This is how the FIFA World Cup SHOULD be

_blank_

Xavi6 wrote: »

The Phoenix get an average about 8,000 at a home game. A second team is definitely sustainable imo.

ONE team get 8k average, oh my god.

That's out of a population of ~4.5m

As I said. Football doesn't exist in NZ.

Frisbee, there is a NZ franchise in the Australian A-League.

Frisbee

04072511 wrote: »

New Zealand have been in a world cup before, with a better team, coming through a more difficult qualification campaign, and it didnt make any difference.

Well if the weaker teams don't get to play against the stronger teams how are they supposed to get any better?

Pisco Sour

Warper wrote: »

Are you having a laugh - Switzerland, Poland, Ukraine, Norway, Denmark, Sweden - all very mediocre sides who regularly compete in the Euros. When have any of the above done any good in the WC? Teams like Ivory Coast, Ghana, Cameroon, Australia, Japan, Korea, Egypt, Mexico are all better sides than the above.

Yes which is why I suggested Africa gets 3.5 teams, CONCACAF gets 2.5 teams and Asia gets 3 teams. I never disputed the top teams in these confederations being deserving. I'm talking about the poorer teams who qualify simply because these confederations have too big an allocation. The likes of Togo, Trinidad etc in the last world cup.

chopperbyrne

The World Cup is fine the way it is.

It is, and should be, all about diversity.

Someone said it's too easy for the likes of USA to qualify when we have it so hard. USA are a better team than Ireland. Most of the African teams that qualify are better than us.

Allocating more spots to Europe is ridiculous. We already have the lions share of World Cup spots as it is.

_blank_

Frisbee wrote: »

Well if the weaker teams don't get to play against the stronger teams how are they supposed to get any better?

By playing themselves, in a round robin, then making a step up another level.

Much like NZ have done actually, but there should be another intermediate step between then winning Oceania and then getting to a play-off for a WC place.

Like what has been proposed in this thread for Europe.

Faroes, San Marino and the likes of them play each other, then one or two go into the real groups.

New Zealand have no business being this close to a WC, especially given the abject shíteness of the rest of Oceania.

Jesus, Boardeaux would compete there.

Xavi6

04072511 wrote: »

I think you are over-exaggerating this. Football is still not very big in Australia. In relation to Cricket, AFL, and Rugby (League and to a lesser extent Union) its way behind.

I live here and play at a reasonably high level so I'm pretty well up to speed on how things are progressing.

The attendances for the very first round of qualifying for Australia -

Qatar - 50,969 (Telstra Dome capacity - 53,359)

Iraq - 48,678 (Suncorp Stadium capacity - 52,500)

China - 70,054 (Stadium Australia capacity - 83,500)

Just as good as any rugby game, and quite close to double what an average AFL game gets during the regular season.

_blank_

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Someone said it's too easy for the likes of USA to qualify when we have it so hard. USA are a better team than Ireland. Most of the African teams that qualify are better than us.

Allocating more spots to Europe is ridiculous. We already have the lions share of World Cup spots as it is.

I'm not arguing from an "Irish" perspective, god knows I don't like or support the Irish team.

Pisco Sour

chopperbyrne wrote: »

The World Cup is fine the way it is.

It is, and should be, all about diversity.

Someone said it's too easy for the likes of USA to qualify when we have it so hard. USA are a better team than Ireland. Most of the African teams that qualify are better than us.

Allocating more spots to Europe is ridiculous. We already have the lions share of World Cup spots as it is.

I disagree. The 2006 World Cup was extremely poor in my opinion. There simply were too many teams who were not competitive. Many of the groups were extremely predictable.

Frisbee

Des wrote: »

Much like NZ have done actually, but there should be another intermediate step between then winning Oceania and then getting to a play-off for a WC place.

Such as what? Playing a 3rd or 4th place team from another confederation?

noodler

Des wrote: »

Jesus, Boardeaux would compete there.

Nah. Stop looking at it from a Bordeaux perspective too, theres no amount of qualifying rearrangements that will get you guys in with a shout of the World Cup!

Xavi6

Des wrote: »

Much like NZ have done actually, but there should be another intermediate step between then winning Oceania and then getting to a play-off for a WC place.

There was one, but then people moaned about it so Australia now play in Asia.

Pisco Sour

Xavi6 wrote: »

I live here and play at a reasonably high level so I'm pretty well up to speed on how things are progressing.

The attendances for the very first round of qualifying for Australia -

Qatar - 50,969 (Telstra Dome capacity - 53,359)

Iraq - 48,678 (Suncorp Stadium capacity - 52,500)

China - 70,054 (Stadium Australia capacity - 83,500)

Just as good as any rugby game, and quite close to double what an average AFL game gets during the regular season.

Yes, but you are referring to the national team!! What sort of attendances does the A-League get? Nothing close to the AFL which is the 2nd highest attending league in the world with an average regular season attendance of over 30k. Only the NFL in america has higher.

Frisbee

04072511 wrote: »

Yes, but you are referring to the national team!! What sort of attendances does the A-League get? Nothing close to the AFL which is the 2nd highest attending league in the world with an average regular season attendance of over 30k. Only the NFL in america has higher.

Because the AFL is a much more established sport in Australia than football.

Something they are currently working on balancing out and is gradually making some headway.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

ArmaniJeanss

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Allocating more spots to Europe is ridiculous. We already have the lions share of World Cup spots as it is.

We have losing spots at a net rate of about 1 every 4 years (taking into account the increase from 16 to 24 to 32).

This is depsite outperforming our allocation.

All it takes is one competition where 6 or 7 of our terms have mares and our allocation will be butchered and the likes of Ireland can kiss goodbye to ever qualifying.

Warper

04072511 wrote: »

Yes which is why I suggested Africa gets 3.5 teams, CONCACAF gets 2.5 teams and Asia gets 3 teams. I never disputed the top teams in these confederations being deserving. I'm talking about the poorer teams who qualify simply because these confederations have too big an allocation. The likes of Togo, Trinidad etc in the last world cup.

Are you forgetting Serbia and Montenegro - the worst side in the last WC who couldnt even register a point - lets have more of these great European sides.

Why not change the Olympics as well e.g. only American's and Jamaican's allowed in the sprinting and only Africans allowed in long-distance running.

_blank_

Frisbee wrote: »

Such as what? Playing a 3rd or 4th place team from another confederation?

Nope, being placed into a group in Asia

briany

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

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.

That would be so painful for Ireland, to lose out in that way.I think the best Ireland can do is fourth out of the eight runners up and that's only if Bosnia lose to Spain today but maybe I'm wrong on that. There really would be murder if Ireland lost out narrowly and came in fifth out of the eight. Those silly defensive lapses that cost us victories against Bulgaria for example would become that much more excruciating. Maybe Kevin Kilbane would be forced into hiding or something. Poor old Kevin, he doesn't deserve the aggravation.

Pisco Sour

Warper wrote: »

Are you forgetting Serbia and Montenegro - the worst side in the last WC who couldnt even register a point - lets have more of these great European sides.

Why not change the Olympics as well e.g. only American's and Jamaican's allowed in the sprinting and only Africans allowed in long-distance running.

You are stating the exception rather than the rule. The truth is that 10 of the 14 teams from Europe progressed past the group stages of the last world cup.

On a side note, the Olympics are done very well as to be able to compete in say the Men's 1500m you have to run faster than the qualifying standard (3.36 I think). So essentially everybody has to be over a certain standard to be able to compete in the Olympics. This is not the case in football it seems.

Xavi6

04072511 wrote: »

Yes, but you are referring to the national team!! What sort of attendances does the A-League get? Nothing close to the AFL which is the 2nd highest attending league in the world with an average regular season attendance of over 30k. Only the NFL in america has higher.

Ok disregard the AFL and soccer still gets similar attendances to rugby internationals (maybe slightly less). There were 53,000 at the A-League Grand Final last year.

The bigger teams would get around 20,000 per week, the big games get about 30,000 and there are some attendances below 10,000. Averages out around 13,000 I'd say, which isn't bad considering the majority of games have pretty much zero away fans.

Whatever downer you try put on it, soccer is booming massively over here. More kids are playing it at grassroots than ever before and facilities are getting much better.

whatawaster

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

We have losing spots at a net rate of about 1 every 4 years (taking into account the increase from 16 to 24 to 32).

This is depsite outperforming our allocation.

All it takes is one competition where 6 or 7 of our terms have mares and our allocation will be butchered and the likes of Ireland can kiss goodbye to ever qualifying.

Even if no Euro team gets past the group stages there will be no butchering of our allocation.

This is really just about people being annoyed that Ireland find it so hard to qualify isn’t it?

noodler

briany wrote: »

But that would mean that Ireland definately wouldn't qualify! I think the best Ireland can do is fifth out of the eight runners up and that's if bosnia lose to spain today but maybe I'm wrong on that. There really would be murder if Ireland lost out that narrowly. Those silly defensive lapses that cost us victories against Bulgaria for example would become that much more excruciating. Maybe Kevin Kilbane would be forced into hiding or something. Poor old Kevin, he doesn't deserve the aggravation.

The awful performances in both Bulgaria games in general had more to do with us dropping points in fairness.

We were especially atrocious at home, a point was the least Bulgaria deserved for their dominance.

Pepe LeFrits

I hate the affirmative action type bull**** that goes in on football. The World Cup should be a meritocracy, a competition for the best teams in the world, not the ones that FIFA think deserve a free lunch based on where on the map they happen to be.

A lot of good European teams with big football following won't be at the World Cup despite being much better than some of the teams from elsewhere around the globe. Why? Ah 'cos sure there are enough European teams going already. Let's help grow football in New Zealand. I'm sure that a bunch of their local rivals are going and that football might become a bit more popular a few enclaves around the globe will be a great consolation to the nations who won't be there and contribute a lot to making football the popular game that it is.

noodler

whatawaster wrote: »

Even if no Euro team gets past the group stages there will be no butchering of our allocation.

This is really just about people being annoyed that Ireland find it so hard to qualify isn’t it?

I think so.

I am not going to screw over some third world country, tactical/cultural diversity and a chance to see new players earlier than I might have otherwise just to selfishly increase our chances by a small margin.

And I love ROI/ the WC and all the bells and whistles it entails.

Pisco Sour

whatawaster wrote: »

Even if no Euro team gets past the group stages there will be no butchering of our allocation.

This is really just about people being annoyed that Ireland find it so hard to qualify isn’t it?

Well its unfair in my opinion that a team of the standard of Ireland would have an easier qualification path based simply because they are located in a different continent. The level of difficulty in qualifying for the World Cup should be the same accross the board. So a team from Europe and a team from Asia who are of equal standard should have an equal level of difficulty in qualifying for the World Cup Finals.

Xavi6

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

not the ones that FIFA think deserve a free lunch based on where on the map they happen to be.

Or where they happen to sit in the rankings, which is what FIFA are doing in Europe right now.

ArmaniJeanss

whatawaster wrote: »

Even if no Euro team gets past the group stages there will be no butchering of our allocation.

Well when a team like Senegal /South Korea/ USA etc does well their condereration uses it as a reason for a bigger allocation.

So if Europe did badly just once then by definition countries in these other confederations would have done well.

So yep, clearly Europes allocation would be butchered, probably reduced to 9 or 10. Never to be increased back no matter how well they did in future competitions because someone would point that they still had the 'lions share'.

whatawaster

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Well when a team like Senegal /South Korea/ USA etc does well their condereration uses it as a reason for a bigger allocation.

So if Europe did badly just once then by definition countries in these other confederations would have done well.

So yep, clearly Europes allocation would be butchered, probably reduced to 9 or 10. Never to be increased back no matter how well they did in future competitions because someone would point that they still had the 'lions share'.

I’m telling you this will never happen.
Europe have 13 teams this year, and AFAIK they’ve never had more than 14 spots. This will probably never change in the foreseeable future.
UEFA are too powerful for FIFA to turnaround and cut their representation by 30% or something similar.
Changes in the past have been about spreading the game, getting a good global representation in a global event.
You make it sound like the African, Asian, American and Oceania federations control world football.

Pisco Sour

whatawaster wrote: »

I’m telling you this will never happen.
Europe have 13 teams this year, and AFAIK they’ve never had more than 14 spots. This will probably never change in the foreseeable future.
UEFA are too powerful for FIFA to turnaround and cut their representation by 30% or something similar.
Changes in the past have been about spreading the game, getting a good global representation in a global event.
You make it sound like the African, Asian, American and Oceania federations control world football.

Europe had 15 of 24 in 1986
Europe had 15 of 32 in 1998 and 2002

ArmaniJeanss

whatawaster wrote: »

I’m telling you this will never happen.
Europe have 13 teams this year, and AFAIK they’ve never had more than 14 spots. This will probably never change in the foreseeable future.
UEFA are too powerful for FIFA to turnaround and cut their representation by 30% or something similar.
Changes in the past have been about spreading the game, getting a good global representation in a global event.
You make it sound like the African, Asian, American and Oceania federations control world football.

UEFA had 15 of 24 slots in 1990, which would translate to 20 now. I accept this is too many but its a sign of just how we are losing about 1 slot every 4 years.
Why you think 13 is some 'floor figure' I don't know. Why not 12, thats a nice round figure.
I read enough forums and international footie magazines to know that plenty of admininstrators out there consider that 13 is few more than Europe should have.
As for who controls World football, well UEFA as pointed out by yourself only has 53 countries out of 220+ in Fifa, so we can very easily lose to a blockvote of other countries. A random African or South American who wants to be president of FIFA can promise an extra 1/2 place to every other confederation and easily get elected without getting a single vote from a Uefa country.

inforfun

Warper wrote: »

Are you forgetting Serbia and Montenegro - the worst side in the last WC who couldnt even register a point - lets have more of these great European sides.

Why not change the Olympics as well e.g. only American's and Jamaican's allowed in the sprinting and only Africans allowed in long-distance running.

To be fair to them, they were in a group with Holland, Argentina and the Ivory Coast

everdead.ie

To be honest there is no perfect system but I think it's probably the best system of a bad lot. The strongest teams will always win out and the fierce competition european teams have to get there place means they probably go into them in better shape then a lot of other countries.

Johnny Utah

chopperbyrne wrote: »

The World Cup is fine the way it is.

It is, and should be, all about diversity.

Someone said it's too easy for the likes of USA to qualify when we have it so hard. USA are a better team than Ireland. Most of the African teams that qualify are better than us.

Allocating more spots to Europe is ridiculous. We already have the lions share of World Cup spots as it is.

I disagree on both counts. I would say that we are a similar enough standard to the USA. According to the ELO rankings, the US are 15th and Ireland are ranked 23rd- not a huge difference. There are no African teams ranked higher than Ireland on the ELO table:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_football_rating

Xavi6 wrote: »

China - 70,054 (Stadium Australia capacity - 83,500)

Ah yes, the mighty Chinese- a great bunch of lads!

Has football progressed much in China since their embarassment in the 2002 World Cup?

Frisbee

Johnny Utah wrote: »

I disagree on both counts. I would say that we are a similar enough standard to the USA. According to the ELO rankings, the US are 15th and Ireland are ranked 23rd- not a huge difference. There are no African teams ranked higher than Ireland on the ELO table:

USA are a much better footballing side than we are.
So are the likes of The Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Ghana etc.

The reason they are ranked lower is because the other teams they play against in their confederations are considered very weak so they get less points for beating them. Whereas European teams get huge points for beating some of the so called 'bigger' teams.

Johnny Utah

Warper wrote: »

Are you forgetting Serbia and Montenegro - the worst side in the last WC who couldnt even register a point - lets have more of these great European sides.

Why not change the Olympics as well e.g. only American's and Jamaican's allowed in the sprinting and only Africans allowed in long-distance running.

Not a fair comparison. Serbia & Montenegro did very well in their qualifying group, even finishing ahead of Spain. By the time the World Cup came around in 2006, the country was about to be divided into separate states. It wasn't exactly an ideal time for them to be lining out for their country with so much trouble at home, so not really a fair comparison. Besides, the likes of Togo, Saudi Arabia etc. were equally sh1te in that World Cup, and there's not a hope in hell either of those would have got a point in that group.

Furthermore, Serbia/Yugoslavia have always produced some great players over the years, and the current Serbia team is quite strong having run away with their qualification group ahead of France. I look forward to watching them next summer.

ShooterSF

Warper wrote: »

Why not change the Olympics as well e.g. only American's and Jamaican's allowed in the sprinting and only Africans allowed in long-distance running.

That's a crap comparison. Instead lets bring the Olympics more into line with the world cup. Structure the qualifying heats based on where you were born. So even though (hypothetical example) Jamaica have the best 3 100m runners only one get's to the final in their career as the other two constantly lose to him in a Jamaican heat.
It gives countries a better chance of representation but the second best runner in the world will feel hard done by that he finished his career without an olympic medal yet the 4th best (an American) finishes his with a few silver medals.

Johnny Utah

Frisbee wrote: »

USA are a much better footballing side than we are.
So are the likes of The Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Ghana etc.

The reason they are ranked lower is because the other teams they play against in their confederations are considered very weak so they get less points for beating them. Whereas European teams get huge points for beating some of the so called 'bigger' teams.

Much better? No, they're not!

How many USA players would get onto the Irish team?





The second part of your argument is flawed. According to the latest official Fifa rankings, the USA are ranked in 11th place. Yes, the mighty US of A, the 11th best team in international football.... :rolleyes:



http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/lastranking/gender=m/fullranking.html

This is clearly wrong, there are plenty of European teams that are stronger than the US. Are you saying that if the USA played more of the 'bigger teams' in Europe, then they would get more points and therefore move even higher up the ranking table? Of course, they would have to beat those bigger teams in order to get the points.

If anything, the USA/Mexico pick up far too many easy points by beating the minnows in their confederation, and the Fifa rankings prove this point. If the USA were playing in Europe and had to qualify in Europe, I can guarantee you that they would immediately drop down the ranking table, so I would suggest that regularly playing against lower teams in their confederation actually benefits their ranking points and places them on a higher ranking than they actually should be.

Frisbee

Our two draws against Italy will have picked us up more points than the several wins the US have had over the likes of Honduras etc.

This is skewed because Italy are a shadow of they're former selves.

I would fancy the USA to progress from a playoff after being drawn against any of France/Portugal or Greece.

I'd only half fancy our chances against Greece.

The US play good football, are entertaining to watch and get results.

We play bad football, are far from entertaining and get some results.

imo

ArmaniJeanss

I think the USA are a bad example - they are clearly a well organised decent football team and would certainly be competitive in any of the European qualifying groups.

I think its more relevant to look at the 3rd 4th 5th teams in Concacaf, Costa Rica, Honduras and Trinidad this time, and the 4th and 5th in Asia, generally the likes of Bahrain, UAE etc.
I wouldn't give these teams more than a 25% chance against any of the Pot B and Pot C teams in the European draw - Sweden, Croatia, Greece, etc.

Yet these teams (Costa Rica etc) always have a very reasonable chance of qualifying for the World Cup.

To be honest I don't thinks it even a debate that Europe are unfairly treated. It may be for a good reason (bringing football to different places etc) or bad reasons (political stuff) but the evidence is overwhelming.

Europe, less than 50% of the 32 places in the last 3 World Cups. But 50%+ of the quarter finalists, semifinalists and finalists.

FatherTed

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Much better? No, they're not!

How many USA players would get onto the Irish team?

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/lastranking/gender=m/fullranking.html

This is clearly wrong, there are plenty of European teams that are stronger than the US. Are you saying that if the USA played more of the 'bigger teams' in Europe, then they would get more points and therefore move even higher up the ranking table?

You mean like Spain?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zka3ccKKWsI

Was that a fluke? Or maybe going 2-0 up against Brazil in the final was too before Brazil came back in the second half.

Watching the Hispanic channel on TV a few minutes ago with the joyous scenea from Honduras celebrating their qualification made me think what the World Cup is all about. It is the World Cup. Whether France or Ireland is better than New Zealand, Bahrain or Honduras is not the point. It is whether they are better than other teams from your confederation.

There is another competition for lots of teams from Europe. It's called the European Champions. Also happens every 4 years.

Finally on Honduras, have ANY of you really watched them recently? They were at times the best team in Concacaf qualifying with some great players like Palacios, Suazo, Pavon and Guevara. I would not assume that any Euro Pot B/C teams would automatically beat them, especially in Honduras. European teams never play in Central America but from watching the US struggle there, I think most European teams would find it difficult in San Pedro Sula, the Saprissa, San Salvador and the Azteca.

Fr Tod Umptious

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Much better? No, they're not!

How many USA players would get onto the Irish team?.

If we were playing the US in a play-off for a world cup spot I'd expect us to get our asses kicked.

Yes their ranking may be scewed cos they play in Central America but just because football is not a major sport in the country does not mean that their national team are bad.

On the matter of how many teams from each Confederation should be in the world cup I find it ironic that people here are advocating more representation for the big guns (i.e. Europe) but when it come to Champions League participation discussion on this board most usually advocate more representation for the minnows

Mitch Connor

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

If we were playing the US in a play-off for a world cup spot I'd expect us to get our asses kicked.

Yes their ranking may be scewed cos they play in Central America but just because football is not a major sport in the country does not mean that their national team are bad.

On the matter of how many teams from each Confederation should be in the world cup I find it ironic that people here are advocating more representation for the big guns (i.e. Europe) but when it come to Champions League participation discussion on this board most usually advocate more representation for the minnows

Because the perception of the two tournaments is different.

the world cup is supposed to be a competition featuring the best 32 nations.

The Champions League should be a competition featuring country champions.

Xavi6

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Because the perception of the two tournaments is different.

the world cup is supposed to be a competition featuring the best 32 nations.

The Champions League should be a competition featuring country champions.

Is the World Cup meant to be for the best teams though? Or is it for the champions from each area, just like people want the Champions League to be? You (collectively, not just you) can't on the one hand say the World Cup should have the best teams and the Champions League just have champions, or even vice versa. It's a complete contradiction.

Pisco Sour

Xavi6 wrote: »

Is the World Cup meant to be for the best teams though? Or is it for the champions from each area, just like people want the Champions League to be? You (collectively, not just you) can't on the one hand say the World Cup should have the best teams and the Champions League just have champions, or even vice versa. It's a complete contradiction.

Theres a clue in the name... the CHAMPIONS league. It implies that the competition is made up of champions.

The name WORLD CUP doesnt imply that its for the champions of each area. (Thats what the confederations cup is supposed to be). If you look at any sport a World Championship and World Cup is about having the BEST teams/ individuals/ athletes in the one showpiece competition, there on merrit

Warper

ShooterSF wrote: »

That's a crap comparison. Instead lets bring the Olympics more into line with the world cup. Structure the qualifying heats based on where you were born. So even though (hypothetical example) Jamaica have the best 3 100m runners only one get's to the final in their career as the other two constantly lose to him in a Jamaican heat.
It gives countries a better chance of representation but the second best runner in the world will feel hard done by that he finished his career without an olympic medal yet the 4th best (an American) finishes his with a few silver medals.

So what you are saying is the second or third best sprinter in the world may never even get to the Olympics, never mind never getting a medal. That is the last thing the Olympics should be.

Xavi6

04072511 wrote: »

Theres a clue in the name... the CHAMPIONS league. It implies that the competition is made up of champions.

The name WORLD CUP doesnt imply that its for the champions of each area. (Thats what the confederations cup is supposed to be). If you look at any sport a World Championship and World Cup is about having the BEST teams/ individuals/ athletes in the one showpiece competition, there on merrit

But if you're saying that the clue is in the name then surely the 'World' Cup should be representative of all corners of the world equally? If not them remame it 'The Best Teams In The World' Cup.

Mitch Connor

Xavi6 wrote: »

Is the World Cup meant to be for the best teams though? Or is it for the champions from each area, just like people want the Champions League to be? You (collectively, not just you) can't on the one hand say the World Cup should have the best teams and the Champions League just have champions, or even vice versa. It's a complete contradiction.

It simply is not a contradiction - i don't understand who you come to that conclusion.

The Champions League has champions in the title, for a start, and that is important in terms of the perception. In its previous incarnation, the European Cup, it was only champions who got into it. That is why the perception of the CL is that it should be between league champions, and not sides finishing 4th in their league. The argument that smaller countries should be represented is born from this - the champions of the smaller countries should be in the Champions League ahead of 4th placed sides, regardless of how big the 4th place side is. that is what the argument is, whether you agree with the argument or not.

The World Cup, on the other hand is NOT perceived to be a competition between confederation champions and there is no way you could reasonably have that perception. As stated by 04072511, that is what the Confederations Cup is. The perception is that the World Cup plays host to the best teams in the World, who fight it out for the trophy, but it is not the 32 best nations that play in it. it is the 32 nations who qualify.

Your comment on the apparent contradiction is further reduced by the fact host nations qualify automatically - there can be no argument that a host nation is automatically one of (or two of in some cases) the best sides around, or a champion. Currently, the World Cup is made up of neither the 32 best nor just champions, it is made up of, simply, 32 sides that qualify through various unequal means.

Pisco Sour

Xavi6 wrote: »

But if you're saying that the clue is in the name then surely the 'World' Cup should be representative of all corners of the world equally? If not them remame it 'The Best Teams In The World' Cup.

No, a World Cup, or World Championships implies that it is a competition with the best teams in the world, which sadly isnt what the case with the FIFA World Cup.

If you sit down to watch the 1500m at the World Championships, you expect to see the best 36-40 or whatever athletes in the world compete (who have all run under the same qualifying standard), not some random lad from Uzbekistan or Malawi who cant run faster than 4 minutes, just for the sake of giving the event a full worldwide representation. The world cup should be no different.

Xavi6

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Your comment on the apparent contradiction is further reduced by the fact host nations qualify automatically - there can be no argument that a host nation is automatically one of (or two of in some cases) the best sides around, or a champion. Currently, the World Cup is made up of neither the 32 best nor just champions, it is made up of, simply, 32 sides that qualify through various unequal means.

I think you misunderstand the point I'm making, or maybe I didn't phrase it well.

What I was getting at is currently there are people wanting the Champions League to have the actual champions in it and let everybody be represented fairly without taking the strength of the league into consideration, i.e. each country gets one representative in the competition.

On the other hand we have people saying the best teams should be in the World Cup, even though the term 'world' is inclusive of every nation. Because the world is so big it's obviously not feasible to have that amount of countries in the one tournament so there are confederations.

However, under the proposal in the OP....

04072511 wrote: »

Asia/Oceana : 3 teams (Combine them into the one qualifying zone)

....there could possibly be no representative from Oceania. That doesn't come under the 'world' category for me.

I just don't see how you can plug for everyone to be represented in one competition but not in the other because it suits.

04072511 wrote: »

No, a World Cup, or World Championships implies that it is a competition with the best teams in the world, which sadly isnt what the case with the FIFA World Cup.

No it doesn't. It implies that it includes people form all over the world, not just those in Europe, South American and a part of Africa.

Pisco Sour

The WORLD Cup already has teams from all over the world. In fact every country competes in the world cup (i think).

The World Cup FINALS on the otherhand should be the best of all these teams who competed in the World Cup.

Mitch Connor

Personally, I think the qualifying structure for the WC could be changed.

For me, it is simply evident that the qualifying methods are not equal. the different federations have different methods and some are clearly easier to get through than others. All teams should have an equal chance of getting through to the tournament and thus the final 32 would be there on merit of being the best 32 across equally difficult qualifying campaigns.

Also, if each team has an equal chance of qualifying, and Asia/Oceana ended up without a representative, then tough.

Every team/federation should have an equal chance at representation - but they shouldn't have a representative by default just because of their location. It would still be a World Cup because, quite simply, the World Cup is inclusive of a qualifying campaign - which includes teams from all over the world.