This World Cup has been very successful with just 14 teams, which is an increase on the 10 which played in 2008.

But might we not consider going to 16 teams in 2017, which is likely to be played in Australia and New Zealand?

I would favour retaining all the exisiting WC nations with the possible exception of the Cook Islands, which is not a serious nation. I would increase the competition to 16 nations in 4 pools of 4 teams.

Lebanon should be the next nation automatically admitted to the World Cup because it is the only viable rugby league nation in the Middle East. It will also have a massive public following in Australia, especially in Sydney where you could guarantee 10,000-15,000 Lebanese-Australians getting behind their national team for each game.

Then perhaps we could have a competition between Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia, Malta, Greece and the Czech Republic for the 15th and 16th spots.

Of course we could go to 20 teams but I cannot imagine there being enough quality teams to keep the competition from becoming a blowout fiasco at the pool stage, as we see in the rugby union World Cup.

Or should we stick to 14 teams?

Why change, the system for this world cup seems to work?

Why are the Cook Islands not a serious nation?
A 16 comp works for me, with only the semi finalists from RLWC 2013 plus the host nation automatically qualifying. All other nations should go through a proper regional qualifying process.

It is probably more appropriate to consider the next world cup after this one has finished. Whether this one has a lasting legacy or is considered an overall "success" isn't decided in the first week, no matter how good it has started.

I've put 16 because it makes for an easier system (4x4 with the top 2 into the next round) but it depends on how many proper international teams we can put together. I'm not keen on the likes of Italy, Ireland and USA putting out teams full of Australians. If we can't field an authentic Irish/Italian/American side that can compete on the world stage, perhaps they should play in a secondary emerging nations competition for the time being.

Leave it as it is for the time being, let's not try to run before we can walk.

There are more teams coming into the RLEF and RLIF as full or associate members, so expand the qualifying competition to include them and let them try to make that top 14 on merit.

Could a RLWC be viable at the moment with the top teams only meeting in the semi-final/final, or does it need to have two of the top three in the same group to create the big event early on?

Where does Canada fit into your plans? They are ranked higher than some of the teams you have named We should have 2 reps from North America in the interests of your global expansion.

I know the 4x4 system appeals. But would you sacrifice competitive group games for an increase in numbers.

This system allows for top seeds to be put in the same group. It may not draw in the fans as much if there are whitewashes.

LEAVE IT AS IT IS!!!! NO MORE TINKERING PLEASE!!!!!

I think it should have a similar format to this year but with 16 teams something like:

Group A:
England
Australia
Fiji
Ireland

Group B:
New Zealand
Samoa
France
PNG

Group C:
Italy
Scotland
Tonga
Lebanon

Group D:
Wales
USA
Cook Islands
South Africa

Only the top 8 after rankings are published in 2015 should automatically qualify and they should automatically be divided into two pools, Finalists from this world cup should be kept apart in the groups and then have a draw between the remaining 6 teams to fill the remaining places.
2 from each group should qualify.

I Agree with Newton-Le-willows-Warrior in terms of the groups but I also agree with mapleyther in having Canada because in the few games I have seen Canada v USA they look like they have got a bit of potential and it looks like they get some good support there as well.

20 teams for sure.
Teams that are very close to ready include Lebanon, Canada, Jamacia, Russia, Serbia, Malta, South Africa, Vanuatu, and we have seen Italy come from nowhere since the 2008 world cup, so we have to assume other countries could just appear on the radar in 4 years.
In short, we could easily fill a 20 team roster with quality sides, and I think we have a responsibility to give as many sides as possible the chance to play.
It's nothing short of a tragedy that Lebanon has missed out for the last two world cups. They would be far more developed now if they had played, and there is a very good chance we would now have more middle eastern countries involved and big dollars flowing from the middle east for TV rights, so basically we shot ourselves in the foot there.

I agree Italy and Ireland are a bit daft. It seems all you need to qualify for them is a fondness for pasta or Guiness. The USA however have 9 (someone correct me if I'm wrong) genuine Yanks in their squad, 7 of which play in their domestic comp. Now for a nation where rugby league isn't even a drop in the sporting ocean that is a good starting point imo.

5 live claimed there were 10.

The current system is brilliant. It maximises the number of competitive games we can have and also gives every side a fair chance to go as far in the comp as they can.
It is such a good format that other codes and games are looking to pinch it.
I can't see us ever going back to chucking the weakest side in against the strongest side and having 50+ point margin blowout games common in the first few rounds.
The current format allows us to start with Aus V England in front of a huge crowd instead of Aus v Cook Islands in front of 3 men and a dog.