Impact of Nations Leagues (UEFA original, Concacaf) on World Football? [Multiple R]

I actually thought the UNL would make the 2nd tier UEFA teams more competitive at the WC than they already were.

The evidence however is that it didn't really make a difference for better or for worse.

Agree its only one WC, and one could make the argument that UEFA did worse, but actually it seems to be just around the same as non UEFA hosted worldcups.

 

UEFA teams were also penalised also by the truncated preparation time ahead of the 2022WC. Nevertheless, compared to 2014 UEFA teams did better overall: 8 out of 16 Round of 16 teams (6 in 2014), 5 quarterfinalists (4 in 2014), 2 semifinalists and one finalist (same as in 2014)

I suggest waiting for the 2026 edition to get a better impression on the - for me positive - impact of NL on UEFA teams.

 

You make a good point, and UEFA is addressing that with its national academy support programme.

https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/new...ational-academies-thriving-with-uefa-support/

 

How were only UEFA teams "penalized" by the truncated preparation?

I think everybody other than Qatar and maybe Saudi Arabia was in the exact same boat.

 

Yes I agree. Thats why I posed them as questions rather than conclusions.

 

I suspect the higher quality a team is the more it is penalised by compromising on preparation, in this sense a curtailed preparation period is a kind of leveller.

 

I don't really agree. I think with a truncated preparation it's the quality that will shine through.

 

Or the teams that have been playing the most high quality matches most recently.

Uefa teams all played high quality nations league matches the window before the WC, while everyone else played hastily arranged friendlies.

Sorry but I agree with you, if anything UEFA had an advantage over other teams.

Besides Qatar and Saudi Arabia who had been camping for months.

 

Never be sorry about that

 

Just a reminder that several non-UEFA teams played a friendly in the 9-11 Nov midweek. Not that a single friendly benefits a team greatly, but it suggests that the non-UEFA teams were at least able to assemble part/most of their squad a good 12 days before the start of the WC. For UEFA and top CONMEBOL teams this was not an option until 5 days prior to WC kickoff.

 

Not very many.

Saudi Arabia played 2 matches with a full squad, so maybe that in hindsight gave them a slight advantage over Argentina, who had played 1 friendly to Saudi Arabias 3.

Other than Saudi you had

Canada play a match without all their eurobased players. Not much help.

Korea play a match without their Euros. Half strength at best.

Iran play a match without their Euros. Half strength at best.

Cameroon play match with no Euros. None of these players would even feature at the WC, so a complete waste of time.

Ecuador and Mexico play with no Euros, so Half full at best.

Costa Rica played a match with their full squad but it ended up being their only friendly anyways. Definately longer prep time though than other teams.

Other than SaudiArabia not very much of a benefit to anybody to be honest. Qatar and Costa Rica I guess.

All these teams were eliminated in the first round anyways. The extra prep didn't help. So in the end nobody was really disadvantaged.

 

Assembling half the squad a week earlier is still a benefit, I'd argue. Small benefit perhaps. But surely still a bigger factor than something abstract like "quality will come through".

 

UEFA teams are generally of higher quality, therefore they were penalised by the shortened preparation time; a similar thing happened in 2002.

In 2026, things will correct themselves when the teams have between 2 and 3 weeks to prepare.

 

I disagree. With more preparation time it's the teams that don't have the quality players that will work on tactics and methods to counteract the team of higher quality. A shortened preparation suits those teams with better quality players.

 

Not to forget that the larger squads and extra subs also benefited the higher quality sides.

There's just really no argument to be made for the opposite.

 

Well, I just gave one.

Also, you are assuming that 5 subs help the higher quality teams. Has this actually been proven? People's first instinct is to think that the team with a stronger bench will benefit with more subs, but they are comparing the wrong things. What actually matters is the relative drop in quality between a team's starting XI and their bench.

This is actually obvious once you think about it. And in many cases the weaker side will have a smaller drop-off because elite players are more difficult to replace and having a squad of 23 elite players is not feasible. So big clubs are left with a dilemma -- whether to bring in fresh legs but a player of much lower quality. Which is why they tend to not use the full complement of 5 subs.

This article explains it further: Football's five substitutes rule doesn't benefit the big clubs – and here's why | Soccer | The Guardian

 

Total number of games in the 2026/27 AFC Joint WC/Asian Cup qualifiers is 310, compared to the total of 780 games plus WC/EURO playoff games (formats to be announced) for UEFA teams in the 2024-2028 cycle (there are only 8 more teams in UEFA so the more than 2.5 times difference in the total number of games is basically because of the formats used).

 

Even though AFC play far less total games than UEFA fit the whole process in the qualifiers for WC26/AC27 start before the next Asian Cup tournament gets held early next year. This isn't normal, but is because the Asian Cup is 6-12 months later than a normal cycle would be.

 

I see. Nevertheless the overall number of AFC games remains the same because they are the only two NT competitions it organises per cycle, excluding the ones organised by the regional bodies.

 

I mentioned CONMEBOL in the 2026 thread.

As for the Nations League I am not surprised at all. That thing seemed like a stunt from the get go and not ideal for South American teams to base themselves in Europe.

 

It fooled me, I really thought the opening of the join office in London was significant.

I am sad, I thought it was a really good idea and a way to get competitive matches for every team on a regular basis.

I wish both confederations would officially address this.

 

Ceferin also said it was on. IIRC there's an article linked in here where he says they're working on it but won't be up and running overnight.