Should the FIFA World Cup Be Held Every 2 Years?

Max TowleAnalyst IFebruary 6, 2013

Should the FIFA World Cup Be Held Every 2 Years?

0 of 5

    The FIFA World Cup is a competition that transcends the game of football.

    It has the power to unite—the power to send a nation into delirium, while others plunge into despair.

    Held every four years, the World Cup is eagerly anticipated by fans who spend all of the intervening years looking forward to the next one.

    But what if it took place every two years? What would the ramifications of such a change produce? Would it be a good idea?

    This article looks at several of the positive and negative aspects behind the concept.

    The ultimate decision I leave to you, the reader.

Too Much of a Good Thing?

1 of 5

    The most obvious danger of a change in regularity would be the potential diminishing of the World Cup as a spectacle.

    The anticipation and buildup to every tournament helps make it particularly special—without that same amount of hype, it would seem far less momentous.

    The sporadic nature of the World Cup also makes it far more meaningful for a country when they do triumph.

    As good as the showcase event is, one never wants to overdose on a good thing.

Nations Unite

2 of 5

    One thing we as football fans could never get enough of, though, is the World Cup's ability to unify people from varied backgrounds.

    The football may be fierce, but being on ground level during the peak of the tournament gives so many people the opportunity to mix with those they would never otherwise get the opportunity to mix with.

    It introduces unfamiliar places and cultures to a new audience—locations ripe with the excitement that only a World Cup can bring.

    That's if you can afford to travel to the host country, of course.

No European Championships?

3 of 5

    Speaking as a disciple of European football, if the FIFA World Cup were to be held every two years, I'd be afraid it would potentially damage the future of the UEFA European Championships.

    Though the Euros are not quite as glamorous as the World Cup, it is an historic cultural tournament that never fails to capture the attention of the common fan.

    Having the continent's best go up against each other results in the highest quality of football being played with genuine passion and commitment.

    It is a competition that we simply cannot afford to do without.

More Opportunities for Smaller Nations

4 of 5

    Though many consider it preferable to have the best possible teams compete at each World Cup, seeing some of the smaller, less accomplished nations compete would be a welcome development.

    It would help the expansion and evolution of the game on a wider level, also increasing the worldwide attention.

    Without wanting to sound greedy, more tournaments would also mean more winners and the reduced likelihood that the same teams end up meeting in the final every time.

    Perhaps then England would have more of a chance of winning the big one...or maybe not.

No Rest for the Wicked

5 of 5

    With UEFA likely to be completely unwilling to scrap the European Championships, international footballers would simply not cope with an increasingly hectic schedule.

    If the World Cup were to be held every two years it would cause chaos for the schedule of the top leagues around the world.

    More games means more injuries, plus reduced rest time for players between seasons.

    It would be impossible to ask anyone in the game, however fit he may be, to play a full national term and a major international tournament every year.

    What do you think of the possibility of a World Cup every two years? Can a case be made for it?