How Many Teams Should Each Region Have in the World Cup?

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.

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

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

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