The new FIFA rankings are out for June. Top 7 teams seeded (South Africa automatically seeded as hosts) Code: Total WC FIFA 1 Italy 59.3 27.3 32 1 Brazil 59.3 29.3 30 1 Germany 59.3 30.3 29 4 France 54.3 23.3 31 5 England 51.3 26.3 25 5 Spain 51.3 25.3 26 7 Portugal 49.3 22.3 27 8 Argentina 49.0 21.0 28 9 Netherlands 38.7 14.7 24 10 Ukraine 36.7 16.7 20 11 Sweden 35.3 19.3 16 12 Mexico 32.3 19.3 13 13 Croatia 31.0 9.0 22 14 USA 30.7 13.7 17 15 Czech 29.0 6.0 23 16 Ghana 28.3 13.3 15 17 Cameroon 22.0 3.0 19 18 Romania 21.0 0.0 21 19 Japan 20.3 13.3 7 20 Cote d'Ivoire 20.0 6.0 14 21 Paraguay 19.7 11.7 8 22 Korea 18.7 15.7 3 23 Greece 18.0 0.0 18 24 Australia 15.3 11.3 4 25 Uruguay 14.7 2.7 12 26 Costa Rica 14.3 8.3 6 27 Nigeria 12.7 2.7 10 28 Colombia 11.0 0.0 11 29 Iran 10.3 5.3 5 30 Morocco 9.0 0.0 9 31 South Africa 5.0 3.0 2 32 Uzbekistan 1.0 0.0 1 Time to revive this, I think. Especially since the rankings in December will be frozen (see below), and also the big draw this November which will affect things. Thanks to eldiablito and Edgar for their work on this in previous months. FAQ Why is this list different than FIFA's Coca-Cola rankings? Because Fifa's Coca-Cola rankings are only part of the complex seeding formula. What is the seeding formula used for? The seeding formula is used to determine which 8 countries receive seeds. Those 8 teams are heads of each of the 8 groups in the world cup. By being seeded, they get the luxury of not having to play another seeded team until the knockout stage. What is the seeding formula exactly? The complex formula takes into account the performance at the last 2 world cups and the FIFA rankings. Part A: World Cup performance = (2002*1+2006*2)/3 Part B: FIFA Ranking = (12/2007 rank+12/2008 rank+11/2009 rank)/3 Part A + Part B = world cup seeding formula For the purposes of this showing you the current standings in this thread, the current FIFA rank will count as all three years. How is the world cup performance determined? 0 points are awarded if the country failed to qualify that year. The 16 teams that didn't make it out of the group stage are ranked (Points, GD, GF). The bottom 8 get 8 points each. The top 8 get 9 points each. All the countries that advanced to the knockout stage are placed from 1st place to 16th place. 1st place (champs) receives 32 points. 2nd place receives 31 points. 3rd place receives 30 points. etc. All the way to 16th place which receives 17 points. How are the points for FIFA ranking awarded? Similarly to above. First, all 32 teams that qualify are ranked by their FIFA ranking. The best is given 32 points. The worst 1 point. If two or more teams have the same FIFA ranking, the points are not divided among them. Instead, the one shown first in the FIFA rankings gets the most points and so on. How do you pick which 32 countries to run the seeding formula? I pick the countries based on their FIFA ranking by federation. For example, the best 13 UEFA teams by FIFA ranking since 13 UEFA teams will qualify. This is done primarily for two reasons. It keeps the criteria objective and it runs the formula with the worst-case scenario in mind. 13-UEFA 4.5-CONMEBOL 3.5-CONCACAF 5.0-AFC+OFC 6.0-CAF (5+host) Are you sure that FIFA will use this seeding formula? No, it might change slightly. For 2006 they only used the previous 2 World Cups instead of 3 like before. But they've been using the same basic formula since 1994. Previous Editions July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006
Mock Draw Pot 1: Brazil, England, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, South Africa, Spain Pot 2: Croatia, Czech Republic, Greece, Netherlands, Romania, Sweden, Ukraine Pot 3: Australia, Costa Rica, Iran, Japan, Korea Republic, Mexico, USA, Uzbekistan Pot 4: Argentina, Cameroon, Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Morocco, Nigeria, Paraguay, Uruguay Group A: South Africa, Czech Republic, USA, Paraguay Group B: Spain, Ukraine, Mexico, Nigeria Group C: France, Iran, Cote d'Ivoire, Colombia Group D: England, Croatia, Japan, Ghana Group E: Brazil, Sweden, Uzbekistan, Morocco Group F: Italy, Netherlands, Costa Rica, Argentina Group G: Portugal, Romania, Korea Republic, Uruguay Group H: Germany, Greece, Australia, Cameroon Argentina not being seeded would certainly create the possibility of a monster group like shown here, much more than a top Euro team not being seeded. Of course I'm doubtful something like this would happen.
Right. Copa America will probably vault Argentina back up higher in the rankings. And the long CONMEBOL qualifying campaign where everyone has to play all the other teams twice certainly helps as well. If Argentina qualifies for the World Cup, their ranking will go back up significantly. There aren't many issues worth bringing up this early, since so much can change. But one that I think can be discussed is the US/Mexico debate. There was a lot of talk last time about which team would/should get a seed if one went to a CONCACAF squad. This time, there's really not much doubt that Mexico has the inside track. The World Cup rankings won't change and we start nearly 6 full points behind. That means we're going to have to finish 7 full spots in front of Mexico, on average, over the next three years in the FIFA rankings. Finishing ahead of Mexico in the Gold Cup AND the Copa America seems like a must, just to start. Because if we split the two (finishing better in one and worse in the other), we'll probably end the year about 4 spots ahead of Mexico (where we are now). That will then mean we will need to finish an average of 9 spots or so ahead of Mexico at the end of the next two years. Bottom line is this: you certainly can't win a seed this far out, but if we don't win the Gold Cup and finish ahead of Mexico in Copa America, we very well may lose one before the game even begins. Of course, for either Mexico or the US to have a chance at a seed, we need a few of the UEFA teams above us to either miss out on qualifying for EURO and/or do poorly in WCQ, so the point might be moot.
I'm glad to see some folks are keeping this thread alive. The new seeding formula is a bit easier to work with than the last one. Winning the Gold Cup would be a huge boost for the U.S., because every win at the Gold Cup has a 3x multiplier because it is the Continental final. Hopefully, FIFA will count matches in the Copa America the same way for the U.S. (and Mexico). In the past, teams that played in the Gold Cup from outside CONCACAF got "Continental final" multipliers even though they were playing outside their region. If that holds true again, the U.S. will have a chance to boost its rating some more (of course, it has to actually get some results). One other thing worth noting: If a team plays 5 or more games, then its point total for the ranking over the past 12 months is the total number of points earned in the formula divided by the number of matches. So, if the U.S. goes 0-3 in the Copa, in terms of the rankings only, it would have been better off not playing. http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/documentlibrary/facts/rankingawards.html
The U.S. isn't getting a seed. We could go undefeated the next 3 and a half years winning 2 Gold Cups, Copa America and the Confederations Cup and we still wouldn't get a seed. And really we shouldn't get a seed. We finished bottom of our group in the last World Cup. Let's make it to the quarters or semis in South Africa and then we can talk seed in 2014.
You're probably right about the U.S. not deserving a seed. But the FIFA formula is such that if you get the Coke Rankings high enough the U.S. might have a chance. Especially if a Euro team or two fails to make it.
If we win Gold Cup, Copa, and Confederations, we would probably be the best team in the world going into 2010 and would deserve a seed.
I think we have a definite shot at a seed. Yeah, we were last in our group, but we still made the WC in 2006. We made it to the quarters and lost by 1 goal in 2002. And we're within striking distance of being in the Top 10 by December. Of course, this is before CA. Do CA results count in the rankings, since we're officially "guests"?
FIFA counts the Copa America as a "Continental Final" for both the U.S. and Mexico (even though they're guests). FIFA doesn't have a way of counting a game as a Friendly for one team and as a final for another. So it counts the guest games as Continental Finals (with the 3x multiplier) for everybody. It used to do the same thing for guest teams in the Gold Cup, too. If both the U.S. and Mexico do poorly in the Copa, it might work to the Americans' advantage. As far as the FIFA Coke Rankings are concerned, Mexico only won 3 games in the Gold Cup (against Cuba, Panama and Costa Rica). Mexico lost to Honduras and USA (no points gained there). And the match against Guadaloupe doesn't count in the rankings because Guadaloupe isn't in FIFA. So, while the U.S. picked up 6 wins with the 3x multiplier, Mexico only got 3. If Mexico tanks in the Copa, then the U.S. will have picked up some ground in the Coke Rankings.
Just goes to show how much bullshit makes it into the FIFA world rankings criteria. For a world-wide ranking system to work properly all the teams participating in the system need to be judged/gauged on an equal footing. Then what happens on the field is the true determinant of "footballing goodness". FWIW, there should be only 1 (nominated in advance) continental championship used for the ranking points in any 1 WC 4-year period. Only an equal number of WCQ's and Friendlies should be allowed in the points mix. As relative position in the rankings is already taken into account, the inter-continental strengths factor should be dropped (otherwise it's double dipping & deliberately skewed towards the higher ranked confederations). FIFA haven't been very strong in statistics and maths when it comes to creating this crappy "yardstick", but it is better than the previous one.
The US will not get a seed under the last seeding formula. Even if the US were ranked number 1, we would have 45.7 points, well below the amount needed to get a seed. Also, the way the ranking formula is structured, it's practically impossible for the US (or anyone outside of UEFA or CONMEBOL) to be ranked at the top. Our games simply are not worth as much because of the continental modifier. We could win out until December 2009 and still not be ranked number 1. Mexico is equally screwed and will not get a seed in 2010. Our only hope for a seed are (1) multiple teams in front of us fail to qualify or (2) FIFA changes the seeding formula.
Look, I'm opening an old wound here but we should have been seeded in the 2006 WC, but FIFA bumped the USA in favor of Mexico and we ended up unseeded and in a group with Italy and the Czech Republic. So you are right, no matter how much the USA wins we'll get knocked down by FIFA anyway. On gaining points from the Copa America, it doesn't look good as US Soccer took a youth team while everyone else is stacked.
Did I make it sound differently? As of right now, the Americans neither deserve or will get a seed. Of course, we could be left with the unfortunate scenario of deserving a seed and not getting one because of FIFA's ridiculous new rankings.
No, we shouldn't have had a seed. In fact, the changes FIFA made to the formula actually helped the US last time. You're delusional.