World Ranking

[ArdeeBhoy]

Good point Stu.

They should have tighter geographical criteria too, anywhere east of Turkey, nothing personal, but no thanks.

[SkStu]

Well I suppose then, that I don't really get what is meant by "development of football" in these countries. What are they trying to develop exactly? What is the scope of their ambition? A clean sheet? A win? Qualification? I'm not sure how losing every match and rarely scoring a goal aides in the development of the game. In fact, I'd argue that a more competitive series of games like I suggested but especially in a group format would be far more beneficial to this football development argument that gets rolled out every time this is raised. In any event the reality is that these teams will never be any more than also rans.

And all of this is without going into the "why would we care anyway" argument.

Pineapple, I think the groups are already too big. 5 teams would be ideal. 8 quality, competitive games each.

[IsMiseSean]

Pineapple, I think the groups are already too big. 5 teams would be ideal. 8 quality, competitive games each.

I think I'd prefer bigger groups and less crappy friendly games against Greece, Georgia etc, but in saying that I doubt the game against the Faroes in June will be a crowd puller.

[Gather round]

In the tv highlights, NI were okay against Israel, but undone by a typical Israel performance.
I had a wry black smile at the sight of Dudu, our old nemesis, rolling around the floor in agony

Our old failing writ large, ie no-one who can create chances let alone take them. Two saves for their keeper, the second on 87'.

To be fair to Dudu, he caught everything cleanly then only had to worry about McAuley half-heartedly trying to shove him into the goal.

[geysir]

Israel just manage to comfortably contain and convert the few chances they create. First they lull you into thinking they are just not interested in scoring or playing football which contains a degree of risk, then out of the blue they hit the bulls eye with the accuracy of the Crossmaglen sniper.

[Gather round]

It's ridiculous. UEFA should be looking at ways to rid itself of minnow teams instead of admitting Gibraltar. All 5th and 6th seeds (and lower if applicable) should have to prequalify IMO. Seeded draws, 2 legs, home and away, winners progress to 5 team groups. It would make the groups far more interesting too

It might make any given group more interesting with only one relative minnow rather than two, it might not. There are plenty of sterile matches involving one or even two big countries. It would also be regressive to give the play-off losers only two competitive games (usually their main source of income etc.) in the two-year cycle.

Yes, they do it in other Confederations. Why is that a good thing?

My understanding is that UEFA/FIFA have indeed been struggling hard against Gibraltar's admission, even if opposing membership is indicative of double standards

Indeed. Do you have a link for that Danny?. Anyway- following SkStu's point, what's the harm in letting Gib join in, even if to pre-qualify they have to beat Norn Iron, or an omelette? They're not part of Spain nor England, let the War of 1707 go, why not?

The only problem is if UEFA keeps getting bigger. Gibraltar may get in (though Spain are blocking it and are obviously quite a force). You've Kosovo, Greenland, Jersey, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, maybe even Turkish Cyprus looking to join. At what stage do the qualifying groups just get too big?

UEFA adding new members isn't necessarily an overreaching problem. There are currently 13 European World Cup places qualifying available; you could have 65 countries in groups of five with only the winner progressing. The play-offs are basically a safety net for out of form big countries. They aren't an intrinsic requirement of an exciting elite tournament: if you can't win one of those groups you aren't good enough.

They should have tighter geographical criteria too, anywhere east of Turkey, nothing personal, but no thanks

Surprised an experienced traveller like you saying that AB. OK, I know the journeys are expensive and Kazakhstan are taking the p*ss, but Armenia and Georgia have been widely considered part of Europe/ Christendom for centuries.

[DannyInvincible]

Well I suppose then, that I don't really get what is meant by "development of football" in these countries. What are they trying to develop exactly? What is the scope of their ambition? A clean sheet? A win? Qualification? I'm not sure how losing every match and rarely scoring a goal aides in the development of the game. In fact, I'd argue that a more competitive series of games like I suggested but especially in a group format would be far more beneficial to this football development argument that gets rolled out every time this is raised. In any event the reality is that these teams will never be any more than also rans.

Not sure if I can necessarily agree with the sentiment there, Stu. I think that's a fairly haughty attitude to take, and not one that's best suited to us fans of mid-tier nations that qualify for finals only intermittently. (If we're lucky!)

What gives us some inherent or greater right to compete as an international football entity over certain other nations? Just because we might aspire to greater heights? Like making the World Cup or the Euros every once a decade or two?... Or because we perceive certain others as inferior? What is the scope of our ambition? All expectations and aspirations are relative to one's level.

So, what about those nations such as Germany or Italy who qualify for the finals like clockwork, who might perceive us as inferior or who might aspire to even dizzier heights than those to which we aspire? Would it be right for them to dismiss teams at our level as small fry - as dispensable burdens with whom they have to waste precious time in bothering about the menial humdrum of qualification when they could and should be really challenging themselves against the other global heavyweights instead - just because our ambitions don't match up to their lofty standards/we can never hope to actually win the World Cup?

In fact, maybe we should be asking what is meant by "development of football" in Ireland? One wouldn't need to be a seasoned supporter of Spanish football to shudder at the FAI's apparent interpretation of that phrase.

Indeed. Do you have a link for that Danny?

More on the legal wrangling here and here:

On 25 August 2006, it was proposed that Gibraltar will become a provisional member of UEFA. However, a decision on granting this was postponed in October 2006.

The decision was made on 8 December 2006 that Gibraltar will be made provisional members of UEFA: FIFA had announced two days earlier that their executive committee had "ruled that Gibraltar does not meet the statutory requirements to become a FIFA member", despite the fact that the Court of Arbitration in Sport had already ruled to the contrary.

On 26 January 2007 Gibraltar membership had been rejected by the UEFA board with only 3 out of 52 votes supporting Gibraltar's claim (The FA, the SFA and the FAW). Spain was the strongest opponent to Gibraltar joining UEFA, even threatening to boycott any competition in which the Gibraltar national team would compete. The issue has again been referred back to the Court of Arbitration for Sport for a ruling.

On 21 March 2012 the request for membership by Gibraltar was discussed, and a road map which includes financial and educational support from UEFA was agreed. This road map will run until the Ordinary UEFA Congress in 2013, when member associations will vote on the request for admission.

UEFA's Executive Committee admitted the GFA as a provisional member as of the 1 October 2012, pending a vote at its Congress in May 2013 to make it a full member.

The GFA affiliated with The Football Association in 1909, but is currently trying to become a full member of FIFA so that its national team is allowed to compete in more international competitions. This attempt was met with fierce opposition from the Royal Spanish Football Federation and has been unsuccessful to date.

The GFA's application for becoming a member of FIFA was filed in 1997. Two years later, FIFA confirmed the opening of the procedure and forwarded the GFA application to the appropriate continental confederation, UEFA, since according to FIFA statutes it is the responsibility of confederations to grant membership status to applicants. In 2000, a joint delegation of UEFA and FIFA conducted an inspection on the GFA's facilities and infrastructure. The Spanish Football Association strongly opposed to the GFA's application. However, in 2001, the UEFA changed its statutes so that only associations in a country "recognised by the United Nations as an independent State" could become members. On such grounds, UEFA denied the GFA's application.

Current FIFA and UEFA members include several federations which cannot be said to represent independent nations, such as the UK Home Nations (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales), the Faroe Islands, Puerto Rico, Chinese Taipei, Tahiti and New Caledonia. French Guiana, Martinique, Guadeloupe and Saint Martin each have national teams which, despite not being FIFA members, are allowed to compete at the CONCACAF confederation level.

The GFA appealed to the world's highest sporting court, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which in 2003 ruled that the GFA application should be handled according to the old statute.

However, the UEFA continued to refuse accepting the GFA as member. In August 2006, the CAS ruled again that Gibraltar had to be allowed as a full UEFA and FIFA member, and on 8 December 2006, it was announced that Gibraltar had become a provisional member of UEFA.

However, full membership required a vote of the UEFA membership. Leading up to this vote, the Spanish Football Federation lobbied against Gibraltar's membership. The Federation's president Ángel María Villar attributed Spain's opposition to the Spanish claim over Gibraltar. He also claimed it was a political issue and referred to the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713. On 26 January 2007 in the UEFA Congress held in Düsseldorf (Germany), Gibraltar's application to become a full member of UEFA was rejected, with 45 votes against, 3 in favour (namely, England, Scotland and Wales), and 4 undecided.

In 2012, UEFA's Executive Committee admitted the GFA as a provisional member as of the 1 October, pending a vote at its Congress in May 2013 to make it a full member. This is the first step towards FIFA membership.

There was a thread on "FIFA and Non Sovereign States" a while back that contained some interesting discussion: http://foot.ie/threads/157892-FIFA-a...vereign-States

Actually, just seeing you contributed yourself there.

Steve Menary's book, Outcasts!, is mentioned; this is a later article by him on the Gibraltar situation: http://www.worldsoccer.com/columnist...eberg-for-uefa

And another by an Ed Stubbs: http://www.worldsoccer.com/blogs/gib...al-recognition

[Stuttgart88]

I thought it all had nothing to do with the GFA? Oh, sorry, that's another thread.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Not bad...

[geysir]

It's shocking to discover that Gibraltar's application to become a full member of UEFA in Jan 2007 was not supported by the IFA, breaking ranks from the other 3 UK associations.
For what did the IFA sell their soul? Spain letting them win at Windsor Pk in a qualifier?

[Charlie Darwin]

The IFA correctly identified that if we let in one unreformed colonial outpost, we'll have to let them all in

[Gather round]

It's shocking to discover that Gibraltar's application to become a full member of UEFA in Jan 2007 was not supported by the IFA, breaking ranks from the other 3 UK associations.
For what did the IFA sell their soul? Spain letting them win at Windsor Pk in a qualifier?

How did the famously incorruptible FAI vote? Do you have a full list?

Edit: the vote went 45-3 against Gib's admission, with four abstentions.

[DeLorean]

Not sure if I can necessarily agree with the sentiment there, Stu. I think that's a fairly haughty attitude to take, and not one that's best suited to us fans of mid-tier nations that qualify for finals only intermittently. (If we're lucky!)

What gives us some inherent or greater right to compete as an international football entity over certain other nations? Just because we might aspire to greater heights? Like making the World Cup or the Euros every once a decade or two?... Or because we perceive certain others as inferior? What is the scope of our ambition? All expectations and aspirations are relative to one's level.

So, what about those nations such as Germany or Italy who qualify for the finals like clockwork, who might perceive us as inferior or who might aspire to even dizzier heights than those to which we aspire? Would it be right for them to dismiss teams at our level as small fry - as dispensable burdens with whom they have to waste precious time in bothering about the menial humdrum of qualification when they could and should be really challenging themselves against the other global heavyweights instead - just because our ambitions don't match up to their lofty standards/we can never hope to actually win the World Cup?

I'm sure SkStu means that each country would have to reach a minimum standard to participate in qualification proper. It wouldn't be eliminating their potential to compete. Ireland, too, could fall to that standard in the future and, if so, would also have to pre-qualify. The minimum standard would, ideally, be capable of maybe getting a draw or two off the team ranked one place above you. San Marino don't really fit this criteria as they usually end their qualifying campaigns without even managing a goal, unless they draw us of course!

Doncaster Rovers don't get to play Man Utd just because they're also a football club, they have to earn the right. I know there are different types of ethics involved in international football but a bit of quality control would be welcome I feel. I also think competitive games for the countries involved could only help their development, if they are serious about it.

I wouldn't agree with the two legged playoff bit though, it would be group based, possibly run in conjunction with the regular qualification groups in a promotion/relegation type scenario. The top two get to join the proper qualifying next time, replacing the two weakest nations from the existing top tier. Something like that anyway!

[SkStu]

Not sure if I can necessarily agree with the sentiment there, Stu. I think that's a fairly haughty attitude to take, and not one that's best suited to us fans of mid-tier nations that qualify for finals only intermittently. (If we're lucky!)

What gives us some inherent or greater right to compete as an international football entity over certain other nations? Just because we might aspire to greater heights? Like making the World Cup or the Euros every once a decade or two?... Or because we perceive certain others as inferior? What is the scope of our ambition? All expectations and aspirations are relative to one's level.

So, what about those nations such as Germany or Italy who qualify for the finals like clockwork, who might perceive us as inferior or who might aspire to even dizzier heights than those to which we aspire? Would it be right for them to dismiss teams at our level as small fry - as dispensable burdens with whom they have to waste precious time in bothering about the menial humdrum of qualification when they could and should be really challenging themselves against the other global heavyweights instead - just because our ambitions don't match up to their lofty standards/we can never hope to actually win the World Cup?

In fact, maybe we should be asking what is meant by "development of football" in Ireland? One wouldn't need to be a seasoned supporter of Spanish football to shudder at the FAI's apparent interpretation of that phrase.

It's not intentionally haughty. I just think that something akin to what I've proposed would better meet the two conflicting arguments mentioned here namely reducing the number of "meaningless" (to bigger nations) games played while at the same time allowing for development of the game in smaller nations by providing more competitive games and something concrete to aim for.

I dunno, it's just an idea/opinion. I see it being beneficial across the board.

[Gather round]

As long as Donny get to/ stay in the top 44 teams in English football (ie promotion to the Championship) they have the same chance of drawing ManU in the Cup as Chelsea do.

The crux is how 'competitive' games are defined: San Marino would presumably rather lose 10-0 to Germany or Spain in an elite competition, than scrape a 0-0 draw with Gibraltar or Greenland in effectively a redrawn little islands cup.

PS to Stu- what do you think of my idea trailed above, ie qualifying groups of five teams with only winners progressing? Less qualifiers for the big boys without excluding anyone...

[DeLorean]

The crux is how 'competitive' games are defined: San Marino would presumably rather lose 10-0 to Germany or Spain in an elite competition, than scrape a 0-0 draw with Gibraltar or Greenland in effectively a redrawn little islands cup.

They probably would prefer it. I'd love to get a few of the lads and play against Spain as well. I don't see how it benefits anybody really though.

[SkStu]

As long as Donny get to/ stay in the top 44 teams in English football (ie promotion to the Championship) they have the same chance of drawing ManU in the Cup as Chelsea do.

The crux is how 'competitive' games are defined: San Marino would presumably rather lose 10-0 to Germany or Spain in an elite competition, than scrape a 0-0 draw with Gibraltar or Greenland in effectively a redrawn little islands cup.

PS to Stu- what do you think of my idea trailed above, ie qualifying groups of five teams with only winners progressing? Less qualifiers for the big boys without excluding anyone...

Sorry GR! Totally missed that.

I think it would be interesting and wouldn't necessarily damage our chances of qualification compared to how often we currently qualify. Additional countries at each seed level almost guarantees us a second place seeding, dilutes (a little bit) the seedings at level one and three. It would still be tough but not necessarily tougher. We'd still need a good draw and good performances to qualify as we do now...

How would you see it as a NI fan?

[SkStu]

The crux is how 'competitive' games are defined: San Marino would presumably rather lose 10-0 to Germany or Spain in an elite competition, than scrape a 0-0 draw with Gibraltar or Greenland in effectively a redrawn little islands cup.

Do you think so? If they win their pre qualifying group they can still achieve their dream of losing 10-0 to Germany!

[DannyInvincible]

I'm sure SkStu means that each country would have to reach a minimum standard to participate in qualification proper. It wouldn't be eliminating their potential to compete. Ireland, too, could fall to that standard in the future and, if so, would also have to pre-qualify. The minimum standard would, ideally, be capable of maybe getting a draw or two off the team ranked one place above you. San Marino don't really fit this criteria as they usually end their qualifying campaigns without even managing a goal, unless they draw us of course!

Doncaster Rovers don't get to play Man Utd just because they're also a football club, they have to earn the right. I know there are different types of ethics involved in international football but a bit of quality control would be welcome I feel. I also think competitive games for the countries involved could only help their development, if they are serious about it.

Fair points. Can't really disagree with that. I may have misinterpreted and argued against a notion that wasn't actually advanced, so I retract my accusation of haughtiness, Stu.

[ArdeeBhoy]

It might make any given group more interesting with only one relative minnow rather than two, it might not. There are plenty of sterile matches involving one or even two big countries. It would also be regressive to give the play-off losers only two competitive games (usually their main source of income etc.) in the two-year cycle.

Except the 'big' teams, obviously not Ireland, would want 'a second bite at the cherry', especially with World Cups, as now...
And if the minnows want more competitive games, it would encourage them to improve their standards.

Yes, they do it in other Confederations. Why is that a good thing?

Because they can see the idiocy of too many games. There is far too much football already!
Plus there's that thing about imminent synchronization of all the international football fixtures all into fixed slots in the calendar.
As in playing a more 'concentrated' version of the current practice.

They're not part of Spain nor England, let the War of 1707 go, why not?

Because they're just another pointless colonial outpost...part of Britain and their 'overseas territories'.



[QUOTE[UEFA adding new members isn't necessarily an overreaching problem. There are currently 13 European World Cup places qualifying available; you could have 65 countries in groups of five with only the winner progressing. The play-offs are basically a safety net for out of form big countries. They aren't an intrinsic requirement of an exciting elite tournament: if you can't win one of those groups you aren't good enough.[/QUOTE]
See my first point. plus what happens to the hosts? Plus it's a disgrace that the previous winners of any tournament don't get a bye to the next Finals IMO. Or some sort of advantage in kind.

I know the journeys are expensive and Kazakhstan are taking the p*ss, but Armenia and Georgia have been widely considered part of Europe/ Christendom for centuries.

Except there are now too many countries in Europe. If UEFA and all its members want to keep it that level then they have to have to have pre-qualify.
Not especially picking on the Brits, but them having 4 teams is now a joke. FIFA should restrict new entrants to independent sovereign states.
And UEFA should enforce stricter geographical criteria. They could start by kicking out Israel, Turkey and the the Kazakhs. Europe doesn't need them.
And the first two would find it easier to qualify through Asia anyway.

As long as Donny get to/ stay in the top 44 teams in English football (ie promotion to the Championship) they have the same chance of drawing ManU in the Cup as Chelsea do.

Bad analogy. ManU have played Chelsea far more than they'll ever play Donny or other teams from the lower reaches of the top two divisions.

The crux is how 'competitive' games are defined: San Marino would presumably rather lose 10-0 to Germany or Spain in an elite competition, than scrape a 0-0 draw with Gibraltar or Greenland in effectively a redrawn little islands cup.

That's as maybe. But apart from not losing so many games so heavily, they'd have to earn the right, rather than the current turkey shoot.