Platini has the idea of increasing the World Cup teams to 40 from the current 33. This would see 2 African nations, 2 Asian nations, 2 Americas nations and 1 European. This is to me sounds fair enough seeing as its only more games for us to enjoy and adding only 3 days to the World Cup. Your thoughts?

Considering he's proposing it as a counter plan to Blatter's idea of reducing the number of European slots in the 32, this does seem like the better option.

32 is just perfect, no need to change it. Maybe they want to make sure Mexico Portugal and or France would qualify for next WC...
But in all seriousness expanding the world cup teams by 8 would make it less of an achievement to qualify, and who would get the extra spots?

"and who would get the extra spots?"

Well, er: 2 African nations, 2 Asian nations, 2 Americas nations and 1 European.

It doesn't really reduce the achievement in qualifying.

I like the 32 teams just the way it is.
So let's say there's 40 teams. If we were then to still use 10 groups with 4 teams in each, 20 would qualify.
Then in the knockout stages, there would be 10 fixtures. But I don't know how they would do that because it's not a power of 2. Then that would mean, they would have to change the style of the World Cup which is a no go.
I'm not too fond of this idea. Stop trying to change tradition!

Dude, he is only proposing this, because Sepp Blatter wants to reduce the number of UEFA nations in the 32-team World Cup.

I too like the WC just fine the way it is, but I am damn sure I would rather expand its roster than cut down on the number of teams from the most successful footballing continent in the world. :p

@tuanis: "expanding the world cup teams by 8 would make it less of an achievement to qualify",

but it would make much of an achievement if 1 country wins it out of the 40 teams.

@man_utd:
there were 13 teams in the first world cup, 16 in the next one, 15 in the third one. it has nothing to do with tradition but improving and adding more competitivity to the best tournament in history; and also some teams will have the privilege of playing in WC for the first time and to represent their nations, for ex Bosnia just qualified for the first WC in their history.

I think it is the same achievement to win it if there are 32 40 or 12 teams, the winner would have to go trough a qualification round and then on to the final stage that is the world cup, the amount of teams wont determine the glory of those who win. But 40 teams is just a little to much, it would decrease the quality of the teams that play in the world cup. I dont think any extra teams should be allowed to qualify except for European teams. Asia, Africa and Both American confederations have the right amount of WC spots imo... Some confederations would have up to 60% of the teams involved in the final qualifying round being able t qualify for the WC which won't really help competitively.

And reducing the amount of teams is just ridiculous, they would have to reduce it in at least 8 teams to maintain the structure of the tournament and nobody would allow this to happen, so don't worry about this insane idea.

@man_utd

You're thinking too complicated. The additional eight nations can just be added to each group, and the eight groups will now have 5 teams instead of the usual 4. It's essentially the same format, just one more team in each group, and a maximum of 12 achievable points.

@Enjoyneer_Red
"Tradition" in my case as all the World Cups played since I was born only had 32 teams. And sure, it would give some teams that haven't qualified a chance to but it just comes down to each individuals opinion.
@Dynastian98
5 teams in 1 group? Could you explain to me how the format would be? Like how many teams qualify from each? Would it just be the usual 2?

@Man_utd

Yes. Only two teams would qualify, but each team would have to play 4 games (one against all the other teams in their group). This way, only 2 teams will qualify from each of the 8 groups, resulting in there being the exact same format for the knockout rounds as we have had since 1998.

To me it's the perfect idea. As dynastian pointed out the knock out would remain intact just provoke a higher level of competition.

@dynastian98
That could work.

This idea is just a nonsense Platini came up with to have the support of Asian and African confederations for the future elections...
Pros:
More teams would have an opportunity to play the world cup

Cons:
Lower quality of football
all confeds. would have to restructure the qualifying system
it would be a lot harder to complete the WC sticker album...

It would result in one extra fixture per group. That's it. That's making the tournament a mere 3 days longer. I don't see what the problem is.

I mean, everyone here has seen me bitching about the World Cup being given to Qatar, for instance. One of my main reasons was because Qatar are absolutely NOBODY in world football, and the entire Middle-Eastern region is pretty barren in terms of international glory. Unlike Africa, which has had many impressive World Cup teams, they've never earned it in actual footballing terms.

THIS, right here, this idea is a fair way for smaller confederations to really earn it. The right way. The fair way. As Enjoyneer said, the World Cup has increased from 13 teams to 32 over its history, and there are more registered football nations than ever before.

If the idea is to bring more nations in, and to spread the wonderfulness of football around, this expansion would be a much better, fairer way of doing it.

^ Not only that, but it would also encourage participation and more competition in the sport in nations that aren't the "big boys" of world football, such as Australia, Iraq, and yes, perhaps even Qatar themselves. THEN, we can one day in the future see Qatar EARN the right to hold the WC.

^ Exactly.