Why Africa Deserves 9 WC Slots and perhaps more...

[Enugu II]

In the past, World Cup qualification has been based on both ideas of representation and performance. Representation assures that each confederation (except Oceania) is represented by a certain number of teams at the World Cup finals. FIFA makes the decision on number of slots to allocate to each confederation. In doing so, it is mindful that diversity in confederations is assured in order to demonstrate that the event is "global" in nature. Recently, FIFA announced that Africa's allocation would climb to at least 9 places for the 2026 World Cup. On the other hand, Performance is assured through a qualification, rather than invitation, process where teams are tested on current form and quality. FIFA and the Confederations design the process for qualification games within each confederation and at inter-confederation level as well.

Besides the high efficiency scores discussed above, the other contests indicate that non-super teams are not much better than their opponents from other confederations. Thus, the argument for a much larger allocation to UEFA based on legacy performance does not indicate a wider gap in allocation to UEFA in comparison to others, for instance. For instance, UEFA's 16 allocations compared to CAF's 9 is exceptionally wide. CAF's allocation represents just 56% of UEFA's whereas UEFA's teams have only generated 0.40 efficiency against CAF's teams

To read more, click on the link below:

http://eaglecity.blogspot.com/2017/03/a ... erved.html

[kofi86]

You know that based on performance I often stated that the only confederation to deserve more spots was Conmebol. However after the last two World Cups, in which UEFA sucked, it does not make much of a difference whether you send another European, Asian or African team to World Cup imo. That is my general view, but the points below are based on your blog entry.

1) I think that World Cup allocation has also been based on commercial appeal. England or USA at the World Cup is probably of higher relevance than Tunisia or Saudi Arabia.

2) I don't understand your definition of superteams, especially since Spain and France are on that list. Would you have called them superteams before 2010?/1998? If not, doesn't it show that the number of superteams is fluid and can change after any World Cup? When was the last time that a superteam from any other federation emerged? Shouldn't the allocation of World Cup slots account for that? Maybe after 2018 Portugal or Switzerland will be a superteam (France failed to qualify for 90 and 94 World Cup before becoming a superteam).

3) Holland will likely miss out on the 2018 World Cup. If that happens they will have missed 2 of the last 6 World Cups. As of today Nigeria and Cameroon have qualified as many times as Holland since including the 98 World Cup and by 2018 probably one time less than Nigeria. That indicates that within Europe Netherlands is no more or less a superteam than Cameroon or Nigeria within Africa. Yet we should exclude results obtained from Netherlands at the World Cup, because they have been stable at the World. Why? Apparently they don't find it easier to qualify for a World Cup than Nigeria, Cameroon (not to mention the likes of USA, Mexico, South Korea or Japan).

[Enugu II]

You know that based on performance I often stated that the only confederation to deserve more spots was Conmebol. However after the last two World Cups, in which UEFA sucked, it does not make much of a difference whether you send another European, Asian or African team to World Cup imo. That is my general view, but the points below are based on your blog entry.

1) I think that World Cup allocation has also been based on commercial appeal. England or USA at the World Cup is probably of higher relevance than Tunisia or Saudi Arabia.
The issue of commercial appeal, number of pro clubs, etc are what make up the political argument stated in the piece. I have not taken the time to put up all possible political arguments.

2) I don't understand your definition of superteams, especially since Spain and France are on that list. Would you have called them superteams before 2010?/1998? If not, doesn't it show that the number of superteams is fluid and can change after any World Cup? When was the last time that a superteam from any other federation emerged? Shouldn't the allocation of World Cup slots account for that? Maybe after 2018 Portugal or Switzerland will be a superteam (France failed to qualify for 90 and 94 World Cup before becoming a superteam).
Sure, super teams are dynamic. Note that is why Uruguay and Hungary are not on the list despite previous achievements that go back to early years of the WC. What I have attempted to define as super teams are teams that have most recently shown their prowess and are thus perceived as super teams. That does not mean that its composition will not change in the future.

3) Holland will likely miss out on the 2018 World Cup. If that happens they will have missed 2 of the last 6 World Cups. As of today Nigeria and Cameroon have qualified as many times as Holland since including the 98 World Cup and by 2018 probably one time less than Nigeria. That indicates that within Europe Netherlands is no more or less a superteam than Cameroon or Nigeria within Africa. Yet we should exclude results obtained from Netherlands at the World Cup, because they have been stable at the World. Why? Apparently they don't find it easier to qualify for a World Cup than Nigeria, Cameroon (not to mention the likes of USA, Mexico, South Korea or Japan).

True point but missing a WC does not mean a team is suddenly not a super team. Holland was there in 2014 and was suddenly considered one of the favorites, a tag not associated with either Nigeria or Cameroon. Thus, as stated in the piece it isn't not just qualifying regularly but also what the team does when it gets there. You will see with that why Holland is considered a super team and Nigeria and Cameroon are not. However, I do agree that Holland with its most recent performances may be inching towards not being considered super in the future. Currently, however, it is perceived as one and that underlines the current media attention on its difficulties.

In any case, the general idea is to show that the WC qualification should not be based on the performance of the very top teams or else we should be talking about a WC of few teams. The logic of an enlarged WC is not about those top teams but about those capable of matching the rest of the field that attend. This justifies the exclusion of teams considered to be at the top in calculating where the rest of the teams should come from.

[Waffiman]

In the past, World Cup qualification has been based on both ideas of representation and performance. Representation assures that each confederation (except Oceania) is represented by a certain number of teams at the World Cup finals. FIFA makes the decision on number of slots to allocate to each confederation. In doing so, it is mindful that diversity in confederations is assured in order to demonstrate that the event is "global" in nature. Recently, FIFA announced that Africa's allocation would climb to at least 9 places for the 2026 World Cup. On the other hand, Performance is assured through a qualification, rather than invitation, process where teams are tested on current form and quality. FIFA and the Confederations design the process for qualification games within each confederation and at inter-confederation level as well.

Besides the high efficiency scores discussed above, the other contests indicate that non-super teams are not much better than their opponents from other confederations. Thus, the argument for a much larger allocation to UEFA based on legacy performance does not indicate a wider gap in allocation to UEFA in comparison to others, for instance. For instance, UEFA's 16 allocations compared to CAF's 9 is exceptionally wide. CAF's allocation represents just 56% of UEFA's whereas UEFA's teams have only generated 0.40 efficiency against CAF's teams

To read more, click on the link below:

http://eaglecity.blogspot.com/2017/03/a ... erved.html

[YUJAM]

Good stuff EII. CAF has done relatively well against UEFA and other confederations

The question is why have we done so poorly against S American teams?

[marutimon]

Good stuff EII. CAF has done relatively well against UEFA and other confederations

The question is why have we done so poorly against S American teams?

Actually CAF has bone relatively well against any South American team that isn't Argentina or Brasil...

1982 Peru - Cameroon 0:0 (with a wrongly dissallowed Roger Milla goal)
1982 Chile - Algeria 2:3
1990 Colombia - Cameroon 1:2
1998 Chile - Cameroon 1:1 (with a wrongly dissallowed Omam Biyik goal)
1998 Nigeria - Paraguay 1:3 (Nigeria had already won the group before the game)
2002 Senegal - Uruguay 3:3 (Senegal had already qualified and were 3:0 up at one point)
2002 South Africa - Paraguay 2:2
2010 Ghana - Uruguay 1:1
2010 South Africa - Uruguay 0:3 (a non-top CAF side)
2014 Colombia - Cote d;Ivoire 2:1

So basically CAF has a 2 wins, 4 draws and 3 losses situation, where one loss hardly counts against CAF (Nigeria vs Paraguay in 1998) and in a just world three draws would be wins (Peru Cameroon 1982, Chile Cameroon 1998 and Ghana Uruguay 2010). That would make it 5 wins, 1 draw and 2 losses. Even without the 'what if' situations CAF and non-top CONMEBOL are about even.

The sole win vs Argentina was Cameroon in 1990 (apart from that its 5 losses, 4 of which were Nigeria's)
Brasil has a 6:0 record vs African teams at the World Cup and the only win Africa has over Brasil ever is Cameroon at the Confed Cup (against a very strong Brasil side I must add).

CAFs bad record mainly stems from the fact CAF and CONMEBOL teams are often in the same pot, while Argentina and Brasil are seeded so they almost always have at least one African team in their group.

[kofi86]

You know that based on performance I often stated that the only confederation to deserve more spots was Conmebol. However after the last two World Cups, in which UEFA sucked, it does not make much of a difference whether you send another European, Asian or African team to World Cup imo. That is my general view, but the points below are based on your blog entry.

1) I think that World Cup allocation has also been based on commercial appeal. England or USA at the World Cup is probably of higher relevance than Tunisia or Saudi Arabia.
The issue of commercial appeal, number of pro clubs, etc are what make up the political argument stated in the piece. I have not taken the time to put up all possible political arguments.

My bad, did not catch that part

2) I don't understand your definition of superteams, especially since Spain and France are on that list. Would you have called them superteams before 2010?/1998? If not, doesn't it show that the number of superteams is fluid and can change after any World Cup? When was the last time that a superteam from any other federation emerged? Shouldn't the allocation of World Cup slots account for that? Maybe after 2018 Portugal or Switzerland will be a superteam (France failed to qualify for 90 and 94 World Cup before becoming a superteam).
Sure, super teams are dynamic. Note that is why Uruguay and Hungary are not on the list despite previous achievements that go back to early years of the WC. What I have attempted to define as super teams are teams that have most recently shown their prowess and are thus perceived as super teams. That does not mean that its composition will not change in the future.

3) Holland will likely miss out on the 2018 World Cup. If that happens they will have missed 2 of the last 6 World Cups. As of today Nigeria and Cameroon have qualified as many times as Holland since including the 98 World Cup and by 2018 probably one time less than Nigeria. That indicates that within Europe Netherlands is no more or less a superteam than Cameroon or Nigeria within Africa. Yet we should exclude results obtained from Netherlands at the World Cup, because they have been stable at the World. Why? Apparently they don't find it easier to qualify for a World Cup than Nigeria, Cameroon (not to mention the likes of USA, Mexico, South Korea or Japan).

True point but missing a WC does not mean a team is suddenly not a super team. Holland was there in 2014 and was suddenly considered one of the favorites, a tag not associated with either Nigeria or Cameroon. Thus, as stated in the piece it isn't not just qualifying regularly but also what the team does when it gets there. You will see with that why Holland is considered a super team and Nigeria and Cameroon are not. However, I do agree that Holland with its most recent performances may be inching towards not being considered super in the future. Currently, however, it is perceived as one and that underlines the current media attention on its difficulties.

In any case, the general idea is to show that the WC qualification should not be based on the performance of the very top teams or else we should be talking about a WC of few teams. The logic of an enlarged WC is not about those top teams but about those capable of matching the rest of the field that attend. This justifies the exclusion of teams considered to be at the top in calculating where the rest of the teams should come from.

But if the performance should not be based on the very top teams (on which I agree with you; one should consider that FIFA probably wants to ensure that no very top team misses out on the World Cup, although if that means that Greece or Croatia/Slovenia scrape through along Portugal and France like in the 2010 and 2014 UEFA qualiffying playoffs), one should apply that to the other federations as well. There is no second Nigeria waiting to qualify in Africa.

In regards to the superteams: I disagree with your definition of superteam, because it punishes confederations for success of their teams at the World Cup. If Nigeria wins the 2018 World Cup, they will be considered a superteam and all their previous results be scrapped so that Africa might be worse off than before. If anything the superteam definition should be limited on success within their confedaration imo. That makes more sense imo as for example more spots for Concacaf won't change anything for USA/Mexico, additional spots for UEFA makes qualifying for France (who needed playoffs twice) and Holland (who missed 2002 and likely miss 2018) easier as it makes qualifying for Nigeria easier.

[Enugu II]

But if the performance should not be based on the very top teams (on which I agree with you; one should consider that FIFA probably wants to ensure that no very top team misses out on the World Cup, although if that means that Greece or Croatia/Slovenia scrape through along Portugal and France like in the 2010 and 2014 UEFA qualiffying playoffs), one should apply that to the other federations as well. There is no second Nigeria waiting to qualify in Africa.

In regards to the superteams: I disagree with your definition of superteam, because it punishes confederations for success of their teams at the World Cup. If Nigeria wins the 2018 World Cup, they will be considered a superteam and all their previous results be scrapped so that Africa might be worse off than before. If anything the superteam definition should be limited on success within their confedaration imo. That makes more sense imo as for example more spots for Concacaf won't change anything for USA/Mexico, additional spots for UEFA makes qualifying for France (who needed playoffs twice) and Holland (who missed 2002 and likely miss 2018) easier as it makes qualifying for Nigeria easier.

Kofi86,

I think there may be some misunderstanding with the idea of super teams and how that should affect representations of confederations. The idea of super teams is not intended to be adverse to confederations. Rather, it acknowledges why a confederation may have more representatives than its counterparts. Thus, it should not be an instrument for punishing. However, the idea of how much should having a super team contribute to a confederation's representation was not the focus of the piece. This possibly introduced the misinterpretation. See the link below for a previous iteration of the issue.

http://eaglecity.blogspot.com/2014/07/t ... d-cup.html

If the super team concept was adverse, then I would argue that CAF's representation should be equal or relatively close to UEFA's in number since both confederations have same number of FIFA member countries. On the contrary, the super teams lead me to believe that UEFA should have slightly more (because of super teams) reps than CAF but not by the current margin.

In any case, your idea that the super team concept should apply to dominating teams of each confederation (I hope my interpretation of your intent is correct) is certainly an alternative idea that helps. After all, the World Cup is intended to involve the best teams from all over the world based on confederation representation that is agreeably fair.

I hope that the above makes it clearer but let me know if it does not.

[KB]

Africa does not have 9 world class teams worthy of a WC appearance!
Since we have been given 5 slots, our performance can be summed up like this:
One team always performs very poorly (Cameroon in the last WC).
Three or two are mediocre.
One or two are good enough to mount a credible challenge for spots in the next round.

This suggests that 4 slots are more than good enough for us. The fifth one should be open for competition between an African team and a South American team.

Increasing the number of teams (from all confederations) will only dilute the quality of the competition.

[Bigpokey24]

Africa does not have 9 world class teams worthy of a WC appearance!
Since we have been given 5 slots, our performance can be summed up like this:
One team always performs very poorly (Cameroon in the last WC).
Three or two are mediocre.
One or two are good enough to mount a credible challenge for spots in the next round.

This suggests that 4 slots are more than good enough for us. The fifth one should be open for competition between an African team and a South American team.

Increasing the number of teams (from all confederations) will only dilute the quality of the competition.

so you only want 5 African teams in a 48 nations worldcup you just displayed a not so sharp thoughts..now get this straight.
With 9 CAF teams, i expect more than 2 CAF teams will make the q-finals... there will be strong possibilities of CAF teams meeting each other at the later stages of the competition
. It is very difficult for CAF teams to advance in the worldcup.. we tend to get matched up against top EU or SA teams.. however since Europe do have 13 teams, they will always do very well at the worldcup