Luis_Rancagua Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 UEFA in favour of 36-team World Cup First Published: May 21, 2003 The president of European football's governing body Lennart Johansson said he was in favour of the 2006 World Cup in Germany being increased from 32 to 36 teams. The comments came after the South American federation Conmebol proposed the increase in the wake of Brazil not qualifying automatically as champions and the continent losing a play-off place for the finals. "The South Americans have lost on two accounts," Johansson said Wednesday. "It's something a continent cannot accept. I do not want to run the risk of a confederation withdrawing from the World Cup." The sport's world governing body FIFA said at its last executive committee meeting it was in favour of the increase providing they could find a system which was not open to cheating. The system at the finals in Japan and Korea last year had 32 teams or eight four-team groups giving a clean system where the two group winners qualified for the 16-team second round. An increase to 36 teams would mean changing this neat system to one which could be open to problems. For example, at the 24-team 1982 World Cup, Germany's 1-0 victory over Austria suited both teams who appeared to have an agreement, meaning Algeria were knocked out. The 36-team format would probably mean nine groups of four with the group winners going through and the seven best second-placed teams, a system which many FIFA officials believe is not without risk. FIFA president Sepp Blatter has however personally said he is against the proposal which has not pleased FIFA's first vice-president Julio Grondona of Argentina. The final decision will be made at a FIFA executive committee meeting on June 29 in Paris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 As opposed to what the article says, the Germany/Austria/Algeria debacle in Spain in 1982 was not the result of the number of teams in the tournament nor the number of teams progressing from the Groups (as in 2002, it was the top 2; the only difference was that the second round started with 4 Groups of 3, which had its own problems in terms of match scheduling). The problem was that at that time the 2 final matches for each opening Group were not scheduled at the same time, and the teams in the second match (there, Austria and Germany) had an advantage over the previously played match (Algeria and Chile) in knowing exactly what had to be done (and in that case, agreed to). That has since been remedied by mandating that the final Group matches be held simultaneously. For a faustian 36 team field, the teams from the latter-playing groups for the final group matches will have a distinct advantage because they will know the points/goaldifference/ goals they need for qualification, and there will be incredible opportunity for the two teams to fudge the results to their mutual advantage. How would the South American mephistophelists react if it meant a deserved team like Chile were prematurely knocked out because of the system they forced on others? Apart from the unfairness of having the "second place" teams in each group compete on different levels for the seven places, there would now be room for backroom corruption that will make 1982 seem like nothing. I agree that giving Oceania (Australia) an automatic spot in WC 2006 was a horrible move, but it is done-perhaps it will be remedied for 2010. Whether South America deserves to have special status, by having a full half of its members qualifying, is another issue. However, making a bad situation worse by awkwardly squishing in an extra Group of 4 against all reason and fairness to the competitors and supporters is no real solution. Anyway, hopefully FIFA will come to its senses at the end of June, and dump the 36Team proposal into File 13 where it belongs, after "due" consideration naturalmente.[8D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis_Rancagua Posted May 21, 2003 Author Share Posted May 21, 2003 If the deal goes through, CONCACAF will be awarded 4½ spots. If that is the case, then the whole project has my full support. It also betters Canada’s chances of earning a safe spot. Overall, the way in which this problem could be solved is by simply by going back to the old wild card draw system under the 24-team agenda. I would rather support a deal which is beneficial for Canada. It is as simple as this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJT Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 I also do not like this proposal. I don't care if Canada has a better chance of qualifying because the fact is that we would be qualifying for a more watered-down tournament. The way things are today it is considered a big accomplishment to qualify for the WC Finals, but if you make it easier to qualify then what's the point? Well said, beachesl, I was thinking the same thing. However, the things you say about South America wanting another spot should be said about Australia as well. It is easy to criticize South America because they are front and centre right now, but Australia shouldn't be able to hide behind them. If anything they started this whole mess. (Here's hoping Australia still does not qualify, or that they get thrashed if they do!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted May 22, 2003 Share Posted May 22, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Luis_Rancagua If the deal goes through, CONCACAF will be awarded 4½ spots. If that is the case, then the whole project has my full support. It also betters Canada’s chances of earning a safe spot. Overall, the way in which this problem could be solved is by simply by going back to the old wild card draw system under the 24-team agenda. I would rather support a deal which is beneficial for Canada. It is as simple as this. They said the same thing when CONCA-laugh got a third spot for France 98. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.