5 ms·

First off, fire Infantino on the spot, just the same way they fired Blatter for corruption. This last world cup was the worse I've ever seen since 1978, almost

by Kuyawa 3mo ago

First off, fire Infantino on the spot, just the same way they fired Blatter for corruption. This last world cup was the worse I've ever seen since 1978, almost 50 years, and I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly. We all know billions are moved under the table, but money can never break rules and traditions, specially if they don't benefit fans and players above all Did anybody ask the players about the hydration break? About increasing teams to 48, now to 64? More games is more possibility of injuries and benched players are no good for the show. So always be careful about wanting more golden eggs, the goose may be exhausted already

bluedevil2k 3mo 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 3mo ago
  Cape 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 3mo ago
  Cape 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 3mo ago
    Even 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 3mo ago
  More teams means only big nations can be the host venue.
  - bluedevil2k 3mo ago
    Hosting is a financial disaster for smaller countries (economically, like Brazil), it’s a good thing if they can’t host them.
    - croes 3mo ago
      It’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
onlypassingthru 3mo ago
Two teams with 1/4 of the world's potential customers did not make the cut for this year's tournament, more's the pity. The tournament will likely be expanded until these two teams can qualify.
- mcmcmc 3mo ago
  Why bother? If it’s not a popular sport there already, the viewership wouldn’t be worth the cost
  - dghlsakjg 3mo ago
    I don’t know about China, but India has a lot of fans and had pretty good viewership. Whether a national team qualifies isn’t that strongly correlated to whether the sport is popular. Most of south and Central America are as fanatical as Brazil or Argentina, but they were not in the tournament.
    - fakedang 3mo ago
      Xi Jinping is a massive football fan and tried incentivizing China's own league early on in his first term. He was quite successful in that too - just that Chinese people preferred watching the European leagues rather than their homegrown ones.
- gitgud03191 3mo ago
  Wouldn't it be easier for countries of 1+ billion people to find 11 players who can play at the level of other countries? The Asian Football Confederation is hardly the most competitive in the first place.
raffael_de 3mo ago
next time fifa will introduce the pee break 10 minutes after the hydration break
fuddle 3mo ago
Unfortunately they are needed now. "The 2026 FIFA World Cup was the hottest World Cup since the competition began in 1930. A Guardian analysis found that close to 20 percent of matches were played under heat and humidity conditions that FIFPRO, the players' union, has flagged as dangerous enough to warrant delaying or postponing play. Some 20 games were played at wet bulb globe temperatures that hit or exceeded 28 degrees Celsius (82 Fahrenheit)." - Katharine Hayhoe's newsletter
- ctxc 3mo ago
  20 games, of 104? Not to mention games were played in indoor air conditioned stadiums. MLS already has a system where a game has a break only when it reaches 28deg C for a period of x minutes
  - Departed7405 3mo ago
    Not to mention that they played games in the afternoon which isn't the best time for heat, and for a pure water break, 90 seconds is probably enough.
- hdgvhicv 3mo ago
  First game I saw was in Boston where it was 20C and raining.
- probably_wrong 3mo ago
  I agree that something must be done, but the hydration break is the wrong solution for two reasons. First, plenty of countries have been regularly playing under these conditions and will keep doing so after the World Cup. Too hot to play in the afternoon? Play at night. Second, and more important, it changes the game in a major way because playing for 90 minutes with a single break is not the same as playing with three. I imagine data will say whether this has an effect or not, but I cannot imagine that an endurance player would feel the same if they have to always stop halfway.
- gehsty 3mo ago
  Thing is this is a technical justification for something that was done purely to add an extra add break in - there is no point in having the technical discussion. The problem I had with this World Cup was the over commercialization of it. The ticket prices, the cost of getting to the stadiums, the fucking trophy being presented in some bullshit LV case (like it mattered). From my perspective I let it slide thinking it was the US’s take on how they do sports so fair enough. I can see now following the hyper commercial US World Cup that FIFAs has dollar signs spinning in their eyes and want to continue this way of working. Unfortunately it doesn’t align with the values of football. It smacks of the Euro Super League (which would have disrupted the whole pyramid of football). It should be nipped in the bud, Infantino fired, and FIFA continuing as a not for profit.
empath75 3mo ago
I think the Balogun red-card and just inconsistency in general with red card suspensions was the only real blight on the tournament and that's fixable with some rules changes. The world cup in general was tremendously entertaining, though.
- Wheaties466 3mo ago
  inconsistency with VAR was a huge slight. The Colombia offside call where VAR showed his big toe was offside was pretty ridiculous. Theres no way that is within the margin of error for that technology.
- esalman 3mo ago
  Football world cups are always entertaining. There are always big upsets, big fairy tales, and big controversies. I have been watching them live since 1994 when I was in 4th grade. This world cup was also entertaining. But it also left some bad taste in my mouth, and unlike any other edition, I still can't get over. The hydration breaks and the commercials. The half time show. The differential treatment and harassment of players, fans, and officials at immigration based on country of origin. The whole fracas about Iran participating and USA hosting and bombing them on the same day. VAR calling back a goal due to Egypt's foul on Argentina but letting Argentina's foul on Austria go. The dubious red card of the swiss player that IFAB later said was a mistake. Even more dubious recall of Balogun suspension. Objectively the worst world cup final match ever- every other team Argentina defeated in knockouts would probably given us better football in the final match, including Cape Verde. Paredes assaulting Spain players after the match when he should have been sent off during the match. Lisandro Martinez saying they respect all their opponents and don't understand the hate, after they flew Falklands Island banner in England player's faces. Messi wearing a robe and lifting the trophy at the end of Qatar '22 as the GOAT was so compelling that it glossed over the HR violation issues. But there was no redeeming qualities this time. The president of the United States ruined that moment by refusing to get out of the Spanish player's faces.
  - dormento 3mo ago
    > after they flew Falklands Island banner in England player's faces You certainly mean the Malvinas /s
pif 3mo ago
> About increasing teams to 48, now to 64? I still hope we Italians will eventually be able to participate again, thus I approve the 64 team formula ;-)

by Kuyawa 3mo ago

bluedevil2k 3mo 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 3mo ago
Cape 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 3mo ago
Cape 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 3mo ago
  Even 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 3mo ago
More teams means only big nations can be the host venue.
- bluedevil2k 3mo ago
  Hosting is a financial disaster for smaller countries (economically, like Brazil), it’s a good thing if they can’t host them.
  - croes 3mo ago
    It’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

onlypassingthru 3mo ago

Two teams with 1/4 of the world's potential customers did not make the cut for this year's tournament, more's the pity. The tournament will likely be expanded until these two teams can qualify.

mcmcmc 3mo ago
Why bother? If it’s not a popular sport there already, the viewership wouldn’t be worth the cost
- dghlsakjg 3mo ago
  I don’t know about China, but India has a lot of fans and had pretty good viewership. Whether a national team qualifies isn’t that strongly correlated to whether the sport is popular. Most of south and Central America are as fanatical as Brazil or Argentina, but they were not in the tournament.
  - fakedang 3mo ago
    Xi Jinping is a massive football fan and tried incentivizing China's own league early on in his first term. He was quite successful in that too - just that Chinese people preferred watching the European leagues rather than their homegrown ones.
gitgud03191 3mo ago
Wouldn't it be easier for countries of 1+ billion people to find 11 players who can play at the level of other countries? The Asian Football Confederation is hardly the most competitive in the first place.

raffael_de 3mo ago

next time fifa will introduce the pee break 10 minutes after the hydration break

fuddle 3mo ago

Unfortunately they are needed now. "The 2026 FIFA World Cup was the hottest World Cup since the competition began in 1930. A Guardian analysis found that close to 20 percent of matches were played under heat and humidity conditions that FIFPRO, the players' union, has flagged as dangerous enough to warrant delaying or postponing play. Some 20 games were played at wet bulb globe temperatures that hit or exceeded 28 degrees Celsius (82 Fahrenheit)." - Katharine Hayhoe's newsletter

ctxc 3mo ago
20 games, of 104? Not to mention games were played in indoor air conditioned stadiums. MLS already has a system where a game has a break only when it reaches 28deg C for a period of x minutes
- Departed7405 3mo ago
  Not to mention that they played games in the afternoon which isn't the best time for heat, and for a pure water break, 90 seconds is probably enough.
hdgvhicv 3mo ago
First game I saw was in Boston where it was 20C and raining.
probably_wrong 3mo ago
I agree that something must be done, but the hydration break is the wrong solution for two reasons. First, plenty of countries have been regularly playing under these conditions and will keep doing so after the World Cup. Too hot to play in the afternoon? Play at night. Second, and more important, it changes the game in a major way because playing for 90 minutes with a single break is not the same as playing with three. I imagine data will say whether this has an effect or not, but I cannot imagine that an endurance player would feel the same if they have to always stop halfway.
gehsty 3mo ago
Thing is this is a technical justification for something that was done purely to add an extra add break in - there is no point in having the technical discussion. The problem I had with this World Cup was the over commercialization of it. The ticket prices, the cost of getting to the stadiums, the fucking trophy being presented in some bullshit LV case (like it mattered). From my perspective I let it slide thinking it was the US’s take on how they do sports so fair enough. I can see now following the hyper commercial US World Cup that FIFAs has dollar signs spinning in their eyes and want to continue this way of working. Unfortunately it doesn’t align with the values of football. It smacks of the Euro Super League (which would have disrupted the whole pyramid of football). It should be nipped in the bud, Infantino fired, and FIFA continuing as a not for profit.

empath75 3mo ago

I think the Balogun red-card and just inconsistency in general with red card suspensions was the only real blight on the tournament and that's fixable with some rules changes. The world cup in general was tremendously entertaining, though.

Wheaties466 3mo ago
inconsistency with VAR was a huge slight. The Colombia offside call where VAR showed his big toe was offside was pretty ridiculous. Theres no way that is within the margin of error for that technology.
esalman 3mo ago
Football world cups are always entertaining. There are always big upsets, big fairy tales, and big controversies. I have been watching them live since 1994 when I was in 4th grade. This world cup was also entertaining. But it also left some bad taste in my mouth, and unlike any other edition, I still can't get over. The hydration breaks and the commercials. The half time show. The differential treatment and harassment of players, fans, and officials at immigration based on country of origin. The whole fracas about Iran participating and USA hosting and bombing them on the same day. VAR calling back a goal due to Egypt's foul on Argentina but letting Argentina's foul on Austria go. The dubious red card of the swiss player that IFAB later said was a mistake. Even more dubious recall of Balogun suspension. Objectively the worst world cup final match ever- every other team Argentina defeated in knockouts would probably given us better football in the final match, including Cape Verde. Paredes assaulting Spain players after the match when he should have been sent off during the match. Lisandro Martinez saying they respect all their opponents and don't understand the hate, after they flew Falklands Island banner in England player's faces. Messi wearing a robe and lifting the trophy at the end of Qatar '22 as the GOAT was so compelling that it glossed over the HR violation issues. But there was no redeeming qualities this time. The president of the United States ruined that moment by refusing to get out of the Spanish player's faces.
- dormento 3mo ago
  > after they flew Falklands Island banner in England player's faces You certainly mean the Malvinas /s

pif 3mo ago

> About increasing teams to 48, now to 64? I still hope we Italians will eventually be able to participate again, thus I approve the 64 team formula ;-)