I admire the creativity but I think this has the potentially fatal flaw of devaluing games much further than they otherwise would be. Right now, with every team largely divided in the same manner, you dont have a class of matches that instantly marked inferior. Some matches are obviously better than others re: intrigue, but there's no clear line and big sides can play smaller ones.
Here, youre clearly setting up a group of teams who are second tier, and theyre being scheduled at roughly the same time as the top tier. This is a bit like a promotion/relegation system in a typical club league (absent the relegation of course). We see how that dynamic plays out, uniformly, within systems that have 1st tiers and 2nd tiers clearly delineated: the 2nd tier draws far less capital, far less viewership, fewer fans, and just less interest overall. Its never equal, and actually never really even close to equal.
Bring that dynamic to the world cup, and you get a much less valuable world cup. The "B division" is going to be disproportionately neglected by fans and viewers, and that will drag the tournament down as a whole from a financial perspective. Broadcasters and sponsors are going to want a discount on matches where it is guaranteed that lesser teams will be the exclusive competitors playing in smaller, less appealing venues in front of fewer people.
To be clear, the idea is competitively appealing. It does allow for fewer lopsided matchups. It makes it a lot easier for fans who want to see top teams only to focus their energy on those matches only (which, as I noted above, is bad for the value of the world cup as a whole but nice for those fans). And smaller teams could walk away from tournaments with better results than they otherwise would, while still getting to say they made it to the big stage. You are hitting on all of these points. To be candid, I expected to hate this idea a lot more than I did as a fan of a smaller country (Jamaica), but theres some merit here, truly.
But the price is far too large. Its still more games, so it should be more money than a 32 team tournament had been. But its likely far less money (I am thinking billions shaved off of what could be a $16B+ 64 team tournament) than FIFA could otherwise get with a 64 team tournament in a traditional format. FIFA is going to have to try and sell a B-division, and we know how that goes - it will be worth much less. Compare revenue or broadcast rights between first and second divisions globally, and you see financial cliffs - 70-90% drops are the norm between first and second tiers in major European pyramids. Lets assume because this is the world cup, drops are drastically smaller than this - 25-30%. Thats at least $4B in lost value. And thats probably a generous underestimate.
You may contend "its the world cup, decreased value wont apply here" but I just dont think thats a credible argument. The rule on lower value for second divisions holds everywhere, globally, with no real exceptions - there's little reason to believe that a "World Cup B" fully exclusive of the top 32 sides and competing in venues people would less prefer to visit will be that exception. Curaçao's 3 games are much more valuable to broadcasters when there's a Germany or Ecuador on the schedule, and stadiums fill up more readily as well in that scenario. If its just going to be Indonesia, Kosovo, and Guinea, then there will be a very significant discount. You cant get around that. You cant offer less and expect the same price.
The value of the world cup as a unified package is just going to be far greater than it will be as a split deal. And that I think is what will ensure this never happens. Nobody is going to want to leave the kind of money this reduced value would represent (as I noted, likely several billions of dollars) on the table.
My biggest comment would be, that it’s not a different competition. They could brand it however they’d like, but it would still garner views.
People watched the essentially meaningless Algeria vs Jordan game at this past World Cup. I believe that that will still happen.
Other tournaments already do this - think play in games in the NBA, or the page playoff system in Curling.
As a fan of Jamaica, would you prefer them to play Ivory Coast, Ecuador, and Germany (like Curacao)
or (in the simulation I just ran) Saudi Arabia, Kosovo, and Egypt (finishing second in the group?)
As far as costs, I live in Toronto and the Senegal Iraq game (Which was non competitive match played between 2 of the sleepiest teams) was still a major event here. Sellout, at full price. So I am not worried about that.
Sure, technically it is all part of the "World Cup", and you can certainly try to brand it as such. But you are very clearly splitting the competition into two very distinct tiers that do not really interact much with one another, with one very clearly inferior to the other. And you are doing this with the stated intent of generating that exact result. That is a fundamental change to the nature of the competition - you can always brand it "the World Cup" still, but it is not the same World Cup we have today. People are going to notice what this is and what "Tier B" really represents (no matter what you name it) - you cannot hide it.
And will that competition still garner views? Sure, but that isnt the question. The question is HOW MANY views will your new second tier of the world cup garner relative to what it could draw under a more traditional model.
Algeria vs Jordan is actually a pretty good example of the problem with the assumptions underlying your idea. The game was not meaningless - neither team was eliminated when this game (the 2nd of the group) was played. Algeria set itself up for a chance to secure advancement with the win, if it could avoid a loss to Austria on the final day. Algeria did just that.
The results of that game had a real, tangible impact on the outcome of Group J, which people cared about because Group J was as meaningful as any other group, and bigger sides like Argentina and Austria were part of that group.
Now, lets do your scenario. Algeria and Jordan are in the 2030 B tier with Suriname and Kosovo. Only one team advances. We have several issues here:
1. This group is weaker than 2026 Group J. There are no top teams within the group to draw casual eyes and interest.
2. Advancement in group J is limited to a single team. That increases the risk of dead rubbers on 2nd and 3rd match days, with teams eliminated early from contention with no hope of advancement to play for. That makes a group already struggling to generate intrigue (because it has fewer teams) even less intriguing. A few casuals who would watch Suriname-Algeria just to see a possible knockout round impact will not be tuning in.
3. The teams people actually care most about are not impacted, at all, in the way they were in 2026, even potentially. Argentina and Austria would, in this scenario, be playing in the "A tier", totally disconnected from whatever occurs in the "B tier". There are many fans who paid Algeria-Jordan some mind in 2026 because they suspected (rightfully) that the result could impact one of the group favorites. That wouldnt be the case in your scenario. Kosovo and Suriname would be impacted, surely, but that is a lot less intriguing than Argentina or Austria.
Everything I said above generally applies to Senegal and Iraq as well, except:
1. Senegal probably isnt in the"B tier" to begin with, so whichever alternative team would replace it in your scenario is going to be weaker (reducing intrigue). Lets assume this alternative team is Mali, because why not.
2. Senegal had something to play for in this 2026 match. Mali, assuming their first two matches went the same way Senegals did in 2026 Group I, would have been eliminated already in our 2030 hypothetical B tier group.
To summarize: you go from a game with some actual implications for the knockout rounds (via Senegal qualifying with a win) featuring at least one top 32 team (Senegal) to a match featuring zero top 32 teams and zero implications for the knockouts, with both sides eliminated.
And you, somehow, expect nothing to change? Pricing, viewership, attendance, etc just stay identical?
That just isnt realistic man.
You say you arent worried about pricing...but you should be. All of the factors I listed above (lower stakes, weaker competition, fewer well known teams involved or impacted) mean lower pricing, more effort to fill seats, and fewer viewers on TV/streaming. And all of that, in turn, means reduced value. That is what kills this whole thing.
The NBA play-in example is not helpful to your argument, for one big reason: play in games draw lower viewership than regular first round playoff games. Between 20-40% less, actually, which just so happens to be the amount I am arguing we could see value diminished for "Tier B" in your model. If viewership for Tier B declines by a degree similar to the percentage projections in my first post and the actual percentage gap between NBA play in games and ordinary playoff games, it will mean we see the consequence I noted before: several billion dollars in diminished value for the world cup. In an $18 billion event (which is what a 64 team World Cup is widely projected to be), that 20% drop is $3.5B. And thats the low end - we could see $7B on the high end.
As I said before: there is no way around this reality. You want to sell something that is clearly inferior as a product for the same money. It just doesnt work like that. And while your model has some competitive intrigue, which I conceded already, I highly doubt that intrigue is going to be worth the $3 Billion+ your model would basically take off the table for FIFA, its sponsors, and broadcast partners, as well as the teams (whose prize money and annual grant distribution comes from that broader revenue). It just doesnt make sense when the ordinary model is right there and will pay everyone more.
Finally, the question about Jamaica: my answer is neither, because those arent the choices at hand. There is a 3rd option: Jamaica plays in a 64 team World Cup that is not split into two tiers, and gets a group that results from the same traditional seeding process we saw in 2026. That gets us a group that is stronger than your "B tier" projection but probably less tough than Curacaos was on paper.
We might get a group like, say:
Portugal, Cameroon, Ukraine
Or
Uruguay, Turkey, Mali
Or
Portugal, Colombia, Scotland
Or
Morocco, Cameroon, Uzbekistan
All of those are fine and would generate more intrigue imo than the B tier group you put us in. We arent going to top any of those groups, to be fair, but I think we would have a chance to be competitive and walk away with more than Jordan or Uzbekistan did in 2026.
Sure, technically it is all part of the "World Cup", and you can certainly try to brand it as such. But you are very clearly splitting the competition into two very distinct tiers that do not really interact much with one another, with one very clearly inferior to the other. And you are doing this with the stated intent of generating that exact result. That is a fundamental change to the nature of the competition - you can always brand it "the World Cup" still, but it is not the same World Cup we have today. People are going to notice what this is and what "Tier B" really represents (no matter what you name it) - you cannot hide it.
And will that competition still garner views? Sure, but that isnt the question. The question is HOW MANY views will your new second tier of the world cup garner relative to what it could draw under a more traditional model.
Algeria vs Jordan is actually a pretty good example of the problem with the assumptions underlying your idea. The game was not meaningless - neither team was eliminated when this game (the 2nd of the group) was played. Algeria set itself up for a chance to secure advancement with the win, if it could avoid a loss to Austria on the final day. Algeria did just that.
The results of that game had a real, tangible impact on the outcome of Group J, which people cared about because Group J was as meaningful as any other group, and bigger sides like Argentina and Austria were part of that group.
Now, lets do your scenario. Algeria and Jordan are in the 2030 B tier with Suriname and Kosovo. Only one team advances. We have several issues here:
1. This group is weaker than 2026 Group J. There are no top teams within the group to draw casual eyes and interest.
2. Advancement in group J is limited to a single team. That increases the risk of dead rubbers on 2nd and 3rd match days, with teams eliminated early from contention with no hope of advancement to play for. That makes a group already struggling to generate intrigue (because it has fewer teams) even less intriguing. A few casuals who would watch Suriname-Algeria just to see a possible knockout round impact will not be tuning in.
3. The teams people actually care most about are not impacted, at all, in the way they were in 2026, even potentially. Argentina and Austria would, in this scenario, be playing in the "A tier", totally disconnected from whatever occurs in the "B tier". There are many fans who paid Algeria-Jordan some mind in 2026 because they suspected (rightfully) that the result could impact one of the group favorites. That wouldnt be the case in your scenario. Kosovo and Suriname would be impacted, surely, but that is a lot less intriguing than Argentina or Austria.
Everything I said above generally applies to Senegal and Iraq as well, except:
1. Senegal probably isnt in the"B tier" to begin with, so whichever alternative team would replace it in your scenario is going to be weaker (reducing intrigue). Lets assume this alternative team is Mali, because why not.
2. Senegal had something to play for in this 2026 match. Mali, assuming their first two matches went the same way Senegals did in 2026 Group I, would have been eliminated already in our 2030 hypothetical B tier group.
To summarize: you go from a game with some actual implications for the knockout rounds (via Senegal qualifying with a win) featuring at least one top 32 team (Senegal) to a match featuring zero top 32 teams and zero implications for the knockouts, with both sides eliminated.
And you, somehow, expect nothing to change? Pricing, viewership, attendance, etc just stay identical?
That just isnt realistic man.
You say you arent worried about pricing...but you should be. All of the factors I listed above (lower stakes, weaker competition, fewer well known teams involved or impacted) mean lower pricing, more effort to fill seats, and fewer viewers on TV/streaming. And all of that, in turn, means reduced value. That is what kills this whole thing.
The NBA play-in example is not helpful to your argument, for one big reason: play in games draw lower viewership than regular first round playoff games. Between 20-40% less, actually, which just so happens to be the amount I am arguing we could see value diminished for "Tier B" in your model. If viewership for Tier B declines by a degree similar to the percentage projections in my first post and the actual percentage gap between NBA play in games and ordinary playoff games, it will mean we see the consequence I noted before: several billion dollars in diminished value for the world cup. In an $18 billion event (which is what a 64 team World Cup is widely projected to be), that 20% drop is $3.5B. And thats the low end - we could see $7B on the high end.
As I said before: there is no way around this reality. You want to sell something that is clearly inferior as a product for the same money. It just doesnt work like that. And while your model has some competitive intrigue, which I conceded already, I highly doubt that intrigue is going to be worth the $3 Billion+ your model would basically take off the table for FIFA, its sponsors, and broadcast partners, as well as the teams (whose prize money and annual grant distribution comes from that broader revenue). It just doesnt make sense when the ordinary model is right there and will pay everyone more.
Finally, the question about Jamaica: my answer is neither, because those arent the choices at hand. There is a 3rd option: Jamaica plays in a 64 team World Cup that is not split into two tiers, and gets a group that results from the same traditional seeding process we saw in 2026. That gets us a group that is stronger than your "B tier" projection but probably less tough than Curacaos was on paper.
We might get a group like, say:
Portugal, Cameroon, Ukraine
Or
Uruguay, Turkey, Mali
Or
Portugal, Colombia, Scotland
Or
Morocco, Cameroon, Uzbekistan
All of those are fine and would generate more intrigue imo than the B tier group you put us in. We arent going to top any of those groups, to be fair, but I think we would have a chance to be competitive and walk away with more than Jordan or Uzbekistan did in 2026.
(The double comment was not intended, bad wifi, sorry - but you get the gist of what I am saying)
I admire the creativity but I think this has the potentially fatal flaw of devaluing games much further than they otherwise would be. Right now, with every team largely divided in the same manner, you dont have a class of matches that instantly marked inferior. Some matches are obviously better than others re: intrigue, but there's no clear line and big sides can play smaller ones.
Here, youre clearly setting up a group of teams who are second tier, and theyre being scheduled at roughly the same time as the top tier. This is a bit like a promotion/relegation system in a typical club league (absent the relegation of course). We see how that dynamic plays out, uniformly, within systems that have 1st tiers and 2nd tiers clearly delineated: the 2nd tier draws far less capital, far less viewership, fewer fans, and just less interest overall. Its never equal, and actually never really even close to equal.
Bring that dynamic to the world cup, and you get a much less valuable world cup. The "B division" is going to be disproportionately neglected by fans and viewers, and that will drag the tournament down as a whole from a financial perspective. Broadcasters and sponsors are going to want a discount on matches where it is guaranteed that lesser teams will be the exclusive competitors playing in smaller, less appealing venues in front of fewer people.
To be clear, the idea is competitively appealing. It does allow for fewer lopsided matchups. It makes it a lot easier for fans who want to see top teams only to focus their energy on those matches only (which, as I noted above, is bad for the value of the world cup as a whole but nice for those fans). And smaller teams could walk away from tournaments with better results than they otherwise would, while still getting to say they made it to the big stage. You are hitting on all of these points. To be candid, I expected to hate this idea a lot more than I did as a fan of a smaller country (Jamaica), but theres some merit here, truly.
But the price is far too large. Its still more games, so it should be more money than a 32 team tournament had been. But its likely far less money (I am thinking billions shaved off of what could be a $16B+ 64 team tournament) than FIFA could otherwise get with a 64 team tournament in a traditional format. FIFA is going to have to try and sell a B-division, and we know how that goes - it will be worth much less. Compare revenue or broadcast rights between first and second divisions globally, and you see financial cliffs - 70-90% drops are the norm between first and second tiers in major European pyramids. Lets assume because this is the world cup, drops are drastically smaller than this - 25-30%. Thats at least $4B in lost value. And thats probably a generous underestimate.
You may contend "its the world cup, decreased value wont apply here" but I just dont think thats a credible argument. The rule on lower value for second divisions holds everywhere, globally, with no real exceptions - there's little reason to believe that a "World Cup B" fully exclusive of the top 32 sides and competing in venues people would less prefer to visit will be that exception. Curaçao's 3 games are much more valuable to broadcasters when there's a Germany or Ecuador on the schedule, and stadiums fill up more readily as well in that scenario. If its just going to be Indonesia, Kosovo, and Guinea, then there will be a very significant discount. You cant get around that. You cant offer less and expect the same price.
The value of the world cup as a unified package is just going to be far greater than it will be as a split deal. And that I think is what will ensure this never happens. Nobody is going to want to leave the kind of money this reduced value would represent (as I noted, likely several billions of dollars) on the table.
Wow. Thank you for this lengthy response, Jason!
My biggest comment would be, that it’s not a different competition. They could brand it however they’d like, but it would still garner views.
People watched the essentially meaningless Algeria vs Jordan game at this past World Cup. I believe that that will still happen.
Other tournaments already do this - think play in games in the NBA, or the page playoff system in Curling.
As a fan of Jamaica, would you prefer them to play Ivory Coast, Ecuador, and Germany (like Curacao)
or (in the simulation I just ran) Saudi Arabia, Kosovo, and Egypt (finishing second in the group?)
As far as costs, I live in Toronto and the Senegal Iraq game (Which was non competitive match played between 2 of the sleepiest teams) was still a major event here. Sellout, at full price. So I am not worried about that.
Sure, technically it is all part of the "World Cup", and you can certainly try to brand it as such. But you are very clearly splitting the competition into two very distinct tiers that do not really interact much with one another, with one very clearly inferior to the other. And you are doing this with the stated intent of generating that exact result. That is a fundamental change to the nature of the competition - you can always brand it "the World Cup" still, but it is not the same World Cup we have today. People are going to notice what this is and what "Tier B" really represents (no matter what you name it) - you cannot hide it.
And will that competition still garner views? Sure, but that isnt the question. The question is HOW MANY views will your new second tier of the world cup garner relative to what it could draw under a more traditional model.
Algeria vs Jordan is actually a pretty good example of the problem with the assumptions underlying your idea. The game was not meaningless - neither team was eliminated when this game (the 2nd of the group) was played. Algeria set itself up for a chance to secure advancement with the win, if it could avoid a loss to Austria on the final day. Algeria did just that.
The results of that game had a real, tangible impact on the outcome of Group J, which people cared about because Group J was as meaningful as any other group, and bigger sides like Argentina and Austria were part of that group.
Now, lets do your scenario. Algeria and Jordan are in the 2030 B tier with Suriname and Kosovo. Only one team advances. We have several issues here:
1. This group is weaker than 2026 Group J. There are no top teams within the group to draw casual eyes and interest.
2. Advancement in group J is limited to a single team. That increases the risk of dead rubbers on 2nd and 3rd match days, with teams eliminated early from contention with no hope of advancement to play for. That makes a group already struggling to generate intrigue (because it has fewer teams) even less intriguing. A few casuals who would watch Suriname-Algeria just to see a possible knockout round impact will not be tuning in.
3. The teams people actually care most about are not impacted, at all, in the way they were in 2026, even potentially. Argentina and Austria would, in this scenario, be playing in the "A tier", totally disconnected from whatever occurs in the "B tier". There are many fans who paid Algeria-Jordan some mind in 2026 because they suspected (rightfully) that the result could impact one of the group favorites. That wouldnt be the case in your scenario. Kosovo and Suriname would be impacted, surely, but that is a lot less intriguing than Argentina or Austria.
Everything I said above generally applies to Senegal and Iraq as well, except:
1. Senegal probably isnt in the"B tier" to begin with, so whichever alternative team would replace it in your scenario is going to be weaker (reducing intrigue). Lets assume this alternative team is Mali, because why not.
2. Senegal had something to play for in this 2026 match. Mali, assuming their first two matches went the same way Senegals did in 2026 Group I, would have been eliminated already in our 2030 hypothetical B tier group.
To summarize: you go from a game with some actual implications for the knockout rounds (via Senegal qualifying with a win) featuring at least one top 32 team (Senegal) to a match featuring zero top 32 teams and zero implications for the knockouts, with both sides eliminated.
And you, somehow, expect nothing to change? Pricing, viewership, attendance, etc just stay identical?
That just isnt realistic man.
You say you arent worried about pricing...but you should be. All of the factors I listed above (lower stakes, weaker competition, fewer well known teams involved or impacted) mean lower pricing, more effort to fill seats, and fewer viewers on TV/streaming. And all of that, in turn, means reduced value. That is what kills this whole thing.
The NBA play-in example is not helpful to your argument, for one big reason: play in games draw lower viewership than regular first round playoff games. Between 20-40% less, actually, which just so happens to be the amount I am arguing we could see value diminished for "Tier B" in your model. If viewership for Tier B declines by a degree similar to the percentage projections in my first post and the actual percentage gap between NBA play in games and ordinary playoff games, it will mean we see the consequence I noted before: several billion dollars in diminished value for the world cup. In an $18 billion event (which is what a 64 team World Cup is widely projected to be), that 20% drop is $3.5B. And thats the low end - we could see $7B on the high end.
As I said before: there is no way around this reality. You want to sell something that is clearly inferior as a product for the same money. It just doesnt work like that. And while your model has some competitive intrigue, which I conceded already, I highly doubt that intrigue is going to be worth the $3 Billion+ your model would basically take off the table for FIFA, its sponsors, and broadcast partners, as well as the teams (whose prize money and annual grant distribution comes from that broader revenue). It just doesnt make sense when the ordinary model is right there and will pay everyone more.
Finally, the question about Jamaica: my answer is neither, because those arent the choices at hand. There is a 3rd option: Jamaica plays in a 64 team World Cup that is not split into two tiers, and gets a group that results from the same traditional seeding process we saw in 2026. That gets us a group that is stronger than your "B tier" projection but probably less tough than Curacaos was on paper.
We might get a group like, say:
Portugal, Cameroon, Ukraine
Or
Uruguay, Turkey, Mali
Or
Portugal, Colombia, Scotland
Or
Morocco, Cameroon, Uzbekistan
All of those are fine and would generate more intrigue imo than the B tier group you put us in. We arent going to top any of those groups, to be fair, but I think we would have a chance to be competitive and walk away with more than Jordan or Uzbekistan did in 2026.
Sure, technically it is all part of the "World Cup", and you can certainly try to brand it as such. But you are very clearly splitting the competition into two very distinct tiers that do not really interact much with one another, with one very clearly inferior to the other. And you are doing this with the stated intent of generating that exact result. That is a fundamental change to the nature of the competition - you can always brand it "the World Cup" still, but it is not the same World Cup we have today. People are going to notice what this is and what "Tier B" really represents (no matter what you name it) - you cannot hide it.
And will that competition still garner views? Sure, but that isnt the question. The question is HOW MANY views will your new second tier of the world cup garner relative to what it could draw under a more traditional model.
Algeria vs Jordan is actually a pretty good example of the problem with the assumptions underlying your idea. The game was not meaningless - neither team was eliminated when this game (the 2nd of the group) was played. Algeria set itself up for a chance to secure advancement with the win, if it could avoid a loss to Austria on the final day. Algeria did just that.
The results of that game had a real, tangible impact on the outcome of Group J, which people cared about because Group J was as meaningful as any other group, and bigger sides like Argentina and Austria were part of that group.
Now, lets do your scenario. Algeria and Jordan are in the 2030 B tier with Suriname and Kosovo. Only one team advances. We have several issues here:
1. This group is weaker than 2026 Group J. There are no top teams within the group to draw casual eyes and interest.
2. Advancement in group J is limited to a single team. That increases the risk of dead rubbers on 2nd and 3rd match days, with teams eliminated early from contention with no hope of advancement to play for. That makes a group already struggling to generate intrigue (because it has fewer teams) even less intriguing. A few casuals who would watch Suriname-Algeria just to see a possible knockout round impact will not be tuning in.
3. The teams people actually care most about are not impacted, at all, in the way they were in 2026, even potentially. Argentina and Austria would, in this scenario, be playing in the "A tier", totally disconnected from whatever occurs in the "B tier". There are many fans who paid Algeria-Jordan some mind in 2026 because they suspected (rightfully) that the result could impact one of the group favorites. That wouldnt be the case in your scenario. Kosovo and Suriname would be impacted, surely, but that is a lot less intriguing than Argentina or Austria.
Everything I said above generally applies to Senegal and Iraq as well, except:
1. Senegal probably isnt in the"B tier" to begin with, so whichever alternative team would replace it in your scenario is going to be weaker (reducing intrigue). Lets assume this alternative team is Mali, because why not.
2. Senegal had something to play for in this 2026 match. Mali, assuming their first two matches went the same way Senegals did in 2026 Group I, would have been eliminated already in our 2030 hypothetical B tier group.
To summarize: you go from a game with some actual implications for the knockout rounds (via Senegal qualifying with a win) featuring at least one top 32 team (Senegal) to a match featuring zero top 32 teams and zero implications for the knockouts, with both sides eliminated.
And you, somehow, expect nothing to change? Pricing, viewership, attendance, etc just stay identical?
That just isnt realistic man.
You say you arent worried about pricing...but you should be. All of the factors I listed above (lower stakes, weaker competition, fewer well known teams involved or impacted) mean lower pricing, more effort to fill seats, and fewer viewers on TV/streaming. And all of that, in turn, means reduced value. That is what kills this whole thing.
The NBA play-in example is not helpful to your argument, for one big reason: play in games draw lower viewership than regular first round playoff games. Between 20-40% less, actually, which just so happens to be the amount I am arguing we could see value diminished for "Tier B" in your model. If viewership for Tier B declines by a degree similar to the percentage projections in my first post and the actual percentage gap between NBA play in games and ordinary playoff games, it will mean we see the consequence I noted before: several billion dollars in diminished value for the world cup. In an $18 billion event (which is what a 64 team World Cup is widely projected to be), that 20% drop is $3.5B. And thats the low end - we could see $7B on the high end.
As I said before: there is no way around this reality. You want to sell something that is clearly inferior as a product for the same money. It just doesnt work like that. And while your model has some competitive intrigue, which I conceded already, I highly doubt that intrigue is going to be worth the $3 Billion+ your model would basically take off the table for FIFA, its sponsors, and broadcast partners, as well as the teams (whose prize money and annual grant distribution comes from that broader revenue). It just doesnt make sense when the ordinary model is right there and will pay everyone more.
Finally, the question about Jamaica: my answer is neither, because those arent the choices at hand. There is a 3rd option: Jamaica plays in a 64 team World Cup that is not split into two tiers, and gets a group that results from the same traditional seeding process we saw in 2026. That gets us a group that is stronger than your "B tier" projection but probably less tough than Curacaos was on paper.
We might get a group like, say:
Portugal, Cameroon, Ukraine
Or
Uruguay, Turkey, Mali
Or
Portugal, Colombia, Scotland
Or
Morocco, Cameroon, Uzbekistan
All of those are fine and would generate more intrigue imo than the B tier group you put us in. We arent going to top any of those groups, to be fair, but I think we would have a chance to be competitive and walk away with more than Jordan or Uzbekistan did in 2026.