What is the difference between the OFC and AFC having a playoff and the OFC champion playing home and away against the best of the AFC? It is certainly much, much better for the OFC champion to be guaranteed eight+ matches.
Agreed, even when Aus was still in Oceania and FIFA promised a full spot, I would have much rathered that spot being given to Asia and top 2 from Oceania battling it out in final round of Asia quals.
Well, Blatter just announced yesterday in Egypt that he wants Africa to have 6 teams in 2010. I wonder how this will change things. So, the host spot obviously goes to South Africa...and then we still have 5 teams which have to qualify from CAF. But, this means that Europe might lose a spot because Germany has to qualify again. And then AFC will also complain that they should get another spot if Africa gets one more. The AFC president is rather bold in his declarations...he has said in the past that he wants like 7 spots or something.
This isn't how it should be, but this is how it's going to be. Europe loses a spot every tournament, no reason they won't again this time. Host-1 Africa-5 Europe-13 Asia/OFC-5 CONCACAF-3.5 S. America-4.5
Having heard what was actually said it wasn't a demand for 7 spots. It was more along the lines of a long term goal for AFC, with the proviso that the playing standards improved to the point of justifying it.
If Africa get an extra spot as host then UEFA will get 13.5. Expect a mad scramble for who loses the half spot. My bet is that OFC will lose it and be brought into AFC qualifying, either as a part of the qualifying group or a playoff to see who goes into the final playoff.
Your scenario is what I hope happens. I think at least one fringe teams from another confederation should have to beat a European team to get to the world cup. If they do, then they really earned their way in, and didn't just beat Bahrain. I just think Asia will be able to argue that they have five teams in the world cup this year (with Australia) and so they should get 5 slots with OFC added to them. I don't think FIFA will keep them at 4.5. People from Asia and CONCACAF will argue that Europe really has only 13 this year plus the host, so if you give africa an extra one for their host, logically the spot should come from Europe.
If the amount of places for Asia stays the same Saudi Arabia will most likely not qualify since Australia will now go above them.
yeah. but you know what's hard to believe is that saudi arabia were undefeated in qualifying. yikes. i'm not sure how bad they are now. i mean, they did tie sweden today or yesterday. i'm not sure who sweden called up, but yeah, i agree that they'll probably get bumped out by australia.
True, but you have to figure they'll at least land the play-in spot. I think at least one of the leading teams from Asia should have to stay home. Would make it more meaningful.
WC2010 allocations: UEFA 14 Africa 5+1 Asia 4.5 Oceania 0.5 (Play-off Asia vs Oceania) South-America 4.5 Concacaf 2.5 (Play-off South-America vs Concacaf) Let's see whether the US can still qualify for the WC with this allocation...
It should not be a problem for the US since they qualified in 1st place this year. How about this for 2010 : Each team that makes it to the round of 16 in germany earns 2 spots for their confederation in 2010 ? What would be the argument against that ?
WC quals are also for developing football in rest of the world. How about this: 1 spot for each team from confed in final 16 = 16 Plus host = 17. This leaves 15 spots shared proportionally amongst confeds. UEFA - 52 countries - 4 spots Africa - 52 countries - 4 spots Asia+ Oceania - 56 countries = 4 spots Concacaf + Conmebol - 45 countries = 3 spots. So Uefa could get Max 17 spots, but based on last WC - 13
The teams would still need to qualify for the next WC. Its only the amount of allocations that is determined . The World cup finals should not be a stage for teams to develop their skills . Imagine if this where to happen in Boxing ; You wanna learn to box ? go a few rounds with the world champion.
Asia getting 4.5 spots is way too much, though with Austrailia joining, it might be best ot keep it at that, because now they can a semi competitive team in the playoff spot. There are 4 decent teams in Asia, and after that the quality just drops off to an extent worse than in Concacaf. Besides that the two top Asian teams Korea and Japan, have yet to prove they can win outside their own continent, and Saudi Arabia and Iran have yet to prove much at the WC stage period. That said I believe Concacaf shouldn't get no more or no less than 3.5 spots. T&T got lucky with an easy semifinal qualifying group, and a team like Jamaica got screwed out of a spot in the final 6. Jamaica is definitely more talented, and I don't see a team like T&T qualifying again for a while after this.
Well, suppose no Asian team qualifies for the second round? Then not only would they have no spots for 2010, but by your formula they'd never get to compete in another World Cup.
Other than being anti-CONCACAF, and assuming that one CONCACAF team makes it to the round of 16 in Germany; what is your justification for this allocation?
So one lucky goal, odd refereeing decision or marginal mathematical fluke can decide how many teams go to the world cup four year later? All sorts of crap teams often get through to the last sixteen, you just need an easy group and a bit of luck. Would you say that Paraguay are better than Argentina? For 2010 the places should be handed out like this: Africa: 6 (5 + hosts) Europe: 14 Asia: 4 + 1 playoff Concacaf: 3 + 1 playoff Conmebol: 3 + 1 playoff Oceania: 1 playoff Africa need the extra place otherwise the qualifiers would be too long, and even good teams don't qualify from Africa now. The place is taken from Conmebol who can get half of their teams in which is ridiculous.