Why? Personally, I approve. Although technically there is now the danger of the defending champion not qualifying for the next World Cup, in our case it can only help. These are my reasons: 1. For 2002, we struggled so much because we lacked a team. Whereas for 1994, we struggled also, but a far smaller number of players were capped and a competitive team was formed--the team which later won the Cup. 2. With the ever busier soccer calendar, it is getting more and more difficult to schedule friendlies. Brazil would have to play several every year to keep the players sharp and for the coaching staff to observe players. By participating in the qualifying rounds, Brazil will have no choice but to play its best soccer. As a result the team stays in shape and the coach can more easily adapt and adjust as time passes--older, obsolete players can be discarded, younger upstars are screened and the best are added, etc... 3. You get to watch the team play! I don't deny there was a commercial element in this decision. But Brazil will play and that's always good.
I personally disapprove. I think that the authomatic qualification for the defending champions is a World Cup tradition that should have been mainteined, and I'm not telling this just because it's Brazil. I don't buy this argument that the lack of competitive matches harms the team's preparation. What about the home team? The home advantage cannot be alone a factor for a team reaching the final and becoming champion.
I totally disagree with it. What happens the first time that a defending champion doesn't get through qualifying and can't rightfully defend its title? I could never imagine a World Cup without the defending champion. The title holder deserves to be there, even if they do put in a horrible performance like France in '02.
I defend that the champion always deserve to automatically qualify for the nezt cup.Bad decision by FIFA.
The champion should qualify automatically. On the other hand, this will benefit Brazil, and there is almost no chance Brazil will be eliminated. Once someone else is though, be it 4, 8 or 12 years from now or more, we will hear lots of complaining about this rule. A lot more than now.
I'm not surprised that most people appear to be against the rule. I at first was too, but after what we suffered until 2002, I think we need to keep our team sharp. We may have the world's most talented players, but we need a TEAM. I also agree: I dare say Brazil will never fail to qualify for a World Cup. As for a champion one day failing to qualify, it won't be us, but any team that does win it should have enough talent and training to make it at least to the next one. NBA and NHL teams have to go through the regular season and playoffs to defend their title. It's not a perfect comparison, but I think in the long run it will be good for us.
It will be dropped right there and then...especially if its a european nation. I don't like it either. Its like telling the heavy weight champion that he needs to requalify to defend his belt.
I always look at the World Cup as this: qualification *is* the World Cup. The tournament in Germany, or J/K, is the World Cup FINALS. If you don't qualify, you don't play. There are just too many good teams these days, it is such a different tournament than others, that I think the champion should have to qualify. If you can't qualify, why should you deserve to defend your title at the WC Finals? It would be nice to have some sort of advantage for the champs to return to the finals, but I can't think of anything appropriate. Certainly not a free pass. Just goes against my competitive nature. If your superstar that won the tournament for you retires, and you can't qualify - tell me why you DESERVE to be at the FINALS?!? The world of football has grown. If South Korea had gotten lucky and won last time, I wouldn't think they deserve an automatic berth. Brasil showed it didn't deserve an automatic berth last time. The same people that argue a championship on points alone - without a final or playoff - are the same ones that think you should automatically qualify without showing you can play at that level over the years. I don't understand that. If the problem is the schedule of qualifiers - fine, address that separately. I think it can be improved. And on a personal note I agree - the commercial value - I don't want to have to wait 4 years to watch Brasil take a game seriously.
This rule was approved before the 2002 WC finals had ended. Given the arguing of all of the confederations about how many spots each confederation gets - this also simplifies it without throwing things out of balance when a certain team from a confederation gets it. If UEFA gets 14 spots, and the winner is European, it is difficult to see them get ANOTHER spot, and it sucks for UEFA team to only have 13 to fight for during qualifiers. This is more fair. Period. This is not a 2-bit finals where the entertainment value of last time's host really matters to anyone. This is the World Cup. Go f'ing earn your spot.
Even though i support that the champion should always qulify,i have to agree with with the strong points you said:We'll never fail to qualify and,without any doubt,we have the BEST players of all,but even with all this raw tallent,they need to get sharpenned playing together. Be Well.