I was wondering if there was a shortage of beer in any pub in Scotland last Tuesday (18).
After a heroic 4-2 victory over Denmark, the Scottish team qualified for the World Cup for the first time since 1998. The images of friendly Scots celebrating this fairy tale, happily, continue to be shown on TV here in the United Kingdom.
We have 42 places defined out of the 48 in this expanded World Cup. Brazil, Argentina, England, Germany, Portugal, Spain etc. And Curacao, the Caribbean island that is the smallest nation in history to qualify, will also be there. Another newcomer is Uzbekistan, who secured their place earlier than the Brazilian team.
When FIFA announced the increase in the number of teams, at the beginning of 2017, the repercussion in Europe was largely negative. With the tournament getting more and more real, with places defined and group draws on December 5th, is it possible to know whether a World Cup of this size is a good or bad idea?
Criticisms are fair: that the quality of the tournament could decrease, that we could have bad games and potentially humiliating defeats. Traveling between the United States, Canada and Mexico, with large territorial dimensions, will be a logistical challenge.
Thinking about a planet that continues to heat up, and the scorching heat of the North American summer, there will be games at noon in open stadiums, which is a risk to the health of the players.
And even if it doesn’t work out, once a tournament grows, it’s difficult to back down. And this should change the way applications will be made, because few countries have enough arenas for so many matches – there will be 104 from the opening, on June 11th, until the final, on July 19th.
For FIFA, it’s great: increased audience for the most watched sport in the world, entry into new markets. More selections, more money – US$1 billion more with the expansion, according to the British newspaper The Guardian.
I believe that some points remain undefined: even though it is the World Cup, and even for those who love the sport, how much is too much for the spectator in terms of the number of games? If the World Cup is for football’s elite, but 48 teams are now able to take part, could the event’s reputation be affected? At the same time, nowadays, with football so globalized, will the difference in level be that big?
From the first edition, in 1930, in Uruguay, with 13 teams, the number rose to 24, in 1982, and 32 from 1998 onwards. To defend a new increase, FIFA claims that, of its 211 members, 135 never had the chance to qualify and that, now, more countries “will have the chance to dream”.
The African continent, which felt underrepresented, celebrated the new format. Traditional European nations, such as England and Germany, defend a “smaller” tournament.
I confess that it is difficult to form an opinion now, and only after the competition begins will there be more certainty. But I try to see the topic with a less Eurocentric vision, which sometimes flirts with prejudice.
Is a World Cup with 48 teams a good or bad thing? At this point, it seems like it depends who you ask.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
