|
|
Friday Five: CONCACAF Quest For Increased World Cup Participation Falls Short
Confederation may contend it deserves more berths, but the argument appears tenuous at best.
Mar 4, 2011 7:25:00 AM
By Kyle McCarthy
After spending the better part of two days pondering the allocation of qualifying places for the 2014 World Cup field, the FIFA Executive Committee reached a rather straightforward decision yesterday.
The qualifying spots will remain as is for the tournament in Brazil, though the playoff system will now include a random draw to determine the playoff pairings.
By opting to retain the current setup and shun the opportunity to revise the allotment, the ExCo rejected the opportunity to acquiesce to CONCACAF's demands for four full spots, penalize Africa for its poor showing in South Africa or siphon off the extra berth handed to South America because of Brazil's role as hosts.
CONCACAF general secretary Chuck Blazer expressed his disgust at the verdict in the aftermath of the vote.
“It is completely ludicrous. I'm a great supporter of South American football but for them to have a possible six countries out of 10 is absurd,” Blazer told PA Sport. “People say the hosts have always qualified as an extra but that is not true. The last two times we hosted the World Cup, in Mexico in 1986 and USA in 1994, we didn't get an extra spot - we only had two. Why should South America get an extra one? Everyone is protecting their own interests rather than doing what's right.”
The Friday Five took a step away from the last throes of MLS preseason action to assess Blazer's claims and weigh the fallout of the process:
1. Political landscape inspires status quo: FIFA president Sepp Blatter is set to stand for reelection in May. At the moment, Blatter must only combat a confirmed bid by American journalist Grant Wahl (pending nomination), but AFC president Mohammed Bin Hammam headlines a select group of potential challengers. Nothing matters more to Blatter right now than finding a way to secure supporters and ward off potential opponents. The current arrangement may ruffle a few CONCACAF representatives, but it also does little to threaten larger voting blocs in Africa and Asia. In the end, it made the most political sense for Blatter to keep things steady and push through the same setup used at the past two World Cups. And so it went.
2. Retaining the benefit for the host confederation makes sense: In the past two World Cups, the host confederation has received the benefit of the extra bid allocated to the host. It wasn't always this way, but the current practice avoids the messy situation of ripping the previous system apart simply for the sake of planning for the next World Cup. It is also worth noting that the two cases Blazer cites to the contrary involved 24-team fields and a considerably weaker CONCACAF region.
3. CONCACAF does not deserve a fourth automatic spot based upon its World Cup production: In the past five World Cups, CONCACAF has placed exactly one entrant – the United States in 2002 – in the quarterfinals. Despite the presence of nations such as Costa Rica, Honduras, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago in the group stage draw during that period, CONCACAF has seen only Mexico (every trip since 1994) and the U.S. (1994, 2002, 2010) reach the knockout stages. Past performance simply doesn't indicate that the addition of another full participant will alter the World Cup outlook in the region or show that another automatic CONCACAF qualifier would strengthen the World Cup field.
4. Blazer's attack on South America's modest membership holds little merit: At the start of South American World Cup qualifying for 2014, seven out of nine nations – current strugglers Bolivia and Peru are omitted for the moment – can reasonably expect to mount a sustained push for a World Cup bid. Blazer could only dream of such a ratio in his region. CONCACAF included 35 countries in its extensive qualifying process for 2010, but perhaps ten of those nations harbored legitimate hopes of qualifying and only six of them were included in the final stage. CONCACAF wanted to alter its format this time around – one can only hope the rigorous Hexagonal will remain in place after this ruling – to include more teams in the decisive round, but it surely cannot make an argument that its more expansive membership deserves preferential treatment when so many of those countries merely make up the numbers.
5. Playoff revisions hand CONCACAF increased hope for fourth representative: The new playoff format increases the previously remote odds that a fourth CONCACAF nation will compete in Brazil. Instead of entering a mandated playoff against the fifth-placed finisher in South America as required in 2010, the fourth-placed CONCACAF nation will go into a random, four-confederation draw that could supply an opponent from Asia or Oceania. If the playoff foe comes out of either of those two confederations instead of South America, the CONCACAF representative stands a considerably improved chance of joining the World Cup party.
Kyle McCarthy writes the Monday MLS Breakdown and frequently writes opinion pieces during the week for Goal.com. He also covers the New England Revolution for the Boston Herald and MLSsoccer.com. Contact him with your questions or comments at kyle.mccarthy@goal.com and follow him on Twitter by clicking here.
The qualifying spots will remain as is for the tournament in Brazil, though the playoff system will now include a random draw to determine the playoff pairings.
By opting to retain the current setup and shun the opportunity to revise the allotment, the ExCo rejected the opportunity to acquiesce to CONCACAF's demands for four full spots, penalize Africa for its poor showing in South Africa or siphon off the extra berth handed to South America because of Brazil's role as hosts.
CONCACAF general secretary Chuck Blazer expressed his disgust at the verdict in the aftermath of the vote.
“It is completely ludicrous. I'm a great supporter of South American football but for them to have a possible six countries out of 10 is absurd,” Blazer told PA Sport. “People say the hosts have always qualified as an extra but that is not true. The last two times we hosted the World Cup, in Mexico in 1986 and USA in 1994, we didn't get an extra spot - we only had two. Why should South America get an extra one? Everyone is protecting their own interests rather than doing what's right.”
The Friday Five took a step away from the last throes of MLS preseason action to assess Blazer's claims and weigh the fallout of the process:
1. Political landscape inspires status quo: FIFA president Sepp Blatter is set to stand for reelection in May. At the moment, Blatter must only combat a confirmed bid by American journalist Grant Wahl (pending nomination), but AFC president Mohammed Bin Hammam headlines a select group of potential challengers. Nothing matters more to Blatter right now than finding a way to secure supporters and ward off potential opponents. The current arrangement may ruffle a few CONCACAF representatives, but it also does little to threaten larger voting blocs in Africa and Asia. In the end, it made the most political sense for Blatter to keep things steady and push through the same setup used at the past two World Cups. And so it went.
2. Retaining the benefit for the host confederation makes sense: In the past two World Cups, the host confederation has received the benefit of the extra bid allocated to the host. It wasn't always this way, but the current practice avoids the messy situation of ripping the previous system apart simply for the sake of planning for the next World Cup. It is also worth noting that the two cases Blazer cites to the contrary involved 24-team fields and a considerably weaker CONCACAF region.
3. CONCACAF does not deserve a fourth automatic spot based upon its World Cup production: In the past five World Cups, CONCACAF has placed exactly one entrant – the United States in 2002 – in the quarterfinals. Despite the presence of nations such as Costa Rica, Honduras, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago in the group stage draw during that period, CONCACAF has seen only Mexico (every trip since 1994) and the U.S. (1994, 2002, 2010) reach the knockout stages. Past performance simply doesn't indicate that the addition of another full participant will alter the World Cup outlook in the region or show that another automatic CONCACAF qualifier would strengthen the World Cup field.
4. Blazer's attack on South America's modest membership holds little merit: At the start of South American World Cup qualifying for 2014, seven out of nine nations – current strugglers Bolivia and Peru are omitted for the moment – can reasonably expect to mount a sustained push for a World Cup bid. Blazer could only dream of such a ratio in his region. CONCACAF included 35 countries in its extensive qualifying process for 2010, but perhaps ten of those nations harbored legitimate hopes of qualifying and only six of them were included in the final stage. CONCACAF wanted to alter its format this time around – one can only hope the rigorous Hexagonal will remain in place after this ruling – to include more teams in the decisive round, but it surely cannot make an argument that its more expansive membership deserves preferential treatment when so many of those countries merely make up the numbers.
5. Playoff revisions hand CONCACAF increased hope for fourth representative: The new playoff format increases the previously remote odds that a fourth CONCACAF nation will compete in Brazil. Instead of entering a mandated playoff against the fifth-placed finisher in South America as required in 2010, the fourth-placed CONCACAF nation will go into a random, four-confederation draw that could supply an opponent from Asia or Oceania. If the playoff foe comes out of either of those two confederations instead of South America, the CONCACAF representative stands a considerably improved chance of joining the World Cup party.
Kyle McCarthy writes the Monday MLS Breakdown and frequently writes opinion pieces during the week for Goal.com. He also covers the New England Revolution for the Boston Herald and MLSsoccer.com. Contact him with your questions or comments at kyle.mccarthy@goal.com and follow him on Twitter by clicking here.
Inside Goal.Com
-
EURO 2012: Cristiano Ronaldo, Xavi and Van Persie named in Goal.com's dream team XI
Goal.com put together its dream team for this summer's European Championship in Poland and Ukraine
-
RIGG: Anelka struggling against the current in Shanghai
Nicolas Anelka went against the grain when he moved to Shanghai. Now he's finding that coaching and gelling tactically is like swimming against the tide.
-
ROGERS: Bradley should command a bidding war among Serie A teams
Chievo is currently shopping the American midfielder and several Italian clubs have shown interest.
-
ISOLA: Neymar-led Brazil should be considered the 2014 WC favorite
Neymar was brilliant as Brazil easily handled the United States with early World Cup preparations officially underway.
-
LATHAM: Mexico using summer friendlies to build depth
With World Cup qualifying to begin in June, Mexico is using three U.S.-hosted friendlies to build squad depth.