This is how the FIFA World Cup SHOULD be

Pisco Sour

The more and more I think about the allocations for each continent the more ridiculous it sounds.

New Zealand could qualify for the world cup having played the following 4 world beaters: New Caledonia, Fiji, Vanuatu and Bahrain

6 places for Africa despite the fact that only 1 team ever makes the last 16 in each world cup.

Europe constantly getting their allocation cut despite constantly providing about 10 of the last 16, about 6 of the Last 8 and sometimes all of the last 4.

Qualification for the World Cup is supposed to be an achievement and it shouldnt come easy. It should be challenging accross the board. Its too easy for teams like South Korea, Japan, USA, Mexico to qualify for the world cup.

If teams like Ireland, Norway, Denmark etc were in the Asian, CONCACAF, or African qualifying zone they would qualify for most world cups, while if South Korea, Japan, USA etc were in the European section they would qualify only the odd time (about as often as we qualify in Europe).

This is how I would suggest it should be allocated.

Europe: 18 teams
South America: 5 team
Africa: 3 teams
Asia/Oceana : 3 teams (Combine them into the one qualifying zone)
CONCACAF: 2 teams

Playoff for last place between Africa and CONCACAF

These allocations would present a fair challenge to all teams around the world attempting to qualify and it would ensure that the best teams make it at the world cup by FAIR means (no need for scandelous playoff seedings).

End of rant.

Xavi6

So make it the European Championships plus a couple of others?

Not elitist in the slightest.

noodler

WORLD cup

gimmick

Its called the world cup for a reason.

How would football develop in other continents if Europe were given yet more places?
Daft idea imo.

Pisco Sour

Xavi6 wrote: »

So make it the European Championships plus a couple of others?

Not elitist in the slightest.

No, 18 teams from Europe and 14 from the rest of the World, representative of where the best teams are.

Sure in 1986 it was 15 from Europe and 9 from the rest of the World.

Johnny Utah

Well said, I agree 100%. I have made this exact point before. If you look at the current ELO ratings, there would be 19 teams from Europe in the World Cup.

Jax Teller

04072511 wrote: »

The more and more I think about the allocations for each continent the more ridiculous it sounds.

New Zealand could qualify for the world cup having played the following 4 world beaters: New Caledonia, Fiji, Vanuatu and Bahrain

6 places for Africa despite the fact that only 1 team ever makes the last 16 in each world cup.

Europe constantly getting their allocation cut despite constantly providing about 10 of the last 16, about 6 of the Last 8 and sometimes all of the last 4.

Qualification for the World Cup is supposed to be an achievement and it shouldnt come easy. It should be challenging accross the board. Its too easy for teams like South Korea, Japan, USA, Mexico to qualify for the world cup.

If teams like Ireland, Norway, Denmark etc were in the Asian, CONCACAF, or African qualifying zone they would qualify for most world cups, while if South Korea, Japan, USA etc were in the European section they would qualify only the odd time (about as often as we qualify in Europe).

This is how I would suggest it should be allocated.

Europe: 18 teams
South America: 5 team
Africa: 3 teams
Asia/Oceana : 3 teams (Combine them into the one qualifying zone)
CONCACAF: 2 teams

Playoff for last place between Africa and CONCACAF

These allocations would present a fair challenge to all teams around the world attempting to qualify and it would ensure that the best teams make it at the world cup by FAIR means (no need for scandelous playoff seedings).

End of rant.

you'd have 33 teams then cause the hosts qualify automatically i believe

Frisbee

It's called a WORLD Cup.

It's done this way to give the teams who are good enough to be there a chance to be there. And those who aren't of a great level a chance to improve.

By your reckoning Greece shouldn't have been in Euro 2004 and there should have only been the big teams.

In the way your saying Ireland would be in the World Cup. Ireland have no more of a right to be in the World Cup that any of the African teams, who play much better football than us.

Pisco Sour

keysersoze_88 wrote: »

you'd have 33 teams then cause the hosts qualify automatically i believe

The hosts would be included within its continents allocation.

Its a general idea, there could be a bit of leeway. But 13 teams for Europe is a joke. You could argue the point that how are teams like Finland going to develop if they are never going to make the world cup, while inferior teams to them contantly get the opportunity to do so.

Xavi6

04072511 wrote: »

No, 18 teams from Europe and 14 from the rest of the World, representative of where the best teams are.

Sure in 1986 it was 15 from Europe and 9 from the rest of the World.

Doesn't mean it's right though.

Are there 18 worthy teams from Europe? There's only 16 in the Euros at the moment as it is.

jimmyendless

Western Europe and North America rape the rest of the world of most of there resources including players. Give this to them at least. Give the millions of people in shanty towns something to look forward to.

Johnny Utah

gimmick wrote: »

Its called the world cup for a reason.

How would football develop in other continents if Europe were given yet more places?
Daft idea imo.

Football hasn't developed in other continents though. In 1990, Cameroon made it to the quater-finals, but in 2006 no African teams made it to the quarter-finals and only one made it to the last 16 (Ghana). Not much progress there- actually they're going backwards.

Pisco Sour

Frisbee wrote: »

It's called a WORLD Cup.

By your reckoning Greece shouldn't have been in Euro 2004 and there should have only been the big teams.

QUOTE]

No, Greece qualified for the European Championships by being one of the best 16 teams in EUROPE. They earned their place there. The European Championships will always have its best teams there, whereas the World Cup doesnt provide us with the (or anywhere close to) best 32 teams in the World.

Johnny Utah

Frisbee wrote: »

It's called a WORLD Cup.

It's done this way to give the teams who are good enough to be there a chance to be there. And those who aren't of a great level a chance to improve.

By your reckoning Greece shouldn't have been in Euro 2004 and there should have only been the big teams.

In the way your saying Ireland would be in the World Cup. Ireland have no more of a right to be in the World Cup that any of the African teams, who play much better football than us.

In your opinion.

gimmick

Xavi6 wrote: »

There's only 16 in the Euros at the moment as it is.

And that is being increased to 24 for the next time, therefore diluting the competition, and making sure the likes of England no longer miss out. It also means less chance of a tough group alá Euro 2008 for example Italy, France, Holland, Romania.

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Football hasn't developed in other continents though. In 1990, Cameroon made it to the quater-finals, but in 2006 no African teams made it to the quarter-finals and only one made it to the last 16 (Ghana). Not much progress there- actually they're going backwards.

What, so discard them so is it?

Pisco Sour

Xavi6 wrote: »

Doesn't mean it's right though.

Are there 18 worthy teams from Europe? There's only 16 in the Euros at the moment as it is.

Are there 6 worthy teams in Africa?

Are New Zealand, Honduras, Bahrain more worthy of a place in the World Cup than Bosnia, Slovenia etc?

_blank_

Everyone knows that FIFA is all about the benjamins.

But, I think the World Cup should be made up of the best teams in the world, not a mish-mash of token shítehawks from deepest Africa and Asia.

Yes, I'd agree that the continental champions should be there, and possibly the runners-up.

But then it should come down to purely rankings, imo.

Look at the situation we are in now, one of Bahrain or New Zealand will be in the World Cup. That is a travesty.

I think it would make it a better tournament though, if there were better teams there, it stands to reason imo.

I fúcking hate the WC as it is, I think it's a shíte tournement, overblown farce.

Too many teams there for political reasons, too many "make up the number" sides.

Now, of course I can see the argument from the other side, where the minnows need to be competing to make a step up. But a step to the WC is a step too far. (blah blah blah Ireland/Cameroon in 1990)

But, I'd be in favour of a two tiered football world.

The Faroes, San Marino and the likes take part in a pre-qualifier, running at the same time as the qualifiers, where the winners make a step up for the next qualifiers, and the worst team step down.

(Same idea could and should be used for the club tournaments by the way, cut off point at 16th, 32nd ranked teams in the co-effs, with promotion and relegation between the ranks)

whatawaster

04072511 wrote: »

The more and more I think about the allocations for each continent the more ridiculous it sounds.

New Zealand could qualify for the world cup having played the following 4 world beaters: New Caledonia, Fiji, Vanuatu and Bahrain

6 places for Africa despite the fact that only 1 team ever makes the last 16 in each world cup.

Europe constantly getting their allocation cut despite constantly providing about 10 of the last 16, about 6 of the Last 8 and sometimes all of the last 4.

Qualification for the World Cup is supposed to be an achievement and it shouldnt come easy. It should be challenging accross the board. Its too easy for teams like South Korea, Japan, USA, Mexico to qualify for the world cup.

If teams like Ireland, Norway, Denmark etc were in the Asian, CONCACAF, or African qualifying zone they would qualify for most world cups, while if South Korea, Japan, USA etc were in the European section they would qualify only the odd time (about as often as we qualify in Europe).

This is how I would suggest it should be allocated.

Europe: 18 teams
South America: 5 team
Africa: 3 teams
Asia/Oceana : 3 teams (Combine them into the one qualifying zone)
CONCACAF: 2 teams

Playoff for last place between Africa and CONCACAF

These allocations would present a fair challenge to all teams around the world attempting to qualify and it would ensure that the best teams make it at the world cup by FAIR means (no need for scandelous playoff seedings).

End of rant.

Stupid Rant.
Look at how far African football, for instance, has come in the last 10/15 years. Last night Ghana reached the final of the world youth cup. They need to be exposed more to higher level European and South-American opposition, not deprived of the chance.

Look at it this way:
There are 13 WC spots available to European teams out of 53 national associations: A 24% chance of qualifying

Asia – 46 associations and Oceania – 16 associations – 5 spots in total – or an 8% chance of qualifying

Africa – 55 associations – 5 spots – or a 9% chance of qualifying

South America – 10 associations – 4 spots or a 40% chance of qualifying

Central/North America – 40 associations – 3 spots – or 7.5% chance of qualifying.



- As you can quite clearly see, the two powerhouse confederations of Fifa already have it their own way, there are far more places per association than in the other continents.

Johnny Utah

gimmick wrote: »

And that is being increased to 24 for the next time, therefore diluting the competition, and making sure the likes of England no longer miss out. It also means less chance of a tough group alá Euro 2008 for example Italy, France, Holland, Romania.

This is a bad idea; I'd prefer if the Euros stayed in their current format. It's great to see a group of death like the one you listed.

gimmick wrote: »

What, so discard them so is it?

No, but a fair allocation of places would be nice.

Xavi6

04072511 wrote: »

The European Championships will always have its best teams there,

Except for England in 2008......and the Czech Republic in the same year......and Italy and Spain in 1992......and France in 1988......

You can see where I'm going with this.

Headshot

04072511 wrote: »

Honduras

south american qualifers
The top 4 teams qualify for the FIFA World Cup™. The 5th placed team enters a home-and-away playoff with the 4th placed team from North,Central America & Caribbean.

that 4th place team is Honduras

Pisco Sour

Xavi6 wrote: »

Except for England in 2008......and the Czech Republic in the same year......and Italy and Spain in 1992......and France in 1988......

You can see where I'm going with this.

They werent the best teams as they failed to qualify. Other european teams qualified, while they didnt. The World Cup is different as there are different qualifying zones. Failing to qualify in the european champs means you arent one of the best 16 teams (based on qualification). Failing to qualify for the world cup merely means that you arent one of the best from the european continent. It doesnt mean you arent one of the best 32 teams in the world though.

gimmick

Isn't that the lustre of these tournaments though, the possibility of not qualifying? If Europe got more places, the likes of England, Italy, France, Holland, Spain would cruise their groups even more so than most of the above already have. Fewer places equals better competition for big teams to be on their game at all times. As it is, there teams should qualify every time anyway, why make it even easier?

Are New Zealand, Honduras, Bahrain more worthy of a place in the World Cup than Bosnia, Slovenia etc?

Are Bosnia and/or Slovenia more worthy than NZ or Bahrain?????

Xavi6

04072511 wrote: »

Are there 6 worthy teams in Africa?

Ghana, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Nigeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, South Africa, Togo.....all have a history in the World Cup in recent times. Just a worthy as the likes of Greece, Ireland, Scotland and other smaller European nations that have qualified during the same period.

04072511 wrote: »

Are New Zealand, Honduras, Bahrain more worthy of a place in the World Cup than Bosnia, Slovenia etc?

Yes because they won their confederation, and each confederation deserves an allocation of spots.

noodler

This is a stupid topic.

Why does everything have to be in stupid "Super League' format?

It would be a farce if it did not represent teams from every continent on the planet.

Even the Faroes won a game this year, if the interest isn't maintained in these places or if their teams aren't exposed to the big boys then how is there ever going to be any improvement?

Hell, who the hell thought Japan and South Korea would do what they did in 2002?

godtabh

Xavi6 wrote: »

Except for England in 2008......and the Czech Republic in the same year......and Italy and Spain in 1992......and France in 1988......

You can see where I'm going with this.

If they didnt qualify they werent the best teams!

Jagera

Des wrote: »

Look at the situation we are in now, one of Bahrain or New Zealand will be in the World Cup. That is a travesty.

It's hardly a travesty. The WC qualifiers are divided into worldwide regions in which the relevant winners qualify for a world-wide-audience competition.

The same thing happens in the UEFA region qualifiers. "Currently" Slovakia and Slovenia have qualified, in place of Turkey, Croatia, and Sweden (which was Portugal recently) because of slightly lop sided grouping.

It has nothing to do with deserve or ranking. It's qualifying.

Xavi6

kearnsr wrote: »

If they didnt qualify they werent the best teams!

Exactly, which is why the idea of giving more places to European teams is flawed because some of the 'best' teams still won't qualify.

Proportional representation ftw.

daithijjj

gimmick wrote: »

And that is being increased to 24 for the next time, therefore diluting the competition, and making sure the likes of England no longer miss out. It also means less chance of a tough group alá Euro 2008 for example Italy, France, Holland, Romania.



What, so discard them so is it?

Did you think that the euro championships would be diluted in 1980 when the competition was increased from 4 teams to 8 teams? Did you think it would be diluted further when it was increased to 16?

The neutral fan of any match doesnt give a monkeys about 'tough groups', infact they are much more inclined to cheer for the overwhelming underdog. Europe itself has become more 'diluted' in terms of the amout of countries. Increasing it to 24 doesnt dilute anything in my opinion, if anything it will give the lesser countries a great boost.

Spud83

kearnsr wrote: »

If they didnt qualify they werent the best teams!

This is not true. They may have been the best teams but may have been in a harder qualifying group than some others.

Who is to say the group winner of A is better than the runner up in Group B?

The only way you could actually say the best teams qualify is if every team from Europe played each other home and away. However this is never going to be feasible so groups and seeding are used to try get it as fair as possible but still not 100% fair.

This is true of the World Cup as well, the teams in South America and Europe who have produced the most winners have the best chance of qualifying.

Warper

It is a global competition - therefore it needs teams from different continents. If a team doesnt qualify from their perspective groups - they dont deserve to qualify. The best teams always get the easiest qualifying groups as they are seeded teams. Even now FIFA have changed the goalposts and seeded the playoffs. So there is no excuse for a team not qualifying from any continent.

Pisco Sour

Xavi6 wrote: »

Ghana, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Nigeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, South Africa, Togo.....all have a history in the World Cup in recent times. Just a worthy as the likes of Greece, Ireland, Scotland and other smaller European nations that have qualified during the same period.



Yes because they won their confederation, and each confederation deserves an allocation of spots.

You've just listed all the African teams who have competed in the World Cup. Thats pointless! How many of them have actually achieved something??

1990 - Cameroon
1994 - Nigeria
1998 - Nigeria
2002 - Senegal
2006 - Ghana

So 4 teams from Africa have achieved anything of note (Last 16 or better) in the last 20 years!!

Do I need to list out the achievements of every European side? Would take too long.

And yes Slovenia etc are more deserving of a place than NZ. Look at the teams they have to beat to qualify for a playoff against Bahrain. The mightly New Caledonia, Fiji and Vanuatu!! That would be equivalent to Slovenia making the playoffs by beating just Andorra, Malta and Luxembourg. Instead they have finished ahead of the Czechs and Poland!!

Pisco Sour

Warper wrote: »

It is a global competition - therefore it needs teams from different continents. If a team doesnt qualify from their perspective groups - they dont deserve to qualify. The best teams always get the easiest qualifying groups as they are seeded teams. Even now FIFA have changed the goalposts and seeded the playoffs. So there is no excuse for a team not qualifying from any continent.

Which is why I still suggested each continent gets an allocation. Its just a fairer allocation in my view. Its too easy for teams like South Korea, USA etc to qualify.

Xavi6

04072511 wrote: »

You've just listed all the African teams who have competed in the World Cup. Thats pointless! How many of them have actually achieved something??

1990 - Cameroon
1994 - Nigeria
1998 - Nigeria
2002 - Senegal
2006 - Ghana

So 4 teams from Africa have achieved anything of note (Last 16 or better) in the last 20 years!!

Still more of an achievement than the second rate European teams you want to replace them with.

And yes Slovenia etc are more deserving of a place than NZ. Look at the teams they have to beat to qualify for a playoff against Bahrain. The mightly New Caledonia, Fiji and Vanuatu!! That would be equivalent to Slovenia making the playoffs by beating just Andorra, Malta and Luxembourg. Instead they have finished ahead of the Czechs and Poland!!

Well the why don't we just scrap the shit confederations and have Europe, South America, and the rest?

noodler

04072511 wrote: »

Which is why I still suggested each continent gets an allocation. Its just a fairer allocation in my view. Its too easy for teams like South Korea, USA etc to qualify.

Lets do it on population instead. That way Europe gets less.

Pisco Sour

Xavi6 wrote: »

Well the why don't we just scrap the shit confederations and have Europe, South America, and the rest?

See my original post

Dublin_Gunner

IMO there are enough teams qualifying from Europe and S America.

The way our qualification works is that you'll always get the best teams from Europe qualifying (apart from stupid play-off, the top 4 second place teams should just auto qualify IMO).

I think the tournament itself should be expanded to allow another team or two from the weaker area's; Asia / Oceania, Africa, North Am etc

Oh, and definitely, the current holders of each confederations' trophy should Auto-qualify.

Xavi6

04072511 wrote: »

See my original post

I read it, and while my comment was an exaggeration, it's not too far off what you're suggesting.

Bascially you want to get rid of average non-European teams and replace them with average European teams.

noodler

Its also a good chance to see the (lesser) stars of other continents.

Furthermore, you get to see different footballing philosophies - I think we have gotten a bit stale in Europe with the 4-5-1 variations and overly-strategic nature of play.

Pisco Sour

Xavi6 wrote: »

I read it, and while my comment was an exaggeration, it's not too far off what you're suggesting.

Bascially you want to get rid of average non-European teams and replace them with average European teams.

No I want to get rid of below average non european teams. I believe by having 18 european places that you would not see any below average european teams make it. The European Championships has 16 spots and produces high quality, so I dont see having 18 slots being much different.

The likes of New Zealand will get stuffed next summer if they make it. Thats not good for the competition.

A World Championship type event should be the best teams there on merrit. Its why for the Olympics in Track and Field you need to make a qualifying standard (regardless of nationality) before you can be allowed to compete.

noodler

Denying China, with a population of 1 billion, a good chance to qualify seems wrong to me.

For example like.

Pisco Sour

noodler wrote: »

Denying China, with a population of 1 billion, a good chance to qualify seems wrong to me.

For example like.

In my opinion, Asia, Africa and CONCACAF have done NOTHING to deserve their allocation size. Should their teams perform very well consistently on the world cup stage then I would accept them having the allocation that they do. But they dont, they constantly perform below their allocations would suggest.

noodler

04072511 wrote: »

In my opinion, Asia, Africa and CONCACAF have done NOTHING to deserve their allocation size. Should their teams perform very well consistently on the world cup stage then I would accept them having the allocation that they do. But they dont, they constantly perform below their allocations would suggest.

I thought the USA did well in 2002, ditto Japan and Korea.

Australia got to the last 16 in the last one where they were cheated by Grosso and co (a European team you see).

Thought Costa Rica did well in the last one too, really put it up to Germany in the opener.

Ghana expertly knocked out a dominant Czech side in the group stages of 2006.

Ivory Coast were desperately unlucky in the group they were drawn in as it included Holland and Argentina (and Serbia was it?).

Pisco Sour

The last World Cup for example:

Europe: 14 teams 10 in the last 16, 6 in the Quarters, 4 in the Semi's
Africa: 5 teams, 1 in the last 16, 0 in Quarters, 0 in Semi's
South America: 4 teams, 3 in the last 16, 2 in Quarters, 0 in semi's
Asia (including Aus): 5 teams, 1 in the last 16, 0 in Quarters, 0 in Semi's
CONCACAF: 4 teams, 1 in last 16, 0 in Quarters, 0 in the semi's

Despite all this Africa now get an extra place, and Europe gets one less place.

Xavi6

04072511 wrote: »

No I want to get rid of below average non european teams. I believe by having 18 european places that you would not see any below average european teams make it.

Surely logic dictates that there's more chance of having below average European teams if there are 18 spots than if there are 13?

Chardee MacDennis

how about the top 32 in the rankings?

_blank_

Xavi6 wrote: »

Surely logic dictates that there's more chance of having below average European teams if there are 18 spots than if there are 13?

Your logic is flawed then.

An average is the sum of every part, divided by the number of parts.

Europe has 53 teams, there would be 26 below average, and 26 over average.

So still, you'd have no below average teams qualifying.

Pisco Sour

Xavi6 wrote: »

Surely logic dictates that there's more chance of having below average European teams if there are 18 spots than if there are 13?

below par in the european sense doesnt mean below par in the world sense. Teams like Ireland, Bosnia, Slovenia etc would put up a much better fight than the poorest teams that will qualify from Asia, Africa and CONCACAF

noodler

BastardPrince wrote: »

how about the top 32 in the rankings?

So no qualifying campaigns?

How would those places be decided then?

The qualifying campaigns are half the fun.

Not to mention that we'd have been out of a chance with qualifying fro a year now.

GavRedKing

I think this thread is more of a reaction to FIFA's seeded qualifier that we ( the Irish) are going to find ourselves in. If Europe got more places that would mean the world cup would just be flooded with European teams.

The WC offers small teams a chance to get to a huge tournament and give them the chance to advance and further there development as interest at home would be increased with the qualification to the WC.

Ireland after Italia 90 would be a classic example, while we always produced the odd good couple of players representing the bigger teams in England going back to the 70's onwards, we now have som of the top class players playing abroad thanks to this exposure to the WC over the last nearly 3 decades.

We have progessed to a team that has more quality across the squad then we had 20-30 years ago.

FatherTed

04072511 wrote: »

Are there 6 worthy teams in Africa?

Are New Zealand, Honduras, Bahrain more worthy of a place in the World Cup than Bosnia, Slovenia etc?

You are a Europhobe... on Honduras they are a pretty good team, some great players in Palacios, Suavo and Guevara. They WON all their home games up until last Saturday night against the US and the US got lucky with Honduras missing a penalty with a few minutes to go. But then again, you just probably watch Euro teams and have no idea what goes on in other parts of the world.