Should UEFA lead an effort to break away from FIFA?

Go back to the other thread and see what I wrote. In the meantime:

Not true. The World Cup has been won by only a handful of nations from Europe and South America, in spite of the "crap national sides" that have always participated in the tournament.

And you might want to give pause to your statement because US Soccer was indeed a small federation for a very long time. Were we diluting the quality of the World Cup in 1990? In 1994?

 

Again, I respectfully disagree. It's not politics, it's just bad timing. There are more national federations in the FIFA family than there were four or eight years ago. The World Cup is not just the world championship, it is the a global showcase of the sport, and the two are not mutually exclusive. Every corner of the world must be represented as equally as possible. Does this sacrifice quality? Yeah, but just a little. It hasn't stopped Brazil from winning the World Cup. It hasn't kept a dozen or so elite nations from reaching the final. At the same time, there are other priorities. As the size of the family grows, so too must the tournament.

On the other hand, 36 teams is not necessary at this juncture. I don't like it either. But given the growth of the sport around the world, it is nothing to get so huffed about, as the World Cup would have eventually grown to 36 teams - and more - anyways.

 

Take away one of Asia's and Africa's spots and Oceania's spot. Who wants to see Tunisia in the World Cup instead of the Dutch?

 

In 1990 WCQ Costa Rica won Concacaf and the US was 2nd.

In 1990 WCQ the pre-hex featured a pairing of Costa Rica and Mexico which Mexico didn't play because they were disqualified.

In 1990 WCQ there was no way both Costa Rica and Mexico could finish ahead of the US.

Mexico getting DQd got Costa Rica into the World Cup not the US.

 

There are about 15 more federations in UEFA than 10 or so years ago, but they don't get any more slots.
Maybe there should be more cross-continental qualifying, then those who claim they deserve more spots can prove it.

36 is a daft number of teams though. How would it work? Having a second round based on 9 group winners and the 7 best runners-up is bad enough, but unless they introduce proper seeding, rather than just trying to keep conferderations apart as currently happens, then it's likely that teams in the toughest groups will be the ones who miss out on sending two teams to the second round.

 

36 teams is a bad idea, because powers of two are the simplest for tournaments. This "best 2nd place team" stuff is a mess.

However, let's not pretend that UEFA doesn't send any crap teams either. Look at the bottom finishers in world cup and you'll see some UEFA and South American squads that managed no more than a point, if that. Just because they happen to be geographically close to Germany or Italy doesn't mean they turn out good squads.

So, should the rich countries dominate everyone else so the deck can be stacked even further in their favor than it is now? No. Let' grow the sport, not strangle it by restricting it to a few very rich countries.

Frankly, I'm almost to the point where I think the big UEFA countries need to be taken down several pegs.

I can just see what a disaster it would be for the soccer world to split. We'd all end up playing basketball.

G.

 

This happens and you can almost guarantee that Superdave's wishes/predictions will come true.

Who will do this 'peg-taking-down' action? FIFA?
Surely that's the only organisation around that has the appropriate muscle.
But UEFA are too powerful to push around - hence superdave's eventuality.

I could consider linking the situation to the US totally disregarding what the UN has to say on certain issues.
If UEFA goes it alone, there'll be more than enough support for it.

 

I agree, and I don't think it should happen in '06 but it ought to happen naturally and eventually, simply for the reason that no one complained when the World Cup was 24 teams.

 

The 36 teams is a UEFA/CONMEBOL idea!

 

You would be right if you took UEFA/ out of that sentence.

 

Right, because Europe never feels cheated and had when their allocation decreases after every World Cup. I think if we gave them half of all the slots in the WC them would still not be happy. But that's me.

The organizing committee in Germany is all for 36 teams too.

 

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,1563,949052,00.html

 

Re: Re: Re: Should UEFA lead an effort to break away from FIFA?

As the worst team in '98 came from, where? That's right, North America. Did that make the third CONCACAF spot unwarranted then? Guess what, the pendulum swings.

I assume you are referring to China. China has a better national team than the results at the World Cup dictated. Bora shaped an amazing program and they have the infrastructure to improve. Saudi Arabia only got in because of a fluke qualification phase that saw Iran eliminated. It's only one World Cup, and the results of one World Cup alone does not diminish the value of allocation slots for each confederation.

But that really doesn't matter because there will ALWAYS be bottom teams at EVERY World Cup. Some nation HAS TO HAS TO HAS TO be dead last. On mathematical averages, the top half have to be good sides and the bottom half have to be crap sides. So, really, where is the over-representation? Over-representation of underachieving sides is plenty hard to prove, my friend.

 

JG, I don't even have to go looking for a link, I can just use the quote you used:

As in: it was CONMEBOL's idea.

 

A big European league should come to exist and break away from both UEFA and FIFA. This would be a great development for the sports, but UEFA just separating from FIFA is not important. I think the WC needs a reform in various aspects already starting with the qualifying campaign, but that's not a problem UEFA would solve by breaking up with FIFA. It would just be a step from one bad organisation to the next bad organisation.

 

I agree that 36 teams is a weird setup, no matter how you arrange the draw.

That said, what motivation would there be for Africa, Asia OR North America (let's be honest here- CONCACAF doesn't get much more of UEFA's respect than AFC, OFC or CAF) to join this new organization, especially when FIFA offers Africa and Asia more spots as it stands now?

Setup w/consideration of 36 teams: Africa and Asia get more repesentation than in your scenario.

Setup w/current 32-team FIFA W/C: Africa and Asia get more representation than in your scenario.

New setup (your scenario):

...Africa and Asia (and North America, IMO) get told, "you'll take what we give you and be thankful for it".

If they have to choose between having more teams that will eventually lose to a SA or Euro team, and having fewer teams that will eventually lose to a SA or Euro team, why wouldn't they

1) stay with FIFA, unless FIFA collapsed completely, or

2) stay out of it completely and just play their continental tournaents? This alternative applies even if FIFA collapses.

It's not like anyone outside of CONMEBOL or UEFA is gonna win a W/C anytime soon anyhow. So they have nothing to gain by taking and liking whatever UEFA's new tourney decides to give them. They could just as well play on their own.

I'm also very interested in
1) how you think UEFA would treat CONCACAF in your scenario, and

2) whether you'd support CONCACAF moving to this new tournament even if UEFA didn't give them the spots they wanted? That is essentially what you're expecting Africa and Asia to eventually do.

 

Okay. I'm trying to do this without sifting thru tons of threads to find out who is getting how many spots in '06 and what they had in '02, so if my math is wrong, let me know.

2002 W/C
UEFA- 15
CON- 4.5
TFC- 3
CAF- 5
AFC- 4 (two hosts)
OFC- .5

2006 W/C
UEFA- 14
CON- 4
TFC- 3.5
CAF- 5
AFC- 4.5
OFC- 1

Here's where I think it gets tricky. If UEFA and CONMEBOL broke away from FIFA, and if we're going to try this idea with 32 teams, from every confed, someone's going to lose out in a way that might not make it worth their time. I'll do these in reverse order, because I think there's going to be a problem at the end.

UEFA/CONMEBOL CUP
OFC- 1
AFC- 3
CAF- 4
TFC- 3
CON- 5
UEFA- 16

I think every confederation should get at least one slot (thus OFC's 1), but that's just me. Assuming UEFA permits TFC to have 3 spots (a number you're comfortable with), they'd have to take 1.5 away from Asia, and one from Africa just to get 16 for UEFA and 5 for CONMEBOL.

CONMEBOL would probably want (and deserve) a full 5 for being a partner in this break. That would leave UEFA with only 16. Knowing UEFA, I can't see them making this sort of break for fewer than 18, perhaps even 20. Remember, it's their tournament now, with CONMEBOL along for the ride (I know you said "joint effort", but UEFA wouldn't begrudge a partner in CONMEBOL their five, so they'd have to get them from the very confeds you say would eventually join).

I just don't see the loss of that many spots sitting well enough with the confeds to make them come over. The TV rights might be the ace in the hole, but then you'd be counting on people wanting to watch a tournament run by a confederation that broke away from FIFA because almost 50% of the spots wasn't enough for them. If I'm a CAF or AFC fan, I might watch and I might not. I personally don't pay much attention to the UEFA Champions league or the European Cup. You'd have to have enough teams I care about to get my interest.

 

36 for the WC is the way to go. 12 years from now probably 40.

Nobody has the right to judge the quality of the smaller nations. How do you expect them to get any better if they do not play quality oponents? Africa needs more representation. The future of the sport is there. Nigeria, Senegal, Cameroon to name a few.

South America need two more teams to go to the WC. Europe is fine as it is.

The 36 team system will be a complicated one. But no more complicated than the 28 team system. Remember that one?

Stop complaining about the 36 team format. The worst thing that can happen is that the top UEFA and CONMEBOL teams will roll over the weaker ones like always....It actually helps the big dogs a little more.....

 

No, because it has never existed. It went from 16 in 1978, to 24 in 1982 and up to 32 in 1998.

 

um... I do... if Tunisia can actually manage to qualify!!

why does everyone think so highly of team that couldn't even qualify?

its the way the system works, good teams miss out, it ADDS to the drama, to the importance. Egypt and Morocco just nearly lost out as well and they would probably have performed ALOT better than tunisia, tough luck they were grouped against a better side.

bitching about holland not making it is an old trend. drop it.

i'll take a WCC the way the current WC is set up please. ( i know, i'm asking ALOT)

FIFA is doing the WRONG thing here, the WC spots DO need to be rotated a little bit, not necc. PERMANENTLY given to asia or africa, but just let em have an extra one every few cup years, it will make the qualifiers more interesting. and will give other countries some exposure, some motivation, and maybe in the long run make them better.

so in short, conmebol should just ************ing DEAL with it. i know that this lessens the chance my beloved ecuador might qualify

but tough. s. america SERIOUSLY underperformed at the last WC.
they do NOT deserve more places.
i hope they don't get them.
i'd rather see the saudis get pounded again than uruguay bore itself out of the tournament.
when conmebol can get more than 2/5 of their teams into the final rounds THEN they can have their extra spots back.

quit bitching about holland.