Okay maybe the bans on youth players leaving shouldn't be lifted, as I see your point. However, I'm against foreign player restrictions.
Me too. But only from 21 yo on. In my opinion, it would be better for everybody: That would avoid opportunistic nationalizations, with the exporter countries being able to adequately complete their footballistic upbringing (while maintaining the good level of their leagues). On the other hand, the importing clubs would receive (even if more expensive) a much more complete and technically valuable athlete without immaturely interfering in their native players professional formation (what BTW would preserve & guarantee consistency to their NTs in world competition [WCs]). Foreign players would come to add and not to simply take anybody's places.
[sarcasm] That's a good one. Let's add a few more minnows to our already weak region. The US needs more prey like New Caledonia, Solomon Islands, American Samoa and Tonga that the US can score 15+ goals on in a single match. Even Barbados (who the US thrashed by 8 goals) could beat some of those teams. [/sarcasm] Since Australia's in Asia now, the only country that I would now want to see from Oceania would be New Zealand, since the rest of those islands are less than minnows and more like mitochondria or parameciums. I'd also pay to see the reaction when NZ does the Haka in Mexico or the US before both countries kick NZ's ass.
Everyone is trying to condense confederations ('CONAMERICA', AFC+OFC, etc), but I would split up some. Asia would be split into at least 2 confederations, most likely 3. If you split it into 2 you just have East and West. Cut it somewhere down the middle, around India or so. If you have 3 you can have the Middle East, Central Asia, and East Asia. This would drastically reduce traveling as you wouldn't force South Korea to travel to Yemen while Saudi Arabia has to go to Vietnam (and vice versa!) Also maybe CONCACAF should split into North America and Caribbean. North America would be the equivalent of CONMEBOL - with 10 teams, most of them good and competitive (Canada, USA, Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua Costa Rica, and Panama; so Belize and Nicaragua would be like Venezuela and Bolivia...). Caribbean would be like OFC except a bit better due to teams like Trinidad and Jamaica. Also it might do good to split Africa into 4 regions; North Africa, West Africa, East Africa, and South Africa. I haven't thought about this enough to determine if that would be better, but it's already a mess for qualifying with so many good teams and so few spots, so this could be better(?). It would also cut down on travel because Egypt to Malawi (which was an actual matchup in qualifying) is a pretty long flight! For World Cup Qualifying then you'd just have less "automatic spots" and more playoff spots. Then the teams from weaker confederations like Caribbean, OFC, Central Asia, East Africa, etc. would have a chance to earn their spots in the World Cup if they could beat other confederation's teams in the playoffs, but they wouldn't get free spots just for being separate. Also, I'd make the playoffs more elaborate, none of this 2-games against 1 opponent to determine the spot. You have to play a couple of teams from other confederations to get your spot. Either a small home-away series like normal qualifying against 2-4 other teams or have a small tournament at one location to determine the spot(s).
I would introduce video replays for major tournaments such as the world cup in order to lift what has been almost a century of big matches being decided on farcical refereeing decisions....
A few ideas: - The referee carries a PDA or something that allows him to instantly see replays of incidents. It wouldn't take half an hour like in the NFL, but seconds. - If a player has been booked he can still be banned afterwards by the FA. - The FA can watch videos of games and retrospectively punish players. - Merge Oceania into Asia - Change World Cup qualification. For example: 9 for Europe 2 for South America 1 for Concacaf 1 for Asia 1 for Africa Then the rest decided by intercontinental playoffs with the following number of teams: 12 for Europe 6 for South America 6 for Concacaf 6 for Asia 6 for Africa For the confederation hosting, they lose two playoff places. - Fifa rankings replaced by the ELO ratings - Abolish the confederations cup and world club cup - Hang Jack Warner - Six match ban for crowding the referee, and six match touchline ban for managers whining at the fourth official - Twelve match ban for diving
Those are all great ideas. However, I think North America and Central America should merge with Conmebol. Under the current system, the US, Canada, Mexico, and Central America in general don't get to face many football world powers in World Cup Qualifying. Beating the crap out of island minnows like Barbados or St. Lucia to qualify for the World Cup doesn't mean anything once the World Cup starts. None of those teams have any realistic shot of being competitive. Not sure about what to do with the Carribbean. Maybe play the winner of Oceania for a world cup spot?
If I were dictator, I would have a live-broadcasted match around the World between Brazil and American Samoa in the Maracaña of Rio de Janeiro. Australia managed to beat them 31 or 32-0 away. Imagine Brazil in their own stadium (probably the strongest in the world). We could be seeing triple digits!!!
And then maybe give all of the profits made from the match to American Samoa to help them out. Do this with the worst-ranked FIFA team and the best ranked one every year I like that.
I would introduce the 36 team world cup (6 group x 6 teams). That was discussed here long about. With that, you would have 4-5 matches every day at group stage, starting at 11.30 a.m., 2 p.m., 4.30 p.m., 7 p.m., 9.30 p.m.
I think the points system could use some tweaking. I think changing from 2 points for a win to 3 points for a win was a step in the right direction, but possibly we could do better. 0 points - Loss 1 point - 0-0 Draw 3 points - Score Draw 7 points - Win 1 Bonus Point - Clean Sheet 1 Bonus Point - victory by a margin of at least 3 goals. 5-1 is about the only scoreline where during the game, the next goal does is not that important. And yes, essentially, scoreless draws are worth 2 points. No I do not need goals for the game to be exciting, I just think that the name of the game is to be able to attack while defending intelligently. Finding the late goal to win a game that would have ended scoreless is now worth X 4 what the points would have been had the goal not gone in. Under the current system it is X 3. In a 1-1 game, there are still more points to gain by scoring than there are to lose by conceeding, which I belive was the main reason for moving wins to three points in the first place. It is already natural for teams to want to obtain a two goal advantage to leave themselves some breathing space before "killing the game off," but now there is added incentive to continue scoring to get a three goal advantage, which may keep the space open for the trailing team to make it less difficult to try and bring the game back to a 1 goal game. The problem in my opinion on awarding no points for 0-0 draws is that 1) it doesn't seem exactly fair and 2) it could lead itself to shady practices of scratch my back, and I will scatch yours, and then we can play a normal game. By awarding a bonus point to all clean sheets, you eliminate this problem. It really isn't THAT complex, and there are somewhat similar rules in rugby, although they give their bonus points for different reasons.
I love the idea, but you've cluttered it a bit with all the modifiers. One of the beautiful things about soccer is that it isn't as "fussy" as other sports such as rugby or American football. How about: 0 points = Loss 1 point = 0-0 draw 2 points = 1-1+ draw 4 points = Win
while I appreciate the thinking behind it, experience tells me that remarkably few 0-0 draws are the result of teams playing for a 0-0 draw (teams in the world cup playing for penalties is a different issue) but instead are the result of teams just failing to play well enough to score. If I've sat through 90 minutes of incompetence, knowing it's cost my team an extra point would hardly make my day.
While I will concede that simpler is better and that possibly the bonus point for winning by 3 or more goals is not needed, I don't think you can have the scoreless draw be worth less than a draw with goals if you do not also have the clean sheet bonus. Without the bonus point for a clean sheet, the system is subject to "agreements" between clubs about scratching each others back to benefit both teams, and once that happens you are sort of playing pro wrestling on grass and with a ball. I believe that in experiments of 0-0 draws equaling no points, this has actually happened or at least any time there are two early goals, it is going to be suspected of happening. I added the three goal win margin bonus to counteract any ultra defensive play that could be encouraged in a situation where a team finds itself 2-0 up.
in a system in which it would take 4 scoreless draw games to equal one 1-0 game instead of the current 3, it could just push the managers and players to be that much more aggressive in going after the win and risking the loss (about an 8% Larger payoff)
A 1-1 is as much of a draw as a 0-0. A 4-4 draw is generally of a lower calibre than a 0-0 with good defending and goalkeeping, so why reward one over the other?
again, it's making the assumption that 0-0 draws are a result of teams playing for a draw, or being more willing to accept a draw. The majority of the time, I just don't think that's the case.
I believe there is a qualitative assumption in this conversation that, as leagues become more and more imbalanced, fixture lists fill beyond reason, and teams focus more and more on avoiding costly mistakes, incentives may need to be created to push the game toward a more attractive, fan-friendly style. While everyone here knows and understands that real fans can appreciate a well played 0-0 draw, from a business and (more often than you're likely willing to admit) an aesthetic perspective, attacking soccer is good for the game.
As someone who has watched every Liverpool match the last couple of seasons, I can tell you that it certainly is the case some of the time. Playing for a draw and settling for a draw are sort of two different things. If wins were worth 50 points and draws still only worth one, I think you would see some drastically different behavior, especially at the end of games trying to find the winning goal. I only want to tip the scales 8%. There is also something to be said for having the quality to breakdown an opponents defense. Granted in some sense not all goals require a tremendous amount of quality but generally as an attacking team you do need to cause some kind of significant threat even to force an own goal or put away a tap in. The name of the game is to score more goals than your opponent. Its a two way street. Whether the teams "meant it" or not, if you don't score any goals, you only played on one half of the street. Again, we are talking about the difference between 2 points and 3 points.
If I was FIFA dictator I would give every confederation 2 WC slots (maybe 3 for conmebol or 4-5 for UEFA) and make everyone else duke it out in head to head home and away bracket style qualification tournament. I want to see matchups between teams like Honduras-Sweden, Chile-Portugal, Egypt-Ukraine etc. it'd be interesting, and maybe fairer