FIFA's world ranking bias stinks

It is easy to get a little excited when FIFA release their world rankings and Australia moves up a notch or two. But don’t get too excited.

The reality is that there is a cap on how high Australia can go in the ranking table and all non-European, non-South American countries face the same issue.

» FIFA Rankings: View the latest iteration of football’s world rankings

Even if Australia won the World Cup every four years we would never reach and hold number one status. Achieving and holding a rank of 20-30 is probably the best we can ever hope for.

It is true that we might surge up the ladder in a World Cup year if we do well and if our playing calendar just happens to be favourable for a short period. However, we are destined to never rank as high as an equivalent European or South American country in the long run.

The reason for this dilemma is that there are several inherent biases in the FIFA Rankings toward existing high-ranking countries in Europe and South America (the existing power houses of FIFA).

The FIFA ranking system can seem confusing but I’ll try and keep it simple and hope you can stay with me (and not flick to the next article).

Match Points
Essentially countries are ranked based on the match points they achieve in all matches played over a four-year period. (Note: the four years have different weightings but that doesn’t affect what I am about to show you.)

The match points have four components:
Match Points = Points Results x Match Status x Opposition Rank x Regional Strength x 100.

This formula may look a bit complicated but it can be distilled in a simple table.

Points Results
Win = 3
Win on penalties = 2
Draw = 1
Loss on penalties = 1
Loss = 0

Match Status
World Cup match finals = 4
Confederation Cup finals = 3
World Cup/Confederation Cup qualifier = 2.5
Friendly = 1.0

Opposition Rank
(200 minus FIFA Rank) / 100

Region Strength
Europe = 0.99
South America = 1.00
AFC and others = 0.85

For any international game you just pick one relevant number from each of the four boxes.

For example, if Australia beats Jordan on Friday morning the match will provide three points for a win, 2.5 points for a World Cup qualifier, one for the opposition rank (200 minus Jordan’s rank of 99, divided by 100 = one) and 0.85 for the regional strength.

That gives us 3 x 2.5 x 1 x 0.85 x 100 = 637.5 match points.

So let’s look in detail at why the match points are biased toward Europe and South America and why AFC countries will never achieve the ranking they deserve.

Points Results
The points results are equal to all countries. Whoever you are, if you win outright you get three points. Thankfully FIFA couldn’t manipulate the rankings here.

Match Status
The match status is bonkers. Friendly games should not be counted, but that is another story. I’m going to assume that all national teams play roughly the same number of friendlies, qualifiers, etc per year.

So I’m going to assume that Match Status has no influence between countries or confederations.

(A quick check indicated that England played 46 games in the four years 2011-2014. Twenty-one friendlies (46%), 22 qualifiers (48%), and three World Cup games. Compared with Australia playing 51 games made up of 23 friendlies (45%), 25 qualifiers (49%), and three World Cup games. So, percentage wise, it’s about the same.)

That is where the equal playing field ends and the pro-European and South America bias starts. I’m going to compare AFC and Europe to keep it simple.

Opposition Rank
This component is clearly bias towards existing high ranking countries (UEFA).

Let’s assume we are approaching a World Cup year and all nations are heavily involved in World Cup qualifiers.

There are 53 countries in UEFA from Germany (2nd) to Andorra (205th). The average rank is 61. In UEFA the average Opposition Rank is (200 minus 61 divided by 100) 1.39.

There are 46 countries in AFC from Iran (39th) to Mongolia (203rd). The average rank is 139. The AFC average Opposition Rank is (200 minus 139 divided by 100) 0.61.

So let’s look at how this affects match points.

UEFA World Cup qualifier Match Points
For the games played in Europe, the average win is worth 1032 points (3 Points Results x 2.5 Match Status x 1.39 Opposition Rank x .99 Regional Strength x 100).

On average each drawn game is worth 344 points (1 Points Results x 2.5 Match Status x 1.39 Opposition Rank x .99 Regional Strength x 100).

Each loss is worth nil points.

AFC World Cup qualifier Match Points
For the games played in the AFC, the average win is worth 389 points (3 Points Results x 2.5 Match Status x 0.61 Opposition Rank x .85 Regional Strength x 100).

On average each drawn game is worth 130 points (1 Points Results x 2.5 Match Status x 0.61 Opposition Rank x .85 Regional Strength x 100).

Each loss is worth nil points.

You don’t need to be a mathematician to note that this looks pretty skewed. And it is!

Let’s consider a pretty ordinary European country with a losing record. They play 10 World Cup qualifiers and manage three wins, three draws and four losses. Their total points achieved would be: 3 wins x 1032 plus 3 drawn games x 344 = 4128 points. Their FIFA ranking points for the year is 413.

Let’s say one of our AFC countries is pretty bloody good. It plays 10 World Cup qualifiers during the year and wins all 10 with zero draws and zero loses. The total points achieved by the AFC country is 10 x 389 = 3890. Their FIFA ranking points for the year is the average match points – 389.

So a UEFA country with a losing record, that fails to qualify for anything, achieves more points and moves further up the rankings than an AFC country with an unbeaten record.

This is not a theory. It actually happens that poor countries in Europe score more ranking points in World Cup qualifying than Australia or Japan at their best.

It is a perverse self-preserving cycle in favour or UEFA and South America.

Regional strength
This component has two biases toward Europe and South America.

Bias 1
All European countries have a regional strength of 0.99 (even UEFA’s Andorra at 205th) who are ranked well below ACFC’s Iran at 39th). All AFC countries have a regional strength average of 0.85.

So, if you play most of your games in Asia, all your results include a multiplier of 0.85, whereas if you play most of your games in Europe your results have a multiplier of 0.99.

The impact of this in a realistic like-for-like game is as follows:

Imagine in a World Cup qualifier weekend in Europe where the Republic of Ireland (54) beat Serbia (63), while in Asia, Australia (58) beat Japan (55). The match points would be as follows:

Republic of Ireland achieve: 3 Points Results x 2.5 Match Status x 1.37 Opposition Rank x .99 Regional Strength x 100 = 1017 match points.

Australia achieve: 3 Points Results x 2.5 Match Status x 1.45 Opposition Rank x .85 Regional Strength x 100 = 924 match points.

Australia beat a country ranked 55th in the world, while Ireland beat a country ranked 6rd3 in the world and Ireland achieved 10 per cent more points for their win. Ireland move further ahead in the rankings even though Australia had a better performance. It’s rigged!

This isn’t fanciful theorising. On September 5, England had a walk in the park against San Marino (ranked 196) and for their comfortable 6-0 win achieved 371 match points. Two days earlier, Australia cruised past Bangladesh (ranked 182) with a 5-0 win and achieved 318 points. How can Australia (AFC) catch England (UEFA) when we achieve 15 per cent less points for beating higher ranked opposition?

As it happens, any UEFA country that beats Andorra (205) achieves 371 points, while any AFC country that beats Mongolia (203) achieves only 319 points. Similar games, similar opposition but the AFC countries receive 15 per cent less points than the UEFA countries.

With AFC games carrying a 15 per cent penalty it is impossible to compete equally in the rankings system and it keeps UEFA countries higher in the rankings for the same or for lesser performances than the AFC countries.

Bias 2
This bias is even more perverse.

The regional strength is an average number. That is, if UEFA (say Spain) = 0.99 play UEFA (say Germany) = 0.99 then the average regional strength is 0.99.

But if AFC (say Australia) = 0.85 play UEFA (say Germany) = 0.99 then the average regional strength is 0.92

Let’s say Australia, Germany, Spain and another country are in a World Cup group. Germany is ranked two in the world.

If Spain plays Germany and the result is a draw, Spain receives 792 points (1 Points Results x 4 Match Status x 2 Opposition Rank x .99 Regional Strength x 100).

If Australia plays Germany and the result is a draw, Australia receives only 736 points (1 Points Results x 4 Match Status x 2 Opposition Rank x .92 Regional Strength x 100).

Australia achieves seven per cent less FIFA ranking points than Spain for the same result!

If an AFC country and a UEFA country finish the group stage with exactly the same results over three games, the UEFA country gets more ranking points than the AFC country for each of their games played regardless of who the opposition is.

There is no league in the world that gives one team more points than another team when they achieve the same result and yet FIFA have created such a league for their world rankings. It is a perverse self-preserving cycle that ensure non-European and non-South American countries will always remain lower in the ranking system.

Like most things around FIFA these days, the world rankings stink. It reflects an existing power base looking after itself at the expense of others.

Whatever Australia’s rank (currently 58), it is an understatement of where we truly stand in world football and that is true of all AFC and other non-European and non-South American nations.

It is very easy to come up with a simple and equitable ranking system where every country is treated equally for achieving the same result. It seems that it is just not in FIFA’s interests to do so.