32 teams at the World Cup

[Reza]

Good decision in my opinion. You can't keep increasing the numbers and expect a serious competition. There is only 200 odd countries out there and 32 teams is good enough.

FIFA Executive Committee decision: 32 teams at 2006 FIFA World Cup™


Paris, 28 June 2003 -The final competition of the 2006 FIFA World Cup GermanyÔ will definitely feature 32 teams. The FIFA Executive Committee reached this decision today, 27 June 2003, at a meeting in Paris under the chairmanship of President Joseph S. Blatter.
The executive members representing the South American confederation of CONMEBOL adhered to the request of President Blatter and withdrew their proposal to increase the number of teams to 36.

Furthermore, the committee members agreed to a proposal tabled by vice-president Lennart Johansson and awarded an extra half-place (0.5) to South America.

Consequently, Oceania will now receive half a place (0.5). The final distribution of places for the 2006 FIFA World Cup™ is as follows: Europe (14), Asia (4.5), South America (4.5), Africa (5), North, Central America and Caribbean (3.5) and Oceania (0.5).

The committee also decided that 32 teams would also contest the final competition of the 2010 FIFA World Cup™.

Furthermore, the executive awarded the rights to the hospitality programme, which had been open to public tender, to the company iSe, based in Zurich. A total of 21 companies had submitted their expression of interest.

FIFA Competitions
Following the report from Chuck Blazer, the chairman of the Organising Committee for the FIFA Confederations Cup, currently being held in France, the Executive Committee discussed the tendency of players to remove their shirts when celebrating a goal. In the interests of maintaining discipline and order on the field of play, the committee decided that from now on, such practice shall be forbidden during a match. The national associations will receive the relevant information and instructions shortly.

The committee also listened to status reports from the chairmen of the committees responsible for organising the other FIFA competitions to be held this year: U-17 in Finland (13 – 30 August), Women’s World Cup in the USA (20 September – 12 October) and U-20 in the United Arab Emirates (27 November – 19 December). With regard to the FIFA Women’s World Cup, recently moved from China PR to the USA, the executive also approved the stadiums and six venues (Washington, Boston, Portland, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Columbus).

Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes: provision regarding dual nationality
The executive approved the new article 15 paragraph 3 of the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes, Eligibility for national teams, which relates to dual nationality. “Up to his 21st birthday, a player may only once request to change the association for which he is eligible to play international matches.” This provision shall only apply if the player was already in possession of dual nationality when he made his first appearance (full or partial) in an official competition of any age group. This amendment must be ratified by the Extraordinary FIFA Congress in Doha, Qatar, on 19 – 20 October 2003.

Disciplinary matters
The committee also agreed the FIFA President’s proposal of boosting the ranks of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee with new members with expert knowledge of doping matters.

National associations


Azerbaijan: The Emergency Committee’s decision to lift the suspension was ratified.
Antigua/Barbuda: The Emergency Committee’s decision to suspend this association until further notice was also ratified.
Iraq: The committee was delighted to hear that an interim leadership, comprising 9 persons in total, had been installed and accepted by the relevant authorities. Hussein Sahid (member of the AFC Executive Committee) is in interim control of the association.
FIFA Marketing AG
The executive was also informed about the meeting of the FIFA Marketing Board of Directors, held in Paris on 17 June 2003. The committee also welcomed the new strategy, whereby FIFA Marketing will be incorporated as a division within the overall FIFA organisation, ensuring that FIFA and FIFA Marketing AG will in future have the same values and work towards common targets. The specific activities of the Business Division will not be affected in any way. From 1 September 2003, Jérôme Valcke (FRA) will be the new director of FIFA Marketing AG. The executive committee was also delighted to hear about the final appointments to the remaining open positions on the FIFA Management Board, which will now comprise 12 people

Reza

[Dave]

More important to Canada is the bit about changing nationality until you are 21. So theoretically most of our U20s could still play for someone else. Not that I think any of them are suspect to do that.

Since we usually go through a bout of **********-syndrome whenever another young Canuck starts doing really well in Europe, I suggest that we archive this FIFA decision, since we will doubtless be referring to it many times in the our future discussions :)

[Mimglow]

Sad to see that if you cry loud enough, you get what you want. This does nothing for my perception of South American soccer (i.e. play acting until you get the call). Pity for Oceania.

On a positive note, glad to see they capped the World Cup at 32 teams for this and the next WC.

Also happy to see FIFA take action against shirt removal.

Mimglow, Ottawa

_________________________

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

[Cheeta]

Excellent news all around.

Looks like the Aussies well have to go through South America on their way to Germany. Well done.

"Minority of one"

[Crazy_Yank]

I still think it's unfair though. Asia is horrible, and should only get 2.5 spots. There are only 2 decent teams in the entire confederation. Everyone else just makes up the numbers.

"Try not, do. Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Crazy_Yank

I still think it's unfair though. Asia is horrible, and should only get 2.5 spots. There are only 2 decent teams in the entire confederation. Everyone else just makes up the numbers.

"Try not, do. Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda


I'd rather see 3.5 Asia with the .5 competing with Oceania. Although I do not think a weak federation like Oceania should get a full spot, they should have an easier route than playing #5 in COMNEBOL. ASIA can provide 3.5 pretty decent sides. In theory you could have S. Korea, Japan, Iran and the winner of China-Australia coming out of the region. That is a pretty strong contingent. And certainly competitive with the 5 out of Africa and 4 (3.5) from CONCACAF. There does have to be a modest sense of regional balance IMO. Otherwise, they should see the 230 odd nations and divide them up in 32 groups of 7/8 and qualify them that way.

The opinions expressed above are just that.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

Excellent news all around.

Looks like the Aussies well have to go through South America on their way to Germany. Well done.

"Minority of one"


I don't view the changing of the cap-tied rules for under-21's as being good news at all. The game needs stricter rules for eligibility requirements, not looser ones.

Now we are going to see more poaching by the big countries, since they have more freedom and ability to do so. :(

I just hope with the increased number of Canadian youth teams there is more continuity so that people feel that they are constantly part of the Canadian program, even if they aren't cap-tied until they reach 21.

Even the wolf can learn. Even the sheep can turn. Even the frog can become at last the prince. - Peter Hammill, Over (1977)

[DJT]

I find this news to be incredible and totally unexpected. I'm surprised no one else has commented on this aspect. I'm not talking about the decision to stick with 32 teams --- that was expected and certainly the right thing to do (and I'm glad they decided the same for 2010, though that's a long ways off and things can change again) --- but about Oceania losing a half-spot. Now I admit that I haven't been following this story very closely but I had no idea that this option was even on the table. I thought that Oceania's full spot was a certainty. Funny, I thought that it was awarded to them much too easily (ie. not enough discussion with everyone, not much direct reaction from other confederations) in the first place, now it is taken away just as quickly!


quote:Originally posted by Mimglow

Sad to see that if you cry loud enough, you get what you want. This does nothing for my perception of South American soccer (i.e. play acting until you get the call). Pity for Oceania.I disagree, because it was Australia's "crying" that got them a full spot in the first place --- and they had much, much weaker justification for their "crying" than did South America. As I said above, I thought that Oceania's full spot was awarded to them much too easily in the first place. And it was the wrong decision in my (and many others') opinion. I like Gordon's suggestion that Oceania should go through Asia rather than South America, but, heck, Australia had that chance in 1998 and blew it even worse than they did in 2002, so, until they can qualify at least once by winning just that one difficult challenge they are given, I'm not feeling sorry for them at all.

But I'd imagine they're going nuts right now. I'm going to post an article on their reaction below.

As for the other decisions: I agree with Mimglow about the decision to get rid of shirt removal (though they made this decision before and then took it back, so hopefully this time it will stick), I agree with Gian-luca about the cap-tied changes being a bad idea for the reasons he gave, and I'm glad to see more action (however small) taken concerning doping.

[DJT]

I find this news to be incredible and totally unexpected. I'm surprised no one else has commented on this aspect. I'm not talking about the decision to stick with 32 teams --- that was expected and certainly the right thing to do (and I'm glad they decided the same for 2010, though that's a long ways off and things can change again) --- but about Oceania losing a half-spot. Now I admit that I haven't been following this story very closely but I had no idea that this option was even on the table. I thought that Oceania's full spot was a certainty. Funny, I thought that it was awarded to them much too easily (ie. not enough discussion with everyone, not much direct reaction from other confederations) in the first place, now it is taken away just as quickly!


quote:Originally posted by Mimglow

Sad to see that if you cry loud enough, you get what you want. This does nothing for my perception of South American soccer (i.e. play acting until you get the call). Pity for Oceania.I disagree, because it was Australia's "crying" that got them a full spot in the first place --- and they had much, much weaker justification for their "crying" than did South America. As I said above, I thought that Oceania's full spot was awarded to them much too easily in the first place. And it was the wrong decision in my (and many others') opinion. I like Gordon's suggestion that Oceania should go through Asia rather than South America, but, heck, Australia had that chance in 1998 and blew it even worse than they did in 2002, so, until they can qualify at least once by winning just that one difficult challenge they are given, I'm not feeling sorry for them at all.

But I'd imagine they're going nuts right now. I'm going to post an article on their reaction below.

As for the other decisions: I agree with Mimglow about the decision to get rid of shirt removal (though they made this decision before and then took it back, so hopefully this time it will stick), I agree with Gian-luca about the cap-tied changes being a bad idea for the reasons he gave, and I'm glad to see more action (however small) taken concerning doping.

[DJT]

Australian reaction, from http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6671232%255E23209,00.html:

Oceania loses cup spot

June 29, 2003

IN a stunning backflip, Oceania has lost direct entry to the 2006 World Cup after FIFA voted in favour of handing the region's spot to a South American country.

Oceania had won the right to direct entry to the World Cup for the first time in December last year but it was overturned at an executive meeting of soccer's governing body in Paris.

A shattered Oceania Football Confederation president, Basil Scarsella, told AAP from Paris that the decision was farcical.

"In my view, the decision is a disgrace and I think it is politically driven to accommodate the powerful South Americans," Scarsella said.

"It's unethical, it's immoral, call it what you like."

Scarsella said that the reasons given for the about face were that Australia's governing body, Soccer Australia, was in disarray and that the region's other main power, New Zealand, had performed so poorly at Confederations Cup which is currently being played in France.

But Scarsella, who'd lobbied hard for Oceania to receive the unanimous tick of approval six months ago, said these were unacceptable.

"These are excuses more than reasons in my mind," Scarsella said.

"The executive committee had overwhelmingly supported them in the past and now they've gone 180 degrees."

"I don't accept the reasons they are given but in these situations you don't need reasons just an excuse to revisit it.

"It was always an option but it doesn't paint FIFA in a good light in terms of being a respected org in my view."

The executive meeting today re-visited the issue of the number of teams in the World Cup because the politically-powerful South Americans had wanted 36 nations instead of 32 playing in the tournament.

But the committee cast aside that proposal, instead offering an olive branch to the South Americans by giving them back Oceania's extra half spot.

The vote today was 22-1, with Oceania opposing the move.

Oceania had a half spot in previous World Cups, having to qualify in the region and then play another nation to make the main tournament.

South America had four automatic qualifying spots and another half spot which was given to Oceania in December so it could have one entry berth in the World Cup.

But all that changed today.

"If FIFA had taken the decision for the distribution for slots for the 2006 World Cup today, Oceania would not have received a full slot," FIFA president Sepp Blatter said after the meeting.

"We'll do the utmost to win them back inside FIFA's family."

Australia was expected to be the major beneficiary of direct entry, a full-strength Socceroo team at short odds to beat the likes of New Zealand, Fiji and Vanuatu.

The Socceroos have only qualified for the World Cup once - in 1974 - and the December decision had prompted a renewed interest in the game at a national level with a number of sponsors coming on board to support the Australian national teams.

But while Soccer Australia had teetered on the brink of insolvency in recent times and there was still confusion about a new board running the organisation, Scarsella said it boiled down to backroom deals not SA.

"There were rumours around over the past couple of days because FIFA had undertaken research in regards to having 32 or 36 teams," Scarsella said.

"The market wanted 32 so there were some backroom deals done and, at the end of the day, Oceania is the weakest and we lose the extra half spot.

"Self interest gave way to commonsense."

How the top Oceania team qualifies is now a matter of conjecture.

Scarsella said there were a number of options, the best one for the region being a showdown with the three other confederations - Asia, South America, Central/North America that had extra half spots.

The two top teams from those four qualifying countries would then go through to the World Cup.

FIFA said today that the decision it had made would also apply to the 2010 World Cup.

[DJT]

Australian reaction, from http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6671232%255E23209,00.html:

Oceania loses cup spot

June 29, 2003

IN a stunning backflip, Oceania has lost direct entry to the 2006 World Cup after FIFA voted in favour of handing the region's spot to a South American country.

Oceania had won the right to direct entry to the World Cup for the first time in December last year but it was overturned at an executive meeting of soccer's governing body in Paris.

A shattered Oceania Football Confederation president, Basil Scarsella, told AAP from Paris that the decision was farcical.

"In my view, the decision is a disgrace and I think it is politically driven to accommodate the powerful South Americans," Scarsella said.

"It's unethical, it's immoral, call it what you like."

Scarsella said that the reasons given for the about face were that Australia's governing body, Soccer Australia, was in disarray and that the region's other main power, New Zealand, had performed so poorly at Confederations Cup which is currently being played in France.

But Scarsella, who'd lobbied hard for Oceania to receive the unanimous tick of approval six months ago, said these were unacceptable.

"These are excuses more than reasons in my mind," Scarsella said.

"The executive committee had overwhelmingly supported them in the past and now they've gone 180 degrees."

"I don't accept the reasons they are given but in these situations you don't need reasons just an excuse to revisit it.

"It was always an option but it doesn't paint FIFA in a good light in terms of being a respected org in my view."

The executive meeting today re-visited the issue of the number of teams in the World Cup because the politically-powerful South Americans had wanted 36 nations instead of 32 playing in the tournament.

But the committee cast aside that proposal, instead offering an olive branch to the South Americans by giving them back Oceania's extra half spot.

The vote today was 22-1, with Oceania opposing the move.

Oceania had a half spot in previous World Cups, having to qualify in the region and then play another nation to make the main tournament.

South America had four automatic qualifying spots and another half spot which was given to Oceania in December so it could have one entry berth in the World Cup.

But all that changed today.

"If FIFA had taken the decision for the distribution for slots for the 2006 World Cup today, Oceania would not have received a full slot," FIFA president Sepp Blatter said after the meeting.

"We'll do the utmost to win them back inside FIFA's family."

Australia was expected to be the major beneficiary of direct entry, a full-strength Socceroo team at short odds to beat the likes of New Zealand, Fiji and Vanuatu.

The Socceroos have only qualified for the World Cup once - in 1974 - and the December decision had prompted a renewed interest in the game at a national level with a number of sponsors coming on board to support the Australian national teams.

But while Soccer Australia had teetered on the brink of insolvency in recent times and there was still confusion about a new board running the organisation, Scarsella said it boiled down to backroom deals not SA.

"There were rumours around over the past couple of days because FIFA had undertaken research in regards to having 32 or 36 teams," Scarsella said.

"The market wanted 32 so there were some backroom deals done and, at the end of the day, Oceania is the weakest and we lose the extra half spot.

"Self interest gave way to commonsense."

How the top Oceania team qualifies is now a matter of conjecture.

Scarsella said there were a number of options, the best one for the region being a showdown with the three other confederations - Asia, South America, Central/North America that had extra half spots.

The two top teams from those four qualifying countries would then go through to the World Cup.

FIFA said today that the decision it had made would also apply to the 2010 World Cup.

[Mimglow]

I hope Austaralia crushes the 5th place South America team in qualifying.

Mimglow, Ottawa

_________________________

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

[Mimglow]

I hope Austaralia crushes the 5th place South America team in qualifying.

Mimglow, Ottawa

_________________________

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

[Crazy_Yank]

I honestly feel that Oceania should get a full spot. They are a confederation and deserve the same rights as the other confederations. Australia is a very good team. They have some really good players. It's unfair to them because they play in an incredibly weak confederation so when they get into the qualifying playoffs they aren't a seasoned side because they didn't have a difficult campaign.

"Try not, do. Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda

[Crazy_Yank]

I honestly feel that Oceania should get a full spot. They are a confederation and deserve the same rights as the other confederations. Australia is a very good team. They have some really good players. It's unfair to them because they play in an incredibly weak confederation so when they get into the qualifying playoffs they aren't a seasoned side because they didn't have a difficult campaign.

"Try not, do. Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda

[Cheeta]

quote:Originally posted by Crazy_Yank

I honestly feel that Oceania should get a full spot. They are a confederation and deserve the same rights as the other confederations. Australia is a very good team. They have some really good players. It's unfair to them because they play in an incredibly weak confederation so when they get into the qualifying playoffs they aren't a seasoned side because they didn't have a difficult campaign.

"Try not, do. Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda


Well, isn't that sort of the argument for why they shouldn't be at the World Cup? I'd expect they'd go through a playoff against any of the sides with 1/2 spots including COCACAF and if they do great for them, see you in Germany.

Might sound funny but I was counting on CONCACAF's 4th playing off against Asia which seemed a sure road to Germany for Canada. Now with this playoff formula up in the air it kind of throws a wrench into my predictions dosen't it? This WCQ playoff might become a lot more difficult. What I think is a good decision for the WC (correcting a previous error) isn't necessarily a good decision for Canada. Of course I might be worrying myself for nothing. Still feel with a run of form we can qualify automaticaly.

"Minority of one"

[Cheeta]

quote:Originally posted by Crazy_Yank

I honestly feel that Oceania should get a full spot. They are a confederation and deserve the same rights as the other confederations. Australia is a very good team. They have some really good players. It's unfair to them because they play in an incredibly weak confederation so when they get into the qualifying playoffs they aren't a seasoned side because they didn't have a difficult campaign.

"Try not, do. Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda


Well, isn't that sort of the argument for why they shouldn't be at the World Cup? I'd expect they'd go through a playoff against any of the sides with 1/2 spots including COCACAF and if they do great for them, see you in Germany.

Might sound funny but I was counting on CONCACAF's 4th playing off against Asia which seemed a sure road to Germany for Canada. Now with this playoff formula up in the air it kind of throws a wrench into my predictions dosen't it? This WCQ playoff might become a lot more difficult. What I think is a good decision for the WC (correcting a previous error) isn't necessarily a good decision for Canada. Of course I might be worrying myself for nothing. Still feel with a run of form we can qualify automaticaly.

"Minority of one"

[Crazy_Yank]

I highly doubt FIFA will mess with the playoff formatt. Especially since Warner is Blatter's bitch. There are no easy paths to the world cup. Just ask Honduras.

"Try not, do. Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda

[Crazy_Yank]

I highly doubt FIFA will mess with the playoff formatt. Especially since Warner is Blatter's bitch. There are no easy paths to the world cup. Just ask Honduras.

"Try not, do. Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda

[Cheeta]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca


quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

Excellent news all around.

Looks like the Aussies well have to go through South America on their way to Germany. Well done.

"Minority of one"


I don't view the changing of the cap-tied rules for under-21's as being good news at all. The game needs stricter rules for eligibility requirements, not looser ones.

Now we are going to see more poaching by the big countries, since they have more freedom and ability to do so. :(

I just hope with the increased number of Canadian youth teams there is more continuity so that people feel that they are constantly part of the Canadian program, even if they aren't cap-tied until they reach 21.

Even the wolf can learn. Even the sheep can turn. Even the frog can become at last the prince. - Peter Hammill, Over (1977)


Well I'm pretty easy going on this compared to a lot of the other guys on the board. If there's a player who can be bought as it were by another nation as circumstances allow I don't really want that player wearing my Maple Leaf. That's a bit simplistic I know but it works for me.

Ahem,
God save the Queen
Long live the Dominion of Canada



"Minority of one"

[Cheeta]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca


quote:Originally posted by Cheeta

Excellent news all around.

Looks like the Aussies well have to go through South America on their way to Germany. Well done.

"Minority of one"


I don't view the changing of the cap-tied rules for under-21's as being good news at all. The game needs stricter rules for eligibility requirements, not looser ones.

Now we are going to see more poaching by the big countries, since they have more freedom and ability to do so. :(

I just hope with the increased number of Canadian youth teams there is more continuity so that people feel that they are constantly part of the Canadian program, even if they aren't cap-tied until they reach 21.

Even the wolf can learn. Even the sheep can turn. Even the frog can become at last the prince. - Peter Hammill, Over (1977)


Well I'm pretty easy going on this compared to a lot of the other guys on the board. If there's a player who can be bought as it were by another nation as circumstances allow I don't really want that player wearing my Maple Leaf. That's a bit simplistic I know but it works for me.

Ahem,
God save the Queen
Long live the Dominion of Canada



"Minority of one"

[Rivaldo]

quote:Originally posted by DJT
How the top Oceania team qualifies is now a matter of conjecture.

Scarsella said there were a number of options, the best one for the region being a showdown with the three other confederations - Asia, South America, Central/North America that had extra half spots.

The two top teams from those four qualifying countries would then go through to the World Cup.

FIFA said today that the decision it had made would also apply to the 2010 World Cup.


I can't believe they would go to a four team round-robin to decide the half spots. There are already too many qualifying matches in the Americas and the travel would be insane.

Asia vs. Oceania and CONMEBOL vs. CONCACAF makes the most sense, but for our sake I'd rather play the fifth place team from Asia.

[beachesl]

Altho' I ultimately agree with the reasons behind the WCQ allocation and number decisions of today, I have to agree with DJT that the autocratic Blatteresque way that it was reached (as with May/2002 and January/2003 announcemnts) was horrible. No public input or discussion beforehand.

Thanks also, DJT, for digging up the piece on the Australian reaction, it's very interesting.

It may be unfair for Oceania to play off against a relatively strong 5th place S Amcn. side, but they should have to play off against someone to earn it. I would have thought that having a draw between the 4 half places (4th place CONCANAF, 5th place Asia, 5th place SAm and 1st OceANIA) would have been fairer. That still may happen, but I think FIFA is probably sick of tinkering now, altho













ugh the final decision on this could be made right up to Sept

ember 2005.

Now, I hope that sense will dictate that Warner's mega-match WCQ plan for CONCANAF will be revised soon, like Asia and Africa properly did, so that the whole 2006 thing can be properly dealt with.


A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change
the subject. -- Winston Churchill

[beachesl]

Dave and Gian-luca, I’m also very concerned about the new rule about switching before 21. I suppose that it cuts both ways, and would allow someone to who dallied with another country to “return” to Canada. However, it is more likely to result in the young Canadian player switching, for good, to the European (or Asian, more and more in the future) country that he plays his club football with.

However, it just makes it more important to make sure that we make changes in Canada and the way CSA does things to improve what was always a difficult situation.

First, CSA has to get off its ass and become more vocal in FIFA and CONCANAF issues. Why do we never hear from them in the important issues of the day? We deserve to be a doormat if we don’t at least give some input. Why was there no challenge, at least public, to Warner’s ridiculous WCQ schedule decision, for instance, How can you expect a Canadian player to be loyal to his country with the ridiculous way the international fixtures are set, if CSA won’t back them up?

Second, CSA has to generally develop more consistency, respect and sense in developing young players so that they have more sense of belonging to Canada.

[DJT]

quote:Originally posted by Rivaldo

I can't believe they would go to a four team round-robin to decide the half spots. There are already too many qualifying matches in the Americas and the travel would be insane.I think the four-team group is the best way to go. But not using the format which I believe you have in mind, namely home-and-away for a total of 6 games (and massive travel for) each. What I'd do is put all three teams in a neutral country, say in Europe (Germany makes sense!), and have them play each other once. That's just one more game each compared to pairing-off confederations, and has the advantage of being balanced for everyone (no concern about one pairing being easier than the other). This idea was proposed a long time ago on this board but I can't remember who said it.

[Mimglow]

I think Blatter should renege on another of his agreements and award the 2014 World Cup to Oceania. South America were only awarded the tournament because they were whining about the allocation. Why let them have their cake and eat it too?

Mimglow, Ottawa

_________________________

Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by beachesl



First, CSA has to get off its ass and become more vocal in FIFA and CONCANAF issues. Why do we never hear from them in the important issues of the day? We deserve to be a doormat if we don’t at least give some input. Why was there no challenge, at least public, to Warner’s ridiculous WCQ schedule decision, for instance, How can you expect a Canadian player to be loyal to his country with the ridiculous way the international fixtures are set, if CSA won’t back them up?

Second, CSA has to generally develop more consistency, respect and sense in developing young players so that they have more sense of belonging to Canada.



To be fair to the CSA in this regard, they have publicly challenged the WCQ schedule that CONCACAF came up with - in fact they publicly ridiculed it, with CSA President Andy Sharpe on national television calling it "the most assinine thing" he's ever seen in his life. You can't get much more public than that. I also recall Holger ripping apart the schedule to the Canadian Press at some point. However, even though they have complained bitterly to the powers-that-be, their protests have fallen on deaf ears. The 22-game qualifying system affects us worse than anyone else, nobody else was particularly bothered by it & we received no support from the other teams in the regions. There's not much we can do when we are on our own with no friends (that I am aware of) in the region, except go out & beat everyone in qualifying (ie. stuff the qualifying system back up their asses).

Also, I think we are also starting to see your second point be implemented in the past few years. With the extra youth teams at every age level there is a larger sense of continuity & belonging in Canada, because, for example if you are under-aged & cut from an U17 team, you might still play with the U16 team in some friendlies (which is what happened very recently with Newcastle's David Edgar, and which didn't happen with Owen ********** as at that time (circa 1997) there was no U16 team as Holger had not yet been hired). Even so, its a stupid rule & I can't help but think we are going to get screwed by it at some point in the future - lets just hope the rule change is not ratified in October.

Even the wolf can learn. Even the sheep can turn. Even the frog can become at last the prince. - Peter Hammill, Over (1977)

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Crazy_Yank

I honestly feel that Oceania should get a full spot. They are a confederation and deserve the same rights as the other confederations. Australia is a very good team. They have some really good players. It's unfair to them because they play in an incredibly weak confederation so when they get into the qualifying playoffs they aren't a seasoned side because they didn't have a difficult campaign.

"Try not, do. Do or do not. There is no try" - Yoda


If they made the effort to play their full team together this would not be a problem. But they let their stars sit out until the very end and then loose on the cohesion. Setting up base in England should help in this regard. Play some flipping matches with the full team for crying out loud. Frankly "Oceania" does not warrant a full confederation but its great for me since I bought the WCQ Club med vacation [8D] and will be playing 3 WCQ qualifiers for the Ocean Sun Spray Club Med entry. I have to admit I was a bit embarrased about letting Australia score 42 goals on me last time, but I've been training and I am sure I can hold them under 30 this time around.

The opinions expressed above are just that.

[DoyleG]

The differnce between the "whinning" by Oceania and South America is the South American's did it in public. The South Americans acted like a 10 year old having a temper tantrum in the middle of Toys R' Us.

The AFC wouldn't want a playoff with OFC for fear of AFC's weakness getting the best of them.

I'd taking the Socceroos over Saudi Arabia and China any day.

[littleD]

quote:Originally posted by Mimglow

Also happy to see FIFA take action against shirt removal.



I'm not. Soon they'll make it like the NFL. You'll celebrate a goal by giving a couple high fives or risk a yellow card, or something idiotic.

[DJT]

quote:Originally posted by beachesl

Thanks also, DJT, for digging up the piece on the Australian reaction, it's very interesting.You're welcome, and here are a couple of others, each slightly different:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/29/1056683962411.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/29/1056683956768.html

That last one is highly biased: eg. "In a cruel political move, Australia lost their spot when FIFA pandered to the whims of the powerful South American nations." Umm, Australia lost their spot???

And one from New Zealand:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sports/sportsstorydisplay.cfm?storyID=3509946&thesection=sport&thesubsection=soccer&thesecondsubsection=worldcup

[DoyleG]

That last Aussie clip was more nationalistic in tone. The one from "The Age" was likely a wire story.

It hurts the Aussies a great deal. The spot for the OFC led corperations to begin putting money into Soccer Australia. SA had most of it's debts taken out and the money also helped lead the reform of the NSL. It was also a benefit that the winners of the NSL this season, Perth Glory, was not an "ethnic" team. Soccer Australia was also set to put in a new board of directors.

The NZ article showed that the spot had led also to direct corperate investment and reform was on it's way as well.

Why would the corperate world now keeps it's money in there if a return is highly unlikely.

Blatter seems to have it out for the OFC ever since they abstained from the 2010 World Cup vote.

[DoyleG]

Error on the last. That would be 2006, not 2010.

[beachesl]

Again, thanks for providing these insights, DoyleG.

I don't know if this is Blatter trying to get Oceania, as he did seem to be the motivator, at least publicly, for the decision to give them an automatic spot in the first place. It does show that he is unprincipled,inconsistent and machiavellian.

The upshot of all this is that somehow the decision-making processes of FIFA and the various Confederations have to be more participatory and open. For instance, because of some of the bigger countries' objections, the various FIFA committees hopefully will
review and reject the CONCANAF proposal for WCQ (it still is at the stage where it has to be approved by FIFA I believe), if nothing else than to make it mesh with the FIFA policy of reducing fixture congerstion and explosion.

Too bad about the bad feeling in NZ and Oz, but I guess they'll have to get over it and beyond it, as we will if Warner's WCQ schedule is approved.

A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change
the subject. -- Winston Churchill

[Rivaldo]

quote:Originally posted by DJT
I think the four-team group is the best way to go. But not using the format which I believe you have in mind, namely home-and-away for a total of 6 games (and massive travel for) each. What I'd do is put all three teams in a neutral country, say in Europe (Germany makes sense!), and have them play each other once. That's just one more game each compared to pairing-off confederations, and has the advantage of being balanced for everyone (no concern about one pairing being easier than the other). This idea was proposed a long time ago on this board but I can't remember who said it.
Theoretically, having the four teams compete for two spots in a neutral country sounds good, but the countries involved would hate it.

First, there are the emotional considerations of having your national team play at home. Second is the money involved for the national federations. Ticket sales in Europe would be terrible, while an important home game would be big bucks in many countries.

Beating New Zealand doesn't make you deserving of a place at the World Cup.