Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Soccer Futbol Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Allocation Of Spots For 2014 World Cup
Topic Started: Mar 1 2011, 04:12 PM (478 Views)
Nkono
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Wednesday and Thursday FIFA's Executive Committe, the same group who brought us Russia and Qatar as hosts of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups will decide how the qualifying spots for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil will be divided.

The allocation of slots for the 2010 World Cup was Europe (13), Africa (6), South America (5), Asia (4), North/Central America (3) and Oceania (1) with Uruguay and New Zealand qualifying via inter-continent play-offs.

One of Africa's 6 slots of course was for host nation South Africa and the continent will lose that as Brazil are the 2014 hosts. There is pressure from both Asia and North/Central America (CONCACAF) to get another spot with some suggesting Africa could lose one of its 5 spots. I of course hope that is not the case as African qualifying as it currently stands is probably the most difficult of any confederations. You already know before qualifying for any World Cup that Germany and Italy will qualify from Europe, Brazil and Argentina from South America, Mexico and the US from North/Central America and Japan and Korea from Asia. But African qualifying is not so certain. Look at 2006 when so many of the regions traditional powers failed to qualify or look at Egypt who have won 3 straight African titles but have not qualified for the World Cup since 1990. In Africa there are about 8-10 nations roughly at the same level with no one or two nations standing above the rest as in other confederations. I think Africa should keep its five slots and I would hope that FIFA will maintain the same division of slots that it used for 2010, the one difference of course transfering the host qualifiying slot from Africa to South America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Don Balon
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
It may be difficult to qualify from Africa but to me nkono the question FIFA needs to deal with in deciding the allotment of qualifying spots is how a confederation's teams do once they qualify. And Africa's teams despite having 5 qualifying slots for the last three World Cups have only qualified 1 team per World Cup for the 2nd round. During the same time Asia had 4 teams into the round of 16, including a semifinalist in 2002 and North/Central America had 5 teams make the round of 16. So I think both Asia and North/Central America have a good argument about taking away one of Africa's 5 designated places.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
calimocho
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
I agree with nkono, keep the distribution as it was for 2010 just switching the host spot from Africa to South America. I do not think the standad should be how many nations from a confederation qualify for the 2nd round but rather how deep in quality is a particular confederation. Those statistics Don Balon gave of the amount of teams from Asia, Africa and North America who made it into the 2nd round are a bit misleading because all of Asia's 2nd round and beyond teams were either Korea or Japan (who also co-hosted one of the World Cups being considered here) and the 5 times a North American team has made the next round has been accomplished also by just two teams, Mexico and the United States. The other teams from Asia and North America have been among the worst teams in the 2002, 2006 and 2010 World Cups. African teams may not have passed to the 2nd round as often but neither have their national teams been among the worst in those World Cups. The overall quality of depth from Africa is I think superior to what is from those other two regions. So I think maintaining the status quo is the best option.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
xeneize
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
The allocation of slots for the 2010 World Cup was Europe (13), Africa (6), South America (5), Asia (4), North/Central America (3) and Oceania (1) with Uruguay and New Zealand qualifying via inter-continent play-offs.


With the playoff slots it was officially considered as being this for South Africa 2010, Europe (13), Africa (6), South America (4 1/2), Asia (4 1/2), North/Central America (3 1/2) and Oceania (1/2).

I agree with those saying keep the status quo and just transfer the automatic slot from Africa to South America. I am with calimocho that what the FIFA needs to look at is the strength in depth of the confederations and unquestionably there are more teams from Africa who are candidates to advance to the 2nd round than there are from either CONCACAF or Asia. And look at a team like Ivory Coast, in each of the last two World Cups they were placed in groups which most observers called that particular World Cup's "Group of Death" Place Ivory Coast in another group and it is very conceivable they would have advanced to the round of 16 in each of these last two World Cups. As a confederation Africa should not be punished by the fact one of their better nations twice got an unlucky draw. As a neutral I would much rather see that an Ivory Coast or a Cameroon qualifies for the World Cup rather than seeing Costa Rica, Trinidad, Bahrein or Saudi Arabia. To me the 3 1/2 and 4 1/2 spots are sufficient for both CONCACAF and Asia.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr. Pither
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Don Balon,Mar 1 2011
04:34 PM
It may be difficult to qualify from Africa but to me nkono the question FIFA needs to deal with in deciding the allotment of qualifying spots is how a confederation's teams do once they qualify. And Africa's teams despite having 5 qualifying slots for the last three World Cups have only qualified 1 team per World Cup for the 2nd round. During the same time Asia had 4 teams into the round of 16, including a semifinalist in 2002 and North/Central America had 5 teams make the round of 16. So I think both Asia and North/Central America have a good argument about taking away one of Africa's 5 designated places.

I understand the argumenst some are making here about the quality in depth of the confederation and maybe Ivory Coast did have unfortunate draws in the last few World Cups but the same could be pointed out to other nations too, the USA in 2006 were unfortunate to be placed in a group with the eventual World Champions Italy, Ghana, who finished 2nd in the group and a strong Czech team who were European semifinalists just two years before that. That is every bit as unfortunate a draw as what Ivory Coast had in 2006 and 2010. Or look at Costa Rica in 2002 who only were edged out on goal difference by Turkey, eventual World Cup semifinalists that year in agroup which also included that year's champion Brazil.

So you can not really use having an "unfortunate" draw as a reason to explain away why more nations from a confederation did not qualify for the elimination rounds. What you need is what actually happened and as previously stated, both Asia and CONCACAF have advanced more teams to the round of 16 than Africa has in the last three World Cups. That is some evidence which I think does justify taking away maybe half a spot from Africa and making one of it's national teams playoff against a team from another region.
P-I-T-H-E-R ...as in Brotherhood, but with PI instead of the BRO and no HOOD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Onslow
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
I am going to side with those arguing Africa should keep its five allocated slots. My reasoning is based on the difficulty it is to qualify out of Africa which is more dificult to qualify out of than either Asia or CONCACAF. Africa did have a poor overall World Cup in 2010 with only Ghana advancing to the elimination rounds but that Ghana team was a missed penalty kick from advancing to the semifinals. But even in this last World Cup it was not a case of African teams being completely out of the running as both South Africa and Nigeria entered the final group game with a legitimate opportunity to advance it is just that results did not go in their favour.

If you go back to 1998 when FIFA first gave Africa 5 qualifying slots then in those 4 World Cups Africa and Asia each sent 4 teams to the 2nd round while CONCACAF sent 6. But the CONCACAF and Asia teams who reached that round were only two separate nations from each region, Mexico and the USA from CONCACAF, Korea and Japan from Asia. In Africa it was three different nations who advanced that far, Nigeria, Senegal and Ghana, with the latter twice advancing to the elimination stage. That backs up the argument of the greater strength in depth of Africa compared to Asia and CONCACAF and that I think justifies them retaining their 5 spots for 2014.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pique
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
So you can not really use having an "unfortunate" draw as a reason to explain away why more nations from a confederation did not qualify for the elimination rounds. What you need is what actually happened and as previously stated, both Asia and CONCACAF have advanced more teams to the round of 16 than Africa has in the last three World Cups. That is some evidence which I think does justify taking away maybe half a spot from Africa and making one of it's national teams playoff against a team from another region.


The above are my thoughts on the subject too. It may be more difficult to get out of African qualifying than it is from Asia or CONCACAF but the truth is once these teams get to the World Cup, Asian and CONCACAF teams are more likely to make the 2nd round. It does not matter if it is only two teams from Asia and CONCACAF doing that, the bottom line is those are nations from those confederations reaching the elimination phase. Plus also remember Australia now is a member of Asia and they advanced to the 2nd round in 2006 while still a member of Oceania where eventual champions Italy were very fortunate to defeat them. Now that Australia is part of Asia, that gives Asia 3 national team capable of qualifying to the 2nd round in any World Cup. So there are more teams from Asia and CONCACAF making the elimination rounds of the World Cup than there are from Africa. Even in the "African" World Cup only one African nation made it out of its group. That tells me the relative strengths of these confederations and why Africa is not in my opinion deserving of more qualifying spots than either Asia or CONCACAF.
Esas son las leyendas de futbol mexicano,
En todo Mexico hay un Chiva hermano!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Yogi
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
With the playoff slots it was officially considered as being this for South Africa 2010, Europe (13), Africa (6), South America (4 1/2), Asia (4 1/2), North/Central America (3 1/2) and Oceania (1/2).


Ok the host spot goes to South America, so that would then be Africa (5), South America (5 1/2). South America sent all 5 of its teams in 2010 to the 2nd round, I would take a half place away from Africa and give it to South America so it would be Africa (4 1/2) and South America (6) with Africa's 5th placed team playing a playoff against one from CONCACAF, Asia or Oceania. The following World Cup when South America will not be host they would return to 5 spots. There is no justification for results on the field that Africa should have more guaranteed places than South America. The only reason they have done so is FIFA politics so that Blatter can win votes by courting African federations.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
El Profe
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
I agree with your conclusion Yogi that South America should have 5 guaranteed spots, plus this World Cup cycle one extra for the host country Brazil. But if you say Africa have received more because of their voting strength and ability to help Blatter win FIFA elections, a premise which I also think is probably true, then that need for votes has not gone away and Blatter will still need African votes, particularly if as expected he is challenged by Asia's confederation's president Bin Hamman. Blatter will try to get some Asian votes too but you would expect that confederation's president to have "home" support thus Blatter will need African votes and thus I can not see FIFA taking anything away from them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr. Pither
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
And the decision is...

The status quo. The only difference is the playoff pairings may be drawn rather than preset, that is a team from South America, North/Central America, Asia and Ocania will enter a drawing to see who they will face in the playoff.

P-I-T-H-E-R ...as in Brotherhood, but with PI instead of the BRO and no HOOD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nkono
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Mr. Pither,Mar 3 2011
05:24 AM
And the decision is...

The status quo. The only difference is the playoff pairings may be drawn rather than preset, that is a team from South America, North/Central America, Asia and Ocania will enter a drawing to see who they will face in the playoff.

That is the right decision in my opinion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
raconteur
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
A salomonic decision. I do like the idea of putting the 4 playoff teams into a draw. From CONCACAF's perspective it would be preferable to have its 4th place team face opposition from Asia or Oceania than South America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rosarino
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
No complaints from me about this decision. It is not often I can say that regarding decisions made by FIFA!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · General Soccer Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply