Jump to content

Confederations success at advancing out of group stage


Recommended Posts

I don't know if this is really a relevant topic or not for Qatar, but I did a bit of research and I find the numbers interesting, so thought I'd share.

I looked at each World Cup since 1998 and added up how many representatives were sent to the World Cup by confederation (for example, Africa has sent 5 representatives to all 6 of those World Cups, plus South Africa as host in 2010, for a total of 31 teams participating in the World Cup from Africa). I then added up how many from each confederation made it out of the group (for example Mexico has made it out of the group in all 6 of those World Cups, Costa Rica once, and USA 3 times, which means CONCACAF nations advanced 10 times). The goal of this was to see the rate at which teams advance out of the group stage, based on their continental confederation. Here are the results.

image.png.e44a7cc0eeb775cf61519831d958358a.png

I think lots of people in the world (outside of CONCACAF at least) would be surprised by this table. Namely that CONCACAF is ahead of Africa and Asia, and that CONCACAF is closer to UEFA (in this metric) than UEFA is to CONMEBOL. The gap from CONCACAF down to AFC and CAF is pretty substantial as well.

Note: The OFC nation that advanced out of the group was Australia, before they made the switch to AFC. The OFC nation that failed to get out of the group (although they were undefeated with all 3 games being draws) was New Zealand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit surprised by CAF, but not at all surprised by AFC. I realize that Asia has by far the highest population count, but their teams are consistently underwhelming. In the 2026 world cup they will get 8 (!!!) spots while CONCACAF gets 6. So let's look at the rankings for the cut-off team for each confederation, and the 'just missed' team, along with their current FIFA rankings:

AFC (8): Iraq (72) ||| Oman (75)

CONCACAF (6): Jamaica (64) ||| El Salvador (74)

CAF (9): Ivory Coast (53) ||| Burkina Faso (56)

CONMEBOL (6): Chile (28) ||| Ecuador (46)

OFC (1): New Zealand (101) ||| Solomon Islands (137)

UEFA (16): Ukraine (27) ||| Czech Republic (33)

If we throw out OFC as an outlier (easiest qualification in 2026 by far), then AFC will be letting in the weakest entries. And UEFA will again be the strongest. I understand they are trying to grow the game globally, but a case could be made that it should actually be something more like AFC sending 7, CONCACAF sending 5, and UEFA sending 18. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, maplebanana said:

I'm a bit surprised by CAF, but not at all surprised by AFC. I realize that Asia has by far the highest population count, but their teams are consistently underwhelming. In the 2026 world cup they will get 8 (!!!) spots while CONCACAF gets 6. So let's look at the rankings for the cut-off team for each confederation, and the 'just missed' team, along with their current FIFA rankings:

AFC (8): Iraq (72) ||| Oman (75)

CONCACAF (6): Jamaica (64) ||| El Salvador (74)

CAF (9): Ivory Coast (53) ||| Burkina Faso (56)

CONMEBOL (6): Chile (28) ||| Ecuador (46)

OFC (1): New Zealand (101) ||| Solomon Islands (137)

UEFA (16): Ukraine (27) ||| Czech Republic (33)

If we throw out OFC as an outlier (easiest qualification in 2026 by far), then AFC will be letting in the weakest entries. And UEFA will again be the strongest. I understand they are trying to grow the game globally, but a case could be made that it should actually be something more like AFC sending 7, CONCACAF sending 5, and UEFA sending 18. 

Good post.

I've recently been interested by looking for advantages or disadvantages that some regions have over others in the FIFA rankings. Something just occurred to me for UEFA as a potential advantage for the top half teams.

CONMEBOL lacks actual minnows, so there aren't really any easy games for them. CONCACAF and AFC get rid of the smallest minnows before the big nations even get involved, and then prune the field further before pitting the best against the best (or near that in AFC's case, since they have 2 groups in the final round). UEFA on the other hand, has 10 groups, so the talent is spread out. This gives teams at the top like Germany, and that next rung down like Wales, plenty of chances to beat up on the mid and bottom teams, like Northern Ireland, Luxembourg, and Gibraltar and relatively few matches between top teams. They do this for the World Cup and they do it again for Euro qualifying.

That being said, you are no doubt correct that if we had a magical machine that could accurately rank all the national teams and we picked the top 32 or 48 to compete in the World Cup, likely Europe's share of teams would increase. But I just wanted to make a small point on some of the frailties of FIFA's ranking system, even though it's better than it was before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would note that CONCACAF's success rate is heavily skewed by Mexico, who have made it out of the group stage all six times and are responsible for 60% of CONCACAF trips to knock out rounds. Excluding Mexico, CONCACAF numbers begin to look similar to Africa and Asia.

Asia is very similar to CONCACAF, but don't have a single historic powerhouse like Mexico to inflate their number. Japan, South Korea, Australia, and one or two others in the Middle East are approximately USMNT level and good to continuously challenge for knockout rounds. Then, they have a large number of second tier teams similar to Hunduras, Panama, Jamaica, and so forth.

I personally don't follow Africa as much, but my impression is its comparable to Asia. There are 3-4 teams who are good to continuously challenge for knockout rounds, with a healthy second tier providing competition.

I would argue South America's 76% is inflated by Brazil and Argentina, but that's not to take away from how good a confederation they are.

Europe and South America do have the most countries who almost always make the knockout stage. Their second tier countries then become comparable to the top tier of other confederations. This, to me, is the difference between them and the rest of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you go back further than 1998 for Concacaf, both Concacaf teams made it out of the first round in 1994, 50% did in 1990 (which was not Mexico as they were banned from qualifying) and 50% also did in 1986 (Mexico went to the QF that year, as hosts which they also did as hosts in 1970). Canada of course was the 50% that didn't make it out of the group in 1986.

From 1970 through 1982, only Mexico at home in the 1970 WC made it out of the group stage - El Salvador was also there in 1970 but didn't make it out (they actually were in the same group at Mexico, which is bizarre that the two Concacaf teams in the 16 team tourney were put in the same group, and somewhat skews the success % when teams from the same region compete against themselves in the group stage). Haiti in 1974, like ES in 1970, lost all three group matches as did Mexico in 1978 and ES in 1982, although Honduras fared much better in 1982 (but still failed to get out of the group).

Prior to 1970 but after WWII, I think Mexico was the only Concacaf team in the WC (other than the US also being there in 1950), and I don't think any of them got out of the 1st round, although the further you go back, the wackier and wilder the tournaments and qualifying processes were, so the data gets somewhat less meaningful (there were some tourneys where teams only played one or 2 group games, for example, IIRC).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Red and White said:

I would note that CONCACAF's success rate is heavily skewed by Mexico, who have made it out of the group stage all six times and are responsible for 60% of CONCACAF trips to knock out rounds. Excluding Mexico, CONCACAF numbers begin to look similar to Africa and Asia.

Asia is very similar to CONCACAF, but don't have a single historic powerhouse like Mexico to inflate their number. Japan, South Korea, Australia, and one or two others in the Middle East are approximately USMNT level and good to continuously challenge for knockout rounds. Then, they have a large number of second tier teams similar to Hunduras, Panama, Jamaica, and so forth.

I personally don't follow Africa as much, but my impression is its comparable to Asia. There are 3-4 teams who are good to continuously challenge for knockout rounds, with a healthy second tier providing competition.

I would argue South America's 76% is inflated by Brazil and Argentina, but that's not to take away from how good a confederation they are.

Europe and South America do have the most countries who almost always make the knockout stage. Their second tier countries then become comparable to the top tier of other confederations. This, to me, is the difference between them and the rest of the world.

As you alluded to, Africa does in fact have more teams that have made it to the knockout round since 1998. But Asia does not.

Here are the teams from CONCACAF, AFC, and CAF that have made it to the knockout round at least once.

CONCACAF - Mexico (6 times), USA (3 times), Costa Rica (1 time)

AFC - South Korea (2 times), Japan (3 times) (Australia made it out of the group in 2006 but was still in OFC at the time)

CAF - Nigeria (2 times), Senegal (1 time), Ghana (2 times), Algeria (1 time)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2022 at 12:37 AM, Kent said:

As you alluded to, Africa does in fact have more teams that have made it to the knockout round since 1998. But Asia does not.

Here are the teams from CONCACAF, AFC, and CAF that have made it to the knockout round at least once.

CONCACAF - Mexico (6 times), USA (3 times), Costa Rica (1 time)

AFC - South Korea (2 times), Japan (3 times) (Australia made it out of the group in 2006 but was still in OFC at the time)

CAF - Nigeria (2 times), Senegal (1 time), Ghana (2 times), Algeria (1 time)

To add context to this. I will post my table again. 

FYI Korea actually made it three times twice.  and i have 6 for Africa since 98.  But i might be the one whose wrong. 

 

 

How Concacaf Teams at the WC have done:

2018 (Russia)……..Mex (R16)

2014 (Brazil)……….Mex (R16)…..US (R16)…..CRC (1/4)

2010 (S. Afr)……….Mex (R16)…..US (R16)

2006 (Germany)…Mex (R16)

2002 (Jpn/S.Kor)..Mex (R16)…..US (1\4)

1998 (France)…….Mex (R16)

1994 (US)…………..Mex (R16)…..US (R16)

How Asia Teams at the WC have done:

2018 (Russia)……..JPN (R16)

2014 (Brazil)……….None

2010 (S. Afr)……….JPN (R16)…..Kor (R16)

2006 (Germany)…Aus (R16)

2002 (Jpn/S.Kor)..JPN (R16)…..Kor (1\2)*

1998 (France)…….None

1994 (US)…………..KSA (R16)

* Achieved through bribery of ref's

How African Teams at the WC have done:

2018 (Russia)……..None

2014 (Brazil)……….Nig (R16)…..Alg (R16)

2010 (S. Afr)……….Gha (1/4)

2006 (Germany)…Gha (R16)

2002 (Jpn/S.Kor)..Sen (1/4)

1998 (France)…….Nig (R16)

1994 (US)…………..Nig (R16)

Edited by Free kick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Free kick said:

To add context to this. I will post my graph again. 

FYI Korea actually made three times.  and i have 6 for Africa since 98.  But i might be the one whose wrong. 

 

 

How Concacaf Teams at the WC have done:

2018 (Russia)……..Mex (R16)

2014 (Brazil)……….Mex (R16)…..US (R16)…..CRC (1/4)

2010 (S. Afr)……….Mex (R16)…..US (R16)

2006 (Germany)…Mex (R16)

2002 (Jpn/S.Kor)..Mex (R16)…..US (1\4)

1998 (France)…….Mex (R16)

1994 (US)…………..Mex (R16)…..US (R16)

How Asia Teams at the WC have done:

2018 (Russia)……..JPN (R16)

2014 (Brazil)……….None

2010 (S. Afr)……….JPN (R16)…..Kor (R16)

2006 (Germany)…Aus (R16)…..Kor (R16)

2002 (Jpn/S.Kor)..JPN (R16)…..Kor (1\2)*

1998 (France)…….None

1994 (US)…………..KSA (R16)

* Achieved through bribery of ref's

How African Teams at the WC have done:

2018 (Russia)……..None

2014 (Brazil)……….Nig (R16)…..Alg (R16)

2010 (S. Afr)……….Gha (1/4)

2006 (Germany)…Gha (R16)

2002 (Jpn/S.Kor)..Sen (1/4)

1998 (France)…….Nig (R16)

1994 (US)…………..Nig (R16)

I didn't check all your work, but you mentioned you had a different result for Korea, so I checked them. They didn't get out of the group (3rd in the group) in 2006. You said you have 6 for Africa since 1998 as if it was different from my result. That's what I have too, perhaps you made the incredibly easy mistake as reading AFC as Africa when CAF is actually Africa.

And yeah, your data highlights that if you go one World Cup further back, Asia has another R16 nation in Saudi Arabia. That gains them some ground on CONCACAF and CAF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic basically focuses on the top end each confederation, but I'm also always sort of interested in that 2nd tier down, to see how the depth of confederation is.  With that in mind, I always keep an eye on the inter-confederation playoffs to who's getting that "half" berth.  Using the same time frame of 1998, we get:

1998
Iran (AFC) vs Australia (OFC) - Winner: Iran

2002
Ireland (UEFA) vs Iran (AFC) - Winner: Ireland
Australia (OFC) vs Uruguay (CONMEBOL) - Winner: Uruguay

2006
Trinidad & Tobago (CONCACAF) vs Bahrain (AFC) - Winner: T&T

Uruguay (CONMEBOL) vs Australia (OFC) - Winner: Australia (on penalties)

2010
Bahrain (AFC) vs New Zealand (OFC) - Winner: New Zealand
Costa Rica (CONCACAF) vs Uruguay (CONMEBOL) - Winner: Uruguay

2014
Jordan (AFC) vs Uruguay (CONMEBOL) - Winner: Uruguay
Mexico (CONCACAF) vs New Zealand (OFC) - Winner: Mexico

2018
Honduras (CONCACAF) vs Australia (AFC) - Winner: Australia
New Zealand (OFC) vs Peru (Conmebol) - Winner: Peru

2022
Australia (AFC) vs Peru (Conmebol) - Winner: Australia (on penalties)
Costa Rica (CONCACAF) vs New Zealand (OFC) - Winner: Costa Rica
 

Results by Confederation:

image.png.a29e212df420a0a1b6e2739b17ac2c4c.png

You can throw out UEFA and CAF, since they really don't get the half berth.  Basically, CONCACAF has definitely held it's own over the years, while AFC (who has frequently complained the most about not getting enough berths) has done amongst the least with their opportunities.

 

 

Edited by Watchmen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2022 at 1:15 AM, RJB said:

I think since 98 is the best way to look at things, since that's when it went to 32 teams and has a pretty consistent distribution. 

I chose instead to go back to 1994 and include 1994 for the following reason: 

1) I wanted to make sure that the sample I chose was one whereby every confederation had a chance to host the WC at least once.

2) Even though they went to 32 teams in 1998,  it doesnt impact the percentage of success in advancing from the group stage for any team nor for any confederation.  Whether its 32 or 24 teams at the WC, its still going to be groups of 4 teams that are more or less equally distributed amongst the six confederations.

3) Any time prior to 94, 90 or 86, there is fair consensus that CONCACAF nations were just simply not developed  (and not any good) as soccer nations.  You just need to look at scorelines of matches involving Concacaf nations at the WC.  So its the period post 86 whereby we can tell that things started to change.

3b) Ultimately,  one thing that we would like to do here is answer that question:  Did Canada regress since 1986 or did CONCACAF Improve much faster than Canada?  The answer from all these numbers is that Canada did not regress but that its CONCACAF sides that improved much faster than Canada? 

Edited by Free kick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 11:28 AM, Watchmen said:

This topic basically focuses on the top end each confederation, but I'm also always sort of interested in that 2nd tier down, to see how the depth of confederation is.  With that in mind, I always keep an eye on the inter-confederation playoffs to who's getting that "half" berth.  Using the same time frame of 1998, we get:

1998
Iran (AFC) vs Australia (OFC) - Winner: Iran

2002
Ireland (UEFA) vs Iran (AFC) - Winner: Ireland
Australia (OFC) vs Uruguay (CONMEBOL) - Winner: Uruguay

2006
Trinidad & Tobago (CONCACAF) vs Bahrain (AFC) - Winner: T&T

2010
Bahrain (AFC) vs New Zealand (OFC) - Winner: New Zealand
Costa Rica (CONCACAF) vs Uruguay (CONMEBOL) - Winner: Uruguay

2014
Jordan (AFC) vs Uruguay (CONMEBOL) - Winner: Uruguay
Mexico (CONCACAF) vs New Zealand (OFC) - Winner: Mexico

2018
Honduras (CONCACAF) vs Australia (AFC) - Winner: Australia
New Zealand (OFC) vs Peru (Conmebol) - Winner: Peru

2022
Australia (AFC) vs Peru (Conmebol) - Winner Australia (on penalties)
Costa Rica (CONCACAF) vs New Zealand (OFC) - Winner Costa Rica
 

Results by Confederation:

image.png.db274ea3d562321d493fcdd43972ee9d.png

You can throw out UEFA and CAF, since they really don't get the half berth.  CONMEBOL was perfect up until this last year when Peru outplayed Australia but lost on penalties.  But basically, CONCACAF has definitely held it's own over the years, while AFC (who has frequently complained the most about not getting enough berths) has done amongst the least with their opportunities.

 

 

You've missed the other playoff for the 2006 World Cup.....Australia (OFC) beat Uruguay (CONMEBOL) on penalties to advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2022 at 7:53 AM, Unnamed Trialist said:

Just 2 things. 

In UEFA being lower in success is that UEFA teams knock each other out. So that should factor in. 

Then, regarding earlier WCs as cited by @Gian-Luca, Honduras got screwed in 82, in Spain, mostly by refs. And circumstance. 

I've thought of that, but I have no idea how to factor that in. Ultimately it is probably a wash, because there are no more than 2 UEFA teams in a group in the World Cups I was looking at, so they do have the chance to all advance. When a UEFA team is knocked out of the group stage, even if one of the teams advancing is from UEFA, there is another from one of the other confederations.

But now I'm getting curious enough. I might just spew out the results of 2 UEFA team groups from 1998. I expect it to be big and messy, so I'll leave that for my next comment on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the results of all the 2 UEFA groups from 1998 to now.

image.png.b5da990d327cbf7db4bbad471fb9d600.png

image.png.0932378f96a7828cf6d8942a2f515e45.png

Summary: From these groups, UEFA teams advanced at a 61.43% rate, which is technically higher than my original table, but essentially exactly the same (less than 1 percentage point difference). UEFA teams in single UEFA team groups advance from the group stage at a rate of 57.14%. My conclusion is that there is either no difference, or it slightly favours UEFA to have 2 teams in a group (in terms of advancement percentage).

Other stats: Out of the 35 double UEFA groups, 11 times both UEFA teams advanced, 3 times neither advanced, and 21 times exactly one of them advanced. UEFA teams won their group 25 times, and came last in the group 11 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 6/18/2022 at 12:35 AM, Red and White said:

I would note that CONCACAF's success rate is heavily skewed by Mexico, who have made it out of the group stage all six times and are responsible for 60% of CONCACAF trips to knock out rounds. Excluding Mexico, CONCACAF numbers begin to look similar to Africa and Asia.

I didn't really address this before.

CONCACAF minus Mexico -> 4 out of 14 advanced = 29%

So that is still higher than AFC (20%) and CAF (19.35%) by a pretty big margin. If we do the same treatment to other confederations where we remove the single most successful country, we get this.

CONMEBOL minus Brazil -> 17 out of 24 advanced = 71%
UEFA minus Germany or England -> 46 out of 78 = 59%
CAF minus Ghana -> 4 out of 28 = 14%
AFC minus Japan -> 2 out of 19 = 11%
OFC minus Australia -> 0 out of 1 = 0%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2022 at 1:40 PM, Kent said:

So that is still higher than AFC (20%) and CAF (19.35%) by a pretty big margin. If we do the same treatment to other confederations where we remove the single most successful country, we get this.

The purpose of excluding Mexico from CONCACAF numbers is because they are an outlier when discussing CONCACAF, Asia, and Africa, and also give the appearance that CONCACAF numbers are similar to UEFA.

Round of 16 success rate (Best Teams - CONCACAF, Asia, Africa)

1. Mexico -> 6/6 (100%)
2. USA -> 3/6 (50%)
3. Japan -> 3/6 (50%)
4. Nigeria/Ghana/South Korea -> 2/6 (33%)

Mexico is the outlier in the three confederations combined. If you apply the same treatment of removing the best from other confederations, the result is affected by the fact that you are removing a country that holds similar weight to others in its continent. You would end up favouring CONCACAF because an outlier is removed from our confederation while a legitimate best is removed from others.

Having said that, you can also argue that Mexico should be treated purely as CONCACAF and North America should be getting a spot over Asia and Africa without considering individual teams. That's fair, but you can make a case that Mexico is basically getting that spot while the rest of CONCACAF is getting equal to Asia/Africa.

Quote

CONCACAF minus Mexico -> 4 out of 14 advanced = 29%
So that is still higher than AFC (20%) and CAF (19.35%) by a pretty big margin.

This, in my opinion, is the most accurate comparison of confederations at World Cups. With that in mind:
 - I realize you've removed a team but, with only 14 CONCACAF sides, a 10% difference is not significant in my opinion (each team represents 7% of that number, 1/14). I fully understand this is a matter of personal judgement though.
 - If you add CONCACAF teams, that 29% would be expected to decrease since the teams you'd be adding are lower ranked and less likely to reach the round of 16. You can make a case that the teams deserve to be there anyway, as similar teams from Asia and Africa are.

One other point to consider:

Number of member associations in each confederation (according to a quick Wikipedia search):
CONCACAF: 41
Asia: 47
Africa: 54

Africa has the most, which may explain why they get five full spots. Ensuring an accurate distribution of countries is a fair aspect to consider.

All those numbers only tell part of the story. Asia is helped by socioeconomic factors, namely large population numbers and heavy interest in the sport that make FIFA reach out to them. I personally have little insight on this, but I also have the impression that AFC and CAF are more organized as confederations than CONCACAF and benefit as a result.

Edited by Red and White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not about spots or who deserves more spots.  its about the notion that CONCACAF should be lumped in with with minnow confederations, which they shouldn't be.  In other words its about respect for the region.   In some Europeans countries,  the media and fans will pay more attention to WCQ in South America or Africa.   But should that be the case?

I don't agree that Mexico is an outlier because you could make a good case that the Americans have done better at the World cup than Mexico.  You  mentioned:
2. USA -> 3/6 (50%)

But that's incorrect, its 4/6 (or 4/7) in the world cups since 1994.  Including one 1/4 finals appearance.   Same with CRC with one 1/4 finals appearance while coming out of group that included Italy and England.  If you look at 1/4 finals appearances, Mexico never reached the 1/4 finals, but others in the region have.  In fact, Concacaf has more appearances in the quarter finals than Asia.  And have the same number as CAF even though CAF sends more teams to the WC.  

And while we are on the subject of outliers,  Lets throw out Arg and Bra while we are at it.  I havent crunched the numbers to include Conmebol,  but how well has Conmebol done if you exclude Bra and Arg.  might be worth a comparaison.  

Edited by Free kick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Free kick said:

And while we are on the subject of outliers,  Lets throw out Arg and Bra while we are at it.  I havent crunched the numbers to include Conmebol,  but how well has Conmebol done if you exclude Bra and Arg.  might be worth a comparaison.  

Or to your point since we are removing 30% of CONCACAF's representatives, maybe we should remove 30% of UEFA's instead of just the top team like I did to compare. So the top 4 UEFA teams.

UEFA minus England (5 out of 6), Germany (5 out of 6), Netherlands (4 out of 4), France (4 out of 6) -> 33 out of 62 = 53%, essentially a coin flip. Those other teams from Europe are no better or worse than anyone else.

(P.S. Free kick, CONMEBOL minus Brazil and Argentina -> 12 out of 18 =67%, so still very good, better than UEFA straight up).

22 hours ago, Red and White said:

Mexico is the outlier in the three confederations combined. If you apply the same treatment of removing the best from other confederations, the result is affected by the fact that you are removing a country that holds similar weight to others in its continent. You would end up favouring CONCACAF because an outlier is removed from our confederation while a legitimate best is removed from others.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. How would removing a team that is 6 for 6 for CONCACAF and removing a team like Japan who is 3 for 6 skew things CONCACAF's direction? Japan is a legitimate best in Asia, but Mexico is somehow not legitimate?

Besides, as I initially stated, even when you handicap CONCACAF by removing it's best performer (by this metric) still looks better than AFC and CAF.

CONCACAF minus Mexico -> 4 out of 14 = 29%
AFC -> 5 out of 25 = 20%
CAF -> 6 out of 31 = 19%

Put another way, with 11 fewer teams in the World Cup than AFC, CONCACAF only had 1 fewer team make it to the knockout round. With 17 fewer teams in the World Cup than CAF, CONCACAF only had 2 fewer teams make it to the knockout round.

22 hours ago, Red and White said:

Having said that, you can also argue that Mexico should be treated purely as CONCACAF and North America should be getting a spot over Asia and Africa without considering individual teams. That's fair, but you can make a case that Mexico is basically getting that spot while the rest of CONCACAF is getting equal to Asia/Africa.

Let me see if I understand you correctly on this part. If CONCACAF was given more spots than Asia and Africa (for simplicity let's ignore half spots and say AFC and CAF each get 5 spots, and CONCACAF gets 6) you are saying that since Mexico is a lock to make it to the World Cup, it's really Mexico + 5 for CONCACAF, and this is somehow unfair to AFC and CAF because they would only have as many spots as "rest of CONCACAF"?

First of all, I don't think the fact that a team is a lock to qualify out of a confederation should count against that confederation. Brazil has qualified for every World Cup, and Germany has qualified for every one that they entered/weren't banned from. Within AFC, Japan and South Korea have been in every 32 team World Cup. In CAF Nigeria has only missed one World Cup in the 32 team era (remember that Mexico almost missed out one year). Do we make special considerations for these confederations as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...