THURS, 1PM ET
LIL0
EVE0
THURS, 1PM ET
LIE0
SEV0
THURS, 3PM ET
TOT5
TRI1
THURS, 3PM ET
INT0
ETI0
THURS, 3PM ET
VIL4
ZUR1
THURS, 3PM ET
MON5
APO0

Back To The Drawing Board, CONCACAF Doesn’t Get Four Bids For 2014 World Cup

472201011 312f452cef Back To The Drawing Board, CONCACAF Doesnt Get Four Bids For 2014 World Cup

It sounded pretty good when the new qualifying format from CONCACAF was announced several months ago from their headquarters in New York City. Getting everyone involved from Canada all the way to Belize as the opening rounds started with eight groups of four, then four groups of four, to the final round being two groups of four. At the same time Mexico and the USA would never meet at all giving each other a break. Well unfortunately for Jack Warner and Chuck Blazer that idea has been completely shot down with a very loud bang.

After the FIFA Executive Committee had their meeting on Thursday, March 4 it was very clear that the amount of bids being offered to all six confederations will remain the same. UEFA with 13, Africa with 5, Oceania with their half spot, CONCACAF remains with 3 1/2 and, if you count host country Brazil, technically CONMEBOL gets 5 1/2. This decision didn’t sit well with executive committee member and CONCACAF General Secretary Chuck Blazer as he has made his opinions known. “Really not happy with the FIFA exco Meeting,” said Blazer “The last time we hosted, in 1986 (Mexico) and 1994 (USA), we didn’t get an extra slot. Why should South America? In 2010, Africa had six and only Ghana advanced (beyond the group stage). Why do they have five and we have 3 1/2?”

While I understand Chuck Blazer’s anger towards the ExCo for the selection of bids, it really shouldn’t be that surprising. The history of success within South America is well known as Brazil and Argentina are always going to be the two favorites going deep into the knockout stages of every World Cup. Ghana repeated their trip to the quarterfinals from Africa, which did give it a push. But at the same time it sounds like FIFA wants to keep things the way are, as they prepare to accept the qualification bids from all six confederations.

What does this mean for CONCACAF now that a decision has been made? It means it’s back to the drawing board as they have to scrap their original plans. The big mistake made by Blazer and Warner was that they automatically thought this plan was going to work and assumed that they were going to get four spots without even waiting for the ExCo meeting to take place. If this was ever in the thoughts of FIFA that CONCACAF was going to be getting four full spots, then it sounds like a fantasy. This also means that the deed by MLS to make room not to play during international dates for World Cup Qualifying has either gone for nought, or the re-working of the qualification could still have the USA playing towards this coming September, October and November. This can also mean that the Super Classico between Mexico and the USA will continue in the final round.

But to be fair to Chuck Blazer I really don’t blame him for being upset. I honestly thought that South America would lose a spot due to Brazil being the host country, but FIFA didn’t see it like that and now we will wait for Saturday, July 30 when the qualifying draw comes for the right to play in Brazil for the World Cup.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com//04032011/58/world-cup-blazer-slams-fifa-decision.html

This entry was posted in Leagues: Major League Soccer, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Back To The Drawing Board, CONCACAF Doesn’t Get Four Bids For 2014 World Cup

  1. Sancho says:

    No need to draw any more. I am, as always, stepping in and saving the day!

    1. First round to reduce the teams to 30 (instead of 32, as it would be).
    Dates: 2 (as it was planned)

    2. Divide the 30 teams in 5 groups of 6 (instead of 32 in 8 groups of 4). Group winners and the best 3 runners-up qualify to the last groups stage.
    Dates: 10 (it would be 12, in two stages with 6 each)

    3. Divide the remaining teams in 2 groups of four (as it was planned). Both groups winners advance to the World Cup.
    Dates: 6 (as it would be)

    Total dates: 18 (instead of 20). This two dates saved would be used for the last qualifying playoffs.

    4. Runners-up face each other in a home-away series. Winner qualify to the World Cup; loser to the intercontinental playoff.

    Total dates: 20 (as it was planned).

    Same concept, a slightly different format. Same numbers of dates, a very few more games played. Everything in its proper place…

    Claps for me, right?
    :-D

    Best, you all.

  2. Sancho says:

    P.S.: This must be the worst picture ever published in MLSTalk.

    P.P.S.: I believe FIFA did it right. Concacaf wants an extra spot? Earn it! Costa Rica failed to qualify, Honduras was eliminated in the First Round. All South Americans qualified to Round of 16, then 4 to the quarterfinals. Concacaf extra spot should have come from somewhere else.

  3. Daniel Feuerstein says:

    It was the only picture I could find of Mr. Blazer. :D

  4. Charles says:

    Like a mug shot of Blazer.

    S America is the strongest out there they deserve it. They will crush it in Brazil.
    CONCACAF was just trying to hold onto 3.5 and they did and they got a better 3.5 than before. Hard to say they deserve more than that, even though I would like another spot. Hard to say they deserve less too, imho.

  5. TommyOC says:

    Instead of focusing on why CONMEBOL didn’t lose a spot, start focusing on why Africa kept their lot.

    While some may point out that our third pick didn’t advance in 2010, nobody’s noting how the Africans had an 80% non-advancement rate.

    If you’re going to send 4 teams to be fodder for everyone else, surely you won’t mind only sending 3 teams for fodder, and letting your fourth play-in.

    • Sancho says:

      Exactly, Co.N.C.A.Ca.F. (NY Times style) should have fought for a spot against C.A.F. or A.F.C. Conmebol’s was a non-starter.

      I do believe the major complain is not less about the spot then the dates for Qualifying matches.

  6. Bolacuadrada says:

    I think the half spot for CONCACAF should have been taken from CAF. Or even from Southamerica. What is up with the Southamericans talking about how good they did in the WC? Let’s see, yes they all made it to the second round but what happened after that was embarrassing. Only two wins against other Confederations once the the second round came and one of them was a referee controlled win (Argentina over Mexico). Now, tell me what was the Southamerican record in mata mata or mano a mano against the Euros? How about a big Zero once the second round came. Some of those games were not even close. Yes, Southamerica is better than CONCACAF because Brazil and Argentina will always be there but the other CONMEBOL nations have no much to be bragging about. Even when Europe and Southamerica are better confederations, the corrupts of FIFA have to give a spots to other Confederations to have their votes once elections come. If we want the best national teams in the World Cup then Europe will have 20 spots, Southamerica 5 (and that is a lot), and the other Confederations will get the remaining 8 spots.

    • Bolacuadrada says:

      Check the last line of my previous comment. I meant to say 7 spots for the other confederations.

    • Sancho says:

      Let’s see.

      First of all, Uruguay beat Costa Rica in America’s playoff to qualify. Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay all finished first in Group Stage, and all of them went to the quarterfinals. Chile made through to second round over Honduras. Uruguay finished top of the group over Mexico. Quarterfinals showed 4 South Americans (out of 5), 3 Europeans (out of 13) and 1 African (out of 6).

      I believe that’s enough to show that not only Conmebol is not just Argentina and Brazil (actually, it was only Uruguay in semis, and Paraguay lost to the champs), but how it is stronger Confederation than Concacaf (in lower levels than the top-2), and how dominant it was at the beginning of the World Cup.

      Having said that, here is the main argument: the perception on how bad the South Americans quarterfinals onwards is due ONLY to Brazil lost.

      The only game that wasn’t closed was Germany-Argentina. All others were coin tosses (all heads, no tails).

      If the Brazilians didn’t implode themselves in the second half, after 45′ of total domination over Holland, there would be 2 South Americans and 2 Europeans in the semis, and the final would be between a South American team and a European. Even if Europe finished 1st and 3rd, no one would deny how great the South American did in WC 2010.

      It is a WC in South America, and FIFA just gave South America the chance to have six teams in its own backyard. It’s a chance, no more than that. You want the spot, you think you deserve, come and get it!

      As I’ve said, Conmebol has the spots it deserves. If Concacaf thinks that has less than it should, complain about the 4.5 spots or AFC and the 5 spots for CAF.

      To ask for more spots, Europeans should do better. Below the top-8/10, there is no big differences to the rest of the World.

      • Bolacuadrada says:

        Sancho do you remember when was the last time a team that was not Brazil or Argentina was in the semifinals before the last one of course. Looking back at the numbers I will say that the record Brazil has is impresive. Argentina is also great but has been failing since 1994. I know it is not Uruguay and Paraguay’s fault that Italy and France collapsed and that their missery opened things up in the first round buy you very well know that Italy and France will beat Uruguay ans Paraguay 9 out of 10 times. What about Chile? well, it had been almost 50 years since they won a WC game before the last WC. If Switzerland scores a goal in that last game against weak Honduras, Chile would have been out in the first round. I still think those Southamerican teams are good but not impressive. I think that 5 spots including the host is more than fair. If you see what teams missed the last WC in CONMEBOL and Europe, I would take any of Russia, Turkey, Croatia, Sweden, Belgium, Bulgaria, Poland, Norway, Ukraine, or Ireland over Ecuador, Colombia and the other 3 weak CONMEBOL teams. Did you notice that the first 7 Euro teams I just mention have made it at least one time to semis in previous WCs? All of this to say that Southamerica is a half spot over and if they do not want to give it to CONCACAF it is OK but in all fairness it should at leat go to Europe.

        • Charles says:

          So now you have backtracked from 20 spots to getting the extra 1/2 of a spot. Nice.
          You went from the dumbest post I have ever read, to OK I can see that in the space of 15 lines of garbage with Santo responding in the middle.

          • Bolacuadrada says:

            Why? I guess you do not like the idea of giving more spots to CONCACAF right? What I am saying is that you cannot deny that extra half spot to CONCACAF based on the level of play alone. If FIFA goes by level of play alone, UEFA is the one to benefit from it. But I guess you believe all the hype from the CONMEBOL people.

  7. Sancho says:

    I just love those Eurocentrics. The thesis behind all that is said is simple. Since soccer is an European game, the World Cup is Euro Cup + BRA/ARG (because they are too strong to be left out anyway; so strong that they are almost Europeans, I would say). Since Europeans are very nice fellows, they humbly allows teams from the rest of the world to join the party. But not to many, because you want the tournament to be a World Cup, but it still needs to remain aseptic!

    From that, the rest just follows orderly: all Europeans bad results are accidents; all bad results from the rest of the world is a sign that they don’t deserve to be in; all good results from Europeans is a sign of superiority; all good results from the rest of the world is mere fluke.

    So, it doesn’t matter what to say against it, the facts you show against it. This Eurocentric System has answer for all.

    • sergio lima says:

      And I tell you more Sancho. Imagine if we could consider the amount of money the Europeans expend in comparisson with the other countries and you would see how they only dominate the spots in the WC for pure politics or memories of something that doesn’t exist anymore. Nobody talk about this but the europeans get the best players in the world taking them from their countries, almost killing the normal organization of their national teams. imagine if the Brazilians, for example, could play and practice before a world cup. On the last world cup, on the Brazilian national team, only two players were from Brazilian teams. But even with all that, when the Europeans win, is very very tight.

  8. Bolacuadrada says:

    If you have never heard this term, you better get used to it. For non-sudamericans, Brazil and Argentina are the twin towers of soccer in this continent. That is the way it is. I like Brazil style of play even though I am not from South America. However, the fact remains that South America had 0 wins to 5 losses against European teams in the “mata mata” rounds of the last world cup. That is really inexcusable!

    • Sancho says:

      Bola,

      I repeat, no problem: “To ask for more spots, Europeans should do better. Below the top-8/10, there is no big differences to the rest of the World.

      You miss the right perspective. The whole debate is about spots. Europe has 13 spots. The “cannot miss” 8, plus 5. Those extra 5 put Europe ahead of every single conferderation but Africa. It’s enough. Here is why.

      You can count on having 8 Europeans and 2 South Americans in every round of 16. Since 1998 (32 teams), this was the result for the remaining 6 spots:

      1998: Eur, 2; S.Am., 2; N.Am., 1; Afr. 1.
      2002: Eur, 1; N.Am., 2; As, 2; Afr. 1.
      2006: Eur, 2; S.Am., 1; N.Am., 1; Afr., 1; Oc., 1
      2010: Eur, -2; S.Am., 3; N.Am., 2; Afr., 1; As., 2.

      Total: Eur. 3; S.Am., 6; N.Am., 6; Afr. 4; As. 4; Oc. 1.

      Europe beats Oceania. Youhoo!!!

      • Sancho says:

        Some one could say that I was easy with South America and forgot Mexico. OK. I will accept that. So, Europe still has the obligation to put 8, but South America, 3; and North America, 1.

        The result would be slightly different (Eur. 3; S.Am., 2; N.Am., 2; Afr. 4; As. 4; Oc. 1), but the point would remain the same: down the top-8, Europe has about the same strength of the rest of the world.

        This is the spots FIFA awards: Europe, 8+5; Africa, 5; Asia, 4 1/2; North America, 1+2 1/2; South America, 3+1 1/2; Oceania, 1/2.

        Now, it looks fairer, doesn’t it?

        • Charles says:

          Wow, great posts AND bold print.

          Bolacuadrada, you still have 20 spots going to Europe ?

          • Bolacuadrada says:

            Impressive research. Of couse, you can play with the numbers by going back a few world cups more or analyzying rounds of eight, semis, or bringing the base of 8 european nations to 6, etc. With these numbers I could probably bring my petition down to 18 spots for Europe. Remember, this would only be if FIFA decides to go for the best national teams and that will not happen. I just cannot see the 45 (53-8) remaining European nations with the same number of spots than Africa and Asia (all with 5). I could probably prepare an analysis that will probably grant 3 to Africa, 3 to Asia, 2.5 to CONCACAF, .5 to Oceania and 5 to Southamerica based on quality of play. Why would you say, am I granting 10 (18-8) more spots to Europe even though you have the numbers above? Because other scenarios with the numbers will give different results. What about the number of European nations that due to the limit of spots (13 out of 53) do not have a chance to prove themselves and add to your numbers above? I do not see comparable teams left out in other Confederations. We all agree that Europe and Southamerica are the stronger Confederations. Why is one getting 50% of its teams to the World cup and the other only 24%. Even with your numbers above I can see that Asia and Africa are getting more than they should in an ideal World. That is my take on it.

  9. Sancho says:

    I just love those Eurocentrics. The thesis behind all that is said is simple. Since soccer is an European game, the World Cup is Euro Cup + BRA/ARG (because they are too strong to be left out anyway; so strong that they are almost Europeans, I would say). Since Europeans are very nice fellows, they humbly allows teams from the rest of the world to join the party. But not to many, because you want the tournament to be a World Cup, but it still needs to remain aseptic!

    From that, the rest just follows orderly: all Europeans bad results are accidents; all bad results from the rest of the world is a sign that they don’t deserve to be in; all good results from Europeans is a sign of superiority; all good results from the rest of the world is mere fluke.

    So, it doesn’t matter what to say against it, the facts you show against it. This Eurocentric System has answer for all.

    Prosecution rests…

    • Sancho says:

      I can’t rest, although Bola proved his Eurocentric menatlity once and for all.

      Actually, we could go all the way to 1986, where the round of 16 was stablished (same rules):

      1994: Eur., 2; N.Am, 1; Afr. 1; As. 1; S.Am., -1.
      1990: Eur., 2; S.Am., 1; Afr. 1.
      1986: Eur., 2; S.Am., 1; Afr. 1.

      So Europe manage to put into the round of 16 in the whole history of this stage: 10 (out of 14), 10 (out of 14), 10 (out of 13), 10 (out of 15), 9 (out of 15), 10 (out of 14), 6 (out of 13).

      It’s just me or, in 25 years, the Europeans couldn’t qualify more than 10 teams to the second round, after facing world-wide opposition in Group stage?!

      How hard is to understand that out of the fact that Spain, Italy, Germany, France, England and the Low Countries are great teams it DOES NOT FOLLOW necessarily that Portugal, Israel, Slovakia, Northern Ireland, Poland, Liechtenstein, Faroe Islands, Malta and all those other Europeans POWERHOUSES are better than the best teams from the rest of the world?

      But, as I’ve said before, “it doesn’t matter what to say against it, the facts you show against it“, if someone thinks it’s better to watch Norway-Slovenia than Cameroon-Australia or Ivory Coast -South Korea, it will keep thinking that way. No problem. Feel free to do it. But, please, do not impose this NONSENSE to the rest of us…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>