Back to the pub piece, it’s great that businesses are getting a boost. The problem, though, is what happens afterwards.

Not all pubs are enjoying a football bonanza, however. Steve Hopkins, owner of the Shovel Inn in Stourbridge, where Bellingham was born, is quitting the business after the tournament.

He said: “I’ve been in pubs for six World Cups. Most have been fantastic for trade but for this one turnout has been poor. People are staying away from boozers or only coming to them at the last minute. Whereas in the past the pub would be full at 3pm or 4pm for an 8pm kickoff. You’re talking about doubling your trade while the World Cup was on.

“Ever since Covid, people have been staying at home, it’s a different way of life now. I’ve run pubs since I was 18, and I’m now 64, and I’m glad I’m getting out.

“This is a semi-final and for once it’s on at good time of the night for it. People usually want the atmosphere at the pub to share the experience, because you can’t get that at home. If I don’t get a really good turnout that would just sum it up.”

For the Shovel Inn, a good night’s takings would be about £3,000. Hopkins said: “If I get a grand on Wednesday I’ll be doing well.”

Email! “While not a fan of Fifa’s blatant attempts to change the World Cup solely to make more money,” writes Ryan, “I’m actually not against the idea of going to 64 teams. The quality difference between no 48 and no 64 in the world rankings is not that large on paper, so I don’t see that it would significantly dilute the quality of the tournament. It also presents an advantage that we can move back to a system where only the top two teams go through from each group, which creates greater jeopardy and hopefully more exciting matches in the group stages.”

I agree. Instinctively, it feels wrong, but practically it might well be right. I would, though, like to know more about the logistics, as we don’t want a situation where only a few countries have the infrastructure required to host.

I must say I’m torn. Of course, I’m prejudiced against it simply by virtue of Infantino wanting it, but I can’t deny that expanded competitions – in the Euros too – give us something different, countries otherwise excluded enriching the experience. Moreover, were we to go to 64, we’d be rid of the third-place qualification situation, which allows teams to move on having beaten the worst side in their group and no more; we’d no longer play 72 matches to lose just 16 teams. Or, in other words, an expanded field is cleaner – though qualification would be even more tedious than before, and I wonder how, infrastructurally, any host would be able to facilitate so many teams, not just in terms of grounds, but hotels, training facilities, media and so on.

Let’s start with Infantino latest:

How do we feel about this?