Impact of Nations Leagues (UEFA original, Concacaf) on World Football? [Multiple R]

Had a discussion about that in another place. My guess would be 10 qualifying groups with one from each and then the last 3 spots coming from the NL. Would still mean that one spot goes to the relative minnows of League C which might still seem a bit to generous but then again there will be 4 teams from the current League B in there so...

 

That would be bad news for teams in League B. Firstly they won't be seeded in the traditional qualifying stage so they can easily wind up in a group that has France, Belgium, Spain or someone like that, with only the group winner qualifying for the WC (no playoffs for coming second).

Secondly, League B still has several good teams, so it'll be tough to win outright.

Teams like England, Italy and Holland need to watch out as they are already at risk of being in League B.

 

This problem could easily be solved if UEFA just did what every other confederation already does and used a prequalifying round to cull the number of the teams for the main round. Why is it absolutely necessary to include Gibraltar, or even the likes of Azerbaijan or Moldova, in the main qualifying round? These teams aren't going to even remotely contend for a qualifying spot anyway. The main qualifying round should only include teams that will actually be at least somewhat competitive. It's silly to complicate the qualifying format just so we can include a bunch of no-hopers like Luxembourg and the City-State of Sparta (/sarcasm).

I would propose something like the following:

1) Use some sort of prequalifying round to reduce the number of teams to say, 42. I don't know the nitty-gritty of how this could work/be scheduled - perhaps they could somehow incorporate the Nations League in this process?

2) Divide the 42 remaining teams into 7 groups of 6 teams each. The 7 group winners and 5 best runners-up qualify automatically. The remaining two runners-up playoff for the remaining spot.

This would be better than the current format, I think. The groups would probably be stronger on average than the current five or six-team groups, but since the runners-up would mostly qualify, the effect of the luck of the draw would be alleviated. Another benefit is we wouldn't have groups decided on who scored more goals against Liechtenstein. Such a format would hopefully give us a World Cup contingent that more closely approximates the best 13 teams in Europe.

 

It will always be bad for the teams of the League B quality, that's just how it is when you have as many good quality teams. For the Russia WC they used 9 groups with the winners and 4 of the 2nd placed teams going through. Doing 10+3 like I guessed would be very similar to that.

 

Yea adding that 55th team in UEFA really screwed the math for the qualifiers and we'll see how UEFA copes with that. Pre-qualifying would be one way but the public opinion has been very against that whenever it has been suggested in the past, but who knows it might just come up again.

I haven't looked at the exact math of it but I think eliminating 13 teams in pre-qualifying will be too big a step. Might have to take a look at it to see if there is a viable option when you consider matchdays and so on.

 

With the 9+4 format, teams of "League B" quality would have a notably better chance, provided that they play well. For the 10+3 format , a team like Sweden probably doesn't qualify for the last WC even though they played extremely well throughout qualifying (and the tournament proper).

Furthermore, it would arguably be easier for League C teams to qualify for the WC in the 10+3 format, which is a major flaw.

If I was UEFA, I would hold-off on letting the league C champion qualify for the WC until 2026 when the WC expands.

 

Yeah, I generally agree. I would definitely use the NL instead of having a preliminary qualifying round though. No need for more head-to-head Gibraltar v Luxembourg matches when you already have that in League D of the NL.

The main side-effect, of course, is that people living in Azerbaijan and places like that would never have a chance to see top world-class players live.

 

Only one UEFA team was eliminated from World Cup 2018 qualifying on goal differential, and that was the Netherlands, whose goal differential was 8 worse than Sweden. Furthermore, the last place team in that group was Belarus, who was the best last place team in points and goal differential. Sweden won both games against Belarus 4-0. Even if you made both of them 1-0, they would have had a better goal differential than the Netherlands. The only team that lost a tie for first on goal differential was Switzerland, who qualified. In World Cup 2014 qualifying, no UEFA team was eliminated on goal differential, and the only team that lost a tie for first on goal differential was Greece, who qualified. In World Cup 2010 qualifying, no UEFA team was eliminated or did not finish first because of goal differential. In World Cup 2006 qualifying, Russia and Israel were eliminated by losing a tie for second, but head-to-head was the first tiebreaker. In both cases, the tied teams played two draws against each other. Wikipedia doesn't give the tiebreakers, so I can't tell if it was decided by head-to-head away goals or goal differential.

TLDR: Not qualifying because a team didn't beat the bottom team by enough is possible but unlikely.

Regardless of whether 1, 13, to 25 teams were eliminated before the WCQ Group Stage, it would only take two matchdays for each aggregate (or no matchdays if the Nations League is used) as long as a majority of the teams played in the Group Stage, which is certain. If a Group Stage has fewer than half the teams, like CAF did in World Cup 2018 qualifying, two rounds are needed before that.

 

I am more inclined to see a World League than these regional Leagues.

But as I said, any good manager would say that there are advantages to friendlies and pleasing fans is not their priority in many respects.


Also, since you seem to be an advocate for Club teams and more rest for players...
... I am sure they are not happy to see their biggest star players playing more meaningful games with more of a chance to get injured during their season since they are playing more minutes,( more stressful minutes mind you) because these games are more competitive with less subs.

So there is always some negatives to go with the positives.

 

So we should just abolish all friendlies and exhibitions because it is not meaningful to you and others that think like you?

I think that is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

This is discourse indeed.
You have your opinion and I have mine.
And I think it is extreme to get rid of friendlies in the way you suggest.

And I also think it is a bit extreme to suggest that players are being taken away from their families. Maybe some European players may see it as a negative but I know many players in South America have a love and fervent passion to be called up for their National teams even if it is a friendly. An honor that their families usually celebrate and embrace.

 

With more friendlies those older players could be called less and the younger players experimented with and phased in.

 

Sweden really shouldn't have qualified even with playing well.
At the time of the draw they where in pot 3 which would be somewhere just on the line between League B and C. On their way to the WC they won a game v France, beat out the Dutch to second in the group and beat Italy in the play-off. That's good results against three League A teams, I'm not sure going through a League B (or C) play-off would be that much harder tbh.

This is true. And it got me thinking that maybe they won't go for 10+3 but rather go for 11+2. That would mean 5 team groups for everyone (and thus free dates for friendlies) and limit the play-off spots to League A & B. Not sure UEFA goes for it as it means less value for the NL but the bigger nations will definitely like it.

 

Or maybe the winner from League B against the winner from League C and the winner get a ticket to the world cup. And League A could have two spots. the semifinal winners get the tickets.

 

Why would the Nations League - a UEFA tournament - have any link to World Cup qualification - a FIFA tournament?

J

 

Because UEFA has said that it will???

But in general I agree, they shouldn't be linked.

 

But they don't really get to say that. FIFA have to approve World Cup quals. EURO2020 is another thing entirely.

The UEFA thing I have seen "linking" the two is a really obtuse document. It says "Seeding link applies to 2020 and 2022", then "For 2020 (not 2022) there is a play-off link" then it sort of goes back and says "For 2022 the same principles apply", but not whether those principles also apply to the things that weren't linked to 2022 in the first case.

(https://it.uefa.com/insideuefa/about-uefa/executive-committee/news/newsid=2191264.html - it's quite old as well)

And I've got to add - people got their panties in a bunch because Sweden knocked Italy out of the last World Cup quals when they met as peers (both group runners-up) - do we actually think people are going to stand for a system that eliminates both Sweden AND Italy and instead gives a World Cup spot to Bethania, Fintonland or the Independent Republic of Yeb?

J

 

As expected. Although I was thinking that Africa might do it before Asia.

What makes me wonder - why so late (2021)? And would they include Oceanic teams somehow, as that would be great - don't let them in AFC, or in AFC WCQ (there is no need for it now as they will get one spot in silliness called 48-team WC), but give them a place in Nations League so they play more regularly.

With, let's say one OFC team in, they would have four 12-team divisions (if Northern Mariana finally starts playing some AFC sanctioned football). If they don't take one more OFC team.