15 countries with a population over 0,5 mln. Thats probably why they have 3,5 and not 4 slots. Much like Oceania only has 0,5 a spot.
If they give spots to UEFA and CONMEBOL based on performance, they can rearrange the spots a little bit for the other confederations.
Very interesting thread... to be honest, in the past I used to disrespect concacaf's football.. but after this world cup, I'm not going to disrespect concacaf's football anymore, or at least not as much as i used to do it in the past. Either way... Some of you think that conmebol should only have 1 or 2 spots given that there are only 10 nations in our confederation, however, you need to keep in mind these factors: 30% of conmebol's nations have won the world cup 40% of conmebol's nations have reached a semifinal in a world cup 70% of conmebol's nations have reached quarterfinals in a world cup furthermore you need to keep in mind the following: -90% of conmebol's nations have football as their main sport... only in Venezuela, football is not the main sport... in Venezuela, football is the second most popular sport. -the smallest nation in south america has a population of 3 million people. for all those reasons, conmebol is granted 4.5 spots... Now, how about concacaf? what % of concacaf's nations have football as their main sport? take care.
Who thinks that? Did someone state that CONMEBOL should have 1 or 2 spots? No. All I said was that if CONMEBOL is overrepresented, as it has only 10 countries in a 209 member FIFA and if we were to allocate based on a quantatitive argument they would have 1,5 spots (less than 5% out of 32). This is a factual observation, not a subjective comment. No one here called for CONMEBOL slots to be taken away, although its pretty obvious on a political level that CAF, CONCACAF or AFC won't be losing any slots - only UEFA and CONMEBOL will. Similarly CONMEBOL won't be gaining any slots on the back of AFC or CAF, at best it can take something from UEFA.
The number of teams CONMEBOL sends to the world cup is appropriate to the quality of soccer that is played there. CONMEBOL might be overrepresented if you look at the number of teams from CONMEBOL at the world cup and compare it to the size of their confederation but CAF and AFC are overrepresented if you compare the quality of those confederations to the number of teams those confederations send to the world cup. <-- This is a factual observation, not a subjective comment.
Granted, FIFA is one of the most politically corrupt fronts of all big institutions, so thinking they could improve anything just for the better is pointless, but the beautiful game needs more than small changes before 2018 - none more so than the extra time dredge. Since golden goal is just too much for too many, I say compromise with Golden Time. At then end of regulation, you have a 15 minute period. If at the end of the 15 min period one team is ahead they win. If its still nill, you have a second 15 min period. If still nill, you have 10 min periods until one team leads at the end of a period. Each team gets one additional sub each period. This rewards team depth and team play in the flow of the game.
.....No....just no. I'm sorry, but I have to say that's a terrible idea and way off topic. I'm not even a moderator.
Concacaf had an excellent World Cup, with Costa Rica still not eliminated while the US and Mexico made the 2nd round. But having an excellent World Cup, IMO, does not entitle any confederation added allocations. When it comes to allocations, the issue to me is two-fold: First, are there deserving sides from that confederation being left out of the World Cup, or conversely, are there sides from that confederation that clearly do not belong suggesting the confederation is being under or over represented, as the case might be? Second, is there something about the population and potential of the confederation in question that merits finding ways to promote the game in that confederation to improve its representation in the tournament or, conversely, does it make no difference to the game and its following worldwide if more teams from that confederation made it to the World Cup? On the first question, Concacaf is not really deserving since there are no sides unrepresented in the World Cup who were missed, particularly when you look at Honduras' performance. On the second question, more over, as long as the US and Mexico qualify, there is absolutely no reason to believe that promoting football in Trinidad or Jamaica or Panama or El Salvador will make a bit of difference to the development of the game globally. Thus, leaving aside my view that no confederation deserves more guaranteed spots beyond a basic minimum required to ensure diversity, even on the more general criteria I alluded to, I don't think Concacaf deserves any more spots. Concacaf are fully deserving of their present allocation and are no longer punching bags for bigger confederations. They haven't been for some time and this World Cup made the point with emphasis. But that is about it.
The question of these extra slots is really about which marginal teams should be in. As long as there is a good representation among that pool it is good. CONCACAF should clearly not go below 4 or 3.5, but I'd be ok with having two marginals from each confed. Right now, conmebol and CONCACAF generally have fewer marginal sides than CAF AFC and UEFA. But not by enough to worry about. Is be ok with shifting another a lot to a split between AFC and say Conmebol. (That is, have two intercontinental playoff slots) What I really want is to stop hearing how CONCACAF qualifying is a cakewalk. Teams like Italy, England, Portugal, Greece, and Croatia finished behind those "cakewalk" CONCACAF sides. Comoetition is pretty stiff
Never has CONCACAF done this well in the WC - same maybe can be said for CONMEBOL when number of wins is taken in the account - so far. I'm all for CONCACAF getting that 0.5 spot but if FIFA didn't change allocation after tournaments UEFA was successful in (almost all other world cups) - even this world cup can be successful for Europe - if UEFA puts 2 teams in the final. USA has done well - valiant effort. https://vine.co/v/MUEbpOHnT1M (almost all 11 US players in the 6 yard box) lets not get cocky though CONCACAF qualifying is still more than a cakewalk "fewer marginal sides" ?????? Mexico USA Costa Rica ^ only three constant teams in CONCACAF the rest are below average or just plain terrible What teams are you talking about - "fewer marginal sides"? Costa Rica Mexico USA Honduras Jamaica Panama - never made the WC? Canada Guatemala El Salvador T&T Antigua and Barbuda Haiti Cuba Guyana ??? Yes 7 European teams got knocked out: Russia Portugal Bosnia <---- cheated/robbed by amateur New Zealand referees from an amateur confederation of Oceania - that wanted to see Nigeria go through - Nigeria was gifted the second round Italy England Spain Croatia All of those 7 teams are better than anything CONCACAF has outside of USA, Costa Rica and Mexico. Not that I'm saying that those three CONCACAF sides are better than all of those knocked out UEFA teams. Bosnia for example just before the start of the world cup beat Mexico (and most that watched the game will say BiH dominated for most of the match).
those seven teams made the cup. (and no, not all of those are better than the nonqualifiers from Concacaf.)
This actually already happened in UEFA competitions. It was called the silver goal rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_goal#Silver_goal
As an American, I do not want more automatic spots for CONCACAF. We need opportunities to play under pressure. I am for expanding numbers of teams in the one round inter-continental play-offs.
Which ones are not better than which ones? Keep in mind I've recently watched Serbia and France toy with Jamaica and that is one of the better teams from CONCACAF. Also I've watched Bosnia dominate Mexico for most of the match - just before the World Cup - with both teams using their world cup 23 player roster (and Mexico is one of the elite teams - if not the best team from CONCACAF from what they have shown at this World Cup). So which one of these teams: Jamaica Panama - never made the WC? Canada Guatemala El Salvador T&T Antigua and Barbuda Haiti Cuba Guyana Is better than these UEFA teams that got knocked out (be precise): Russia Portugal Bosnia Italy England Spain Croatia I'm quite intrigued to find out what teams you come up with. This is more of a joke to me - because to me there is no argument - but I like good entertainment.
One good WC run by one of their members is not enough merit. If in 2-3 World Cups a Concacaf nation makes it far then they should prob consider it.
Not only has this already happened in UEFA (in Euro 2004 to be precise), but it was a terrible idea that didn't encourage any more attacking at all, hence it being scrapped before the next tournament.
I actually think that logically, the golden goal rule is the one that makes the most sense. You play 90 minutes plus injury time. If you score in the last second of regulation, you win. If regulation has expired, you just extend the "last second" until someone scores or until is not longer feasible to continue (30 minutes overtime if no goal is scored is fine). It makes sense and while I actually seen Iran be the better team and yet lose a match on the golden goal rule (e.g., the 2000 quarterfinal between Iran and S.Korea), I think that kind of thing can happen regardless. I see no reason why once a goal is scored after regulation, the match needs to continue and I am not sure why the golden goal rule was abandoned either?
It was abandoned because more often than not it failed to do what it was intended to achieve. It was meant to promote attacking play in extra-time as the reward was so much greater - victory. But in reality it meant that teams were frequently even more cautious not wanting to over expose themselves in attack and being vulnerable to a counter attack and losing. Yes it worked just fine on several occasions, but more frequently it made things worse. That is when they tried the silver goal idea before abandoning them both and returning to the full 30 minutes extra time. It's a great idea in theory, I agree. But in reality it just didn't have the desired effect often enough and in many cases actually had the direct opposite effect to that which was intended. More cautiousness.
It was also so abrupt - suddenly out of the blue you are in or out. Not good from a fan perspective, who is first on a high and then is brutally gut punched. At least with a silver goal you know that you have 15 minutes of play. Someone can score last minute naturally but its all part of the match dramaturgy.
I think that is right. And also there was an issue if fans came on the field to celebrate but the goal was disallowed for offside or someother reason.