Poll: Should International Minnows Have to Pre-Qualify for World Cup Qualifying?

everybody should be entitled to the same chances. and a pre-qualification is the opposite of that.

is it just the minnows, or do the currently sucking european teams have to pre-qualify too….it would be interesting to see the Faroe Islands have to play England to qualify for qualification..cause really, who knows who would win

The football calendar is very bloated, so it would welcome changes, which reduce the number of fixtures.

“It’s not just about keeping the big boys happy either. Maybe the smaller nations would enjoy playing some competitive football against each other with a place in the bigger pond at stake. It has to be better than getting drubbed home and away over the course of nearly two years.”

They might not like getting drubbed but those games are worth serious money. A big team arrives with not just its’ superstars, but also a money spinning entourage of sponsors and TV networks. And the small countries get a share of that, which I’m sure is a substantial part of their yearly budget.

You could even argue that the FA’s of the big nations need those games as well. England needs as many games in the New Wembley stadium to make it somewhat profitable.

It used to be Cyprus being a minnow, but look how far they have come.

Italy had to scrap past them 2-1 during last Saturday’s World Cup qualifiers. Cyprus had even held Germany to 1-1 a draw at their own backyard during the Euro 2008 qualifiers (though eventually later on, Germany beat them 4-0 when it was the Germans playing at home). Even in the Champions League for this season, Cyprus has a representative for the first time (Anorthosis Famagusta).

Posted from  Singapore

I;m with diana on this one. Plus, it is also a good thing that these super salaried superstars(let’s not play too many violins for their fixture schedules) visit places like the Faroe Islands and give the fans there an opportunity to see them.

Posted from  Australia

I would say all the countries that came last in their qualifying group in the previous world cup qualifiers are drawn into the pre-qualifiers for the next world cup. This way no one “chooses” the minnows and it gives weaker teams more incentive to go for points even towards the end of the group stage, when qualifying is out of the question.
I’m from Malta so I know what it means to be a minnow. But I think the pre-qualification would actually be helpful to us. For one thing u get to see your country actually having a chance of qualifying in a group. Another bonus is that in these situations, the better players on the team will be easier to spot, and some foreign clubs might get interested. This is hardly the case when your team is being thrashed 8-0, the whole team would look bad and few managers would be interested in buying a player on the wrong end of that scoreline.
The downside to the pre-qualifications is that, since there will be fewer “minnows” in the qualifiers, they(the qualifiers) will be more competitive, big teams may play each other early on and some established names might not make it through tougher groups. But then again big teams already occasionally face each other in the qualifiers (Sweden and Portugal this year, among others).

I think you’re missing a major point when you say that such a system would limit these countries.

Liechtenstein, for instance, has a population of 40,000. This is the limit to their performance, not any qualification system FIFA develop!

Posted from  United Kingdom

I think it should be based simply on population size. That way, England wouldn’t have to play Croatia ))

Posted from  United Kingdom

LET THE MINNOWS PLAY! LET THE MINNOWS PLAY!

Posted from  United States

sort the groups by poulation are you high? Imagine who would be in group a England, Germany, Russia, Italy, France, turkey, and some one like Ukraine. England would never Make it to the world cup again. Not a good idea

No.

I have heard this kind of crap from supporters of “big” teams all the time and there is no aspect of it that’s not complete rubbish. 1) It tries and enforce the way it’s always been by trying to deny “minnows” the playing time for form that would allow them to grow and be competitive later on or have a chance at being competitive one day. 2) The argument is only made when a “big” team misses out or stumbles or otherwise looks out of form. 3)Minnows make neutral matches exciting. I mean come on, who doesn’t like the underdog when they aren’t beating your team. Everyone loved Croatia and Turkey’s strong runs in the Euros because when it’s the same old crowd of expected superstars, it’s not as fun for neutrals. 4) Every win for a minnow, every game matters. If you are expected to lose every game, then every tie and win is a cherished memory. Last qualifying, tiny Luxembourg got their first win in 12 years. That’s what makes the game beautiful is seeing that sort of joy for “Fisherman FC”. And it means that sense qualifying isn’t “guaranteed” so they can sleepwalk through qualifying (See England’s attempt) that each game is equally meaningful as they can look to snatch that glory. Tell me Andorra weren’t giddy at half time equal to a supposedly “reinvigorated” England. And 5) Everyone loves the minnow that does well as it mixes it up. In every competition and cup we look to see who’s new, who’s “not supposed to be there” and each round has a new “minnow” who’s eagerly looked to as the dark horse. Look at the last EURO where Austria became exciting, Croatia and Turkey earned themselves a little respect, and even the final was sold as a huge opportunity for Spain to get the monkey off their back. No one except the Germans was watching the whole thing going, yup Germany sure are a big team that plays mediocrely and without heart, I sure hope they win. No, we all looked to the minnows to give something new or that makes a good story (which is why neutrals loved Germany in 2006) and why people are tired of France vs Italy, Round Oh God Why.

In other words, no, it isn’t a great idea.

The best argument against this: CONCACAF.

Although the dynamics are different (people on this continent in general just don’t care about football as much), the qualifying campaign basically ensures that the mediocre teams stay mediocre.

There are 35, yes THIRTY FIVE, countries in CONCACAF. Yet four games into the qualification campaign (after two playoffs), the number’s been reduced to 12 countries competing for qualification. That basically means those other countries don’t get any competitive fixtures for 2-3 years.

Take the biggest country that fell in this prelim round, Panama. They went from second place at the Gold Cup a few years ago to being eliminated from World Cup contention after TWO games against El Salvador. The system ensures that 23 of CONCACAF’s countries don’t get a chance to really develop through competitive fixtures.. and that the people in those countries would continue to just not care.

Posted from  United States

the qualification, as the rest of fifa garbage, is aimed at one thing; generating MONEY. Fifa mafia loves $$$$$$$$$

the entire system needs a rehaul, but yes, these minnows should play each other (faroe islands versus bhutan, monseratt versus french polynesia, etc)… and not thrown into groups with england, japan, or whoever is in their region. these david versus goliath battles devalue international competition and do very little in terms of “progress” for these small nations.

There should not be groups. Each national team should play 8 games, against ANY nation RANDOMLY selected from their confederation, (ie. UEFA, Concaf, etc). 4 games home, 4 games away, and in the end, the 9 teams (in Europe) with the most points go to the World Cup. For other confederations it’s less teams… (i.e. 4 for South America)

I also believe it should be expanded, 40 teams not 32

and 5 teams per group stage not 4. But still allow only 3 matches (so 1 team you don’t end up meeting) but the top 3 qualify for knock out stage.

OR, get rid of group stage all together, and make knock out, BUT, if you get knocked out the first game, it isn’t a TKO. You are still in the tournament, and have to play another team that lost, while the 1st roud winners get a bye.. they get to skip a stage and go straight to quarter-final.

THE POINT IS, Sepp Blatter is the devil

Posted from  United States

Btw after my 3rd paragraph, I started talking about the actual WOrld CUp, (40 teams not 32, etc) and not qualifying..

Posted from  United States

It might seem fair to force England to pre-qualify, but I don’t think the FA would like it.

Zing!

I think that the smaller nations r gettin better! Take Faroe Islands only losin 2-0 2 serbia nd 1 of dere goals woz an own goal and den on wednesday only a 0-1 home defeat 2 a big country in da form of romania. They are beginning 2 improve

Posted from  United Kingdom

Luxembourg just beat Switzerland 2-1 in Switzerland.

Yes. Can you imagine if we didn’t have preliminaries for the CL?

Posted from  United States

When the Champion’s league was a Champs only competition, there was no need for preliminaries. It was only after the big nations entered multiple teams that the comp needed streamlining in earlier rounds.

Uefa is not a big federation in terms of members so there is no real need for preliminaries except to pamper even more those already spoiled.

Posted from  Australia