Shiny New FIFA World Rankings

Finally, now 16th sounds about exactly right for our US side. That is certainly where we belong right now, a second tier team not with the elite sides from 10 up. This is a great launching point for us, we can only go forward now. 4 more years or player development, a new coach and hopefully much tougher competition and we can go to South Africa and rightly expect to get to the quarter finals.

An attempt to maintain African growth by inflating their rankings?

what does all that mean? nothing

How about Canada moving up 29 spots to 54th. Why?

Overall the rankings are looking more like they should compared with the pre-world cup rankings.

Why aren’t soccer teams ranked in polls like in other major sports? That seems a far more accurate way.

The basic question would seem to be, can team ranked X beat team ranked X+1. These rankings would seem to turn that on its head, as #4 France demolished #1 Brazil, #18 Mexico played to a near stalemate with #3 Argentina, etc. I know one might say “Brazil would have beaten France in a 7 game series”, but don’t the coaches, players, and media professionals have a better conception of that than a silly formula? (See BCS)

My guess is that Canada moved up because their recent 4 year record was much better than their 8 year. So a big jump was the result.

I have a problem with the regional factor being limited to a 0.85 multiplication factor due to “statistical reasons”.

Seems like another artificial way of keep CONCACAF and other regions high.

Why exactly can’t that number fall below 0.85. FIFA has left it vague, but I hope the explain at some point.

Stretch

Much better.

YES! ARGENTINA gets some recognition FINALLY

Very nice. However, Nigeria seems out of place at 11, and why did Portugal fall after finishing 4th at the WC and 2nd at Euro 2004?

What’s the deal with Guinea being 24th (ahead of Ghana (25th))? How can Canada be ahead of S. Korea? US is still ranked too high.

Portugal in 8th place???
They finish 2nd in EURO2004; unbeaten in WC2006 qualification (7 pt lead and highest scoring team); in WC2006 win Grp D beating the seeded team (Mexico) and accumulating 9pts in first round, defeated Holland and England on way to semi-final, finish 4th. So they drop 1 position to 8th ???? if the old ranking system sucked, then this one vacuums !!! FIFA is a worse governing body than the WWE.

What I don’t get it is, how the heck did USA get the 5th ranked position above Italy’s 13th four years ago? This rank makes a lot more sense!!!

Luis D.: I agree, what’s Nigeria doing there at #11? And what’s up with Portugal? I know there’s some math rules beyond it all, but it still looks wack.

It did make justice to some other teams though, like Argentina, Australia and Ghana.

FIFA states that they wanted to make the ranking system simpler rather than more accurate, no wonder its still a waste of time.

basically the continental regions seem to have shifted with respect to each other: Nth America goes down a bit, Asia goes down alot, Africa is shifted up a bit.

there are obvious problems with it, yet FIFA will still use it in seeding and the like, ridiculous.

btw here is probably the best of the alternative ranking systems:

http://www.eloratings.net/

The rankings are as reliable as a wet finger is in determining where the wind blows.

Glad to see that USA has been dropped out of 5th spot. That was just scary.

Seriously, do FIFA rankings matter?

It’s just a number and doesn’t mean squat in a tournament setting as we all know on the pitch, anything can happen.

actually they do matter (unfortunately) fifa uses them (with other criterion) in determining seedings at major tournaments
(thus for example in the world cup, mexico was one of the 8 seeds while portugal wasn’t)

How come England has a higher rank than Portugal? Some of these rankings truly are puzzling.

portugal’s ranking is a bit odd, they were undefeated between the final of euro 2004 until they lost to France in the semifinal. Though they did also lose to germany in the 3rd place game, maybe that screwed them (?)

I’d suggest to FIFA that the World Cup is the BIG DANCE! Forget what a team has done up to that point and reset the rankings to reflect the World Cup results, then resume ranking calculations based on the other tournaments and matches following. In that case, the rankings would be:

1. Italy
2. France
3. Germany
4. Portugal
5. Argentina
6. Brazil
7. England
8. Ukraine
…and the others

I agree jflo, though I’d have the following order:

1) Italy
2) France
3) Germany
4) Argentina
5) Portugal
6) Brazil
7) England
8) Spain
9) Mexico
10) Netherlands
11) Sweden, Ecuador, Australia, Ivory Coast
14) Ghana, Ukraine, Switzerland
etc.

I reckon get a bunch of people who know football to submit thier order for the world cup, average things and go from there.

Actually your ranking is a more accurate reflection than mine when you really look at the strength and depth of teams, but my argument is, base the initial rankings off the World Cup results. So I go, Finals, Semis, quarters for the highest ranking teams. If you are a team of pedigree, you’ll make up your ranking anyway in subsequent tournaments.

Agree with jflo… if they don’t notice of their own tournament, then why bother? And how does Nigeria and Cameroon rank higher than the Ivory Coast and other African qualifiers? Does FIFA know more than the Africans? And really, Italy should automatically be given No 1 spot, Brazil, fifth at best. Seems FIFA are admitting the WC is a joke, or their rankings are a joke. However, it is FIFA who are the biggest clowns in the tent.
For the record, I can’t understand why Australia isn’t ranked higher than… 33? We finished in the top 16 at the WC and there are many nations which did not even qualify for the WC who are ranked higher. Many others have similiar claims. The revamp has failed. Back to the drawing board clowns.

Poor Australia.

Dubious penalty…

Dubious ranking…

What next?

good point about over/under ranked teams sorting themselves out jflo – I was just a bit irked to see Ukraine so high … man they played terribly!
But how did you decide the order for failed quarterfinalists? (eg. Argentina was the best, no doubt, but they were beaten by 3rd place germany, whereas Ukraine lost to 1st place Italy)

I think Aust’s ranking is so low because of our terrible performance in the last Confeds Cup and because our Oceania Nations Cup win well um, doesn’t really cut it….

To be honest, to determine the order of the quarterfinalists, I simply compared the depth of the teams like you did with your initial rankings! In my opinion Argentina played the best out of the losing quarterfinalists, followed by Brazil, and England (gutzy performance with 10 men only). Also, Believe it or not Australia would top my list of losers from the round of 16, based on their performance, followed by Spain, the Netherlands and Ghana.

Nicko -

You hit the nail on the head when you said rankings do matter. Just another way for FIFA to try and control competitions and results.

Once again I see my native homeland team (Portugal)”cheated” & a few other nations by FIFA…whats the point of having 1)qualifications to even be able to play in WC?…2)Since FIFA ranked Brazil as #1..then why didn’t they get to play for the WC trophy?…right Brazil lost to Germany…I guess playing against the other teams –then winning to advance to the next round means nothing…FIFA needs to clean up their act….the order should be #1 spot goes to winner of final game in WC that got trophey…2 to loser of that ect…funny how both England & Netherlands are ranked higher than Portugal–yet Portugal won when they played both teams…maybe FIFA came up with the rankings due to fan hatered mail(that I read in prior few weeks) for Portugal because Portugal beat their home countries…I recall my dad years ago telling me that officals knew nothing —now I have to agree with him…may he rest in peace…

Italy have just won the world cup but are ranked 2 behind Brazil. And the point of having a WC is????? Surely winning means more than some contrived point system. The rankings should reflect the wc positions and should only change when international matches start again. Come on FIFA its pretty obvious. Italy just beat 193 other countries and should be number 1 at least for a few months….

Revamped ranking system or not, rankings are still subjective, and perhaps influenced by backroom politics. To be ranked 2nd despite winning the most prestgious trophy in football would be criminal if such standings meant anything.

No Fifa does not know more than the Africans. The Africans will themselves tell you that the overall best teams from the continent are Nigeria and Cameroun ( I actually think Cameroun is better than Nigeria though). Having said that, FIFA is going by performance in the last four years. While Cote d’ Ivoire making it to the WC could have been expected — Ghana, Angola and Togo were absolute surprises.

How the hell can Portugal be ranked 8′th??? are these FIFA officials retards??? Portugal should be ranked at the very least a respectable 4′th -according to their last 4 years of great achievments!!! FIFA is a joke, and that Sepp Blatter is a corrupt, manipulative one man show who rules the coverning body with a iron fist!!! the fool has to go!!! No Fair Play FIFA!!!

Portugal’s one place fall after the above mentioned performances, is as dificult to explain as when it moves up one or two without having played a single game… ;-)

Blatter, Hitler…do you see any difference? I can see more uses for that iron fist…!!!

The incompetence of FIFA, their lack of evolution, their monopolistic and dictatorial management, and abosulte brainless running of the beautiful game is only too evident in the ranking system.

These baboons should be put in a cage and left there…!

Joga Bonito? Methinks its more like Joga Stupido!

fifa ranking is wrong wish that they wood corrected so no body wood be seeding wrong

croatia 2008 euro wacth out will come 1st

FIFA ranking is wrong.
Gino’s ranking:
1. ITALIA
2. PORTUGAL
3. ARGENTINA
4. BRAZIL

The 4 best countries that know how to play the beatiful game!

Ciao,
Gino from New Jersey

FIFA ranking is based on points accumulated since the last world cup 2002. So there will always be a weakness in its system because it does not reflect current world cup team performances. Maybe the points earned by each team in this world cup 2006 is accurate but the decision to accumulate since last 2 or 3 world cup should not be continued because it does not have logic if based on current team performances. If italy win the world cup, they should be ranked first, then France 2nd, followed by Germany, Portugal, and so on..at least 32 teams that participated in recent world cup should be among the 32 FIFA ranking position. that means rank 1 to 32 of FIFA ranking will be taken by the team that participated in the world cup tournament. There should be a extra special point calculations for teams that participated in the world cup or those that qualified for the world cup tournament. Its odd to see teams like Uruguay, Colombia, Guinea, Romania, Egypt, Greece, Nigeria, Paraguay are among the 32 ranks but they never qualified in the world cup. If FIFA can solved this, then the 32 team played in World Cup 2006 ranking will be more justified and based on their current performance. Like I said, 32 team in world cup should be in the first 32 ranks of FIFA. Teams that qualified for the next world cup should have special formula especially for the world cup tournament. Qualifying rounds also must have its own formula and should have a formula that bring them among the 32 in FIFA’s rankings. Finding a formula when a team from rank 100 then suddenly qualifies for next world cup and then getting into among world ranking 32 is challenging but it is possible. if not, automatic 32 position should be used and will be seperated from the rest of the world. If a team suddenly could not qualify for the next world cup but from among previously among 32 ranking, should also have its special formula to justify the position and should get out of the 32 ranking fairly. This is a challenge that FIFA need to think…

32 teams -> 32 ranking
Justified.

Just because one teams beats another at the World Cup by say, penalties, does not mean that they are better. One slip-up from a big team against a titchy team ahould not qualify that small nation to be in the top 10. Everyone has their bad days, which is why form over a period of a few years is usually a good indicator.

Togo is ranked 48 while Angola is ranked 55. Thats funny because before the WC, Togo were 2 places below Angola and I dont know how their perfomance gave them this BIG jump over us. Not to mention that Angola beat them at the African Nations Cup.

Also, how did Uruguay end up at 14 when they didnt even qualify?

Now I think this is the best way to rearrage the ranking…

Italy
France
Argentina
Germany
England
Brazil

Shuja,S.feydhoo, Maldives

In 1998 Brazil was also still ranked #1 after their ass kicking in the finals. Even though France won 3-0 they only climbed to second place. If there is any way that FIFA can keep Brazil #1 they will do it. Like many have posted here, the rankings should be like the teams finished this year in Germany, at least for the top 16 spots. Portugal beat England and Netherlands and should be rated above them and since Germany left little doubt who is better between it and Portugal the Germans should be rated above Portugal.

As big as the World Cup is, not qualifying for it shouldn’t necessarily mean a team is ranked lower than those behind it. Cameroon, for example, failed to make the World Cup because it was in an African “group of death” with the Ivorians and the Egyptians, then failed by only one point (unlike Europe, African teams that finish second in their group have no other opportunity to qualify–hopefully this will change in the future so that teams like Nigeria [eliminated on a tie-breaker] and Cameroon have the same chances to re-qualify that some of the European teams did). Cameroon in fact beat the Ivorians in both legs of WC qualifying and didn’t play any of the other African teams that qualified from different groups, so why automatically rank them behind? The World Cup is what it is, one competition, and one’s performance to get there and once there, to advance, often depends on the results of a single match. It, by itself, should not determine the rankings. Just like it’s silly to have the NCAA basketball rankings precisely mirror the results of the NCAA tournament–if that’s all that voters are going to do, why bother to vote?

Another problem with using the WC results as the pure determinant of who ranks where: the many elements of chance in the WC format: where you started from (could Australia have even qualified in the African group of death that Cameroon was in?) what group you are placed in within the actual tournament itself, temporary fitness and logistical issues (the latter an especially big problem for African teams), how difficult and taxing your path is, referee blunders (huge in this WC), the random insult of PKs (hey I’m a fan of Portugal, but they didn’t “beat” England–they won the PK lottery, that’s all).

PS Given how bad many of the games in this WC were, it’s no wonder that some teams were rewarded for not qualifying.

Aaron Timms of The Sydney Morning Herald explained in todays edition how the rankings are decided by FIFA:

“In essence, the new formula allocates points for each match a team plays, then totals the points for all the matches a team has played over the course of the past four years (in the old system, the past eight years were taken into account). Matches decrease in importance over the course of time, so a victory from four years ago is not worth as much as a more recent win. The team with the most points at the end of all that is ranked No.1 in the world. Rankings are published monthly to keep the results as relevant as possible.

The crux of the whole process resides in the three criteria taken into account to calculate the points allocated to each match a team plays. Those criteria are: the result (three points for a win, one for a draw, none for a loss); the importance of the match (assessed on a scale of one to four, where one point is awarded for a friendly and four for a World Cup match); and the strength of the opponent (calculated by subtracting the opponent’s position in the most current ranking from 200, then dividing the result by 100, such that a team ranked 30th in the world receives a “strength rating” of 1.7). As if that isn’t already complicated enough, the strength of the confederation to which each team belongs also plays a part in working out that team’s ranking. “Confederation strength” is calculated on the basis of the number of victories teams from one confederation have recorded against teams from other confederations in the past three World Cups. The strongest confederation receives a weighting of 1, the weakest a weighting of 0.85. At the moment, the Asian confederation, of which Australia is now officially the strongest member, is considered weaker than the European, South American and African confederations.

A couple of people have commented on how performance in one tournament is not a good indicator of the quality of a team. This is of course correct, however there is the problem that international teams play very few matches in any case (usually less than 10 a year), so there is very little alternative. Also, the world cup is the only significant inter-confederation tournament, as such it should serve as the starting point. Yes this will mean that some teams are ranked out of place at the moment, however as jflo pointed out earlier those who are over/under-rated should rapidly correct themselves in any decent system. Oh and penalty wins count as 2/3 of a win for the winner and the same as a draw for the loser in the FIFA system.

I really dont understand why the fifa world rankings are the way they are, and I am sure that majority of soccer fans will agree with me. I think that Italy deserve 1st spot and for some stupid reason Brazil is in there! Sure, mabey 4 years ago they were unstoppable, but their rule has come to a halt. And France has proved that. Italy should definatley be 1st at least for a little while. And another thing, some teams that Ive never even heard of are in the top 20! Why on earth are Czech Republic 10th? And before the world cup they were 2nd! Now somebody has 2 agree with me when I say that this doesnt make any sense. They might have some good players but they never have done anything. Also Nigeria. I have never seen them do exceptionally well in any competion ever. And they are ranked 11th? This is my ranking: (and im sure that everybody will agree)

1: Italy
2: France
3: Argentina
4: Brazil (questionable)
5: Portugal
________________________

6: Germany
7: England

I think this world cup makes differences only to the teams that unfortunatley didnt win.

P.S. FORZA ITALIA!!!!!

Can u tell me where the hell is ecuador??

Hey Nathan I think Nigeria could beat Australia. Nigeria has a good team with a young stud named Obafemi Martins who plays along Materazzi and Adriano at Inter.

The rankings should be:
France
Italy
Germany
Brazil
Argentina
England
Spain

I’m pretty happy with the rankings I think… When I was looking at them before the cup and saw that USA was somehow 5th place and Italy was 13th, I was kinda amazed at it. And then we watch the pregames of the show and they all expect Italy to win versus USA and the Czech Republic which was ranked 2nd. If rankings were at all reliable they would tell better who should win which game.

One thing I think is that maybe tis ranking is too previous world cup oriented. Im a huge Italian fan and them being second sounds a lot more logical than 13th but some teams just don’t seem right. For example the fact that Ukraine has seen such an amazing turn and is in the top 20 now, ahead of teams like Mexico; which IMO played a much better world cup and are an overall much better team.

Perhaps its the new revamped system though. Im sure things will settle a bit more once more international games are played.

People seem to be pretty bitter about it. Some Italians thinking they should be 1st because they won the world title. Some Portugese thinking that recent important tournaments have proved they deserve better than 8th. But Brazil had such a commanding lead before that it would be unlikely for them to drop from the top spot as of yet because of one bad tournament. And Portugal HAS played well but I think its this recent playing that has KEPT them in the top 10; they cant expect to move up much more.

Anywhoz, Im quite happy with it although Im gonna read into it more now as to how it works. ^-^

A lot of people are saying that some countries shouldnt be very high up such as Uruguay because they couldnt even qualify for the world cup. Its as if the logic for this is that they’re obviously not in the top 32 countries in the world. This would make sense except that due to world cup places in different continents, the world cup qualifying isnt gonna bring the best 32 countries in the world to the world cup.

For example, Uruguay ALMOST made the world cup but was in a tough South American league and lost the playoff to Australia (I think) But I’m sure and Fifa is sure that they would probably beat teams like Tunisia and Japan on an average day. See what I mean?

The ranking system is flawed obviously but the world cup cant be looked at as the only basis for a ranking system. A team may go farther in the competetion but just not be a good team for obvious reasons. For example can we put Ukraine at the same level as Argentina?

fifa is garage now..their ranking system is evidence of that..not to mention the refs and fifa management were bias to a few teams …pretty much penalizing them for their diving tactics (which almost all soccer players do..lol)..if fifa wants to fix diving then they should just have the rule if your caught diving then you get a automatic red card…

here is in my opinion the true fifa world rankings top 5

1.Italy
2.France
3.Germany
4.Portugal
5.Brazil

pretty simple…huh?

where is South Africa and we’re hosting the next world cup!!!!!!!!!

I live in South Africa… but was very disappointed after watching the world cup because it was such a great tournament… a really great one, i mean damn good, well done Germany!! But what really disappointed me was that the hosts of the next cup, South Africa weren’t in it… its sad that the future hosts couldnt take part…

My personal FIFA rankings:

1. South Africa
2. Chelsea FC
3. The Netherlands aka Holland
4. Espanol
5. Cameroon

P.S VIVA LA ITALIA!!!

Personaly matthes a bit cuckoo!!

My pesonal FIFA rankings!!

Italy
Brazil
France
Germany
Argentina
Portugal
Netherlands

Just wana give a shout out to my mom, dad, Jonathan (Above my fisrt comment) and Natasha – I’m really sorry!!

This is so cool… yeah!!!

Just wana give a shout out to my mom, dad, Jonathan (Above my first comment) and Natasha – I’m really sorry and… i love you!! LOL

This is so cool… yeah!!!

i personaly think that an African team can win the next world cup or at least go far.. Us Africans will beat drums and blow horns (vuvzela’s) and be behind or teams 110%

Viva la Africa

I personaly think i will be playing for South Africa for the 2010 world cup.. Hoza 2010!!!!!!!!

The “vuvuzela” is a 100% South African horn… commonly used at soccer matches and the occasional rugby game… it can be purchased for about R20 (Rand – The South African Currency)… So to put it into tourist terms, about 4$ (Dollars). We hope you all buy your own personal vuvuzela (or as we call it – a vuvu) during the next world cup… and have great fun in the spirit of african and south african football!!!!

you know DANNY i think you could be rite. Martins is an exceptional player with good speed and an eye for goal. Nigeria and Australia is a match i would like to see.

goddammit where’s australia!?
33rd is shit.
i hate the way FIFA works the rankings out…

pls i want d new fifa ranking for 2006

Yeah Nathan it would be a good match to watch but the likeliness of Nigeria playing Australia in the near future is highly unlikely.

Hey Nathan has Mark Viduka retired from international football yet or is he still contemplating his retirement?

My personal FIFA Ranking:

1. Brazil (yes, despite their elimination in quarter finals, let’s not forget 5 championships)

2. Italy

3. Argentina

4. Germany

5. England

6. France

7. Portugal

8. Spain

9. Netherlands

10. United States

11. Uruguay

12. Ukraine

13. Denmark

14. Camerooon

15. Bulgaria

16. Czech Republic

17. Sweden

18. Switzerland

19. Paraguay

20. Ivory Coast

21. Colombia

22. Croatia

23. Korea Republic

24. Ecuador

25. Nigeria

26. Poland

27. Costa Rica

28. Ghana

29. Iran

30. Saudi Arabia

31. Russia

32. Japan

33. Romania

34. Ireland

35. Australia

36. Russia

37. Norway

38. Greece

39. Costa Rica

40. Finland

41. Hungary

I have to agree with anyone who ranks the top teams according to the top 4 in the most recent world cup. Why would FIFA disregard its own major tournament when it comes to rankings? This boggles my (probably too small) mind. After the top 4, almost anything goes, as far as the rankings are concerned. However, I am perpetually infuriated by people (like FIFA), who insist that England is a top 5 team in the world, and that England is “better” than Portugal. Every time these teams meet in competition, Portugal wins. Since 1966, when they lost, they have not lost to England in a competition. The same goes fro Spain and Holland, Portugal ALWAYS beats them. Yet somehow these teams are nearly always ranked higher. I don’t believe that mathematical formulas determine the rankings, I have never believed that. That’s why I picked Italy to win this World Cup the day they picked the groups, despite their Fifa ranking, and why I picked Germany to make the final (so I missed by one game). In fact, only France, of the 4 semifinalists, was not on my list (they still wouldn’t be there tomorrow, if they had to do it all again–I pick Brasil every time).

Viva Las Vegas!

my only problem is portugal, they were 4th in the tourney and 2nd in the euro, b4 the tourney they were 7th and england was 10th, portugal beat england in the euros and in the worldcup, how is england all of a sudden 5th and portugal 8th, there is no way england should even be in the top ten, all there players are overrated ne way, they have no true star player like ronaldinho, or figo, or zidane… they have above avg players.

the ranking of the top 10 should go as folows

1.Italy(won the worldcup, cant argue, played like shit at euros thou, also no true star.)
2.Brazil(won confederations cup, played like shit in WC but if there bench played i still believe brazil could have won)
3.France
4.Argentina(should have won WC and came 2nd in confederations)
5.Portugal(4th at worlds, and best WC qualifying team with like 9 wins 3 draws and 30 goals for and like 4 or 5 against)
6. Germany
7.England(got lucky at WC with shit wins)
8.Spain
9.Holland
10.Mexico(should not have dropped so far, the made it to the round of 16 and lost to argentina in extra time)

hey DANNY i dont know if Mark Viduka has retired yet but it is highly unlikely that he will play 4 australia in 2010.

FIFA’s rankings are criminal! How can a team drop 4 places without playing a single game. The system is insanely biased in favour of the “established elite” of world football. I think this is insane both ethically and economically, as a total lack of respect (on FIFAs behalf) of emerging countries such as Australia and South Korea will marginalise a large population of new fans. Shame FIFA, shame!

everyone must remember that the rankings are based on the last 4 YEARS not just a few matchs from the world cup and you can’t make your own judgements on teams that you wateched for only 2 or 3 games as their were a number of teams that played badly e.g – Brazil, England, France even Italy at times. There are other things that contribute to the rankings like -

Number of yellow and red cards
Number of goals scored/conseeded
Friendlies (Tho don’t count as much as competative matches)

So over 4 years the rankings do reflect quite well and well established teams are still at the top for a reason, they have all one a major trophy and consistently beat opposition below or at about the same level as them. Picking up on “Portugal always beating england and italy” – just becuase you can beat those teams does’nt mean that they should be above them as the other teams may beat opposition as strong as portugal or stronger and counter that loss – such as france beating brazil but france are still below them in the rankings and anyway alot of portugal’s games with England and Italy have been draws not wins.

The FIFA world rankings, although a massive improvement since the newly release rankings, should be ranked like this:

1.France
2.Italy
3.Brazil
4.Germany
5.Portugal
6.Argentina
7.Netherlands
8.Spain
9.Mexico
10.England
11.Ukraine
12.Australia
13.Switzerland
14.USA
15.Uruguay
15.Croatia
15.Sweden
18.Denmark
19.Colombia
20.Ghana
20.Cote d’Ivoire

Oh Shit forgot the czech Republic!

Ok Rankings should be like this:

1.France
2.Italy
3.Brazil
4.Germany
5.Portugal
6.Argentina
7.Netherlands
8.Spain
9.Mexico
10.England
11.Czech Republic
12.Ukraine
13.Australia
14.Switzerland
15.USA
16.Uruguay
16.Croatia
16.Sweden
19.Denmark
20.Colombia
21.Ghana
21.Cote d’Ivoire
23.Ecuador
24.Nigeria
25.Cameroon