Daily Dose 05.25

re: not everyone likes the current world cup set-up…

I’ve commented in another section about the set-up and how I believe Mexico, the USA, and all the south American teams are at an unfair advantage in that they are almost guaranteed of a spot at each World Cup finals.

South America gets 4 teams in, plus a chance at a 5th in a playoff. That’s a 45% qualification rate since there are only 10 countries.

Mexico and the USA play in a joke region (CONCACAF), which in my opinion, should be joined up to CONMEBOL (and maybe OCEANIA coming in for a playoff for the last spot) to give us 8 places (7 plus 1 playoff) for the world cup. This is good for 25% of the places, and would give a more realistic qualifying % (in the 20%’s?) than the 45%.

Europe has 14 teams, leaving 10 for Asia and Africa… based on the RECENT achievements in World Cups, I might argue that Asia deserves a few more places, but in the early 90’s it was one or two African teams that had good runs.

Obviously the political landscape of football is heavily tiled to Europe and to a lesser degree South America. Having said that, Asia has just hosted their first world cup and Africa is getting their first in 2010. This, along with the recent increase in the number of places alloted to each region, shows that FIFA is acknowledging the other parts of the world.

Perhaps, one day in the future, when the Americas combine into one conference for 10 places, Europe will have 16, and Asia/Oceania and Africa will have 7 each. This would give a Grand Total of 40. The 8 group system would continue to work, offering up two options for the knock out round:

1.) Top 4 teams in each group go through (32), with one team from each group missing out: means one extra round of knock-outs.

2.) Top team in each group (8) gets a bye for the first knock-out round, with the second and third place teams playing in the first knock-out round (16), and 4th and 5th place teams going home. This provides incentive for winning ALL games in the group stage.

OPKO,

I hear you on the CONCACAF region. Every world cup it’s always Mexico and USA. They have no real competition and are 99% assured a place in the World Cup every 4 years.

The only other nations who are pretty much assured their passage to the World Cup every 4 years are Brazil and Argentina. No team in Europe, Africa or Asia can be assured a place in the World Cup as their qualification process is much harder.

The qualification process and the number of allocated spots per region needs to be looked at. Africa seem to be gaining more and more spots every World Cup but Asia looks more likely to be the next boom region.

I have felt this frustration for a long time being an Aussie. We have always had the most absurd qualification process. We have a kind initial qualification through Oceania then we have to playoff against (some strong, some average) teams from every part of the globe….Nth Korea, Scotland, Israel, Canada, Iran, Argentina, Uruguay (twice). Who else would stand for such a strange qualification process.

We are lucky that after this World Cup we are being placed with the AFC, but that leaves whoever plays off against Oceania with an almost guaranteed spot in the World Cup.

I don’t know if increasing the number of nations to 40 is the way to go. I remember when the World Cup had only 24 nations and it was great viewing. 32 is probably the right number, but the number of spots allocated per region should be looked into.

I’m all for the purity of the sport as much as the next guy. However, certain economic considerations must be taken into account.

Today’s players expect (and maybe deserve) big payouts for playing and winning World Cup matches. Big payouts mean that big money needs to be generated. The bulk of that money is going to come from Europe.

Having said that, I do believe that the tournament would be better with fewer teams; and a seeding that allowed a two-tiered qualifying system.

I wouldn’t like to see less than 32 at the final stages.

I agree that european qualification is quite difficult – in 2002 Holland was left out because Portugal qualified, if Portugal would have qualified in 94 Italy or Switzerland woudn’t go (both made great campaigns), etc…

So, good teams are frequently left out.

I don’t know much about the other qualifying areas, but it does seem to me that some teams swet more to get there than others; while others will never have a “real” shot at it…

I’d vote for a trully global – no matter the $ implications, cos where there’s a will there’s a way – system for qualification. No areas. Only some 5-10 groups with a lot of teams, that would play twice against eachother, in a championship manner.

Imagine a group with 20-25 teams from all over the world. The best 5-8 would go, or something like that. They’d see Brazil live in Japan (example), they’d see Italy live in Brazil, the world would see teams they don’t even know exist…

Just imagine the huge TV profit this would generate, Bob… ;-) Tell this to Sepp… Not only does he love $ he’s also swiss, which kinda means the same. Sorry to all the swiss, but I mean,… ;-)

With the amount of money FIFA has in its coffers, $$$$ should never be an issue. Unless, that is, Sepp and his cronies don’t want to dig deep into their pockets.

Why does the World Cup winner have to qualify for the next World Cup? That’s crazy. You should have a right to defend your title.