FIFA, We Fixed Your World Cup Collusion Problem for You

1) Divide teams in 3 divisions of 16 teams each based on FIFA rankings. Based on Oct 2017 FIFA rankings & assuming runners-up of each continent would make it to Finals (ITA NIR / COD UGA BAF CIV / SYR UZB UAE / CHI / HON USA TRI / NZD) + PAR & CHN from intercontinental playoffs based on FIFA ranking, this would be: 1st Division Pot 1A: RUS GER BRA POR ARG BEL POL FRA Pot 1B: ESP CHI PER SUI ENG COL ITA MEX 2nd Division Pot 2A: URU CRO DEN ISL CRC NIR SWE USA Pot 2B: TUN EGY SEN IRI COD PAR SRB NGA 3rd Division Pot 3A: AUS JPN MAR PAN BAF CHN CIV KOR Pot 3B: KSA HON UGA UAE UZB SYR TRI NZD 1st Division 1st Matchday RUS-ITA* POR*-ESP FRA*-PER ARG*-CHI BRA*-SUI GER-MEX* BEL*-ENG POL-COL* 2nd Matchday WINNERS ITA-POR* FRA*-ARG BRA*-MEX BEL*-COL LOSERS RUS*-ESP PER-CHI* SUI-GER* ENG-POL* 1A: POR FRA BRA BEL (WW) 1B: ITA ARG MEX COL (WL) 1C: RUS CHI GER POL (LL) 1D: ESP PER SUI ENG (LL <= RISK of elimination - not straightout elimination owing to being 1st division) Likewise, e.g: 2A:URU CRO SWE NIR 2B:DEN ISL SRB USA 2C:EGY SEN CRC TUN 2D:NGA IRI PAR COD <= ELIMINATED 3A:JPN MAR PAN AUS 3B:CHN BAF KOR CIV 3C:KSA UGA SYR UAE 3D:HON UZB NZD TRI <= ELIMINATED 48 games thus far 2) 3B and 3C teams play KO "survival games" Winners form 3B' Losers get eliminated (8 teams advance from 3rd division) 1D teams play KOs and 2 get eliminated So do 2C teams Surviving 1D teams get relegated to 2C 48+8=56 games thus far 1A-3B' 1B-3A 1C-2A 2B-2C 3) 32 team KO tournament Total:88 games

I don't think FIFA will change the format that has already been decided. One way to discourage collusion with this format would be to provide a real incentive for teams to finish first in their group. This could be achieved by ruling that in the second round, the teams that finished first in their group would only require a draw to advance to the round of 16.

This is a great idea I like it Well done crowd

I recalled that a double-elimination tournament similar to the "Scrap Group Play,..." proposal works well. For perhaps a better idea try good old Rev. C. L. Dodgson's (aka Lewis Carroll) method. He published it in 1883 and it's in Knuth's Art of Computer Programming vol. 3. The number of games does not seem to be prohibitive and interest in the World Cup seems to be sufficient to insure a good return on the costs of the extra games. I don't understand Dodgson's approach well enough to summarize it here but it is similar to double elimination and certainly well-understood by many others.

Fencing tournaments provides a good, simple solution: 12 groups of 4 (based on FIFA rankings, no draw?). Once pools are done, all 48 teams are ranked based on the following criteria: 1. points (3 - 1 - 0) 2. Goal indicator (scored / received) Top teams make it to a complete round of 32. 16 are eliminated. To avoid potential collusion, last day of pools could be excitingly scheduled in 4 days, with 6 games being played simultaneously. actually, all teams compete against each other and uncertainty is kept until the very last minute of group stage. All teams will fight to win their 3 games in pools and score as many goals as possible, to be top seeded after pools and have an “easy path” to the final rounds (# 1 vs # 32, #2 vs # 31, etc)

Hello Julien, My father and I very much enjoyed thinking about your suggested format: eight groups of six with subgroups of three. All teams in subgroup A play against all teams in subgroup B. The best two teams make it to the final 16. The question is: which are the best two teams? If we simply count total points, teams from one subgroup may take profit from facing a minnow on the other side. Here's an example: teams a1, a2 and a3 play against teams b1, b2 and b3. b3 loses all its matches. Meanwhile a1 draws with b1 and wins against b2. And a2 loses against b1 and wins against b2. a3 draws with b1 and loses against b2. This leaves a1 with 7, a2 with 6 and a3 with 4 points. In the other subgroup b1 leads with 5, b2 follows with 3 and b3 with 0 points. Then by the overall ranking a1 and a2 make it to the final 16, while b1 that beat a2 goes home. This doesn't seem fair: team a2 confronts the minnow b3, whereas b1 faces tough competitor a3. Hence the motivation for a slight modification: the elimination criterion. Let's first rank in each subgroup. Here this gives a1>a2>a3 as well as b1>b2>b3. Now eliminate both teams that came last, a3 and b3. Finally determine the best two teams out of teams a1, a2, b1 and b2 - by discarding results against teams a3 and b3. In the example this leaves teams a1 and b1 with 4, a2 with 3 and b2 without points. As seems fair, b1 prevails over a2. So. Groups of six make the world cup interesting. The elimination criterion makes rankings fair!

I like the current system and hope they go back to it. None of the revised systems seem as good. And it's going to hard to find good host countries for such a large tournament. If the tournament gets too long players may choose not to play. Why didn't FIFA figure something out before they decided to expand to 48 teams

The example of the 1982 World Cup (yes, the same one with the Disgrace of Gijón) may be instructive. There were actually TWO group stages at that tournament, one with six groups of four (whence the Disgrace came) and the other with four groups of three. In the second group stage, only the group winners would advance, but crucially, if a team won their first game, they would get to skip the second game; only if that game was a draw would the prearranged schedule be used. This meant that no team could seal progression before the final group match and that both teams in that game would have a chance of advancing. So no already-eliminated Team B not turning up to the final match against Team C and letting the latter through by quirk of the scheduling. The big drawback I can think of is that one of the teams in the final game may have an incentive to play defensively, since they would win the group on a tiebreaker if the game ended in a draw. Nonetheless, I think having a flexible order for the group games would be an improvement over the proposed system, but the easiest fix is really to roll back the expansion and keep the final tournament at 32 teams. The reason for the expansion are not based on the interest of the sport as a whole, but rather Gianni Infantino’s desire to secure his job and FIFA’s ever-present desire to line its pockets with ever increasing quantities of currency, and will wind up hurting the image of the game when the inevitable foul play comes to be.

Did anyone mention the simple possibility of 8 groups of 6 teams each with just one winner per group? An extra game in the opening round and one less in the knockout round and only an extra few days for the tournament. Everyone would then be able to see their team at least 5 times instead of 3.

How about 12 groups of 4. Either have only group winners and the top 4 2nd place teams advance, or have the top 8 group winners get a bye, with the top 16 of the rest (the worst 4 group winners and best 8 2nd place) playoff to face those with a bye. As I sit watching Belgium-England do nothing, there's value in making 1st place matter, and encouraging teams to WIN 2nd, and not just back into it with 4 points. Also, while this article rightly notes many issues, one of the larger ones with the expansion to 48 is how unqualified some of the extra teams will be. Just missing out in Europe was Italy. Just missing out in Asia was... Syria. From CONCACAF, it was... Honduras. Give me more quality (Europe & South America).

So now you've shown that a three team group format simply doesn't work (neither two nor one team going through gives proper motivation and avoidance of collusion) yet this is what FIFA is going with?

People seem to forget that what we are watching now is the World Cup finals. Qualifying makes up the bulk of the tournament, including most nations and lasting years. In that sense the tournament cannot be really expanded. Once again FIFA clearly wants more money (as others have pointed out) as it attempts to fix something that isn't broken.

FIFA admits that the proposed format is a mistake. Revoke 48 team format and continue as in current tournament. 32 teams are enough- 15% of total membership (211) in the finals is quite representative.

The schedule could be adjusted on the fly so that if there's a winner/loser in the first game, the loser plays the second game. If the first game is a tie, then flip a coin.

More teams >>> more viewers >>> more money. Seems like FIFA as usual.

Now that’s some kind of analysis. And, that my friends, is why I subscribe to the Times.

i think the eight groups of six with two subgroups of three is the cleanest option. very enjoyable little puzzle. the world cup should also have a toilet bowl, so the fans of the losing teams could still have some fun and maybe win a game for once?

Soccer needs something like football and basketball, where an actual in-play goal is worth more than a free throw or a field goal. A penalty kick should certainly be worth less than an in-play kick or header. Maybe 3 for the actual field goal, 2 for the one where there is a stoppage of play and a line-up of defenders and the kicker has to put it over or around or through them to score, and 1 for the penalty kick. That should make ties less likely (although there could still be the dreaded nil-nil one) and would reward a real goal more--and it would reward team play and action more than contrived-by-rules kicks. With these changes there would be less need for much or all of the other suggestions; there would be fewer ties and it would be harder to game the system.

ummm, " It was my understanding that there would be no math "

I would have preferred an expansion to 40 teams instead of 48. More inclusive with less risk of dilution. Then create 8 groups of five. So each team plays 4 group matches instead of 3, to get to the 16-team knockout round (two teams advance from each group). Problems: - You'd have 80 group-stage matches instead of the current 48. 95 matches in all. Not a problem for me; I rather like the group stage, when everyone still has a chance. Sort of. - The finalists would play 8 matches, which the big clubs would probably oppose.

I would suggest a modified version of the system proposed in 'A Final Though': Instead of eight group of six have sixteen groups of three, but do not play matches inside the group. Rather pair two groups together and make all teams from one group play all teams from another group with only the best team from each group advancing to the knockout stage. The number of games remains the same, but now the group stage is completely fair - all competing teams play the same three opponents. Since the opposing teams do not directly compete with each other and all three last-day games are played simultaneously, there is no collusion problem.

I was going to suggest just what rlschles suggested. FIFA clearly wants to be inclusive. So, maybe it’s time to just say forget about the group stage altogether and go with 64 teams, NCAA tournament style. No ties, of course. Collusion problem completely eliminated. Total of 63 matches, nobody plays more than 6 — so players and clubs are happy — and very easily accomplished within 30 days. Furthermore, this could address a problem with FIFA's planned format that you never mentioned, which is that, with so many slots available, World Cup qualifying will become trivial and meaningless for so many countries. If you use performance in the qualifying matches for the seeding, then those games become quite meaningful; they may make the difference between you facing Brazil in the first round, or Jamaica. The major downside is that half the clubs would get to play only a single match. But you could address that by having a “consolation tournament” of the first round losers to decide 33rd-64th place — call it the NIT of world soccer. Then everyone would get at least 2 matches, half would get more, and you call that the price of having a very inclusive World Cup.

Do away with ties/draws...let FIFA ruin a wonderful tournament all they want by bringing in 16 more teams of which maybe 8 will be ok (Holland/Italy/Chile/USA/Wales are a few that would definitely add to quality)....but do away with draws in the Group Stage...if it's a tie at 90 minutes, straight to penalties, no extra time...winners get the 3 points, but goal difference is NOT affected by penalties scored/conceded..only goals in regulation...let ties become part of the game in knock out rounds

16 groups of 3 with crossover play so no one in the same group plays each other but they all play the same 3 teams in another group. The 3rd game for each team is played simultaneously to avoid collusion. The top team in each group advances to the round of 16 (or 32 if FIFA wants to add another game).

within the same likely structure (2 of 3 teams advancing from 16 groups) I suggest a tweaked KO structure. instead of 1A-2B pairings, keep matchups to the same seeds, so 2A-2B and 1A-1B are the first KO round matchups. the 1 seed winners advance to the R16, but the 8 losers are not eliminated. They play the 8 winners of the 2 seed matchups to fill out the remaining R16. Winning 1 seeds get extra rest.

And what about using the Final Four format - 64 teams, seeded into 4 brackets. Every game is win or go home. Some Cinderellas will get through to the later rounds.

Good Morning: Or we could just go back to 32 teams, the perfect number. 48 seems like it combines FIFA at its greediest with FIFA at its most incompetent.

Why make it fair? I thought FIFA preferred bribery.

I am surprised that no one mentioned wild cards. 12 groups of 4, the winner advances, and 4 additional wild card teams advance based on points, goal differential, and goals scored.