On air: Should each continent's World Cup places be changed?

You make a point that's certainly thought-provoking, but, ultimately, the World Cup finals need to strike a balance between QUALITY and geographic eQUALITY. As the event has become more and more popular, FIFA has done a lot to make the qualifiers positvely discriminatory, in the interests of securing as wide a presence at the finals as possible (and nurturing the game worldwide), but it would be counterproductive to take that ideal to an extreme that undermines the credibility of the finals themselves.
Population size and/or geographic location are arbitrary measures of which teams deserve to be in the finals at any given time (look at Slovenia). The fact is -- now and for the foreseeable future -- that if the qualifying round were conducted either on a global round-robin basis (not possible in practice), or on a worldwide random-draw basis (possible, particularly if travel were subsidized for poorer nations), several continents would have even less representation in the finals than they currently do -- maybe none at all. The qualifying system already rightly meddles with what might be called the "natural justice" of the process, but, possibly subject to a little finetuning now (and ongoing finetuning to reflect long-range changes in the balance of world football power), it has gone about as far as it should go.
On the other hand, it would be wholly wrong to base qualification simply on the FIFA rankings. The qualifying games themselves are part of the WC; they generate their own passion among fans and players, and for many nations represent the one involvement in the quadrennial extravaganza they can rely on. Most importantly, they motivate developing football nations. In any case, the WC is conceptually a knockout not a league structure, and an element of Giants v. Giantkillers is a healthy and exciting part of that kind of competition.

This question parallels the controversy surrounding the BCS (Bowl Championship Series) here in The United States. A few years ago, some geniuses (I use the term loosely) decided that the traditional bowl game arrangements hould be scrapped in favour of a so-called "championship." Thus, the traditional Rose Bowl contest between the Pac-10 and the Big 10 was thrown into disarray, with there being times when NO Pac-10 team made it to the Rose Bowl.

What a MESS!

I think that certain traditions in sporting endeavours should be respected, but at the same time, in such venues as the World Cup, there needs to be a balance (as previously suggested) between QUALITY of the competitors as well as the EQUITY of representation from the various continents and populations. (Is Australia considered part of Asia, or Oceania, or "Unto Itself" for the purposes of the World Cup?)

(Yes, I also think the MLB's "World Series" is a mis-nomer, since no teams from outside North America are included.)

Europe has 10% of the world population, but 55% of the FIFA world cup spots. Of course it should be changed. You want more European sides, watch Euro 2014.

Allocation through population size is stupid, it would only work if all countries had the same population size.

Those 13 European Countries represent more than half of the combined population of Europe's 53 countries.

Most fair would be to have qualifiers with mixed teams, but that would still lead to a relatively large number of South American and European teams, in fact you'd have even less Asian and North American teams then you have today. Strangely, the countries complaining the most about the current system are the ones profiting the most from it.

"3. At 10:12pm on 26 Jun 2010, RandomArbiter wrote:
Europe has 10% of the world population, but 55% of the FIFA world cup spots. Of course it should be changed. You want more European sides, watch Euro 2014."

It also houses more than 25% of the world's national teams and two countries (China and India) making up 35% of the world's population never make it to the world cup anyway. Besides it would be pretty weird to first have cutthroat competition in South American and Europe for a few places in the world cup, only to have the world cup itself be an easy ride for those few strong teams against many dwarfs from Asia and other weak continents. It would be more fair to have mixed pools in the qualifiers (so South Korea could face off against Scotland for a place in th world cup) but that would mean even more South Americans and Europeans reach the world cup so the current system is already heavily skewed in favor of the weaker continents.

I love it that everyone acts as if there is any transparency at all in the qualifying arrangements for the World Cup. Milton Friednman's invisible hand is clearly well at work, ensuring that the maximum number of potential consumers have an interest in the tournament. For example, a powerful representative of a well-known multinational sportswear company expressed his distress to me that New Zealand had beaten Bahrain in qualifying as it would effectively extinguish Arab and Middle-Eastern interest in the tournament, something his company had invested a lot of time and money into with the aim of maximising exposure for their brand. He told me 'Don't worry, we're already pulling strings so that it won't happen again'. I asked 'Surely FIFA organise qualification based on fairness and the best teams progressing?' The drunk, arrogant American snorted derisively and came back with 'Yeah, RIGHT! Do you really think that France being in the tournament is FAIR!?' I had to admit, he had a point. Don't get him started on North Korea.

At 00:31am on 28 Jun 2010, Matthew wrote
"Milton Friednman's invisible hand is clearly well at work..."


Funny...I seem to remember my Econ Professor teaching us about Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand." (From "Wealth of Nations," 1776)...but I suppose it's possible that Friedman also used the expression.

@modernJan

So then you are effectively punishing the big countries with big populations because they did not have the "foresight", or shall we say conflicts prior to modern times, that made Europe into so many small countries as opposed to one homogeneous state like China and India. Maybe we should break those two countries into their provinces and allocate the same number of places as Europe does?

Every world cup the same question. If you want to work out the 32 qualifiers fairly, then you've got to abandon the "by region" allocation altogether. of course, you can't - many of the smaller ones couldn't afford to travel across the world for their heats. But you could compromise. Have regional competitions to narrow it down to 64, then have two-legged playoffs (seeded, if you wish) to determine the final 32. That way, each continent will get the allocation it deserves on quality, rather than on number of ountries, population, or tradition. What's more, it would give more unlikely nations a better chance of qualification, as well as potentially adding to their coffers (what sort of income would a nation like Honduras or Fiji get if they had a home-and-away series with Argentina or Germany?)

Africa hould have the highest number so as to encourage african government to support sports effectively

thats right

This is from an American, but I think that for 2014 it should be THE AMERICAS - 10, 7 for South, and 3 for the rest. for EUROPE - 10, and why, only 6 teams got in the the knockout stage, and 4 to that number, and add three to the ones who got into the quarter finals. but subtract 3 who finished last in their groups. Asia believe it or not, should get 6.5, I know North Korea had no business being their, but perhaps Bahrain would have done better, maybe even Quatar, who were third and forth in the group where Austrailia and Japan were. Why so many. Japan and S Korea advanced to the group of 16, now Austrailia had 4 points, as did Mexico, who lost in the knockout phase, since they had the four points as well, I have them replace Mexico, which makes 3 + 4 = 7. Now yes, you have to subtract 1, but then I give one point to Japan for the overtime loss, and two points Paraguay for the overtime loss, which leaves them both with 7 points, as it would for Ghana as well. so then I add one more place for Asia. The seventh place finisher of course plays most likely New Zealand. One day if New Zealand gets to the group of 16, then the second place finsher would be in the play off with an Asian team. Africa will drop down to 5, and they get five because of point totals for the last three world cups, 5 teams in the top 32, with Cameroon tied with 4 points with several other teams. I could go on further, but I hope anyone who reads this sees my strategy in deciding placements.

After Friday and Saturday - I think not!

After Frtiday and Saturday, I think not!

@ bronislaw
Please mate, this is footie not economics so specious creative accounting and figure fiddling are about as offside as it’s possible to get.
Add this, subtract that and multiply/divide by the number you first thought of is about as pointless as locking 30 economists in a room and hoping just a couple of them agree with each other after 6 months at each other’s throats.
Footie is entertainment, showbiz, and ultimately it’s the viewing figures that count. Take a straw poll anywhere in the world, starting maybe with the Beeb’s “Sports World Have your Say” and all the passionate support, other than 4 weeks every four years, is reserved for the likes of Real Madrid, Man U., Barcellona, Arsenal et al. even occasionally still il Milan and Juve.
The WC group stages are tedious in the extreme other than when the odd minnow humiliates one of the big boys, only to get comprehensively demolished if they make it out of the group ghetto.
Things only really get interesting when the cream has risen to the top, although footie being footie, there are still some surprises in store, but on balance giving nowhere teams the opportunity to bore the viewers to death will do nothing to further the cause of the beautiful game.

LINDA FROM ITALY
Calling this Footie, sound more to me as if your from Austrailia than Italy. You first say "after Friday and Saturday, I think not" While I think a European team seems likely to win the World Cup, and I suspect that The Netherlands will play either Spain or Germany, it cannot be denied that this was the first time, since 1930, that European teams were outnumbered by American teams from The US all the way down to Argentina and Uruguay going into the knockout stage, and even till the quarter finals, though this was partially due to all 6 European teams being pited against one another. For only 6 European teams to make it through to the knockout stage out of 13 was a pretty big shock. I expected that 8 would make it out before the tournament began. YOu also say, "this is entertainment, showbiz, and ultimately it's the viewing figures that count." So does this mean we need to decide the World Cup placing by how many people from each continent will be glued to their television sets, or how many tourists this event will attract from those continents. You also mention about the pasionate support for Real Madrid and some of the other Champion League teams. But the truth here is that some of the passionate support is reserved for them because of the players from around the world who play for them, and the big pocket books these clubs have to purchase these players. Inter Milan which won the Champions League did not have one Italian player in their starting lineup, and if you look at La Liga and the Premier League, between those two countries that these two leagues are in, they have one World Cup win to show for it. My "creative accounting" as you so say, is only a way to decide in some fair way, how the next world cup placements should be allocated.