Rethinking FIFA’s World Cup Qualifying Quotas

CONCACAF should get 3 bids at the most. Maybe even 2.5

The .5 means that the team that holds the last qualifying spot has to enter a play-off with a team of another confederation.
Example: Scenario
CONMEBOL (4.5) CONCACAF (3.5)
1.Brazil 1.USA
2.Argentina 2.Mexico
3.Columbia 3.Costa Rica
4.Equador 4.Canada
5.Uruguay

So in this scenario Bra, Arg, Col and Equ are guaranteed a spot in the world cup for CONMEBOL and USA, MEX and CR are guaranteed a spot in the world cup for CONCACAF. Uruguay and Canada, who both hold the .5 position in their respective confederations, will play a home and away playoff. Whoever has the better record wins the final spot between the two confederations.

Posted from  Canada

If they want to make it more fair, give Uefa 10 with another three half bids, do the same with the other regions. Fewer guaranteed bids and more playoff games. Also, no more multiple hosts where they both get to play automatically. They can play each other, and then the loser can be a .5.

Gotta say, africa and south america have only a few top notch footballing nations, so they shouldn’t get so many spots. Here’s my idea… Not too different, but then again none of these numbers vary too much…
Host 1
Asia 5
Africa 6
Oceana 1
Europe 12
CONCACAF 3.5
South America 3.5

Posted from  United States

Daryl, I like yours a lot. Definitely less euro centric and would spice things up. Might even get an African team to the semis one day (maybe even final). Although Senegal was damn close in 2002 against Turkey.

Posted from  United States

Daryl, the problem I see is that the added African teams and SA teams are usually weaker than the European teams. The more weak teams you add, the weaker the WC gets. One reason the Euro’s is so popular is that besides Argentina and Brazil, you usually have 14 of the best teams in world playing.

I agree with David. That was the point I was trying to get at, but he worded much better than I could.

Posted from  United States

The way it is now works fine I think.. Only adjustment I’d make is one less from Europe, one more to Africa.

If you look at World Cup performances, the bottom performing European teams aren’t that much better than the bottom performing teams from other confederations, except maybe CONCACAF. In CONCACAF, the only team that really performs is Mexico, with the USA sometimes getting past the group stage and that third CONCACAF team making up the numbers… Sad but true

Posted from  United States

I dont think anything should be changed. Its obvious that the best football countries are from Europe, so it would make sense they have more spots. No team outside of Europe or South America has ever even won a world cup. Based on the last world cup I felt like the Asia, African and even the North America teams were somewhat pushovers to Europe and South America. just look at who qualified for knockout rounds and then out of that who made it to the final 8. its sad but the rest of the world isnt there yet

The biggest problem lies in the fact that this is no longer a purely ‘football’ decision, it’s now more of a ‘marketing’ decision. The ‘football’ element of the decision is now really just a sub-issue of the ‘marketing’, in so much as more entertaining football is more marketable.

So if Blatter is saying more African nations will be competing in the future it means one of two things; i) African nations are getting better at football and therefore are more entertaining to watch or ii) theres more people in Africa watching the competition now and therefore more people to advertise to during their matches and WC campaign.

Football these days has become a commodity more than a game. The money in the game these days is just ludicrous. Frank Lampard earns more in a day than I do in a year!

Am I just old and cynical or are we slowly losing our clutch on the game we love to fat cats who just want to manipulate the game for profits?

Posted from  United Kingdom

Frankly, that is vote gathering bullshit. Europe does not DESERVE to lose any spots, in later phases of the competition there is never ever less than 50% of european competitors which is always more than their initial spots!

2006 – 100% European finalista, 100% european semifinalists, 75% european quarter finalists. ( with 14 places including host out of 32)

2002 – 50% european finalists, 50% european semifinalists, 50% european quarterfinalists ( with 13 places out of 32)

1998 – 50% european finalists, 75% european semifinalists, 75%european quarterfinalists(with 15 places including host out of 32)

1994 – 50% european finalists, 75% european semifinalists, 87.5% european quarterfinalists ( with 13 spots including defending champion out of 24)

Europe punches above its considerable weight. If you want to see the best teams in the world, then that has to be taken into account, as is the fact that European qualification is HARD, there are always teams which do not qualify which are much better than 3rd best north american team, or 5th best asian team. If Africa deserves more spots, with which I sort of agree, maybe it´s worth looking at if the 10 countries in South American really need 4.5 spots which is the same as the whole of 50+ countries in Africa. And if North America really needs 3.5 spots. Or Asia 5.

Posted from  Portugal

Unfortunately, there’s never going to be a good or right balance that will accommodate such a change. Trying to give Africa additional slots is a veiled attempt to buy votes or gather more support from the African federations. However they do it, the other regions will not be happy about it. It’s why at the moment CONMEBOL and Asia have so many places, when their results might not necessarily justify being given that amount. Europe might have a bloated number of reps, but they do not often go there just to make up the numbers.

Posted from  Singapore

Europe should not lose any spots. If confederations should lose spots it is the .5 both Asia and Concacaf get. Take away those spots and give a full bid to Africa. As much as I’d love to see more African teams they should not be given an extra berth at Europe’s expense. Africa has never gotten more than one team at any given WC to the group stages. I think that changes in 2010 but even if it does it doesn’t justify Europe losing a spot.

i think africa could do better with an extra spot or 2. the fact that conmebol gets 4 guaranteed when they only have 10 teams is ridiculous. but for both europe and africa to have 51 nations fighting for a spot and africa to only get 5?
as far as the “european teams statistically reach farther in the tournament” argument, that should be obvious. They make up almost half of the teams! every other WC is in europe anyway.
Host – 1
Africa – 6.5
Asia – 4
Oceania – 0.5
Europe – 12.5
CONCACAF – 3.5
South America – 4

concacaf v. oceania africa v. europe.

u cant give Oceania a whole spot

that is a joke of an idea

Posted from  Australia

“They make up almost half of the teams! every other WC is in europe anyway.”

If that was so then we would expect over time, that in say quarter or semifinals that other confederations would also be represented proportionally to their spots. But no, Europe is represented far above their spots in the later stages. Europe has had less than than half the spots in competition ( hard to say, since previously champions had a spot automatically) and Europe nations usually make around 75% of quarterfinalists. That is far above their “weight”.

Another example, on the last 5 world cups, there have been 10 different european semifinalists (Italy, France, Germany/West Germany, Portugal, Turkey, Croatia, Netherlands, Sweden, Bulgaria, England). There have been 2 south american semifinalists ( brazil and argentina) and one asian semifinalist ( South Korea) who was playing at home and whose presence in those semifinals is a byword for dodgy refereeing. There is a depth of competitiveness in Europe, that unexpected countries can make a serious push for the title or at least semifinals, which no other continent does. The “14th best” european team, the one who manages to squeeze second on a tough group can, and has frequently managed to reach semifinals. That is more than can not be said of anybody else other than the 2 best south american teams ( and host south korea, everybody knows how) in the modern era!

Posted from  Portugal

And there I was thinking that the aim of the World Cup was to display the best footballing nations…

2006 :
UEFA : – 14 teams (13+host); 4 eliminated in group stage; in knockout round, only UEFA countries managed to beat other UEFA countries, resulting in 6 of the last 8, and all four semifinalists. – 71% of qualified teams got through the group stage. 43% of all qualifiers were from UEFA, but after the group stages they accounted for 63% of remaining teams.
CAF : – 5 teams; 4 eliminated in group stage; remaining team lost in last 16. – 20% of qualified teams got through the group stage. 16% of all qualifiers were from CAF, but after the group stage they accounted for 6% of remaining teams.
AFC : – 4 teams (lost playoff with CONCACAF); all 4 were eliminated in the group stage. – 0% of qualified teams got through the group stage. 12% of all qualifiers were from AFC, but after the group stage they were all eliminated.
CONCACAF : – 4 teams (won playoff with AFC); 3 eliminated in group stage; remaining team lost in last 16. – 25% of qualified teams got through the group stage. 12% of all qualifiers were from CONCACAF, but after the group stage they accounted for 6% of remaining teams.
OFC : – 1 team (won playoff with CONMEBOL); eliminated in last 16. – 100% of the qualified teams got through the group stage. 3% of all qualifiers were from OFC, and after the group stage they accounted for 6% of remaining teams.
CONMEBOL : – 4 teams (lost playoff with OFC); 1 eliminated in group stage; Argentina and Brazil reached the quarter-finals, Ecuador lost in last 16. – 75% of qualified teams got through the group stage. 12% of all qualified teams were from CONMEBOL, and after the group stage they accounted for 18% of remaining teams.

Yes, it was in europe. Perhaps that influenced the results. In 2002 the results were slightly different :

Name – # countries (% of total) – # in group stage (% of total) – other
UEFA – 14 (44%) – 9 (56%) – All quarter-finals, semi-finals as well as the final and 3rd place game involved one UEFA member.
AFC – 4 (12%) – 2 (12%) – Both teams that passed the group stage were hosts, South Korea arrived 4th.
CAF – 5 (16%) – 1 (6%) – Senegal was eliminated in the quarter-finals.
CONMEBOL – 5 (16%) – 2 (12%) – Brazil won the World Cup.
CONCACAF – 3 (9%) – 2 (12%) – USA and Mexico played each other in the last 16, USA was eliminated by finalist Germany in quarter-finals.
OFC – Did not qualify

The 2002 World Cup was more open. Turkey, South Korea, Senegal and the USA all in the quarter-finals made for a very interesting quarter-finals and semi-finals.

I could go on. I’ll just do two more (1998 and 1994) so we can get two tournaments both in and outside europe. However, they are all in the northern hemisphere, so we won’t be able to tell how that affects performances.

1998 :
Name – # countries (% of total) – # in group stage (% of total) – other
UEFA – 15 (47%) – 10 (62%) – 6 of last 8, 3 of last 4, France World Cup winner.
AFC – 4 (12%) – 0 (0%) – The only AFC team to not finish last of their group was Iran.
CAF – 5 (16%) – 1 (6%) – Nigeria lost in last 16.
CONCACAF – 3 (9%) – 1 (6%) – Mexico lost in last 16.
CONMEBOL – 5 (16%) – 4 (25%) – Argentina and Brazil were the only non-UEFA teams in the quarter-finals, Brazil was the losing finalist.
OFC – Did not qualify

1994 :
UEFA – 13 (54%) – 10 (62%) – The only non-UEFA team to beat UEFA teams after the group stage was Brazil, also the only non-UEFA team in the quarter-finals.
AFC – 2 (8%) – 1 (6%) – Saudi Arabia lost in the last 16.
CAF – 3 (12%) – 1 (6%) – Nigeria lost in the last 16.
CONCACAF – 2 (8%) – 2 (12%) – Both Mexico and hosts USA lost in the last 16.
CONMEBOL – 4 (16%) – 2 (12%) – Argentina lost in the last 16, Brazil were World Cup winners.
OFC – Did not qualify.

I can understand people want to change the quotas. But taking places away from UEFA does kind of bemuse me. Africa, Asia and North America are already receiving large quotas. Asia now has Australia, meaning that OFC can stay at 0.5 since there’s only New Zealand really there now, and even so 4.5 is already generous. Africa’s 5 berths are generous given that only one gets through the group stages, so I’m left asking why some people advocate they get a 6th place… CONCACAF’s 3.5 seems reasonable. On the other hand, I think if there are going to be places re-distributed, CONMEBOL and UEFA should be strongly in the running for them. CONMEBOL always has a strong presence thanks to Argentina and Brazil, but the other countries put in good performances too. Similarly, although UEFA already get a large number of qualifying positions, UEFA also has a large number of very good teams. Turkey, albeit being 4th in 2002, didn’t qualify for the 2006 World Cup. In 2002, Germany and Turkey had qualified as 2nd in their group and play-off winners… 1998 saw Croatia and Italy qualify through the playoffs, but Sweden (3rd in 1994) missed out… It just goes on.

concacaf and conmebol should be combined and have 8 spots, i want to see brasil or argentina come to chicago or columbus in feb and get a result. lets see how they do when its 10 degrees, wind chill of -7.

Posted from  United States

Hey Cone, As much as I agree with you – for different reasons – you’re like the turkey who votes for an early Christmas. Combining CONMEBOL and CONCACAF will only decrease USA’s chances of making it to the finals. I believe that USA and Mexico have a free pass.

How’s this for an idea:
Have only 24 of the places in the finals awarded in the first round of qualifying, and then taking 16 teams who just missed out on qualifying from all the different confederations, and putting them together in one tournament, a sort of second tier world cup to decide the last eight spots. Allocation could look something like this:
(The numbers in brackets represent the number of spots in final qualification phase each confederation receives)
CONCACAF – 3 (2)
CONMENBOL- 3 (2)
UEFA – 10(5)
AFC – 3 (3)
CAF – 4 (3)
OFC – 0 (1)
Hst – 1

Then every confederation receives a decent ammount of spots to start with, and each confederation has a chance to earn the remaining four spots. Also, the final stage would be hella entertaining.

Posted from  Canada

3.5 to CONCACAF – I think, this is not at all needed. Maybe 0.5 or 1.

How on earth CONCACAF has 3.5, they have only one country – MEXICO playing football. This is ridiculous.

Hi

Posted from  Australia

I LIKE THE idea of 24 then a final 16 play for the remaining spots but the problem with europe is that every year they keep spliting up more countries so they always get more spots, it’s a conspiracy.

conmebol 10 spots
concacaf 1
africa 3
europe 12