Day -520. WorldCup2018
Today would have been a good day to go to the pub, have a few beers and have a good, healthy argument about the merits of Fifa's new 48 team World Cup. Everybody has their idea of fun, right? For some it's a lively discussion with people who share the same passion but different opinions, where no one is personally aggrieved. Today's would have been a good one. Instead, here I am with my one-sided argument...for now, anyway.
No justification, or dismissal, of this new World Cup can be entered into without acknowledging the obvious. It is about money. And I don't blame Fifa. They are in the business of making money, and football. President Infantino pretty much admitted it today: "Every format has advantages in financial terms. We were in a comfortable situation to take a decision based on sporting merit." Read that as, we have lots of money already and when you do It’s easier to make big decisions.
Now that that's out of they way, my reaction is that it's a good idea. I will be challenged and I may be convinced otherwise. There are good reasons for more teams to be at the World Cup.
In 1998 when the World Cup expanded to 32 teams, 174 countries took part in qualifying. So just over 18% of all Fifa member associations qualified. There are now 211 member associations. If no new countries are recognised before 2026 qualifying, 48 teams would be just over 22%. This is not a huge increase, especially when considering my second argument.
Maybe thanks to Fifa's development programs and it's goal of taking football all over the world, the quality of football has improved everywhere. There are now more than 18% of Fifa's members where football is played at a high level. And if there is concern about the dissolution of quality at the Word Cup, surely it is not hard for anybody to see that having 22% of footballing nations take part is a fair gathering of the world's best.
Africa is a good argument for a bigger World Cup. I don't have statistics but football fans know that for many European club teams an African player is the star player. The days of African teams being laughed at for being tactically naive are long gone. Africa, and Asia, have long argued that the talent of their continents is not well represented at World Cups. Africa has 53 teams in Russia 2018 qualifying. Europe has 54. Five teams will qualify from Africa, thirteen from Europe. I have used this example before and here it is again. One qualifying group in Africa is made up of Cameroon, Algeria, Nigeria and Zambia. The first three have qualified multiple times and have been strong participants. Only one of these teams will qualify this time.
Then there's the reasons why this expanded World Cup is not a good idea. One, of course is money. It is impossible to not think that Fifa's only motivation is money and that there will be more matches, some possibly meaningless, so that Fifa can sell more television time, more tickets and get more money from sponsors. Will we, the fans, all be blindly paying into Fifa's coffers? Their own research suggest a $600 million increase in revenues.
And, of course, there is the football argument. There will be 16 groups of 3 teams. Infantino has said the exact format will be finalised later but he is in favour of penalty shoot outs to decide winners in the group phase. This will prevent the top two teams playing to an arranged draw to ensure they both qualify to the detriment of the third team that won't be playing. Fair point. But it could be that the third team is eliminated after losing it's two matches. The last group match is then between the top two teams who have already qualified. Yes, they'll be playing for top position in the group but there's hardly the same excitement as knowing it's down to the last match and one team could be eliminated.
And how about seeding? In the 32 team format, all teams are split into four pots of 8 teams each, based on their ranking, and one team from each pot is drawn into each of the 8 groups of four. This normally ensures a pretty even spread of quality throughout the groups. Now, with 16 groups of 3, does that mean there will be 3 pots of 16 teams each. That's a pretty wide spread of levels. There must be a bigger difference between Team 1 and Team 16 in a pot, than there is between Team 1 and 8.
The decision has only just been made an there is still much to be learned. We don't know yet how many teams will qualify from each continent. But I already see the potential for more excitement. If Costa Rica could eliminate England and Italy in 2014 what previously unheralded team could have the opportunity to surprise in 2026?
Today would have been a good day to go to the pub, have a few beers and have a good, healthy argument about the merits of Fifa's new 48 team World Cup. Everybody has their idea of fun, right? For some it's a lively discussion with people who share the same passion but different opinions, where no one is personally aggrieved. Today's would have been a good one. Instead, here I am with my one-sided argument...for now, anyway.
No justification, or dismissal, of this new World Cup can be entered into without acknowledging the obvious. It is about money. And I don't blame Fifa. They are in the business of making money, and football. President Infantino pretty much admitted it today: "Every format has advantages in financial terms. We were in a comfortable situation to take a decision based on sporting merit." Read that as, we have lots of money already and when you do It’s easier to make big decisions.
Now that that's out of they way, my reaction is that it's a good idea. I will be challenged and I may be convinced otherwise. There are good reasons for more teams to be at the World Cup.
In 1998 when the World Cup expanded to 32 teams, 174 countries took part in qualifying. So just over 18% of all Fifa member associations qualified. There are now 211 member associations. If no new countries are recognised before 2026 qualifying, 48 teams would be just over 22%. This is not a huge increase, especially when considering my second argument.
Maybe thanks to Fifa's development programs and it's goal of taking football all over the world, the quality of football has improved everywhere. There are now more than 18% of Fifa's members where football is played at a high level. And if there is concern about the dissolution of quality at the Word Cup, surely it is not hard for anybody to see that having 22% of footballing nations take part is a fair gathering of the world's best.
Africa is a good argument for a bigger World Cup. I don't have statistics but football fans know that for many European club teams an African player is the star player. The days of African teams being laughed at for being tactically naive are long gone. Africa, and Asia, have long argued that the talent of their continents is not well represented at World Cups. Africa has 53 teams in Russia 2018 qualifying. Europe has 54. Five teams will qualify from Africa, thirteen from Europe. I have used this example before and here it is again. One qualifying group in Africa is made up of Cameroon, Algeria, Nigeria and Zambia. The first three have qualified multiple times and have been strong participants. Only one of these teams will qualify this time.
Then there's the reasons why this expanded World Cup is not a good idea. One, of course is money. It is impossible to not think that Fifa's only motivation is money and that there will be more matches, some possibly meaningless, so that Fifa can sell more television time, more tickets and get more money from sponsors. Will we, the fans, all be blindly paying into Fifa's coffers? Their own research suggest a $600 million increase in revenues.
And, of course, there is the football argument. There will be 16 groups of 3 teams. Infantino has said the exact format will be finalised later but he is in favour of penalty shoot outs to decide winners in the group phase. This will prevent the top two teams playing to an arranged draw to ensure they both qualify to the detriment of the third team that won't be playing. Fair point. But it could be that the third team is eliminated after losing it's two matches. The last group match is then between the top two teams who have already qualified. Yes, they'll be playing for top position in the group but there's hardly the same excitement as knowing it's down to the last match and one team could be eliminated.
And how about seeding? In the 32 team format, all teams are split into four pots of 8 teams each, based on their ranking, and one team from each pot is drawn into each of the 8 groups of four. This normally ensures a pretty even spread of quality throughout the groups. Now, with 16 groups of 3, does that mean there will be 3 pots of 16 teams each. That's a pretty wide spread of levels. There must be a bigger difference between Team 1 and Team 16 in a pot, than there is between Team 1 and 8.
The decision has only just been made an there is still much to be learned. We don't know yet how many teams will qualify from each continent. But I already see the potential for more excitement. If Costa Rica could eliminate England and Italy in 2014 what previously unheralded team could have the opportunity to surprise in 2026?
No comments:
Post a Comment