Your logic completely fails me. Since CAF allocation was increased to more than 2 teams (1994), CAF have never gotten more than one team to the round of 16 and on regular basis had two teams finishing the group stage in 4th & winless (Tunisia & Nigeria 2002; Tunisia & Cameroon 1998; Cameroon & Morocco 1994). CONMEBOL on the other hand had at least two teams reach the round of 16 in each of these WCs; and only one team (Bolivia in 1994) finishing last & winless. CAF results in the last three WCs CAF do not justify its 5 spot allocation. Unless they do much better in Germany there is no legitimate reason to increase the allocation to 6 teams. The "the qualifiers would be too long" nonsense. Number of games in 2006 WCQ: CONCACAF: 18-20 (could have been 22) CONMEBOL: 18-20 AFC: 12-16 (could have been 18) UEFA: 10-12 CAF: 10-12 ("top" teams only played 10) OFC: 9-11 (could have been 13) If CAF is allocated 4+1 spots, they can have a first round with 16 groups of 3/4 teams (4-6 games) with the group winners advancing to the final round - 4 groups of 4 the great majority of the teams will only play 10 games (no more than CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, AFC and UEFA teams had to play).
So because they have two teams regularly getting through they should get five places rather than four? Outside of Brazil and Argentina there is very little quality in south america. Paraguay and Ecuador will be out in the first round. The fact that three of the best teams in Africa didn't qualify proves how competitive the qualifiers are. If Brazil and Argentina fail to qualify from conmebol they may have a case for more places. To have HALF of the teams in a confederation qualifying is ridiculous. The CAF quailfying is already too long. It only looks short compared to bloated Asian/Concacaf/Conmebol qualifying, but those confederations are backwards and corrupt.
Define "best." I think the statement about two African teams per WC going winless is a pretty strong argument against them being "best."
Why did you cut my sentence in the middle? Because you know you are wrong? Please address the point that CAF regularly have some of the worst teams in the WC and CONMEBOL rarely does. Great point... if it was true. If we exclude Brazil and Argentina, over the last three WCs: (assuming I counted correctly Code: Teams R16 L&WL W T L % CAF 13 3 6 9 12 21 35.7 Mini-CONMEBOL* 8 3 1 5 9 12 36.5 L&WL - Last in group and win-less * - Intra-confederation games excluded Almost half the CAF teams were among the worst teams in the WC; only 1 of the CONMEBOL teams was as bad. On the up side, "Mini-CONMEBOL" got as many teams as CAF to the round of 16, but had almost 40% less teams to accomplish the task. Last but not least, head to head over the last three WCs "Mini-CONMEBOL" is 2:3:0 vs. CAF teams It can also be a "fact" that they are not the best teams in Africa. How do you know which of the two is a "fact". Please do not confuse opinion with a fact. You are suggesting taking places away from "Mini-CONMEBOL" (we are not talking about giving it more places) when over the last three WCs its teams have shown that they belong in the WC; the same is not true for CAF teams. As far as Brazil and Argentina in WCQ, in 1994 Argentina had to take the playoff route to the WC and in 2002 Brazil almost had to take the same path. Why? If 10-15 weak Caribbean teams were to join CONMEBOL would it justify increasing its number of slots? By your logic, yes since the percentage of teams qualifying to the WC will drop to a "non-ridiculous" level. The only confederation with less games during the qualifiers is OFC. Is that the confederation you set as the standard for CAF? You named 3 of the other 5 confederations, add the fact that the UEFA qualifiers are not shorter than CAF's and again you are only left with OFC. If your claim is that CAF qualifiers are longer than OFC's - I agree; it is also meaningless. 2006 results pending, there is no legitimate reason to give CAF an additional slot. There is a reasonable argument to be made (I'm not sure I support it) that CAF allocation should be reduced unless they can perform much better in 2006.
I don't think anything really needs to be changed allocation wise. Europe at 14 slots seems to be fair because if you think about is there a team from Europe anyone will really miss? The only one I can make a case for is Romania but that is it. I think the extra halfspot in Asia is justified now that Australia is joining up with the AFC. The only thing that annoys me are the half-spots for CONCACAF and OCEANIA because those teams will get mauled consistently if they ever sneak into the World Cup so what I would like to see for the next world cup is a slight tweaking of the system. For the next World Cup it would be nice to see Africa get an extra half spot as an act of goodwill which I think Blatter will make sure will happen. Furthermore, there is no changing of the guard in Africa what happened was a fluke. Nigeria and Cameroon are still top squads and so is Morocco. Ghana and Ivory Coast might have joined them as World Cup participants but they have always been very good at a regional level. So if Africa were to be given 5.5 slots we could see all those nations plus Tunisia at the same tourney which I think is very fair. Hosts 1 UEFA 13.5 AFC 4.5 CONEMBOL 4.5 CONCACAF 3.5 CAF 4.5 OCEANIA .5 Playoffs CAF vs. CONCACAF AFC vs. EUROPE CONEMBOL vs. OCEANIA (actually fvck that just give CONEMBOL 5 spots this game is a waste of time)
In alphabetical order, I think that the following are at least as good as Romania Denmark Greece Ireland Norway Russia Turkey I for one will miss Denmark and Ireland way more than I'll miss Romania. What are you basing this on? If AFC teams do well in 2006, you might be able to make a reasonable argument for that. If AFC teams continue to perform away from home soil as well as they have done in the past - no way this is justified. Wait a minute, a CONCACAF team (a weak one at that) has just defeated the 5th place AFC team. Are you guarantying that AFC WCQ will have no upsets? If not, the AFC rep will be worse then the teams you are attacking. This is a great argument against this proposal. When was the last time he did anything as "an act of goodwill" that was good or "fair"? Fair to whom? So far, despite the great potential, CAF has not shown the ability to send multiple teams to the second round and have constantly (since their allocation was increased to more than 2) sends not one, but two of the worst teams to the WC. Why is it "fair" to take spots from confederations that have shown the ability to do well and give them to confederations that have been given the opportunity and failed to do well?
I think it is time FIFA rethought its current organization for distributing spots for the World Cup. I think it is time to MERGE some Confederations. 1. Merge Oceania with Asia. Australia already going to Asia, might as well send rest of them. They can play a series of early qualifiers for the minnows (kind of what CONCACAF does now) and then add in the better performing countries in later rounds. 2. MERGE CONCACAF and COMNEBOL Basically make the Americas similar to UEFA. Have a series of early qualifying rounds for the smaller countries. Then redistribute at some point into groups similar to UEFA. Under this guise -- WC 2010 SPOTS UEFA --> 14 spots AFRICA --> 4.5 + 1 for hosts (S. AFrica) COMNEBOL/CONCACAF --> 8 spots ASIA/OCEANIA --> 4.5 spots This would give balance to the teams from around the world. It would also improve the qualifying calendar, especially for COMNEBOL.
There was no legitimate reason to increase Asia's allocation by a spot (from 3.5 to 4.5) for the 2002 world cup, except that Asia was hosting it. Believe me, you'll see 6 African teams at the 2010 World Cup.
CONMEBOL is already changing their qualifying format. Two groups of 5, I think it is starting for the 2010 WC.
There's equally ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION for increasing Africa's allocation for WC2010 (including the host nation), other than FIFA & Bladder politics. They've done NOTHING in the WC Finals for the past 4-5 cycles (20 years), even after increasing their allocation from 2 to 5 over the period. If the 5 CAF teams perform in the WC2006 Finals as per their past history, leave all the confederational allocations as per WC2006 AND have CAF absorb the Host Nation spot for WC 2010. This will result in CAF 5.0 (including Host Nation); UEFA 14.0; AFC 4.5; OFC 0.5; CONMEBOL 4.5; and CONCACAF 3.5 being the allocations for the WC Finals in South Africa. My preferred Intercontinental Play-offs would be AFC/OFC and CONMEBOL/CONCACAF (ie both North/South due to timing & proximity matters).
Whilst I agree with you about CAF's performance I would still give them half a spot for a playoff against UEFA. This would mean all confederations would have a playoff chance to increase their representation. If we keep the 2 matches in 4 days system for next time I would keep the playoffs as you've outlined as time changes would be less of a factor.
You are in a way correct but giving them an extra half spot doesn't really do anything to help them unjustifiably. A half spot means they need to be able to prove themselves better than a team from UEFA most likely. If they can beat the European team they have earned it. From what I have seen in the Nations' Cup is that the quality of the teams that are never represented at the World Cup is improving. Gone are the days that Cameroon or Nigeria could stomp on tiny or weak nations (The same is happening in Asia to a lesser extent). The Quality of teams on the top is also improving just not at a pace fast enough. Moreover, Africa isn't really set up to do well at this tournament because the big nations you would expect to do something (although first timers) Ghana and Cote D'Ivoire are in ridiculously hard groups. Tunisia has a chance and from their preformances at ANC 2006 Togo and Angola look like they are merley making up the numbers.
I like this too, although it will force Africa to change their qualification system to get a playoff team at the end. In my earlier post, I wasn't saying I think Africa should get an extra spot, I was just pointing out that there's precedent for it, and in FIFA politics usually wins out. I'm just making a prediction that Africa gets 5 plus the host, but I could be wrong. Personally I'd like to see six African teams and one fewer Asian team, but I realize the results don't support this, so I can't really argue too hard for it. If an African team can beat a European team in a playoff though, then we can't really say they don't deserve to be in.
I prefer the OFC champion joining the last round of AFC qualifying proposal that is before FIFA at the moment: * The AFC gets a chance at the 5 spots it wants - AFC 4.5 + OFC 0.5 * The OFC champion is guaranteed matches against quality opposition * It fixes the "what do we do with the OFC" issue
almango, I don't have any problems with this. It's probably even fairer to all 6 FIFA Confederations, as such. I'm assuming that the playoff spot would come out of UEFA's 14 so that CAF ends up as 5.5 and UEFA as 13.5, with the two confederations playing off for that last spot. By implication, this means that CAF have the Hosts (South Africa) plus 4 others guaranteed, with their 6th team going into a playoff with Europe's 14th team.
Crowdie, The OFC have to sort things out for themselves, not hang their fate on what AUS did (and has been trying to do for years) despite the OFC & its politicians (eg Charlie Dempsey) running interference. They should stand on their own feet and do the hard yards, themselves & for their constituencies, for a change. I just don't like easy backdoor fixes, especially coming from the politicians of the OFC & FIFA, who got them in their predicament in the first place.
Politics aside, isn't what got them into their predicament in the first place the fact that they're a bunch of little islands with small populations?
Yes & the small islands (NZ included) went along with FIFA (ie were bribed by the tenuous possibilty of footballing POWER & PRESTIGE within the FIFA organisation, to be bestowed upon their nominees) to create the OFC, with AUS voting AGAINST the creation of such a new (dumping-ground) confederation. Who do you think had an ever-so-small grip on international footballing reality, then ???
i find it very hard to believe that they would do this. kills all the rivalries. and, i'm sure pretty much all the fans in south america, such as myself, would be pissed at this move. i want brazil-argentina, as someone else said here. this would be just a ploy by UEFA to keep the South American players based in Europe from playing more games . I understand, but it shouldnt be at the expense of CONMEBOL. There must be a better compromise out there.
Ah... very interesting. Though now they do have the .5 spot with which to negotiate. In the long run, what other options are there but to integrate the OFC into the AFC? It's just a matter of the details... unless you think they should just give up the 1/2 spot and stop playing soccer?
Want to bet on this? I've heard the old Septic Bladder already moaning on about how he'd like to have the OFC playoff against another confederation, with the winner to then play off with a third confederation, for a place in the finals. I'd say that the OFC has lost its 0.5 place, already. So much for their much vaunted influence within FIFA. My position has been stated on BS (and other forums) a very long time ago. I've always wanted ALL of the OFC to be merged with the AFC, way before AUS actually managed to actually move. It's the politicians of the Island Nations of the OFC who've resisted any such move. I'm just against them profiting in any way, accidentally or by piggy-backing AUS' work in moving. My schedule would have been an AFC/OFC playoff for WC2010 and then a merging of the two (into an Asia/Pacific Confederation) for WC2014. John O"Neill & the FFA surprised me by actually achieving the AUS move into the AFC, when they did. All power to John O'Neill & Frank Lowy, up yours to the old Septic Bladder & the OFC. I ALSO have wanted CONMEBOL & CONCACAF to merge, as I see them in a similar situation (small number of decent teams, with lots of less than decent teams riding on their coat-tails). How this merger (into an Americas Confederation) would come about should be pioneered by the eventual AFC/OFC merger. These mergers would solve a lot of problems in world footballing wrt to wc places & hosting country allocations, along with (from my perspective) some better WCQ pathways & competitions for most national teams.
I don't think there is another option. Its all a matter of the details and how you can run a confederation over such a wide area. When OFC gained Confederation status AFC had just had a number of old Soviet Republics join and didn't want the hassle of nurse maiding OFC along with the problems of integrating new members into its competitions. The OFC itself loved the idea of being a full confederation as it brought its officials many benefits without helping the sport at all. It had always done what it could to limit Australia's strength in so many ways. This includes things like scheduling all its tournaments outside the accepted international dates, expecting Australia to commit resources to helping them develop whilst refusing to give any political power to Australia in OFC. I hope the OFC officials who continually put themselves ahead of the sport now stew in their mess for a period, but hope that in the medium term sanity prevails and OFC becomes a sub region within Asia. Its the only way that soccer will improve there. All AFC youth tournaments have area based qualifyers now so it shouldn't be a problem incorporating them at that level, but senior qualifiers are seed based and some of the smaller countries in both AFC and OFC will struggle playing in tournaments. Maybe a regional pre qualifying would be the answer.
Your first statement is true and your second statement will probably be proven to be true as well. I'm just as certain, that it was wrong to increase Asia's allocation in 2002 (they should have kept the OFC 1st - AFC 4th playoff) and unless CAF does much better in 2006, it will be wrong to increase their allocation for 2006. Now if CAF is concerned that too many good CAF teams are left out, take the 4 slots 2010 slots and make them into 8 half slots. The 8 CAF teams could play vs. 4 UEFA, 1 AFC, 1 CONMEBOL 1 CONCACAF and 1 OFC teams in the playoffs. If the rest of the allocations are unchanged they will face UEFA 13-16, AFC 5, CONMEBOL 5, CONCACAF 4 and OFC 1. Does anyone think that CAF will go for this?