in WC26 Oceania has only one direct seat plus an unguaranteed one in the playoffs, unlike in U17 WC they have 3 direct seats, but in WC26 you might also have new comers from the Caribbean mostly lower tiers teams, so while we might not see this many big scores I guess we might still get few big scores, and yes it is not fair from a neutral POV, The problem in my opinion is that there is a huge gap of football level inside some confederations, not only between Oceania teams but also between Concacaf teams, meaning between their first tier teams (US-MX-CR) and the rest, not until recently where Canada joined the first tier, I'd say the same for Asia because the same teams used to qualify for the WC in the past two decades (JP-KR-AU-IR-SA), while in Africa you got about 10 teams that are considered of the 1st tier, will not talk about Europe since even 2nd tier teams are good enough for a world cup level, I guess what I'm trying to say here is that FIFA should make seats allocation dynamic so it can be shifting in any WC edition based on football development, for example if you give 5 seats to confederation X they have to at least have that many teams from the 1st tier, or else you risk having more low tier teams in WC, which would make the WC unfair for teams that don't play in groups with a lower tier team in it while having best 3rd places system, Anyways while 64 teams as awful as it sounds it might still be better over 48, just for the sake of having fair groups! I tried to look at it from a neutral POV even though I'm glad Morocco's U17 might get through as 3rd...
They get the Megan Rapinoe lifetime achievement award for Outstanding Smackdown in a world tournament. MAR 2025 u17 CAF champ has entered FIFA's record books. This should help mask what they've done in this tournament. I propose anointing every u17 group as Group of Life whenever OFC plays in it. For 2025 u17 WC, Groups of Life would be: - Group B: JPN, POR, MAR qualified; NCL -21 GD - Group D: ARG, BEL, TUN qualified; FIJ -20 GD - Group L: AUT qualified; MLI+KSA will qualify by agreeing to draw; NZL -4 GD (eliminated with 1 pending match) Thank you FIFA for this 48-team WC. Your approach to football development is sublime.
I do have an interesting idea here... take out results against last place teams when determining the best third place runners up.... anyway, yeah I kind of saw that coming, whoever has the OFC teams other than New Zealand in their group will manage to qualify for the knockout stages. There are quite a few weak Concacaf teams too outside the big 3. The teams that are not drawn in a group with these teams are at a huge disadvantage should they finish third.
Groups of life I like it, You should also add Groups E & H..., as some Concacaf teams are on similar level as Oceanian teams.
Teams with zero firepower would advance into R32, like QAT. Yikes. I agree that too much chaff will make into R32, especially when OFC + CCAF teams give third-place teams a clear advantage. Maybe eliminate the charity cases in R32 altogether. Earn your right to play R16: 12 first teams + 4 second-place teams advance to knockouts.
I think the U20 didn't do the U17 a favor and put a lot of pressure on them. The U20 were underdogs and played without pressure while these U17 were taken seriously by Japan and Portugal. Before this tournament the Moroccan federation's president gave a speech to these kids and told them they have to aime for winning this tournament like the U20 did. And all the social media was excited as well and saying the same. That was too much pressure for these U17 kids. Maybe now if they pass among the best 3rds they can show a different face.
I actually watched Japan v New Caledonia and they were fully worth the scoreless draw. I didn't attend any games yesterday but the Morocco scoreline does nothing to promote football. 48nteams is proving a bad terrible number. 32 is ideal but if not then 64 is much better. Really enjoying the tournament not just because the Irish are doing so well.
Sorry I do not fully agree, Moroccan federation's president always gives speeches to any team before a major competition, wither it's seniors or U23 or U20 or U17 or Futsal or even Women teams, U20 may have put pressure on the U17 but that's not an excuse to lose two matches we're talking about an Africa champion here, as for the U20 they might have been underdogs in the group stage but once they beat Spain the UEFA champion they started to be taken seriously, the games vs. Brazil & France & Argentina were neck to neck, I don't like it when teams get undecimated just because they are new to the podium, Morocco's achievements as 4th in senior WC22 and 3rd in Olympics 2024 and 1st in U20 WC25 & QF in U17 WC23 and QF in Futsal WC24 are all well deserved and because of hard work and good planning, not because they were taken for granted by opponents in all of them, I mean sure coincidences do happen but maybe once not often.
One extraordinary result out of 104 doesn't invalidate the format nor mean that Oceania shouldn't have three places. Having three teams from Oceania encourages more national associations there because they have more opportunity to qualify and it increases the number of meaningful games at the annual OFC U16 championship because the third-place game offers a place at the U17WC to the winner.
Sure, there may be other reasons to have 3 OFC teams beyond merit, but since you specifically mentioned "results": err... all 3 of Fiji's matches had an extraordinary result.
This is a disgrace. Oceania should not have any guaranteed spots in tournaments. They should have a pre playoff to determine their best 2 or 3 teams, then those teams should qualify through AFC.
It's a youth tournament, supposedly to support development. Having a large amount of qualifiers and being generous to the weaker confederations is part of the point.
Brazil somehow drew with Zambia meaning we get the #1 seed and, eventually, a really tough Round of 16 bracket with Portugal or Belgium... Well, unless Austria smash NZ by 6 tomorrow... But given it's the very last match of the group stage Austria can just pick whatever result is best for them.
I think we all understand that, but just because "the u17 supports development" doesn't mean any allocation that FIFA goes with cannot even be questioned. New Caledonia (population 300k) is there instead of Angola (pop 32 million). Fiji (< 1 million) is there instead of China (> 1 billion). Or such replacements really optimizing development and potential growth? [This said, the least deserving nation in this tournament is Qatar]
If China with its vast population and resources can't put together a squad of teenagers who can get out of the U17 Asian Cup group stage, that's a China problem, not a FIFA problem or an OFC problem. China shouldn't need a boost from FIFA, but a place like Fiji does.
I see you abandoned the "u17 exists to support development" argument all of a sudden? Anyway, if China qualified then Saudi Arabia would have missed out and my question still stands: where is the potential for development bigger: in large countries like China and Saudi Arabia, or small islands that have only a few thousand people that even fall into the applicable age range?
Probably OFC nations, but your question seems to imply OFC teams weren't already getting assistance when OFC were given 2 spots. Even with 1 spot it would be the easiest confederation to qualify from most years. So, your question doesn't really fit the situation.
There's also the OFC U17WC qualifiers to consider. By having three places, it means every game in the annual OFC U16 Championship is meaningful: group games to reach the semifinals, semifinals to reach the final and qualify for the U17WC, final to win the OFC U16 title and third-place game to qualify for the U17WC. Because this now happens annually that's a significant increase in meaningful youth NT football for all OFC members.
My original post was in response to the idea that OFC should not have slots in the tournament but rather go through a multi-stage qualification with both an OFC competition and then AFC qualification. All to avoid an overmatched team in an annual world tournament for minors. If someone's position is that OFC should be abolished as a confederation, they should own that, rather than making them compete in AFC without the benefits of AFC membership. I don't care about 2 slots vs. 3, just that if it's a confederation it should be treated as one.
Something we should learn from this u17 OFC embarrassment: do not romanticize OFC youth qualifiers. Fan: Yo, NCL! How you like your tourist ticket to u17 WC? NCL: Hey man, don't knock it till you try it! Check this out, I played only 5 qualifying matches and I'm here in a WC. Fan: No way! NCL: Dude, you don't even know! Just had to win 1 of 3 matches in group phase. I even qualified ahead of a team that beat me in group phase. I just ran up that scoreboard on MD3 and I was in like Flint! Fan: Brah, WC is a whole different league. What if you get stomped on? NCL: I ain't tripping. I got no business being there... but I am coming back next year anyhow, and the next, and the next, and so on. FIFA got me that sweet development ride and I ain't letting go. FIFA: Now listen here POR and MAR. I put you in a Group of Life. Don't come later complaining to me. MAR: Hmm... and how bad are we allowed to *develop* that OFC token team? FIFA: Do what you must do. But if you over do it, you won't get one next year. Remember that. ***Sports headline: Group B MD3 - MAR runs up the scoreboard 0-16 on NCL***** FIFA: Gawhddammit!
That's FIFA democracy for you... one vote per one association. Therefore, San Marino's or St. Kitts & Nevis's associations get as many votes as India or China... New Caledonia gets as many as Brazil, etc...... that's how the voting works I guess and why these expanded tournaments appeal to FIFAs big ups....
Seems like all the teams that looked like u17 title contenders after two matches are getting poor results in their 3rd match. What gives? Are they fielding their B teams?