Report Calls for World Cup Every Two Years
A new study commissioned by the G-14, a collection of Europe’s richest clubs, proposes making the World Cup a biennial event, while changing the way that European nations qualify for the tournament. The details of the report are summarized here and from my perspective represent another attempt by the wealthy clubs to make themselves even wealthier at the expense of international football.
I’m as big of a World Cup fans as anyone. I’ve been blogging about the damn thing since December and I’m so excited for Friday’s kickoff that I am sleeping about 12 minutes a night.
But I sure don’t want the World Cup to be played every two years. One of the most compelling aspects of the tournament is the build up and the structure. After one tournament finishes there is a bit of a layoff and then the qualifying begins again. You watch as the countries battle it out to make the final and then as the qualifiers get ready to play. For one month every four years you put life on hold and watch the greatest spectacle on earth. Then the cycle repeats.
To me this is perfect.
There are plenty of other competitions to fill in the gaps when the World Cup is not being played. If the World Cup was played more frequently it would lose a lot of its meaning and devalue the accomplishments of the champions.
The good news is that this proposal is just that, a proposal. It is something that hasn’t been approved and you can bet FIFA will fight tooth and nail against anything that takes away money from them and puts it into the hands of the clubs.
What do you think? Would you want to see a World Cup every two years or do you think once every four years is the way to go?
 |
Soccer Forums | International Results |  |
 |  Travel |
Related Posts
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share        |
Comments
Displaying the most recent 25 comments from a total of 41 comments.
Read the rest of the comments
By Matt | June 5th, 2006 at 10:14 am 
Every 4 years is good. Playing every 2 years would lose the tournaments prestigiousness.
Posted from 
Australia
By Tom | June 5th, 2006 at 10:15 am If only, as one said, the competition was stretched out in the World Cup Finals, each game has too much importance as it is.
Posted from 
United States
By Bidemi | June 5th, 2006 at 10:22 am Here’s a novel idea; how about creating more slots for African teams in the World Cup. There are just as many countries in the CAF as in EUFA, but Africa gets a measly 5 slots compared to Europes 14 (or 16?). Obviously it is set this way because there is bigger investment in Europe, but it would make the event much more competetive and exciting. Atleast give them 3 more slots. 8 countries seem about right. Imagine a World Cup where Nigeria, Senegal, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco and Ghana all featured in a World Cup? I’m sure one of them would have won it by now.
Just my two cents.
Posted from 
United Kingdom
By A-D Dennehey | June 5th, 2006 at 11:23 am I can safely say that i agree with the original poster BOB and every1 else.
Having the World Cup, argubably the most global event out there - minus the Olympics - every 2yrs would really devalue the tournament as a whole.
It would also ruin the build up 2 the Tournamen, the whole structure and value of the tournament.
There are compeitions in between as well that being the Euro. Champs, African Cup Of Nations, Gold Cup, Copa America and the Asian Champs, and lets not forget about the Confederations Cup which is also played in between as well
By having a World Cup every 2years these tournaments would be pratically worthless which of course they’re not.
The current structure of every 4rys is perfect as because of its tournament history it really is worth the wait.
Finally I also partly agree with what BIDEMI has said in having more slots for other Federations teams. I suppose it would make it somewhat more ‘fairer’ by having maybe 1 more team from each federation. The problem that 8 spots from the other federations is that it would mukk up slightly the World Cup and all the qualifying process which has been right as it has since i can remember.
Posted from United States
By Graeme | June 5th, 2006 at 12:49 pm Why can’t they leave football alone? They’ve already spoiled the European Cup making the rich clubs rich while the poor ones go to the wall. Look at the domination by a small amount of teams in nearly every league, thats what happens.
Stop messing with our beautiful game.
Posted from United Kingdom
By Claude | June 5th, 2006 at 1:56 pm Keep the WC to every 4 years otherwise you have a conflict with the Olympics and the European cup and the other continental cups.
As for Africa getting more places, they don’t deserve it. The best teams come from Europe and South America. I can’t see any of the African teams beating the likes of Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy, England, France etc. You add more teams from the Africa or Asia and decrease the teams from Europe you just end up deluting the quality of the WC.
Posted from United States
By World Cup 2006 News- World Cup 2006 Germany Soccer Blog | June 5th, 2006 at 4:07 pm [...] Uff, so much to catch up with today. Have you heard of the idea to make the World Cup a 2-year-deal? According to the Financial Times some of the influencial guys in Europe are thinking about that. To read the full story you´d have to subscribe over there but I´ve found a bit shorter a version of that text over at the blog of the Washington Post. [...]
Posted from 
Germany
By NITRO | June 5th, 2006 at 6:28 pm TO THE CLUBS THAT WANT THE WORLD CUP TO GO FROM EVERY 4 YEARS TO EVERY 2! STOP SMOKING IT GREEN. THE EXCITEMENT OF IT ALL IS THE ANTICIPATION TO FOLLOW YOUR COUNTRY’S EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, TOWARDS QUALIFICATION AND FINAL STEP TO WORLD CUP PARTICIPANT, THAT’S SOMETHING THAT YOU CANNOT CHANGE. BY GOING EVERY 2 YEARS, IT TAKES AWAY FROM THE EXCITEMENT AND OTHER SPORTING VENUES. THE WHOLE IDEA OF 4 YEARS IS TO MAKE PLANS AND SAVE YOUR MONEY FOR YOUR TRIP TO THIS GREAT ARENA. I HAVE DONE THIS WITH MY COUNTRY COLOMBIA. GOING TO ITALY AND SEEING THEM HERE, IN MY BACK YARD (USA) EVERY 4 YEARS IS PERFECT DON’T CHANGE IT PLEASE!!!
Posted from United States
By Altintop | June 5th, 2006 at 7:51 pm G-14 or whatever your names are, keep your hands of our world cup. This is not the chamions league where you make the calls. Every 4 years is fine otherwise it’ll lose its value. I love following the qualifications and counting the days as it nears. Why would they want to kill the excitement for say making more money out of tv rights.
Keep our beautiful game as it is and the world cup every 4 years. Everyone say no to time outs in soccer.
Posted from United States
By swthrhs | June 5th, 2006 at 8:26 pm FIFA, hands off UEFA!
As Rev PAFC commented, this is not UEFA’s idea (who are prepared to fight it tooth and claw), but Blatter’s. Blatter has a grudge against UEFA, so he’s just pretending to humour the G-14, who are no friends of UEFA either. UEFA are no saints themselves, but so far they have somehow managed to restrain the richest clubs in the continent somewhat.
BIDEMI, this is the most idiotic idea I’ve ever heard. If you’re interested about the standard of the game, we should be giving Europe MORE places, not less. Europe deserves about 20 places in the World Cup finals, and Africa is extremely lucky to have 5, whereas it should have about 2-3. Right now the European teams are far far better than anybody else, apart from Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and the odd South American or third world (football-wise) country.
If you are really serious about this, you should be clamouring gor intercontinental qualifying groups. You can have a first round within continents, and then a second intercontinental qualifying round. Of course, in the beginning it would bring us more teams like Austria, Belgium, Turkey, Denmark, Norway, not to mention Greece, Romania and Russia. But it would be much fairer than the current system. Trinidad, Togo, Costa Rica, Saudi Arabia, the States and Australia even, shouldn’t be in playing in the World Cup finals because they just aren’t good enough. Eventually, via such a system, third world teams like Australia, the States and Japan (yes, they are all part of football’s third world, and long may they remain there, or even better get relegated to the fourth world with Chad, Laos, American Samoa and the Comoros) would be able to acquire some real competitive experience, and after some tries would be able to qualify on merit, even going as far as to knock out of the finals a European team.
By now, any club, even the poorest one, can change its whole squad from one year to the next. National teams can’t do that, since they can’t sign anybody up. I am no nationalist myself, and I have no liking whatsoever for countries and nations. But I do enjoy the World Cups and most national team games, because it’s the only sort of game where you just cannot buy success, ala Roman Abramovich. You have to invest in young players, and then wait for them to come up through the ranks. You also have to invest a serious amount of money in inrastructure, and make sure that the conditions are in place for developing your own talent (eg a proper, up and running football league, footballers that are paid promptly, etc). With any club in Europe (and not just the G-14) they might be here today and gone tomorrow. This could never happen to you with football teams, providing your country does not hit the self destruct button.
Posted from 
Greece
By Luis Carlos | June 5th, 2006 at 9:32 pm The world cup has to be played every 4 years, or it would stop being the main sport event in the world
I would say do a another tournament every 4 years the same years the olympics are played, like a single elminitation tournament with 50 teams where number 1 would play number 50, that way we have beter rankings and a good tournamente every 2 years. What say you?
Posted from 
Mexico
By achilihu | June 5th, 2006 at 10:39 pm The world cup should played every four years as it is now.However all the continental competitions(African cup of Nations,Copa America, Gold Cup, Asia cup and the European) shuold be played at the same period. The confederatios cup shoiuld be replaced by an Inter continental cup (africa, eurpoe, south america, north and central america, asia and oceania playing against one another
Posted from United States
By Gus | June 5th, 2006 at 11:19 pm I think the Confederations cup is an intercontinental cup already. However, I think playing it always a year before the WC and in the same country the WC is going to be held is a bit of an anticlimax for the Confederations Cup. Sure, it’s a good logistic exercise, but they may as well have a different tournament and leave the Confederations Cup for another country. The Confederations Cup already doesn’t have much impact, and playing it just before the WC itself dwarves it even more, maybe it should be played the year after the world cup, sort of as a consolation prize for the countries that lost in the world cup.
I agree, the 4 year cycle is perfect, no need to toy around with it. It has been proven right last century, and should remain like that for next century. Maybe 3 years could also work, but then you would have to change the Olympics to 3 years as well, otherwise they would coincide every 12 years. So changing it to 3 years sounds like too much of a hassle, I say leave it as it is.
Posted from Australia
By michel platini | June 6th, 2006 at 2:37 am i think the four year break is also ideal for generational gaps in football.
Would you really want to watch Ronaldinho play in 6 World Cups?
It’s far more intriguing to witness a legend like Zidane, playing in only his 3rd WC, exit the game on a world stage.
makes sense no?
Posted from 
Canada
By DT | June 6th, 2006 at 11:58 am To swthrhs:
I disagree with your statement about European teams are far better than anybody else apart from Brazil, Argentina and Mexico.
European teams just have more exposure. That doesn’t mean they are better. Besides, European teams can only win when the World Cup is staged in Europe. That’s a fact.
Up to now, the World Cup is hosted in Europe about every 8 years. Imagine if the World Cup gets played in Europe every 24 years. We’ll see how good the European teams really are.
European teams are just like Beckham. Lots of media exposure, lots of glamours, but never delivers when playing outside their own continents.
Posted from Australia
By Bob | June 6th, 2006 at 4:55 pm It’s not going to happen, what’s going to happen to the European Championships? Which happens two years after every World Cup?
2006 - World Cup finals
2007 - qualifiers for Euro’s
2008 - European Cup finals
2009 - qualifiers for World Cup
2010 - World Cup finals
Where does the World Cup fit in here?
And besides, the European Championships is a mini World Cup in Europe.
Posted from United States
By mecc | June 12th, 2006 at 3:34 am World cup every four years, bad idea as much as we all want to see our national teams play the beauty is in having such a long wait so that the determination of the players and the quality of play is that much better cause of the limited chance of winning such a grandiose event. Now those that consistently say the best teams are in europe need a lesson in all types of history(racism, yes it plays a part in this but i wont divulge in this and secondly in football itself). To say that the African teams dont deserve 8teams is stupid and dat the European teams deserve more stamps out away the name world cup and secondly lets not forget that both europe and africa have the same number of teams trying to qualify (52). Also lets look at some of the major european footballing nations and not forget that some of their players are actually naturalized africans playing on their teams(homelands dessimated by european nations so they run to europe to seek better living and work). Lastly lets try to remember the 1994 world cup and italy squeaking by Nigeria in the 89th minute by a quite lucky goal by mr Roberto Baggio and the remnants of this episode oh yea I believe Nigeria won the 1996 olympics in Atlanta the next year. so before we say tha t there are subpar teams in Africa lets not forget some of the major facts and the fact that a power house like Nigeria or Cameroun is not in the world cup this year should signify the need for more African teams and there I say for other Asian and South American teams that dont get a chance to play due to European political dominance.
Posted from United States
By Oscar | June 27th, 2006 at 8:34 am Once every two years..? why wait for such a long time…? Seriously, not just because I am a big soccer fun and a player, but once every two years would benefit many, from a basic sport perspective in which many talents and countries would have “their opportunity” to a pure economic standpooint . This would really help some countries developing their turism machinery, other that those who already made it.
Posted from Canada
By Martin | June 28th, 2006 at 12:21 am I think we should have it every 2nd year and just drop the regionale qualifications which outside Europe are down emphasis anyway - it is really a shame that we only see some of the stars maybe once or twice during a career. This would also be great for many nations outside Europe to further build up the interst for soccer in their countries- So for a global perspective, yes to every second year. I would be happy for that. Bring it on.
Br
Martin
Denmark
Posted from 
Denmark
By Martin | June 28th, 2006 at 12:23 am oh I meant with regional qualification - the championships: copa america, Euro, african cup etc
Posted from Denmark
By Martin | June 28th, 2006 at 12:50 am a few extra good points -
Twelve stadiums. A million fans. Yes, I know what you’re thinking . . .
Why is the World Cup so small and over so quickly? Already I am at panic stations. The knockout stages, I know, bring thrilling games and plentiful drama. But they also bring something altogether more sinister. From now on our ration of sweet, juicy football will be cut from three matches a day to two. Then there will be just one match every 24 hours. And finally, as we get down to the real meat, there will be days when there is no football at all. None. Nada. Rien. Zip. Zero. It is the spectre that haunts every World Cup.
From the moment the opening ceremony ends and no matter how much you are enjoying the festivities, the experienced World Cup watcher lives with a heartburn fear that gnaws at the soul. This is great, but soon there will be less football; then there will be none.
Fifa must act. What are they going to do about this football famine they will soon be so smugly overseeing? Here are four ideas for starters.
One, play the World Cup every two years. It’s magnificent, so why ration it? The African Cup of Nations is glorious but happens in the middle of the European season; abolish. The European Championship is the World Cup without Argentina and Brazil; elbow. The South American championship is World Cup qualifiers without a global prize at the end; get rid.
Posted from Denmark
By manish | June 30th, 2006 at 8:36 am every 2 years is not a good idea at all , the long wait makes the thing all the more appealing.
Also think from the teams point, they will loose their appetite in terms that , ok anyways we loose this year, theres always a second chance in a couple of years. the fatc that they have to wait for 4 years makes them all charged up as if there maybe no second chance , since 4 years is quite sometime and much can happen in between
keeep as is!
Posted from 
Japan
By satisch ray hiera | July 2nd, 2006 at 2:17 pm dear….
i certainly think that the worldcup needs some improvements
arguments
1)it is useless to play the game
for the 3rd and 4th plac it is so boaring
2)teams with great football talents who don’t qualify have to
wait too long before they can participate , talents don’t get
enough experience
3) many other arguments like
the huge footballmarkets in e.g. india and china are not reached
possible solutions
——————
1) let the first 8 teams compete every year to decide who is really the best( like in boxing)( A teams)
2) create B and C teams
etceteraaa
Posted from 
Netherlands
By Javier Sanchez Marquez | July 6th, 2006 at 5:58 am It is true that the w.c. is special because it is every four years but I think its too long to wait four years for this. I think every two years would still be special because it is a great sport
and it would be better for all. In fact the players would have a better chance to make more out of their careers. So why not! more fun,
more games, and more money.
Posted from United States
By Odditory | July 7th, 2006 at 1:24 am I found this page searching for the term ‘world cup every year’ on google because I was thinking why don’t they just make it a yearly event - perhaps at the expense of making the other tournaments less relevant. In the U.S. they have a NFL (football) championship every year, a baseball championship every year, and a basketball championship every year. 4 years seems so depressingly long to wait to see my favorite players and team(s) again - some may not even be around by then if an injury ends their career early. I think every 2 years would be perfect. It’s so much more than soccer - it gets the world together in a fun, non-political way and gets everyone talking. Someone else said it best: “The World Cup is the ideal stage. It is hard to compare GDPs and political power in a way that is quite as visually appealing, and in the World Cup the USA does not dominate and little countries have a chance and a say in the movements of the world.”
Posted from United States
Comments are closed
