I agree that Asia deserve less than what they're getting, as they only have 2 good teams at most. CAF, on the other side, I think 5 positions were fair enough, as the continent mostly have 5-6 good teams that always compete in ACON and qualification. 9 positions are too much I agree, should have been 6-7 positions only or something.
African teams at World cup | Gone
- Thread starter FootballHQ
- Start date
By that logic there's little point in any forum, ever. Most of the things talked about here you can't do anything about.
There are still and will always be much more European and South American teams. What's a few more African teams (specially knowing the decent ones that are missing) gonna do in terms of detriment to the World Cup. There will be more trash European teams in the WC too
I was suggesting CAF and AFC both get a 2.5 place increase (in line with the current distributions), and some on here say I've an imperialistic view of football (whatever that means).
The newbie system
I'm African and hard to disagree with your suggestion. Increasing the number of African teams to 9 is a con and a pro, it'll make the good teams play consistently on top level so they'll gain more experience and start performing, but there will be 2-3 teams each year that will really terrible.I was suggesting CAF and AFC both get a 2.5 place increase (in line with the current distributions), and some on here say I've an imperialistic view of football (whatever that means).
The chance to properly rebuilt was after 2010 world cup. Get the feeling everyone tagged on to Ghana's fine run to brink of semi final but the showings from the other teams (six in total) was very poor and don't think any of the others got out of their groups.
I would say though at least from a distance the organisation of the teams seemed better off the pitch. No disputes over bonuses and possible strikes that we've seen from Nigeria, Cameroon and Togo at WCs since 2006.
No sudden sacking of managers on eye of tournaments which Nigeria have done plenty of times. No inteference from governments. Ironically major european teams were doing that.
If that structure can continue they have a chance of making a mark in future WCs.
I would say though at least from a distance the organisation of the teams seemed better off the pitch. No disputes over bonuses and possible strikes that we've seen from Nigeria, Cameroon and Togo at WCs since 2006.
No sudden sacking of managers on eye of tournaments which Nigeria have done plenty of times. No inteference from governments. Ironically major european teams were doing that.
If that structure can continue they have a chance of making a mark in future WCs.
Not sure how practical it is but how about having two ten team groups similar to what Commebol do?
Top 2 go through with the third place teams facing off for final spot. For the 8-9 places top 4 in each go through.
Going to that structure massively improved teams like Paraguay and Ecuador which meant they went to plenty of WCs and made knock out stages on couple of occasions.
When you're going to give many more places to AFC, CAF and CONCACAF, you end up with more and more sides the quality of Panama, Egypt, Saudi & the likes.
Not a single European team has gone home with 0 points for the last 3 WCs, guess which confederations have had a few?
I have nothing against other confederations getting more places when their performances can justify it, but the massive increase for everyone but UEFA and CONMEBOL in 2026 simply cannot be justified if quality is a factor.
But we know all of that, the hope is that by giving more chances to other continent, some of the teams can get through.
FIFA has the duty to give other continents a little to have their teams shine more.
Your imperialistic view is really funny to me. Just about getting the strong even stronger and to hell with the rest basically
It's a good idea.
My main problem with CAF qualifications is not the 5 positions, but the lack of any second chance, they're 5 groups that you need to top it or you go out. Thus forcing 2 good teams to play for one spot while having a mediocre group on another side. AFC don't have much big teams, but their qualifications are easier since they're 2 groups, top 2 of each go through and 3rd of each group play a playoff game. It's better and much easier so nearly the same teams always go through as they're the only good ones.
I yet to know how they'll organize the qualifications now with these 9 positions.
Pele: An African nation will win the World Cup before the year 2000.
It's now 2018 and no African team has ever made the SF. Perhaps he's cursed you forever.
Classic and annual 3rd game meltown again
How is my suggestion of keeping the same proportions not giving the other continents "a little"?
Well, that is shit. But 9 teams from africa next wc? I missed that info
That's a good point, don't know too much details about the CAF qualifications but one quick wiki check shows it's a lot more difficult than the AFC qualification.
I'm pretty sure Japan can field a 2nd side and make it through.
From 2026 I believe.
Not the next one, but 2026:
AFC 8
CAF 9
CONCACAF 6
CONMEBOL 6
OFC 1
UEFA 16
Playoff 2
and UEFA don't even get to playoff
Because the same proportions would lead to the same results and FIFA wants to increase the chances of an African team going further into the tournament. What would be the point of making a 48 team tournament with the same teams from the same continents always performing the same ?How is my suggestion of keeping the same proportions not giving the other continents "a little"?
The WC has increase from 16 to 32 in the last 40 years.
CAF has gone from 1 place to 5 in that same time span, AFC 2 places to 5.5 in 2022, Concacaf has gone from 1 to 3.5
Guess what hasn't changed one iota in those 4 decades? Do you seriously think a further increase will change anything?
Africa needs more sides.
1) The African sides didn't do badly. Nigeria and Senegal were unlucky not to get through.
2) CAF has over 50 members. To develop their game, streamline qualifying, and generally improve African football, they need more teams at the world cup.
3) UEFA don't need more than 1/3rd of the places
Why would Euopean need more places, they're doing so well already. FIFA is looking for equality of performances, not keeping the status quo
I've suggested may times that CAF get more places, a 50% increase from 5 to 7.5. That's more than fair enough IMHO.
So you're advocating Confederations get penalized for doing well and awarded for doing badly?
In that case let's give OFC 5 places?
NoooSo you're advocating Confederations get penalized for doing well and awarded for doing badly?
In that case let's give OFC 5 places?
wtf man, you're really a weirdo. You always take things to the extreme. There is no way to keep all the continent happy and break the current status quo. It's just impossible.Europe will not get penalized but the best teams in the world will always be there no matter what. Having a few more african teams will not hurt Europe that much don't worry.
You are talking out of your arse and this is why. You claim that "Shit" CAF teams qualify, however, the regular teams from CAF since 1998 or 94 if you want, are Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Cameroon, Morocco and Tunisia. These are the regular teams that represent the CAF.
There is a tier below Africa's power houses - the likes of Zambia, South Africa, DRC, Benin, Cape Verde who occasionally join the party or come close. For me one can compare them to the second tier teams from Europe who do make it through to the world cup. The likes of England, Serbia, Slovenia.
I will admit that African teams fall way when compared to European teams, but what has raised my hackles is this ailment of being dismissive of African countries by people who comment as if they are purveyors of things African.
Apologies to anyone from these countries (and the following list is purely on football pedigree) but you don't get the likes of Seychelles, Mauritania, Lesotho, Botswana, Mauritius, Zimbabwe, CAR, Niger, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Djibouti at World cups.
So Mr, where are these shit CAF teams who are regularly at the world cup?
This is ridiculous. Uefa get only 2 spots more? I get the picture. Fifa wants more teams from other continents. In general it is nice thing to do, football is doing wonders for countries etc...but that is not fair to do it on this way. Some strong euro teams will be left out and in the same time some weak teams will be on world cup.
That was an extreme example, but doesn't change the fact what you suggested is penalized those doing well and awarding those doing badly.Nooo
Europe will not get penalized but the best teams in the world will always be there no matter what. Having a few more african teams will not hurt Europe that much don't worry.
I'm not worried about the best teams in the world, they'd get there even if the WC only had 16 spots, I just think it's very harsh on the 3rd tier European sides who can be as good if not better than the 2nd tier African, Asian of N American sides but will never get a chance to get to the WC.
What? England surely don't belong in that group.
Anyway, let's see... teams who crash out with ZERO point after the group stage: *CON means CONCACAF
2018: Egypt (CAF), Panama (CON)
2014: Cameroon (CAF), Australia (AFC), Honduras (CON)
2010: Cameroon (CAF), North Korea (AFC)
2006: Costa Rica (CON), Serbia and Montenegro (UEFA), Togo (CAF)
4 WCs, 10 teams have gone home with ZERO point, CAF have accounted for 40%, CONCACAF 30%, AFC 20%, UEFA 10%
This proves that CAF, CONCACAF and AFC have more shit sides in the WC than UEFA. No?
Not everyone will be satisfied obviously. It is about giving more chances to most continents while trying to juggle with the quality of the tournament.
If we go to your extreme, let us scrap Asian, Oceanic and African continent teams. That would surely satisfy you
Exactly the point I was making!
The current distribution has some degree with meritocracy mixed in with a certain degree of spreading out the places. The distribution in 2026 is farcical.
Look, tell that to some solid euro teams( and their fans) who see wc every 12 or 16 years because qualifications are hell.
Austria, serbia, norway, hungary, scotland, ireland are regulary in groups with spain, england, germany etc... and they fail to go on wc. This time we don't have super teams like holland or italy for example.
So do that countries deserve to be treated like that? As i said, giving more places is excellent idea but some standards must be respected. Continent results must be key factor for places. Or at least lets be all equall. Not like this. " you are too good, too rich or something like that, you don't need more places"?
I repeated many times that I just think they should keep the current proportions, or even have a few of the 3rd tier UEFA sides play off against the 2nd tier sides from other confederations.
Point out where I suggested not giving them any spot?
Exactly! Just as I mentioned above: I just think it's very harsh on the 3rd tier European sides who can be as good if not better than the 2nd tier African, Asian of N American sides but will never get a chance to get to the WC
What strong sides would get left out with an additional 2 slots? What superpowers in Europe failed to make this WC?
We have been shit for about 8 years and I still believe that we would win against any of these teams. Serbia and England would do walk over them.
I hate discrimination. Any discrimination. Positive or negative. What is next? Teams from Xy continent can't pass group so they start with 3 points? I know it is extreme example but this really pissed me off
You don't need to say it. It is your wet dream.I repeated many times that I just think they should keep the current proportions, or even have a few of the 3rd tier UEFA sides play off against the 2nd tier sides from other confederations.
Point out where I suggested not giving them any spot?
Super teams like Holland and Italy ? Really ?
You have to look at it from a big picture POV.
Increase the number of teams and give the same proportions per continent would achieve nothing absolutely nothing in terms of helping the weaker continents
I suppose it is what matters the most to who, a few more European teams or a few more teams more different continents ?