Keep it at 14.

Only slight change I'd make is to have 2 go up from each group and have it seeded with a draw.

e.g.

Group A - Seed 1-2, seed 5-8, seed 9-12.
Group B - Seed 1-2, seed 5-8, seed 9-12.
Group C - Seed 3-4, seed 5-8, seed 9-12, seed 13-14.
Group D - Seed 3-4, seed 5-8, seed 9-12, seed 13-14.

Cross group game between seeds 1 and 2 in group A and B to guarantee that big opening game, whilst at the same time appearing to the outsider that the groups are evenly spread (which they are). You'd still get them big games.

The current finals series has, so far, worked well, we must however be bold, yet careful with the qualifying tournament.

In my view we should guarantee the semi finalists a place in the next comp.

All other nations, who have an organized domestic season, a schools program, and college/ university leagues over a number of consecutive years, should be allowed to enter qualifying.

Further any team who fail to fulfill an international fixture, as Germany did this year, shall be barred fom the next qualifying competition.

National teams must train and prepare in their own country and ba affiliated to their national sports authorities...

For example Italy and Lebanon would not be allowed to have their headquarters, press conferences, commercial arm, training camps etc based in Australia. Scotland and Ireland would similarly be expected to base their activity in their own country.

Growth should not be forced but facilitated and encouraged.

I think the OP has not researched his subject, for the excellent work in Jamaica and Canada seems to be ignored, and what of the exciting developments in Ghana...? or the way in which the island of Malta has taken to the game?

Who knows where we will be in the next 20 to 30 years

Who knows where we

I think this has been raised previously but my understanding is that all the Italian team are Italian/EU passport holders.

The system used in 2008 and the system used this year have worked brilliantly in the way they have allowed as many games as possible to be genuine contests.

A sport like Soccer doesn't need super groups because they can find 24 sides that all have at least a small chance to beat each other on a given day, but we will never be there in my lifetime, so our super group concept has delivered us an elegant solution that means 90% of games are genuine contests on the field.

If by some miracle a team like Italy were able to name the best squad in the World Cup, they could still win the cup from the bottom ranked group simply by winning all their pool games and progressing to the knockout stage.

This system can be adapted to fit in up to 24 sides I imagine, and we'd still have competitive games in the group stage by putting the top sides into super groups and having the weaker sides fighting over 2 quarter final spots.

If this world cup makes enough money for us to have dollars to spend on development, we should play as many qualifying tournaments as we can afford, because the experience of the last two World Cups is that qualifying tournaments drive just as much development as the Cup itself, especially in the new countries taking up the game.

true and for me if it was 16, 20 or 24 bring it on I for one love it

As we approach the quarter finals, it is worth reflecting again on how many teams would be optimum in 2017.