World Cup Expansion to 48 Teams (Update: FIFA Council Agrees 2026 Slot Allocation)

I don’t see a big problem here... Iran lost. This is more on Iran losing then what happens in the 3rd game.

These 3 team groups will be tough. If a team doesn’t have 4 or 6 points after the first 2 matches then they risk going home.

 

The implication from the statement that "the US still has 60 points from beating Paraguay back in 1930." is that if the US had not played that match then their Elo rating would be 60 points less than what it is now. In fact, the difference would be 0. While that match lifted the US rating by 60 at that point in 1930, it meant their result of the next match was slightly less positive (or more negative) than it would have been, and the match after that and the match after that. Eventually, the impact of that 1930s match becomes zero.

It should be noted that in reality the FIFA rankings also included the results of every single international ever played, even though the formula for the rankings only included the results of matches in the last four years. But the points won./lost in each match depended on the team's ranking at the time - so the value of the matches from four year ago depended on numbers that involved matches from four years previous to that, which involved the results of matches from four years previous to that, and so on and so on....

Those very old matches had a vanishingly small impact on the rankings, but they were included, just as they are in Elo (and also, just as vanishingly irrelevantly)

J

 

Got it. I agree.

My point in my post was to imply how slow moving ELO rankings are. It’s not going to give an instant snapshot of ranking. It takes a lot of time and a long run of bad or good results to move teams in directions. Sometimes a really good result or 2 like Spain and Egypt in 2009 can move you up by a lot. These 2 games took the US from 26 to 10th. Most games played don’t move teams up or down that much.

Take a look at US rank through the decades...

1910s ended with a rank of 13th
1920s ended at 21
1930s ended at 20
1940s ended at 36
1950s ended at 80
1960s ended at 76
1970s ended at 69
1980s ended at 46
1990s ended at 20
2000s ended at 17
That brings us to this decade and the US is still benefiting from its good 2013 & 2014. (1930s results and even 2009 results have been wiped away)...

2011 ended at 37
2012 ended at 26
2013 ended at 13
2014 ended at 19
2015 ended at 30
2016 ended st 32
2017 ended at 27
Brings us to 25 in 2018

The above illustrates how slow moving the ranking can be.

 

I would actually not argue these are slow moving. In reality the US is limited in where it could logically sit, given its size of its likely playing pool and its economic strength - 10th is probably the best place they could sit, and around 40th the worst. The move from 2013 to 2015, from 13th to 30th is almost a move from extreme best to close to worst in the course of a dozen or so matches - that seems quite a quick change to me.

If Elo suffers from anything is that is overreacts to a single surprise. However, in the context in which it was developed - chess - that is unlikely to have an impact due to the way chess tournaments are structured. As they go along, you naturally play players who have done about as well as you in the tournament and converge on a pretty decent ranking. A player might score a huge upset in the first round - and get a massive boost to their score - but unless they continue that across the 5-10 other games in the tournament (in which case a boost to their rankings is proven to be justified) that will rapidly dissipate. As rankings are generally only considered once the entire tournament has run its course, the impact of that shock result is muted - your last couple of matches will usually just see a few point exchanged as you are playing those who have similar results to you.

That is not always the case in football - particular in qualifying tournaments or with friendlies - your last match might have been against a minnow who got a shock win and suddenly your Elo score is way off where it should be.

Again, as I have noted before, this is a bias in the Elo methodology that affects football in a way that doesn't occur in chess. All rankings systems have their biases based on their underlying assumptions, often assumptions that are not obvious at first glance.

My other issue with this (and it is related) is that margin of victory is a real thing in football in a way it isn't in chess - if Brazil plays Guam we would expect them to win - but that boosts (probably not enough to have an impact but conceptually it increases) the ranking of Brazil and lowers that of Guam. Again, in the chess context this is mitigated because your last match in a tournament is set to be against someone where the expected margin between the two of you is relatively small so their will naturally be less at stake.

But if Brazil played Guam in 5 matches and won each of them 1-0 frankly I would be lowering Brazil's rank and raising Guam's because 1-0 is well below what the ranking suggests the gap should be. So I would argue Guam's ranking should rise - rather than fall as it does in Elo (not that FIFA rankings do this either, but still).

J

 

Yes, but that quick move from 13th to 30th took 2 years. People want these moves to be instant and happen in weeks or months not years.

 

Silly question about ELO: how would the US rank fare if it had to start with zeros for decades 1910-9 thru 1960-9?

You said that ELO stats from 1930s were wiped away, but I like said... silly question.

I am trying to understand if it would suffer as much as those for CAF teams.

I recall that CAF teams could not build a proper historic record before 1970, due to FIFA's barrier to have both Africa and Asia fight for 1 WC spot.

 

Most African countries were not independent nations before the 60's. Only Egypt, South Africa, I think Ethiopia and maybe another couple of countries were. So I don't think you can blame Fifa on this one.

 

And then you have Indonesia: participated in 1938 WC, despite being a Dutch colony.

CAF had to boycott the 1966 WC so that FIFA took non-Western football seriously: 15 African nations played qualifiers then.

So we can certainly say that FIFA was unwilling to open up the WC, specifically its then-president: Stanley Rous.

Shambolic move by FIFA: try to qualify South Africa to 1966 WC via an Oceania+Asia qualifier, even though it was banned by CAF, due to its apartheid policy.

Upon reinstating South Africa, Stanley Rous said to British press: "If South Africa applies segregation in soccer that is its concern ... all we are interested in is to see the controlling body of soccer in this country furthering the cause of football to the best of its ability". (source).

The question still stands: how is a long-running ELO rating affected if zeros are placed for decades prior to year 1970?

 

If historical underdogs start playing like powers, historically ELO has rewarded them and rewarded them fast.

 

"Ratings tend to converge on a team's true strength relative to its competitors after about 30 matches. Ratings for teams with fewer than 30 matches should be considered provisional."

https://www.eloratings.net/about

I'm betting that most African countries have played 30 matches since 1960.

Why is it so difficult for people to admit that their teams have bad rankings because they simply suck?

Come on everyone repeat after me:
"My team sucks and it's nobody else's fault but our own".

The sooner you are able to admit that, the sooner you'll start improving.

 

They didn't have to boycott, they chose to. Prior to 1966 very few African nations entered qualifying. It can just as easily be said that before 1966 African football didn't take the world cup seriously, with very few bothering to enter and a lot of those teams withdrawing without playing a match. There were very few Asian teams entered for 1966 (3) so sharing a spot between Africa and Asia wasn't a ridiculous notion, especially as they both had to play European teams to qualify in the previous tournament. I don't think FIFA were being unreasonable in 1966.

 

Could you provide examples where lots of CAF nations withdrew before 1966?

CAF wanted African presence at the WC. Its weight within FIFA was growing fast and the status quo was no longer sustainable: it had 15 federations ready to go by 1966 WC qualifiers.

For 1962 WC qualifiers:
CAF - 4 nations ran qualifiers; got 0.5 WC slots.
Conmebol - 7 nations ran qualifiers; got 3.5 WC slots.

1962 WC qualifiers details (open) 1962 WC qualifiers details (close)

CAF:
6 nations entered qualifiers; 2 withdrew after FIFA rejected their monsoon-proof calendar.
Had a 0.5 playoff ticket.

Conmebol:
1 host + 1 prior champion already qualified.
7 nations entered qualifiers.
Had 3 automatic slots + a 0.5 playoff ticket.

For 1966 WC qualifiers:
CAF - 15 nations ran qualifiers and boycotted; got 0.5 WC slots.
Conmebol - 9 nations ran qualifiers; got 3 WC slots.

qualifiers details (open) qualifiers details (close)

CAF:
17 nations wanted to participate in qualifiers; Congo-Brazzaville was rejected by FIFA; FIFA moved South Africa to Asia+Oceania zone.
15 nations to produce 1 CAF champion, with South Africa waiting on the other end.
Had a 0.5 playoff ticket.

Conmebol:
1 prior champion already qualified.
9 nations entered qualifiers.
Had 3 automatic slots.

African countries had no alternative to a boycott, because FIFA was not listening.
They planned a 1964 Olympics boycott, too. Failed to get South Africa expelled from the 1960 games, so they threatened the IOC for 1964 compliance with the Olympic anti-discrimination charter.

CAF had already expelled South Africa in 1958. The International Olympic Committee followed suit before the 1964 games and kept it out until 1992.

FIFA ignored all that. Reinstated South Africa on 1963 and fast-tracked its qualification: skip CAF qualifier rounds, move into Asia+Oceania zone instead.

Why all that FIFA consideration for an African country which never played qualifiers?
South Africa needed good international press, after it left British Commonwealth on 1961. It was becoming very isolated.
Its British political ally, FIFA president Rous was glad to give a hand: after 1963 inspections in South Africa, Rous declared in his FIFA report that "there is no wilful discrimination on the part of FASA in respect of any organization in South Africa".

This is what I mean by FIFA's unwillingness to open up the WC for *certain* countries. No basis on sports, but politics (perhaps money+politics?).

 

I thought it was fair to ask, as it seemed that ELO numbers take very long to generate.

If 1910-1970 datasets are no longer valid input, then shouldn't ELO calculations be faster to generate?

I do recall Uruguay submitting a proposal to cut down UEFA rivals from the WC too.
At the 1972 FIFA Congress in Paris, Uruguay proposed that the 4 seats of the Home Nations be cut to 1.
The bottom line was to free up WC slots for other confeds, just in time when Uruguay was slipping into a period of WC failures.

I guess someone should have told Uruguay that same mantra back then.

 

I mean this was a somewhat reasonable request. Those aren't separate countries for any purpose except soccer(for now). Should the separate former Italian and German Kings get teams, how about Catalonia?

Also a unified UK squad would be better and would probably be more successful. Imagine Robbie Keane and Bale playing for England?

 

Spot on, absolutely 100%.

 

Yes I can. So can you if you bother to research. Before 1966 there had been a total of 11 nominations in all world cups from african nations, with 6 of them coming in 1962 (two withdrawls left them with 4 teams). There were 5 withdrawals from those 11 times, with Egypt (3 times) and Sudan (twice) being the teams that entered and withdrew on multiple occasions. You may not define 5 out of 11 as a lot, but I do.

 

For FIFA the only things of interests are those linked to the Europe and America continents, plain and simple (too generous to UEFA and CONMEBOL places), that's why the Brazilian Joao Havelange came to power on the back of African votes, later Blatter showed most interest in the rest of the world (in developing football too), and of course aims to win votes as well.

The thing simply is, many often fall into the trap of thinking that European third-tier such as for example Switzerland and Bulgaria seems to be on the same level as West Germany and England or the Conmebol second-tier teams such as Peru and Chile are at the same level as Brazil and Argentina.
The very top teams in Africa, Asia and Concacaf in a long way behind (the elite ones), but they are in not much different from rest of the world.
You can see it by your example of the World Cup 1966, North Korea drew 1-1 vs Chile, North Korea have qualifed for the quarter-final while Chile finish dead bottom of the group out early and went home.
Switzerland and Bulgaria in a rock-bottom while the best CAF teams never get even a chance, the last one who had a chance to qualify for the World Cup before 1966 was Morocco, FIFA put them face to face with an elite team of Spain's Di Stefano so they failed to qualify but showed that they can be competitive and among the exciting ones than some of the weakest UEFA sides who participated in the 1966 World Cup.
Australia drew 0-0 with Chile in the 1974 World Cup, what is the significant difference between the second-tier Conmebol team (Chile) and the best team in Asia/Oceania region in 1974.
The CONMEBOL got 4 spots for the 1982 World Cup, half of them are cannon fodder (Peru and Chile). While CAF with (only) two teams Algeria and Cameroon and they playing great football that has thoroughly revived the tournament, why FIFA didn't invite the third CAF team at that tournament instead of seeing Peru and Chile's atrocious and humiliating by losing 1-5 and 1-4 to Poland and West Germany respectively.

So the answer to that, yes sharing a spot between Africa and Asia was a ridiculous notion in 1966, and if you think AFC & CAF teams are not good enough the same goes with the likes of Switzerland, Bulgaria, Chile and France in 1966.
Just remember the teams that would have participate are only the very top teams of CAF, Concacaf and AFC.

 

I believe the participation record prior to 1966 shows there was very little interest in the World Cup from African nations prior to then, and I think its a bit rich to boycott a tournament the very first time you seriously try to enter it just because you have 3 nations from Asia included in the qualification path. Prior to 1966 only one African nation ever qualified and that was 32 years prior when only 2 nations outside Europe and America entered. Not sure why you think that their participation up until 1962 warranted a spot in 1966. Asia didn't have a spot on their own before then either. Both regions either had a spot between them or had to play a European team to qualify prior to 1970. I don't see the performance of teams since then as being relevant to 1966. Africa hadn't made an impact (neither had Asia before North Korea's efforts in 1966) so its not surprizing to me that FIFA didn't separate them from Asia. They probably had an easier path than 1962 when they had to play off against UEFA.

There is one region today still doesn't have representation, has often had to playoff against former champions to qualify, and even though they got through playoffs twice in a row with their teams making the second round once and finishing 3rd once they still didn't get a spot. Africa was treated by FIFA in the 1960's much better than OFC was treated in the 2000's.

 

oooof... Serenity now!

In 1966 Quarter finals
1970 Semi finals

And in 1972 Uruguayans are thinking that they were slipping into a period of WC failures?
I'm sure that trying to limit Rous' votes and elect Havelange had nothing to do with it

 

I think UK unification was unreasonable back in the 1970s. Not sure about today either.

Catalonia runs its own football federation, and remains unaffiliated to FIFA.

Or you could ask Croatia to give back its silver medal. Maybe reunification of Yugoslavia would bring them the gold medal?

 

Yugoslavia doesn't exist though and when it did Croatia didn't have it's own team. We saw what Yugoslavia was capable of and Croatia has largely inherited their reputation.

I do think the Scots will be independent and that the idea is unfeasible but they are still an anomaly. I also find Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland's teams to be fascinating but I'd also find the same to be true of lots of national teams that don't and shouldn't exist and that's probably part of why IMO.

 

Point taken. Uruguayan officials could not have had that much foresight.

Or perhaps they did?

You may recall that Conmebol was pushing for WC expansion (16->24 teams) towards Argentina's 1978 WC.

Conmebol was paving the road to protect its slice of pie: CAF member strength was growing at FIFA, and Conmebol worried about new WC slot allocation.

If you eliminated 3 British Home Nations seats at the Executive Council, then Conmebol would improve its chances at new slot allocation. The ExCo had the last say on WC slot allocations.

Hyenas were smelling Rous's blood in the air, and were unafraid to take any chances against an outgoing FIFA president and his pals.

 

The main idea should be what does each country want today.
Those 4 British nations will not assimilate into 1 conglomerate. Period.

Uruguay did not ask in 1972 for UK territorial unification. It was pressing for less UEFA votes at the ExCo level... Conmebol was desperate to bring WC expansion just in time for the 1978 WC at Argentina, and secure a good portion of the new WC slots.

 

But they aren't nations(at least for now) really. The reason they exist is because they previously existed and they didn't want to change the status quo and FIFA didn't care enough.

Again I find rooting myself for the non English UK teams to qualify and wold gain no pleasure from seeing them merge with England, besides Germany they are probably the teams I would root for the most. I'm just arguing the logic.

This makes even more sense as one country or continent getting extra representation from distinct regions within it could be seen as unfair, even if those teams remain separate. Yugoslavia and other empires had this happen after they actually politically divided.

 

"Uruguayan officials" and "foresight"... in the same sentence!
Brrr! ...Just the thought of it is scary