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. 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/prelimi...73/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/prelimi...73/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 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 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 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.