When uefa hosts its not clear what will happen. They opted out of the playoff, but the hosting team gets the extra spot, so maybe the could get 17 teams when hosting if they win the playoff.
CONCACAF will have six including the 3 hosts. They will also get an extra spot in the playoffs making two teams in the playoffs.
But according to your own analysis, "okay" European teams are going to be left out of the World Cup in favor of a whole lot of teams from other confeds that are less than okay? Why not give all 35 okay teams you listed a spot and then distribute the rest to the best other 13?
1. It wouldn’t be a World Cup. It would be a two region cup with a couple teams thrown in. 2. teams have good and bad years. Most of these teams just are not that good anymore... Norway - Currently ranked 53. Has not been to the WC since 98 Romania - ranked 30th and has not been since 98 Ireland - ranked 31 and has not been since 2002 Slovakia - ranked 28 and last appearance was 2010 Greece - ranked 44 Turkey - ranked 38 Ukraine - ranked 35 Russia - is a team like Scotland. Benefited by going to the WC many times and failed to make it out of the group until they hosted. These team just arent that good anymore and don’t up the quality of the WC either. Except maybe Greece, and Slovakia and they will have. Better chance of making it with 3 extra spots. Spread the wealth to other regions give 4 chances to make it out of a group like Russia or 7 like Scotland has had. It’s about time more teams from other regions are entering and this argument is silly because it’s already been decided.
No it wouldn't be. Under your model half the teams would be from those two regions and that would be more representation than under the actual one agreed to. Europe and South America in terms of success and merit do deserve more than 50% of the slots. What percentage of World Cup champs come from those two continents? How bout finalists? Semi Finalists? Quarter finalists? Group winners? If the balance shifts and there's more "okay" and better teams elsewhere this could be adjusted accordingly. No one should be given a free pass because of the name of a tournament, they should only be granted the opportunity to qualify. We're Americans where normally throwing a team in Toronto and maybe another Canadian city suffices to make an event a"World" championship. That is one extreme but it's not written down that "World" means proportional representation based on continent. By the way continents are geographic constructs and are the lowest form of facts IMO(because there's no consistent criteria for them geographically it's influenced by people). America and Eurasia, maybe Oceania are separate body's of land that should suffice as "continents". But Europe and Asia's separation nm the Middle East's purgatory between the two are constructs and Africa and South America only have a reason to exist separate because holes were built in the ground physically doing so by mankind. So I don't really feel any loyalty to these arbitrary geographic constructs and don't see why it's necessary to fairly distribute teams to these constructs rather than based on the merit. My selective defenses of these UEFA teams. I'm just saying I don't consider not qualifying an adequate argument for teams being bad, you've admitted meet your "okay" test. Also for some reason every team you've selected has made the group stage their last time in the World Cup which suggests them being left out despite their high ranking is a mistake. 1)Romania is one of the few European nations with over 10 million people. Romania when she did qualify made the knockout rounds in both 98 and 94 losing in the round of 16 and quarters. Meaning she's a mediocre power if you let her in. 2)Norway would not make the WC under my system not offering a defense. Norway made the round of 16 in 1998 though. 3)Ireland has barely missed WC qualifying the last several times. In 2010 Ireland actually earned a spot but Henry scored off a hand ball. Like Romania Ireland did great the last time she actually made it, and I've heard a belief that they could have won the WC that year in more than a few places. 4)Slovakia is ranked 28, that should really say everything we need to know about the country's place in a 2026 tournament that's supposed to have the best 48. Slovakia was part of Czechoslovakia a soccer power. Like with Romania and like with Ireland, Slovakia didn't perform bad when she was last in, getting to the knockout rounds and going out 2-1 to runners up Netherlands. 5)Greece won Euro 2004 and made a world cup quarterfinals in her last showing. 2014. Are they a European power? No and Greece was lucky to achieve both these outcomes IMO but Greece is clearly not terrible and has performed . 6)Turkey made the semis her last time out in the World Cup and the Euro semi's in 2008. Turkey has advanced further in the WC than any team in the history of Africa all but one in Asia and all but the US in 1930 in North America. 7)Ukraine made the quarterfinals her last time out.One of the largest populations in Europe. 8)Russia did not deserve a spot in 2018 if not the host. No arguments here. Russia still did beat Spain though. I don't understand why you picked teams who've advanced to the knockout rounds upon making the cup to prove your point that UEFA doesn't deserve more spots.
9 teams from Concacaf? really? Well cant be true. Host 3 Europe 16 Africa 9 Asia 8 South America 6 OCF 1 43 teams. And two play-off spots, = 45 teams. So 3 teams left for Concacaf i think
Including means they are part of the six. In World Cup USA Canada Mexico Qualifier 1 Qualifier 2 Qualifier 3 In Playoffs Qualifier 4 Qualifier 5
Your R32 elimination list is interesting. Here is that list, highlighting teams which appeared just once between 1998-2018. Complete list of R32 rejects (1 WC appearance since 1998): (Move your mouse to reveal the content) Complete list of R32 rejects (1 WC appearance since 1998): (open) Complete list of R32 rejects (1 WC appearance since 1998): (close) Bold font for teams which appeared once between 1998-2018. *Teams whose 1 WC appearance was in 2018. UEFA: AUT, BIH, BUL, CZE, ISL*, POL, SCO, SVN, CAF: ANG, CMR, EGY*, CIV, MAR, RSA, TGO, TUN. AFC: CHN, IRN, PRK, KSA. Concacaf: HON, JAM, PAN*, TRI. Conmebol: PER*. OFC: NZL. I wonder which *one-hit-wonders* will return after 2026 WC expansion.
I doubt it. A team in current bad shape will just do badly at the WC. 2018 was a great example. Just look at both GER + ARG... coincidentally both were finalists in 2014. Expansion slots should not be lifesavers for *traditional* teams. I expect *traditional* teams to earn their WC qualification without crutches. New crutches should be for emerging squads, instead.
It can be with the elite teams but not necessary that would happen. Brazil's 2001 and Argentina's 2009 were in a really bad shape too. And yet still Germany and Argentina (along with Brazil & Italy) better than anybody else says the record for their performances in overall World Cup history.
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for squad pedigree. It does not give you a pass for being mediocre at the world stage. If a NT has accumulated good WC achievements over decades, then it better not ask the FIFA community for subsidies.
The counterargument would be that the usual suspects being absent makes the tournament less popular. Now I would disagree and think the absence of the usual suspects makes the tourny more exciting because you get to see new teams make deep runs but my issue here is that the existing spots aren't being given out fairly instead of fulfilling regional quotas and if the 32 or 48 best teams were given spots these sorts of teams would usually qualify and are only just denied by a narrow margin. In that case they aren't being given crutches an unfair system is being made more fair.
The World Cup doesn't suffer from loss of popularity since the expansion of the number of representatives from the AFC and CAF et al. If anything, its the opposite which is true and that is the driving force behind making sure the tournament involves teams representing the 4 corners of the globe. Certainly, getting to the point where a side like China (and even India) are able to compete at this level will bring still more football fans and a lot more money to the game. These sides won't be qualifying by expanding UEFA's allocations. Ideally, the format that I prefer would not be based on quotas. That to me is wrong on principle. Qualification to the World Cup should move towards intercontinental qualifying games, with the role of the confederations to organize and oversee their continental championships as well as weeding out their minnows before an intercontinental qualifying format with say 64 teams divided into 16 groups of 4 teams, each group hosted in a different country, with at least 1 host in each confederation but otherwise these hosts picked among countries with the greatest potential for growth in the game based on objective factors. Other than in evening out the past unfair privileges to the bigger confederations by giving most of the hosting privileges to up and coming footballing countries with large enough populations and GDP, I seek no favoritism for lesser confederations and lesser sides. But I emphatically insist on a level playing field where teams qualify on results they obtain at the relevant time against relevant teams and not based on history and pedigree.
I guess intercontinental qualifiers would be the best way to do it "not based on history and pedigree". I would still prefer rankings but it would do a better job of proving the best 32 teams then just separating them by continent. My main issue with intercontinental qualifiers is how they would work and what they would prove versus rankings which value wins and losses. I would like an intercontinental qualifying season where all the teams are ranked and the best 48 make it. I also like the idea of allowing the continental champs to get auto bids as a replacement for the current confed allocation which will make those championships more valuable and would ensure treat them the same(not sure if this is true in Asia but in Europe and South America, their is a bit more parity which tends to imply the best WC teams tend to not value the tournament as much) as a free slot is a free slot and anyone can fail to qualify. Also would be open to letting the defending World Cup champion get in automatically again that way it would be an even 6 teams(in my hypothetical world Oceania wouldn't exist as a confederation so they'd be 5 confed champs) so they'd be 42 open slots, not that the champ has ever failed to qualify yet, just think pedigree to that limited extent should be respected. I think we would disagree on "relevant time", I don't think results from decades or 5-10 years ago should be factored in(rosters change) but there's only so many matches an international team can play in a short amount of time to provide an accurate picture of where they stand..
The idea of teams qualifying to the World Cup based on their rankings is a non-starter for several reasons. First, qualifiers are themselves important and exciting matches that bring fans to the game. Just having a few games once every 4 years as part of the World Cup experience diminishes it greatly. Second, there are problems with all the ranking systems and while FIFA Is changing its ranking system again, we still don't have a ranking system that enough people agree on as truly (or even largely) reflecting the actual status of teams in the world. Finally, while I agree that rankings should be given some role and weight (e.g., for seeding purposes as well as for purposes of weeding out minnows by exempting certain higher ranked teams in each confederation from preliminary qualifiers), conceptually the World Cup is a tournament and its logic should follow the tournament logic, which means sometimes the better team overall fails and the teams that win are those who have developed the mental and psychological as well as other attributes to take their chances at the most important times and games. As for Intercontinental Qualifying, while the details can be debated, the basic concept I mentioned is easy enough to implement. 16 groups with 4 teams in each group. Say 16 teams form UEFA and CAF; 16 from each of Conmebol+Concacaf and AFC+OFC; for a total of 64 teams. You can have 8-16 different hosts preselected based on the criterial I alluded to in my earlier posts. Some hosts could host 2 groups; others just the group they would be placed in. Lets say: China, India, Iran for the AFC; Morocco, and Nigeria for CAF; Canada and USA for Concacaf; and New Zealand for OFC; and Chile for Conmebol were picked as hosts for a total of 10 hosts. China, India, Iran, Morocco, USA and Canada could each host 2 groups (12/16 groups). New Zealand, Nigeria, Chile and Egypt could host 1 group each. The 64 teams would be put into 4 pots (UEFA, Conmebol/Concacaf, AFC/OFC, CAF) and each group would have 1 team from each pot. The best 2 teams from each group would advance to the World Cup, except the worst runner up team in these groups would not advance (to make room for the hosts). Or you could handle the issue differently. But who advances will at the end will depend on the actual results and not comparing apples and oranges. There are a lot of implicit and hidden favoritism for UEFA/Conmebol in the current structure that would be done away with, but the only favoritism for the lesser confederations would be greater hosting privileges (offsetting decades where the main tournament was basically hosted either in UEFA or Conmebol).
Disagree on qualifiers. Just random games against random teams spaced out over years. In terms of the FIFA rankings of course they aren't perfect, I would more or less just be fine with ELO, think it's fair. Per your proposal my main concern is you having less than 16 UEFA teams in the last 64. It's already been discussed that 16 teams out of the final 48 is unfair to UEFA and that UEFA only accepted this for the benefit of splitting up their teams. This would make UEFA even more poorly represented than they are today and to a ridiculous extent. Even if UEFA were to dominate qualifying I imagine they'd only get 6 or 7 teams in the World Cup? The America's don't need 16 spots in the final qualification round there's just not enough countries to justify that. There's enough room there for the entirety of Conmebol, the USA, Mexico, Canada, Costa Rica and two more North American countries. This is highly deferential. However the worst part of your model is that it also treats Oceania as an equal confederation to the others and will result in several ridiculously terrible teams getting into these pots at the expense of maybe hundreds of more deserving teams. At the end of the day I think FIFA is biased against Conmebol and especially UEFA there is no hidden favoritism at least for UEFA with Conmebol seeing how few countries there are and the top heavy nature of the confederation they are largely unaffected by any positive or negative bias. UEFA has been the main opponent of the Blatter administration. The current system favors everyone else at UEFA's expense and the votes of those confederation's in FIFA elections line up accordingly. Why was UEFA always the complaining confed? FIFA was only biased towards UEFA when Rous was President and when that was no doubt more blatant and extreme than the bias towards CAF,AFC, CONCOCAF and OCF(whose existence is bias) that bias is a relic of the past.
In my proposal, you have 16 teams from UEFA, 16 teams from CAF, 16 from AFC+OFC, and 16 from Conmebol+Concacaf for a total of 64 teams. In other words, UEFA would have 16 teams by itself. How many end up advancing will depend on how many are good enough to advance. Same for everyone else.
For a 32 team World Cup, one proposal was to start qualifying within confederations, with each confederation getting a quota in 15 intercontinental groups of 6 that could be done in one year with the top 2 in each group qualifying. The host wouldn't have to qualify, and the final spot could go to the defending champion or to the best third place team. I don't like choosing 1 out of 15 third place teams, so I would have the top 4 third place teams play two playoff rounds for the last spot. 48 teams is different. For World Cup 2026 with 3 hosts, there could be 15 intercontinental groups of 6 with the top 3 in each group qualifying. Some countries are poor and cannot afford many trips around the world, including Honduras who qualified for World Cups 2010 and 2014 and finished fourth in the 2016 Olympics, so it wouldn't make sense to have every team play games at other confederations.
But the 48 team finals proposal has 16 teams from UEFA and they are already not properly represented. 48 out of 64 is even worse. Not as bad as 8 as I thought you were implying but still pretty unfair to UEFA. You are leaving out teams good enough to advance though because there's more than 16 UEFA teams good enough to advance. The best 32 or 48 teams will not end up in the World Cup. This system simply favors non UEFA confederations and they do not deserve that many spots and no not every deserving team would get a chance to qualify.
You and I obviously don't agree on much when it comes to UEFA teams and how many of them we should want in the World Cup. For me, at least, the least interesting games at the World Cup were ones like Sweden v Switzerland et al. But to be clear, once you have 16 teams from UEFA, 16 from CAF, 16 from Conmebol/Concacaf and 16 from AFC/OFC to make up 64 teams divided into 16 groups, you will have 1 UEFA team in each group. With 2 teams advancing from each of these groups, if the UEFA teams are at all so meritorious as your claim, almost all of the 16 UEFA teams should advance to the World Cup. Which would mean 3 more UEFA sides than the present quota. I doubt, in fact, that will happen. My view is that you would get probably 12-13 UEFA sides advancing initially and, overtime, the number falling to 9-10. But regardless, if any side advances on merit, it would have to be by defeating the teams from the lesser confederations you are so dismissive about.
This will never happen... The "lesser confederations" won't take that risk. They'll rather keep on whining and blaming others until they get an even more corrupt Fifa official to give them an extra place... It's the PC way... The easy way...
Falling to 9-10? I dont see that happen. Right now i can see like 25-29 teams from Uefa advance to round of 16 if the could qualify. About Sweden-Swiss, u rather see saker teams play ifrån the match is more "fun" in World Cup?