Luis_Rancagua Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 Monday, June 9, 2003 (Reuters) Four teams would play for two spots LONDON -- A mini-playoff round in the middle of the 2006 World Cup finals could hold the key to whether the tournament in Germany is expanded from 32 to 36 teams. Brazil and Argentina are leading a South American campaign to expand the finals to make amends for losing a place following a trade-off last December. Under the South American plan, the finals would start with nine groups of four teams rather than eight at present, a senior CONMEBOL source said. The nine group winners would be guaranteed entry into the 16-strong second round plus the five second-placed teams with the best records in terms of points, goal difference etc. The remaining two places would be settled by two playoffs involving the remaining four second-placed teams. The other possibility would be for the top seven second-place teams to advance along with the nine group winners. The schedule envisages the finals taking 34 days compared with 31 in South Korea and Japan in 2002, and 33 in France in 1998. The number of matches would be increased by eight to 72. Eduardo Deluca, the Argentine general secretary of CONMEBOL, the South American confederation, has circulated a draft proposal among the other five regional federations - UEFA (Europe), Oceania, CONCACAF (Central and North America), Asia and Africa. "We think this answers the concerns raised by some of our colleagues in other confederations," the senior CONMEBOL source said. Opponents of an expanded World Cup fear it will become too long and unwieldy. The South Americans have until June 28, when FIFA meets in Paris on the eve of the Confederations Cup final, to swing voters on the all-powerful executive committee. The 32-team finals in France in 1998 and in Korea/Japan last year offered eight first-round groups of four teams with the top two proceeding to the knockout second round. Sceptics of expansion, including FIFA president Sepp Blatter, consider the finals long enough and the idea of inserting playoffs will arouse great debate. The concept is not new. Three playoffs were staged in 1958 in Sweden between teams level on points after the first round. Opponents of a 36-team finals such as Frenchman Michel Platini, who is a member of both the FIFA and UEFA executives, have other causes for concern. FIFA has signed all its major television and sponsorship deals so little extra money would be available to meet the costs. So maintaining a tight time schedule and producing a coherent formula were two conditions set when FIFA's executive, on May 3, approved the expansion in principle. CONMEBOL has proposed one extra place for South America plus two for Europe -- thus currying voting favor in UEFA -- with the other to be decided in a playoff between Asia and Central/North America. The joint presidents of the 2006 local organizing committee, Franz Beckenbauer and Gerhard Mayer-Vorfelder, have told FIFA Germany could cope logistically. But they are expected to demand that FIFA foots the bill for the extra cost. Also, Mayer-Vorfelder has warned about club resistance to an expanded World Cup. After FIFA's in-principle acceptance of 36 teams, he said: "We must consider carefully how far we dare go without creating a conflict with the clubs. On this issue European is endangered because of the difficulty of balancing club needs." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimglow Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 Have these guys never heard of The New Coke? Listen, I love the World Cup. That month every 4 years heightens my enjoyment of life, and I'm not exagerating. But the formula they have now works. Mimglow, Ottawa _________________________ Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis_Rancagua Posted June 10, 2003 Author Share Posted June 10, 2003 This whole project is going through, whether Michel Platino (or whatever is fuc.king name) likes it or not. It appears that CONMEBOL has played it smart, as they are really courting for the UEFA, ASIA and CONCACAF votes which it requires to pass into legislation through the Executive Council of FIFA. It also appears that Africa will endorse it because Brazil and the rest of CONMEBOL has placed full support in the South Africa's bid for the 2010 World Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 Luis, I know you are really hopeful, but I still think that the expansion will be "regrettfully" shelved until the 2010 qualifying, and television contracts and present planning constraints will be used as an excuse. There will be a comment like "really excellent ideas" and "we promise to try to incorporate them for the next World Cup". WC 2010 (which will certainly be in South Africa) may well incorporate another group or two, because there will be pressure from Africa to have more than 5 entries as host confederation, as well as from the others (especially if South America wins again in 2006). South Africa's way will be to share some matches with other African nations, even North Africa, and I expect that FIFA will be conducive IF they maintain total control with one organizing committee. South Africa really has a extra lot of multi-use stadiums that could host extra games there in any event. I still feel that 32 should be the limit until 2030, when we can have a huge Centennial tournament throughout South America, with the opening match in Montevideo, the semis in Buenos Aires and Santiago, and the final in a souped-up Maracana in Rio de Janerio. Por dios, should I live that long, but only that long! Hopefully, mi compadre, we'll both be happy, you and I, if both Canada AND Chile qualify for 2006, no matter what the format. Buen suerte, we'll know in less than 3 weeks, one way or another. A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. -- Winston Churchill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 Bad idea before. Bad idea now. Beachesl's right, money is going to talk and the tourny stays at 32 sides. Thankfully. Minority of one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis_Rancagua Posted June 10, 2003 Author Share Posted June 10, 2003 You guys are all wrong. You will see the headlines at the end of June: "WORLD CUP IS NOW 36 TEAMS." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimglow Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 I kindly disagree. There are enough teams in the World Cup. 32 is perfect, it's symmetrical. 36 makes for complicated scenarios, which will turn off the the average fan. Unfortunate that CONMEBOL lost a spot, Asia should have been the one to lose a spot. Mimglow, Ottawa _________________________ Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis_Rancagua Posted June 10, 2003 Author Share Posted June 10, 2003 Argentina and Brazil are re-claiming what is rightfully there's, that is: and honest representation which was taking away from them at the expense of Asia and Australia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Luis_Rancagua You guys are all wrong. You will see the headlines at the end of June: "WORLD CUP IS NOW 36 TEAMS." Luis, are you a psychic from Aratacaca? A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. -- Winston Churchill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimglow Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Luis_Rancagua Argentina and Brazil are re-claiming what is rightfully there's, that is: and honest representation which was taking away from them at the expense of Asia and Australia No one has any birthright to any number of spots in the World Cup. It is based on performance (with some politics mixed in). And although politics did play a part in this, you can't argue against the decision considering the results of the last World Cup. Yes, Brazil won the World Cup. So CONMEBOL has the World Champion. Following in Brazil's footsteps you have nothing. Argentina, Ecuador, Uruguay failed to make it out of their groups. Paraguay lost in the round of 16. CONMEBOL teams didn't exactly justify their presence. Let's look at the other Federations: - CONCACAF: U.S.A. lose a heartbreaker in the QF, after defeating Mexico in the round of 16. Mexico had a quality side that could have gone further had they not met another side from their federation. Costa Rica lost a tie-breaker to Turkey to miss out on advancing out of their group. Turkey came 3rd in the tournament. - CAF: This is where most of the politics come into play. 5 teams from Africa is a little much. Senegal did very well, so let's say that they are to CAF what Brazil was to CONMEBOL. After that you have South Africa, Nigeria, Cameroon and Tunisia. None of these teams made it out of their respective groups, and only Cameroon and South Africa actually won a game. The politics are apparent, since Africa voted Blatter into the Presidency. BUT, CAF did not fare worse than CONMEBOL. - CAF: Let's start out by saying that China was pitiful, but a growing sport in a country of a billion citizens is something to look out for. Korea and Japan did great, Saudi Arabia was a joke. Yet arguably, you could say that more teams from this federation were succesful than CONMEBOL's, since Japan won their group and Paraguay came second. - UEFA: UEFA is difficult to quantify, due to the amount of teams they have in the World Cup. Should we take some of their spots away? Not based on the past. - OFC: In my opinion, each federation deserves at least 1 spot. It's just what's fair. Yes, Australia will beat Tahiti 21-0, but OFC is a member as much as UEFA is, and deserves a spot. So there you have it, my argument that says FIFA made the most logical choice in terms of choosing who loses a spot. S*cks for CONMEBOL, but if they acquit themselves better in Germany, we'll have to see who gets what spot! I believe the biggest mistake FIFA did was to take the Defending Champ's spot away. Can you imagine a World Cup without it's defending champion?!?!? Mimglow, Ottawa _________________________ Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 Mimglow, I agree with most of what you say except for two points: 1. I don't want to resurrect the eternal bickering from the winter, but the Oceania automatic spot was an ill-advised decision that started the whole malaise. Surely, Australia didn't deserve to have a team in the WC since 1974 if they couldn't beat low to middle teams from other Confederations. 1986 is a golden moment for Cnadaian soccer because we had to beat some good teams to get there, and we will only deserve to go if we can beat some good teams in the future. Australia only has to worry about having another off day against the Kiwis. That is not "fair". 2. I think the decision not to give the Champion an automatic spot is good for the sport, and was only made contentious there was no opposition at the time) with the later decision to give the automatic spot to Oceania and it's unfortunate effect on the CONEMBOL teams and the South American psyche. Strangely enough, much of the impetus for the change in May, 2002 came from France (before their collapse at the tournament, prophetic comments from their then coach in the media) who could see the negative effects being removed from the competition over the previous 2 years. Hypothetically, if France had finished second in a group where it was seeded first and could not then beat, say Croatia, in a last-gasp playoff, would they deserved to have been given a ticket to Seoul solely on their basis of their performance in 1998? The problem is that the WC Qualifiers are too onerous for the higher ranked nations. CONEMBOL has an insane 18 game round-robin where Brazil is given no credence for 2002 by being dumped with the same hoops as Venezuela. They and Chile, who were crap, should now have to jump through more hoops than Brazil. CONEMBOL has cursed itself, and should not have to go looking for ghouls in empty closets elsewhere. Same thing for CONCANAF (or whatever they are calling themselves in Newspeak these days). It's ridiculous for a middle-nation like Canada to have to play 20 to 23 games to qualify, the same as non-teams such as Montserrat, Turks and Caicos and the US Virgin Islands (for God's sake), who could be beaten by many recreational league teams in small Canadian cities. Warner should come to his senses. At least if FIFA gives in to the madness and CONCANAF is given another half-spot so that it now has an even 4 places, it can have 2 final groups of 4 for WCQ (instead of a hex), and further cut down the number of games. A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. -- Winston Churchill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis_Rancagua Posted June 10, 2003 Author Share Posted June 10, 2003 You are missing a point here, South America is and has always been one of the major founders of FIFA. Asia who normally gets kill 6-0 or even 9-0 is perhaps the biggest joke in this whole debate. Oh yeah!!! I realise that you may say: "...What about South Korea or Japan that defeated major European countries such as Italy, Spain, Russia, Belgium, etc... at the last World Cup..." Well that debate does not wash with me given the fact that Asia has a horrendous track record from previous World Cups where they got killed in the most embarrassing ways. South America has a given right to fight for what is rightfully there's periodly. They have been members of FIFA since the beginning of the very 1st World-Cup in 1930. quote:Originally posted by Mimglow No one has any birthright to any number of spots in the World Cup. It is based on performance (with some politics mixed in). And although politics did play a part in this, you can't argue against the decision considering the results of the last World Cup. Yes, Brazil won the World Cup. So CONMEBOL has the World Champion. Following in Brazil's footsteps you have nothing. Argentina, Ecuador, Uruguay failed to make it out of their groups. Paraguay lost in the round of 16. CONMEBOL teams didn't exactly justify their presence. Let's look at the other Federations: - CONCACAF: U.S.A. lose a heartbreaker in the QF, after defeating Mexico in the round of 16. Mexico had a quality side that could have gone further had they not met another side from their federation. Costa Rica lost a tie-breaker to Turkey to miss out on advancing out of their group. Turkey came 3rd in the tournament. - CAF: This is where most of the politics come into play. 5 teams from Africa is a little much. Senegal did very well, so let's say that they are to CAF what Brazil was to CONMEBOL. After that you have South Africa, Nigeria, Cameroon and Tunisia. None of these teams made it out of their respective groups, and only Cameroon and South Africa actually won a game. The politics are apparent, since Africa voted Blatter into the Presidency. BUT, CAF did not fare worse than CONMEBOL. - CAF: Let's start out by saying that China was pitiful, but a growing sport in a country of a billion citizens is something to look out for. Korea and Japan did great, Saudi Arabia was a joke. Yet arguably, you could say that more teams from this federation were succesful than CONMEBOL's, since Japan won their group and Paraguay came second. - UEFA: UEFA is difficult to quantify, due to the amount of teams they have in the World Cup. Should we take some of their spots away? Not based on the past. - OFC: In my opinion, each federation deserves at least 1 spot. It's just what's fair. Yes, Australia will beat Tahiti 21-0, but OFC is a member as much as UEFA is, and deserves a spot. So there you have it, my argument that says FIFA made the most logical choice in terms of choosing who loses a spot. S*cks for CONMEBOL, but if they acquit themselves better in Germany, we'll have to see who gets what spot! I believe the biggest mistake FIFA did was to take the Defending Champ's spot away. Can you imagine a World Cup without it's defending champion?!?!? Mimglow, Ottawa _________________________ Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis_Rancagua Posted June 11, 2003 Author Share Posted June 11, 2003 More news, this time from an Australian Online Newspaper: FIFA considers two proposals Sportal FIFA is examining the merits of two proposals that have been tabled to increase the World Cup finals from a 32 to 36-team tournament. The South American Football Confederation (CONMEBOL), which lost half a spot when FIFA decided to hand Oceania an automatic qualification, is behind the move to add four countries for Germany 2006 and beyond. Both proposals being considered by FIFA set out nine groups of four teams for the first phase, as opposed to eight for the 2002 World Cup finals. In the first plan by CONMEBOL, the nine group winners and the top five second-place teams would progress to the round of 16 with the other four second-placed teams playing-off for the remaining two places. Another scenario is for the group winners to be joined in the last 16 by the seven best second-placed finishers. If the first proposal were implemented, the 2006 World Cup finals would have eight more games than the 2002 finals while the second option would add six further games to the schedule. Support for the four-team increase has been split among world football's powerbrokers with UEFA chief Lennart Johansson backing CONMEBOL's bid while FIFA president Sepp Blatter and CONCACAF president Jack Warner remain sceptical. FIFA's executive committee will vote on the proposal at the end of June. Updated: Tue, Jun 10, 2003 12:39:17 PM AEDT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimglow Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Luis_Rancagua You are missing a point here, South America is and has always been one of the major founders of FIFA. Am I? Well, it seems that we disagree at the core of the argument. There are two ways of determining who gets to go to the World Cup. Option A. Choosing teams based on who was there at the First World Cup and whoever founded FIFA a hundred years ago. Option B. Merit based on the previous World Cup. If I'm reading you correctly, you opt for the first choice. If that is so, we fundamentally disagree with who goes to the World Cup. Seems to me that they should institute a Coefficient system like they do in Europe to determine how many clubs from every country gets to represent their nation in European tournaments. That way it is solely based on merit, as opposed to whoever voted for Blatter at the last Presidential Election. Mimglow, Ottawa _________________________ Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimglow Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Luis_Rancagua You are missing a point here, South America is and has always been one of the major founders of FIFA. Am I? Well, it seems that we disagree at the core of the argument. There are two ways of determining who gets to go to the World Cup. Option A. Choosing teams based on who was there at the First World Cup and whoever founded FIFA a hundred years ago. Option B. Merit based on the previous World Cup. If I'm reading you correctly, you opt for the first choice. If that is so, we fundamentally disagree with who goes to the World Cup. Seems to me that they should institute a Coefficient system like they do in Europe to determine how many clubs from every country gets to represent their nation in European tournaments. That way it is solely based on merit, as opposed to whoever voted for Blatter at the last Presidential Election. Mimglow, Ottawa _________________________ Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.