Should AFC and OFC merge?

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by Every Four Years, Sep 12, 2015.

  1. almango

    almango Member+

    Sydney FC
    Australia
    Nov 29, 2004
    Bulli, Australia
    Club:
    Sydney FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Australia
    Just a little bit of history here. When CONCACAF and AFC were paired they were the only two confederations with a half spot as FIFA gave OFC a full spot for the 2006 World Cup. For some reason they reduced Conmebol's allocation at the same time. Conmebol did some lobbying to get a position back and succeeded at OFC's expense with the reasoning being New Zealand's poor showing at the 2003 Confederations Cup. OFC were then paired with the South American's in a playoff for 2006. When Australia left OFC to join Asia part of the deal was OFC joining AFC in the qualification. There was some discussion about including them in Asia's final round but it ended up a playoff. CONCACAF didn't like the idea of perpetually playing off against the South American's and lobbied hard for a draw to take place which is what has happened the last two world cup's. The fact the draw just happened to fit a perfect rotation was pure coincidence. Asia and OFC were against a draw, mainly for the same reasons CONCACAF favoured it, and the South Americans didn't care as they thought they would generally win a playoff.
     
  2. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    #52 Rickdog, Dec 11, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2017
    Nope.

    OFC was playing a play-off spot against Conmebol since 1990, till 2006, with an interruption for 1998

    For 1990 though, Israel was included in the OFC + AFC zone, being theirs the team that faced Conmebol (Colombia) for the playoff spot.
    For 1994, it was Argentina vs. Australia
    For 2002, it was Uruguay vs. Australia
    For 2006, it was Australia ( whom had completed their switch to AFC, after they won the OFC zone) vs. Uruguay

    Before these, though, Conmebol also had playoffs vs. Uefa for 1974 (Chile vs USSR) and 1978 (Hungary vs. Bolivia); For 1962, Concacaf didn't exist, but one of their members got a playoff against a team from Conmebol (Mexico vs Paraguay)
     
  3. Metropolitan

    Metropolitan Member+

    Paris Saint Germain
    France
    Sep 5, 2005
    Paris
    Club:
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    #53 Metropolitan, Dec 11, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2017
    The talks here makes me think about FIFA History, and more precisely the way it organized itself in continental confederations.

    Jules Rimet, FIFA's President who created the World Cup, was actually against the creation of sub-confederations because he was considering them as lobbying groups playing against the general interests of the sport at the global level.

    We were then in the 1930's, and the two "rival" entities to FIFA were still the IFAB (British home countries) and CONMEBOL which constitutes itself in 1916 to organize local South American competitions. The thing to understand is that, after the creation of FIFA in 1904, England quickly took control of it in 1906, with Daniel Burley Woolfall, the President of the English FA becoming its President and making of it nearly a subsidiary of the FA. The pre-ww1 Olympics football tournaments were actually organized by the English FA.

    In 1918, Woolfall died and the English FA didn't find any interest in naming a successor, England even leaving FIFA in 1920. FIFA nearly died then, and when Jules Rimet eventually became its President 3 years later in 1921, it was practically nothing anymore. Then he developped it again, first in organizing Olympics tournaments on its own in 1924 and 1928 (independently from the FA), then the World Cup in 1930. After a short period when England got back in, England left FIFA again in 1928.

    Then after 3 succesful World Cup tournaments in 1930, 1934 and 1938, world war 2 nearly killed FIFA for a second time. The federation struggled to financially survive during war years and was poor as crap when the war was over. FIFA had no other choice to raise funds than to organize games and tournaments with the only organizations that were still financially sound at the time: the British home nations in Europe and CONMEBOL in South America. It gave them voting power then which brought back England in FIFA. The next world cup was awarded to Brazil (1950), a CONMEBOL member, and 2 spots were reserved to British constituant countries (Scotland eventually withdrawing).

    All this to say that FIFA was fully aware from start that the creation of sub-confederations could only bring lobbying to the game, and it only reluctantly accepted it for financial reasons. The thing I don't figure out though is why the sudden change of heart in the 1950's, with the creation of UEFA and AFC in 1954, CAF in 1957, CONCACAF in 1961 and OFC in 1966.

    UEFA was created while Jules Rimet was still FIFA President. Reasons for its creation are rather obscure, generally it is shown as an effort to bring European nations together after the war, with the creation of European champions cup in 1955 and later the Euro in 1960. The thing is that I fail to understand why England fully endorsed that, despite its policy which was basically a lot more self-centered untill then. One of the reason advanced was that England wanted then to organize the World Cup at home in order to win it, but this doesn't feel a satisfying answer.

    In that whole story, it's always hard to find objective sources, people telling their version of facts are often very heavily biased. That's probably the reason why I have such a difficulty to find out how things actually happened.
     
  4. EvanJ

    EvanJ Member+

    Manchester United
    United States
    Mar 30, 2004
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't think it's too much to ask for four teams to have possibly long trips for one pair of games every four years.

    I know.
     

Share This Page