Rethinking FIFA’s World Cup Qualifying Quotas

September 19th, 2008 | by: Daryl |

Sepp Blatter’s been in South Africa this week to a) check on the progress of World Cup 2010 and b) do some of his patented political pandering by suggesting there could be more World Cup qualification places for African teams in the future:

“We will have to change the numbers but we’ll do it step-by-step … One day we should open (the World Cup) more.”

“I do hope that with all the power of Africa behind them, we’ll see an African team in the semi-finals. And if they get to the semi-finals then why not go higher to the final.

“But the problem is numbers. Europe have 13 teams, so it is easier for them to ensure some representation in the later rounds.”

Blatter was careful not to commit to anything, which is understandable. But if FIFA did redistribute the qualifying quotas, how would they go about it?

Welcome to the world’s hardest mathematical problem.

For the last two World Cups, the 32 qualification spots have been divided like this:

Host – 1
Africa – 5
Asia – 4.5
Oceania – 0.5
Europe – 13
CONCACAF – 3.5
South America – 4.5

(.5 means half a spot, which means a team from that confederation plays off against a team from another confederation with half a spot to decides who gets it. For 2010 there’ll be playoffs between Asia vs Oceania and CONCACAF vs South America.)

Wikipedia also has this excellent table showing qualifications quotas throughout history.

It basically shows the non-European continents getting larger allocations over time, but mostly as a result of the tournament being expanded from 16 to 24 to 32 teams.

Any attempt to mess with these numbers stands a good chance of upsetting someone, so apologies in advance for what follows…

Looking at the numbers above, it seems the only way to redistribute qualification quotas would be to shave off some European qualifying spots and redistribute these among the other confederations. Though Europe has the highest concentration of top-tier footballing nations, 13 is just far too many for one continent. I’d bump Europe down to 11.5, giving that extra 1.5 to Africa.

You could also argue that South America is unfairly represented. Only 10 nations enter CONMEBOL qualification, and up to 5 of them can make it to the World Cup. That’s half of all possible teams and seems disproportionate. So I’d be in favour of removing the extra half a spot from CONMEBOL and bumping Asia up to 5.

The real problem is Oceania. Ever since Australia decided it was in Asia, New Zealand are all but guaranteed to take Oceania’s half a spot. Problem is the All Whites are then very unlikely to win a playoff against anyone, such is the gulf in class. Would be nice to grant them a guaranteed spot at the tournament, but we all know they’d get annihilated. And with space at a premium we can’t afford to give a duff team like New Zealand what basically amounts to a free pass to the World Cup.

My big solution would be to merge Oceania and Asia into one confederation, and the same with CONMEBOL and CONCACAF, thereby eliminating the smaller confederations. But that’s unlikely to happen any time soon. So best bet is to stick with Oceania’s half spot and keep CONCACAF at a steady 3.5.

Here’s what my proposed new World Cup quotas look like:

Host – 1
Africa – 6.5
Asia – 5
Oceania – 0.5
Europe – 11.5
CONCACAF – 3.5
South America – 4

(playoffs: Europe vs Africa, CONCACAF vs Oceania)

I know it’s not perfect, but at least it adds up to 32 (I think.) Any suggestions for improvements or a different way of doing things?

International Football News – World Cup Blog RSS Feed

http://italy.worldcupblog.org/ Julian

How does the .5 work? Half a team goes?
http://www.worldcupblog.org Daryl

.5 means half a spot, which means a play off against another confederation with half a spot to decides who gets it.

For 2010 CONMEBOL has 4.5 spots and CONCACAF has 3.5 spots.

So that means 4 teams will definitely qualify from CONMEBOL and 3 teams will definitely qualify from CONCACAF.

But the remaining spot will go to the winner of a playoff between a CONMEBOL team and a CONCACAF team.
Gage

So would the European 12th place play the African 7th place CONCACAF 4th vs. Oceania? Seems odd.
http://www.worldcupblog.org Daryl

Yes Gage, exactly.

But why is the 12th place European team playing off against the 7th place African team any more or less odd than the 5th place South American team playing off against the 4th place CONCACAF team, as happens now?
http://www.nevercaptainnickybutt.blogspot.com Ibracadabra

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

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.
Yulles

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.
mele419

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
http://tunisia.worldcupblog.org/ Rami

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.
http://www.soccerticketsonline.com/world-cup-tickets/ David

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.
mele419

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

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 :(
Andrew

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
http://villa.offside.com Martini Extra Dry

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?
BC

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.
http://www.diamondssoccer.com live World Cup football

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.
http://guinea.worldcupblog.org shane

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.
Rick

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.
Baz

u cant give Oceania a whole spot

that is a joke of an idea
BC

“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!
Shazback

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.
cone

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.
Monsef

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.
Darcy

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.
Ganesh

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

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

Hi
doctor

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