vorosmccracken.com

29 responses so far ↓

• 1 Alvaro Valenzuela // Sep 19, 2009 at 8:13 pm

  I would keep stuff the way it is except that I would take a slot from Asia and give half of it to an african team and half of it to a european team.
  How much fun would it be if we just got rid of Bahrain and made Egypt ( or whoever finishes as top second place) and Russia ( or whoever finishes as top second place) battle out for the last spot?? Plus it would give a chance to our norwegians buddies to play a playoff.

• 2 Hara // Sep 20, 2009 at 2:03 am

  16 European teams is a lot more like it.

  This is probably unfair, but I would take all the 9 european runners up and pair them up with teams from around the world and the playoff can tell us who deserves to be in the World cup.

  As a football fan, I’m looking for the best possible games in the WC finals. I do NOT want to see games such as Iran – Angola.

  Edgar at football-rankings.info does a feature with possible seeding and groups for the WC and I don’t like what I’m seeing. Here’s an example:

  Group A: South Africa, Denmark, Mexico, Ecuador
  Group B: Brazil, Netherlands, Japan, Ghana
  Group C: France, Russia, Bahrain, Algeria
  Group D: Spain, Croatia, Honduras, Tunisia
  Group E: England, Switzerland, Korea DPR, Paraguay
  Group F: Italy, Greece, Australia, Côte d’Ivoire
  Group G: Argentina, Serbia, Korea Republic, Cameroon
  Group H: Germany, Slovakia, USA, Chile

  Honduras – Tunisia? Bahrain – Algeria?

  No thank you.

  What if we took those teams and replace them with good european team that didn’t make it, like Portugal, Czech Republic or Turkey?

  Are you telling me anyone outside of Bahrain or Honduras would object to that?

  I know in the interest of fairness we have to give the weaker teams a shot to qualify, which is why I’m not saying Europe should be given 20 spots, but if we had a more extensive world wide playoff, we’d have a fairer system.

  In reality, reason number 2 will probably keep things as they are

• 3 Mitz // Sep 21, 2009 at 3:02 am

  This is a very interesting topic which has been debated endlessly for decades. Just last week I saw an article which was published in 1981, bemoaning the increase in the number of teams in the World Cup Finals from 16 to 24, on the grounds that it would a) make the tournament too long and complicated, and b) make places for too many weak teams.

  Lest we forget, at the 1982 finals, Algeria, who had qualified for the first time and were considered a rank outsider, were scandalously denied passage into the second round by West Germany and Austria, two proud European footballing nations, making a pact on the outcome of their group game that would send
  them both through and Algeria out. But I digress…

  Of course FIFA will never go backwards, as that would be a swift way of making less money – there will never be fewer than 32 teams at the final tournament. Therefore, there will always be some fixtures that are somewhat less attractive than others. At every single tournament ever held there have been fixtures between two teams that only fans from the competing nations cared about. As a neutral, you can’t expect Brazil v Spain every time.

  It is also important to realise that you can’t guarantee that the most exciting matches will always be between the best teams. At the European finals a few years ago, Germany and Italy were drawn in the same group. Result: one of the most dire 0-0 bore-athons it has ever been my displeasure to fall asleep during. Serbia & Montenegro vs Slovenia at the same tournament on the other hand: a cracking 4-3 thriller that had everything.

  One slight curve ball to your suggestion above, Voros: what about the host nation? Next year there will be 6 African nations of course – the most there has ever been – but only because it will be in South Africa. In your system, would the confederation of the hosts be in addition to or part of that confederation’s allocation?

  One final point: presumably the top 58 in the rankings that would decide the allocation would be taken from a date before the start of qualifying. But how long before? FIFA and all of the confederations move at glacial pace in deciding competition formats and so on. Even at the start of qualifying the rankings at the lower reaches of that top 58 may have changed significantly, and by the time of the actual finals may bear no relation to reality at all. For that reason, many would say that basing the allocation on performance in past tournaments is probably fairer than current (!) rankings.

  I don’t actually know what arcane set of runes FIFA does use to decide on the allocation, except that (in private at least) those particular runes probably bear a lot of similarity to the symbols for dollar, pound, euro and yen. This isn’t going to change any time soon, my friends!

• 4 Amir // Sep 21, 2009 at 7:42 am

  The problem with this method, is that the best teams in Europe for example, might lose on purpose to medium teams, to give themselves a better chance to qualify.
  That is the problem with using a ranking system to determine the allocation.
  Although it gives some justification for the actual one.
  I think the current allocation is based on the the fact that the top seed are going to be Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, and 5 European teams.
  So Europe got 13 teams to fill another pot.

  If I am right, for 2014 the allocation will be:
  Europe – 13.5
  NA – 3.5
  Africa – 5
  SA – Brazil+4
  Asia – 4.5
  Oceania – 0.5

• 5 california viola // Sep 21, 2009 at 5:23 pm

  Thank you so much for opening this discussion. It’s a topic I love to discuss. Unfortunately I have a class in a few minutes, so I’ll post a little later.

  I just want to point out something before I go: it is unlikely that in the future UEFA will get a half spot (for example 12.5 or 13.5) simply because the other confederations are refusing to play European teams in play-offs. In the history of World Cup qualifications, European teams have had to face African, Asian, and even South American teams in qualifying and they have always prevailed.

• 6 california viola // Sep 21, 2009 at 11:25 pm

  I’m back.

  Let me start by saying that I think this discussion is unfortunately very academic. No matter how perfect and balanced the system used to determine how many teams in the World Cup each confederation gets, FIFA is always bound to use politics for that purpose. As I explained in a different page, each national federation gets one vote in any discussion or election and FIFA’s politicians have continuously moved toward confederations maybe not too strong but rich in votes.

  That said, I think that the first step toward a more intelligent distribution of spots at the World Cup needs to go through a fundamental change in confederation format. I propose that the continental confederations are cut down to four by combining Asia and Oceania and by uniting CONCACAF and CONMEBOL. I think this is necessary for a series of reasons:

  1. Two of the current confederations (CONMEBOL and Oceania) have way fewer teams – and therefore votes – than the other four and are usually forced to follow what the big confederations decide.

  2. With the departure of Australia, Oceania has officially become a joke. Even half a spot for a confederation whose best team is usually ranked around the 90th or 100th position makes no sense whatsoever.

  3. Uniting with Asia would provide New Zealand, Fiji, Solomon Islands, etc. with regular official games and the chance to grow. This part of the soccer world really needs some help.

  4. While North and South America have made some progress toward integrating their soccer structures, combining CONCACAF and CONMEBOL would allow for substantial growth for medium level teams in the two areas. Let’s not forget that beside Argentina, Uruguay, and Brazil’s great success, the Americas have had very little success in the World Cup. Beside these three nations, no team in the Western Hemisphere has reached the semifinals in the World Cup in almost half century (the last one was Chile in 1962).

  Once FIFA is divided in four confederations (UEFA, Africa, Asia/Oceania, the Americas), how are spots in the World Cup to be divided? Well, there are three possible choices:

  * The best teams go *

  This is of course any soccer fan’s dream. Imagine these groups (formed using the top 32 in the current ranking):

  A – Brazil, Denmark, Poland, Egypt
  B – Spain, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Northern Ireland
  C – Netherlands, Australia, Bulgaria, Scotland
  D – Italy, Serbia, Cote d’Ivoire, Cameroon
  E – Germany, Greece, Chile, Uruguay
  F – Russia, United States, Israel, Turkey
  G – England, France, Paraguay, Romania
  H – Argentina, Croatia, Mexico, Ukraine

  Needless to say, with Asia/Oceania getting only one spot, FIFA is unlikely to chose this system.

  * Each confederation gets the same number of teams *

  The weaker confederations (Asia in particular) have been pushing toward something similar, but look how ridiculous this would be:

  A – Brazil, Mexico, Uruguay, Qatar
  B – Spain, Paraguay, Cameroon, Oman
  C – Netherlands, Chile, Egypt, Saudi Arabia
  D – Italy, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Bahrain
  E – Germany, Australia, Nigeria, Iran
  F – Russia, United States, Gabon, Tunisia
  G – England, France, Ecuador, Korea
  H – Argentina, Croatia, Japan, Algeria

  You need to go through pretty much two thirds of the European teams before you get to Oman and Qatar. I think not. Notice, however, that this is where FIFA is headed. In 1982, UEFA’s teams represented 58.3% of the teams in the World Cup. They now represent only 40.6% of they finalists even though European teams have conquered 78.6% of semifinal spots in the last seven World Cups. On the other hand, spots for Asian and African teams have gone from 16.7% to 34.4% while representing – together – a tiny 3.6% of the semifinalists since 1982.

  * A combination *

  I think the best idea would be to combine the two systems and democratically assign a certain number of guaranteed spots to each confederation, but allowing the best confederations to get the most of the other remaining spots. My system is – in part – similar to Voros’s but with the added bonus of rewarding confederations who are able to place their teams higher in the FIFA ranking. The 32 spots would be so divided:

  1 to the host nation
  1 to the confederation of the World Cup winner
  3 each – Each confederation (UEFA, Africa, Asia/Oceania, Americas)
  ¾ each to the confederation of the teams placed in the top 12 of the FIFA ranking
  ½ each to the confederation of the teams placed between 13th and 24th in the FIFA ranking
  ¼ each to the confederation of the team placed between 25th and 36th in the FIFA ranking

  This system could sound complicated but would represent all regions and reward the confederations who perform better at the World Cup and in the World rankings. It would allow stronger teams to participate rather than be forced to watch the Cup on TV.

  For the 2010 World Cup, the teams distribution would have been as follows:

  15.5 spots to UEFA
  7 spots to the Americas
  6 spots to Africa
  3.5 spots to Asia/Oceania

  Since we are dreaming, these would have been the possible groups:

  A – South Africa, Denmark, Portugal, Korea
  B – Brazil, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Japan
  C – Netherlands, Australia, Bulgaria, Uruguay
  D – Italy, Serbia, Cote d’Ivoire, Mexico
  E – Germany, Greece, Chile, Nigeria
  F – Russia, United States, Israel, Ghana
  G – England, France, Paraguay, Egypt
  H – Argentina, Croatia, Ukraine, Cameroon

  Let me know what you think.

• 7 Mitz // Sep 22, 2009 at 3:22 am

  I think your analysis is very interesting and well thought through…

  …and in the end has a net result which is very similar to what we already have. Essentially, UEFA has gained 1 place from the Americas, and 1.5 from Asia/Oceania – not exactly a seismic shift. Forgive me playing devils advocate, but some quarters complain that there are plenty of weak teams in Europe (San Marino, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Kazakhstan etc) so there is always going to be some push and pull in the argument.

  Looking back over the last 8 world cup finals (going back to 1978) no team from outside Europe and South America has ever made the last 8 more than once, and only five (USA, Mexico, Senegal, Cameroon, South Korea) have got that far on even one occasion. So I don’t really think that there has been an insidious creep of weaker nations taking over our precious competition.

  Furthermore, as I stated elsewhere, the strongest teams don’t always make for the best matches. One of the greatest thing about football is its unpredictability – I for one love to see an unfancied nation mixing it up with the big boys at the world cup. Senegal beating France in 2002 and Cameroon beating Argentina in 1990 are two that leap immediately to mind. And every now and then the passion of a small country making it to the finals leads to the sublime – Saeed Owairan’s amazing goal for Saudi Arabia against Belgium for example.

  One thing I do very much agree with is your assertion that this argument is all pretty moot, as money makes FIFA go round more than anything, and market forces are always going to have the last say. However, I’m not gloomy about things – football always has been and always will be the beautiful game, and when you get to the final 64 games of the four year cycle, I’m always going to get excited about it whoever has made the cut!

• 8 Mitz // Sep 22, 2009 at 3:48 am

  Amir raises an important point about the make up of the allocation this time and how indicative it is of FIFA complacency. To make the pots nice and even for the draw on December 4th they need the following:

  Pot 1: South Africa, Brazil, Argentina and 5 from UEFA
  Pot 2: The rest of UEFA (hence 13 UEFA teams in the allocation).
  Pot 3: 5 African qualifiers, 3 other South Americans
  Pot 4: 5 from Asia/Oceania, 3 from Concacaf

  Nice and neat, 8 in each pot. It does assume, however, that Argentina will qualify and that the playoff will be won by the South American team.

  Doesn’t always work out like that though. A playoff between, say Costa Rica and Uruguay could go either way. There are scenarios that I have seen where there is a contingency plan to have a separate pot containing just USA (don’t ask me how the draw would work). And what if Argentina don’t make it? Presumably the 8th and final seed will be European, and this will have an impact on the randomness (or not) of the draw.

  In the end, increasing the UEFA allocation further will lead to it being difficult to avoid having three European teams in some groups, and thus forcing a less random draw – I for one wouldn’t want this.

• 9 california viola // Sep 22, 2009 at 3:48 pm

  Thank you for your input Mitz.

  Just a few considerations:

  1. The 2.5 extra spots for UEFA would be a huge step toward fairness. It means that 3 more European countries have the chance to participate in the World Cup rather than watching Bahrain or New Zealand or Honduras in it. But the bigger issue is, should the number of teams in the World Cup be determined by politics or by performance?

  2. There are plenty of minnows in Europe but way more in the rest of the world. Kazakhstan is currently ranked in 136th position in the FIFA rankings. There are 67 teams below it and only 6 belong to UEFA.

  3. I enjoy watching non-European teams in the world cup because they always bring a different flavor to the game. But the games you mentioned were very important yet fundamentally exceptions. Just consider Ukraine-Saudi Arabia 4-0 (2006), Germany-Saudi Arabia 8-0 (2002), Netherlands-Korea 5-0 (1998), Argentina-Jamaica 5-0 (1998), Russia-Cameroon 6-1 (1994), Czechoslovakia-United States 5-1 (1990), West Germany-United Arab Emirates 5-1 (1990), Spain-Algeria 3-0 (1986), Hungary-El Salvador 10-1 (1982), and so on.

  4. The issue is not if Asian or African teams prevent European and South American teams from winning the World Cup. The issue is, should Barhain, New Zealand, orHonduras be at the World Cup when France, Portugal, Germany, Sweden, or Russia risk watching it on TV?

  5. I don’t think the number of teams qualifying from each region has too much effect on the draw. If there are too many European teams FIFA simply creates a separate pot like it was done for Serbia in the last World Cup. In fact, there is already speculation that a special pot may be necessary for one of the CONCACAF teams (probably the U.S.) if the November play-offs go a certain way.

• 10 Alvaro Valenzuela // Sep 22, 2009 at 4:39 pm

  In 1973 we (chileans) got past USSR in rather dubious circunstances :p.

• 11 Mitz // Sep 23, 2009 at 4:06 am

  Good morning Viola, good morning everyone…

  Lots of points to address!

  Firstly, the issue of fairness. Under the current system, a quarter of all UEFA teams will make it to the finals, compared to 10% or less of the teams from other confederations (except S America of course, which is a different kettle of fish altogether – I’ll jump on to my soapbox about them in a minute). If you are a European team and you don’t make it, then you don’t deserve to make it. And if you are from Asia or Africa then you have to work at least as hard, if not harder, to get to the finals. I would say that Concacaf gets a bit of a raw deal: because of the dominance of USA and Mexico, there are basically only 1.5 places up for grabs (and if either of those “big two” ever stuff it up, as they have done their best to this time before righting the ship, then boo-hoo).

  No-one ever seems to question why South America should automatically get four places plus one. Outside of Argentina and Brazil, and a very long time ago Uruguay, none of the teams have ever done anything. If you ask me, two automatic spots and two or three playoffs with representatives from elsewhere would be “fairer”.

  The point I’m trying to make is that the world isn’t fair. Asia is the most populous continent by a country mile – if you want to be fair to the people of Asia, then give them more spots, not fewer! England invented the game, god-dammit – we shouldn’t ever have to qualify! The man who invented the competition was French – France should get an automatic spot! Brazil have won the thing 5 times – they should be disqualified from entering to give someone else a chance!!

  (ahem)

  Seriously, I just don’t agree with one of the central planks of your argument, ie that weaker teams being in the competition makes it less exciting, or makes for more poor games. Of course, there have been plenty of uneven scorelines over the years, but so what? Group games at the beginning of the competition are often dull for one reason or another – sometimes because of a mismatch, but more often because the teams are being cagey as it is the early part of the competition and they don’t want to peak too early, or because one or both have already qualified for the next round and have rested star players, etc.

  Personally, I don’t set too much store by the FIFA rankings because when you get down to 30 or 40 and below you’ve just got varying degrees of useless (and in some instances much higher in the rankings than that!) – but this doesn’t preclude exciting games being played. Again, to pick an example at random, USA and Iran were two of the weakest teams at the world cup in 1998, but the game they played against each other was terrifically entertaining, for a number of reasons.

  In the end, I’m not going to lose much sleep over the number of slots awarded to UEFA (or indeed any other confederation) aside from it being a fun topic to discuss. England have certainly suffered their share of qualifying disasters over the years, but that’s life – I’m not going to blame anyone for that except the England team. Yay – at the moment we have a team with potential that has managed to qualify with a couple of games to spare for a change, but it’s only two short years since we were losing 2-3 to Croatia at Wembley and failing to make the Euro Finals. I’m old enough to remember the debacle of qualifying in 1993 that left me cheering for the Irish in ’94, and (whisper it) the long dark black hole that was the ’70s. So I feel justified in saying to the Portugese, Swedish, Czechs, French, Bulgarians – anyone that doesn’t make it in short – sorry guys, but it wasn’t the system that means you miss out, it was you not being good enough. And to the likes of Bahrain, North Korea, Honduras etc that do get there, I say: good luck my friends – hope you have a whale of a time.

• 12 Edgar // Sep 23, 2009 at 5:03 am

  @california viola

  AFC + OFC – this is not quite so easy as it seems. New Zealand would have to cover huge distances in order to play games and I know they can’t afford. The other OFC teams can’t afford those kind of expenses. New Zealand have taken Australia’s place as OFC’s top dog and they are in a better situation than Australia having to defeat Bahrain, not Uruguay. Not to forget about the various FIFA women and youth tournaments that NZ now qualifies for with ease.

  CONCACAF + CONMEBOL – again, not so easy. Combining them would mean changing the CONMEBOL qualifying format that they seem to love there. Maybe even the Copa America (shock and horror!). Even if FIFA agree to the merger, the other 33 teams in CONCACAF (US and Mexico apart) know this means no WC places for them.

  @Mitz

  The contingency plan with the separate pot for the USA was my idea, but who knows what FIFA will do?

• 13 Mitz // Sep 23, 2009 at 7:51 am

  Here’s one possibility for how FIFA might sort it out if Argentina don’t qualify, and the Concacaf team wins the playoff:

  Going by the seedings Edgar has helpfully provided, Netherlands would be promoted to fill Argentina’s place, so the seeds would be South Africa, Brazil and 6 European sides.

  The remaining 7 Europeans would form a pot.

  The three other South Americans and the five African qualifiers would form pot 3.

  The five Asian/Oceanic qualifiers and the three higher ranked Concacaf teams would form pot 4.

  Costa Rica, as the lowest ranked team from Concacaf would be in a special pot of their own. The precedent for chosing them rather than USA, the highest in the FIFA rankings from Concacaf, is that Serbia, the lowest FIFA ranked qualifying European side, were chosen for the special pot under more-or-less similar circumstances 4 years ago. On the other hand, back then the special pot was alongside 7 relatively weak teams from Asia/Concacaf, whereas this time the odd one out would be alongside 7 relatively strong Europeans, so perhaps USA would be chosen. Ow, my head hurts.

  ANYWAY, after formally allocating South Africa to Group A, Costa Rica (or USA) would be up next – they would be joined by one of the European seeds to ensure that only 5 groups have two European sides, not 6. The rest of the draw would then proceed as normal, just making sure that the three other South Americans stay away from Brazil.

  Of course, none of this will be necessary if France mess up as well as Argentina, because then the next seed will be Mexico, and we will be back to 4 nice even pots of 8 teams!

  Speculation – dontcha just love it?

• 14 phwest // Sep 23, 2009 at 11:11 am

  This entire discussion brings to mind the endless whining about automatic conference bids in the NCAA basketball tournament – and I have the same opinion here : the fact that the 20th European team is probably better than the best Oceania qualifier does not mean that the sport as a whole is not better off letting New Zealand (or whoever) qualify rather than yet another European team. Giving the weaker regions something to shoot has a value, both for the sport there and in generating an underdog vibe in the main event which can be fun. And the are plenty of European slots – no truly strong side is going to be excluded from the finals, just the borderline ones who are unlikely to get to the quarter finals either. There will always be arguements about where the line is drawn – regardless of the overall field size or regional allotments. Trying to pick the “perfect” field is pointless – pick a good field with clear rules that gives everyone involved something to play for and move on.

• 15 scaryice // Sep 24, 2009 at 12:46 am

  I’d like to see all four pots seeded. That would take care of any arguments about which teams should be grouped together, and it would also help teams who are consistently good but not quite good enough to make the top 8.

• 16 Mitz // Sep 24, 2009 at 1:26 am

  phwest, you just summed up in a few pithy sentences what I have been trying to say in several blethering paragraphs! Thanks for your economy.

• 17 JJBean // Sep 24, 2009 at 4:59 pm

  A good discussion, but I like things the way they are. The “world” cup should include the world, even if a little unevenly to promote an international flavor to to the game. If you want to watch so many European nations duke it out, catch the Euros. It’s almost as popular, I reckon.

  Much of the charm of the World Cup for me is to watch so many inter-continental battles and to get a little sense of another nation’s culture and approach to the sport. I follow European leagues very closely and get enough of the elite level of players there – competitions like the World and Confederations cup allows for a more entertaining game.

  @ california viola

  I have been a huge soccer/football fan in a country that cares much more about NCAA, NHL and NFL and I think the match up of the top 32 teams you drew is honestly terrible as a viewer looking for entertainment. I probably wouldn’t bother watching the early rounds, with much of it being a rehash of Euro. You might as well rename it the South America – Europe cup. I think Asia deserves the spots it currently gets (to be honest, I would rather have them give the 0.5 spot to Europe… more on that later) because of how many people they represent. Soccer/Football is a sport that really transcends more than just pure ability, compared with other sports. It is by far the more global and international sport, with countries in turmoil and war zones participating, even against nations they are at war or conflict with; in some ways it’s better at unifying the nations than the UN! In that sense, I find it to be valuable to ensure that different continents have at least a few spots to represent them, even if they aren’t strictly “better”.

  Besides honestly… Do you really believe the FIFA world rankings? They’re horribly inaccurate and I would much sooner trust Eloratings.net, which by the way has 3 Asian teams in the top 32 (Australia, Japan, SK) and 5 in the top 45. I’d wager Japan and SK have as much of a chance at embarrassing the likes of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Poland etc. as the other way around.

  Now, what I *DO* dislike is how the worst second placed team in the current round of the UEFA qualifiers doesn’t even have a shot at the second round playoffs. I would much honestly have Asia give up the 0.5 spot to UEFA so Norway has a crack at it, and have the top 5 teams of the second round enter the Finals. 14 European teams as they had previously, with Asia having 4 (Oceania is more or less a bust anyhow), and retaining the playoffs between CONCACAF and CONMEBOL.

  Just my opinion and what I personally favor as a *fan* and viewer, not as a strict adherent to “the best teams” only.

• 18 california viola // Sep 25, 2009 at 1:37 pm

  Hello all.

  A lot of stuff to discuss.

  Yes, Chile did qualify for the 1974 World Cup “beating” the USSR but because the Soviet Union did not travel to Santiago due to the militay coup that had taken place two months earlier against Allende.

  A quarter of UEFA teams do qualify for the finals. But also three quarters of semifinalists come out of UEFA. Should Asia or Africa get three quarters of the semifinalists I wouldn’t have a problem with seeing a quarter of Asian or African teams in the finals. In fact I would argue they deserve more spots.

  I think that the fact Asia is the most populous continent is irrelevant. They need to be able to be competitive in order to get spots in the World Cup not produce more offsprings. China qualified for one World Cup and they looked ridiculous in it. India and Pakistan don’t even make it to the final rounds in Asian qualifying.

  Once again, picking one or two games to show that games between weaker nations are entertaining doesn’t quite mean much. There is a reason why the only game that was sold out at the last Confederations Cup was Brazil vs Italy.

  AFC+OFC forces teams to big trips, but it was done before and can be easily done again. All Asia/Oceania has to do is create regional qualifying to advance to the final stage. A few groups in the Middle East, a couple in Central Asia, a couple in the Far East, and one in Oceania. That will take care of Tahiti, Solomon Islands, and the likes. Then all New Zealand would have to do is schedule a couple of trips to take care of its away games. Let’s not forget that in the past Australia and New Zealand have had to travel as far as Israel, Uruguay, and Argentina for the qualifying games.

  I hope New Zealand improves but I don’t remember any of their teams doing well in any World Cup. I could be wrong.

  The purity of the Copa America is long gone and so is the purity of the Gold Cup. Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, the U.S., and even Japan have played in the so called CONMEBOL Cup (Copa America). Korea and even a youth Brazilian team have played in the so called CONCACAF Cup (gold Cup). Playing a real Copa America with the best 16 teams of the continent makes a lot more sense than the current horrors.

  Allowing weak confederations to participate in the World Cup makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is continuing to reduce spots for the confederation that continues to do well in the World Cup.

  The argument that no real strong European team stays home is clearly wrong: ten European teams that managed to reach at least the quarterfinals of a World Cup in the past were excluded from Germany 2006.

  FIFA rankings, ELO ratings, performance in past World Cup. I don’t care what FIFA uses. The result is always the same. UEFA is shortchanged and Asia gets way to many teams.

  I hear often “such and such Asian team could beat such and such European team,” yet numbers don’t really support this conclusion. Forty-six games have been played in the World Cup between Asian teams and European teams. Asian teams won six (three of them were from Korea in 2002), eight were draws, thirty-two were European wins. And keep in mind only the top Asian teams make it to the World Cup (and often lose 5-0, 7-0, 8-0).

  Cheers!

• 19 dorian // Sep 25, 2009 at 3:25 pm

  Here’s my two cents in the interest of a fun discussion, and it is centered on using inter-confederation playoffs to determine regional allocation. As a starting point, I consider that for 2010, there are 25 spots filled during the “regular” qualifications, 1 host, and 6 spots filled during “playoffs” (4 European spots and 2 inter-confederation). So, what if we had more inter-confederation playoffs to bring more variability into the final number of spots each region has? Here are a couple of ideas – again, just for fun:

  First, we could have all 9 of the European second-place group finishers play against 9 teams from other regions (2 from each confederation, except just 1 from Oceania). Thus, there would be 9 playoff spots, 1 host, and 22 automatic qualifiers. The 22 could take the following form:

  • Europe = 9 (the “9 groups of 6 or 5” is here for a while)
  • S. America = 3
  • N. America = 3
  • Africa = 3
  • Asia = 3
  • Oceania = 0

  Now, I realize the spots above only total to 21, so the 22nd spot does need to be given to someone (best arguments would be for S. America or Africa, take your pick). These 9 inter-confederation playoffs (home-home) could take place in November (or the following spring??) with the winners taking the final 9 World Cup spots.

  So, what does this all mean? First, Europe would send a minimum of 9 and a maximum of 18 teams to the World Cup. Second, the other regions (excluding Oceania) would send a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 teams (with one region being 4 & 6). So, if the second-place European team could beat the fourth-place and fifth-place teams from the other regions, then they increase the European teams in the finals; but if these second-place teams fail to win the playoffs, then more non-European teams would attend the World Cup. Could be fun – Ronaldo at Saprissa!

  Of course, there would be issues with this idea – already a comment pointed out that non-European confederations don’t want to play European teams in playoffs. And there would be some long flights (Europe to NZ…). I also think playoffs are “better” if they are in similar time zones (i.e. North/South America is better than Oceania/South America).

  Second idea is similar, but have 2 playoff teams from each of the six confederations playing for the final 6 spots. Thus, 1 host and 25 automatic qualifiers. Added to this second idea is that automatic qualifiers for future World Cups would be based on the number of teams from each region in the prior World Cup – essentially, each region could gain or lose 1 spot every four years.

  Say we started with the following 25 automatic spots for the 2014 World Cup

  • Europe = 12 (the “9 groups of 6 or 5” is here for a while)
  • S. America = 3
  • N. America = 3
  • Africa = 4
  • Asia = 3
  • Oceania = 0

  These starting numbers could obviously be debated, but these numbers represent 1 less than the number of teams from each region (ex-host) that will attend the 2010 World Cup if New Zealand and CONCACAF win their playoffs. Once we know the NZ and CONCACAF results, we would change the numbers above (and deal with a possible -1 for Oceania later – I punt).

  So, with twelve teams in the inter-confederation playoffs playing for the final 6 spots in 2014 (and, yes, this does include 2 from Oceania – for fun…), then a region could win both, win one, or win none – resulting in an increase of 1 team from the 2010 World Cup (e.g. 14 European teams), or the same number of teams, or one less team (e.g. 12 European team). This would be fun, because over time, confederations would increase or decrease the number of their teams appearing in the World Cup, but by no more than one each cycle (ex-host, of course).

  Of course, there would be issues with this second idea as well – drawing France instead of NZ is pretty huge. Plus, there would probably be a minimum number of teams from each region that automatically qualify, even if that region kept losing both of its playoffs over time (should different regions have different minimums, and would this just get us back to the same regional politics?). However, having the 13th best and 14th best European teams and the 4th and 5th best teams from other regions duke it out for the final six spots would add some more fun and excitement, which should translate to more dollars for FIFA, not to mention enjoyment to fans.

• 20 california viola // Sep 26, 2009 at 11:21 am

  I love both your ideas, dorian. They are fair and would represent the actual strenght of all confederations.

  And this is exactly why FIFA will never implement them or implement any of my ideas. European teams have consistently eliminated non-European teams in pre-World cup play-offs and FIFA wants less UEFA and more non-UEFA football at the World Cup. The trend is unmistakable. In 1982, UEFA teams represented 58.3% of the total participants. Since then UEFA has won 4 cups out of 7, has had 9 finalists out of 14, and 22 out of 28 semifinalists, yet its participation has shrunk to 40.6% of the total (in fact Europe has seen its contingent shrink by 7% while the number of teams playing in the WC has jumped by 33%).

  One of the biggest differences between UEFA and FIFA is that the European Football Association selects participants to its competitions based on objective data, while FIFA does not. Let me give you an example. Participation in the UEFA Champions League is determined by points gained on the pitch. This is why – at the moment – the English Premiership, the Spanish Liga, and Italian Serie A get four spots in CL and less performing nations get 3, 2, or 1 spot. However, Italian teams have not been doing very well and it is likely that the German Bundesliga will gain one spot starting in 2011. I’m Italian and my team (Fiorentina) will be the most affected by this situation, yet I think what’s fair is fair. FIFA, on the other hand has no set rules, no rankings, no tables to determine the participation in its competition. Just politics, politics, politics.

  But since we’re dreaming about fairness, here is my idea of ultimate fairness in World Cup qualification for the next one. One automatic spot to Brazil (host) and one to the 2010 champions (let say Spain). The other spots would go to the top two finishers from each of the following 15 groups (selected looking at the current FIFA rankings):

  1: Netherlands, Egypt, Ghana, Lithuania, a qualifier from CONCACAF, and a qualifier from OCEANIA
  2: Italy, Northern Ireland, Nigeria, Finland, a qualifier from ASIA, and a qualifier from CONMEBOL
  3: Germany, Scotland, Gabon, Iran, and two qualifiers from ASIA
  4: Russia, Cameroon, Ecuador, Bolivia, a qualifier from CONCACAF, and a qualifier from UEFA
  5: England, Uruguay, Poland, Latvia, and two qualifiers from UEFA
  6: Argentina, Turkey, Ireland, Morocco, a qualifier from UEFA, and a qualifier from CONCACAF
  7: Croatia, Romania, Costa Rica, Macedonia, a qualifier from CONCACAF, and a qualifier from ASIA
  8: France, Ukraine, Japan, Guinea, a qualifier from UEFA, and a qualifier from CONCACAF
  9: United Stated, Mexico, Sweden, Slovenia, and two qualifiers from AFRICA
  10: Greece, Paraguay, Honduras, Mali, a qualifier from AFRICA, and a qualifier from ASIA
  11: Serbia, Israel, Norway, Burkina Faso, and two qualifiers from AFRICA
  12: Australia, Chile, Algeria, Venezuela, a qualifier from ASIA, and a qualifier from AFRICA
  13: Switzerland, Cote d’Ivoire, Slovakia, Tunisia, a qualifier from CONCACAF, and a qualifier from AFRICA
  14: Denmark, Bulgaria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Korea, a qualifier from UEFA, and a qualifier from AFRICA
  15: Portugal, Czech Republic, Hungary, Colombia, a qualifier from UEFA, a qualifier from AFRICA

  Fair, spectacular, balanced, open to everyone, an 18-month long preview of intra and inter confederation battles, the chance to see great teams and champions all over the world. I’m willing to bet FIFA wouldn’t even consider it.

  Cheers!

• 21 Mitz // Sep 28, 2009 at 2:19 am

  Why not have a simple knockout competition, involving all 208 FIFA nations. Teams 49-128 are drawn at random against teams 129-208 for the first round, with the top 48 getting a bye to the second round. Then you will have 128 teams left to battle it out. Seed the top 32 like in a tennis major, and then draw everyone at random – 7 matches to win the World Cup!

  Well I think it would work…

• 22 isa // Oct 19, 2009 at 11:00 pm

  my point of view its different… i think that now days every team is difficult… i mean we saw what happened in germany between england and trinidad 1-0… even last summer USA 2-0 spain …i think that europe has only 7 or 6 great teams the rest are just at the same level even less than the africa, south america or even at the same level of concacaf (mexico and usa apart).. i mean just look at the groups france, faroe islands, etc. there are only 4 big leagues in EUROPE spanish liga, premier league, seria a and bundesliga…. the rest are not better than anyone else.. europe world cup champs… england 1 , france 1, italy 4, germany 3 n thats it.. u get my point?

• 23 california viola // Oct 28, 2009 at 10:58 am

  Isa, all points of view deserve attention, but facts are a whole different ball-game.

  You say that Europe has only 6 or 7 great teams. Do you know how many European teams managed to finish in the top 8 in the last 7 world cups? Twenty-one (21) – Austria, Belgio, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and Ukraine.

  In the same 7 world cups, only 7 non-European teams managed to finish in the top 8: Argentina, Brazil, Cameroon, Mexico, Senegal, South Korea, and the United States.

  If you say that Europe has only 6 or 7 great teams, that means that (math is math) the world has only 8.67 great teams and Europe has 75% of all these great teams.

• 24 Paulo Sanchotene // Nov 9, 2009 at 5:44 am

  Voros,

  An absolutely gigantic effort just to show that FIFA is right -at least, not wrong- in its distribution. The difference is insignificant, but in Asia:

  Europe = 16 teams (14, -2)
  South America = 5 Teams (4.5, -0.5)
  North America = 3 Teams (3.5, +0.5)
  Africa = 4.5 Teams (5, +0,5)
  Asia = 3 Teams (4.5, +1,5)
  Oceania = 0.5 Teams (0.5, 0)

  If you consider the host sopt to be an extra, Europe would have actually 15.5 spots, since Latvia (58th) drops out.

• 25 Paulo Sanchotene // Nov 9, 2009 at 5:55 am

  Viola,

  It’s important to count on the fact that the majority of these World Cup were held in Europe as well: Germany, France, Italy and Spain.

  2006: 6 Europeans; 2 S. Americans;
  2002: 4 Europeans, 1 Asian, 1 African, 1 N. American, 1 S. American;
  1998: 6 Europeans; 2 S. Americans;
  1994: 7 Europeans; 1 S. American;
  1990: 6 Europeans; 1 S. American; 1 African;
  1986: 5 Europeans; 2 S. Americans; 1 N. American.
  1982: 7 Europeans; 1 S. American.

• 26 california viola // Nov 11, 2009 at 6:39 pm

  Wherever the World Cup has been played since 1982, UEFA teams have represented the absolute majority of the quarterfinalists with the lone exception of the Asian World Cup in 2002 when European teams represented “only” half of the quarterfinalists.

  When the cup was played in the CONCACAF area (1986 and 1994) UEFA has accounted for 75% of the quarterfinalists.

  Even if we go back to 1978 (last WC held in South America) five of the last eight came from Europe: Austria, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Poland.

• 27 Paulo Sanchotene // Nov 21, 2009 at 1:05 pm

  I’ve followed Voros’ rules, using FIFA rankings from Dec. ’06, Dec. ’07, Dec. ’08 and Oct. ’09. The result was this:

  UEFA – 15,5 spots
  CAF – 5,5

  CONMEBOL – 4,5
  CONCACAF – 2,5

  AFC – 2,5
  OFC – 0,5

• 28 Suyuntuy // Jan 2, 2010 at 9:40 pm

  I think as the world economy progresses, then long-time travel becomes more accessible economically to most countries.

  Eventually, the ideal solution could be to have the quals through groups including countries from all over the world.

  Instead of using Continental Federations, teams could be put in pots, with a pre-qualification by the smaller teams (UEFA minnows, Oceania islands, Caribbean tiny nations).

  -OFC has 9 small countries (plus NZ).
  -UEFA has 8 clear minnows.
  -CONCACAF has 24 small islands.
  -AFC has 9 minnows.

  Let’s say we get 1 from OFC, 1 from UEFA, 3 from CONCACAF and 1 from AFC.

  There are 204 nations in FIFA, so those are reduced to only 204 – 44 = 160.

  Those 160 teams are divided into 5 pots with 32 teams each. 32 groups of 5 are formed. After 8 per team (home and away), the winner of each group goes to the WC.

• 29 Teo // Mar 9, 2010 at 11:09 am

  Hi all! First of all excuse me for my bad english, it is not my first language

  It is a very interesting subject and i will give my opinion. I am open for discussion afterwards.

  I totally agree with author that European teams are underrepresented in WC. It is better to look to top32 teams in my opinion that to extend it to 64, after all you have to choose the top32 to be in WC. Another thing is that FIFA ranking is as bad as FIFA There is a more fair raiting – ELO football rankings. If you want to make calculations do there.

  So what is my exact proposal? To increase number of teams from Europe and S.America, but not actually to cut number of teams from other reagions. Extending number of teams in WC?
  – Yes!
  – How? 48 teams?
  – No! I dont like the idea of best number 3 teams in groups to qualify! I propose 8 groups of 5 teams – total 40 teams. With top two teams qualifying from each group. This way it will be harder to qualify from each groups, it will be much more competitive. Then every team qualified at WC will play at least 4 games. 3 games are just to few to play after all that qualification. Don’t you agree?

  Now to numbers – let say we discuss WC 2014 in Brazil

  Europe – 18
  S.America 6, + one play off, +host Brazil
  Africa – 4 + 2 play offs
  Asia – 4 + 2 play offs
  N.America – 3 + 2 play offs
  Oceania – 0 + 1 play off

  play offs are actually not play offs – this will be final tournament of 8 teams to fight for last 4 places in WC which will be played somewhere in Europe. Just one round when each teams face each other – total of 7 games for each team… It would be a mini WC before real WC… Just think how funny it would be!

  I can also say where these allocations came, i havent taken them from nowhere… I also have ideas about how qualification format should be in each confederation. But all of that if you are really interested Now i wait your comments

Leave a Comment