2006 Qualification Process Announced

[DaMunk]

Originally posted by Thomas Flannigan
Daniel, who is going to pay for all these countries to have decent soccer pitches?

Well, honestly, FIFA has paid for and built several in the last two years through Blatter's GOAL Program. Most of the Confederation's members have received the aid of the "development program." Only Aruba has an artificial surface, something to do with the local climate being too arrid to support grass or something. 1

As for teams not being able to afford the travel, that is their own fault especially since FIFA gives them 1/4 million dollar grants every year, though that may stop soon. Maybe Mexico will be lucky and the caribbean clubs in their pool will forfeit, sparing them from this atrocity. 2

At any rate, how many people are fans (being short for fanatics) of the sport. From some of the arguments I've read, there are many supporters who only pay attention to what is happening in the Confederation when it pertains to their favored nation.

1 http://www.footballconfederation.com/news/article.page/1087
2 http://www.footballconfederation.com/news/article.page/1173

[Gordon]

Originally posted by rdl674
I was talking to one of my friends about this... he fears that too.

He said that he fears that an outside factor may make the difference to give preference to another team. A mysterous handball? An offsides? A different referee than the one originally assigned?

So its your position that only minnows should have to face this? It happened to Canada in 1993. A mysterious offside calling back a good goal that would have put Canada up 2-0 on Mexico. Would have put us through to the World Cup, in fact. And send you lot off to Australia and Argentiana to get there.

I have been very amused to see the direction this debate has taken. A system that recognizes merit through seeding and give everyone the same obstacles, hurdles and opportunities to win their way to the World Cup is described as communistic and socialist by people who are trying to protect privilidge and reduce their own nations obstacles and hurdles, and keep as many "second chances" as they can while denying the same to their competitors is held up as fair. Guess what boys. Shaun Goater's club career is every bit as important as Marquez, or Reyna or Martinez. So are his legs and ankles. I watched these boards reject groups as a a qualifying option, and I have now watched you reject equality tempered by seeding.
So why don't we just toss out the notion of actually winning one's way to the World Cup and mail invitations to the FMF and the USSF so that neither nation is actually faced with a task that they have never been able to do on a consistent basis? Does that sound fair guys? I mean, its not too arduous for you is it?

[OBartleby]

Originally posted by Daniel from Montréal
And while talking about "pitch standards" (which, btw, in the Laws of the Game are very basic), maybe there should be "air quality standards". If Aruba isn't allowed to have a home advantage by playing on a bad field (to which I would agree), then why should Mexico be allowed to kick games off at noon at Azteca in heat and smog?
I think you're on to something here!

However, by the same token, Mexico could argue that going to Columbus or New England (or any where in Canada) in the winter months would be hazardous due to frozen pitch conditions. (El Mierdodor could fall and get a boo-boo.) ((I know, that's spelled wrong, but the damn autocensor caught it.))

No, seriously though, I think nations will and should continue to use their home field advantage so long as the basic Laws of the Game and FIFA standards are adhered to. I don't like the thought of the USA playing in the smog, humidity and high altitude of Azteca, but it’s good that they don’t like the thought of going to Crew or Gillette Stadiums.

Are there any FIFA regulation fields in Labrador or the Northwest Territories. You Canucks could very well be sitting on the Anti-Azteca!

[Gordon]

Originally posted by OBartleby
I think you're on to something here!

However, by the same token, Mexico could argue that going to Columbus or New England (or any where in Canada) in the winter months would be hazardous due to frozen pitch conditions. (El Mierdodor could fall and get a boo-boo.) ((I know, that's spelled wrong, but the damn autocensor caught it.))

No, seriously though, I think nations will and should continue to use their home field advantage so long as the basic Laws of the Game and FIFA standards are adhered to. I don't like the thought of the USA playing in the smog, humidity and high altitude of Azteca, but it’s good that they don’t like the thought of going to Crew or Gillette Stadiums.

Are there any FIFA regulation fields in Labrador or the Northwest Territories. You Canucks could very well be sitting on the Anti-Azteca!

Hey perhaps we could insist that the stadiums have adequate security and/or decorum so that visiting fans and teams won't be pelted with batteries and bags of urine, where visitng fans and FIFA match officials do not runthe risk of assault and where fans will actually sit inthe seats they have purchased. But of course, then we would have to host the whole damn tournament at Commonwealth and a couple of northern US Stadiums. Could Gillette handle 30 qualifiers?

[LMvCP]

Originally posted by Gordon
So its your position that only minnows should have to face this? It happened to Canada in 1993. A mysterious offside calling back a good goal that would have put Canada up 2-0 on Mexico. Would have put us through to the World Cup, in fact. And send you lot off to Australia and Argentiana to get there.

No game is absoletly perfect from an officiating standpoint. But Mexico was the better team in the 93 qualification process. And Mexico did end up winning the game 2-1.

And about the officiating? What do you expect from refs who dont have professional leagues of thier own? My point is, that these referees from the less developed soccer nations are bush league refs and at times are not very professional. Many of them dont have professional leagues in thier native country. Others have semiprofessional leagues. And the ones that do have professional leagues are in effect for a couple of months. But Warner and Comapny would rather give the minnows the jobs than to put people with the proper qualifications. The officiating in our confederation has to improve alot. I, by no means am saying that we need 100 more Mexican refs, but what I am saying is that they need to hire better qualified refs and not give internationalized them with hardly any experience.

http://www.footballconfederation.com/committees/technical.page

I have been very amused to see the direction this debate has taken. A system that recognizes merit through seeding and give everyone the same obstacles, hurdles and opportunities to win their way to the World Cup is described as communistic and socialist by people who are trying to protect privilidge and reduce their own nations obstacles and hurdles, and keep as many "second chances" as they can while denying the same to their competitors is held up as fair.

The current system has many flaws.

And what it basically boils down to...there is no point is hammering a small team by 20 goals? They think that will help? It will have a negative effect. Sorry, you are not just going to get better by facing Brazil or Mexico or Spain or whomever. You need infrastructure, profossional leagues, youth development, corporate as well as individual sponsorships, and more importantly... a stable government that will allow you to grow. FIFA can inject millions in the carriebean, but if their respective governments are not stable enough, then whats the point of doing so. Plain and simple...there are more important things than soccer. I would expect those countries to to invest the few millions they get into thier country in thier own infrastructure (roads, schools, running water, hospitals) Help them break the cycle of poverty. You think building a stadium for people who make a dollar a day can afford going to a stadium? Help them break the cycle of poverty IF they show inituitive....likeI said, there are more important things than soccer.. I am not discriminating them because of thier financial or economic situation, but they have thier problems just like we have our problems.

Those few teams that did qualify to the semifinals last time are showing the inituitive.

[LMvCP]

Like Tom Flannigan said, altitude and climate cant be changed. Field conditions can.

Smog... Yes, Mexico City does have its smog problem... but have you ever been to Houston or Los Angeles for that matter. The air there is not the best either. Last time I checked, Houston led the way... due to the chemical plants in Pasadena and all the freaking cars here... Houston does not have an effective public transportation system yet. Pollution can be altered some, and I know that Houston and Mexico City are taking measures to reduce the amount of pollution in the air.


But to say Mexico City or Azteca is not adequate is stupid. One of the best and modern stadiums in the world and the only stadium to host 2 world cup finals..ENOUGH SAID Any stadium in CONCACAF would kill to have the history that stadium has.

http://www.esmas.com/estadioazteca/images/galeria/deportes/cancha/Cancha16.jpg

http://www.esmas.com/estadioazteca/images/galeria/deportes/cancha/Cancha17.jpg

You could practically bowl on that pitch

[OBartleby]

Originally posted by rdl674
Smog... Yes, Mexico City does have its smog problem... but have you ever been to Houston or Los Angeles for that matter. The air there is not the best either. Last time I checked, Houston led the way... due to the chemical plants in Pasadena and all the freaking cars here... Houston does not have an effective public transportation system yet. Pollution can be altered some, and I know that Houston and Mexico City are taking measures to reduce the amount of pollution in the air.
Well, Mexico need never worry about playing a World Cup Qualifier in the LA smog ever again. ;)

Originally posted by rdl674
But to say Azteca is not adequate is stupid. One of the best and modern stadiums in the world and the only stadium to host 2 world cup finals..ENOUGH SAID Any stadium in CONCACAF would kill to have the history that stadium has.
rdl, I don’t think anyone ever said Azteca was inadequate – just that it’s atrocious in terms of the smog and the humidity, especially when qualifiers there are always scheduled for 12 noon kickoffs. Why not schedule those matches to start in the evening?

And I’m not too partisan to admit that Azteca is clearly the most historic and hallowed of all soccer grounds in CONCACAF. But that loss to the Ticos....

[LMvCP]

Originally posted by OBartleby
Well, Mexico need never worry about playing a World Cup Qualifier in the LA smog ever again. ;)

I wouldnt be so sure about that. AEG is an official sponsor of the tricolores. I read an article and it said that in this year, the CSN (national team comission) plans to make 100 M USD. And thats only with 3 sponsors (Televisa, Nike, and tio Felipe (AEG)). They will probably make more considering they still havent signed with the other American and MExican companies like Miller, Bimbo, Gillette, etc. Who knows, Tio Felipe can pull his weight and may want a USA-Mexico showdown in our new staidum in Los Angeles..sorry meant in Galaxy's new stadium :D

rdl, I don’t think anyone ever said Azteca was inadequate – just that it’s atrocious in terms of the smog and the humidity, especially when qualifiers there are always scheduled for 12 noon kickoffs. Why not schedule those matches to start in the evening?

Well, games do start at noon during the MExican league. Pumas, who also play in Mexico City, schedule kickoff at noon. The humidity in Mexico city is not as bad as you think. I think they are scheduled for noon due to ratings.

[OBartleby]

Originally posted by rdl674
Who knows, Tio Felipe can pull his weight and may want a USA-Mexico showdown in our new staidum in Los Angeles..sorry meant in Galaxy's new stadium
Oh, I’m sure there’ll be USA-Mexico matches at Azteca Nueva, maybe even a Gold Cup match, but I very seriously doubt there’ll be any more US-Mex WCQ’s there. And don't thank me for the new stadium - thank the city of Carson and the University of California. :)

Well, games do start at noon during the Mexican league. Pumas, who also play in Mexico City, schedule kickoff at noon. The humidity in Mexico city is not as bad as you think. I think they are scheduled for noon due to ratings.
Oh, c'mon, rdl - why can't you just admit that Mexico does this because it is to their advantage? No sense in puusyfooting around (yes, I can spell, but the autocensor doesn’t like the other word for cat). Hell, the US has learned it's lesson, and we are becoming just as skilled in the art of gamesmanship so that we can eke out every little advantage we can. Everyone else does it - some are just more honest about it than others. At least the Mexican fans don't throw batteries and bags of urine.... but maybe they will once we start winning regularly in Mexico City. :D

[Autogolazo]

One thing I don't understand--why would Mexico want to join CONMEBOL when CONMEBOL only has 4 WC spots for ten talented teams, while CONCACAF now has 3.5 spots and can't really even fill out a hexagonal with quality (T&T stank up the place once they got that far)?

Would Mexico rather battle the US, Honduras, Costa Rica and Jamaica for 3.5 spots, or battle Uruguay, Colombia, Peru, Chile and the others for the remaining 2 spots once Brazil and Argentina qualify?

It seems like an empty threat to me. They can't be serious about wanting to enter into the slugfest that is CONMEBOL qualifying. They might not make it.

[OBartleby]

Originally posted by Autogolazo
One thing I don't understand--why would Mexico want to join CONMEBOL when CONMEBOL only has 4 WC spots for ten talented teams, while CONCACAF now has 3.5 spots and can't really even fill out a hexagonal with quality (T&T stank up the place once they got that far)?

Would Mexico rather battle the US, Honduras, Costa Rica and Jamaica for 3.5 spots, or battle Uruguay, Colombia, Peru, Chile and the others for the remaining 2 spots once Brazil and Argentina qualify?

It seems like an empty threat to me. They can't be serious about wanting to enter into the slugfest that is CONMEBOL qualifying. They might not make it.
I doubt very much that Mexico or any of its fans want to join CONMEBOL.

In fact, rdl and the other Mexican posters have simply said that it is their right to play in what ever tourney they're invited to without sanctions from CONCACAF when they (the Mexicans) send B teams to the Gold Cup, especially when the US does the same thing (although, in fairness, in the past when the Gold Cup was in Jan or Feb, we have HAD to send MLS-based players since all of our Euro-based players were in mid season). I have no problem with the Mexican's stance on this - especially because it's so transparently obvious that CONCACAF gets pissed when Mexico doesn't send their A-squad only because the ticket sales from Mexican fans are lower than what they might have been had Mexico sent an A-squad.

[sidspaceman]

Mexico coach Ricardo Lavolpe eased his criticism of planned changes to the CONCACAF World Cup qualifiers on Monday, saying the new format would help the region's smaller countries help develop the sport.

The planned changes, which were approved at a CONCACAF meeting earlier this month in New York and must still be approved by FIFA, could involve Mexico playing part-time teams from some of the smallest Caribbean nations in a marathon 20-match campaign.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/2003/02/25/mexico_concacaf/

[Gordon]

While Lavolpe may be softening his criticism, you may be interested to note that Andy Sharpe, President of the Canadian Soccer Association described the proposed qualifying process as "asinine" in a recent television appearance on Soccer Central. Provoking this response was, of course, the obstacle presented in getting the national team members, almost all of whom are European based, back some 20 times over the course of a "little over a year".

[JJ Mindset]

Interesting discussion you have here. I was actually hoping there would some discussion about which venues would be used for which games. However, I could see how the process could be detrimental to some federations.

The soccer calendar is too crowded as it is right now. Ideally, as a soccer nut, I wouldn't mind potentially watching 20 matches. But I have to use my head instead of my heart in this one. *sigh* The teams which qualified for WC2002 should have byes for the first round. And the Gold Cup should be a quadrennial tournament(every 4 years), the CONCACAF Club Championships be held every two years and forget about the Giants Cup or any other cups except maybe the U.S. Cup every other summer.

As for the Libertadores, well, blame the Venezuelan federation and Grondona for allowing that to happen. I'm more of a traditionalist and would rather not have overlapping of Confed tournaments.

The WCQ is such an big deal that I'm afraid all that other stuff is overshadowing it. :( :mad: