My solution to all FIFA's problems re: Confederation allocations

Overall not a bad idea but of course many involved wouldnt want to do it. Australia WANTS nothing other than what they got now, a free pass. A merge of North and SOuth America would be bad for the US and all North and Central Countries. It would be tougher for the US to qualify even with the 7.5 spots, especially considering the US is almost always playing away even at home.

 

I agree with SoccerScout, the merge of Conmebol & Concacaf would be bad for the latter and too beneficial for Southamericans, eventhough I am one and I would like to have more teams in the WC.

If Southamericans are in a good day, they could get away with 6 or 7 of those 7.5 spots. I mean, sorry Concacaf, these are not those silly Copa Americas where Conmebol countries send their second tier squads, this is the real deal, this is for the big one. Let me tell you, SA's qualys can be brutal.

Believe me, it's better for you to keep things the way they are. And if it did happen, I suggest you start booking European referees, but not Italians or Spanish, better go with Germans or British.

Bring also your own water, try to get accomodations in your embassys, rent bulletproof buses and try FIFA to have Bogota, Quito and La Paz banned. Some helmets wouldn't hurt either.

 

Merging confederations is not the solution. Take the hypothetical western hemisphere confederation for example. It would be subdivided into groups either randomly or by region. If it is by random selection, there would be some sever travel situations and some extremely lopsided match ups say between a small carribean island and Brazil. Randomization could also generate some lopsided groups. It wouldn't be fair or efficient so how about using the CONCACAF method of having regional tournaments. If it is subdivided by region then we're right back where we started because ten South American nations make a well defined region, the original CONMEBOL. A final group phase could be played between the top 6 CONMEBOL'ers and the top 6 CONCACAF'ers to determine the best 7.5 overall but sending the top 3.5 to 4 of each to the final is much more efficient at the expense of losing a little fairness.

 

I agree, travel situations would make this too much of an issue. And there would be some lopsided games, Haiti playing Brazil? El Salvador against Argentina...
How about CONCACAF and CONMEBOL go just as they had planned, but only the top two from CONCACAF and top two from CONMEBOL make it automatically.
The next 4 from each confederation get drawn into 2 groups of 4. The winners each go, and the runners up of those groups play for the final spot. The one who loses has to play whoever CONCACAF #4 would have been playing. That might put CONCACAF back at 3 some years, but it gives them the chance to send 4, but they'd all really have to earn it. It'd raise the bar for Central American countries I think and make the whole americas better.

 

Australians may say they want to qualify through Asia, but not anymore.......theyd never try to legitimize themselves by taking a harder route to the cup, when they have a very easy one.........

Every Australian fan thinks they can win in the World Cup Finals.......Personally, outside of Australia or Oceania, The Aussie nationals are quite bad.

 

I love the idea of having only 4 confederations. As far as an Americas Confed goes most of the teams going to the WC from it would be from South America I say so what to that. You'd have lopsided scores sure so what what do you think you have in Europe when teams play Malta,Luxembourg ,Moldova,Andorra,Faeroe Islands,etc.

 

I think you are quite wrong here. Most australian supporters realise that going through asia would be benificial on many fronts.

1. We would get to play quality opposition on a frequent basis. Something we have never had and a reason for past failures in the playoffs.

2. We would actually get to watch the team play some decent games. Something we get once every four years.

3. Should we make the world cup we would be much more prepared. Ouir only hope at the moment is that we get some good friendlies. It is rumoured that we will play Argentina, Uraguay, Switzerland and spian this year as well as the england game in february so this is a good start should we make it, but they are only friendlies.

 

There's a difference. Europe doesn't have nearly as many "microstate" teams. In UEFA, only Malta, Luxembourg, Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Cyprus, Moldova, and the Faeroe Islands really count as microstate teams. In CONCACAF, there are 25 Caribbean nations, most of which play at the microstate level. (Basically, all except Jamaica, T&T, Cuba, and Haiti are no-hopers against any decent opposition.) And within Central America, there are Nicaragua and Belize, neither of which is any better than the small islands. UEFA has 8 microstates from a membership of 52. A combined Americas confederation would have at least 23 microstates from a membership of 45. This would mean a whole lot more matches with lopsided scores. At least in the status quo CONCACAF lets the minnows knock each other out before the regional powers get involved.

Will Brazil vs. Montserrat hold your attention? I don't think I'd even bother watching the USA play Anguilla or St. Lucia or the Cayman Islands.

 

WHAT?

The only problem I have with this system is the # of spots/confederation. Europe already has too many as it is, reduce CAF to 4.5 are u crazy?
CAF should have at least 7 spots.

 

With the exception on CONMEBOL and UEFA, the allocations are much more even with each other.

It may be worth it for the AFC and OFC to merge. The problem is that the Asians don't want to have a repeat of what happened in 1981.

 

Re: WHAT?

How do you work this out?

According to FIFA, 18 of the top 32 teams are from Europe. ELO rankings also has 18, Kessler's rankings has 16.
In terms of all time records at the World Cup, 20 of the top 32 are from Europe.

The number of teams from Europe in the second round (as a percentage of the total teams) is always equal or higher than that in the first round. No other confederation can claim that.

The ideal situation would be to have a global qualification, but that is never going to happen. It is logistically impossible to start with, but even if it wasn't it would never happen as you would end up with about 25 of the 32 teams coming from Europe and CONMEBOL.

 

Re: WHAT?

Now THAT's over the top. Let CAF earn their 5 first, which they've yet to do.

...unless you're joking, in which case, congrats, I took your bait.

 

CONCACAF had 2 of 3 teams through. And Costa Rica almost made it... at least they played respectably.

I disagree. If it is higher than 20 or 21 i'd be surprised.
To be fair AND encourage the sport in the places where it needs to be encouraged this should be the breakdown.
5 from CONMEBOL and 15 or 16 from UEFA. Add 3 from CONCACAF, 4 or 5 from Africa, and 3-5 from Asia and Oceania.

And to whoever said CAF deserves 7. What continent are you watching?

 

The US and Mexico hold their own against South American teams after Brazil and Argentina.

 

not just the US and Mexico, a quater (10 teams) of concacaf can handle South america ( excluding Brazil and Argentina)

 

I'm a big supporter of CONCACAF, but please tell me how this is true.

I can think of:
USA
Mexico
Costa Rica

Borderline holding their own against Colombia, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Ecuador:

Honduras, Jamaica, T & T, Canada (and they'd all have to be at the TOP of their game).

Borderline having a chance against Peru but no chance against the above teams:
El Salvador, Guatemala

That's still only 9...

if the top 9 in CONCACAF and the top 9 in CONMEBOL played a round-robin qualifying you'd probably have 3 US teams in the top 8 or 9, with most CONCACAF on the very bottom.

 

I like that the idea of a merger between the south american group and concacaf group ...
That would really let everybody see if the concacaf clowns deserve their 3.5 places .
I bet they would get blown away in a combined qualifier contest with south america.

 

What a lot of rubbish.

True Australian soccer fans (they have their meetings in a phone booth) want to qualify (or not) through a proper league structure - whether its Asia, North America or wherever.

Bandwagoners who know little about the game are happy with the decision.

To probably most of the Australian sporting public soccer (except for their kids Under 12 team) is like ice skating or womens water polo - which are of interest every 4 years during the Olympics and then immediately forgotten.

 

On the right track...

I agree with merging confederations, and take it one step further:

11 from UEFA and 7 from Africa, Asia/Oceania, and the Americas respectively.

Does the world REALLY want to see the 12th best European team? And from a fairness/sporting perspective, does anybody have any data on how FAR the 12th best European team has gone in the World Cup?

The most important thing, politically, about merging Confederations is that South America, who has won nearly half the World Cup Finals, could no longer be marginalized due to only having 10 votes in a body of 204. Not that I'm for Brazilians or Argentines running everything; they can't run their own leagues and nations, respectively. But for Europe, Africa and Asia to have so much influence, to be courted so heavily by the power brokers come election time, and for the nations from which the most fruitful players in the world spring to be totally ignored come time to select FIFA leadership, is rather obtuse, and maybe downright stupid.

I pray for this to happen, particualrly as it forces the level of the US game to rise, period. I also do support the regional qualifying process (so as not to create lopsided matches that benefit noone), and I would look forward to one DAMN competitive Copa America.

Plus, maybe merging CONCACAF and CONMEBOL would, by the very nature of the process, inject new blood into the leadership of the Confederations, which have been listing, badly, for some time...

 

Re: On the right track...

Originally posted by Universal
I agree with merging confederations, and take it one step further: 11 from UEFA and 7 from Africa, Asia/Oceania, and the Americas respectively. Does the world REALLY want to see the 12th best European team? And from a fairness/sporting perspective, does anybody have any data on how FAR the 12th best European team has gone in the World Cup?

Does the world REALLY want to see the 7th best Asian or African team? I know there is a lot of anti-UEFA people on these boards, but for the sake of quality and for keeping the World Cup the top event in world football, I would rather have the 14th best UEFA team than the 7th best from Asia or Africa.

The most important thing, politically, about merging Confederations is that South America, who has won nearly half the World Cup Finals, could no longer be marginalized due to only having 10 votes in a body of 204. Not that I'm for Brazilians or Argentines running everything; they can't run their own leagues and nations, respectively. But for Europe, Africa and Asia to have so much influence, to be courted so heavily by the power brokers come election time, and for the nations from which the most fruitful players in the world spring to be totally ignored come time to select FIFA leadership, is rather obtuse, and maybe downright stupid.

This I support fully. South America has way too little influence on the political part of the game.

 

Re: On the right track...

Based on FIFA rankings:

Dec 93, Russia
May 94, France
Note of interest: Bularia, ranked 18 Dec 93, ranked 17 May 94, finished 4th

Dec 97, Croatia, finished 3rd
May 98, Dutch, finished 4th (Croatia ranked 10th)

Dec 01, Ireland
May 02, Sweden
Note of Interest: Turkey, ranked 17 Dec 01, ranked 15 May 02, finished 3rd