Changing the World Cup to every two years could (but won’t) help soccer’s have-nots

If the World Cup is run every two years, it will cease to be so special.
Image: Getty Images

Turning the World Cup into a biennial event is a bad idea. That’s not the most revolutionary statement, but I wanted to put it bluntly because that’s the point I want you to remember from the rest of this. And if FIFA president Gianni Infantino is to be believed, e the move has majority support, could follow the lines of the college football conference realignment and 17-game NFL schedule in terms of shit changes that have actually been approved despite universal disapproval.

Kylian Mbappé, of Paris St. Germain and FIFA cover athlete this year, and Robert Lewandowski, forward of Bayern Munich and tough in general, both have spoken out against it and warned of the potential for overexertion at the Global Soccer Awards.

“If people want to see the quality in the game, the emotion, see what makes football beautiful, I think we have to respect the health of the players,” Mbappé said.

Lewandowski echoed those sentiments:

“We have so many games every year, so many difficult weeks, not just the games but the preparation for the season, the preparation for the big tournaments. If you want to offer something special, something different, we also need a break ”.

The reason behind his support – the money – was enough to keep the powers that be moving forward with the changes in the NFL and NCAA, and we all know how much money there is in football. Not only that, but wanting more and more never ceases whether it’s FIFA, UEFA, CONCACAF, etc. It is estimated FIFA would earn $ 4.4 billion more over a four-year cycle with an extra World Cup. This is an increase of more than half as the current projection for a normal cycle is $ 7 billion.

If you’re wondering why the hell does FIFA, an organization with a history of corruption and incompetence, need more money? They don’t, but some of their members do.

Here’s ESPN’s Gabriele Marcotti on Because that’s how it is?:

“About two thirds of FIFA member nations do not have a men’s professional league and much of the other third who have a pro league offer structures, wages and working conditions that are closer to League Two in England than the Premier League or La Liga. These countries feel they cannot rely on the club game to grow organically – the road map that built the game in Europe and South America – because they are too far behind. In a globalized world, many sponsors and broadcasters would rather spend money on established products rather than whatever is at hand ”.

It is perfectly reasonable. Extra income could help countries that are unable to provide wages, facilities and working conditions to catch up with top-flight leagues. All right and all, but if lack of funds were the only barrier to having a major football product, the MLS would be considered the same as EPL, Liga and Serie A.

It will never be as popular as those leagues for the same reason that people have not moved to the XFL from the NFL or the Big 3 from the NBA – people want to watch the best athletes and the best athletes want to play the best competition.

This is also why the World Cup raises billions of dollars every four years. To dilute it would mean watering down a perfect event and diminishing its meaning.

Even if it passes, who can say that the money will go for its intended purpose. Again, from Marcotti:

“While few football governing bodies have an excellent reputation: CONMEBOL’s last three permanent presidents (Nicolas Leoz, Eugenio Figuereido and Juan Angel Napout) have all been accused of corruption and banned from playing, the last four presidents of CONCACAF (Jack Warner, Lisle Austin, Alfredo Hawit, Jeffrey Webb) have all been indicted or banned, as have the last two presidents of the CAF (Issa Hayatou and Ahmad Ahmad), of Oceania (Reynald Temarii, David Chung) and the last presidents AFC (Mohamed bin Hammam) and UEFA (Michel Platini) – the name of FIFA, as Infantino himself admits, is still “toxic” to many, as it happens when six years ago you were about to be designated a “criminal organization” by United States Department of Justice ”.

Aside from attempting bribery, putting the health of the best players in the game at risk, and possibly ruining a tournament with a pound approval rating, a two-year World Cup is a great idea. There must be a better way to help the underprivileged in football, because exploiting poor countries is a shitty thing to do and apparently never ends.

I have a hard time simply saying, “Well, that’s capitalism, so fuck it” when it comes to that because that’s the argument for the two sides that matter. Wealthy organizations like UEFA, which has already declared its opposition to the change, could take a hit from it for multiple reasons, including its four-year competition, the Europeans, which takes place during what I assume would be the new time slot for another World Cup. .

The members who support it rightly want more money because that will help them expand the game at home and hopefully keep more profits there as well. Kids get screwed all the time, but when they finally have the power to get more cake, we want them to relax in the name of the sport like the people above aren’t doing exactly the same shit. Part of me feels who cares if their plans become relevant it probably won’t materialize or if money goes like greasy hands, let’s add another World Cup. Everything burns.

I can’t do it, though. I can’t write: “Another World Cup is a good idea”. The recovery is too hot, the competition is too sacred.

I hate choosing the status quo – the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor – rather than trying something new, but not this. It would be like adding another Christmas to the calendar. You can’t celebrate your half birthday like your real birthday.


Leave a Comment