA, there is no World Cup - the tournament where UEFA teams play will be the real World Cup, no matter what.

[Smartprofit]

The conflict between FIFA and UEFA reminds me of the TV series "Game of Thrones." One thing is clear: a desperate struggle for power and influence is underway. When it comes to power, even economic considerations fade into the background (to say nothing of clean sport).🙋

For now, FIFA is leading this football Game of Thrones. The organization expanded the number of teams at the World Cup to 48 (in an attempt to undermine UEFA's influence). Now, rumors have surfaced about the creation of a commercial subsidiary.

It's no surprise that in a capitalist society, bureaucratic organizations don't want to promote clean football, but rather seek income from sponsor donations and the sale of broadcast rights to sporting events. In a capitalist system, this is a natural process.

It's time to start betting on who will ultimately win this football Game of Thrones (FIFA or UEFA). Because UEFA will most likely strike back soon!  👊

[Lucius]

When I read the news about this, I was really pissed off. The scheme is simply fucked up:
FIFA is a non-profit organization -> so we will create a subsidiary that will be engaged in commercial activities -> we will sell a share in the structure to private investors.
And yes, Trump's relatives will be among the private investors. Fucking clowns, I don't understand where they get so much impudence from 

Why does that surprise you? FIFA "chosen" the US as the host for 2026 for a reason (most of the matches were played in the US) as part of the deal that is now being made public. One president behaves like a businessman, the other president (FIFA) wants to be exactly that - if money can be made from football, they will definitely try it, regardless of what others think about it.

I'm glad that UEFA is strongly opposed to these plans and is even threatening to boycott the next World Cup. And by the way, I'd be happy if UEFA held its own World Cup (perhaps directly inviting some teams from the outside world). Without UEFA, there is no World Cup - the tournament where UEFA teams play will be the real World Cup, no matter what.[/size]

In my opinion, the chances of UEFA boycotting the next World Cup are less than 10%, because if they wanted to do something, they could have reacted during the previous championship. UEFA is corrupt and entwined with various interest groups that, in the end, reduce everything to profit. These threats are more cosmetic in nature - a barking dog usually doesn't bite.

[KTChampions]

I'm glad that UEFA is strongly opposed to these plans and is even threatening to boycott the next World Cup. And by the way, I'd be happy if UEFA held its own World Cup (perhaps directly inviting some teams from the outside world). Without UEFA, there is no World Cup - the tournament where UEFA teams play will be the real World Cup, no matter what.[/size]

In my opinion, the chances of UEFA boycotting the next World Cup are less than 10%, because if they wanted to do something, they could have reacted during the previous championship. UEFA is corrupt and entwined with various interest groups that, in the end, reduce everything to profit. These threats are more cosmetic in nature - a barking dog usually doesn't bite.

I don't think that's exactly the balance of power here, it's more like two bandits, and I'm not sure that FIFA is stronger 
After all, the last time tensions arose, UEFA pushed through its vision of a Club World Cup, forcing FIFA to abandon plans to hold it every two years. UEFA is stronger economically, everything else is irrelevant, I wouldn't even be surprised if they replace Infantino with the president of PSG, which is what's currently being actively rumored.

[Distraction]

Trump can really do whatever he likes to do. For example, he just asked for Balogun's red card punishment to be postponed and it happened!

Now he wants FIFA to sell the WC to an associate of him and I won't be surprised if that happens soon also. It really sucks indeed.

As for the boycotting by UEFA and so many other European countries... I hope it wouldn't be all talk. Otherwise the fate of the WC doesn't look good. It already started losing its identity after FIFA let USA host the last WC. 

[Zaguru12]

I don't think that's exactly the balance of power here, it's more like two bandits, and I'm not sure that FIFA is stronger 
After all, the last time tensions arose, UEFA pushed through its vision of a Club World Cup, forcing FIFA to abandon plans to hold it every two years. UEFA is stronger economically, everything else is irrelevant, I wouldn't even be surprised if they replace Infantino with the president of PSG, which is what's currently being actively rumored.

I am looking at this case to be just like the Sepp Blater case when he won the election in 2015 and was involved in scandals which actually made him to step down and even the Michel Platini who was looking like he will actually be his replacement was caught in same scandal so could the same fate that brought Infantino to seat be same fate that takes him out, because with UEFA boycotting I think some other continental federations could look into this direction.

UEFA are no easy push overs even though both are doing everything for money I think what they (UEFA) wants is to control more of FIFA and this is something Infantino has reduced and it’s a pain in their ass and not really the cases they are throwing a jab at.

I definitely don’t like Infantino but this boycott coming from UEFA isn’t anything short of double standards

[Lucius]

I don't think that's exactly the balance of power here, it's more like two bandits, and I'm not sure that FIFA is stronger 
After all, the last time tensions arose, UEFA pushed through its vision of a Club World Cup, forcing FIFA to abandon plans to hold it every two years. UEFA is stronger economically, everything else is irrelevant, I wouldn't even be surprised if they replace Infantino with the president of PSG, which is what's currently being actively rumored.

It seems that at least two more federations have joined UEFA and as things stand only a fool would persist in something that at this moment has no future. Also, Infantino's senior advisor, Carlos Cordeiro, resigned. It doesn't matter to me at all who replaces Infantino, because this organization needs to be changed from the ground up, not from the top.

[Bitcoin_Arena]

To be honest, I did not enjoy this last edition of the World Cup, and to make matters worse, they had a plan to sell off the World Cup rights to private investors. Who does that?

Well, the United States and some greedy folks saw an opportunity to milk the hell out of the beautiful tournament and made a proposal to cash in. I am very happy that most football associations resisted the barbaric and stupid proposal.

[Unsoldier]

Hydration breaks have turned out to be a pretty interesting innovation. Setting aside the backlash over ad breaks, they are actually very beneficial for the players, especially when matches are played in 30 to 40 degree heat. Hydration breaks help safeguard player health.

Take the 1954 World Cup, for example: the quarterfinal clash between Switzerland and Austria went down in history as the "Heat Battle of Lausanne." The match took place in +40°C heat in the shade with humidity soaring up to 81%, yet tournament rules strictly prohibited grabbing water bottles from the touchline. Austrian goalkeeper Kurt Schmied suffered heatstroke as early as the 15th minute and conceded goals while semi-conscious, while Swiss captain Roger Bocquet passed out several times. If the cooling breaks used at the 2026 World Cup had existed back then, the players would have been spared such an ordeal.

[KTChampions]

Hydration breaks have turned out to be a pretty interesting innovation. Setting aside the backlash over ad breaks, they are actually very beneficial for the players, especially when matches are played in 30 to 40 degree heat. Hydration breaks help safeguard player health.
~

The fact is that at the recent World Cup, these allegedly breaks for hydration took place even in games where the temperature was 20-25 degrees (I’m sure there were some, since there was rain in many places).
Personally, I think this is a terrible innovation because it allows cunning coaches (like Diego Simeone) to break the tempo of the game very easily. Imagine a draw in a game is enough for him. He has two long breaks by default, which in themselves disrupt the tempo, plus a bunch of substitutions, plus his old tricks (tactical fouls, player simulations, time-wasting, etc.). You simply won't be able to watch a game like that.

[BRINIRHA]

To be honest, I did not enjoy this last edition of the World Cup, and to make matters worse, they had a plan to sell off the World Cup rights to private investors. Who does that?

Well, the United States and some greedy folks saw an opportunity to milk the hell out of the beautiful tournament and made a proposal to cash in. I am very happy that most football associations resisted the barbaric and stupid proposal.

It was over after Infantino gave a follow-up statement after the polemic that occurred for the proposal to sell the shares that FIFA currently has.
It seems that for now FIFA is always trying to increase their exposure in order to get a bigger commercial padaha their main focus should be how to make football as a container that is indeed as universal as it should be but for the last few years especially after the World Cup in the US they are always more concerned with money.

Fifa scraps proposal to sell off stakes in World Cup after widespread backlash

Now for the discourse about 64 teams in the 2030 period there is still no certainty because the review is still going on but by looking at the moment 100 years running the World Cup this possibility will be considered greater even though the new format of 48 teams is only running 1 time.

[mitchr4]

Hydration breaks have turned out to be a pretty interesting innovation. Setting aside the backlash over ad breaks, they are actually very beneficial for the players, especially when matches are played in 30 to 40 degree heat. Hydration breaks help safeguard player health.
~

The fact is that at the recent World Cup, these allegedly breaks for hydration took place even in games where the temperature was 20-25 degrees (I’m sure there were some, since there was rain in many places).
Personally, I think this is a terrible innovation because it allows cunning coaches (like Diego Simeone) to break the tempo of the game very easily. Imagine a draw in a game is enough for him. He has two long breaks by default, which in themselves disrupt the tempo, plus a bunch of substitutions, plus his old tricks (tactical fouls, player simulations, time-wasting, etc.). You simply won't be able to watch a game like that.

Hydration breaks have good and bad sides. They help player safety, but they can also change the flow of a match, like already mentioned. For league matches in a new season, I think this should not be used because it makes the match less exciting to watch. It might be better to use it only in matches with very hot weather, or in friendly matches. For official matches it should be avoided because it can reduce fan interest.

[KTChampions]

The fact is that at the recent World Cup, these allegedly breaks for hydration took place even in games where the temperature was 20-25 degrees (I’m sure there were some, since there was rain in many places).
Personally, I think this is a terrible innovation because it allows cunning coaches (like Diego Simeone) to break the tempo of the game very easily. Imagine a draw in a game is enough for him. He has two long breaks by default, which in themselves disrupt the tempo, plus a bunch of substitutions, plus his old tricks (tactical fouls, player simulations, time-wasting, etc.). You simply won't be able to watch a game like that.

Hydration breaks have good and bad sides. They help player safety, but they can also change the flow of a match, like already mentioned. For league matches in a new season, I think this should not be used because it makes the match less exciting to watch. It might be better to use it only in matches with very hot weather, or in friendly matches. For official matches it should be avoided because it can reduce fan interest.

I don't see the logic here. If you think these breaks are critical for the players' health, then they should be everywhere - in all official games, and especially in friendlies. There is something odd about it when a player playing in the World Cup is in dire danger of dehydration, but the same player playing in the national league (with possibly higher temperatures like in August) is not in this danger  It seems to me that we should have some kind of single standard that will depend on temperature and not on the commercial value of commercial hydration breaks.

[Unsoldier]

Hydration breaks have turned out to be a pretty interesting innovation. Setting aside the backlash over ad breaks, they are actually very beneficial for the players, especially when matches are played in 30 to 40 degree heat. Hydration breaks help safeguard player health.
~

The fact is that at the recent World Cup, these allegedly breaks for hydration took place even in games where the temperature was 20-25 degrees (I’m sure there were some, since there was rain in many places).
Personally, I think this is a terrible innovation because it allows cunning coaches (like Diego Simeone) to break the tempo of the game very easily. Imagine a draw in a game is enough for him. He has two long breaks by default, which in themselves disrupt the tempo, plus a bunch of substitutions, plus his old tricks (tactical fouls, player simulations, time-wasting, etc.). You simply won't be able to watch a game like that.

As you mentioned yourself, a single standard is needed, and that exact standard was applied across the entire World Cup, regardless of the temperature. But it's impossible to tailor uniform standards for every league and competition. For example, in the Premier League, handballs in the box are rarely given as penalties, whereas in the Champions League, almost every handball is a penalty. In football, every league adapts the rules to suit its own interests.
Everyone gets that hydration breaks disrupt the flow of the game. But I think if these breaks are introduced across the board, managers of teams controlling the tempo will sooner or later have to adapt to this innovation and develop tactics to turn the pauses to their advantage—otherwise, a manager who can't adjust to new match conditions isn't worth their salt.

[danadc]

Hydration breaks have good and bad sides. They help player safety, but they can also change the flow of a match, like already mentioned. For league matches in a new season, I think this should not be used because it makes the match less exciting to watch. It might be better to use it only in matches with very hot weather, or in friendly matches. For official matches it should be avoided because it can reduce fan interest.

According to some friends at my work, hydration shouldn't exist because it's not a sport like American football, where in the USA they try to Americanize the sport when those customs aren't appropriate. This strongly criticizes the way things have been changed, and it's not well-received. Football doesn't need hydration unless it's very hot on the field. If that's the case, they should do what they do in Qatar, where they have stadiums with internal ventilation to maintain a comfortable temperature for the players.

[pawel7777]

So the latest controversy surrounding FIFA, or, to be more precise, its president Giovani Infantino, is the plan to allow private investments into FIFA's operations.
I believe the proposed way of doing that is to create a commercial subsidiary that would be responsible for running the main events (including World Cups) and reap the profits, and private investors would be able to buy shares in such subsidiary.
I don't have a fully baked opinion on this yet, but the idea has already been widely criticised, including by Arsene Wenger, who serves as FIFA's chief of global football development, who allegedly said that the plan should be scrapped immediately.

[dzonikg28]

So the latest controversy surrounding FIFA, or, to be more precise, its president Giovani Infantino, is the plan to allow private investments into FIFA's operations.
I believe the proposed way of doing that is to create a commercial subsidiary that would be responsible for running the main events (including World Cups) and reap the profits, and private investors would be able to buy shares in such subsidiary.
I don't have a fully baked opinion on this yet, but the idea has already been widely criticised, including by Arsene Wenger, who serves as FIFA's chief of global football development, who allegedly said that the plan should be scrapped immediately.

One of the main criticisms was that the plan was made without really consulting anyone and Infantino hoped that support would still be big enough to get those plans accepted. I don't know if he miscalculated the odds, but it backfired a lot and I think it was the UEFA initiative that got other associations to raise their voices. Now there is more trouble in the making for Infantino and if things don't go very well for him, he could lose his job very soon, most likely the latest when the next FIFA presidential election takes place in March 2027.

And one concern, which I can understand very well, was that as soon as there are private investors involved, they would naturally have a strong incentive to further squeeze out of the sport whatever they can. Perhaps more tournaments, like every two years a World Cup instead of every four, or expand the FIFA Club World Cup and have even more matches as a consequence. I think ultimately the quality would suffer.

I don't know what about you guys here, but I think that the Nations League is already unnecessary and the results in those matches show that neither players nor national associations give too much about that competition. If the FIFA then were to add more matches or expand competitions, it would not bring any advantage besides more money for the investors.

[Smartprofit]

Many are now accusing FIFA's leadership of corruption. Many are speculating that this corruption is linked to FIFA officials' favoritism toward Messi and the Argentine football team...

I still believe that corruption is when a person in power helps someone for material reward. Corruption is a business based on power, administrative, and managerial resources. 🙋

I don't think Messi bribed the referee (for example, by sending him Monero or Bitcoin).

More likely, there were situations where the referee simply displayed human weakness. Referees are not superhuman, although (of course) fans expect sports referees to be as objective and fair as possible. But a referee is only human. A referee can be insecure. A referee can doubt themselves when making a decision. They also don't always know which decision is right and which is wrong, especially if it needs to be made very quickly.  The referee doesn't want Argentine fans throwing rotten eggs at him or journalists writing in the media that he's deliberately harming Messi. Refereeing is a very complex human activity. Being objective is very difficult. 🤷

As for the commercialization of sports, that's an objective reality. We observe this trend year after year.

[pawel7777]

(...)
I don't know what about you guys here, but I think that the Nations League is already unnecessary and the results in those matches show that neither players nor national associations give too much about that competition. If the FIFA then were to add more matches or expand competitions, it would not bring any advantage besides more money for the investors.

I agree, although I believe the intention behind the introduction of the Nations League was to minimise the number of international friendlies, so it was not meant to be a tournament of a similar prestige as the Euro or the World Cup. But maybe it was just an excuse. I'm not sure if a national team could opt out of the Nations League with no repercusions from UEFA.
And I'm not sure if FIFA can be blamed for the Nations League, or was it entirely UEFA's doing. I believe UEFA has a lot of independence from FIFA.

Anyhow, the tendency to increase number of football competitions (be it national or club) and increase number of games within each tournament is already causing fatigue among many of the football fans.