Okay, so I know the FIFA World Cup is on, even though I haven’t watched any of it yet. The thing is, it looks so long. I find the format pretty interesting from a theoretical perspective — where I live, everything’s a round-robin or a double-knockout — and I know it means that early games can be life-or-death for the teams, but my problem is that I don’t really have a team.
I’d love to pick a team and follow it through the tournament, but it’s too possible for any team to get knocked out in the first round. I can’t make an emotional investment with such a high risk of loss. Instead, I suspect I’ll wait for a compelling narrative to emerge (secretly, I’m hoping for a North Korea Cinderella run) before I jump on a bandwagon.
So, in four years’ time, I urge the powers at FIFA to consider an alternative format for the tournament. I propose three-sided soccer.
Firstly, it will level the playing field — all the teams will have to contend with new strategies and unusual situations.
Secondly, it will shorten the tournament — there will have to be a third fewer games. Plus, with one winner and two losers, the cream will rise to the top sooner.
And thirdly, it will introduce a whole new audience to the concept of three-sided soccer.
Look, it’s weird: it’s played on a hexagonal pitch, and the aim of the game is not to score the most goals, but to concede the fewest.

Even more bizarrely, the concept of the game arose out of some kind of Marxist critique of the bipolar, antagonistic nature of class struggle. I’ll let Wikipedia explain it:
It was devised by the Danish Situationist Asger Jorn to explain his notion of triolectics …. The game purports to deconstruct the confrontational and bi-polar nature of conventional football as an analogy of class struggle in which the referee stands as a signifier of the state and media apparatus, posturing as a neutral arbitrator in the political process of ongoing class struggle.
For further reading, there’s a full (?) set of rules here, which calls three-sided soccer “a game of skill, persuasion and psychogeography.” (There’s also a bit in there about the homoerotic nature of regular soccer, and how three-sided soccer disrupts that.)
And, I particularly enjoyed an account of an attempt to actually play the game, organized (if that’s the correct word) by a group of anarchists who used a mental map of the moon to find their playing field:
Mainly, it seems, the skill to trick people from another team into thinking you are going to form an alliance with them …. Embarrassingly, it is one of our representatives who has been so obviously and completely duped. Worse still, it’s me. It has taken a very short time to realise that with three sides playing one is going to be picked on. It is us.
Both the other two groups press towards our goal, indulging in an orgy of free-scoring libertarian collectivism.
Yes, I think this would be a great addition to the next World Cup. Perhaps as a qualifier?