Why hasn't New Zealand joined AFC yet?

They have an automatic ticket to the World Cup. There is no need to go to AFC.

 

AFC would be better for their development though.

 

Possibly.
But I am not sure it would. Guaranteed playing the best of the best every four years may be better than playing Asia's best and rarely making it.

 

You don't always get to play the top teams. We have been in AFC since 2006, played 4 Asian Cups and 5 sets of qualifiers, 4 sets of world cup qualifiers and still haven't played Iran since 1997.

 

Capital matters. WC qualification is worth at least $10 million each time (that's today, it'll be higher in 2026). That's not counting the cash generated by the exposure of competing on that stage, which is simply a much, much bigger stage than literally anything else.

The AFC has many teams at or above NZ's level. Even substantially closer to their actual potential, they are, at best, a middling AFC to occasionally upper-middling side. Assuming NZ moves and, through consistent exposure to this superior competition, raises its level, it is not inconceivable that they may go from qualifying for the World Cup pretty reliably every single cycle to making, maybe, 1 of every 3 cycles. That's at least a $20M bag left on the table. You're not making that up anywhere else.

If the goal is to raise the level of competition, NZ would be better served seeking alternatives that don't result in sacrificing regular access to the world's biggest stage and the revenue and exposure that come with that. Become a middling AFC team is not a worthy reward for giving that up.

There is no if and there is no when. CONMEBOL and CONCACAF will not merge. There is no actual incentive to do so.

1. CONMEBOL is (mostly) not interested. To the extent they have any interest in CONCACAF at all, it is generally limited to the USA and Mexico, for the economic prospects those markets provide and given the level of quality those teams have (neither side would embarass itself in CONMEBOL, probably).

CONMEBOL has no interest in welcoming Belize, Guatemala, Trinidad, or Antigua. Those sides bring nothing to the region on the field or off it (in an economic sense). CONMEBOL gains nothing from further association with them.

Indeed, CONMEBOL actually loses quite a bit through association with most of CONCACAF. A combined confederation, with one nation, one vote, would effectively be run by the Caribbean. Argentinians and Brazilians are not interested in subverting their own sovereignty and influence (which, in a 10 member confederation, is pretty significant) to get jerked around by Bahamians and Puerto Ricans. They're not getting anywhere enough from association with those kinds of nations to justify the political price they would pay.

2. CONCACAF is (mostly) not interested. A few Mexican and American fans who are tired of tooling around in Gold Cup matches with Martinique and Saint Vincent might be eager, and the leaders of the Mexican and American federations surely have some incentive to push for their teams to join the bigger fish. But most of the region has absolutely no incentive to seek a merger.

The biggest reason? World Cup access. In CONCACAF with 6 berths and a playoff spot, a middling Central American or good Caribbean side can aspire to make at least semi-regular appearances on the worlds biggest stage (and, crucially, can get tournament experience for its youth and womens national teams regularly as well).
In CONCA-MEBOL with 10 South American teams added to the USA + Mexico duopoly competing for just 12 automatic berths (and I guess maybe 2 playoff spots)? Those odds arent so nice if you're a Caribbean, Central American or, dare I say it, Canadian.

"Yeah but think about how much better those countries will get facing CONMEBOL teams more regularly!"

First, I'll echo the point above with regard to NZ leaving the OFC: Regular WC access is extremely valuable.

Scenario A is: Embrace a merger, make WC appearances maybe once every 7 cycles or so (basically, a generation).
Scenario B is: Forget the merger, and conceivably make it to every other World Cup.

Scenario B is the vastly superior option when it comes to growing the game in places like the Caribbean and Central America who need, more than anything else, (a) capital and (b) exposure on the biggest stages. They don't get this being dunked on Brazilians and Venezuelans and missing World Cups almost every time.

It's also quite questionable Scenario A would yield a significant improvement. Unlike NZ in the OFC, these countries already have quality opposition (relative to their standard) right where they are. Countries like Jamaica and Haiti and El Salvador are still playing catch up to Mexico, the USA, and now (dare I say it) Canada, and are well tested by closer peers like Costa Rica, Panama, or Honduras. They don't need to go anywhere to face competition that will test them, it's already there. And, of course, actually getting to the World Cup reliably and getting at least 3 games against the world's best is something too (they'd lose this in CONCA-MEBOL).

And if they do want better competition more regularly? There are alternatives - combined Copa Americas being one option that gets you most of the upsides of this proposed merger without the downside of missing World Cups.

There's even a question with the USA and Mexico. Right now, these nations regularly make World Cups. They'll probably do the same in CONCA-MEBOL...probably. But misses would become significantly more frequent. If you can get more regular matchups against CONMEBOL without sacrificing those WC berths (and, again, these alternatives exist)...that's probably the preferable option.

And I haven't even mentioned the logistics of nations like Haiti paying to fly to Buenos Aires or Montevideo. This isn't appealing either, or terribly sustainable.

In any case, a CONMEBOL/CONCACAF merger is a fantasy and it won't happen. The very best case scenario for the many hopeful USA fans who wish to see a merger is a partial combination, involving only the USA and Mexico (taking two berths down with them), or a more complete merger with the Caribbeans spinning off into their own confederation and probably taking two berths with them.

Yes, two - the CFU has twice as many teams, five times the population, and far more depth than the OFC (there are at least 3 CFU teams at or above NZ's level, and the CFU's 2nd tier is much tougher than the OFC's). In a world where the OFC gets 1 berth, an independent CFU is going to get at least two. And that's a lot more appealing than going to be a doormat in CONCA-MEBOL.

 

1. That's still a worse position than what they have now. Those nations don't need zones to qualify in their current region with 6+ berths to fight over. There's no incentive to go put themselves in an inferior position where, suddenly, they need special help just to avoid getting permanently shut out of the tournament (get lucky in the right "zone"). They can stay in their own region, fully in control of it, and maintain access that way.

And there's no competitive disadvantage either - they'll face the same or higher level of competition in their region and at the World Cups they qualify for as they would in the more favorable "zones".

In short, you're asking these countries to basically screw themselves over for no real gain. They're not going to willingly do that.

2. CONMEBOL still doesn't want Belize and Antigua running their show.

The merger makes no sense, no matter how many ways you slice it.

Again, capital is key. Your alternative isn't doing anything to deal with the shortfall in capital that a move would cause. NZ is going to the World Cup every cycle now - you want to cut that down significantly. That has to be dealt with somehow, and I'm not seeing anything other than "well you get to play Thailand and Kuwait more!"

Going to the AFC to become a middling side that only occasionally qualifies, if that, isn't the clear slam dunk that it's being made out to be here. You're giving up regular WC access and the tens of millions generated therein for the chance to, maybe, be an Oman-tier side, and play more matches against Vietnam and the UAE.

Remember the youth as well. The U17 World Cup is held every 2 years. NZ is always there. That's valuable tournament high level experience kids aren't going to be getting anymore. What do they get in return for giving that up?

Where's the prize? Exposure?

As other posters have pointed out, you don't get guaranteed fixtures against all the big sides in the AFC. Over a few cycles, maybe you play Japan and the Aussies once or twice each, and the rest of your calendar is filled with games against the Thais, Vietnamese, etc. Is this better competition than what they have in the OFC? Absolutely. Are they necessarily a higher profile program for it? No, especially not if it means missing World Cups (and it will mean missing World Cups).

I'd argue that NZ is in a better position than Oman is right now. Why should they leave to go try to be Oman?

 

NZ will definitely need to face better nations than it currently faces in order to meet its potential. There are alternative ways to make this happen beyond trying to jump confederations.

The best of these: Additional FIFA tournaments.

FIFA is actively pursuing ways to increase inter-confederation competition. Their first shot at this was the biennial world cup proposal, which has failed (we will see if they try a tri-ennial proposal or something later). But alternatives are already coming out, and FIFA will eventually establish some form of global nations league or a new Confederations Cup (or both, who knows).
This is a pathway for NZ to face better teams more regularly in tournament settings. Any global nations league, for example, would see NZ likely take a top qualifying spot from the OFC and seeded to face quality South American, Asian, and European and African competition well above the level of its OFC peers. Same goes for a Confederations Cup.

This would mean plenty of additional inter-confederation games for NZ to play in between World Cups - the Nations League adding games against other confederations during what would normally be friendly windows, and the Confed Cup potentially giving NZ a tournament every 2 years.

NZ gets the better competition it craves, and doesn't need to give up access to the World Cup. Win-win.

For the sake of completion, I'll note this applies to the Caribbean as well. The new CONCACAF Nations League provides more games against better regional opposition, as does the expanded Gold Cup (additional teams that make it now via the expansion are taking on much better regional opposition). A global nations league would just enhance this benefit by adding games against other confederations. world Cup expansion means more regular world cup appearances for the region, increasing exposure to better competition even further. And ideas like the combined Copa America take this a step further by adding games against South American teams.

They get all the upsides, with none of the egregious downsides of a merger with CONMEBOL.

 

UEFA was against the WC being held biennially. It's attitude to other competitions we don't know yet.

 

UEFA believe (quite correctly) that their clubs are superior to everywhere else at the top level and that their Champion's league determines the best club side in the world. They tolerate the current format as long as it doesn't disrupt things too much. A 32 team club tournament in Europe's summer would need to offer some serious cash before clubs get too interested in it. My own opinion is that FIFA should stick to organising national team tournaments and leave club competitions to the confederations.

 

I would say the premise where playing smaller OFC rivals limits NZL growth is incorrect, because it disregards how many effective matches are played.

OFC qualifiers occupy a short period in NZL's 4-year FIFA calendar:
- 14-day qualifier for women (2018)
- 13-day qualifier for men (2022).

The rest of NZL's 4-year calendar is spent playing against higher-ranked teams.

As of 2026, NZL will have the best of both worlds: millions of dollars via direct WC qualification (good explanation by @Athlone), short exposure to effortless OFC matches, open FIFA calendar to face higher-ranked rivals.

We could argue that FIFA will start subsidizing NZL men's friendlies via a direct WC qualification slot, just like it has with NZL women's team since 2007... 16 years later, NZL is co-hosting a Women's WC. Someone in FIFA must like NZL a lot.

 

Despite what the Conmebol hype might say, VEN does not pose a threat to anyone, not even Concacaf.
Its record against Concacaf teams is not exemplary, especially if you check its competitive matches against mainland Central American sides (regional Caribbean tournaments).

VEN was born an outsider in Conmebol. It became a FIFA member before it was allowed to enter Conmebol: its FIFA membership was sponsored by a Central American federation, for example.

Besides that, I completely agree with your point about ARG+BRA uninterested on giving up political power via a Panamerican merger. VEN would see its WC qualification chances reduced to zero after such a merger as well.

 

Based on the replies to this thread I have changed my mind about merging AFC with OFC and Concacaf with Conmebol and now think they should remain separate.

Regarding the Americas though, I still think pan-American Copa Americas, NLs and club competitions are the way forward.

 

I think you significantly overestimate the importance of NZ's assorted friendly games, but with a more or less guaranteed WC spot the incentives are indeed significantly reduced to join the AFC.

 

True, those matches do not press a team like a qualifiers match.

Strictly from a competitive women's football view, AFC has little to offer besides the odd match with JPN / KOR / AUS. AFC women's qualifiers prohibit teams from playing multiple top teams.
AFC needs to get their house in order, when it comes to women's football, before NZL considers damaging its women's football growth with an AFC move.

 

If you really want to know why New Zealand hasn't joined AFC just ask yourself two questions

1. What's in it for New Zealand
2. What's in it for AFC

 

I think AFC has a pretty strong women's game and by using the AFC Championship as qualifiers there is plenty of room in the calendar for friendlies against other nations.