World Cup '10 spot allocation

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by PanchoM, Dec 13, 2005.

  1. PanchoM

    PanchoM Member

    Nov 3, 2001
    If none of the Asia-Oceania teams in '06 advance out of their groups, should they still get 5 spots ?

    If none of the African Nations advance should it stay at 5

    If Concacaf doesn't advance a single team do they still get 3.5 spots ?

    It should all be dependent on what the representatives from their Confed actually do in '06 . I would rather see good Football then having geographical areas represented .

    What do you guys think ?
  2. dovifat

    dovifat New Member

    Dec 10, 2005
    No, it shouldn't. The flaw in your approach is that the groups are extremely unbalanced this time. Look at the two groups of death ( E and C ). Of those federations you mention they have

    - 2 African teams ( who are considered the strongest from CAF by most )
    - 1 Concacaf team
    - 0 AFC/OFC teams

    Qualifying from a group like H does not at all mean that team is better or even equal to those going home early from group C or E. Nor does it mean that team plays more attractive football.
  3. uclacarlos

    uclacarlos Member+

    Aug 10, 2003
    east coast
    FC Barcelona
    Nat'l Team:
    What if Europe only qualifies 8 teams? Should they retain 15 slots? What if Conmebol only advances 2 teams? Should they retain 4 slots?

    Funny how you only posed the question about the stereotypical "weak" confederations, despite the fact that only 4 of the 8 quarterfinalists in '02 were from traditional soccer powerhouses.

    At the core of your question is a belief that soccer is still dominated by The Old Guard (Brazil, Italy, Germany, Argentina, etc.). While these powers are still powerful, they're accompanied by a slew of competitors.
  4. Chicago1871

    Chicago1871 Member

    Apr 21, 2001
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Pretty sure CONCACAF doesn't get 4.5 spots.
  5. PanchoM

    PanchoM Member

    Nov 3, 2001
    Not at all , I think Europe should get less allocations if only 8 teams advance
    Its the only fair way to do this . I would much rather see Ireland and Colombia Peru Chile Norway then some of these . If these teams want to be here, they should Play for their spots .
  6. PanchoM

    PanchoM Member

    Nov 3, 2001
    OK, 3.5 :)

    Then so be it . if no CONCACAF team advances then have a minimum 1 team next time around . :D
  7. Bengoechea

    Bengoechea Member

    Jul 28, 2005
    São Paulo
    Nat'l Team:
    My Slots for 2010

    1 South Africa (Host) CAF
    14,5 UEFA
    3,25 CONCACAF
    4,5 CONMEBOL
    4,25 AFC
    4,25 AFRICA
    0,25 OFC

    OFC x AFC, Winners x CONMEBOL
    CAF x CONCACAF, Winners x UEFA
  8. benztown

    benztown Member+

    Jun 24, 2005
    VfB Stuttgart
    I don't think, that it should depend on this world cup, but I still think, that it's not entirely fair the way it is right now. I think teams like Denmark, Ireland or Turkey would have qualified in pretty much any other confederation, whereas Trinidat & Tobago, Togo or Saudi Arabia never would have qualified in Europe.

    I think quality wise Europe and also Africa (the last WCQ have proven that the AFC has much more depth than I thought it would...Cameroon probably would have had little trouble qualifying in CONCACAF for example) are a little underrepresented. So I would give each of them one more spot, so that it would look like this:

    UEFA 14 + 1 = 15
    CAF 5 + 1 = 6
    CONMEBOL 4.5 - 0.5 = 4
    AFC 4.5 -0.5 = 4
    CONCACAF 3.5 - 1 = 2.5
    OFC 0.5
  9. shinzui

    shinzui New Member

    Dec 2, 2005
    Gulf Shores
    UEFA doesn't have 14 spots now. They have 13 and a spot allocated to the host nation.

    I don't think the current allocation should change at all. However, the playoffs should change.

    Would there be any problem if the playoff matches had been Bahrain vs. Spain, Trinidad and Tobago vs. Czech Rep., Turkey vs. Australia, Uruguay vs. Slovakia, Norway vs. Switzerland?

    It would be a mistake by FIFA to reduce African qualifiers on the eve of the first ever African World Cup. Those 5 spots plus the host allocation are essential to the development of the sport in many of those nations. Besides, in my opinion the two best teams not in the tournament are Nigeria and Cameroon, not Denmark or Turkey or Ireland, etc.
  10. benztown

    benztown Member+

    Jun 24, 2005
    VfB Stuttgart
    Thats actally a pretty good the single confederations less fixed spots and more playoffs between the different confederations. E.g. Europe gets 10 spots plus lets say 8-10 1/2 spots and the same for all the others.

    I don't know...I wouldn't rate Nigeria that high, but then again I havent really seen them recently. Cameroon is definately up there but I wouldn't rate them higher (or lower) than those European teams mentioned.
  11. leonidas

    leonidas Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2005
    Palmeiras Sao Paulo
    Nat'l Team:
    Although I agree with you on Asia especially, the AFC president would definitely not have this. His boycott threat before the 2002 World Cup pretty much shut FIFA up. In fact, the guy even said that he wanted to add even more World Cup spots. I think at least 6 or something. Clearly the guy is delusional, but whatever.

    I think CONCACAF deserves 3 berths. I'd like to see Africa upped as well. However, the reasons why none of the big guys qualified in Africa was because of the nature of CAF qualifying --its TOUGH! I mean, only one team from each group. The second place teams in some of the groups were really good--Morocco, Nigeria, Cameroon. Their qualification process will have to change for the next World Cup.

    CONMEBOL will definitely not have only 4 in the next World Cup. As some of the other guys here said, it isnt fair to penalize a confederation because some of the teams were drawn into tough groups (in Africa's case). Paraguay, I think, is a quality side and they probably won't make it because of their rather tough group. Theyve been one of the most consistent teams from South America and they probably won't qualify. Even Uruguay, who failed to make it, probably would have qualified if it werent for their injuries. But hey, injuries happen and teams just have to deal. I think we will still see 4.5. Uruguay is still a great team...and Colombia is improving after disappearing for a few years. So yeah. It will all depend on how successful the Confederation presidents are when it comes to lobbying...or making empty threats. hah.
  12. benztown

    benztown Member+

    Jun 24, 2005
    VfB Stuttgart
    Actually, I don't think we'll see many's just what I thought would be right. And it's tough. Every confederation has good arguments for increasing their numbers. But I think Asia is a little overrepresented...there are a lot of countries, but only a few decent teams: Japan and Korea, Iran has yet to prove itself and maybe Australia after their move to AFC. China might have some potential, but thats still not very much. But it's a big market to promote football in, so I don't think we will see any changes there.

    The same thing with CONCACAF: Mexico and the US are the only ones that can compete on an international level with Costa Rica some way behind...and after that...pretty much nothing.

    I think CONMEBOL has actually the best quality/team average but then again there aren't a lot of countries represented by CONMEBOL (is it 10?). So with 4.5 slots (which are in fact 5 after Australia moved to AFC) for the World Cup, half the South American teams are represented. And 4 slots would still leave quality sides like Paraguay and Uruguay the chance to qualify behind Brazil and Argentina.

    CAF is definately the toughest confederation, so they deserve another team at the WC. Plus they have the quality to back it up.

    15 teams from UEFA is dreaming, I admit. I still believe, that quality wise it would be just, but I understand that each continent needs to be properly represented. But there should definately be 14 teams from Europe in 2010 as well.
  13. almango

    almango Member+

    Sydney FC
    Nov 29, 2004
    Bulli, Australia
    Sydney FC
    Nat'l Team:
    UEFA has 14 spots. They don't get an extra for hosting. The host spot came from its allocation.

    There wouldn't be a problem at all as far as I'm concerned. Intercontinental playoffs involving all confederations will help ensure that the allocation reflects the current strengths of each region, rather than the past strength.

    AFrica should stay at 5 unless they can prove that they are worth more. They haven't done that yet IMHO. I wouldn't begrudge them an extra playoff spot though, as I think all confederations should have a chance to increase their spots.
  14. jus2nang

    jus2nang Member

    Dec 12, 2005
    North London
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Agree to a certain extent.

    But have u thought that it is more difficult to show when u have so little representation in the 1st place?

    The fact that nearly half the teams in the competition are European means that the later stages are for the most part going to be made up of European teams.

    In 2010, Africa should keep it's 5 + 1 more for the host.

    Are you seriously going to have 51 African Nations going for 4 spots?
  15. Flyin Ryan

    Flyin Ryan Member

    May 13, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Based on what I think will happen:

    UEFA - 14.5
    CAF - 6 (1 of which is host)
    CONCACAF - 3
    CONMEBOL - 4.5
    AFC - 3.5
    OFC - 0.5

    If two Asian teams go 0-3 this time around, spots better be taken away.
  16. almango

    almango Member+

    Sydney FC
    Nov 29, 2004
    Bulli, Australia
    Sydney FC
    Nat'l Team:
  17. IASocFan

    IASocFan Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 13, 2000
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Europe won't get more than the 14 slots they have for 2006. For 2010, I see
    Euro - 14
    CONMEBOL - 4.5
    CONCACAF - 3.5 playoff with CONMEBOL
    Africa - 4.5 + RSA
    Asia, Oceania - 4.5 playoff with Africa
  18. scarshins

    scarshins Member

    Jun 13, 2000
    how about

    Euro - 14.5
    CONMEBOL - 4.5
    CONCACAF - 3.5 playoff with CONMEBOL
    Africa - 4 + RSA
    Asia, Oceania - 4.5 playoff with Euro

    which is almost what you had Iowa
  19. Guinho

    Guinho Member+

    May 27, 2001
    San Francisco, CA
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    You have both. The world cup is really two pools:

    -16 teams allocated to the best 16 teams.
    -16 or so allocated so roughly proportional to the number of teams remaining in each confederation.

    It's a good formula.

    Since most of the AFC teams are in the latter half, it's o.k. I think one of those berths is for Japan/SK and the others are geographic representation.
  20. almango

    almango Member+

    Sydney FC
    Nov 29, 2004
    Bulli, Australia
    Sydney FC
    Nat'l Team:
    I think that inter continental playoffs should be a much larger feature of the allocation of spots. It would enable representation from all regions, and also allow the allocation to more closely reflect current form rather than old form. I would have 20 spots available for direct qualification from the confederations. I would allocate them as below

    UEFA 9
    CAF 3
    AFC 2
    OFC 0
    Host 1

    The remaining 12 spots would be allocated through intercontinental playoffs with the following breakdown.

    UEFA 9
    CAF 4
    AFC 4
    OFC 1

    The only rules would be that all playoffs must be inter continental. A random draw should take place. Under a system like this all confederations could increase their allocation except for OFC. OFC has been considerably weakened with the departure of Australia and I can't see how you could justify more than the one playoff spot it has.
  21. ranul

    ranul Member

    fc edmonton
    Aug 24, 2000
    FC Edmonton
    Nat'l Team:
    here is what I would like to see the regions get spots based on this formula
    1 spot for host country
    1 spot for each contentnent expept oceania(5 spots)
    1 for each team in the top 16 in world cup (16 spots)
    1 spot for each next 9 ranked countries
    1 spot for match between 10 th ranked and oceania winner
    based on this for 2006 would have been like this
    south america 4
    africa 3
    north america 4
    asia 3
    europe 16
    europe/oceania 1
  22. shinzui

    shinzui New Member

    Dec 2, 2005
    Gulf Shores
    Have Oceania do its qualifying at the same time as the first and second stages of Asian qualifying. Then enter the two best OFC teams in the final round of Asian qualifying so instead of 2 groups of 4 teams in Asia you have 2 groups of 6(the two OFC entries and 2 more Asian nations). OFC would become more of a subconfederation within AFC. Keep them at 4.5 qualifying spots, but that gives the OFC teams a fairer shot at making the WC than a playoff against South America. It would also open up an extra .5 spot to be given to another confederation.

    Host 1
    AFC/OFC 4.5 spots
    CAF 5
    CONCACAF 3.5
    CONMEBOL 4.5
    UEFA 13.5
  23. Gold is the Colour

    Dec 17, 2005
    Perth Australia
    Perth Glory
    Nat'l Team:
    I would keep the idea of one spot for each team through to rnd of 16.

    1 spot for host

    1 spot for champions

    14 spots left - these should be split between each confed, but first the confederations should be made more equal.

    If asia and Oceania combine - 56 members

    Europe - 53 members

    Africa - 52 members

    Combine americas - 45 members

    Americas group is still a bit small but now we give 3.5 spots to each confederation.

    Taking results from last WC this would give us

    Europe - 9+3.5=(12.5 +one host)
    Asia - 2 + 3.5 = 5.5
    Africa - 1 + 3.5 = 4.5
    Americas - 4+3.5=7.5 + champion

    At this WC

    Europe has 14 (As above if they won playoff)
    Asia has 5 (As above - losing playoff)
    Africa has 5 (As above - winning playoff)
    Americas has 8 (As above - losing playoff)

    Knowing the system they use beforehand would be better than FIFA deciding (bribing) how many places are allocated
  24. Sean Donahue

    Sean Donahue Member

    Aug 31, 2001
    So the Champions get two spots then? :D The Champions would be part of the round of 16 as well, leaving 15 spots, not 14.
  25. Trussy in Oz

    Trussy in Oz New Member

    Mar 23, 2004
    So much will depend on 2006 results, but the 2010 finals will be all about appeasement, after fixing the finals to go to the African confederation using the mock rotation policy, FIFA will now have to pay back European and South American favours.
    First I suspect that the South American and Oceania relationship to remain the same, and with Australia now in an Asian Group it will virtually guarantee South America five qualfiers.
    Next to avoid the possiblility of six african teams in the finals I suspect there will be one host and four direct qualifiers from the African confederation.
    Now for the european payback, I expect the Asian confederation the be reduced to four automatic places and the CONCACAF reduced to three spots with the European confederation awarded fifteen direct spots. FIFA will probably do this under the proviso of streamlining the event, reducing travel time between different confederations, it’s for player welfare etc.
    Now to some of you, this will all seem a little unfair but then again when did fairness have anything to do with FIFA and particularly when it comes to qualifying.

Share This Page