In other forums, it has been pointed out that with three-team groups, some teams will complete play well before the end of the group stage, while others will be playing in the last couple of days of the stage. This means that the teams entering the 32-team stage will be be all over the map in terms of how much rest they've had.
1
To suggest that African teams are inferior to European or South African counties teams is an insult to the quality of players and teams on the continent. FYI Nigeria beat Spain (1998 World Cup) and Cameron Beat Argentina (1990 World Cup)
Lots of comments that this expansion will result in low level teams and poor quality football, Let's remember that the 2016 European Championships was also an expansion from 16 teams to 24 teams and the pundits had the same complaints. And yet, teams that made it to the list were some of the star teams who would not have qualified. Ireland and Wales had great runs and who will forget Iceland defeat of England and making it to the quarter finals. Actually the only country that should appose this is England as it just brings in more countries for them to lose against.
1
"Though the concentration of quality in Europe and South America is unquestionably far higher, the idea that the World Cup should be only for the very best teams is one that has traction only in isolated spots."
It should be for the best teams... To strike a balance, that's why there are confederations and respective qualification processes.
I love the author's use of "effectively represented" with regard to African and Asian representation. It's not like in the last 3 world cups, CONMEBOL nations haven't qualified to the knockout round 14/16 times; UEFA nations 22/40; CONCACAF nations 5/11; CAF countries 4/16; and AFC nations 2/12 (and 3/13 if we include Australia from 06 when they were in Oceania's confederation).
Seems unfair to perhaps S American countries even. Even N American countries do better than African and Asian countries. Seems like fair representation based on performance and quality to me. But nope, let's add more mediocre Asian and African slots, why don't we? :-)
It should be for the best teams... To strike a balance, that's why there are confederations and respective qualification processes.
I love the author's use of "effectively represented" with regard to African and Asian representation. It's not like in the last 3 world cups, CONMEBOL nations haven't qualified to the knockout round 14/16 times; UEFA nations 22/40; CONCACAF nations 5/11; CAF countries 4/16; and AFC nations 2/12 (and 3/13 if we include Australia from 06 when they were in Oceania's confederation).
Seems unfair to perhaps S American countries even. Even N American countries do better than African and Asian countries. Seems like fair representation based on performance and quality to me. But nope, let's add more mediocre Asian and African slots, why don't we? :-)
1
Oh, please--it's called The World Cup. Every country that wants to take part should be included. There is more legitimacy in this than the United States calling its baseball, basketball and hockey teams world champions when clearly they are not and never have been. Go for it, FIFA.
Every team that wants to participate in it should? Yeah, right. They have to qualify and be of reasonable standard. Asian and African countries who did qualify never performed even up to the level of CONCACAF nations, let alone those in UEFA and CONMEBOL.
1
Every country already takes part, in the form of regional qualifying tournaments, so your comment misses the point entirely. It is a question of how many of the 200 or so participating teams are eliminated before the remainder are invited to travel to one country at one time for the finals stages of the competition.
1
Just great. More bad games with really bad teams. This is clearly a money grab. What a joke.
1
Before the no-northings start telling us about the superiorly of European football vis-a-vis African teams, at least we do not cheat. Presented for your consideration:
The Disgrace of Gijón was the 1982 FIFA World Cup e football match played between West Germany and Austria at the El Molinnon stadium, Gijon, Spain, on 25 June 1982. The match was the last game of the first-round Group 2, with Algeria and Chile having played the day before. With the outcome of that match already decided, a win by one or two goals for West Germany would result in both them and Austria qualifying at the expense of Algeria, who had beaten West Germany in the first game. West Germany took the lead after 10 minutes, thereafter the remaining 80 minutes was characterized by few serious attempts by either side to score.
The Disgrace of Gijón was the 1982 FIFA World Cup e football match played between West Germany and Austria at the El Molinnon stadium, Gijon, Spain, on 25 June 1982. The match was the last game of the first-round Group 2, with Algeria and Chile having played the day before. With the outcome of that match already decided, a win by one or two goals for West Germany would result in both them and Austria qualifying at the expense of Algeria, who had beaten West Germany in the first game. West Germany took the lead after 10 minutes, thereafter the remaining 80 minutes was characterized by few serious attempts by either side to score.
Wonderful. More opportunity for graft and corruption.
1
How can this article pretend that the 800 lb. gorilla doesn't exist.
After European domestic league campaigns can be up to 70 matches, then a three week training camp and, now, a 5 week tournament? Go to 8 groups of five, and 48 group matches balloon to 80, and voila, the 5 week tournament is suddenly verging on 7 weeks in length.
At what point do we decide that Messi, Ronaldo and Muller have played enough matches in a year?
Also, I was in Spain for the 1982 WC, and we learned two things there: corrupt possibilities require simultaneous final matches, as West Germany and Austria contrived a result that advanced both, at the expense of Algeria, which had beaten West Germany.
In the second round, we learned that three team groups are terrible.
"In the 1990s, when he repeated the trick, expanding the tournament from 24 to an apparently cumbersome 32."
This is completely absurd. 32 is a perfect size, and 24 is the cumbersome number. Do you prefer qualifying four third place out of four teams, or have second phase groups of three? Neither has worked out in practice. Use exponents of 2. The next round number of teams would be 64, which is beyond the pale, as it would require almost two months to complete.
As for continental allocations, in actual World Cups, Africa, Asia and CONCACAF have all underperformed. If Algeria had beaten Germany, the US beaten Belgium, and either Mexico or Costa Rica beaten Holland, the 2018 allocations might look different...but none happened...
After European domestic league campaigns can be up to 70 matches, then a three week training camp and, now, a 5 week tournament? Go to 8 groups of five, and 48 group matches balloon to 80, and voila, the 5 week tournament is suddenly verging on 7 weeks in length.
At what point do we decide that Messi, Ronaldo and Muller have played enough matches in a year?
Also, I was in Spain for the 1982 WC, and we learned two things there: corrupt possibilities require simultaneous final matches, as West Germany and Austria contrived a result that advanced both, at the expense of Algeria, which had beaten West Germany.
In the second round, we learned that three team groups are terrible.
"In the 1990s, when he repeated the trick, expanding the tournament from 24 to an apparently cumbersome 32."
This is completely absurd. 32 is a perfect size, and 24 is the cumbersome number. Do you prefer qualifying four third place out of four teams, or have second phase groups of three? Neither has worked out in practice. Use exponents of 2. The next round number of teams would be 64, which is beyond the pale, as it would require almost two months to complete.
As for continental allocations, in actual World Cups, Africa, Asia and CONCACAF have all underperformed. If Algeria had beaten Germany, the US beaten Belgium, and either Mexico or Costa Rica beaten Holland, the 2018 allocations might look different...but none happened...
8
It is very simple: the tail wags the dog at FIFA. Germany has one vote. Argentina has one vote. Trinidad has one vote.
This is not only bad for the game, but silly. The German Federation counts 7.5m active players in all age groups up to 50 and above. The Argentines and the French have had more wc titles than any of the other three continental federations combined. Yet - as witnessed by what African or Arab politician ends up in posts of power - achievement and relevance has no meaning in the c o r r u p t World of FIFA.
This is not only bad for the game, but silly. The German Federation counts 7.5m active players in all age groups up to 50 and above. The Argentines and the French have had more wc titles than any of the other three continental federations combined. Yet - as witnessed by what African or Arab politician ends up in posts of power - achievement and relevance has no meaning in the c o r r u p t World of FIFA.
5
NYT should be ashamed to publish such blatant lobbyism for an idea bad for football but great for pockets to be lined.
8
To top it off, Rory Smith lobs the most common insult at the European game: elitism. One of the worst argued pieces read on NYT sports in a long time.
9
Abolishing simultaneous kickoffs in the final group games? Didn't we learn our lesson back in 1982?
5
West Germany-Austria and thousands of whistling neutral Spanish fans in Gijon...
3
How about some discussion of the corruption behind FIFA's decision to place Israel in Europe, for soccer purposes? How much money was paid so the Muslim nations of the Middle East would not have to play qualifying matches against Israel?
5
Riddle me this? How does Kazakhstan manage to be in "Europe," too?
5
And Guyana in North America? Was that a result of bribery, too, or simply special circumstances in which the resolution was agreeable to all sides, as it was in the case of Israel?
At least Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana are ON the Caribbean...
"the idea that the World Cup should only be for the very best teams is one that has traction only in isolated spots."
Strange remark. The World Cup should be for the best teams, otherwise you will have the kind of boring and humiliating games that we see when Germany plays San Marino or France against Luxembourg. This doesn't mean that as the game progresses in Africa and Asia that more teams shouldn't participate
from those areas.
Strange remark. The World Cup should be for the best teams, otherwise you will have the kind of boring and humiliating games that we see when Germany plays San Marino or France against Luxembourg. This doesn't mean that as the game progresses in Africa and Asia that more teams shouldn't participate
from those areas.
7
Humiliating games like when Germany plays Brazil, in Brazil???
1
Paul, that happened once, the others recur every year. However, I saw some good in Brazil's humiliation. Brazilians have come to expect that their team will always win and a little modesty is good for everyone.
1