This is an article i just wrote:
Football- The World Game? The Qualifying Debacle
Is football really the world game? Many say yes, but In a country dominated by Rugby, AFL and Cricket, football is simply seen as the proverbial bandwagon that the public jump on every 4 years in an attempt to qualify for the World Cup, say its not.
A game claiming to be a world game must surely represent the regions of the world, yet how can that claim be true if an entire continent and footballing confederation goes completely unnoticed. Australia has been thrown from pillar to post for the past 12 years and its time that the country is given a ‘fair’ chance. I highlight the term fair for the fact that fair is simply a person’s opinion. Yet it must be remembered that a system by which a team only looses one game (or even none, as in the World Cup 98 campaign) the whole qualifying process and still not compete in the world’s largest stage, that is not fair in any language.
No disrespect to Uruguay who played well to earn their spot, but Uruguay had their chance to qualify, and somehow looses 5 games and still receives a second chance. Teams like Australia must be the better of two teams at the end of the qualifying process and it always boils down to a couple of games when the best way to judge the better of any team is via a league basis. Why must Australia always compete in a knockout style system when the rest of the world is purely decided by group phases?
A number of alternatives have been suggested to replace the current debacle of a system that has proved not to be advantageous for Australia, but were are not looking for an easy way out, just a fair one.
One suggestion it to give Oceania one spot on its own, none of the ludicrous cross-confederation qualifying. Which would mean the top 6 to 10 Oceanic teams would play home and away totally between 10 and 18 games per team and then the team to finish top would qualify, and that would be the end of it. The main concern of this is that the quality of the competition is left to be desired, yet the same can be said for the Asian, African and to a lesser extend the North & Central American qualifying zones. With such a system in place it would boost football in Oceania by having this confederation being represented each and every World Cup, thus making it a definite ‘World’ Cup.
One suggestion that hasn’t received much publicity is the idea of a split AFC-OFC competition, in which teams from South East Asia qualify as part of Oceania. This would boost the strength of football, slightly, but have more competitive teams, then having a dedicated place for such a competition. This would boost football in South East Asia (an area previously over looked by FIFA) and Oceania by exposing many countries to more football on a regular basis.
The idea that is deemed ‘fairer’ is a system that has been suggested but never completely explained. To give you a run down on it, it will involve all the Oceania teams qualifying at an early stage for 1 or 2 places in the Asian group qualifying stage (not the preliminaries) and then qualify as part of the AFC. Then simply add a spot to AFC qualifying, making it a total of 5 teams, or even have a playoff with the next best team that missed out from Oceania for that 5th place. Such a qualifying procedure would encourage Oceanic and Asian football, and gives Oceania teams a better chance of qualifying through just means and it will please FIFA by having more of a focus on Asian football rather than Oceania football (which FIFA has undoubtedly ignored). This system, in no doubt is the more likely alternative for fans (despite the automatic place for OFC, which ultimately cheats teams like Australia who deserve a more competitive path) and officials.
The whole terrible run for Australian teams through qualifying started for a place in Italy ’90 with Scotland, then continued through the USA ’94 campaign with Argentina, and of course France ’98 with the dreaded Iran game and finally the Uruguay- Japan/Korea 2002 qualifier. Australia were always facing an uphill battle against Uruguay, Uruguay have won 2 World Cups (’30 and ’50), 2 Olympics (’24 and ’28), are ranked 24th in the World, playing Australia who have only played in one World Cup (’74) and never made it past the group phase and are only ranked 50th.
The point of discussing the qualifying procedure is simply to attempt to have a fair system that represents the entire world (hence the title) and that rewards consistent football through the campaign. Basically how can a world cup be called a world cup if in fact parts of the world that deserve their own place are not represented?
By Gareth Askham ([email protected])
Football- The World Game? The Qualifying Debacle
Is football really the world game? Many say yes, but In a country dominated by Rugby, AFL and Cricket, football is simply seen as the proverbial bandwagon that the public jump on every 4 years in an attempt to qualify for the World Cup, say its not.
A game claiming to be a world game must surely represent the regions of the world, yet how can that claim be true if an entire continent and footballing confederation goes completely unnoticed. Australia has been thrown from pillar to post for the past 12 years and its time that the country is given a ‘fair’ chance. I highlight the term fair for the fact that fair is simply a person’s opinion. Yet it must be remembered that a system by which a team only looses one game (or even none, as in the World Cup 98 campaign) the whole qualifying process and still not compete in the world’s largest stage, that is not fair in any language.
No disrespect to Uruguay who played well to earn their spot, but Uruguay had their chance to qualify, and somehow looses 5 games and still receives a second chance. Teams like Australia must be the better of two teams at the end of the qualifying process and it always boils down to a couple of games when the best way to judge the better of any team is via a league basis. Why must Australia always compete in a knockout style system when the rest of the world is purely decided by group phases?
A number of alternatives have been suggested to replace the current debacle of a system that has proved not to be advantageous for Australia, but were are not looking for an easy way out, just a fair one.
One suggestion it to give Oceania one spot on its own, none of the ludicrous cross-confederation qualifying. Which would mean the top 6 to 10 Oceanic teams would play home and away totally between 10 and 18 games per team and then the team to finish top would qualify, and that would be the end of it. The main concern of this is that the quality of the competition is left to be desired, yet the same can be said for the Asian, African and to a lesser extend the North & Central American qualifying zones. With such a system in place it would boost football in Oceania by having this confederation being represented each and every World Cup, thus making it a definite ‘World’ Cup.
One suggestion that hasn’t received much publicity is the idea of a split AFC-OFC competition, in which teams from South East Asia qualify as part of Oceania. This would boost the strength of football, slightly, but have more competitive teams, then having a dedicated place for such a competition. This would boost football in South East Asia (an area previously over looked by FIFA) and Oceania by exposing many countries to more football on a regular basis.
The idea that is deemed ‘fairer’ is a system that has been suggested but never completely explained. To give you a run down on it, it will involve all the Oceania teams qualifying at an early stage for 1 or 2 places in the Asian group qualifying stage (not the preliminaries) and then qualify as part of the AFC. Then simply add a spot to AFC qualifying, making it a total of 5 teams, or even have a playoff with the next best team that missed out from Oceania for that 5th place. Such a qualifying procedure would encourage Oceanic and Asian football, and gives Oceania teams a better chance of qualifying through just means and it will please FIFA by having more of a focus on Asian football rather than Oceania football (which FIFA has undoubtedly ignored). This system, in no doubt is the more likely alternative for fans (despite the automatic place for OFC, which ultimately cheats teams like Australia who deserve a more competitive path) and officials.
The whole terrible run for Australian teams through qualifying started for a place in Italy ’90 with Scotland, then continued through the USA ’94 campaign with Argentina, and of course France ’98 with the dreaded Iran game and finally the Uruguay- Japan/Korea 2002 qualifier. Australia were always facing an uphill battle against Uruguay, Uruguay have won 2 World Cups (’30 and ’50), 2 Olympics (’24 and ’28), are ranked 24th in the World, playing Australia who have only played in one World Cup (’74) and never made it past the group phase and are only ranked 50th.
The point of discussing the qualifying procedure is simply to attempt to have a fair system that represents the entire world (hence the title) and that rewards consistent football through the campaign. Basically how can a world cup be called a world cup if in fact parts of the world that deserve their own place are not represented?
By Gareth Askham ([email protected])
)
...........