Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: davieg1982
Date: 19-09-2005, 04:00

I know that this issue has been raising it's head for a number of years now but i would like to get an opinion on the number of European teams at World Cup's.
As a Scotland fan it was almost taken as a guarantee that the national team would be in the World cup prior to 1994. It is now no such guarantee and far from it.
Following Scotland's no-show at USA 1994 all footballing Scots were no doubt relieved when FIFA increased the competition from 24 to 32 teams for France 1998. This increase however has done very little for Europe and for the middling teams such as Scotland.
In the 1990 WC 14 of the 24 teams were European. For the 2006 WC in Germany the figure will remain at 14 but from 32 teams!
I know as Europeans, we who started the game, should try and embrace Worldwide soccer and convert non-Europeans to following the beautiful game. However by allowing teams such as Saudi Arabia and Iran to continually qualify for World cups FIFA are doing Europe a huge injustice.
Although teams such as Cameroon in 1990, Nigeria in 1994 and South Korea (in dubious circumstances) in 2002 have all demonsrated some promise the performance of the majority of Asian, African and North American teams is generally poor.
The fact that for next years world cup either Uzbekistan or Bahrain are going into a play off to qualify angers me. Neither are a team of any world standing and both were convincingly third best in their qualifying groups. If Uzbekistan were to play in European qualification as Kazakhstan are now doing i think they would be in for a shock. Bar South Korea's performance in the Last World Cup Asia has done nothing in previous World Cup's to justify four and half positions in a World Cup.
I think that FIFA should now implement a system wherby World cup numbers from each confederation is dependent on performance at previous World Cups. Each continent should have a limited number of places i.e Europe 13, South America 4, Africa 3.5, Asia 3, North America 3, Australasia .5. Host 1. The remaining four places should then be given to confederations depending on previous results, say the last two world cups.
Thoughts?

Author: exile
Date: 19-09-2005, 13:01

In my opinion places in the finals should be earned on merit, with geography being ignored as much as possible.

This means that there should be a "Worldwide" qualifying competition.
Seedings could be based on FIFA rankings. There could be a regional preliminary round to get the numbers down to 120-124, followed by 30-31 groups of 4. The qualifiers should either (a) be held in neutral countries or (b) in the highest seeded country of each group, in the summer preceding the World Cup Finals, with the matches marketed as a sort of curtain raiser for the World Cup itself. This system would also reduce the amount of times that clubs have to release players to the national teams.

Re: Number of European teams in World Cup
Author: iwan Date: 19-09-2005, 20:54	I can agree with Davieg1982!!! 16 Years agow Europe had 14 off the 24 spots (include the host) and now 14 off the 32 (inlude the host)!!! When there are 36 instead 32 than Europe can have 15 off them exclude the host!!! Many teams can play than 4 qualificationmatches less!!

Author: Koulis
Date: 20-09-2005, 00:11

well done to ur comments davieg1982! I agree absolutelly with you and I have the same feelings with you (anger). about the number of european teams in world cup.It is really very unfair to have just 14 teams in world cup. Really it is a proof that except some exceptions like South Korea in 2002, the Asian, North American and African teams are not doing so well in World Cup, they are coming as tourists and just few of them pass to the 2nd round.

In the last World Cup we saw a big failure from Asian teams which came from qualifying rounds and really we were wondering why those teams are in World Cup. On the other hand we saw teams like Netherlands to not participate and also the European teams in 2nd round were 9 out of 16 (in analogy of 32 it means that they should be initially 18).

Personalyl I was expecting from FIFA to reduce at least one spot from CONCACAF or Asia. Instead of that it deleted from Europe the playoff (which was victoriuus the last time) spot against Asia and gave it to CONCACAF. And now we will see one of Uzbekistan, Bahrain, Guatemala,Trinidad in World Cup and 2 of Denmark, Greece, Turkey out and may be teams like Czech Rep., Spain or England.

It makes me really angry that we will see teams at the level of Uzbekistan because it will be bad for world cup. They will qualify without effort,without beating a good team, since in Europe there will be a lot of fight between good teams for world cup.

It was the most stupid decision that FIFA has ever taken to give the spot to Asia/CONCACAF from Europe.

Author: MichaelCollins
Date: 20-09-2005, 00:35

Uzbekistan had to qualify from a group with Iraq and Palestine in it, ok, Chinese Taipei was a bit of a no brainer but you try winning in Baghdad or Gaza - it was easily the most difficult first round group. Then they had to finish over perrenial Gulf Cup finalists Kuwait, coming from 0-2 down at home to win 3-2. Now FIFA have annulled there 1-0 first leg win. They keep get more and more adversity chucked in there way and keep getting around it.

Guatemala are the up and coming country in the CONCACAF. Good friendly results against "better" opposition and a recent 0-0 draw with the US show this improving side, as well as the win over Costa Rica and finishing above a strong Canadian side and the Honduras who have beaten Brazil and finished 3rd in the Copa America in recent years.

Either of which in the playoff would be a more than worthwhile addition to the World Cup. So dont slag them off, boys.

Author: exile
Date: 20-09-2005, 11:50

Since 1982 (when 24 teams were 1st admitted to the finals) the following European teams have finished bottom of their groups

1986 - Scotland and Portugal
1990 - USSR and Sweden
1994 - Greece and Norway
1998 - Scotland (again - how embarrassing) and Bulgaria
2002 - France (!!!!), Slovenia and Poland

This suggests to me that the teams in about positions 12 to 14 in Europe are certainly no better than the leading "Third World" teams.

Re: Number of European teams in World Cup
Author: spoonman Date: 20-09-2005, 12:09	But that's only 11 bottom positions in 34 World Cup groups. And almost all of these groups had 2 European teams in them. On the whole, that's still a good result for Europe.

Author: Kananga
Date: 20-09-2005, 12:17
Edited by: Kananga
at: 20-09-2005, 12:21

Perhaps FIFA could just throw together all the teams that don't qualify automatically, but have earned a playoff and then draw them off against each other (eg. Australia, Six European teams, 5th South America, CONCACAF/ASIA + perhaps in the future second placed African sides).

Maybe this can produce fairer method of getting teams to the WC based on merit? Teams that have topped their qualifying group have played well to do so and should go direct to the WC.

Author: Growler
Date: 21-09-2005, 08:06

this causes another problem too. no way mexico and usa are in the top 10 of world football.

the european qualifying in HUGE. Is there any other conferdeation with as many teams?

I think its about time that europe had a qualifying stage first, where the weaker teams like northern island, scotland, san marino, faroe islands and other 'lesser' nations can qualify for the real groups. How can these nations possibly learn anything getting hammered by Italy, Spain, holland?

on the other hand, an area like oceania has its own qualifying area too. surely they could be consolidated in Asia, and give them better competition?

Re: Number of European teams in World Cup
Author: spoonman Date: 21-09-2005, 12:11 Edited by: spoonman at: 21-09-2005, 12:14	Growler, I'm very much in favour of a preliminary qualifying round in Europe (let's say, for the 12 weakest teams) but you can't possibly include Scotland into that round. They might not belong to Europe's top flight but they're not THAT weak either. By the way: Africa has also got 51 teams, Asia has 37.

Author: exile
Date: 21-09-2005, 13:18

Well, Scotland were not "hammered" by Italy last time they played.

The trend these days is for the gap between the top European nations and the "minnows" to get smaller. We don't see many 12-0 or 10-0 results these days. A well-organised and motivated "small nation" can give the overpaid superstars a suprise - eg Northern Ireland 1 England 0.

Besides, if you had dates in the calendar where the "small" nations had to call on players and the "big" ones didn't, then there would be problems getting players to play.

My point about European nations finishing at the bottom of their groups is that, contrary to what is being said here, the nations at around 12 to 14 in Europe are not any better than the top 3 or so nations in Africa, N America or Asia. No-one's put up a sensible argument against that.

In the most recent WC

Denmark drew with Senegal
France lost to Senegal
Slovenia lost to South Africa
Turkey drew with Costa Rica
Portugal lost to the USA (who says the USA doesn't deserve a top 10 ranking?)
Ireland drew with Cameroon
England drew with Nigeria
Croatia lost to Mexico
Italy drew with Mexico
Belgium drew with Tunisia
Sweden lost to Senegal

In 2002

European teams - 16 qualified - 4 reached the last 8 (25%)
"Third World" teams - 10 qualified (excluding Japan/S Korea) - 2
reached the last 8 (20%)

Let's be realistic - Europe is no longer head and shoulders above the "developing" football nations. Just because we invented the game doesn't give us the right to dominate football for the rest of eternity.

Re: Number of European teams in World Cup
Author: ultras_vk Date: 27-09-2005, 19:02	quote"Uzbekistan had to qualify from a group with Iraq and Palestine in it, ok, Chinese Taipei was a bit of a no brainer but you try winning in Baghdad or Gaza - it was easily the most difficult first round group. " Iraq didnt play their home games in Baghdad, and neither did Palestine in Gaza! ...reasons are obvious aren't they

Author: ultras_vk
Date: 27-09-2005, 19:07

i agree with what exile wrote till some point.Since obviously europe is gonna get even less places in the future because of asian "smart" arguments "more then half of world population lives in asia" (gee then why isnt china champ in all sports :rolleyes

intercontinental qualifying system sounds good.

1 host, 31 qualifier needed

round 1(qualifying year 1)...continental qualifying to get total number of teams to 31 times 4

round 2(qual.year 2).....31 groups by 4, 6 matches in year, home and away, first 2 qualifies

round 3....same as round 2

just an idea....simple and justice

Author: peter
Date: 29-09-2005, 06:22
Edited by: peter
at: 29-09-2005, 06:47

ultras_vk : you are right and i agree with you :intercontinental preliminations are much fair for World Cup. But i think in your proposal , countries have to play too many games to qualify , too many rounds of groups for 2 years , and i dont think FIFA would like that. So , i have a much simple proposal :

around the world right now are about 150-160 countries who participate in qualifications. So , lets make:

*31 groups -- 5 or 6 teams each group
winners of the groups (31) + host of WC = will qualify for World Cup , its very simple.

This way , will be less games then now to be played for teams, exactly what FIFA wants.

And the draw for 31 groups -preliminations should be make on international coeficient (like now).

* Teams will be split in 5 or 6 pots conform coeficients - each pot with 31 teams. No differents ,(except coeficients), should be make at the draw between teams from diferents continents, so we could have for example in one group all 5 teams from europe or all 5 teams from africa depending how the luck is.

The negativ point of this proposal for intercontinental preliminations : could be much expensive then now, more money will be needed for the transportation of teams around the glob.

But the positive impact and more important : the globalization of fotball around the world, exactly what FIFA wants, for example big teams like world campion Brazil or France or England will play and promote fotball around the globe even in the areas that they dont know much about fotball but they are happy to learn and to see big players.

Author: peter
Date: 29-09-2005, 06:41
Edited by: peter
at: 29-09-2005, 06:50

Or you can extend nr of teams to qualify to WC from 32-- to 48 , knowing that now there are more very good teams around the globe , unlike 10 years ago.
And for qualification :

* make 23 qualification groups -- with 7-8 teams in each group
* first 2 top teams from each group (46)+ Title holder + host = 48 qualify for world cup.

Then in World cup tournament : 48 teams - 8 groups with 6 teams each, first 2 teams from each group to qualify, and then folow the actual procedure.

Author: thomas
Date: 29-09-2005, 11:35

Please no more discussions about 48 teams in the final tournament!

I agree, that intercontinental qualification are better than the actual system, but the draw cannot be made without concerning geography. For example, a group with:

Germany
Chile
Canada
Namibia
North Korea
Salomon Islands

would be imposible to play. Keep in mind the different climates and the jet lag, players need time to rest after long intercontinental flights!

My idea: Groups of 6, of which each two are from the same region, for example:

Germany
Slovakia
Chile
Peru
Namibia
Sambia

Then each team has two intercontinental journeys, but can do two matches on each journey. So the actual schedule with two matchdays in a short time could be kept.

If you want 8 teams in each group, take 4 from each region, so it is again only 2 intercontinental journeys, for example:

Germany
Slovakia
Austria
Liechtenstein
Namibia
Angola
Sambia
South Africa

Of course, any of these systems would mean a difficult procedure for the draw, but that could be managed.

Author: spoonman
Date: 29-09-2005, 11:40

peter, this kind of tournament would last for about 7 weeks, and there are few countries in the world that could stage such an event. You'd need to accomodate 48 teams plus officials plus all the media. And you'd need more stadiums. This means that almost every World Cup tournament would need to be held in two or even three countries.

Another disadvantage: There'd be a lot of boring 1st round matches between teams that haven't got a chance to qualify for the knock-out stages.

And once again: Intercontinental qualifying rounds would drive the travel expenses for poor and/or remote countries to astronomical dimensions. Let's keep the qualifying system as regional as possible. Even now it's almost ridiculous if you consider that the Kazakh national team might be forced to travel to Iceland (and vice versa). In Asia, there's even greater distances but I think they've got regional zones for their preliminary rounds - and they've got them for a reason!

The number of teams that qualify per continent should be known before the qualifying rounds. I think that even the two existing intercontinental play-offs are unnecessary. Or at least it should have been Asia v Oceania and N.America v S.America.

Author: spoonman
Date: 29-09-2005, 12:10
Edited by: spoonman
at: 29-09-2005, 12:17

Thomas: Even if you put two teams from the same continent into the same group, there'd still be enormous distances. For example, the Swedish team might have to play in Algeria and South Africa within one week. Or Peru would travel to Jordan, then to Japan, then fly back home. Sorry, but this is nonsense.

The only possible way to have intercontinental qualifying groups would be mini-tournaments in one country, without home and away matches. But what's the point in that? You'd have a mini World Cup before the World Cup. Three or five or seven teams per group would have to fly to a far-away country and a lot of their fans wouldn't even be able to watch the matches because of different time zones. Most teams would come home empty-handed, and their World Cup dream would be over after just two or three weeks.

No, thank you. I prefer continental zones. And in large continents, there should be regional preliminary rounds.

Author: exile
Date: 29-09-2005, 14:07

I disagree. Already some of the zones have part of their qualifying tournaments played in one country as a "mini league". We also already have play offs involving teams from different continents (I remember Scotland having to play Australia in 1986). There should be no problem with extending this idea. If the top seeded team hosts the group, attendances should be OK, and the TV audience will be good, for what in effect will be a "mini World Cup" with all the attendant publicity.

As for costs - it is cheaper for a team to fly once to a destination,
stay for a week playing 3 games, and then return, than to have up to 5 or 6 separate trips, never mind the difficulty currently experienced in getting players released. This idea would be popular with the big clubs, as they would have less cause for complaint about players being injured whilst on international duty.

The only drawback I can see is that instead of (for European teams) getting revenue from 4 or 5 home games over 2 years, there will instead be a half share of revenue from 3 games. Not to mention no longer being guaranteed a set number of qualifiers to the finals.

This might ensure the idea never gets implemented. But it will be because of objections from the middle ranking European teams. The big teams will qualify whatever system is used, and can get revenue from shirt sales etc.

Author: thomas
Date: 29-09-2005, 14:56

spoonman: I did not say "same continent", but "same region". The bigger continental federations are divided into regions, for example Afica into North, West A, West B, Central, East and South. So Sweden would not have to travel to South Africa and Algeria, but to South Africa and Angola. And Peru would not have to travel to Jordan and Japan, but to Jordan and Syria.

And these journeys are not worse than actual journeys. We should not forget, that many players play in teams in other continents. South American national team players, who play in a European league, have to do regular trips to South America, so why not the Europeans, who play in a European league?

Or if Senegal plays two matches in Europe: Less travel problems than two matches in Africa, as most Senegal national players play and live in France.

Re: Number of European teams in World Cup
Author: thomas Date: 29-09-2005, 15:34	Alternative idea: 6 teams per group, with each 3 from the same region, for example: Germany Slovakia Austria Costa Rica Panama El Salvador Only one intercontinental journey, but with a longer stay than in my previous suggestion

Author: spoonman
Date: 29-09-2005, 15:42

exile: Yes, there are mini-tournaments in some zones, but within a region, and they do this within a region to reduce costs.

And why do you want to hold those tournaments in the highest seeded country? That would be a huge disadvantage for all the other participants.

thomas: Okay, you mean regions, not continents. Point taken. But I still find it totally, totally useless an unnecessary to fly 200 (or 150) national teams around the world for qualifying! For the average European supporter, what's the point in watching their teams playing against minor countries from Asia or the Caribbean? And what about fans who want to travel with their team? Within Europe, there's likely to be at least one opponent in your group that's nearby. And in some countries there are a lot of foreign workers who support their team in away matches. So there's always huge attendances. You'd destroy that if you moved the qualifiers to other continents.

Author: thomas
Date: 30-09-2005, 07:42
Edited by: thomas
at: 30-09-2005, 09:16

In my system every team has matches within the region. So the fans still have some away matches, where they can travel easily. And concerning the matches outside the region: Germany had to play in Iceland and Faroer in last ECQ. Very few fans went there, and I am sure, that these fans would also travel to the caribean. (BTW, I once have been in Iceland for vacation, and it was much more expensive than my friends' vacations, who were in Cuba and Jamaica)

Also think about the fans in other countries: When Germany played friendlies in Thailand and Iran, the stadiums were full and it was a big event for these fans. And even matches in Germany against minor teams from other continents had good attendence, for example against Canada or Ghana. Also the match against China in Hamburg won't have an empty stadium!

Sending teams around the world: It is already common. When Sambia played Senegal, both teams had to travel from Europe to Sambia, as nearly all players play in European leagues. Same with South American matches. Only Europeans are not concerned, as nearly all of them play in Europe!

And have a look at friendly matches. In October and November there will be:

Germany - China
United Arab Emirates - Brazil
China - Serbia & Montenegro
Mexico - Bulgaria
Portugal - United Arab Emirates
Egypt - Argentina
Luxemburg - Canada

So as teams travel around the world voluntarly, why not in qualification matches?

But I see another problem: The actual sysytem gives some influence on the qualification to the continental federations. An intercontinental qualification will reduce influence of UEFA, CONMEBOL etc., so they will not like it.

But still I think, that intercontinental groups would be fairer. It would end the discussion about the distribution between the continents.

Re: Number of European teams in World Cup
Author: Edgar Date: 30-09-2005, 09:39 Edited by: Edgar at: 30-09-2005, 09:48	Sorry. Wrong topic.

Author: Edgar
Date: 30-09-2005, 09:39

The main problem with the preliminary knock-out stage - some teams are out of the competition after only 2 matches.

So here's a scenario for 2 group stages, with no knockout stage.

1. First group stage

32 teams - 8 groups of 4. Top 2 advancing to the 2nd stage.
League system on a home and away basis.
The 32 lowest-ranked teams in the FIFA Rankings.
4 pots containing 8 teams each.

Pot A: Finland, Israel, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Belgium, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Latvia
Pot B: Hungary, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Belarus, Scotland, Austria, Estonia, Wales, Albania
Pot C: Iceland, Lithuania, FYR Macedonia, Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Georgia, Moldova, Azerbaijan
Pot D: Armenia, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Malta, Faroe Islands, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, San Marino

Possible groups:

Group 1: Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Andorra
Group 2: Israel, Hungary, Iceland, Faroe Islands
Group 3: Belgium, Albania, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan
Group 4: Finland, Austria, Lithuania, Armenia
Group 5: Slovakia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Moldova, Liechtenstein
Group 6: Serbia and Montenegro, Wales, FYR Macedonia, Malta
Group 7: Latvia, Belarus, Cyprus, San Marino
Group 8: Slovenia, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Luxembourg

Assuming teams from the first 2 post qualify, let's move to the 2nd and final group stage.

2. Second group stage

36 teams - 9 groups of 4. The winners and best runner-up qualifying directly, the other 8 runners-up -> playoff
League system on a home and away basis.
The 20 highest-ranked teams in the FIFA Rankings plus the 16 teams from the previous round.
4 pots containing 9 teams each.

Pot A: Netherlands, Czech Republic, France, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, England, Turkey, Italy
Pot B: Denmark, Germany, Poland, Greece, Republic of Ireland, Croatia, Russia, Romania, Norway
Pot C: Switzerland, Ukraine, Finland, Israel, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Belgium, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia
Pot D: Latvia, Hungary, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Belarus, Scotland, Austria, Estonia, Wales, Albania

Possible groups:

Group 1: Italy, Norway, Israel, Bosnia-Herzegovina
Group 2: Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Hungary
Group 3: France, Germany, Slovakia, Scotland
Group 4: Netherlands, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, Estonia
Group 5: Turkey, Russia, Belgium, Belarus
Group 6: Portugal, Republic of Ireland, Slovenia, Austria
Group 7: Czech Republic, Poland, Finland, Wales
Group 8: Spain, Romania, Ukraine, Albania
Group 9: England, Greece, Bulgaria, Latvia

Author: spoonman
Date: 30-09-2005, 10:06

Interesting idea, Edgar. As I've said earlier, I'm very much in favour of preliminary qualifying in Europe. But I'd do it like this:

The 12 lowest European teams in FIFA rankings (or in UEFA qualifying rankings) play a preliminary round in 3 groups of 4. These groups are formed by seeding and possibly considering geographical aspects, so that Azerbaijan, Armenia and/or Kazakhstan could play in one group, Liechtenstein and Luxemburg in another - and so on.

Each group is played as a mini-tournament in one country, preferably in countries with the lowest coefficient so that there's very little distortion of competition.

The three group winners join the other 39 countries, so there are 7 groups of 6 in the main qualifying round; the first two of each group qualify.

I don't have time to work this out properly at the moment (with example groups) but by and large, I think this would work.

Re: Number of European teams in World Cup
Author: Edgar Date: 30-09-2005, 10:13	I made a mistake I made all these calculation with 14 places for UEFA (I had in mind the 14 places available for the EURO 2008 ). That's way it's not 7 groups of 6 with top 2 qualifying. 7 groups of 6 - the winners and best 5 runners-up qualifying directly, the other 2 runners-up -> playoff. Well, the idea remains.

Author: Edgar
Date: 17-10-2005, 08:01
Edited by: Edgar
at: 17-10-2005, 08:04

I had some time on my hands this week-end so I made a confederation ranking using a system similar to the one used by UEFA for the club competitions.

2 points for a win
1 point for a draw (The points are halved for interconfed play-offs)

1 point for reaching the 2nd round
1 point for reaching the quarter-finals
1 point for reaching the semifinals
1 point for reaching the final

For each confederation, the points are divided by the number of teams.

Taking into account the last 5 (or 3) WC and using coefficients (1/5, 2/5, 3/5, 4/5, 1 and 1/3, 2/3, 1).

Confed  1986   1990   1994  1998  2002 Total_5 Total_3 Places_5 Places_3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFC      0.5   0     3.5   1.25  3.6     6.800   5.600    3.233    3.881
CAF      2.5   5     2     2.6   3.2     8.980   5.600    4.270    3.881
CONCACAF 3.5   2.5   3.333 2.333 5.333  10.899   7.999    5.182    5.544
CONMEBOL 6.25  6.875 6.375 6.8   6      19.265  12.658    9.160    8.774
OFC      0.5   0.5   1.5   1     1       3.000   2.167    1.426    1.502
UEFA     4.250 6.643 6.769 6.733 5.4    18.355  12.145    8.728    8.418

So, based on these results, the allocation would be:

Confed   | 5 WC  |  3 WC
-------------------------
AFC      |  3,5  |  4
CAF      |  4,5  |  4
CONCACAF |  5    |  5
CONMEBOL |  9    |  9
OFC      |  1,5  |  1,5
UEFA     |  8,5  |  8,5

First column: confederation
Second column: places taking into account performance at the last 5 WC
Third column: places taking into account performance at the last 3 WC

So, based on performance, UEFA, AFC and CAF have too many places, while CONMEBOL, CONCACAF and OFC have too few.

Re: Number of European teams in World Cup
Author: isidromv Date: 17-10-2005, 09:44	Good work, and really interesting. If 9 teams participate from CONMEBOL, the mean coefficient value should be less, also applies for CONCACAF and OFC. But after a few iterations it would converge to a correct value. I think it could be a good system to allocate spots in WC. I would aply it to half of the spots in next WC (2010), and then to all spots in 2014.

Author: Osiris
Date: 17-10-2005, 11:17

Thanks a lot Edgar for an interesting research. As I understood you had taken into account intercontinental play-offs + results in the final tournaments of WC.
I also agree with Exile. We are overeuropecentric. In the future the share of Europe in World football can only decrease. 14 places among 32 it is great. We cannot claim more. The only way to increase (?)the share is to insist on intercontinental play-offs or groups which in my opinion is not very realistic.

Re: Number of European teams in World Cup
Author: MichaelCollins Date: 17-10-2005, 11:48	If you want a more European competition, expand the European Championship! The World Cup gives us more diversity, and it is FINE as it is.

Author: Eoin
Date: 17-10-2005, 12:10

I'm in favour of geographically based regions, but with about 8 places going to countries from wyhichever region does best in a playoff.

Say for example you assign 24 places as follows
Europe: 12
Asia: 3
Africa: 3
Concacaf: 3
South America: 3

Then allocate 4 playoff groups of 4 teams each, consisting of the next best sides from each area:
Europe: 4
Asia: 3
Africa: 3
Concacaf: 3
South America: 3

Seed these groups to keep teams from the same continent apart, and you'll soon see this system reward the better teams regardless of their continent. It's also better than the worldwide qualifying groups, since the little countries that can't afford the travel are unlikely to make the playoffs.

Re: Number of European teams in World Cup
Author: Edgar Date: 17-10-2005, 12:21	Why 12 for Europe and 3 for South America and not 10 for Europe and 5 for South America? You need to base your format on something more than personal opinion.

Re: Number of European teams in World Cup
Author: Osiris Date: 17-10-2005, 12:52	By the way who knows the rules for WC-2010 qualification in Europe? How many teams from Europe, how many groups, 7 or more? Play-offs?

Re: Number of European teams in World Cup
Author: Edgar Date: 17-10-2005, 13:03	It's not known yet. I guess after WC 2006, based on performance and other criteria we'll know the new place allocation and so on.

Re: Number of European teams in World Cup
Author: Osiris Date: 17-10-2005, 17:04 Edited by: Osiris at: 17-10-2005, 17:07	Thanks Edgar, I think for 52 european countries there will be 14 places at most. In this case can be 4 groups of 7 and 3 groups of 8 without play-offs. Or maybe there will be another formula with intercontinental play-offs. Maybe Europe representation will be cut down. Or maybe the figure of 52 will be changed also: Montenegro? Kosovo?? God Knows???