World Cup

Editors' Roundtable: Is The FIFA Seeding System Corrupt And Broken?

Goal.com North America's editors tackle the question of whether the FIFA seeding system and Friday's upcoming draw is fair.

Dec 1, 2009 1:35:51 PM

Fifa World Cup trophy (Bongarts/Getty Images)

Photo Gallery

Zoom

Fifa World Cup trophy (Bongarts/Getty Images)

Related Links

Andrea Canales: Is the FIFA draw fixed?

Allen Ramsey: I think in some ways it has to be considered fixed. FIFA always tends to bend the rules to get what they want. Not that it's all completely fixed, but the world governing body has a big hand in it. The seeding is a sham. That alone is kind of a 'fix'.

Zac Lee Rigg: These are issues with the system, but there is still a system, which even FIFA follows.

Canales: Basically, I think it's like a player taking a very soft fall, even if it's not an outright dive, it's still a kind of cheating. FIFA may not fix all of the draw, but they set things up to go in certain directions.

Shane Evans: There is no way it's fixed. But when it comes down to it, the big teams win matches and find a way to get the high seeds. Whether they have a 'hand' in it or not, the draw is in place and every team has an equal chance at the start of the World Cup.

Bueno: The system is just set up in a way that benefits the big teams, but I don't think that means it's fixed. I mean, those teams got big by doing things right on the field.

Canales: Yeah, but that's like the house betting on itself. If they make the system, then they make it go their way.

Ramsey: The system FIFA follows is whatever they benefit from at the time. And let's not forget, they can change the system whenever they see fit.

Canales: There's no way an entity with Jack Warner as vice-president is transparent and above the board. It's all about gaming the system and making money.

Bueno: If the seeded teams are as expected: Brazil, Argentina, France, England, Spain, South Africa, Germany and Italy; how can you argue those seedings?

Ramsey: Very easily I can argue those seedings.

Canales: Argentina have been crap this past year. They barely got into the World Cup.

Bueno: I would argue the only one who doesn't belong is England, but they've won a World Cup, so even they would be tough to argue.

Ramsey: France had to sneak in.

Canales: France handballed their way in.

Bueno: Argentina were quarterfinalists in 2006. They are in the World Cup. France was a FINALIST in 2006. Of course, they should be seeded.

Canales: Four years ago is a significant amount of time ago.

Evans: England had the best qualifying record in the world, or near to it.

Bueno: Qualifying means nothing now. It's not just based on current form but history too. Since the World Cup is held every four years, 2006 is not ancient history. Last time out pretty much.

Ramsey: The history part is why it's a sham.

Canales: South Korea was a semi-finalist in 2002, and that didn't help them get seeded in 2006. The USA were quarterfinalists in 2002, finished first in CONCACAF qualifying and they still didn't get a 2006 seed - it went to Mexico.

Bueno: History means everything.

Ramsey: No, no it doesn't. History means it's in the past. Not that it'll stay the same. History only matters to teams that rely on it for their favor, not for the teams that get their hard earned recent results tossed out the window.

Bueno: Saying that teams are strong and their form is good or bad is way too subjective. Argentina were crap, you could argue, but they reached the World Cup, which is the most important thing. And history matters: Argentina won the World Cup twice, were quarterfinalists in the 06 World Cup, were their confederation's championship runners-up within this recent World Cup cycle. That's a pretty strong case.

Evans: I don't really agree with that, Luis.

Rigg: History shows a general trend of how a team might possibly perform. Not a prediction, but a nice trend. A lot of the same teams finish up near the top. I highly agree with using it as well as current form in the seedings.

Canales: I do think FIFA recognizes that any system is unfair to someone.so they just go with the one that benefits the biggest teams (and thus FIFA) the most.

Bueno: If you don't base it on history, what do you base it on?

Ramsey: Base it on qualifying. If you don't finish top of your group, you don't get a seed. Sounds fairly simple to me.

Bueno: They have one group in South America.

Ramsey: So they get one seed.

Bueno: That's preposterous.

Ramsey: Not at all.

Canales: I like it, actually. Pretty much Argentina or Brazil have a good year every World Cup cycle, so why reward the weaker of the two at one time? If they're both strong, advancement will probably happen without a seed.

Bueno: So you'd rather have Argentina in Pot 3 or whatever and possibly have a group that looks like: Germany, Netherlands, Argentina and whoever
Insane. There's no balance there.

Evans: Would make for some big matches.

Ramsey: No problem with that, if that's where they finished.

Canales: Balance is an artificial FIFA construct. I like the staightfowardness of Allen's system.

Bueno: That's completely ignoring history.

Ramsey: Why should Argentina get a seed for playing poorly? Simple, they shouldn't.

Diego Maradona | Coach got Argentina to World Cup

Bueno: Playing poorly? They reached the World Cup! Bolivia played poorly. So too did Ecuador and Costa Rica. They don't just hand out World Cup spots

Canales: Argentina needed last minute miracle goals to get to the World Cup.

Ramsey: Luis, you're telling me they played well? Come on.It's a joke to think Argentina, by anything other than history, deserve a seed.

Bueno: But they got there. It's like the playoffs, right? The point is getting in, isn't it?

Canales: If the point is getting in, getting a seed shouldn't be their reward, getting to the World Cup should be enough.

Bueno: So you would have no problem with the US playing them?

Canales: The USA actually matches up well with Argentina - a draw last time the two met.

Bueno: A seed is Argentina's reward for '78 and '86.

Canales: A seed shouldn't be based on over 20 years ago, or where is Uruguay's?

Bueno: If Argentina misses out on a World Cup, then they might not be seeded the following time. Uruguay doesn't consistently qualify for World Cups.Argentina does.

Canales: They shouldn't be seeded for squeaking in any more than their neighbors.

Evans: Exactly, well said, Andrea.

Ramsey: There it is. There's reasons for debate. If it was a straightforward system, there wouldn't be.

Bueno: I have no problem with Argentina being seeded. They got as far as England did in 06 and you guys aren't arguing against England's seed. England, who did not qualify for their confederation championship during this last cycle. England, who had an EASY qualifying group compared to the rigors of South America. If Argentina does not deserve a seed, then neither does England.

Canales: England looked great in qualifying.

Bueno: Yeah, against... who did they play again?

Ramsey: One word for you. Boliva!!!

Bueno: The US craps their pants playing in 7200 feet in Mexico City, imagine playing in La Paz.

Ramsey: Craps their pants to the tune of a 1-1 draw until in the 87th it becomes 2-1? That's not 6-1.

Bueno: La Paz makes Mexico City look like a hill.

Canales: Besides Brazil, no one should trouble Argentina in South America. As for England, Croatia isn't a walkover. They've done better in World Cups than most any South American team of late, bar the big two.

Evans: No team had won in Zagreb in forever. England beat them 4-1.

Bueno: Zagreb, right, because that's as tough as playing in Brazil.

Canales: Actually, if you go by the record, it's tougher.

Bueno: England had the mighty Andorra, Kazakhstan and Belarus in their group. Ukraine who were one of the weaker second-place finishers. Croatia was their only tough opponent.

Historic win for England in Zagreb

Evans: It's not their fault there are more teams in Europe. By that virtue, Argentina should be used to playing harder teams and should play better consistently.

Ramsey: Look, it's clearly debatable, but the fact that the system is set to make the "historically good teams" win, is proof that there is some kind of fix. The only thing that makes me madder than FIFA, in the world of sports, is the BCS. When you're getting compared to the BCS, you've got problems.

The Editors' Roundtable runs every week on Goal.com

Discuss all the latest in the Goal.com Forums