Pre-qualifying in World Cup and European Championship competitions

[Gather round]

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

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/prelimi...s/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.

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.

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.

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) 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.
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.

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.

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.