Should Australia join AFC?

[pc4th]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Football/FFA-seeks-Asian-future/2005/03/09/1110316097820.html

Football Federation Australia is seeking to join the Asian Football Confederation in a switch from the Oceania Football Confederation, Japan Football Association vice-president Junji Ogura said on Wednesday.

Ogura, a member of the executive committee of FIFA, soccer's world governing body, said it had received a request from the Australian federation for permission for it to switch to the AFC.

According to Ogura, Australia is looking for wider opportunities in marketing and build-up for its national team and FIFA executives plan to discuss the request at a meeting in June.
.
.

FFA chief executive John O'Neill said: "The sporting and economic future of Australian soccer lies in its integration with Asia

[Eric B]

Not only should Australia join the AFC, but I thing the whole of the OFC should be absorbed into Asia. It would give the AFC an extra half WC spot, and would add a relatively decent nation (the Socceroos) and one with potential (New Zealand) to the confederation.

[cocreator]

I think it would be fantastic if they did join.
Australia has a great team, and they can only get better if they were to join.
Also, i feel confident that if they did join, they would probably qualify to every world cup.
I feel that they are at the level of japan and south korea.
I hope it happens..they deserve it.
I wonder how the other asian countries feel about them joining...?

[I_Am_A_Rock]

this has been tried before. if aus joins then a WC spot is practically guranteed much better then playing the 5th place South american nation. However i can't see it happening. How will South Korea, Japan and China react to this.

[Trussy in Oz]

Our Asian neighbours know that they must be in the strongest possible position in terms of their member teams prior to the 2010 allocation of world cup places.
This is going to be a difficult one to negotiate, can the African Confederation retain it five sports plus the host? How will Europe feel about only 13 spots if the allocations remain the same? If the Asian teams perform poorly can they hope to retain their 4.5 spots, maybe not, but the new Australian Federation is proving itself to be an excellent ally to have in your corner come the big day, so this could be the reasoning behind what I consider to be an excellent idea.

[MRschizoid21]

no

[LakesidePark]

this has been tried before. if aus joins then a WC spot is practically guranteed much better then playing the 5th place South american nation. However i can't see it happening. How will South Korea, Japan and China react to this.

JFA welcomes FFA as a new member of AFC. As for World Cup berth allocation, Ogura said that the top team of OFC, New Zealand for example, would play the 5th place team of AFC (Australia included), assuming that AFC keeps 4.5 spots. I don't think OFC without Australia would be a viable confederation though. If AFC absorbs OFC altogether to make it APFC, it will have 45 + 12 = 57 members in total...

[visitant]

JFA welcomes FFA as a new member of AFC. As for World Cup berth allocation, Ogura said that the top team of OFC, New Zealand for example, would play the 5th place team of AFC (Australia included), assuming that AFC keeps 4.5 spots. I don't think OFC without Australia would be a viable confederation though. If AFC absorbs OFC altogether to make it APFC, it will have 45 + 12 = 57 members in total...
I think East Asia, especially China Japan and Korea, should seperate from AFC and form a Asia-PacificFA with OFC nations. It surely deserves at least 2.5 WCup seats. East and West Asia are totally different, that leads to so many conflict, I've seen enough in WCqualified and club matches.

A new Asia-PacificFA will do good to both our national teams and club matches, for example A3 cup could expand to a beter club cup to replace the unsuccessful Asian Champion League.

[Caesar]

This article looks pretty optimistic:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/03/10/1110417621684.html

While Football Federation Australia chairman Frank Lowy and chief executive John O'Neill remained cautious yesterday in their response to a statement from Japanese Football Association vice-president Junji Ogura that Australia was lobbying to join Asia, the Herald understands the deal is virtually done.

Ogura is a member of the FIFA executive, and at its meeting in Zurich this week the world body raised no objection to the switch, in which Australia would leave Oceania to become the 46th member of the AFC, the world's largest regional body.

The move has the support of FIFA president Sepp Blatter, and the presidents of the AFC (Mohamed bin Hammam) and OFC (Reynald Temarii). Bin Hammam is due to attend the match between Australia and Iraq in Sydney on Easter Saturday, and the AFC executive is expected to formally invite Australia into the fold two days before he arrives.

[Andy TAUS]

If AFC absorbs OFC altogether to make it APFC, it will have 45 + 12 = 57 members in total...UEFA & CAF already have 52 FA's each in their confederations.

If CONCACAF & CONMEBOL were to merge into an AMERICAS Confederation, they would have a confederation of 45 (35 + 10) FA's.

Now that would have FIFA with four logical groupings, approximately the same size (by number of FA's).

This would also simplify for FIFA the WCQ's, Finals places & Hosting rotation.

Nah, won't work as the FIFA & self-serving confederations politics will get in the way. :(

[SportBoy333]

I love the 4 confederations idea. CONCACAF and Oceania need to go. It would be much easier to rotate World Cup hosts with just those 4 confederations.

[OldFanatic]

UEFA & CAF already have 52 FA's each in their confederations.

If CONCACAF & CONMEBOL were to merge into an AMERICAS Confederation, they would have a confederation of 45 (35 + 10) FA's.

Not quite the same comparison, and an easy numbers game. A lot of those European nations are quite small in size.

Travel involved from Canada to Chile is not the same thing as Iceland to Ukraine. (Then again, I still don't understand how they let some of those central Asian countries like Azerbeijan and Kazakhstan into UEFA.) OK, so you could have a worst case example of Iceland to Kazakhstan. But on average, the travelling distances in the Americas are too big compared to UEFA. I don't think it is practical to combine CONCACAF and CONMEBOL into one. The World Cup qualifiers would be crazy. As it is, there are problems with too much travelling for Europe based South American players. I'm sure you are well aware of the problem being an Australian yourself.

Also, I'm not too sure if it is a good idea to give one more spot to an Asian nation. The showing of Saudi Arabia (and even China) was unfortunately too disappointing in the last World Cup. Don't get me wrong. Being originally from Asia, I would like to see more representation from there. It's just that the current quality doesn't justify it right now.

[Caesar]

Travel involved from Canada to Chile is not the same thing as Iceland to Ukraine. (Then again, I still don't understand how they let some of those central Asian countries like Azerbeijan and Kazakhstan into UEFA.) OK, so you could have a worst case example of Iceland to Kazakhstan. But on average, the travelling distances in the Americas are too big compared to UEFA.
Although I don't really have an opinion on combining the Americas, I don't really think that the geographical spread of the SuperConfed is so terrible as people usually make out. Compare its longest trek to some of the long trips in a couple of the existing confederations:

Toronto to Santiago: 8600 km
(AFC) Damascus to Jakarta: 8600 km
(UEFA) Reykjavik to Tel Aviv: 8100 km
(CAF) Algiers to Cape Town: 8000 km

Point taken about the length of the Americas leading to a long spread, which is admittedly much less of a problem for the bulk of the members in UEFA, but this is still a major issue for Africa and Asia. Also, remember that east-west flying is far worse than north-south because of the fact that you're crossing multiple timezones.

I guess I'd perhaps suggest creating the merged Asia-Pacific and American confederations, but then set up their preliminary WCQ in a geographically-based conference system to cut down travelling. This would be pretty much splitting America back into north and south, and also Asia/Oceania into sort of the middle-east and Asia-Pacific. Final qualifying would see the zones merge for the top teams to duke it out for the qualifying spots. That way you get to minimise the travel distances, but the confederations all have essentially the same number of members so it evens out their power in a political sense.

[Andy TAUS]

Although I don't really have an opinion on combining the Americas, I don't really think that the geographical spread of the SuperConfed is so terrible as people usually make out. Compare its longest trek to some of the long trips in a couple of the existing confederations:

Toronto to Santiago: 8600 km
(AFC) Damascus to Jakarta: 8600 km
(UEFA) Reykjavik to Tel Aviv: 8100 km
(CAF) Algiers to Cape Town: 8000 km

Point taken about the length of the Americas leading to a long spread, which is admittedly much less of a problem for the bulk of the members in UEFA, but this is still a major issue for Africa and Asia. Also, remember that east-west flying is far worse than north-south because of the fact that you're crossing multiple timezones.

I guess I'd perhaps suggest creating the merged Asia-Pacific and American confederations, but then set up their preliminary WCQ in a geographically-based conference system to cut down travelling. This would be pretty much splitting America back into north and south, and also Asia/Oceania into sort of the middle-east and Asia-Pacific. Final qualifying would see the zones merge for the top teams to duke it out for the qualifying spots. That way you get to minimise the travel distances, but the confederations all have essentially the same number of members so it evens out their power in a political sense.Totally agree. I'd see little change in local groupings with in Asia 8-10 teams in two finals groups playing off for 5 (4.5 +0.5) places. In the Americas, perhaps 3-4 regions with a similar 10-12 teams playing in two-three finals groups for 8 (4.5 + 3.5) places.

[Sagy]

Toronto to Santiago: 8600 km
(AFC) Damascus to Jakarta: 8600 km
(UEFA) Reykjavik to Tel Aviv: 8100 km
(CAF) Algiers to Cape Town: 8000 km


I think that while the distance in the America might be longer, it is much easier on the body to travel 8,000km and cross two or less time zones than to travel across four or more time zones. (e.g. Montreal-London 5,200km is much harder on the body than Montreal-Santiago 8,700km).

In addition, some south American players will have less to travel since they are playing in Europe and the distance to North America is much shorter. Last but not least, if you eliminate Canada, US and Mexico, on the north side and Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay on the south you can probably eliminate all trips over 5,000km. How many times are these teams going to play each other? If the draw is structured with this in mind you might be able to avoid these matches or at least limit is to one such trip per team per qualifying campaign.

From an objective standpoint, this is a merger that will benefit everyone.

[Gary V]

From an objective standpoint, this is a merger that will benefit everyone.Except those with parochial interests - which is the usual reason for most good ideas to languish.

[Champagne Football]

I'm all for Australia switching to the AFC, as being a member of OFC doesn't get you very far. :(

I would be a little worried about what would happen to the rest of OFC that we would leave behind, but they don't seem to mind, so let's go for it! (If we get an invitation, that is. ;) )

OFC island nations seem to be in favour of the move as the standard would be more even across the confed.

New Zealand at first seemed to be the only ones against it, but then I saw a report on the TV that NZ would try to follow Australia to AFC if they get in!

AFC issued a statement saying that there are no guarantees at this stage.

[Soccerwarrior71]

Austrailia and the other teams in the OFC should join the AFC for the mere reason that the winner from the OFC gets robbed bigtime from playing in the World Cup every four years. Had the Aussies played in the AFC all along, I believe there would be a strong consensus that the Aussie National team could break out of the group play phase and make some serious noise. They have just been the best country in the South Pacific and it is sad that a team like Austrailia never gets the chance to show their prowess every four years. I thought before that the team that wins the OFC should get an automatic berth in the World Cup. There should be no playoff with the fourth best team from The South American Confederation. I also think every conference should get an equal number of teams. I think bringing an extra team in the World Cup from the CONCACAF region is a good move. Europe has way too many teams in the world cup. Sorry for digressing a little, but the Aussies have to add themselves into the AFC mix.

[Sagy]

Except those with parochial interests - which is the usual reason for most good ideas to languish.
You are 100% right, that is the reason I said "From an objective standpoint".

Clearly, the top AFC teams (from a selfish sand point) don't want OFC to merge - best case they get an extra 1/2 WC spot, but they get 1.5 (Australia and New Zealand) legitimate contenders.

The second tier CONCACAF will also (from a selfish sand point) be against a merger with CONMEBOL since the last 6 teams in CONMEBOL are all legitimate contenders for the last two spots in the merged confederation, but they bring in only 1/2 a WC spot.

[Mel Brennan]

UEFA & CAF already have 52 FA's each in their confederations.

If CONCACAF & CONMEBOL were to merge into an AMERICAS Confederation, they would have a confederation of 45 (35 + 10) FA's.

Now that would have FIFA with four logical groupings, approximately the same size (by number of FA's).

This would also simplify for FIFA the WCQ's, Finals places & Hosting rotation.

Nah, won't work as the FIFA & self-serving confederations politics will get in the way. :(

Where is this reasoned lucidity in your Politics posts? ;)

This should be the way forward: 4 confederations (Americas, Africa, Asia/Oceania, and Europe), all approximately the same size, all with tournaments on four-year cycles opposite the WC (i.e., the "Euro" cycle).

BUt you're right that it's about those in power releasing power and giving up aspects of their little fifedoms...and to make that happen, other stakeholders need to exert their power...such as the fanbase, organised. Its ironic that the administrators, obviously, are organized, the players are organized, the agents and managers are organized, the sponsors are organized...

But when it comes to the people who make the game what it is and what it can be, they are both told and tell each other that being orgranized (that being anything other than in independent, unitized, commodifed ticket/beer/piss machine) is somehow against the principles of the "market" or some such.

In the course of completing my thesis, I'm tryig to kickstart S.A.V.E. - The Sport Alternative Visions Endeavour - as a way for you and I and other regular folks, stakeholders in our own way and in our own right, to come together and talk about a different way to conceive of sport and what sport can do.

Hijack over: back to Australia and the "4 confeds" model. The benefit is to the masses and to the game, the only people who would lose are the small power merchants with their power built upon Confeds as currently constituted. But re-shaping the numbes is not enough; the mission and vision, inclusion standards and transparency ALL must be reconsidered and retooled, with the fullest participation acheivable in such a process.