I'm pointing out that your argument that regions should get automatic spots just because they make up a continent is flawed.
Dunno about the specifics. One of the reasons they went there was because the OFC qualification was a joke and very tough to get to the WC aide from the quality angle. There's also the fact that Asian teams don't really like Australia so it might happen.
it's not flawed it's a world cup so varied participation should be one of the criteria. if quality is all you want then you'd end up with a bunch of SA and European teams.
I would, though maybe more if it was an Asian nation. Rather see an Asian nation than an average European nation that will bore the life out of everyone. See enough of that in the Euro's
Seems fair to me. South America can have 7 teams qualifying right now (with the playoff), and even 8 if their hosting. If they want more teams to qualify, they can blimming well merge with the Northern lot
I sense that the corruption in the Associations of Americas has truly been eliminated after the latest scandal. They only get 12 WC spots for 16 countries that actually field a proper football team, and I use the word proper very loosely here.
Less for Oceania? They should have one team in the WC, I think.
They would have to leave the UEFA club competitions as well so no chance of that happening.
0.5 like they have right now is perfect. One means free passage for New Zealand every time.
There should be, at least, one team from each continent at the WC imo so that would be fine.
Looking at the current standings when the qualification progress is halfway done.
This. They also bore me to tears. Dullards.
I guess he has a point if you consider England in recent tournament qualifiers. They coast through qualifying and end up displaying a miserable performance in finals, asking some serious questions about the whole European qualifying system.
Not really. The argument for joining AFC was their qialifiers contributed nothing to them. No test = no improvement.
So are you saying that it's better to get a team that's likely to finish the group dead last with double figures in goals conceded rather than a team that qualifies from the group?
I didn't suggest anything like that, two-tier qualification will result in Top ranked European teams playing in a group of 4 instead of 6 or 7.
The international dates are set either way so instead of a competive fixture the few countries that don't play for the first time around would play friendlies instead. They don't have to but fewer games is bad for the team. You want to play together.
The way I see it, once a two-tier qualification is set, it is obvious that there would be less international breaks. I just don't see a group of 4 competitive teams catching less interest of the fans. Competitiveness only creates more interest, nothing else.
The Iceland example is relevant because if you won't get better by playing worse teams.
When the WC went from 16 to 24 teams we hoped that Oceania would then get its own spot but that didnt happen, other confederations got increases. When it went from 24 to 32 teams we again hoped that Oceania would get 1 spot. But it didnt happen and again other confederations got increases. Since those 2 sets of increases Asia and Africa have seen a huge growth in the game which was the hope and intention of increased spots at the WC. Australia left in frustration because it was incredibly hard to qualify because Oceania had to qualify by beating the 5th place South American side ( Argentina with Maradona) or teams such as Scotland. They also left because Oceania didnt give it the strength of competition they hoped for.
Who are you referring to here?
Samoa, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu etc.
The argument was primarily that the OFC qualifiers were plain stupid and still ate. Their chances of qualifying from AFC were far greater than from OFC. The quality angle was obviously a factor as well. But they'll probably qualify anyway, you're right.
Technically thats not a continent, thats a group of islands
So Fifa are screwing with Uefa again.
It's not like Australia have a big problem qualifying via AFC. Except Japan & Korea, they start off clear favourites in most matches anyway.
How is this screwing. You have 16 teams! Thats the number of teams that were playing in the Euros in 2012, a number everyone was satisfied with as it meant all top teams qualified.So Fifa are screwing with Uefa again.
Because the 17th best European team is significantly better than the 9th best side in Africa, 8th best side in Asia (in fact the 17th best European side are probably better than the 4th best Asian side), etc
Who cares? If people wanted to just European team after European team, they could watch the EUROs.
I understand the need to spread it out a little and am not suggesting they go with the best 48 teams in the world (which would probably mean 24+ from Europe). But a balance needs to be drawn. Asian teams except those 3 and occasionally Iran will show up and get trashed in every match, what exactly is the point of them 'competing'?
Can not agree more.
So? 17th best European team as it is doesn't stand a chance of reaching the later stages. You may as well give it to a team where football isn't that popular or they don't have the infrastructure so that the game reaches those parts of the globe as well
Just like with the extended Euros, they will likely just stop watching a lot of games alltogether.
Did people stop watching the Euros altogether? Speaking from my own experience, I didn't watch any more or less football than I usually do in these tournaments?
