WC Matches

Why aren't WC Matches at least 24 games?  Are the players actually against this?  And why aren't there matches in the Candidates anymore?  Are the players against this too?  

Can anyone enlighten me as to why the system has regressed over time?  

The organisers, the sponsors and the participants decide together on the rules and the number of games.

Organisers and sponsors realised a lot of Candidates Tournaments and later-on replaced this by other systems.

You should read about all championships since 1886  --  and the attempts to hold it, to get answers to your questions.   This is written in many books  already  and in my opinion far to much to answer in this forum.

By the way : this is not a negative regression, just a normal progress of history and development...

GM Svidler addressed this question during his WC game commentary.  I think he said something to the effect that the shorter format works better for the sponsors.  A longer format would cost more to run, while public interest would fade over time (especially if one player was dominating).

Ah, sponsors.  Always about the 

I too would prefer the WC match to have much more games.  Otherwise we often get a situation in which, due to the occurance of many draws, one or two won games decide the overall match result -- like we have now with Carlsen vs Anand.

Seeing the champ retain his title with a +1 score is only satisfying if there aren't so many draws.  I'm cheering for Anand (being a geezer myself), but with only 3 games left, it almost feels like the match is already over (because I expect the last 3 games to be draws).

Of course the match will become very exciting again if Anand wins a game again and catches up with Carlsen.  But then the match would probably come down to the result of a single game.  That's just too much emphasis on one game, and extreme psychological pressure on the players, increasing the chance of blunders.