Alex Gonçalves

Look at the teams Torreense could play in the Europa League next season, while being a second division side! Juventus, Bayer Leverkusen, Olympiakos, Marseille, Bournemouth, Sunderland... What an unexpected adventure awaiting the town of Torres Vedras! Image from @fmeetsdata

@Bandolero__86 @ricardoevano Unless you're about 12 or younger, anyone would remember what a 32 team World Cup is like

@Aljeeves @ricardoevano You’re probably not old enough to remember how great 24 and 32 team World Cup is

The hatred for a potential expansion of the World Cup to 64 team for me seems... Odd. 64 is evidently better than 48. Having 3rd place teams progress is evidently flawed, & advantages those in later groups. 64 teams is excessive, but a choice between 48 and 64 seems clear to me.

@chall77 You got a few big games but pretty much no jeopardy as 3rd place was most likely enough to go through. Brazil vs Morocco was somewhat interesting, but both were always making it to the knockouts even with one slip up. In a 64 team tournament, two going through means more jeopardy

@Aljeeves You’re adding lower quality inventory and it’s diluted. So maybe there’s more room for Nigeria or Italy to make it in. But overwhelmingly, it’s gonna be more likely that you get groups like ARG-AUT-ALG-JOR where someone has to go through then lose 2-0, 3-0 in next round.

@SirHandsomeHere FIFA will never do that

@Aljeeves Or how about going back to 32? Why is 64 the correct solution to the 48 problem when you can just go back to 32. This problem doesn’t need to be like consumer good prices which once they go up, never go back down.

@angreei You're not obligated to watch every game

@Aljeeves I’ve watched fewer matches in this World Cup than any I can remember. It’s already too big. 64 teams and I’ll skip the group stages Altogether.

@stillared1887 Half the teams? What an insane claim.

@Aljeeves The standard has never been lower than this World Cup. It's supposed to be the elite but at least half of these teams are a utter embarrassment to football.

@Coops138 Yes, or maybe just have two teams qualify and have a one off match between the two best teams every four years. 👍

@Aljeeves While they’re at it just invite other planets. A universe cup would give even more scope for advertising revenue 👍

@tnmc @jwbritus Only about 30% of FIFA nations would qualify, it's far from a pointless qualification process. But even if it were, I'm not sure why that really matters. You shouldn't limit what you do with a tournament to ensure the qualification for it is interesting.

@Aljeeves @jwbritus So just make qualifying campaigns meaningless, like the regular season of North American sports.

@neck_rubber About a week

@Aljeeves Won’t this add 3 more weeks to the schedule or summat

@JPierreX7 I am and I'm not sure why that's inconsistent.

@Aljeeves A WC with 24 teams is of higher quality than a WC with 32 teams. And third placed teams advanced in the former. Your stance is not even consistent because you’re likely against having 128 teams.

The World Cup was first expanded to 32 teams in 1998, ~30 years ago. Football's come a long, long way since then. The global standard is far higher than it used to be. Evidently there are 64 teams in the world that are good enough to compete at the World Cup. That's a good thing.

One argument is it dilutes the quality. But would it? Decide the extra teams that qualify using more intercontinental playoffs so teams qualify on merit, not geography. I struggle to believe the worst 16 teams in this World Cup are better than 16 best teams that didn't qualify.

@ricardoevano @Bandolero__86 I genuinely don't see any harm in having 64 teams in the World Cup, it's the biggest sporting event in the world, it's only natural that over time it gets even bigger. The standard of football now is so much greater than it was 30 years ago when it was first expanded to 32 teams.

@Aljeeves @Bandolero__86 It’s meant to be elitist! It’s the World Cup Finals!!!!!

@PEpigone Don't worry about it honestly, reading isn't for everyone.

@Aljeeves The irony is you have no argument. You literally don't know what you're arguing for. It's bizarre; you sound confused.

@PEpigone The irony of you not being able to understand simple sentences, what a shame.

@Aljeeves Right. Continue your incoherent babble.

@PEpigone What a very intelligent response

@Aljeeves Oh, you're also retarded.

@Bandolero__86 What an elitist, gatekeeping way of looking at it.

@Aljeeves What a touristy-corporate way of looking at it. The World Cup is intended for the best of the best. Anything past 32 is just diluting the quality of the game. That ad money, though…

This is sadly true. I tried to wave an England flag during the Norway game, and I was shot and killed by Keir Starmer.

@dneighbors Rather large leap to go from 30% of the FIFA members qualifying to 100%.

@Aljeeves At that point invite everyone and do away with qualifying.

@PEpigone Maybe you're just not very good at reading. Just a thought.

@Aljeeves What are you even arguing for? You sound confused and incoherent.

@youlesie23 The only issue with that is that you increase the number of games each team plays (from 3 group stage games to 5). Increasing to 64 doesn't. Equally though, I prefer 8 groups of 6 to what we have currently.

@Aljeeves Genuine question. Why can’t we go to 8 groups of 6?

@djangofella @decentralizedX1 Why even bother at all? Why not just make it the 8 best teams and be done with it?

@Aljeeves @decentralizedX1 Elitist mentality? It is a sport tournament that is supposed to have the best teams playing against each other. With that argument, lets skip qualification and do a 200 country World Cup.