Pre-qualifying in World Cup and European Championship competitions

[Cymro]

There was a lengthy debate on this subject on the 606 phone-in over here in the UK after last week's qualifiers and they were at it again after England's 6-0 win against Andorra. I was just wondering what the views of Irish football fans were on the matter because I am very much against it. On one level I just oppose the whole unequal concept of teams having to pre-qualify in any competition but I also don't really buy the arguments put forward for it.

On the 606 phone-in the general argument in favour of pre-qualifying was that the games were uncompetitive and that it was done in other confederations, by cutting out the games against the 'minnows' the top players would not have to play so many games in a season. Personally I would argue that the number of games could be easily reduced by cutting down the number of Champions' League games and making it a knockout or at least not a home-and-away group stage. Secondly, I'm not certain there are enough teams that are truly uncompetitive to justify a pre-qualification stage.

Looking at the groups at the moment there are only two teams with no points at all, San Marino and Andorra. Even Malta and Azerbaijan have 1 point each despite not scoring a goal. Also, we have seen Luxembourg beating Switzerland, Estonia drawing with Turkey, Faroe Islands drawing with Austria and in Group 8 and 9 there are no teams who are cut adrift from the pack. Looking back at previous campaigns you also have the odd shock result where the 'minnow' really gets a scalp. Back in 2006 for example Liechtenstein drew 2-2 against Portugal, and Andorra actually accumulated 5 points. Malta also drew with Bulgaria and Croatia. For me results that this are sufficient evidence to justify allowing the 'minnows' to stay in qualifying. To me it just sounded like typical whingeing from the big boys that they had to play unattractive fixtures in uncomfortable environments.

There are other arguments too, like the logistics of pre-qualifying. Who do we define as being sufficiently uncompetitive to warrant having to pre-qualify? The argument from the advocates of pre-qualifying on 606 was that some footballing countries are so small as to not have the potential to ever be competitive, but surely this argument is only valid for maybe a maximum of 2 or 3 teams (if at all, looking at the points I made earlier). Is it really worth having pre-qualifying for this miniscule number of teams?

If so, is it fair? What about the teams who fail to make it through? Are they just supposed to watch the rest of Europe carry on with normal qualifying in attractive fixtures while they travel out to non-European nations to play friendlies? This in itself would also be much more difficult without the revenues they get from playing the big teams. Not playing against England or Spain probably would lose them millions, possibly making them financially unviable.

That's just a short summary of my thoughts on the matter, but I should probably stop now before I bore you all to death. :D Look forward to the debate.

[elroy]

I dont think the types of games like last wed night does any good for Andorra other than Im sure their players were happy to play at wembley.

I think the following would be worthwhile as an experiment:
If the bottom seeds were all placed in one group and this group was run parallell to the qualifying process (say for Euro 2012). The winner(s) of this group would then enter qualifying proper for the following tournament (WC 2014). The worst performing team(s) in the proper qualifying for 2012 would then be relegated to the 'minnows' qualifying group for the next campaign.
This would increase the number of genuine competitive games for these countries and may help them to progress.

There would be some anomalies in this system though, for example if my proposal was adopted for this campaign. Montenegro would be in the 'minnow' qualifying group and would more than likely very easily beat the likes of San M, F I's, Andorra, Lux etc. However, Montenegro would join the qualifying system proper for 2012 taking the place of the worst performing team in the qualifying groups for 2010. The smaller countries would also lose out financially in a big way if their most attractive competitive game would be against the best of the lowest seeds.

It is easy for the likes of us, fans of countries in the third/fourth seeds to support proposals like the above, because bar a complete disaster and terrible downturn in fortunes, the above proposal would never have any impact on us.

[Cymro]

The major problem for me with your proposal is that the teams in the pre-qualifying would be guaranteed not to qualify for the current tournament, having to be 'promoted' first to get the opportunity at the next one.

Surely that is pretty unfair? International football is not like domestic competition which is run nearly all of the time. You only get a World Cup every four years and your proposed system could see a whole bunch of teams sitting out the chance to play at a higher level for a long, long time.

Also, with less of the smaller teams playing in the actual qualifiers 'proper', bigger teams would be less inclined to play them in friendlies as warm-ups for similar sides in their group. This would cause similar financial problems to those I outlined in my previous post.


It is easy for the likes of us, fans of countries in the third/fourth seeds to support proposals like the above, because bar a complete disaster and terrible downturn in fortunes, the above proposal would never have any impact on us.

Exactly. We have to empathise with the smaller countries here. Of course with each member of UEFA getting one vote on such proposals this is pretty unlikely to actually happen, but it is still disappointing to hear some people advocating a system of pre-qualifying.

[The Fly]

If there were to be pre-qualifying for smaller nations, the only way to do it would be by population. Any country/nation with a population less than one million would have to pre-qualify. The exact number would have to be designated by FIFA/UEFA, but I would imagine one million to be a sensible figure. Should it ever happen, my own personal opinion would be that any 'nation' with a population under two million should pre-qualify...................................HELLO NORN IRON! ;)

[irishultra]

completely disagree with this idea

[elroy]

The major problem for me with your proposal is that the teams in the pre-qualifying would be guaranteed not to qualify for the current tournament, having to be 'promoted' first to get the opportunity at the next one.

Also, with less of the smaller teams playing in the actual qualifiers 'proper', bigger teams would be less inclined to play them in friendlies as warm-ups for similar sides in their group. This would cause similar financial problems to those I outlined in my previous post.



.

But in reality, its not like the countries that we are talking about are looking at the prospect of qualifying at the start of each campaign. In fact amassing more than say 3 points would probably be considered as a successful campaign for one of these countries. In an ideal world the team that would get promoted from the 'minnows' group would benefit from the competitive games and perform better when they would play in the qualifying section in the next campaign. No guarantee of this of course.

Also, it is likely that the likes of Andorra would never get out of the 'minnow' group.


The financial problems would def arise, unfortunately this is an area where you would hope that UEFA/FIFA would help out/intervene but not likely ie some sort of payment for the larger nations to subsidise the smaller countries for the change......not likely.

[Colbert Report]

It will never change. Reason being? There were 80,000 morons at Wembley last Wednesday to see England beat the snot out of a team made up of bakers, bricklayers and taxicab drivers. They each paid what, fifty pounds on average?

[tetsujin1979]

It will never change. Reason being? There were 80,000 morons at Wembley last Wednesday to see England beat the snot out of a team made up of bakers, bricklayers and taxicab drivers. They each paid what, fifty pounds on average?Actually, because of the tube strike, the official attendance was given as 57,897 (from http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/preliminaries/europe/matches/round=250471/match=300041073/report.html )
Wembley's capacity is 90,000 (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wembley_Stadium )
Andorra's population is estimated at 88,700 (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra )

[Predator]

Actually, because of the tube strike, the official attendance was given as 57,897 (from http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/preliminaries/europe/matches/round=250471/match=300041073/report.html )
Wembley's capacity is 90,000 (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wembley_Stadium )
Andorra's population is estimated at 88,700 (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra )

Ah, pedantry!

I think the point that CR makes still stands though, does it not? People will still pay relatively large sums of money to watch soccer games and because of this, there is a lot to be gained financially for many parties.

[NeilMcD]

I think it wouldl be terrible to have a pre qualifying for all the reasons that Cymro says. He puts it across better than I can ever do it. Fair play .

[Crosby87]

As A US citizen and a pro US person I happen to hate the US Soccer team BECAUSE we have 275 million people and stumble against all teams other than Mexico, and lose to Costa Rica (Population 700,000) at home. What fun is that? So i went to the place of my cousins, and grandparents in whilst I spent glorious summers, to be an underdog from a small Isle of 3 Million....
I have a good old Irish name but love the US of course and can say in fairness, World Cup Qualy is a complete joke and as absurd as it gets.
However, it is THE WORLD CUP so how do you fix that? Wouldnt be the world without the US. So I guess thats how's come the US team can suck but be ranked higher than EIRE and make the WC every year.
There actually ARE Soccer columnists kicking at some papers here (at least for now) and they are wonderful, honest writers...As an Ireland fan I worry about how a player who is on our national side who is either not playing steady or is on a championship side, and the US has virtually NO players on any side in Europe worth anything (Excuses to all keepers) (and players playing in Germany)......but guess who will make more world cups over the next 100 years? Right. Not fair. US should have to be re-aligned with other countries of due population, and have it out.

[irishfan86]

It's the World Cup. Sure it sucks for Ireland that we're based in one of the strongest regions, but on the other hand, Europe gets the most qualification spots, so things even out.

Every region should have a certain amount of representation, and there's no question that the U.S. is one of the powerhouses of North America. Although they disappointed in 2006 (tough group in fairness), they made the quarter-finals in 2002, so it's not as if they always go to tournaments and get embarrassed.

In terms of pre-qualifying, I'm not totally against the idea (North America has different phases of qualifying and it seems to work out fine).

I take on board the comments about teams getting little finance if they dropped out of mainstream qualification, but there are other ways of looking at it.

For the first time in the history of many of these nations, they might actually have a chance of winning something (pre-qualification tournament), and this sense of success may inspire young footballers in that nation, as qualification for a major tournament inspires Irish supporters.

From a psychological perspective, it's better to be the best of the lower ranked teams, than it is to be the 5th or 6th team out of 7.

[Gather round]

Looking back at previous campaigns you also have the odd shock result where the 'minnow' really gets a scalp. Back in 2006 for example Liechtenstein drew 2-2 against Portugal, and Andorra actually accumulated 5 points. Malta also drew with Bulgaria and Croatia. For me results that this are sufficient evidence to justify allowing the 'minnows' to stay in qualifying

In Spain's qualifying group before eventually winning Euro 2008, they managed to lose to Northern Ireland, who limped to nul points against Iceland, who took a thrashing in Liechtenstein. At least two of those results qualify as major shocks.


There are other arguments too, like the logistics of pre-qualifying. Who do we define as being sufficiently uncompetitive to warrant having to pre-qualify?

The worst four, five or six teams after comparing everyone's points total in previous qualifying?


Not playing against England or Spain probably would lose them millions, possibly making them financially unviable.


Liechtenstein, Andorra and probably San Marino are three of the richest countries in Europe per capita, although I suppose that might change if the financial services market continues to struggle?



I think the following would be worthwhile as an experiment:
If the bottom seeds were all placed in one group and this group was run parallell to the qualifying process (say for Euro 2012). The winner(s) of this group would then enter qualifying proper for the following tournament (WC 2014). The worst performing team(s) in the proper qualifying for 2012 would then be relegated to the 'minnows' qualifying group for the next campaign.
This would increase the number of genuine competitive games for these countries and may help them to progress

If there is to be a change- and, apart from grumbles from the big boys, any more countries splitting into two or more parts* might soon make the number of qualifiers unmanagable- Elroy's looks a fair suggestion.


There would be some anomalies in this system though, for example if my proposal was adopted for this campaign. Montenegro would be in the 'minnow' qualifying group and would more than likely very easily beat the likes of San M, F I's, Andorra, Lux etc. However, Montenegro would join the qualifying system proper for 2012 taking the place of the worst performing team in the qualifying groups for 2010

It's fair enough to be asked to join any new competition in its effective Division 2, if such a thing exists?


The smaller countries would also lose out financially in a big way if their most attractive competitive game would be against the best of the lowest seeds

UEFA could subsidise them, and in any case the very smallest countries a) don't need a subsidy for international football and b) don't attract a big crowd regardless of opposition.


It is easy for the likes of us, fans of countries in the third/fourth seeds to support proposals like the above, because bar a complete disaster and terrible downturn in fortunes, the above proposal would never have any impact on us

This fan of a third seed can easily understand the point of view of a sixth-ranker, having been one as recently as 2007 :)

NI in Euro 2004: three points (and no goals)
NI in Euro 2008: 14 points against the equivalent four higher ranked teams

shares can go down as well as up, you know...

* if Belgium was to split into two countries, you'd think both would start the next competition as bottom seeds, for example

[mypost]

Completely against all attempts to "pre-qualify" for the WC and EC.

You can guarantee that if such an idea ever was given the go-ahead, it wouldn't be long before higher teams would be made pre-qualify as well.

As for the idea that certain small state populations should pre-qualify :rolleyes: What's your suggestion if they improve well enough to be 5th seeds in the group? It's not long ago since Greece and Turkey routinely finished bottom of their groups.

This is international football, not the CL, and everyone's invited. Those countries that are 6th seeds in the group reflects where they stand in international football today, and gives them the incentive to improve in the future.

[Newryrep]

Completely against all attempts to "pre-qualify" for the WC and EC.

You can guarantee that if such an idea ever was given the go-ahead, it wouldn't be long before higher teams would be made pre-qualify as well.

As for the idea that certain small state populations should pre-qualify :rolleyes: What's your suggestion if they improve well enough to be 5th seeds in the group? It's not long ago since Greece and Turkey routinely finished bottom of their groups.

This is international football, not the CL, and everyone's invited. Those countries that are 6th seeds in the group reflects where they stand in international football today, and gives them the incentive to improve in the future.

Especially after the England failure to qualify at Euro 08 (cost them a fortune in lost productivity/brewers drop in profits/off licences etc)

Cue much knashing of teeth on the various english radio stations/sports stations and bleating about the tournament being devalued as England werent there, they were better than the teams there and that the Swiss/Austrians had wanted them there and told them so blah blah blah.

[Gather round]

Especially after the England failure to qualify at Euro 08 (cost them a fortune in lost productivity/brewers drop in profits/off licences etc).

Cue much knashing of teeth on the various english radio stations/sports stations and bleating about the tournament being devalued as England werent there, they were better than the teams there and that the Swiss/Austrians had wanted them there and told them so blah blah blah.

Talk radio shock jocks aside, I doubt many English fans thought they were better than the teams that managed to qualify. Or that what the jocks' Alpine chums said counted for much.


You can guarantee that if such an idea ever was given the go-ahead, it wouldn't be long before higher teams would be made to pre-qualify as well

If you wanted to hugely reduce the number of qualifying games for the big boys (under pressure from the CL teams, maybe), there could be seven groups of five teams with winners and runners-up qualifying. Which would mean a possibly fraught pre-qualifying stage.

[EalingGreen]

Completely against all attempts to "pre-qualify" for the WC and EC.

You can guarantee that if such an idea ever was given the go-ahead, it wouldn't be long before higher teams would be made pre-qualify as well.

As for the idea that certain small state populations should pre-qualify :rolleyes: What's your suggestion if they improve well enough to be 5th seeds in the group? It's not long ago since Greece and Turkey routinely finished bottom of their groups.

This is international football, not the CL, and everyone's invited. Those countries that are 6th seeds in the group reflects where they stand in international football today, and gives them the incentive to improve in the future.

Until I actually saw San Marino live, and realised that they really are little better than a pub team (seriously), I would have agreed 100% with that.

However, SM have given me cause to rethink, so bad were they. However, reflection has also caused to remind me of other "minnows" like Iceland, Faroes, Liechtenstein (esp), who have also made a decent enough contribution on occasion.

Therefore, implementing pre-qualifiers, which would compound a struggling team's problems, is imo "the right answer to the wrong question"

That is, we should be questioning why the consistently crap teams are allowed full international status in the first place. For example, why do eg San Marino or Andorra have international teams, whilst Gibraltar, Monaco, Channel Isles or Isle of Man do not? And taking it further afield, there are tiny Pacific islands who are even worse.

Of course with the politics of the situation, FIFA or UEFA are not going to exclude any existing Associations. However, I think they should appraise all the lesser teams' records over a period of, say, 20 years and any who are found to have been consistently uncompetitive over that period, should lose their full Status. ("Bye bye San Marino")
Meanwhile, those who have contributed from time-to-time, should be treated as full Members like everyone else, and not be required to pre-qualify ("Come on down Liechtenstein").

[Newryrep]

Talk radio shock jocks aside, I doubt many English fans thought they were better than the teams that managed to qualify. Or that what the jocks' Alpine chums said counted for much.


I could well believe that the average England fan thought their team was better than

Czech Republic (despite being a previous finalist/semi finalst)
Turkey (despite being a WC semi finalist)
Poland
Romania (despite being beaten by then at their last tournament meeting)
Greece (despite being the then holders)
Sweden (despite never beating then at a tournament ????)

and thats not even mentioning the hosts Austria/Switzerland

[Gather round]

That is, we should be questioning why the consistently crap teams are allowed full international status in the first place

As long as the number of participating countries remains managable (ie that there isn't the need for an effective Division 2 in UEFA), then the only test necessary for entrance to 'Division 1' is to be a sovereign country.


For example, why do eg San Marino or Andorra have international teams, whilst Gibraltar, Monaco, Channel Isles or Isle of Man do not? And taking it further afield, there are tiny Pacific islands who are even worse

Without wanting to be facetious, most of the latter aren't independent countries (couldn't Monaco apply to UEFA/ FIFA at the moment?). They would need to be entirely independent of Britain, in practice.


However, I think they should appraise all the lesser teams' records over a period of, say, 20 years and any who are found to have been consistently uncompetitive over that period, should lose their full Status. ("Bye bye San Marino")

Why? They don't need to, other than to give Alan Green and co. one less reason to moan.


I could well believe that the average England fan thought their team was better than...

All those qualifying teams that you listed finished in the top two in their groups, England didn't. I think we have to assume that the groups are of roughly equal standard and that most England fans can assess their team reasonably :)

Like many of their fans, I doubt Austria or Switzerland would have qualified had they needed to.

[gspain]

Without wanting to be facetious, most of the latter aren't independent countries (couldn't Monaco apply to UEFA/ FIFA at the moment?). They would need to be entirely independent of Britain, in practice.



I can think of others playing International football that are not independent either. :D

[Gather round]

I can think of others playing International football that are not independent either :D

Leave the Faeroes out of this :)

[Metrostars]

As A US citizen and a pro US person I happen to hate the US Soccer team BECAUSE we have 275 million people and stumble against all teams other than Mexico, and lose to Costa Rica (Population 700,000) at home. What fun is that?

Not to nitpick or anything, but the game the US recently lost to CR was in San Juan at the Saprissa where most visiting teams have problems plus it's a plastic pitch. And I think the population around 4 and a half million, around the same figure as us.

In any case, in Concacaf and Africa, "smaller" teams have to pre-qualify. A lot of this not only have to do with level of the competition but also finances. A lot of the smaller islands in the Caribbean don't have the money to compete in a 10-12 game competition with lots of travel so they end up playing two legs and the winner goes through to the next round:
http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/preliminaries/nccamerica/standings/round12.html

[Cymro]

A few responses now since I wasn't able to log on yesterday:


If there were to be pre-qualifying for smaller nations, the only way to do it would be by population. Any country/nation with a population less than one million would have to pre-qualify. The exact number would have to be designated by FIFA/UEFA, but I would imagine one million to be a sensible figure. Should it ever happen, my own personal opinion would be that any 'nation' with a population under two million should pre-qualify...................................HELLO NORN IRON!

I can't tell if you're seriously suggesting this or just trying to wind up the Ulstermen. :D

The obvious flaw in this suggestion (aside from the 'population limit' in itself being totally arbitrary) is that some countries with big populations have football as a third or fourth sport, such as Kazakhstan, whereas others with small populations, such as Northern Ireland, have it as their number one sport. NI are, most would agree, a better team than Kazakhstan, so it would be silly to make them pre-qualify whilst not doing the same to Kazakhstan.


But in reality, its not like the countries that we are talking about are looking at the prospect of qualifying at the start of each campaign. In fact amassing more than say 3 points would probably be considered as a successful campaign for one of these countries.

You could make a similar argument about the finals. Many of the teams involved would not expect to win the tournaments and would simply be there to get as far as they can and enjoy themselves. Nonetheless, I see no calls for the format of the finals to be changed.


Also, it is likely that the likes of Andorra would never get out of the 'minnow' group.

Depends who's in the group. I'd give them a decent shout against San Marino, the Faroes, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, etc. Certainly with international teams being cyclical you would expect it to happen at some point.


The financial problems would def arise, unfortunately this is an area where you would hope that UEFA/FIFA would help out/intervene but not likely ie some sort of payment for the larger nations to subsidise the smaller countries for the change......not likely.

So in effect you're conceding that this problem would always be there? I can't really see such charity working in more than the short-term. Pretty soon the larger teams would start to grumble again. Best to just leave it as it is, that way the big teams at least make some money out of the smaller ones even if they grumble about having to play them.


I take on board the comments about teams getting little finance if they dropped out of mainstream qualification, but there are other ways of looking at it.

For the first time in the history of many of these nations, they might actually have a chance of winning something (pre-qualification tournament), and this sense of success may inspire young footballers in that nation, as qualification for a major tournament inspires Irish supporters.

From a psychological perspective, it's better to be the best of the lower ranked teams, than it is to be the 5th or 6th team out of 7.

Although I see where you're coming from here, I suspect that if you asked the fans of the teams if they'd prefer to see their side playing regularly in qualifying 'proper' or having a competitive mini-tournament which they would graduate from perhaps once every 25 years they'd choose the former option.

Also, I think this move would have a negative effect on playing standards of the small nations. Playing against each other all the time would probably not be the best preperation for 'going up' to qualifying 'proper' if/when they win the group. Added to that, they would lose out on playing decent sides in friendlies too, as practice against that style of team would be less in demand due to only one such team actually being in the qualifiers proper. Thus, you would probably see a gradual decline in standards, though you would see more competitive matches. But that would mean nothing without the opportunity to test yourself at a higher level.

As I said before, teams are cyclical. Luxembourg for example might experience a golden generation around 2020, yet at the same time the Faroes also have a pretty solid team. Because of this both these teams are absolutely dominant in pre-qualifying but only one gets the chance in qualifying proper, even though both would probably be at least as good as the lower tier teams in the qualifiers 'proper'.

So, while I see your point, I still feel that overall the idea has less going for it than against it.


In Spain's qualifying group before eventually winning Euro 2008, they managed to lose to Northern Ireland, who limped to nul points against Iceland, who took a thrashing in Liechtenstein. At least two of those results qualify as major shocks.

Yes, that's my point. People say that games aren't competitive enough to justify keeping the 'minnows' in, but I think that's nonsense as borne out by results.


There are other arguments too, like the logistics of pre-qualifying. Who do we define as being sufficiently uncompetitive to warrant having to pre-qualify?
The worst four, five or six teams after comparing everyone's points total in previous qualifying?

But therein lies the problem. Say the sixth and seventh teams can't be seperated, or can only be seperated by goal difference or something like that. The differences between the two teams cannot reasonably be said to be sufficient to justify the claim that one is competitive enough to compete in qualifying as of right while the other is simply not good enough so needs to pre-qualify. And say that all the teams are fairly close, is it fair to say to half of them they will almost certainly miss out on qualifiers next time because they conceded one or two more goals than Azerbaijan? Also, one campaign is not indicative of the next. Teams can be sh1te in one campaign and not too bad in the next as players retire and young players come through.

An analogy with the finals here is not valid as additional nations can and historically have been accomodated in the qualifiers in unusual circumstances, such as the break-up of an existing state.


Liechtenstein, Andorra and probably San Marino are three of the richest countries in Europe per capita, although I suppose that might change if the financial services market continues to struggle?

The countries themselves may be fairly rich, but much of that wealth lies in individuals (bankers and such) rather than the FAs of the country. Most of the FAs are likely poor as dirt and need the money.


UEFA could subsidise them, and in any case the very smallest countries a) don't need a subsidy for international football and b) don't attract a big crowd regardless of opposition.

a) They don't need a subsidy because their current costs are paid for by the money they recieve from playing the big guns. Take that away, and they'd probably be in trouble.

b) Think again. They may not have many fans but neutrals and away fans can boost the crowds to several thousands for their bigger games. Example: Andorra got over 12,000 for their home game with England in Euro 2008 qualifying. TV money is also significant as I believe the money is split between both countries.


That is, we should be questioning why the consistently crap teams are allowed full international status in the first place. For example, why do eg San Marino or Andorra have international teams, whilst Gibraltar, Monaco, Channel Isles or Isle of Man do not? And taking it further afield, there are tiny Pacific islands who are even worse.

Because they're countries too and should be allowed to take part in international football. The reason the teams you mentioned are not allowed to take part is because they are not sovereign states and did not found the game with specific exceptions in place to ensure they were able to cheat the rules, like us Brits. :p

To be honest if not for the sheer amount of quasi-states who want to take part in internationals I would have no problem letting them join in too. Especially as I have sympathy with some of them in that they have clearly defined cultural and linguistic traditions, which in my view makes them a 'country', at least as much as arbitrary political states like Switzerland. However if you let the Basques, Catalans, Manx, Gibraltarians and Greenlanders of this world into competitions you can bet there'd be a whole host of (potentially politically explosive) other countries knocking on the door, like the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus or Transylvania, for example. And the chaos which would ensue would be, well, chaotic. :D


Of course with the politics of the situation, FIFA or UEFA are not going to exclude any existing Associations. However, I think they should appraise all the lesser teams' records over a period of, say, 20 years and any who are found to have been consistently uncompetitive over that period, should lose their full Status. ("Bye bye San Marino")
Meanwhile, those who have contributed from time-to-time, should be treated as full Members like everyone else, and not be required to pre-qualify ("Come on down Liechtenstein").

For me this is again too arbitrary. If you're in the right place at the right time, you get welcomed in, but if not you get kicked out? No thanks. Generally speaking I feel it will be agreed than San Marino (pop. 29,973) and Liechtenstein (35,322) have similar levels of actual football potential, even if Liechtenstein have unquestionably had the better teams recently.

[John83]

I'm all for removing the minnows. Rubbish teams like San Marino, Macedonia and even Cyprus would never give a proper football team so much as a scare.

Actually, screw that. Let's just have Brazil, Germany and Italy play off every four years. Saves on a lot of bother.

[Gather round]

But therein lies the problem. Say the sixth and seventh teams can't be seperated, or can only be seperated by goal difference or something like that. The differences between the two teams cannot reasonably be said to be sufficient to justify the claim that one is competitive enough to compete in qualifying as of right while the other is simply not good enough so needs to pre-qualify. And say that all the teams are fairly close, is it fair to say to half of them they will almost certainly miss out on qualifiers next time because they conceded one or two more goals than Azerbaijan? Also, one campaign is not indicative of the next. Teams can be sh1te in one campaign and not too bad in the next as players retire and young players come through

Fair points. Which is why I'd only favor having the pre-qualifying tournament IF the number of countries in qualifying became unmanagable. (Although that said, if you finish a qualifying tournament with two or three points from 12 games you can't complain at relegation even if someone else with two or three survives on goal difference).


The countries themselves may be fairly rich, but much of that wealth lies in individuals (bankers and such) rather than the FAs of the country. Most of the FAs are likely poor as dirt and need the money

I don't claim any knowledge of the San Marino or Liechtenstein FA's accounts, but is that really plausible? I doubt any other institution in the country is 'dirt poor' even in relative terms.


Think again. They may not have many fans but neutrals and away fans can boost the crowds to several thousands for their bigger games. Example: Andorra got over 12,000 for their home game with England in Euro 2008 qualifying. TV money is also significant as I believe the money is split between both countries

That game was in Barcelona, was it not? So presumably the Andorra FA had to pay a fee to hire the ground. If the village countries insist on playing in their own country (rather than in Bologna or Zurich or wherever), they'll lose out on all the England or Germany fans who want to see it, but they'll still get the TV money?

[Cymro]

Well most FAs make their money from the domestic game through getting a cut of commercial revenues generated by their clubs, and also through donations, domestic cup finals, and occasional government funding. I don't know about specifics either (and am too lazy to do the research) :D but I'd wager that a fair chunk of the Andorran FA's income this year will come from gate receipts and TV income from their qualifying games against England.

The game in Barcelona would presumably have incurred a fee for hire, but would have likely made the FA a profit overall relative to the same game being played in Andorra's stadium.

[DeLorean]

Slightly off topic but I think that FIFA should be striving to ensure that the best 24 teams in the World end up in the WC Finals. It's a bit of a farce in my opinion that they make sure that all corners of the World are represented. Presumably they do it this way to make sure it remains a global phenomenon. Whatever a bout minnows being involved in the qualifying process it's ridiculous that they are actually involved in tournament after tournament eg. Saudi Arabia. England, Croatia and Ukraine are all in the same qualifying group this time round so basically a proper football nation is destined to fail before it even starts. Ukraine finishing 3rd in this group hardly suggests that they are inferior to countries like the Saudies, Trinidad, Jamaica, etc. The likes of these countries should have to play off with the third placed European teams and/or 6th/7th/8th placed South American teams who also get a raw deal.

In relation to minnows in qualifying I agree with elroy.

[Gather round]

Slightly off topic but I think that FIFA should be striving to ensure that the best 24 teams in the World end up in the WC Finals

Was that a typo for "best 32"? If not, won't almost all the objectively best 24 end up in the 32 anyway?


it's ridiculous that they are actually involved in tournament after tournament eg. Saudi Arabia

Aren't they generally different minnows from one tournament to the next, in Africa and Asia? If the overall standard in North America and Oceania is low, couldn't they be included in the South American/ Asian group stages?


England, Croatia and Ukraine are all in the same qualifying group this time round so basically a proper football nation is destined to fail before it even starts

Tough, I say. If they can't finish in the top two of three realistic potential qualifiers, do they really deserve to be at the finals? Also- if they do well at the next European championships, this will benefit their seeding for the next World Cup.

[DeLorean]

Was that a typo for "best 32"? If not, won't almost all the objectively best 24 end up in the 32 anyway?

Sorry I meant 32, it was 24 at one stage I think, got confused.


Aren't they generally different minnows from one tournament to the next, in Africa and Asia? If the overall standard in North America and Oceania is low, couldn't they be included in the South American/ Asian group stages?

Well Saudi Arabia usually seem to be there breaking every kind of record going...most goals conceded, fewest goals scored, etc. But anyway regardless of who the minnows are I don't think they should be there at the expence of teams that are better, pretty much by default.


Tough, I say. If they can't finish in the top two of three realistic potential qualifiers, do they really deserve to be at the finals?

Maybe, maybe not but I think they definitely deserve a playoff against a team who have beaten nobody of note but just happen to be in a region where qualification is a formality.


Also- if they do well at the next European championships, this will benefit their seeding for the next World Cup.

Qualification for the Euros is pretty much the same as the WC so I don't see this as a fantastic opportunity to improve your seeding.

Just to use my previous example Saudi Arabia, not picking on them and I'm aware they had a decent campaign in 1994. They have been in 3 successive WC Finals since then, playing 9 matches- winning none. In the 2002 tournament they lost all 3 matches, conceding 12 goals without scoring themselves. Still, come 2006 they are there again by default, and again they fail to win a match. Ukraine were quarter finalists at the last WC and because of the qualification set up will struggle to make it this time. It doesn't make sense to me.

By the way I'm not saying there's an easy fix solution here and it would take a lot of arranging but I just think it's unfair the way it is. Tough you say...and obviously the powers that be agree with you.

[seand]

I've no problem with pre-qualifiers. I think some Irish people might worry that we'd eventually end up in pre-qualifiers, but if so, so be it. Why should Andorra etc be guaranteed a couple of massive games against the likes of Spain/Italy when Bohemians as League of Ireland champions have to get through three qualifying rounds to have a crack at Barcelona?

The only problem I see with it is deciding who goes into pre-qualifying, how many go into pre-q and how promotion/relegation would work thereafter. As long as they are pre-qualifiers run before the main qualifiers rather than in parallel (thus denying the smaller countries any slim hope of qualifying) I'm in favour.

[boovidge]

I think there's a principle here that every country (or association if you prefer) affiliated with UEFA should be treated equally. I think there's something great about a system that puts micro-states such as San Marino and Andorra on a level field (except for seedings) with footballing giants such as France and Italy. I think the spirit of international football will suffer to a degree if the system is changed so that millionaire footballers don't have to go to the bother of playing football games that they'll probably win.

[Gather round]

it would take a lot of arranging but I just think it's unfair the way it is. Tough you say...and obviously the powers that be agree with you

You can't imagine how irritating is when when FIFA agree with me :)

Fair points about Saudi- I'd forgotten how weak they (and by association the other Asian teams) were in recent World Cups.

In the example I suggested- CONCACAF's stronger teams playing in CONMEMBOL's group stages- you could see relative strength better reflected in the eight qualifiers (ie, it might be 6/2 rather than 5/3 as likely at the moment).

But I'll be honest, I'm happy with Europe having only 14 or 15 of the teams in the finals. 20 or 24 would be boring- and it might actually devalue the competition in comparison with the 16-finalist Euros.


Why should Andorra etc be guaranteed a couple of massive games against the likes of Spain/Italy when Bohemians as League of Ireland champions have to get through three qualifying rounds to have a crack at Barcelona?

Bohs used to have that chance (when there was an open draw for champions alone). But it isn't Andorra's fault that England, Spain and Italy insist on almost half their leagues getting into Europe. No danger of the same thing happening in international football.


The only problem I see with it is deciding who goes into pre-qualifying, how many go into pre-q and how promotion/relegation would work thereafter. As long as they are pre-qualifiers run before the main qualifiers rather than in parallel (thus denying the smaller countries any slim hope of qualifying) I'm in favour

Thing is, as you describe it that's a huge problem- surely many of the teams would have to play effectively two sets of qualifiers in each tournament?

[Montenegrin]

I'm all for removing the minnows. Rubbish teams like San Marino, Macedonia and even Cyprus would never give a proper football team so much as a scare.




Macedonia:eek:.
Macedonia has solid team that still have chance of finishing second in their group.
I must say that I totaly oppose this proposal.Football is game where everybody should be treated equaly.I am not saying this becouse I am from "minnow" country,but becouse the fact that every nation has chance to play against top ones makes football such a special game.If England is so bothered to play matches against Andora than why do they play with strongest team?Why dont they send second team,or even youth team?That would be great chance for coach to see some new players.On the other hand could England be sure that they will win if they send their second team to play against Montenegro,or even Luxembourg?
As good example of how this separation of teams could be done,if it is really needed,I can give you example of handball.I know it is not popular sport in Ireland and Britain,but it is quite popular in Europe.In handball every federation decides for itself whether or not to participate in qualifiers.If they choose to to be among "minnows",they play against other teams that choosed the same and they have many privileges( getting more money for developing the game from European handball federation,getting profesional assistance...).On the other hand,they are free to play quilifiers,but they will gain nothing by losing every game 20+ goals difference.
Montenegro,for example,choosed to play quilifiers,managed to quilify for European championship from first attempt and finished 12th in Europe.But,thats becouse we have good handball team.If we were bad,it would be smarter thing to play among "minnows".

[DeLorean]

In the example I suggested- CONCACAF's stronger teams playing in CONMEMBOL's group stages- you could see relative strength better reflected in the eight qualifiers (ie, it might be 6/2 rather than 5/3 as likely at the moment).

Ya that would be the kind of thing I would be in favour of. It would be an improvement anyway.


But I'll be honest, I'm happy with Europe having only 14 or 15 of the teams in the finals. 20 or 24 would be boring- and it might actually devalue the competition in comparison with the 16-finalist Euros.

I wouldn't be in complete disagreement to be honest. There is definitely more of a romance attached to it the way it is. For the likes of the 3rd/4th tier European teams though I just feel they're at a huge disadvantage compared to teams of similar/less ability in other qualifying regions.

[mypost]

Sorry I meant 32, it was 24 at one stage I think, got confused.

Well Saudi Arabia usually seem to be there breaking every kind of record going...most goals conceded, fewest goals scored, etc. But anyway regardless of who the minnows are I don't think they should be there at the expence of teams that are better, pretty much by default.

Maybe, maybe not but I think they definitely deserve a playoff against a team who have beaten nobody of note but just happen to be in a region where qualification is a formality.

Why don't we have the FA Cup as a gala Premiership fest? None of the expensive Chelsea, Liverpool, or Arsenal players would have to endure trips to Northwich, Carlisle, or Woking, as none of their opposition have any chance of winning it. :rolleyes:

It's a cup competition, and everyone is invited to take part. Many will fail, a lot will fail to be competitive against stronger sides, but they still have the right to have a go.

Saudi Arabia qualify because they reached the qualification standard. They shouldn't be penalised because it's not the same level as the UEFA one and is shown when the finals take place.

As earlier said, if we start going down the route of pre-qualifying, it'll be a matter of time before it's simply a top 8 shoot out* for the World Cup, and nobody wants that.

*Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Spain, Italy, France, England and the host country.

[irishfan86]

Why don't we have the FA Cup as a gala Premiership fest? None of the expensive Chelsea, Liverpool, or Arsenal players would have to endure trips to Northwich, Carlisle, or Woking, as none of their opposition have any chance of winning it. :rolleyes:

The FA Cup is a really bad example to use, as the early rounds of the FA Cup are played between smaller clubs, and could be seen as a "pre-qualifying" aspect of that tournament.

I honestly don't see the problem with pre-qualifying, it works fine in North America.

[irishultra]

i want as much irish competitve games as possible so a definite no from me

[irishfan86]

i want as much irish competitve games as possible so a definite no from me

Stan era excluded, is playing the likes of San Marino "competitive" in nature or only in name?

[SkStu]

heres the best idea - keep the minnows. Everyone feels good after giving a minnow a nice hiding (we're not the best at it but you get my point). Just get rid of some of the fake european countries. Anything East of the Caspian Sea gets the chop and is tossed over to the Asian confederation. Basically get rid of anything ending in "stan". Purge the memories. Throw Israel in there too for the craic.

[irishfan86]

heres the best idea - keep the minnows. Everyone feels good after giving a minnow a nice hiding (we're not the best at it but you get my point). Just get rid of some of the fake european countries. Anything East of the Caspian Sea gets the chop and is tossed over to the Asian confederation. Basically get rid of anything ending in "stan". Purge the memories. Throw Israel in there too for the craic.

How about we just make a new FIFA region called "The Middle East," so no other confederations have to deal with their sh*t. Throw North Korea in the mix for the craic.

[mypost]

The FA Cup is a really bad example to use, as the early rounds of the FA Cup are played between smaller clubs, and could be seen as a "pre-qualifying" aspect of that tournament.

It's a cup competition, and while a lot will fail to make the final rounds, they all get the right to make it that far.

[irishfan86]

It's a cup competition, and while a lot will fail to make the final rounds, they all get the right to make it that far.

The world cup is a cup competition, and even with pre-qualifying, they all get the right to make it that far.

[endabob1]

There are currently 53 teams in UEFA world cup qualifying
13 World Cup Spots (this will be 14 spots for the European Championships as Poland & Ukraine are the Hosts)
Currently there are 8 qualifying groups of 6 with1 group of 5

Proposal for the Euro’s;
Take all teams who finish 5th or 6th (17 teams in total) and have a pre-qualifying competition running from July to December

Final Qualifying to have 7 groups of 6 (top 2 to qualify)
This will be the 9 top 4 finishers from the current qualifying plus 6 qualifiers form the pre-qualifying.

Pre-Qualifying to be 3 groups of 4 with 1 group of 5.
4 group winners to qualify for the final qualifying
4 runners up to be drawn in a 2 legged play-off for the final 2 spots

This would leave 11 international countries with potentially no competitive international football for 2 years until the next set of Pre-Qualifying takes place. To avoid this, a second tournament should be set up, with the first prize of a passage through to the final qualifying of the next tournament.

Advantages –
• A complete break from competitive international football for 6 months for teams competing in tournament finals, from the end of one tournament (normally mid/late July) to the start of the next qualifying (January the following year). This is possible due to playing fewer games by not having the need for a round of final play-offs.
• It produces a cleaner qualifying structure with no need for play-offs & the 2nd place table we currently have in operation.
• It should eliminate the 6-0 type hammerings that are routinely handed out to the smaller countries, by improving their competiveness.
• Increases the number of competitive games played by smaller countries and playing teams of similar ability should improve their competiveness.
• It continues to offer an immediate path to qualify for the current tournament while offering a secondary route for the following tournament.

Disadvantages –
• Potentially fewer games means potentially less income, although Holland would get 2 more games & any group winner from this qualifying would remain on 10 games. This really only effects any team who reach the play-offs.
• Less glamour games for the smaller nations may result in less income and there will be the added cost of playing more matches, the financial effects may have to be supported by UEFA/the bigger nations.
• By not playing better teams it can be argued that the smaller nations could stagnate and not develop, the proposal hopes that the competiveness of the pre-qualifying would help them develop but the opposite could be argued.

Virtually all cup competitions have pre-qualifying, the FA cup preliminary rounds start in August, no one suggests that Man Utd should play Gedling Miners Welfare (beaten 7-1 in last seasons extra-preliminary round by the mighty Westfields).
The important things are
1- to ensure teams can qualify for the same finals as the bigger teams in the same season, ie don't have a competition running this season for qualification for next seasons FA Cup.
2 - to continue to give smaller teams competive fixtures where they can develop and improve
3 - not to affect the finances of smaller countries in a negative way which would in turn make them less competitve.

Once these things are sorted I don't have any real issues with it, even if Ireland ended up in a pre-qualifying group, you still have the chance to progress.

[DeLorean]

Saudi Arabia qualify because they reached the qualification standard. They shouldn't be penalised because it's not the same level as the UEFA one and is shown when the finals take place

I know that they reach the qualifying standard, my whole point was that the qualifying standards are uneven and unfair. Hypothetically, if Australia only had to beat New Zealand to end up at the WC they'd have met the qualifying standard as well, it doesn't make it right. Instead they have to playoff with the 5th placed South American team every second WC.

[boovidge]

I know that they reach the qualifying standard, my whole point was that the qualifying standards are uneven and unfair. Hypothetically, if Australia only had to beat New Zealand to end up at the WC they'd have met the qualifying standard as well, it doesn't make it right. Instead they have to playoff with the 5th placed South American team every second WC.

*had

Australia's moved to Asia now

[DeLorean]

*had

Australia's moved to Asia now

Fair enough, it was just the general imbalance I was getting at.

[mypost]

There are currently 53 teams in UEFA world cup qualifying
13 World Cup Spots

Virtually all cup competitions have pre-qualifying, the FA cup preliminary rounds start in August, no one suggests that Man Utd should play Gedling Miners Welfare (beaten 7-1 in last seasons extra-preliminary round by the mighty Westfields).

Once these things are sorted I don't have any real issues with it, even if Ireland ended up in a pre-qualifying group, you still have the chance to progress.

Isn't the existing World Cup qualifiers called the "preliminaries"? :confused:

The FA Cup is open to everyone who submits an entry, and that includes Gedling Miners Welfare. They don't play a pre-season play-off with similiar sized clubs in order to make the August round. They have a game, they win it, they go straight to the next round, and so on until they lose. That's how it should be.

As I say, if you wanted, you could have a top 8 shootout for a month, or a fair competition involving everyone for 2 years. I know what most people would rather have.

[Cymro]

I've no problem with pre-qualifiers. I think some Irish people might worry that we'd eventually end up in pre-qualifiers, but if so, so be it. Why should Andorra etc be guaranteed a couple of massive games against the likes of Spain/Italy when Bohemians as League of Ireland champions have to get through three qualifying rounds to have a crack at Barcelona?

Because club football is sadly ruled by the clubs/leagues with greatest wealth (and therefore best players regardless of what they actually produce through their own academies), and they can dictate that not only have they got a structural advantage in that they come in later on, but they also get more entrants than other nations.

International football is not the same, it is by nature more meritocratic and democratic. I personally believe that pre-qualifying in general is unfair, but it's also true that in club football the gap between Barcelona and Bohemians is (rightly or wrongly) significantly greater than that between Spain and Rep. Ireland. In fact, the same goes for most small to medium sized European countries, such as Croatia, Serbia, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Greece etc - they generally have a better chance of success in international competition than club football.

endabob - a few comments on your well-structured post:


Advantages –
• A complete break from competitive international football for 6 months for teams competing in tournament finals, from the end of one tournament (normally mid/late July) to the start of the next qualifying (January the following year). This is possible due to playing fewer games by not having the need for a round of final play-offs.

Do we really need less international football? I am of the view that we have too many club games and should cut down on the heavy Champions' League schedule to avoid player burnout instead. Internationals are rare enough as it is, coming once every few months. Why is international football apparently being seen as a burden on players, managers and fans?


• It produces a cleaner qualifying structure with no need for play-offs & the 2nd place table we currently have in operation.

Well pre-qualifying would have play-offs and such, under your proposal, but apparently that matters less. :( In any case, I am not necessarily opposed to play-offs; even when they screw your team over they provide a sense of excitement and uncertainty. I am not certain this would be an advantage personally.


• It should eliminate the 6-0 type hammerings that are routinely handed out to the smaller countries, by improving their competiveness.

See previous posts. How will playing similar teams all the time make them more competitive? The pre-qualifying games themselves might be closer than your typical 6-0 hammering but will not make them better prepared should they graduate from pre-qualifying. The only way for smaller teams to improve and really test themselves is by playing in the current seeded groups consistently. That way, the teams with potential will really feel the benefits, while those with less potential will at least be guaranteed a shot at a famous result during their 'golden generations'.


• Increases the number of competitive games played by smaller countries and playing teams of similar ability should improve their competiveness.

See above.


• It continues to offer an immediate path to qualify for the current tournament while offering a secondary route for the following tournament.

It doesn't offer an immediate path; teams have to go through two sets of qualifiers. :(


Virtually all cup competitions have pre-qualifying, the FA cup preliminary rounds start in August, no one suggests that Man Utd should play Gedling Miners Welfare (beaten 7-1 in last seasons extra-preliminary round by the mighty Westfields).
The important things are
1- to ensure teams can qualify for the same finals as the bigger teams in the same season, ie don't have a competition running this season for qualification for next seasons FA Cup.
2 - to continue to give smaller teams competive fixtures where they can develop and improve
3 - not to affect the finances of smaller countries in a negative way which would in turn make them less competitve.

I thionk as far as the FA Cup is concerned the logistics are different to World Cup qualifying. In order to have complete equality in the FA Cup, Manchester United would have to play something like 15 extra games, which would be impossible with their schedule. In the World Cups and European Championships, it is a mere two, one home, one away. Obviously, there is a difference there. I personally just don't see how teams can complain about having to play two games against a 'minnow' in one whole qualifying campaign (that's one per year, if you will). The supposed drawbacks for the big boys of having 'minnows' in qualifying are easily outweighed by the benefits for most of the other 50-odd nations.

Incidentally, as far as the debate about teams from 'weaker' continents taking part in the World Cup is concerned, FIFA does operate a weighting system deciding the number of entrants that a continent may send to the finals, based on their performances in World Cups. In other words, if a continent has a particularly bad finals, while another does well, a swing of one finals entrant to the better-performing conferderation may typically occur. I personally think that the European play-off losers would be better than some of the qualifiers from other continents but from an objective point of view the system seems fair enough to me.

[Gather round]

Incidentally, as far as the debate about teams from 'weaker' continents taking part in the World Cup is concerned, FIFA does operate a weighting system deciding the number of entrants that a continent may send to the finals, based on their performances in World Cups

As a slight tangent, last I looked, FIFA ranked international teams from different continents using a multiplier- a win in CONCACAF was worth 0.90 of one in Europe, I think. But obviously CONCACAF teams don't match that when they actually get to play Europeans at the World Cup finals.


In other words, if a continent has a particularly bad finals, while another does well, a swing of one finals entrant to the better-performing conferderation may typically occur. I personally think that the European play-off losers would be better than some of the qualifiers from other continents but from an objective point of view the system seems fair enough to me.

Has this actually happened (ie, did Europe's or South America's representation increase from 1994 to now based on winning all the tournaments since then)?

[Gather round]

I think as far as the FA Cup is concerned the logistics are different to World Cup qualifying. In order to have complete equality in the FA Cup, Manchester United would have to play something like 15 extra games, which would be impossible with their schedule

Poor old Manchester United and their schedule :)

I think there were 14 rounds in last season's FA Cup, ie eight before the big boys joined. In next season's, Scunthorpe United (as the lowest ranked side getting exemption to the last 64) aren't necessarily going to play (m)any more games than Gedling- they're just pulling that rank because they're seven or eight steps higher in the Pyramid :mad:

I'd make ManU and co. start in the first round proper. If that puts the kibosh on any lucrative friendlies in Hong Kong or Los Angeles, tough...