Is it fair???

[jorge]

Is it fair that South America only get four,five probably places when asia get the same amount. :mad:

[sligoman]

YES! :ball:

[jorge]

Why when SA teams are superior.

[eirebhoy]

Well Asia has 44 members while South America has just 10.

Definitely seems fair to me.

[Gerrit]

Indeed. You cannot send more South American teams, they already send 50% of the members... They could have 11 members BTW if Argentina wouldn't mix politics and sports and block Falklands from signing up :mad:

[Troy.McClure]

They could have 11 members BTW if Argentina wouldn't mix politics and sports and block Falklands from signing up :mad:

Or if the Brits just gave them back :rolleyes: Anyway, whats the point in having more Asian teams if they are only going to be cr@p. The Asian/middle eastern teams are usually the whipping boys, we dont need any more.

[Gerrit]

Why would the Brits give it back now if they first made all the effords to keep them ?

This is a part of history where I am behind in knowledge... What was the whole fascinating with the Falklands anyway ? Why would Britain want to have the responsability of having to govern a group of rocky islands on the other end of the world, a group of rocks with 2000 people and no natural richnesses so as oil... It must cost them many pounds and headaches having to keep an eye on that place so far away, while they probably only get very few tax incomes in return... Why did they even bother to keep it ?!

Dito with the Pitcairn Islands... 65 people on a group of rocks in the middle of the Pacific, and the Union Jack waves above the only settlement... Now that the islands have their first sex scandal and no courts or lawyers to handle it themselves, Britain has to come in between... Before this court case, would Tony Blair have ever known the UK owned some rocky islands there ?!

[jorge]

Why do you think theres so many European teams in the WC-there better,imagine a WC with continents having an equal ammount of countries in it.Great players miss out because of the likes of Soudi Arabia,Iran etc ITS NOT FAIR.

[stojkovic]

Why would the Brits give it back now if they first made all the effords to keep them ?

This is a part of history where I am behind in knowledge... What was the whole fascinating with the Falklands anyway ? Why would Britain want to have the responsability of having to govern a group of rocky islands on the other end of the world, a group of rocks with 2000 people and no natural richnesses so as oil... It must cost them many pounds and headaches having to keep an eye on that place so far away, while they probably only get very few tax incomes in return... Why did they even bother to keep it ?!

Dito with the Pitcairn Islands... 65 people on a group of rocks in the middle of the Pacific, and the Union Jack waves above the only settlement... Now that the islands have their first sex scandal and no courts or lawyers to handle it themselves, Britain has to come in between... Before this court case, would Tony Blair have ever known the UK owned some rocky islands there ?!I'm not 100% but I think historically Britain kept the Falklands because of access to Antartica. Antartica is divided into regions 'owned' by the likes of Britain, America, New Zealand, even Norway. One day they will be allowed to discover oil down there.

[Jaime]

In the last World Cup, South America had one team in the last 4, and so did Asia. Obviously hosting the tournament helped South Korea in more ways than one, but fact is that in the last 4, there were as many Asian teams as South American ones.

[Armando]

Am I right in saying that the Concacaf region (Mexico, USA etc.) gets 3 automatic spots and a play off spot. Now that is a joke! No country from this confederation has ever made a significant impact on a World Cup finals. Maybe Ireland should apply for entry to this region?!

[brendy_éire]

"The hosts are guaranteed a place, and they will join 13 other teams from Europe [Europe gets 14 spots, Germany have taken one already]. The African zone will send 5 representatives to Germany, while Asia and South America have been awarded 4.5 spots and the North and Central Americans and Caribbean Zone has 3.5 and Oceania 0.5."

IMO, South America gets too many places. Outside of Brazil and Argentina, there's not much else to justify 4 automatic places. Brazil and Argentina are more or less guaranteed a place in every World Cup.
Neither, for that matter, should North and Central America get 3 automatic places. Mexico and the USA get in every time.

So, we have, almost certainly -

South America: Brazil, Argentina (qualified), and take your pick of two Ecuador, Paraguay, Colombia, Chile, Uraguay, Peru, Venezuala, Bolvia.

North and Central America: USA, Mexico, and one from Costa Rica, Trinidad and Tobago, Panama and Guatemala.

Asia: Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, Iran. (all have qualified)

So that's Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, Iran, Brazil, Argentina, USA and Mexico all guaranteed World Cup entry every four years. Only two of which consistantly put in decent performances in the World Cup.

Oceania (Australia, New Zealand and Pacific islands) are now calling for an automatic spot, btw.

If things are to be changed, give Europe more places (I count 20-odd that should be in). And how about throwing the American countries together?
Africa gets 5 places, outside Nigeria and Cameroon, there's no-one else (Morocco, Tunisia, or South Africa?). Looking at the groups, Togo, Ivory Coast and Angola are all doing well. But these teams will be nothing but whooping boys come next year. What's the point in having 8-0 games in the World Cup? It demeans the tournament. Granted, FIFA wouldn't particularly want a World Cup of European teams plus a few others, but this is meant to be the greatest footballing teams in the world competing together. If they happen to be European, so be it.

[Schumi]

If anywhere deserves more places, it's Europe. The quality of teams who don't qualify is higher in Europe than in any other continent.

[Metrostars]

Am I right in saying that the Concacaf region (Mexico, USA etc.) gets 3 automatic spots and a play off spot. Now that is a joke! No country from this confederation has ever made a significant impact on a World Cup finals. Maybe Ireland should apply for entry to this region?!

2 of the 3 Concacaf teams made it past the first round in the last World Cup. USA got to the quarter finals and Mexico might have too had they not met USA in the second round. Even with that, it still was surprising that Concacaf was award an extra 1/2 spot for 2006. I think CONMEBOL should have been given the 1/2 spot and have 5 spots instead of 4.5. BTW even though a lot of the Caribbean teams are a joke, there are 34 teams in concacaf.

I don't think we will ever see UEFA get more than 15-16 team. If most of the teams come from Europe, why bother calling it the World Cup at all.

FYI - Number of Teams/Amount of games played in qualifying:
AFRICA: 51/10 (12 if team was in the preliminary round)
ASIA: 39/12 (14 if team was in the preliminary round)
CONCACAF: 34/18
CONMEBOL: 10/18
OCEANIA: 12/7 (11 if team was in the preliminary round)
UEFA: 51/12 (10 in a 6 team group+2 if qualify through 2nd place)


2002 World Cup Finals
Total # Teams/# Teams in 2nd round:/# Teams in 1/4 final
AFRICA: 5/1/1
ASIA: 4/2/2
CONCANAF: 3/2/1
CONMEBOL: 5/2/1
UEFA: 15/9/4

[jorge]

If anywhere deserves more places, it's Europe. The quality of teams who don't qualify is higher in Europe than in any other continent.
Thats why theres the European Campionships.

[anto eile]

Indeed. You cannot send more South American teams, they already send 50% of the members... They could have 11 members BTW if Argentina wouldn't mix politics and sports and block Falklands from signing up :mad:
Viva las Malvinas Argentina!:)