A World Cup of Europe
A few months ago, I asked whether you thought this World Cup would be dominated by teams from Europe. Those of you who said that it would be a European tournament have turned out to be correct, especially now that all four remaining teams hail from the continent.
The New York Times did some number crunching about the past 4 World Cups, breaking down the results by various regions. The conclusion that can be drawn from the numbers below is that European teams do very well when the World Cup is played on European soil. When it is played on more neutral ground, South America and the other confederations are able to give a better representation.
Not really a surprise, but to a certain degree the numbers do confirm the general preconception.
All of this makes for an interesting discussion, especially as FIFA decides how many spots each confederation will be allotted for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. If Africa is awarded an additional 6th, which region will lose a spot? Which region should lose a spot? Should the allotments per region be changed at all?
Germany 2006
Continent (# of teams)..W..D..L
Europe (14) ……………30.15.12
South America (4) …….10..2..5
Oceania (1) ……………..1..1..2
Africa (5) ………………..3..3.10
Asia (4) ………………….1..4..7
Concacaf (4) ……………1..3..9
Japan/Korea 2002
Continent (# of teams)..W..D..L
South America (5) …….10..4..6
Concacaf (3) ……………5..3..4
Europe (15) ……………23.16.23
Africa (5) ………………..4..6..7
Asia (4) ………………….5..3..9
Oceania (0) ……………..0..0..0
France 1998
Continent (# of teams)..W..D..L
Europe (15) ……………30.21.16
South America (5) …….9..5..9
Africa (5) ………………..3..6.7
Concacaf (3) ……………2..3..5
Asia (4) ………………….1..2..9
Oceania (0) ……………..0..0..0
USA 1994
Continent (# of teams)..W..D..L
South America (4) ……..8..3..6
Europe (13) ……………27.13.22
Concacaf (2) ……………2..3..3
Asia (2) ………………….2..2..3
Africa (3) ………………..2..1..7
Oceania (0) ……………..0..0..0
Related Posts
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share        |
Comments
Displaying the most recent 25 comments from a total of 27 comments.
Read the rest of the comments
By roger | July 3rd, 2006 at 9:31 am 
Couldn’t agree with you more,FSN, but there is more to CONCACAF than meets the eye. Mexico and the US are, as you say, given a virtually free ticket to every World Cup finals, but have you contemplated the question of why? Think of the US, the wealthiest nation on this planet with a population of 265m. Don’t you think FIFA wants football to break into this rich market, and what better way than to give the US a free ride into the finals to generate interest in their country, hoping that one day the money will roll in by the millions. It’s all politics, otherwise why was the US absent from the finals in 1962,1966,1970,1974 etc, etc,?
Posted from 
Australia
By dirk | July 3rd, 2006 at 9:49 am Mexico was the best quarterfinalist I have seen in a long time. They deserved their place!
Posted from 
United States
By Angry Fan | July 3rd, 2006 at 9:54 am CONCACAF should get 1.5 spots.
Posted from 
United Arab Emirates
By Freddy | July 3rd, 2006 at 10:07 am I think that there are unseen/behind-the-scene influences when the world’s biggest games are played - and the influences become stronger in some nations/regions. Of course, there are the obvious and expected influences whenever a match is played - fans, referees, pride/face, $$$ etc…, and these too have to be taken into thought when discussing the statistics mentioned here.
Take for example, the match between Argentina and Germany (which are my favourite teams). How many of you really think the referee was not acting one-sided against Argentina? (Pls raised your one sided hand.) I have nothing against Germany but I really hate to see bad and “pre-determined” judgements made by the officials!!!
Whatever it is, I think FIFA needs to either be re-investigated or invetigate ways to prevent referees from blundering so obvious (in brigggght daylight) right in front of millions of football fans!!!! Where have all that technologies on wireless communications gone? Were they solely invented for military applications?
Let’s hope 2010 will not be another repeat of official “blunders”!
Posted from 
Malaysia
By dirk | July 3rd, 2006 at 10:23 am Argentina did not lose because of the referee. They lost because they tried to plsy defense and were exposed. Argentina has nothing to complain about. Germany has had absolutely no advantage with ther referees. South Americans need to stop whining
Posted from United States
By Claude | July 3rd, 2006 at 10:26 am CONCACAF has way too many spots. They should be limited to two and perhaps play for one additional spot with Oceania (instead of Oceania qualifying against S. America) or Asia. That would open 2 spots that should go to Europe and S. America. Africa has had a dismal record according to the above stats. Giving them more spots would only make their overall record look worse than it already is. Let’s also not forget about the problems caused by Togo.
Posted from United States
By dirk | July 3rd, 2006 at 10:27 am Argwntina lost because Argentina thought it was better and stopped playing. They des1erved to lose for that reason alone
Posted from United States
By dirk | July 3rd, 2006 at 10:59 am Australia deserved better in this tornament. They beat the CONCACAF teams hands down (except Mexico; which has always been better anyway). U.S rated #4 or 5; you must be kidding
Posted from United States
By Raybron | July 3rd, 2006 at 11:26 am I’m pretty sure the only prize you deserve for beating non-Mexico CONCACAF teams is the honor of not being called one of the world’s worst football teams. I love Australia, but beating CONCACAF teams doesn’t mean jack squat in world football. Also, like Argentina, Australia failed to capitalize. In their case, on a man advantage. Whoops. I didn’t care for the foul at all but the Aussies missed their chances and they can’t complain with what the fates gave them just like Argentina can’t.
Posted from United States
By Bobbio | July 3rd, 2006 at 11:28 am Why don’t you say “North America” instead of “CONCACAF”?
Posted from 
Netherlands
By dirk | July 3rd, 2006 at 11:32 am Good question Bobbio. Guess we just get in the habit. But I think Mexico is in a differnet category. They really did play well.
Posted from United States
By Raybron | July 3rd, 2006 at 11:35 am Because CONCACAF includes Central America and the Caribbean as well.
Posted from United States
By Bobbio | July 3rd, 2006 at 11:37 am Mexico, the Caribbean and Latin America as far south as Panama are all part of the North American continent.
Posted from Netherlands
By dirk | July 3rd, 2006 at 11:44 am Yeah, but Mexico is more South American than North American in terms of its playing style. I was really rooting for Mexico this WC. They played well!
Posted from United States
By troy | July 3rd, 2006 at 12:09 pm it doesnt help when the refs favour the european nations, although brazil didnt play well at all and ddnt deserve to get that far really. buy i’m talking about australia, argentina, ecuador and even mexico were really good this cup and were really hard done by not to still be there. but definatly france and germany are probably the two only form teams in the remaining four.
as far as i’m concerned though there are too many teams from europe and not enough from africa and south america and asia. teams like poland, croatia, ukraine had riciculously easy qualifying groups and the quality of teams they had to play was rubbish. none of those teams then had to play a do or die game against a quality opponant either to make it like australia had to play uruguay. double standards.
also mexico is the only quality team from the north america qualifying group. the usa is only in the cup as a political stunt to attract the us dollars. although i’d be interested to know if anyone in the usa even was interested. the usa should perhaps play a european team or something to earn a spot in a do or die game. the usa has never acheived anything in world cups besides a few upsets.
the group stages are boring half the time also because there are too many dead rubbers. i would like to see perhaps two leagues and have 16 teams in each and they each play like 8 games or something and a top 8 from each division goes through to the round of 16. teams only play 3 games and yet to win the cup you only need to play 7 games. too few games to get a real sense of who is the best team. the sport is so popular there is no way a game wouldnt be sold out. it would be awesome to watch.
Posted from Australia
By dirk | July 3rd, 2006 at 12:22 pm Germany-Argentina should have been a semi-final match. Italy-Ukraine (no offense to the Ukraine), but that wasn’t a QF match. I would like to have seen the Aussies in a different matchup; I think they had potential. Germany and France should now be playing the final.
Posted from United States
By Shay | July 3rd, 2006 at 12:39 pm Too right about CONCACAF - If Australia had such an easy qualifying path every time it would have been a cakewalk for us, too. #3 in CONCACAF is worth the same as #25 in Europe. And don’t try to justify their place with world rankings - The USA is number 5 in the world only because they regularly get the chance to beat up on other inferior nations.
Minhoca - I don’t agree. Regional qualifying is important because the game needs to be developed beyond just Europe and South America, as long as not so many places are given to any confederation that it becomes an embarrassment.
Dirk - Que? Mexico the best quarterfinalist since when? Since they actually got INTO a quarterfinal? How about the teams that have not only played in quarterfinals but won them?
Posted from Australia
By Dave Hamilton | July 3rd, 2006 at 12:54 pm Translated, this Euro Cupo with higher stakes is B-O-R-I-N-G!
Posted from 
Germany
By Australia 2010. Maybe - FIFA World Cup 2006 - World Cup 2006 Blog | July 3rd, 2006 at 4:11 pm [...] Other World Cup Stuff World Cup Store World Cup Betting Mobile Phone World Cup World Cup Photos World Cup Videos World Cup Marketplace World Cup Tickets Travel to Germany Add this blog to: MyYahoo, Google, Bloglines, Home » General Banter, World Cup 2010 « A World Cup of Europe | Home | Another World Cup Refereeing Record » [...]
Posted from United States
By ETucker | July 3rd, 2006 at 5:04 pm CONCACAF and CONMEBOL should just switch the Oceania playoff spot, so the 5th place Conmebol team gets automatic entry, and the 3rd place CONCACAF team has a playoff against Oceania.
However, judging the allocations based on talent would lead to 2.5 CONMEBOL teams (Argentina, Brazil and a playoff for the winner of Paraguay-Uruguay-Ecuador), 1.5 CONCACAF teams (Mexico and a playoff for the US-Costa Rica winner), a few African teams, no Asia or Oceania teams, and all Europe.
Unfortunately, this tournament already exists. It’s called the European championship.
Posted from 
Dominican Republic
By Pedro P | July 3rd, 2006 at 5:22 pm Sorry to all the ENG fans, but it’s just too much… 
http://futebolez.blogs.sapo.pt/59641.html
Posted from Netherlands
By unseenop | July 3rd, 2006 at 10:02 pm I agree with the person who said US and Mexico are the only real CONCACAF teams. I think the third team should play a playoff against Oceana. Australia was looking really good this World Cup and its a shame that they had to go out the way they did. I guess we’ll find out in 2010 whether they are for real. As for why one would say CONCACAF instead of North America? The answer is obvious, CONCACAF includes Suriname which is not part of N. America
Posted from United States
By Féfé | July 4th, 2006 at 12:29 am Mas o que querem os bifes, não sabem marcar penaltys, venham para a academia. Cambada de cepos.
Posted from 
Portugal
By Joe | July 4th, 2006 at 1:31 am As poorly as the U.S. did this tournament, and Costa Rica didn’t get a point, let’s not forget that T&T did tie Sweden, and played as well as England for most of the game. Also, T&T won a playoff against Bahrain, I think, in order to qualify, so if you want to take away a spot from a zone look at Asia. Nobody advanced from the group stage. And although South Korea beat Togo and came close to advancing, everyone in that group beat Togo. Sorry, CONCACAF is no Africa, Europe, or South America, but we are better than Asia at this point, or so I believe.
Posted from United States
By tjlyerly | August 25th, 2006 at 11:06 am Despite how poorly the US played in this world cup, I think everyone is forgetting that the US qualified above Mexico in WC qualifying in the region - and has consistently beaten Mexico over the past 10 years. The US holds a 7-1-2 record against Mexico since the year 2000. I feel comfortable saying the US is a better team than Mexico. Although that would be difficult to determine if your first experience in watching the US has been in competitions held in Europe - which has always been a mental block for US teams for some reason.
I personally would like to see the WC opened up to 40 teams instead of the current 32 teams. That would give some of the deserving Europen teams more slots to qualify and would allow for a more robust round 1 qualifying format - and make the likelihood of the goal differential tie breaker more remote.
Posted from United States
Comments are closed
