My take on this debate is that it's perfectly possible for UEFA to lose spots at some point in the future if the current FIFA regime continues. UEFA have publicly declared that they no longer support Blatter so Sepp will get his support elsewhere. And he will make lots of nice promises that get him votes. The real question is whether all of this will at some point hurt the World Cup. People just assume that it will always be this massive global event full of sponsors and huge TV revenue. But could there be a point when major revenue markets will lose interest in the World Cup and turn their focus on the immensly popular Champions League? Let's face it, club football is of a higher standard than the football we're seeing in Brazil and South Africa. The reasons are obvious - top club teams have no weaknesses because they can endlessly buy the best talent. No team at this World Cup has been able to match the passing game or the skill of top club sides. And that's the danger longterm for FIFA - they simply assume that the World Cup will always be huge no matter who plays in it and no matter who does well in it. But that may not be the case. Who are the major markets for TV revenue and sponsoring? Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, USA, Korea and Japan. What do these countries have in common? Many of them are doing poorly at this World Cup and it's perfectly possible that only France and Germany make it to the R16. If this trend were to continue then what incentive do sponsors in those countries have to keep spending big? Nike pay a fortune to sponsor England and they get nothing in return and are constantly associated with failure. Will Hyundai really keep spending massive amounts in sponsoring just to watch a Costa Rica - Algeria semifinal? You may say that's the big nations' own fault for crashing out so early but has anybody really asked themselves the question of why Spain are really so poor at this Cup considering the amazing standard of play of the Spanish players? Perhaps international football isn't as important for many European players anymore as it used to be.
I don't buy that. NT football is a different proposition from club football. Players play for their national pride, for their flag, for their fellow citizens. That's not the same as the overly commercialized Champions League. The real danger is TV and sponsorship money leaving the WC for EC.
I don't think sponsors care that much about the quality of the game in a particular competition rather than the market that competition is able to attract. And WC, even if the games are utter crap (which is not the case in this one, btw), will always have a bigger market than the Champions...
I agree that the matches in this WC have so far been very exciting but have they really been of the highest quality? Teams have been barely able to keep the ball for more than a few passes and most of the successful teams so far have been counterattacking sides. Holland won a difficult group basically by endlessly playing hopeful long balls to Robben. Sure, if you do this 30 times per match a few of those balls will invariably reach him but is that really great football in terms of quality?
Is this a testament to other teams not being able to stop it? And if no one can stop it, why try anything else? Perhaps, if the Dutch are no longer able to succeed this way they will utilize flanks better? Or any other tactic?
Exactly. Other teams are not good enough so far to find a weapon against it. Exactly my argument about the lack of quality. Try and play endless long balls against Bayern Munich or Real Madrid or PSG or Chelsea or Atletico. You won't succeed.
African teams always get talked about right before every WC about how good they are and almost always crash out in the group stage. If any confederation should lose a spot it's CAF.
Bosnia is actually a very decent team. They were unlucky against Argentina and simply robbed against Nigeria.
Nigeria earned that win! They came to play for 90 minutes Bosnia collapsed mentally after the no call. A first time team with no mental strength.
No, they didn't. Had Bosnia's goal counted, this would have been a different game. Both teams accumulated similar number of shots, similar time of possession. Nigeria was extremely lucky.
For that Ghana needs to beat Portugal AND hope that Germany beats US by at least 2. Neither of these is automatic. And the former is not higher than 50/50.
At the climate conditions the Dutch tactics is well chosen. Same with the Belgium one. There is a reason UEFA sides also struggled in the past at WCs in Central or South America, at least the Dutchies and Belgium adopted their tactics to the conditions.
I don't buy any of this ... Sounds like a lot of speculation based on no evidence If players didn't care then nobody is forcing them to play international. They could be sitting on a beach in Ibiza saving their energy for club football. As for sponsors pulling out? For every loser there is a winner. If some country's NT starts losing its popularity with its citizens there's probably another country somewhere else where it's rising because they beat that first country. Do you really think there are sponsors out there that can't afford to get involved with club soccer because international soccer takes up too much of their time? Most of these sponsors are involved with club soccer too. I'm not sure that it's necessarily one vs. another. Bottom line is that the WC will continue to matter as long as it matters to fans. People around the world are still watching and I'm not sure I'm seeing any evidence that these events are losing popularity.
Because they pay the most in TV rights for the WC out of any other country which is where Fifa gets it's income
That's yet to be seen, and even if they do past, so what? One good World Cup showing does not make up for how historically bad most African teams have been in past WCs, heck in 2010 only 1 country from Africa made it passed the group stage when the tournament was held on the AFRICAN continent.