This is how the FIFA World Cup SHOULD be

Pisco Sour

Mitch Connor wrote: »

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.

Agreed 100%. I'm not saying that the world cup should just be Europe and South America (whoever thinks that hasnt read my OP clearly). I want fairer allocations so that the level of difficulty in qualifying for the world cup is the same throughout the confederations.

For example, Mexico qualify for every single world cup. If they were in Europe, they wouldnt, simple as. A team of the standard of Mexico (denmark perhaps) should have to negotiate the same level of difficulty as Mexico have to. One team shouldnt be rewarded simply because where they are located on the map.

The_B_Man

First off, there was no WC in '92!

Second, Australia qualified, even though they had a tough time against Bahrain and Oman!

their group contained:
japan
bahrain
qatar
uzbekistan

but its not fair to throw them in with the europeans or south americans or africans.

its just the way it is. it just unfortunate that ireland is surrounded geographically by good footballing nations. so unless ya wanna get out a few oars and try paddle us over to asia, just take what we're given and see what happens! Either way, if New Zealand get through, its not like the euro team that SHOULD have been there would have won, especially if they couldnt get through the playoffs!

keane2097

Clearly this argument hinges on a somewhat philosophical point as to what sort of a competition the World Cup should be.

There seem to be two separate schools of thought:-

1. The World Cup should be a showpiece event, featuring the best 32 teams in world soccer, regardless of where in the globe they hail from.

2. The World Cup should be an event in which the best teams from each region of the planet come together to lock horns.

What the people arguing for more places for European teams at the World Cup have failed to realise is that, in reality, the second philosophy is the one being expounded by the FIFA people.

Which of the philosophies is "better" is a difficult one, but people should at least recognise that it's not a random distribution of spots in the competition - it gets its roots from the idea that we want to see the best each disparate corner of the planet has to offer playing against one another.

That's the idea as I see it at least...

briany

Someone posted on another forum I was reading about how the World Cup isn't all about the absolute best teams in the world because if that was the case it would just be Europe and South America. It being a WORLD Cup a large part of the attraction is that you see supporters of vastly different cultures in the stands and teams with wildly different styles of play from the wildly gung ho of the Koreans to the stiff,efficient,pragmatic of the Germans. There's nothing more magic than seeing the "Little team that could" from some far flung region hammer out a result against one of the big boys on the world stage.

flahavaj

I think the World Cup would be a far poorer competition without the romance of the newly qualified teams every year, such as the colour the Jamaicans and Trinidad/Tobago brought to the competition a few years back. I always find watching them really interesting to watch and they always have the most raucour, joyful supporters as well. They're something different, if nothing else. Remember that crowd with the wildly raucous supporters in 1990 wearing green jersies who qualified for the first time in 1990? Who are we 20 years later to suddenly want to deny another nation those innocent carefree days that we still look back on so fondly?

Pisco Sour

Spare a thought for Finland. Have never been to a world cup, are more than good enough to qualify if they were in CONCACAF or Asia, but because they are surrounded by some of the world's best teams their supporters will never get to experience the joy that the people of Honduras and Togo experienced.

noodler

04072511 wrote: »

Agreed 100%. I'm not saying that the world cup should just be Europe and South America (whoever thinks that hasnt read my OP clearly). I want fairer allocations so that the level of difficulty in qualifying for the world cup is the same throughout the confederations.

For example, Mexico qualify for every single world cup. If they were in Europe, they wouldnt, simple as. A team of the standard of Mexico (denmark perhaps) should have to negotiate the same level of difficulty as Mexico have to. One team shouldnt be rewarded simply because where they are located on the map.

It is obviously easier to qualify from one continent than another.

Its still simply the best way of doing it though.

There are enough European teams there.

NabyLadistheman

This is the same World Cup that host nation South Korea "managed" to get to the semi-finals. Crazy reffing decisions & nothing was done in the wake of it. If this could happen in the tournament itself in front of a world audience then god only knows what happens during qualifying. The last minute decision by Blatter to change the European play-off's to a seeded draw further enhances what FIFA is all about. Making sure the big-boys were all in to bump revenue

We all know the way in should be but it's a corrupt world we live in & that's the reality

noodler

torresistheman wrote: »

This is the same World Cup that host nation South Korea "managed" to get to the semi-finals. Crazy reffing decisions & nothing was done in the wake of it. If this could happen in the tournament itself in front of a world audience then god only knows what happens during qualifying. The last minute decision by Blatter to change the European play-off's to a seeded draw further enhances what FIFA is all about. Making sure the big-boys were all in to bump revenue

We all know the way in should be but it's a corrupt world we live in & that's the reality

Different situations surely?

Anyway, South Korea did perform very well in the 2002 WC despite what people remember. There was no conspiracy, just crap refereeing.

Mitch Connor

flahavaj wrote: »

I think the World Cup would be a far poorer competition without the romance of the newly qualified teams every year, such as the colour the Jamaicans and Trinidad/Tobago brought to the competition a few years back. I always find watching them really interesting to watch and they always have the most raucour, joyful supporters as well. They're something different, if nothing else. Remember that crowd with the wildly raucous supporters in 1990 wearing green jersies who qualified for the first time in 1990? Who are we 20 years later to suddenly want to deny another nation those innocent carefree days that we still look back on so fondly?

You are missing one of the points though.

I have no problem with 'smaller' nations going to the world cup.

My problem is that the Qualifying methods differ and the quality of opposition faced in order to qualify differs massively between regions. Some teams have a much greater chance of qualifying, not because they have earned that right with past performances and thus seeding within a group structure, but simply because their location on the map puts them up against vastly inferior sides that they beat every single time.

flahavaj

But whats the solution to that? Short of ridiculously flying nations across to different continents for qualifying midweek games which is absolutely ridiculous,(not to mention what the likes of fergie would say if say Berba had to fly to honduras for a Wc qualifier!) the current system is by far the best.

Pisco Sour

flahavaj wrote: »

But whats the solution to that? Short of ridiculously flying nations across to different continents for qualifying midweek games which is absolutely ridiculous,(not to mention what the likes of fergie would say if say Berba had to fly to honduras for a Wc qualifier!) the current system is by far the best.

The solution is my OP. The allocations I have suggested means that the likes of Mexico, South Korea, Australia etc are going to have to fight a little harder for their World Cup place, it creates the opportunity that they MAY miss out.

Mitch Connor

flahavaj wrote: »

But whats the solution to that? Short of ridiculously flying nations across to different continents for qualifying midweek games which is absolutely ridiculous,(not to mention what the likes of fergie would say if say Berba had to fly to honduras for a Wc qualifier!) the current system is by far the best.

maybe it is, but that doesn't mean it is not flawed and that there are legitimate reasons to think something could perhaps be done. It is, imo, not fair, overall. Maybe that can't be fixed in practical terms, but that doesn't stop it being unfair.

FatherTed

04072511 wrote: »

The solution is my OP. The allocations I have suggested means that the likes of Mexico, South Korea, Australia etc are going to have to fight a little harder for their World Cup place, it creates the opportunity that they MAY miss out.

So in other words, scrap the Confederations, have a non-weighted open draw? So we might have Italy v Brazil and South Korea v Monaco? How do you determine how to make the draw? Based on FIFA rankings? We know these are already flawed.

If you just want more spots for Europe then that is a different story. But how does one decide on how many spots each Confederation gets that is fair yet inclusive?

Why do you assume that qualifying is a walk in the park for the likes of Mexico, S Korea and Australia? Mexico was actually in danger of missing out a few months ago until they got rid of Erickson and brought back Aguirre. Qualifying is HARD no matter where you are.


Also, you are making a lot of assumptions that Finland is better than a team like Mexico or even Honduras.

DubDani

Would we have this discussion if Ireland had already qualified? And going by yesterdays performance we wouldn't even deserve to be at the World Cup if 64 Nations would be allowed to take part.

Lets face it, there are probably 50 other teams in the world that would (for one reason or another, i.e. non sporting reasons) be far more benefitial to the world cup then a very average Irish team.

Ireland is a small nation and will probably only be able to qualify every so often, as they don't have the permanent quality that some of the big nations have.

I think the current system is just fine. Why does everything have to be about the europeans? And I honestly don't believe that Ireland, Finland or some other of the 2nd rank european teams would find qualifying in Asia, Concaf or Africa quite such a walk in the park.

noodler

Especially not with the travel!

Pisco Sour

FatherTed wrote: »

So in other words, scrap the Confederations, have a non-weighted open draw? So we might have Italy v Brazil and South Korea v Monaco? How do you determine how to make the draw? Based on FIFA rankings? We know these are already flawed.

If you just want more spots for Europe then that is a different story. But how does one decide on how many spots each Confederation gets that is fair yet inclusive?

Why do you assume that qualifying is a walk in the park for the likes of Mexico, S Korea and Australia? Mexico was actually in danger of missing out a few months ago until they got rid of Erickson and brought back Aguirre. Qualifying is HARD no matter where you are.


Also, you are making a lot of assumptions that Finland is better than a team like Mexico or even Honduras.

Read my OP please. I never suggested getting rid of the confederations. I just proposed a different allocation to each to ensure that the difficulty of qualifying is the same accross the board. The number of places relative to the number of competitive teams should be the same in each continent.

Its too easy for the likes of Mexico. Put them in Europe and tell me they would qualify every time. You cant, as you know they wouldnt. Thats my point!

Pisco Sour

DubDani wrote: »

I honestly don't believe that Ireland, Finland or some other of the 2nd rank european teams would find qualifying in Asia, Concaf or Africa quite such a walk in the park.

Not a walk in the park but certainly would make significantly more than just 3 world cups. Saudi Arabia have been to more world cups than us, but they've achieved nothing of note (1994 2nd round being the best). They have been one of the leading Asian teams over the last 20 years and they have achieved nothing! I'd see no reason why we wouldnt qualify for at least 2 of every 3 world cups if we were in the Asian zone. And the more world cups you are in, the higher the chance of success, yet despite having all these opportunities on the world stage these teams from Africa/ Asia/ CONCACAF do nothing much really. (Host nation performances aside)

ArmaniJeanss

DubDani wrote: »

I honestly don't believe that Ireland, Finland or some other of the 2nd rank european teams would find qualifying in Asia, Concaf or Africa quite such a walk in the park.

noodler wrote: »

Especially not with the travel!

So ye base your arguments on gut feelings about the relative abilities of the different confederations, and unknown quantities like the effect of travel (which presumably would be the same for both teams as it would still be home and away matches)......

...and choose to ignore the actual evidence which is that no European team has lost a playoff to a non European team (admittedly a small aged sample size) and more relevantly that the 13/14/15 European Qualifiers have totally outperformed their allocation at the most recent couple of tournaments.

drkpower

Its a matter of what you the view the World Cup as being about.

If you view it as only a competition between the world's finest football teams, then Europe should have more representation, and arguably Oceania should only have only 1 representative, Asia should have less etc....

But if the World Cup is one of the tools used by FIFA to broaden the game to a wider audience and to raise standards for and encourage development in all nations, then there should be some form of positive discrimination involved.

Personally, Im in favour of the latter approach and if that hinders us, so be it.

ArmaniJeanss

drkpower wrote: »

But if the World Cup is one of the tools used by FIFA to broaden the game to a wider audience and to raise standards for and encourage development in all nations, then there should be some form of positive discrimination involved.

Personally, Im in favour of the latter approach and if that hinders us, so be it.

I actually agree with you despite seeming to be on the opposite side of the argument.

I more have a problem with people saying that it isn't positive discrimination, that all these teams would be more than a match for the 2nd & 3rd tier European teams, when the available evidence is that they wouldn't.

Positive discrimination by itself is understandable, but pretending that the 4nd and 5th based teams in Concacaf and Asia actually merit, on playing ability, their place more than other teams is wrong.

Y2J_MUFC

The world cup should be a showcase of football. The best teams should be there. Why do New Zealand get there by playing very poor countries? There will be weaker teams than New Zealand who don't qualify. Its a bit ridiculous that stronger sides don't get a chance, just because of geographical location.

The playoffs shouldn't be "European playoffs", such as Ireland vs France (etc), the playoffs should be intercontinental so the BEST teams get there, (not the teams who are lucky enough to have no competitive countries near them).

This would make it a true showcase of football

Fr Tod Umptious

I hate this idea of the World Cup being this clinched 'worldwide celebration of the beautiful game'.

No one really wants to see Saudi Arabia and Tongo to at it for 90mins, do they.

The only showcase of football will die in 2016 when the European Championship expands to 24 teams

Xavi6

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No one really wants to see Saudi Arabia and Tongo to at it for 90mins, do they.

I know Tonga and Togo are both shit but surely it's a bit unfair if they merge :pac:

flahavaj

Funny how three of the eight teams that qualified for the play-offs, by coming second in their groups, are outside the top 32 in the world rankings. In the case of some by quite a distance: Giovanni Trapattoni's Republic 34th, Bosnia-Herzegovina 42nd and Slovenia 49th. Makes a bit of a mockery of this notion that the "best" teams always come through from Europe. If Europe's allocation had been increased, these teams would have qualified automatically!

luckylucky

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I hate this idea of the World Cup being this clinched 'worldwide celebration of the beautiful game'.

No one really wants to see Saudi Arabia and Tongo to at it for 90mins, do they.

The only showcase of football will die in 2016 when the European Championship expands to 24 teams

Well all a matter of perspective. Just coz you're not interested in these games along with probably a lot (though I doubt all) of Europeans
I'm sure many people in the Arab world and in the Pacific islands would love to see Saudi Arabia play Tonga.

Also I think it makes good sense to expand the European Championships to 24 teams. The depth in competition in Europe now is greater than it was 20 years ago. It's not as if say the 6th highest ranked team at the competion would be a shoe-in against the 20th highest ranked team in a one-off match, i.e. with a few exceptions you wouldn't be expecting one side to hammer the other.

I'd agree with ArmaniJeans I think it's also a fallacy to say that there isn't positive discrimination going on, but for the good of football and getting people throughout the world interested in the event it makes sense. If you were to take out the positive discrimination and do a fair allocation then what the OP suggests would be pretty much spot on but I don't think it's the right thing to do either.

Pisco Sour

flahavaj wrote: »

Funny how three of the eight teams that qualified for the play-offs, by coming second in their groups, are outside the top 32 in the world rankings. In the case of some by quite a distance: Giovanni Trapattoni's Republic 34th, Bosnia-Herzegovina 42nd and Slovenia 49th. Makes a bit of a mockery of this notion that the "best" teams always come through from Europe. If Europe's allocation had been increased, these teams would have qualified automatically!

FIFA World Rankings are a joke. The same rankings that have Mexico and USA permanently high up because they pick up points against the weaker sides all the time. The other ranking system which people have reffered to is a better gauge.

Pisco Sour

luckylucky wrote: »

Well all a matter of perspective. Just coz you're not interested in these games along with probably a lot (though I doubt all) of Europeans
I'm sure many people in the Arab world and in the Pacific islands would love to see Saudi Arabia play Tonga.

Also I think it makes good sense to expand the European Championships to 24 teams. The depth in competition in Europe now is greater than it was 20 years ago. It's not as if say the 6th highest ranked team at the competion would be a shoe-in against the 20th highest ranked team in a one-off match, i.e. with a few exceptions you wouldn't be expecting one side to hammer the other.

I'd agree with ArmaniJeans I think it's also a fallacy to say that there isn't positive discrimination going on, but for the good of football and getting people throughout the world interested in the event it makes sense. If you were to take out the positive discrimination and do a fair allocation then what the OP suggests would be pretty much spot on but I don't think it's the right thing to do either.

They could give Oceana 5 spots and Tonga still wouldnt make it

One thing that confuses me is all this "Spreading the game" stuff. Isnt football supposed to be the one truely global sport, being the most popular sport in about 70% of countries throughout the world. If football is already the biggest sport in a country then there isnt really much improvements in popularity that can be made.

drkpower

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I hate this idea of the World Cup being this clinched 'worldwide celebration of the beautiful game'.

No one really wants to see Saudi Arabia and Tongo to at it for 90mins, do they.

Not so sure about that; some of the most memorable games involve the 'lesser' teams. Remember USA-Iran in 1998 (?) - perhaps we might have USA - North Korea this time, bring it on!

Or the Aussies last time, they brought a lot to the tournament.

Or Cameroon in 1990 (when African teams were very much the also runs); they were the story of the tournament (aside from our goodselves).

Obviously S Korea as hosts in 2002; they were the story of that tournament.

Perhaps the Hondurans or the New Zealanders or the Togoans will be the story of this World Cup.

But (aside from reasons of positive dicrimination ,which I favour), the reason why I love the WC the way it is, is because it brings together so many different styles of play, differeent styles of fans, players you,ve never heard of, different attitudes and unusual stories. Long may it continue in the present-ish format.

luckylucky

04072511 wrote: »

If football is already the biggest sport in a country then there isnt really much improvements in popularity that can be made.

Perhaps the "spreading of the game" is what has helped its popularity so much in the first place. Whether a change in the selection procedure to include higher representation for Europe (and possibly South America) at the expense of other confederations would adversely affect it is another matter I suppose.

Maybe a solution would be to further increase the number of contestants - and giving Europe a truer representation without decreasing numbers from other federations, though I'd imagine that the costs of this might be prohibitive.

drkpower

04072511 wrote: »

One thing that confuses me is all this "Spreading the game" stuff. Isnt football supposed to be the one truely global sport, being the most popular sport in about 70% of countries throughout the world. If football is already the biggest sport in a country then there isnt really much improvements in popularity that can be made.

Its not the biggest sport in a whole load of countries and FIFA want to change that; good on 'em. And there is no doubt that the boost to a game that a country receives form the particpation (or even potential participation) in the WC is huge.

Sure, in terms of player participation, its not even the biggest sport here and we are next door neighbours to the founders.

flahavaj

What position are Ireland, Bosnia and Slovenia in those other rankings 04072511? (Genuinely interested, not being smart).

Pisco Sour

drkpower wrote: »

Its not the biggest sport in a whole load of countries and FIFA want to change that; good on 'em. And there is no doubt that the boost to a game that a country receives form the particpation (or even potential participation) in the WC is huge.

Sure, in terms of player participation, its not even the biggest sport here and we are next door neighbours to the founders.

Football is the biggest sport in most countries in the world. There are some exceptions of course (USA, Canada, Aus, NZ, South Africa, Ethiopia, Kenya, Japan (maybe), Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, Cuba there are more, which was discussed on a previous thread).

However most countries that benefit from the large allocations are countries in which football is the most popular sport anyway (the african nations, most asian nations, central american nations).

You could look at it another way, what about the countries in EUROPE where football is not the No.1 sport? Shouldnt they be trying to make football the No.1 Sport in these places? Finland, Lithuania are 2 such examples.

_blank_

drkpower wrote: »

Sure, in terms of player participation, its not even the biggest sport here and we are next door neighbours to the founders.

false

drkpower

Des wrote: »

false

Thanks for your detailed and reasoned response....:rolleyes:

I certainly have heard that the spectator figures and club memberships are higher for GAA than soccer. Perhaps you have stats regarding player participation?

In any case, its not hugely relevant to my point - that FIFA are seeking to further popularise soccer in many countries, even if it is already the most popular sport. And as for the Finland/Lithuania argument raised by 04072511, I agree, there is an onus on FIF to encourage the sports development there. But "widening the game/positive discrimination" is only one of the arguments in favour of the approach taken by FIFA; there are others which many people have commented on and which might be called "festival of football" factors.

But ultimately this is a matter of opinon' a matter of what you want the World Cup to be. I can certainly see 04072511's point; I just take a different view.

_blank_

drkpower wrote: »

Thanks for your detailed and reasoned response....:rolleyes:

I certainly have heard that the spectator figures and club memberships are higher for GAA than soccer. Perhaps you have stats regarding player participation?

Apologies, I'm in work.

I don't doubt that Soccer is down the list of spectators. Hardly any Irish people attend Soccer matches on anything approaching a regular basis.

But Soccer is definitely the largest sport by participation in Ireland, I can't put my finger on the study just at this point, but an ESRI Report showed this.

Someone will be able to point you at this, if I can find it myself I will.

Here's an Irish Sports Council report, pdf file.

Scroll to page 10.

Sport % of adults
who play
1 Swimming 15
2 Golf 12
3 Soccer 9
4 Aerobics/Keep Fit 8
5 Cycling 5
6 Gaelic Football 4
7 Billiards/Snooker 4
8 Hurling/Camogie 3
9 Tennis 3
10 Jogging 3

It's the largest team sport in the country.

drkpower

Des wrote: »

Sport % of adults
who play
1 Swimming 15
2 Golf 12
3 Soccer 9
It's the largest team sport in the country.

Ah, I see - fair point. But I would suggest that, in praxtical terms, that noone would suggest that swimming was the most popular sport in the country....

In any case, its an aside really. Whichever of GAA/Soccer (or maybe rugby) is the most popular, its much of a muchness.

Johnny Utah

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

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.

Excellent post. I think Uefa deserves about 18-20 places at the World Cup.

Shanotheslayer

Too busy to originally locate this quote but I see Pepe said

QUOTE
''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.'' UNQUOTE

It's called a World Cup for a reason. Not the ''Best teams in the worlds cup''

It's a chance for each country on their continent to get into this cup. They play well they get in into the cup.

Theres a European cup already, so why add more spots to the world cup for european teams?

If thats the case rename the World Cup to '' European cup and some others''

It's idiotic to basically have a league with Europe, 2 or 3 teams from S.America/Africa.

Fifa are trying to give each team a chance to get into the World Cup, not just the elitist teams.

ShamoBuc

16-10-2009, 13:46 to today.... a llllooooooonnnngggg time between posts!

bonerm

The world cup should be for "the world" (hint is in the title) not just Europe, so it's important that all confederations get a decent allocation even they're not all earning it when it comes to results at present.

I was watching a BBC doc last weekend set in Ghana it's clear to me that being at the World Cup (and football in general) means more to their people than it does to Ireland. As such I'd never begrudge one of the weaker non-European countries their place simply because they're not getting to semi-finals every time.

As much as it pains me that Ireland are prob better than half of the 32 teams who'll be at the tournament (and as much as it annoys me that we had to play BOTH '06 finalists in qualifying whereas NZ played practically no-one) the fact is we didn't qualify and that's that. Our loss will probably be the worlds gain.

Also It's important to remember that Europe's allocation actually hasn't been cut. It's been at 13 places since the 1980's. All that's effectively happened is that since the expansion from 24 to 32 qualified teams all the extra places have been handed out to the other confederations rather than given to Europe. By suggesting Europe should get 18 places you're actually advocating making it easier for European teams to qualify, which seems to go against your argument that teams should be there on merit.

Johnny Utah

bonerm wrote: »

The world cup should be for "the world" (hint is in the title) not just Europe, so it's important that all confederations get a decent allocation even they're not all earning it when it comes to results at present.

I was watching a BBC doc last weekend set in Ghana it's clear to me that being at the World Cup (and football in general) means more to their people than it does to Ireland. As such I'd never begrudge one of the weaker non-European countries their place simply because they're not getting to semi-finals every time.

As much as it pains me that Ireland are prob better than half of the 32 teams who'll be at the tournament (and as much as it annoys me that we had to play BOTH '06 finalists in qualifying whereas NZ played practically no-one) the fact is we didn't qualify and that's that. Our loss will probably be the worlds gain.

Also It's important to remember that Europe's allocation actually hasn't been cut. It's been at 13 places since the 1980's. All that's effectively happened is that since the expansion from 24 to 32 qualified teams all the extra places have been handed out to the other confederations rather than given to Europe. By suggesting Europe should get 18 places you're actually advocating making it easier for European teams to qualify, which seems to go against your argument that teams should be there on merit.

Not true boner. Get your facts right, Europe's allocation has been cut.

bonerm

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Not true boner. Get your facts right, Europe's allocation has been cut.

Fine, in real-terms it has been 13 for several tournaments since 1982 (with the occasional increase to 14-15 on occasion due to prev winners, hosts etc) and now it's back around 13 again. Hardly earth-shattering.

My point is it has never been below 13 since the expansion to 24 qualifiers so (with minor flucuations for the pedants) it has been at 13 places since the 1980s and as such isn't having this great impact on european qualification.

Kiwi_knock

In a perfect world the best 32 countries would compete but this is not fair. Just because Europe contains a wide proportionate of the top teams does not mean our fans should be mostly entitled to the enjoyment and entertainment that comes from the World Cup. You have no idea the enjoyment that people in Africa get from the World Cup, if the number of places is reduced it will further limit the pool from which countries will come from. African football will fail to develop if there is less places and only the top teams to compete.
One reason European teams do so well is the effort it actually takes to make it to the World Cup. It is not easy to make it to the World Cup so teams need to be playing at a high standard throughout qualification. So when Euopean teams are in the World Cup they have already nearly playing at top standard while most of the other countries have to start playing properly because they have had no real opposition yet.
I do not think it should be changed at all, how else will football develop in other countries if their opportunity to make the World Cup is severly diminished.

steelcityblues

bonerm wrote: »

Fine, in real-terms it has been 13 for several tournaments since 1982 (with the occasional increase to 14-15 on occasion due to prev winners, hosts etc) and now it's back around 13 again. Hardly earth-shattering.

My point is it has never been below 13 since the expansion to 24 qualifiers so (with minor flucuations for the pedants) it has been at 13 places since the 1980s and as such isn't having this great impact on european qualification.

Ah, but it used to be that UEFA was allocated 13 out of 24 spots, which is over 50%. This time around, it is only 13 out of 32 spots, which is below 50%.
Not similar, and after Europe dominating the World Cup in Germany four years ago, it is not a fair amount of allocated spots.

bonerm

steelcityblues wrote: »

Ah, but it used to be that UEFA was allocated 13 out of 24 spots, which is over 50%. This time around, it is only 13 out of 32 spots, which is below 50%.
Not similar, and after Europe dominating the World Cup in Germany four years ago, it is not a fair amount of allocated spots.

Yeah but I could see where people are coming from if say our 13 places was cut to 10 in order to accomodate other federations. That would clearly make it much harder for certain European team to qualify and be unfair. However all that's happening is the tournament is being enlarged and the extra places are all being given to federations who previously may have only had 2 or 3 places.

Of course I agree that probably more than 50% of the worlds top 32 nations are from UEFA. But that has to be weighed against the fact this is the "world cup" and ideally would be represented by many teams from all regions of the world, not just Europe.

ArmaniJeanss

bonerm wrote: »

Fine, in real-terms it has been 13 for several tournaments since 1982 (with the occasional increase to 14-15 on occasion due to prev winners, hosts etc) and now it's back around 13 again. Hardly earth-shattering.

My point is it has never been below 13 since the expansion to 24 qualifiers so (with minor flucuations for the pedants) it has been at 13 places since the 1980s and as such isn't having this great impact on european qualification.

It was 15 of 24 in USA 1994. The host was America / holders were Germany, so that meant there was 14 qualifiers from Europe. So the allocation clearly has been reduced.
Also as Europe win the competition 60% of the time and the hosts no longer auto qualify and thus have to go back in the mix for qualification within their confederation, then this is effecively taking a place from Europe.
So the percentage of places and the amount of places have both clearly been reduced. A reduction from 15 of 24 to 13 of 32 is hardly pedantry, its an absolutely fcking massive reduction.

Added to this is the whole issue of the Eastern Europe break up - if any other confederation increased in 'amount of countries' by 50% over a generation, which is what happened in Europe, its extremely hard to believe that there allocation wouldn't have been increased.

As I said in another thread the chickens may be coming home to roost for FIFA this month in terms of travelling fans from Europe - the big 3 (fan wise) of Holland, England and Germany have qualified, but a lot of the other European qualifiers have next to no away support. And other traditional big spending travellers (Sweden,Norway,Scotland,Belgium,Ireland) are going to struggle to qualify in the near future.

eZe^

Still prefer seeing the minnows get a run out against some of the best players on the planet. It's a life changing experience for some of those players, no need to ruin it by bringing in teams who are more solid. It's set up well imo, and I'll happily admit I prefer seeing the likes of happy Trinidad and Tobago trying their best instead of a Belgium with their solid defensive line and big clogger of a CF. Once the KO stages come it's the big boys against each other anyway.


This years CL is a testament to how leaving in a diverse range of teams leads to a more interesting tournament imo.

bonerm

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It was 15 of 24 in USA 1994. The host was America / holders were Germany, so that meant there was 14 qualifiers from Europe. So the allocation clearly has been reduced.

No, you're wrong. It was 13 of 24 for USA 1994 (and one of those places went automatically to Germany - so there was technically only 12 euro qualifying spots available). Check it out yourself if you don't believe me.

steelcityblues

For every Trinidad and Tobago, there have been too many nations since 1998 who have simpy embarrassed themselves at the tournament.

Apart from Slovenia in 2002 and Serbia in 2006, the shockingly poor teams have come from non-UEFA regions.

This trend will only continue, until UEFA are awarded at least 50% of the spots!