Scrap the Confederational Allocation Method for the World Cup Finals

[Caesar]

Ok, so FIFA has realised how totally inept they are and have come to you begging on hands and knees for you to use your supreme intellect to totally revamp the World Cup qualifying process. Forget tinkering with allocations – that can be argued about later. This is your chance to totally change how things work. I'm going to start off simple.



Currently the allocations of places are as follows:

UEFA 52 Teams 14 Spots 43.8%
CAF 53 Teams 5 Spots 15.6%
CONMEBOL 10 Teams 4.5 Spots 14.1%
CONCACAF 40 Teams 3.5 Spots 10.9%
AFC 45 Teams 4.5 Spots 14.1%
OFC 12 Teams 0.5 Spots 1.6%



For the purposes of this thread, I’ll just leave the allocations as they are, as they’re not the key point. But I would combine AFC and OFC, and also CONMEBOL and CONCACAF so you have as follows:


Europe 52 Teams 14 Spots 43.8%
Africa 53 Teams 5 Spots 15.6%
Americas 50 Teams 8 Spots 25.0%
Asia/Oceania 52 Teams 5 Spots 15.6%


Nothing groundbreaking so far. The key change is how I’d determine how these spots are allocated. The way things are at the moment is that each confederation has a completely different qualifying route with completely different levels of difficulty. CAF’s qualifying is extremely cutthroat, with finishing top of the group paramount. CONCACAF’s hex allows a team to lose quite a generous number of games and still qualify. CONMEBOL’s long, drawn-out league-like format is extremely time-consuming but is probably the best at ranking the teams. OFC’s single playoff for their champion, by contrast, allows no room for error.



At this point, I would pinch the idea of perhaps the best-run international tournament – tennis’s Davis Cup. It has been raised on these boards before, and its format is as follows:

http://www.daviscup.com/shared/images/structurediagram.gif

I would say – lets call the World Cup Finals the equivalent of the World Group. One of the most important additions (to me) is the addition of the World Group Playoff tier.



World Group Playoff Tier



I would put 64 teams in the WGP tier to compete for the 32 World Cup places. 16 of these teams would be seeded through as those teams who had made the knockout stages of the previous tournament. The other 48 places would be allocated to the different regions on a percentage basis, which in our example equals the percentage of World Cup spots the region was previously allocated (although this can obviously be tinkered with). Therefore, a region will be rewarded for having teams go through to the second round of the World Cup because they will not be included in their WGP allocations for the next cycle (thus more teams from this region will be in the WGP tier).



The format for this level is open to debate – I would maybe have 16 groups of 4, each headed by a second-round team from the prior World Cup. The top-placed teams qualify, and then you have 2nd v 3rd home-and-away playoffs between the groups to decide the other 16 places.



Regional Qualifying



With respect to deciding how each region determined its representatives in the WGP tier, I would ensure that each region uses an identical system. I would follow closely the Davis Cup model shown above, with several (number to be determined) ‘tiers’ or subgroups within each region, and promotion/relegation flowing between them in each cycle.



To me there are several key benefits. The promotion/relegation with multiple tiers allows filtering of quality without a long protracted qualifying campaign such as CONMEBOL’s. As all teams must fight through the WGP tier, you have no teams that make the finals by being coddled through an “easy’ confederation. It also makes uniform the paths that each nation has to follow, regardless of their geographic location.



Problems: Obviously, in some ways this is just like adding an extra group stage to the World Cup. However, to me, making the finals of the tournament is such a reward in itself that more effort needs to go towards making sure that the path there is equitable and the quality is high, without compromising the worldwide nature of it. Think of the team you believe does not in any way deserve to be at this World Cup, and managed to slip through because their confederation is easy – then think if they would have survived if they had to go through a World Group Playoff. There is also no provison for direct qualification of the host or champion, but I’m to lazy to factor that in.



I’m sure others will have valid criticisms that I simply haven’t addressed, or suggested improvements, or alternatives. I’m posting because I expect to hear them – what I’ve outlined is only a very, very rough draft of how things could possibly happen.

[Gold is the Colour]

The biggest problem I can see is that the World cup is every 4 years - not every year. In tennis you can usually assume that the best teams in Davis cup one year should still be amongst the best in the next. In football - 4 years can make a big difference.

Definately agree with combining Asia/Oceania and Conmebol/Concacaf.

My solution would be that each of the now 4 confeds gets a spot for each team that progressed to final 16, plus 2, thus (including host) 25 spots used up.

final 7 spots should be playoffs between the teams from each confed that just missed out.

Thus (using results from last WC)

UEFA - 12 + 4/2
AMERICAS - 7 + 4/2
ASIA PACIFIC - 5 + 3/2
AFRICA - 4 + 3/2

Obviously Asia's looks a bit high, but that's because the last WC was in their back yard

[hoos]

This Davis Cup style allocation method sounds great in theory and would be ideal in a perfect world. However, in these times when players are already overburdened with club commitments, the clubs (particularly the larger Euro clubs) would undoubtedly complain vociferously.

This system would lead to more inter-confederational competition, resulting in more travel and even less goodwill towards international football. Professional tennis also has a huge advantage over football in allowing this system to operate - the sheer globalisation of football makes it more or less impossible to schedule a perfectly balanced calendar, unlike pro tennis. It must also be remembered that Davis Cup ties are not played home and away like football.

After the debacle of the final cross-confed playoffs between Oz-Uruguay and T&T-Bahrain, it would not be surprising if that scenario is not repeated. By the sound of it, CONMEBOL chiefs will do everything in their power to avoid travelling too many time zones like the ridiculous Oz-Uruguay playoffs which were effectively played in three days.

The Confederational system is probably not the best way of determining the world's best 32 teams, but it is the most practical method available at the moment. The only solution to this problem is some technological breakthrough allowing humans to travel thousands of miles in a matter of seconds. ;)

[tomwilhelm]

I completely agree. Start from here:

Europe 52 Teams 14 Spots 43.8%
Africa 53 Teams 5 Spots 15.6%
Americas 50 Teams 8 Spots 25.0%
Asia/Oceania 52 Teams 5 Spots 15.6%

The main concern is that if you move away from the confederation allocation system or add too many more inter-confederation playoffs, you expose the fact that the weaker confederations (CAF, AFC) are over-represented. In relatively short order, 80% or more of the squads would come from UEFA and Conmebol. Do this and you reverse years of progress. Soccer suffers.

I haven't thought it out completely, but I think the best solution keeps the confederation allocation system (with above 4 confederations), but codifies the rules for gaining and losing qualification spots based on World Cup performance, including installation of a base minimum to prevent any confederation that has a few bad world cups from digging itself too deep a hole. At the same time, figure out an actually fair way to generate World Cup groups so that you minimize easy and death groups.

In other words, make the rules clear and remove politics from the equation.

[happii20]

How many uknown countries have ever come to the world cup nd succeeded in beating the world champion as Cameroun and Senegal did. I am just asking. :cool:

[dna77054]

Combining the Americas would not be a good idea. The travel times get outragous. Miami to Buenos Aires in an 8-9 hr overnight flight. So Canada-Argentina would be at least 15 hours of travel time. Ridiculous. Even within South America you have some pretty long flights. It is not like Europe where you can throw a rock and hit 5 other countries.

[FAR-QUE]

merging the whole of Asia with Oceania while practicle for NZ. Is not practicle for the rest of Oceania with most teams struglled to afford to go to Adelaide for the Oceania Nations cup '05'. How in the hell would they afford a trip to Jordan?

[Gold is the Colour]

Combining the Americas would not be a good idea. The travel times get outragous. Miami to Buenos Aires in an 8-9 hr overnight flight. So Canada-Argentina would be at least 15 hours of travel time. Ridiculous. Even within South America you have some pretty long flights. It is not like Europe where you can throw a rock and hit 5 other countries.

Vancouver-Santiago Chile would be furthest I think, unless the US decides to play games in Alaska - total distance = 8871km, Vancouver - Port of Spain is already 7076km

Melbourne to Beirut is 13808 km, what are you complaining about. Oceania should all be combined with Asia, so maybe that should be Papeete (Tahiti) to Beirut - 18146 km

Besides those coutries that have to travel the longer distances for a combined Americas would be the larger/richer football nations. Carribean or Central American countries are mostly as close to South America as North America.

BTW Reykjavic - Baku (Azerbaijan) is 5188km and would require fairly long layovers to change flights, so it isn't really that much better

[tomwilhelm]

How many uknown countries have ever come to the world cup nd succeeded in beating the world champion as Cameroun and Senegal did. I am just asking. :cool:
What exactly is your (on topic) point?

For every unknown that shocked the world, there are 10 that didn't. Or in Africa's case 4...

[tomwilhelm]

merging the whole of Asia with Oceania while practicle for NZ. Is not practicle for the rest of Oceania with most teams struglled to afford to go to Adelaide for the Oceania Nations cup '05'. How in the hell would they afford a trip to Jordan?
I think the idea is for Oceania to have it's own tournement and send only the winner on to play in the Asian final group stages. This will be New Zealand 9 times out of 10. Unless they somehow develop a larger population with a high propensity for soccer talent, Vanatau and Fiji should never see the mainland. Worst case scenario is the Solomon Islands, who should be able to afford the trip if they get by NZ again.

[AlbertCamus]

I don't think N. America and S. America should combine because it would diminish rilvaries such as Mexico-USA and Argentina-Brazil. Though I would love to see them work together for one hemisphere wide country championship and a hemisphere wide club tournament.

On this subject, I would keep W.C. qualifying basicly the same but I would have more "half" places and an expanded inter continental playoff. Perhaps 2 regular and 2 half places for CONCACAF, 3 and 3 half places S.A. and so on... Then have a large random draw for the one round playoff. This would ensure that all continents are represented at the World Cup, but allow for more variation according to current strength.

This year we had two intercontinental playoffs T&T - Bahrain and Uraguay - Australia. I would have more.

[dna77054]

Vancouver-Santiago Chile would be furthest I think, unless the US decides to play games in Alaska - total distance = 8871km, Vancouver - Port of Spain is already 7076km

Melbourne to Beirut is 13808 km, what are you complaining about. Oceania should all be combined with Asia, so maybe that should be Papeete (Tahiti) to Beirut - 18146 km

Besides those coutries that have to travel the longer distances for a combined Americas would be the larger/richer football nations. Carribean or Central American countries are mostly as close to South America as North America.

BTW Reykjavic - Baku (Azerbaijan) is 5188km and would require fairly long layovers to change flights, so it isn't really that much better

That just goes to show how screwed up Asia is. Maybe Asia should internally divide into East and West for prelims (if they do not already do that).

On the other hand, I did not consider that a Combined Americas would either have prelims or definded groups what would lower the number of flights, so it is not as bad as I had thought. But also consider that many of the Conmebol teams have their best players in Europe and that match days are often paired Weekend-Wednesday. So imagine Argentina/Brazil NT flying from Europe to Buesos Aires/Sao Paulo (game) to Miami to Colombus (game) to NY and back to Europe for another game that weekend. The Europeans clubs and the players are just going to love that. It would be much worse than anything in Europe (still relatively tiny) and worse that most of Asia, as most Asian NTs (I assume) have most of their players in domestic or neighboring leagues.

[Gold is the Colour]

That just goes to show how screwed up Asia is. Maybe Asia should internally divide into East and West for prelims (if they do not already do that).

On the other hand, I did not consider that a Combined Americas would either have prelims or definded groups what would lower the number of flights, so it is not as bad as I had thought. But also consider that many of the Conmebol teams have their best players in Europe and that match days are often paired Weekend-Wednesday. So imagine Argentina/Brazil NT flying from Europe to Buesos Aires/Sao Paulo (game) to Miami to Colombus (game) to NY and back to Europe for another game that weekend. The Europeans clubs and the players are just going to love that. It would be much worse than anything in Europe (still relatively tiny) and worse that most of Asia, as most Asian NTs (I assume) have most of their players in domestic or neighboring leagues.

Definately aggree with the regional prelims - I thnik Asia does that already - and Oceania will probably send just top 1 or 2 to later rounds.

[Andy TAUS]

This year we had two intercontinental playoffs T&T - Bahrain and Uraguay - Australia. I would have more.Only if these Intercontinental Playoff WCQ's were all north/south ie in roughly the same time-zone. Also NO country to get third or fourth attempts to qualify through these playoffs (eg the losers of the second placed playoffs in Europe should be excluded from any further Intercontinental Playoff).

The two playoffs above actually were played off in 3-4 days duration, way too short. Any H&A playoff should have a minimum of 7 days between the actual games. Now I'm sure all the big clubs would really love and get right behind such a setup, NOT. :p

[FAR-QUE]

Why not just merge ASEAN & OFC (a total of 24 members) with the AFC's1/2 spot and OFC's 1/2 spot becoming one spot in a merged Tiger/Oceania/WCQ Tournament.

[SankaCofie]

sometimes I wonder why I open threads like this one.... then I realize its the same principle as people who slow down to stare at accident scenes.

there is something wrong with the current process?

[Caesar]

sometimes I wonder why I open threads like this one.... then I realize its the same principle as people who slow down to stare at accident scenes.

there is something wrong with the current process?
Yes. But then you're from the USA, so I don't expect you to have any complaints with the current qualifying process.

[leonidas]

Yes. But then you're from the USA, so I don't expect you to have any complaints with the current qualifying process.

Ouch.

I'm fine with the qualification process as it is. I have no problems with the South American qualifications at least. It may be plenty of games, but it's something that the fans enjoy watching, and to me, that's what it should be about. I really dont want to see South America split into 2 groups, which has been rumored. That would probably also diminish the various rivalries out there. Honestly, would Brazil be in the same group as Argentina. Never. They would have to be in separate groups and that would suck.

[ferx203]

I completely agree. Start from here:

Europe 52 Teams 14 Spots 43.8%
Africa 53 Teams 5 Spots 15.6%
Americas 50 Teams 8 Spots 25.0%
Asia/Oceania 52 Teams 5 Spots 15.6%

I haven't thought it out completely, but I think the best solution keeps the confederation allocation system (with above 4 confederations), but codifies the rules for gaining and losing qualification spots based on World Cup performance, including installation of a base minimum to prevent any confederation that has a few bad world cups from digging itself too deep a hole. At the same time, figure out an actually fair way to generate World Cup groups so that you minimize easy and death groups.

In other words, make the rules clear and remove politics from the equation.

Qualification Round
------------------

16 teams, 4 by zone (Europe, Americas, Africa, Asia/Oceania)
16 teams, zones with quarterfinalists of two last world cups

Simulation with WC 98 & WC 02 results

Europe : 4 + 6 QF98 + 4 QF02 = 14 places.
Americas : 4 + 2 QF98 + 2 QF02 = 8 places.
Africa : 4 + 1 QF02 = 5 places.
Asia/Oceania : 4 + 1 QF02 = 5 places.

* Every zone have at least 4 places and the best result is 20 places (all quarterfinalists in 2 last World Cups).

WC First Round
---------------
Eliminate the confederational distribution.
All teams are ranked by the results of the last 2 WC.
- Sum of points of all stages.
- Every group have one team of every zone
Simulation WC 2006

First Zone
34 BRA (21 WC02 + 13 WC98)
26 GER (16 WC02 + 10 WC98)
20 FRA (1 WC02 + 19 WC98)
18 CRO (3 WC02 + 15 WC98)
15 ENG (8 WC02 + 7 WC98)
15 ITA (4 WC02 + 11 WC98)
15 SPA (11 WC02 + 4 WC98)
14 ARG (4 WC02 + 10 WC98)

Second Zone
14 NET (14 WC98)
12 MEX (7 WC02 + 5 WC98)
12 COR (11 WC02 + 1 WC98)
09 PAR (4 WC02 + 5 WC98)
07 USA (4 WC02 + 3 WC98)
07 SYM (7 WC98)
07 JPN (7 WC02 + 0 WC98)
05 SWE (5 WC02)

Third Zone
04 CRC (4 WC02)
03 ECU (3 WC02)
03 IRN (3 WC98)
03 POR (3 WC02)
03 POL (3 WC02)
02 TUN (1 WC02 + 1 WC98)
01 SAU (0 WC02 + 1 WC98)

Fourth Zone
-- T&T
-- AUS
-- GHA
-- ANG
-- CIV
-- TOG
-- SWI
-- CZE
-- UKR