Barring a miracle, Uruguay and Mexico have booked their place in Brazil 2014 after annihilating Jordan and New Zealand respectively in the first leg of their inter-continental World Cup playoffs.
While many would’ve expected Uruguay to progress past Jordan with ease, a five-nil result in Amman to South Americas fifth-best team (6th including Brazil) has the Middle East minnows staring down the barrel of an embarrassing 10-0 aggregate score.
Our friends from across the Tasman haven’t fared much better.
The Kiwis were expected to at least provide some competition against a Mexican team who was far from convincing in CONCACAF qualifying.
Mexico have the USA to thank for even having the chance to playoff for a World Cup spot as they were about five minutes away from being eliminated.
But they seemed to have found their shooting boots as they put a hand full past a defiant but helpless Glen Moss.
These hammerings of nations from Oceania and Asia are further proof that the current set up of a 32-team World Cup is the right amount of teams and still gives a good representation of a true “World” Cup.
Michel Platini recently floated the idea of a 40-team World Cup. The reason given was to give truer representation of a World Cup.
The truth behind the reason given is that he’s trying to butter up the voters of the countries who often miss out on the World Cup ahead of the upcoming FIFA Presidential vote.
Suggesting that with their vote he can get their nation to the World Cup.
I’m just going to say it, the idea of a 40-team World Cup is ridiculous.
While we all love our football and would love to see a World Cup go on forever having eight groups of five teams each would see the current four week model stretch out to six weeks at least, although Platini thinks he can get it done in only three extra days.
It’s a bit much to fit into our already crowded football schedule, plus does anyone remember the debacle that was the Cricket World Cup a few years back?
Platnini stated the following “We can add two African, two Asiatic, two American, one Oceania and one from Europe.”
Hypothetically if these eight teams were going to Brazil there would be spots for New Zealand, Jordan, Uzbekistan, Panama, Venezuela, Senegal, Tunisia and Sweden.
We’ve already seen what kind of competition New Zealand and Jordan are likely to provide and I wouldn’t hold much hope for any of the other nations bar Sweden.
So there you have it, potentially a whole lot of lopsided games and dead rubbers.
The FIFA World Cup is unique to any other World Cup because it showcases the very best national teams that football has to offer with very few that are there purely to make up the numbers.
There are always the fairy tale stories which is fantastic and a poetic angle of the beautiful game but there are also very few games where teams are embarrassed and demoralised on the world stage.
Inviting eight extra nations to a World Cup cheapens what it means to be a World Cup footballer.
I can understand what FIFA are trying to do by giving more places to developing confederations such as Oceania, Asia, Africa and North America to an extent.
But these confederations already make up close to half of the competing nations at a 32-team World Cup and yet consistently it is teams from Europe and South America that make up three quarters of the teams in the round of 16.
These confederations are already being given the opportunity to make it to a World Cup and until they can justify having more spots by consistently beating European and South American opposition their current allotment of World Cup places is more than sufficient.
Having so many minnows at a FIFA World Cup benefits no-one and could be to the detriment of these developing nations. Platini has raised the 40 team World Cup argument purely as a publicity stunt and essentially to buy votes.
Let’s hope that common sense prevails and the World Cup remains a 32-team competition with a good mix of the best countries in the world based on the FIFA world rankings as well as providing a good representation of nations from all six confederations.
peter care
Guest
Actually 16 is enough. One host, one each from Asia-Oceania and North-Central America (with an intercontinental play-off for one spot), three each from South America and Africa and six from Europe. Very tough to qualify, but all matches in the World Cup to be tough, cut throat affairs.
Johnno
Guest
Oceania should stay, they offer Asia nothing. NZ not offering Asia anything, is like saying Australia offer Asia nothing. In reality both offer Asia nothing, in that revenue wise Asia can easily survive without Aust/NZ. We need them more than they need us. But what we do offer Asia, is 2 more decent teams and create depth, and also a good local derby rivalry Aust V NZ, that appeals to a wider audience, like Japan V South Korea.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
Yeah, that wasn't quite my question. NZ moving out of Oceania would probabky be better for NZ. But should Oceania disband, regardless of NZ's move or not? It offers a standard for its teams other than NZ, but nothing much beyond that (a Confederations Cup spot and half a WC spot that realistically any nation other than NZ would get belted in a playoff - which can even heppen to NZ when its the wrong opponent). Could all of those nations be better served by Oceania going out of existence and having a chance to qualify for second and third tier (initially, and probably for a long time) Asian competitions. They could still play a pacific comp, as a region of an Asia-Pacific confederation. Of course, on the flipside, what do the smaller nations (and even NZ) offer Asia. And the answer is probably very little except the claim to be representing a few extra nations. Perhaps an extra half of a WC spot, but probably not.
Johnno
Guest
Timmuh it's not NZ responsibility to help out the weak Oceania nations. Australia bailed on them, and so should NZ. Why should NZ stick around, to help teams who are woeful, and frankly will never even make a world cup so remote, and bring in no revenue. Australia abandoned them, why can't NZ. NZ shouldn't have to be held back lugged to a chain, and let Australia be ambitous, and abandon Oceania and the pacific. Keep Oceania, Fiji,Solomon's can't afford the operating costs of playing in Asia, and just give em half a spot every 4 years, and let em get whipped in Asia/North/South America. Australia abandoned the Fji's and solomons and rightly so, and have made more money since, now it's NZ's turn to abandon there neighbours.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
One from the ignorant for the experts. Should Oceania even continue to exist as a separate federation? Could an Asia-Pacific group with some earlier round qualifying for the Pacific island nations and some of the weaker Asian sides (eg Bhutan) for Asian and World Cups be a better model? Without Australia, or potentially if Johnno's suggestion was followed, New Zealand to highlight the region what relevance does Oceania really have? Would the likes of Fiji and the Solomon Islands be better off with a chance to earn the right to play better teams more often by taking part in Asia-Pacific tiers? The Oceanian cup might still exists in a regional manner like the east Asian or ASEAN cups, but with the chance, however remote, of playing in a higher competition of the develop enough.
Johnno
Guest
NZ has to leave Oceania, or perish simple. All White's won't get better playing, Fiji,Solomon Islands,New Caledonia, or Tahiti, they will only go backwards. To say they have no hope making the world cup via Asia is nonsense. They are tough to beat at home, can beat any of the Asian teams at home e.g. socceroos, Jordan who were the 5th best in Asia. And the extra revenue from more matches helps NZ soccer. Going down nightmare play-off legs vs CONCAFF, and south america nations, and Asian nations doesn't work, it's purely playing russian roulette to qualify. Playing the likes of Mexico/Uruguay/Iran's, in 2 legged play-offs is a nightmare and roulette. Join Asia, and NZ soccer will thrive, stay in Oceania it will go backwards.
DSF
Guest
For this current world cup 32 is the right number but in future world cups asia will only get stronger, these big losses is only the start of a new era for asia football (nz included) the Asian leagues are progressing as well as the a league and the football community is getting smarter and questioning these old school tactics off hoof ball which have often masked the skill deficiencies in our market. As a kiwi I am extremely butt hurt over that thrashing as I feel like this is the strongest nz football has been depth-wise. However, I know it was because of the old school approach of ricki Herbert that nz has looked so poor against not only mexico but oceania teams plus Trinidad and Tobago. This lean patch at the moment is only the end of a wake up call and a beginning of a new era... 4 more years.
sheek
Roar Guru
I agree 32 teams is the optimum number. But FIFA lives in a closeted world all of its own, providing "show me the money" applies. They awarded the 2022 world cup to Qatar, so craziness & stupidity (& also most probably graft & corruption) go hand in hand at FIFA. Throw them enough money & they'll give you whatever you want.....
Claude Bawlz
Guest
I agree with 32 as you have said Nathan adding extras just to make up the numbers takes the importance of The World Cup away. At the moment qualifying for this magnificent sporting event is the ultimate goal of any dedicated footballer in the world. For the fans there is nothing as important as supporting your country in your sports biggest event, knowing also they won't be humiliated.
NUFCMVFC
Roar Guru
I have to say, the Jordan and to a lesser extent New Zealand hammering a really showed to me how weak the AFC Confederation which by extension reveals how weak Australia has become We have been covering it all up by getting past AFC nations somewhat unconvincingly but the 6-0 hammerings were no surprise at all so I'm a bit worried ahead of next years WC
NUFCMVFC
Roar Guru
Agree 50 teams are too much. Plus 3 group games is enough to avoid dead rubbers in effect and ensure there is drama The World Cup is supposed to be a top elite competition. Moving it to 32 teams from 24 I think it was back in 1998 made some sense as there is a mix of diverse representation without undermining quality too much, but 40 teams would simply be going too far Not to mention the logistical complications with all the extra teams and their fans, meaning it would cost even more to host. Costs are already prohibitive as we can see from the Brazil protests about the money best being spent elsewhere then there is the fact UEFA have had to basically host a European Cup "everywhere"
Matthew Skellett
Guest
While it appears like disaster the return legs still have to be played guys and gals so maybe Mexico and Uruguay shouldn't be celebrating until then -a very slim chance is still a chance and movies have been made of such miracles :-)