biffer Posted June 30 Posted June 30 With the expansion to 48 teams, there was a lot of conversation about who should get the extra spots. One of the reasons given to expand it was to get more teams from Africa and Asia. So how many teams got out of the group stage from each confederation? Asia 2/9 Africa 9/10 North America 4/6 South America 4/6 UEFA 13/16 Oceania 0/1 I've always thought that Asia looked waaaay over represented and it seems it is. Home advantage will likely have been of benefit to Canada and USA in particular. But it's because FIFA is desperate to have China qualify. But even with the excess number of teams, they didn't even get close. Realistically, Asia should probably have six spots, with another one each given to Europe Africa and S America. Although you could argue that last one should be Africa or Europe as well. Quote
fringo Posted June 30 Posted June 30 39 minutes ago, biffer said: With the expansion to 48 teams, there was a lot of conversation about who should get the extra spots. One of the reasons given to expand it was to get more teams from Africa and Asia. So how many teams got out of the group stage from each confederation? Asia 2/9 Africa 9/10 North America 4/6 South America 4/6 UEFA 13/16 Oceania 0/1 I've always thought that Asia looked waaaay over represented and it seems it is. Home advantage will likely have been of benefit to Canada and USA in particular. But it's because FIFA is desperate to have China qualify. But even with the excess number of teams, they didn't even get close. Realistically, Asia should probably have six spots, with another one each given to Europe Africa and S America. Although you could argue that last one should be Africa or Europe as well. It's south America that's massively over represented. There's 10 countries competing for 5 places plus there's a play off chance for a 6th. That would be lik Uefa having 27 places. Quote
biffer Posted June 30 Author Posted June 30 Just now, fringo said: It's south America that's massively over represented. There's 10 countries competing for 5 places plus there's a play off chance for a 6th. That would be lik Uefa having 27 places. In purely numerical terms, absolutely. But if you take it on that measure, Asia and Africa would have the same number of teams as Europe. It's the quality that annoys me, and the absolutely transparent desire to get China in. Asian football isn't good enough to have nine spots. Quote
fringo Posted June 30 Posted June 30 Just now, biffer said: In purely numerical terms, absolutely. But if you take it on that measure, Asia and Africa would have the same number of teams as Europe. It's the quality that annoys me, and the absolutely transparent desire to get China in. Asian football isn't good enough to have nine spots. It just annoys me that south America gets a higher ratio. 😃 Apart uruguay in 1930s there's only argentina and Brazil who merit the highest allocations. I may need to get therapy for this. 🤔😁 Quote
biffer Posted June 30 Author Posted June 30 6 minutes ago, fringo said: It just annoys me that south America gets a higher ratio. 😃 Apart uruguay in 1930s there's only argentina and Brazil who merit the highest allocations. I may need to get therapy for this. 🤔😁 😂 Fair enough! But I also think that Curaçao, Guyana, French Guiana, Suriname and potentially Trinidad & Tobago, Grenada and Aruba should be in CONCACAF not CONMEBOL. Quote
fringo Posted June 30 Posted June 30 12 minutes ago, biffer said: 😂 Fair enough! But I also think that Curaçao, Guyana, French Guiana, Suriname and potentially Trinidad & Tobago, Grenada and Aruba should be in CONCACAF not CONMEBOL. I totally agree. Do French Guiana compete? Didn't realise they had a team. I realise they are part of France but I guess same as Curacao which is Dutch and Faroes which are Norwegian (or Danish ?). Quote
fringo Posted June 30 Posted June 30 16 minutes ago, biffer said: 😂 Fair enough! But I also think that Curaçao, Guyana, French Guiana, Suriname and potentially Trinidad & Tobago, Grenada and Aruba should be in CONCACAF not CONMEBOL. If they did join CONCACAF I might allow them 5 places for WC. 😃 Quote
biffer Posted June 30 Author Posted June 30 2 minutes ago, fringo said: I totally agree. Do French Guiana compete? Didn't realise they had a team. I realise they are part of France but I guess same as Curacao which is Dutch and Faroes which are Norwegian (or Danish ?). And (cough) some teams from UEFA Quote
fringo Posted June 30 Posted June 30 Just double checked but COMNEBOL is south American teams. Don't you mean those smaller teams should join CONMEBOL? Quote
Clyde1998 Posted June 30 Posted June 30 1 hour ago, fringo said: It's south America that's massively over represented. There's 10 countries competing for 5 places plus there's a play off chance for a 6th. That would be lik Uefa having 27 places. With the amount of spots South America gets, there should be shared qualifying between North and South America (CONCACAF and CONMEBOL). That would give twelve guaranteed slots and two intercontinental play-off spots across 45 countries, as opposed to six guaranteed slots and one intercontinental play-off spots each across ten and 35 respectively. Quote
biffer Posted June 30 Author Posted June 30 1 hour ago, fringo said: Just double checked but COMNEBOL is south American teams. Don't you mean those smaller teams should join CONMEBOL? Yeah, wrong way round, sorry! Quote
fringo Posted June 30 Posted June 30 16 minutes ago, biffer said: Yeah, wrong way round, sorry! I always do that hence I needed to check. 🙂 Quote
Orraloon Posted June 30 Posted June 30 2 hours ago, fringo said: It just annoys me that south America gets a higher ratio. 😃 Apart uruguay in 1930s there's only argentina and Brazil who merit the highest allocations. I may need to get therapy for this. 🤔😁 Every single one of them would have done better than Scotland. The fact that a team as bad as Scotland gets into the WC finals is an embarrassment. That's the way the South Americans would see it, and it would be hard to argue against it having just watched our 3 absolutely shit performances. Quote
ceudmilefailte Posted June 30 Posted June 30 I think there should be less federation automatic places and more inter federation playoffs Quote
Grim Jim Posted July 2 Posted July 2 Just posting the WC2026 inter-confederation playoffs for reference. Africa & Asia winners vs Americas & Oceania... Quote
biffer Posted July 3 Author Posted July 3 9 hours ago, Grim Jim said: Just posting the WC2026 inter-confederation playoffs for reference. Africa & Asia winners vs Americas & Oceania... But, you would have backed most of the teams who didn't qualify in the European playoffs to win either of those. Italy, Denmark, Poland, etc. Quote
Toepoke Posted July 3 Posted July 3 A 64 team World Cup in 2030 seems to be gaining traction, especially after some of the concluding group games last week. Quote
biffer Posted July 3 Author Posted July 3 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Toepoke said: A 64 team World Cup in 2030 seems to be gaining traction, especially after some of the concluding group games last week. Jeez, what the hell would that look like. Currently Asia 8, Africa 9, N America 6, S America 6, Ocaenia 1, Uefa 16. Plus two playoffs. Asia 11, Africa 12, N America 8, S America 8, Oceania 2, Uefa 19, plus 4 playoff spots? Is it worth even holding a qualifier in South America anymore? 16 groups of four, and you'd now need in the region of 20 60-70k stadiums? It'd last maybe a week longer? Alternatives would be 48 teams with 16 groups of 3 to get to a last 32 12 groups of four, top two from each go into 8 groups of three, winner of each group into QFs Edited July 3 by biffer Quote
Toepoke Posted July 3 Posted July 3 31 minutes ago, biffer said: 16 groups of four, and you'd now need in the region of 20 60-70k stadiums? 40k is the minimum capacity for the World Cup. There are currently 20 suitable stadiums in total bidding in Spain, Portugal & Morocco (plus the 3 South American one offs). Quote
ceudmilefailte Posted July 3 Posted July 3 2 hours ago, biffer said: Jeez, what the hell would that look like. Currently Asia 8, Africa 9, N America 6, S America 6, Ocaenia 1, Uefa 16. Plus two playoffs. Asia 11, Africa 12, N America 8, S America 8, Oceania 2, Uefa 19, plus 4 playoff spots? Is it worth even holding a qualifier in South America anymore? 16 groups of four, and you'd now need in the region of 20 60-70k stadiums? It'd last maybe a week longer? Alternatives would be 48 teams with 16 groups of 3 to get to a last 32 12 groups of four, top two from each go into 8 groups of three, winner of each group into QFs Could actually be quicker if each group game started at same time. Not sure how have worked out 20 stadiums either. Quote
Orraloon Posted July 3 Posted July 3 52 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said: Could actually be quicker if each group game started at same time. Why would that be quicker? Unless you mean every game in every group starting at the same time? 32 games starting at the same time? Quote
ceudmilefailte Posted July 3 Posted July 3 12 minutes ago, Orraloon said: Why would that be quicker? Unless you mean every game in every group starting at the same time? 32 games starting at the same time? Would you not have six games starting every day instead of three or eight instead of four, I’ve not been paying that much attention. Starting every game at a different time is the problem. Quote
Big Ramy 1314 Posted July 3 Posted July 3 So, reading through these comments, the WC going forward now will be 48 teams... Correct? Just asking, I know, Im a dafty..😉 Quote
Clyde1998 Posted July 3 Posted July 3 4 hours ago, Toepoke said: A 64 team World Cup in 2030 seems to be gaining traction, especially after some of the concluding group games last week. Just for reference, the current top sixty-four in the FIFA rankings (before the World Cup) by confederation is: Asia (AFC) 9 JPN; IRN; KOR; AUS; UZB; QAT; IRQ; KSA; JOR Africa (CAF) 12 MAR; SEN; NGA; ALG; EGY; CIV; CMR; TUN; COD; MLI; RSA; BFA Europe (UEFA) 29 ESP; FRA; ENG; POR; NED; BEL; GER; CRO; ITA; SUI; DEN; TUR; AUT; NOR; UKR; RUS; POL; WAL; SWE; HUN; CZE; SCO; SRB; SVK; GRE; ROU; IRL; SVN; BIH North America (CONCACAF) 5 MEX; USA; CAN; PAN; CRC Oceania (OFC) 0 - South America (CONMEBOL) 9 ARG; BRA; COL; URU; ECU; PAR; VEN; CHI; PER FIFA politics will simply mean the new slots would largely go to Asia and Africa. Asia's arguably over represented at the World Cup as it is. Quote
biffer Posted July 3 Author Posted July 3 1 hour ago, Clyde1998 said: Just for reference, the current top sixty-four in the FIFA rankings (before the World Cup) by confederation is: Asia (AFC) 9 JPN; IRN; KOR; AUS; UZB; QAT; IRQ; KSA; JOR Africa (CAF) 12 MAR; SEN; NGA; ALG; EGY; CIV; CMR; TUN; COD; MLI; RSA; BFA Europe (UEFA) 29 ESP; FRA; ENG; POR; NED; BEL; GER; CRO; ITA; SUI; DEN; TUR; AUT; NOR; UKR; RUS; POL; WAL; SWE; HUN; CZE; SCO; SRB; SVK; GRE; ROU; IRL; SVN; BIH North America (CONCACAF) 5 MEX; USA; CAN; PAN; CRC Oceania (OFC) 0 - South America (CONMEBOL) 9 ARG; BRA; COL; URU; ECU; PAR; VEN; CHI; PER FIFA politics will simply mean the new slots would largely go to Asia and Africa. Asia's arguably over represented at the World Cup as it is. Arguably? lets face it,they’re going to keep expanding until they get China in. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.