Rearranging FIFA's confederations

Interesting thought. I have a couple comments and concerns.

Comments:

If we are not a slave to geography, how about a combined Middle East and North African Confederation and a Sub-Saharan African Confederation. In my living memory (watching WC since 1986) only S. Arabia out of your current Mid East Confed has ever made the second round and only 1 even currently manages to qualify for the WC. So three births there seems a bit much, but when combined with N. Africa it makes much more sense.

I have a few quibbles about the allocation of spots, but that would be for later. Maybe a few more 1/2 spots and fewer full spots for the non Europe/Conmebol confeds. Let their weakest qualifiers fight among themselves without worrying about the horrid luck of drawing Uruguay or Ukraine in a playoff. That would seem the fairest in this new scheme.


Concerns:

I am not that familiar with the finances of other Confeds, but the Caribbean really depends on the money generated by the mainland teams, especially the US and Mex, and the Gold Cup. Some of those tiny islands hold their "home" qualifiers against Mex in the southwest US just so they can pocket the ticket revenue. I do not khow viable the Caribbean would be on its own.

 

It would be a disaster for Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago; who would be stuck in a region with otherwise tiny countries

 

But they would have no good games to play. This is why Australia left Oceana

 

Friendlies are lame.

 

We'd be fine. There's enough rivalry and competition within the region to make competition for qualification competitive. Furthermore, the region would probably be quite content to trade membership in a club with "big" countries for a clearer, more consistent path to the World Cup.

Consistent World Cup presence is worth much more than "good games" to play. If given the choice between travelling to Costa Rica every cycle with less certainty of reaching the World Cup or eliminating such fixtures while improving certainty, the second option will win every time. The Caribbeans are not going to miss going to Central America or the USA when they've been handed guaranteed representation at the World Cup.

Also, there would still be plenty of quality matchups between the region's big 3 and some of the smaller but highly competitive sides there. This scenario, if it came to pass, would be more than a fair tradeoff for the region.

 

As to the original post, I'll say I don't mind this idea on the balance. My main issue is the allocation of slots, particularly as it relates to the Caribbean. Specifically, your allotment doesn't respect the fact that the CFU is vastly superior to the OFC (for reasons I'll explain below).

I'll start by illustrating just where New Zealand (unquestionably the class of the OFC) stands in relation to the Caribbean. Then I'll get to the rest of the OFC.

Let me give you an idea of just how far apart the Caribbean and New Zealand really are. At the end of this most recent CONCACAF hex, Mexico was set to face New Zealand in the intercontinental playoff. NZ went to Mexico for the first leg. They were dismantled by a factor 5 goals to 1. On the return leg in NZ, Mexico managed a 4-2 victory. Overall, Mexico won the playoff 9-3. New Zealand proved itself wholly incapable of competing with one of CONCACAF’s powers (the 4th best team in CONCACAF at the time).

So, how well have Caribbeans done in similar situations? Jamaica went to the Azteca during the hex and didn’t allow 5 goals. In fact, they didn’t allow any – the match ended in a 0-0 draw. The return leg was a narrow 1-0 Mexico victory, for a composite 1-0 win for Mexico in both legs. In the most recent meeting (Gold Cup final) Jamaica lost to Mexico 3-1. Jamaica (a Caribbean power and merely the 6th best team in CONCACAF at the time) has acquitted itself far better in competition with Mexico than NZ. Trinidad has done the same (4-4 in most recent competitive meeting).

We can go even further with this and examine Mexico’s matchups with smaller Caribbean sides. Guyana faced Mexico during the 3rd round of CONCACAF qualifying last cycle. They went to the Azteca and were more competitive than NZ – the game ended 3-1. In the next leg (which was in Houston, and not on Guyana’ home turf), Guyana lost 5-0. That’s 8-1. Guyana, by all means a middling Caribbean side (currently 156 in the world, 12th best in the CFU) with serious financial and organizational issues and no opportunity to play the Mexicans on their own home turf, put as strong a fight (if not better) with Mexico than New Zealand, which is by far the best team the OFC can field.

All of this is without mentioning FIFA rankings which, though not best to lean entirely upon, do correlate at least somewhat with team ability. NZ’s average ranking since the creation of the FIFA system has been just 98. Jamaica stands at 60. Trinidad is at 64. Cuba is at 93. Haiti boasts a 97.

Cuba and Jamaica have World Cup wins to their name. NZ has not one.

The best squads in the Caribbean have, historically, been much stronger than New Zealand. They have provided superior performances against top opposition and they face vastly superior competition in their own confederation. The rank and file squads in Oceania are abysmal. NZ is 149th in the world right now. The second best squad in the OFC is 167 (3 way tie). The next squads are, in order, ranked at #’s 181, 186, 191, and 194.

The Caribbean is far deeper than this, and its middling squads are much better. Go beyond Trinidad (49), Haiti (64), and Jamaica (52) and you still have Antigua (90), Aruba (113), St. Kitts (121), St. Vincent (141), Curacao (151) and St. Lucia (144) well above the level of the best OFC squads, and (if you dispute that) FAR above the level of the second best OFC squad.

Squads like Antigua and Curacao would both be elite teams in the current OFC – they have VASTLY superior talent on their rosters relative to any OFC nations outside of New Zealand and far deeper pools of fully professional players. The second best side in Oceania (which, at any given time, is going to be one of American Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji, etc) would have a hard time getting a positive result against Cuba, St. Vincent, Antigua, or St. Kitts, all of which are second tier sides in the CFU. There is simply no side in the OFC on the level of any one of Jamaica, Trinidad, or Haiti, and it is debatable whether even New Zealand can match some of the CFU’s second tier sides (Antigua, Martinique, etc).

New Zealand (unquestionably the OFC’s best team and the only squad in that confederation that competes with most of the Caribbean in terms of quality) has also never beaten a Caribbean opponent. They have come up against the CFU’s elite on multiple occasions. In two fixtures against Jamaica, they have picked up two losses. In a single fixture against Trinidad, they managed a draw.

The Caribbean is objectively superior to the OFC by a wide margin. It has far more depth, its top tier teams are superior, and its rank-and-file teams are better as well. The CFU has a much stronger football pedigree than the OFC, with actual World Cup victories and better showings against top opposition.

Given these realities, it is indeed quite unreasonable to suggest that the CFU would only deserve as many WC spots as the OFC, a confederation that is a) weaker from top to bottom and b) much smaller in size (the CFU has twice as many nations). From a Caribbean perspective, such a suggestion is actually borderline insulting. At best, it is just ignorant of the different realities these two federations face.

1.5 or 2 spots would be reasonable for the CFU, and the Caribbeans would seriously consider it. There is nothing reasonable at all from any perspective about a .5 spot allotment for the CFU. They are not Oceania and shouldn’t be treated as such.

Take that .5 you have for the CFU and add a full spot - one full berth plus a playoff spot linked with the OFC. Then you'll have a solid allocation of berths for a 40 team tournament.

 

Felt the need to get an alternative allocation out there based in part on what I said above, but also on some of my feelings about the other allocations.
CONMEBOL has too many spots. You're handing 70% of the region (80% in a hosting year) a place in the World Cup. I understand that CONMEBOL is probably the best Confed on Earth top to bottom, but when you hand this many slots to them you effectively negate the need for qualifying altogether. It just doesn't make sense for 70% (80% in a CONMEBOL hosting year) to qualify.

CONCA also has too many slots. You're sending half of that region to the world cup, but only allowing just over 10% of Africa to go and only 25% of Europe? That can't work. Are you seriously contending that a CONCA absent the CFU is somehow worthy of having better representation than the current CONMEBOL? I'm not buying that.

Altered it below to give Africa and the Caribbean a little more representation. Playoffs are locked at CFU-Oceania, CONMEBOL-Africa, and CONCA-South/Southeast/East Asia.

If CONMEBOL wants to send 60% of their squad to a World Cup, they ought to have to earn that. Africa gets a shot to send 14% of its teams, which is still a little low but much more palatable than before. Similarly, if CONCA wants 40% representation, it can earn it over Asia.

Conmebol (5.5 berths for 10 teams)
Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, Paraguay, Venezuela
Conca (3.5 berths for 10 teams)
USA, Mexico, Canada, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Belize, Panama, Honduras, Guatemala, Costa Rica
(Conca qualifying would be the same format as Conmebol)
CFU (1.5 berths for 25 teams)
The rest of the present Concacaf nations: they would have a CFU tournament, and the champion would face off against the Oceanic winner for a spot in the World Cup
Oceania (.5 berths for 11 teams)
Winners face off against CFU champion
Africa (7.5 berths for 54 teams)
Not much changes here
Middle East & Central Asia (3 spots for 20 teams)
Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Bahrain, Iraq,
Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen

South, East, and Southeast Asia (4.5 spots for 29 teams)
Israel, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, China, Guam, Hong Kong, Japan,
N. Korea, S. Korea, Macau, Mongolia, Chinese Taipei, Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Phillipines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Vietnam
UEFA (13 spots for 51 teams)


One last thing. You said this earlier:

Israel is also more European than Asian, yet you've got them in South/East/Southeast Asia. I don't know how that would work. I certainly wouldn't expect Israel to want to go in that direction.

 

CFU is certainly better than Oceania. shizzle787 proposed to give the ten North and Central American teams 5 spots, which would mean at least one country other than USA, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Honduras would qualify. USA, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Honduras are the only North and Central American teams who have qualified for a World Cup in the 2000s. If the current CONCACAF gets 5.5 spots like shizzle787 proposed, I think 4 for North and Central American teams and 1.5 for CFU is fair.

 

So we can go ahead and close this other thread of yours that you started?
http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/proposed-americas-champions-league.2029813/#post-33779401

 

Are you sure about that? .5 spots for 25 nations. Doesn't seem better to me.

Think they would prefer to take their chances against central and north american nations and get more experience playing against decent teams at the same time.

Can't compare OFC with Caribbean. Caribbean has more than 1 decent team.

 

Pretty good. I would only suggest boosting M. East/C. Asia up 1 and adding a spot for Africa. UEFA and CONMEBOL could each stand to lose a place here.
I might strongly consider breaking that 14th UEFA place in two and creating a playoff with Africa.

Culturally, economically and (arguably) politically, Israel is more European than Asian. It definitely is a better fit in Europe than it is in East Asia or South Asia. Also, while Israel has no territory in Europe, it also doesn't have any territory in South, Southeast, or East Asia.

 

I know. This is a big reason why they've been in UEFA in the first place. I'm suggesting that perhaps its best that they stay there rather than going to the Far East. UEFA makes a lot more sense than becoming a part of a Southeast/East Asian confederation.

 

Conmebol is tough to treat fairly, so strong and deep, yet so few countries. How about this 5 guaranteed plus 2 0.5 spots, so they send two teams to intercontinental playoffs. That gives us with another 2 0.5 spots to give to other confeds. Allocate those, even if it means some other confeds end up with 2 0.5 spots. Then draw the playoffs randomly with the caveat that all matchups must be interfed, so that Libya could not draw Gabon if Africa ended with 2 0.5 spots.

 

That's better. I suggested earlier that CONMEBOL get 5.5 with a playoff locked in against Africa. Anything in that line works for me - if CONMEBOL is going to sent a majority of its sides to a World Cup, it ought to have to go through a playoff to do so.
Two half slots seems a little messy, though. Why not just 5 guaranteed + .5 playoff spot locked in with another sizable confed (ex: Africa or one of the Asias)? I get that CONMEBOL is deep and very good, but do they really need a shot to send 70% (80% in a host year) of their sides to the World Cup? 60% (70% when hosting) isn't enough?

 

I was quoting you from a post where you were replying to a poster that had Conmebol with 7 guaranteed. That is why I went 5 plus 2 half spots. Also if Conmebol is sending 80+% teams to the second round, which they did in 2010 (all 5 teams) and 2014 (5/6 Ecuador eliminated with 4 points) I think they have earned the chance to get seven, but I would agree they should not be guaranteed more than 5 (unless hosting). Also, multiple half spots could better determine who really deserves to go while giving every confed more chances to go. The allocations can change depending on results in either the playoff or the WC. In the end whether Conmebol get 5 plus 1 half or 5 plus 2 halves is not really that big of a deal either way and would certainly not be a deal breaker from my point of view.

I really like your earlier posts in this thread and was going to reply to one, but did not have the time to give it its deserved attention and have since already covered a bit of it, but to finish I would only like to add that I do not think the interconfed playoffs should be fixed. Draw them randomly or better yet have a rotation schedule. I would enjoy seeing the variety of the matchups and styles more each time.

 

If you ask me, why don't you simply give Conmebol, 3 guaranteed direct spots (each spot to be representative of each of our teams that have won the WC in the past, at least twice each), together with giving everybody else in our Confed, spots for the last phase of qualifiers from each of the other Confeds, so that they all get a fair chance to play inside the pitch, for their places of a future WC (by doing that it will not only be a home and away playoff, involving 2 teams (one from each confed), but a longer tournament-like kind of competition, where there will be lots more matches against lots of other teams (where most of them will be from the other confeds).

Of course as an idea, maybe some people from teams of Uefa would accept it, but from the rest of the world, with very few exceptions, they would almost all of them shit in their pants by the sole idea of having to play for a spot against a Conmebol team, as they know that given the case, it is very likely that at least 4 of our other teams if not 5 of them (not considering those who have already been WC champions in the past), would still make it through, almost as if it were "a walk in the park", taking spots away from them, by being better than them where it really matters, which is in the pitch and not on an office desk, as how you pretend to give the spots for a future WC.
Oh and btw, why should Conmebol be locked in a playoff against Africa ?, by doing that, the only thing that will happen is that a lots more worthy team will get eliminated in advance of the WC. Why not, against a Concacaf team, instead ?, which besides of Mexico (and maybe only for just a couple of other teams), is mostly full of crap and if one of them gets eliminated, no one will actually miss them.

The fact we get so many spots given our small amount of members, is because most of the times, lots of our teams (if not all of those who go) will be among those, who actually are competing to win the whole thing, an issue that only Uefa can match, with many of their teams.

At last, we've never sent more than 5 of our teams after a qualifier process to any WC in the past, so I don't know where you got figures as 70 % or even 80 % of our members, including the host. The most we've ever got, only happened last WC (although to get 5 qualified teams, the same as for 2010, we also did have to win a playoff first), where as Brazil was host, there were only 6 of our teams in it (which counts only as 60 % of our membership).
Now to your last questions, if we should send more of our teams, than those we actually get....... well, if we really deserve them by being better than the rest, yes we should (or at least a fair chance for that to happen).