There is, officially, a consultation process currently being conducted by FIFA on the feasibility of organizing a Men’s World Cup every two years. But FIFA’s head of global development, Arsène Wenger, has come out in favor, while the sport’s governing body has brought out a number of former stars: Didier Drogba, Jurgen Klinsmann, Marco Materazzi, Lothar Matthäus, Michael Owen, Roberto Carlos, Ronaldo, Peter Schmeichel, John Terry, Yaya Touré among them, to make statements with similar words expressing their support. A previous report concluded that a two-year World Cup was a bad idea, but who could predict how this story will turn out?
Why FIFA is in favor is clear: money. Of 95% of your income over a four-year cycle comes from the World Cup. Doubling the number of tournaments probably won’t double your income entirely, but it could come close. It’s also about power and the ongoing struggle between FIFA and UEFA for control of the game. More significant matches should improve FIFA’s status.
UEFA, seeing a busy schedule and worrying about both the strain on the players and the possible impact on their income, is understandably opposed. Its president Aleksander Čeferin has already threatened a boycott which, if it could be implemented, given that it has been 20 years since the last non-European winner of the World Cup and 13 of the last 16 semi-finalists were Europeans, would effectively make any tournament FIFA irrelevant. (And this perhaps highlights what dangerous game FIFA is playing. We are not close to this stage yet, but suppose the major European nations have decided to separate and move forward on their own. They should just entice Brazil and Argentina to join. them and therefore FIFA itself could actually be made irrelevant.)
Four of the most vocal federations in support of the proposal were Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka, none of which has ever qualified for the Asian Cup, let alone a World Cup. FIFA has a responsibility to represent all of its members and all levels of the game, but it is not unreasonable to ask why these four nations are so interested in a plan that will only indirectly affect them.
But beyond politics, there is a serious point on the calendar, which was stretched almost to a breaking point even before COVID-19 actually led authorities to try to cram three and a half seasons into three years. There is a need for rationalization and it could be that this dispute is the start of much needed negotiations on what football will look like in the future.
It is unclear how Wenger’s plan for a World Cup every two years with confederal tournaments fits this (plus the idea that all confederal tournaments will be played in the summer of northern Europe is impractical in a huge number of countries, since the decision to move the Qatar World Cup in November demonstrates). Gamers need a break (they’re not alone in the grand scheme; reporters certainly need a break, and it could even be that fans do), as a continuous treadmill of games can’t be good for them, nor physically or mentally.
It is hard to believe that many would not end up withdrawing from confederal tournaments, thus devaluing them. This is what makes the framing of negotiations as Europe against the rest of the world so strange. The Confederation of African Football, now essentially a FIFA protectorate, has also backed the proposal (giving FIFA 55 guaranteed votes out of 211 in its Congress), but this seems terrible for African mid-level teams like Burkina Faso. Guinea or Mali, which have a recent history of success in the Nations Cup but have never been close to qualifying for a World Cup.
Then there are the practical aspects of qualification. It’s hard enough to get into qualifying as it is. Wenger’s proposal lightly emphasizes the fact that fans are bored with meaningless matches, which is probably true – England 4, Andorra 0 last Sunday were essentially irrelevant – but with no qualifiers, how do you decide who plays in tournaments. most important?
Wenger’s suggestion of fewer and longer qualifying blocks seems sensible, less disruptive to the club’s season and allows international managers more continuity, but still recognizes the need for it. Maybe there is a way to simplify them via something like the Nations League, but there are dangers to that conversation as well. Few doubts, for example, that the South American qualifiers, in which each team plays all at home and away, have raised the level of Chile, Paraguay, Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia.
And what happens to FIFA’s plans for an enlarged Club World Cup? It is noteworthy that this was backed by Saudi money and that it was the Saudi federation that made the first call-up for the biennial World Cup. Have those plans just been shelved? Or does FIFA believe that we can also squeeze the tournament in some way, perhaps in those years of confederal tournaments?
The whole thing is a mess. There is a serious need for serious discussion about the schedule and the reduction of the workload on the players, but no one can be sure that it is acting in good faith. It’s all about politics and money, without thinking about the players, the fans or the game itself. The football administrators seem determined to kill the golden hen.
More football coverage:
.