The switch to the new format is clearly FIFA President Gianni Infantino rewarding smaller nations for voting for him by fulfilling his promise of giving them a better shot at qualifying for the finals.

As a result, the inevitable row erupted that it will dilute the quality of the competition, with too many cannon fodder nations making up the numbers.

For a fan of any nation with World Cup ambitions outside FIFA’s top 50, backing that argument is an open goal for accusations of hypocrisy.

But the bigger problem for me is the new format - 16 groups of three will mean these fans will get to see their countries in action just twice until they really do arrive him before the postcards.

The three game groups will be wide open to match fixing - with no simultaneous kick offs possible within the same group - and will favour a massively defensive approach, as avoiding a loss will be far more important than winning.

Instead of quality football, we’re far more likely to see a cavalcade of parked buses and games decided by up to three penalty shootouts per group to decide who goes through. 

From the penalty spot, minnows suddenly become far more the equal of football’s giants. Yes, it will give the minnow a chance, but is giant-killing via spotkicks entertaining for anyone?

For the remaining 32 nations after the laughable two game group stage, the tournament will be a sudden death knockout format - a format UEFA rolled back when they revamped the European Cup as a multi-group competition and called it the (really quite successful) Champions League.

Unsurprisingly, fans like to see their team face a series of quality opposition sides in a win, lose, draw format over sudden death knockouts until the later stages kick in.

But if change is inevitable, let’s embrace it and see what else FIFA could change, and some of it might even be even for the better.

The reported new number of qualifying nations from each confederation also created controversy.

Asia now looks set to have 8.5 spots, Africa 9, Oceania 1, and North America 6.5 while South America gets 6. The host country gets one and Europe is set to pick up the remaining 16.

The situation in North and South America sparked yet another row - how can North America get more finalists than talent rich South America? But also, 6 South American teams qualifying from just 10 South American nations seems like a lot…

The fact remains though that even the top eight South American nations are rated much higher than most other nations competing (and even qualifying) from around the world.

At the other end of the scale, 6.5 spots for North America is hugely generous, given that most of the CONCACAF countries sit at the bottom end of FIFA’s rankings chart.

The obvious solution there is to finally combine North and South America into one confederation - even if only for World Cup qualifying purposes.

Give the Americas 12 places and you could feasibly have all of South America represented at a World Cup and still also see the USA and Mexico qualify without breaking into a sweat. 

The other obvious change is to do the opposite in huge, sprawling Asia - divide it into east and west, and incorporate Oceania.

Under the proposed numbers that would give a combined total of 10 World Cup spots which could be split 5 to the east and 5 to the west.

Oceania get to play a better quality of national side which can only help develop their game with a realistic chance of qualifying, and Asian countries will travel less and stay closer to their own time zone than they might currently do.

The surge in extra spots was clearly aimed at giving China a better chance of making it into the finals (and all the TV money that will bring).

But perhaps, more realistically, eight spots in total for east and west Asia would be more appropriate, with the additional two handed to UEFA.

The other major change – which might well be underpinning the whole FIFA strategy on this – is the frequency of the World Cup.

With so many qualifying, it could easily see an entire year being taken off the qualification process timetable - opening the door to a World Cup being held every three years.

Aside from the potential overlap with the Olympics (which could also change in line with FIFA), the four year cycle for the World Cup is almost arbitrary. 

From FIFA’s point of view it must seem almost like a no-brainer: It would increase TV money and ticket revenue by 33% in an instant (and likewise the opportunities for some lovely corruption too…)

Fans would lap it up. Coaches and players would be able to win more trophies with strong sides before age destroys the squad. More countries would be able to bid and host (and see above about corruption etc).

While the changes to the confederations set up could happen in time for the 2026 Wortld Cup, it’s probably unlikely the World Cup would change frequency until at least a couple of the new 48-nation format World Cups have taken place.

But a World Cup in 2033 and then again in 2036 and 2039 and so on? I wouldn't rule it out…regardless of it actually making sense, it’s a goldmine just waiting to be exploited by FIFA.

And as a result, we might yet see a World Cup held in Australia in our lifetimes after all…