can anybody explain y? based on continent size seems unfair wor..

sos kicap

coz europe got the most high-ranking country?

Because Asia & Africa country never won world cup ?

checkmate!

thats not fair considering the ranking are built as such so that europe and south americans have more weight in points than others.

quality is one thing. but i think they get more places also base on politics (the are the founder of organized world football) and also money.

This post has been edited by aressandro10: Jul 30 2011, 10:59 PM

not sure if anyone know african/asian football club name by their finger tips so i think the conclusion is there for us to ponder awhile

cheers.

yes..but concacaf also got high ranks.. n even bigger or about the same like europe wor..

effort must be made to change that. have to start with awareness. if not we will forever be in capitalist trap where majority of the world's capital are controled by minority of people.

true..somehow somewhat..seems like europe actually dominates & have a veto in FIFA

honestly, if the world cup slots are selected soley based on world ranking or quality.

i think North Korea or Serbia or New zealand can never enter the final stage of the tournament....

This post has been edited by FLampard: Jul 31 2011, 03:20 AM

i think the allocation are quite fair, more or less.. no complaint.. i would love to see more small football countries in the competition final, but not at the expand of competition's quality..

Europe are the strongest continent, no doubt about that.. S.American also contain top quality sides, but they have small members..

ya i wondering why this thread appear ...

i don't want to see some scoreline like 10 or 15 - 0 in a world cup ...

It is interesting that South American nations are performing very well in the world cup, yet are only offered less than 5 slots in a tournament with 32 slots.

There are only 10 countries within CONMEBOL - 5 out of 10 is 50% which is a fair allocation in my view.

Anyway the allocations are agreed by FIFA's Executive Comittee - it can change if they decide to. But of course when debating, the overwhelming factors that has to be weighed are numerous - most importantly being quality of teams, and also to have a more "diverse" participation from around the world (so that it is truly a World Cup). Otherwise, FIFA might as well just give the prize way to the top ranked team in their ranking system.

You may want to see this blog entry and a few sources quoted therein to understand better on the system. It is by no means perfect, but then again there is no perfect system anyway.

http://www.football-rankings.info/2010/07/...s-is-there.html

In a way the current system looks "fair" to me interms of diversity and quality - everyone wants to be given "a chance" but how bout those who were "better" in quality but dont get to participate in the World Cup because of the quota being full (aka UEFA)? Dont these teams "deserve" a chance too based on merits? Of cos having "smaller" teams in the competition adds to dramas and fairy tale and this would give the WC a good rating etc which will mean more $$$ ultimately

maybe bcoz of politics @ worldwide view. And some popularity also.

Most of us can named atleast 10-20 European clubs but can we did the same for example...African continent clubs..?

I can only remember Al Ahly(Egypt), Esprance Tunis(Tunisia), Kaizer Chiefs & Orlando Pirates (RSA) without googling

btw i think the main point is POLITICS. Remember France vs Rep of Ireland WC play-off back then?

politics is one thing, they wanna keep the "quality" intact and at the same time give chance to every region to have as many team as possible to participate....if you divide evenly according to the continent, Oceania will have 5 slots....now which country besides Australia and New Zealand are theoretically capable enough to join them in the World Cup?

quality is subjective..how u can measure quality? by result is it?

if yes, then define how 'one of the most quality team in Europe, which is England' manage to get a draw with some african dudes that MAJORITY of us does not even know the team main players, which is Algeria.

i would say it's because of popularity based.

why some world champion, namely Italy only managed to get a draw with some 'minnows who're supposed to get trashed 15-0' which is New Zealand.

France?

Quality? History? or Popularity?

because world cup only won by europe and south america ...

unless the africa or asia bring it home, i can't see fifa will raise it

is algeria in the world cup too? if yes then the best qualified alreayd

there are lots lots lots of quality teams in africa,

egypt to name a few.

qualified to world cup does not necessarily mean they're the best. (like i said, england france italy..rubbish je time main world cup..esp italy ler WC 2010)
it also depends on the team luck/ format / etc.

i.e france >>> pure luck 200x layak masuk world cup.

while african continents 5 slots cant surely fit in all the cameroon, egypt, angola, togo, ghana, south africa etc etc etc

ya i agree it's hard to give them more slots since not many of them did really past next round / win the world cup

at the same time, macamana nak lepas lg byk team to next round / menang world cup kalau ada 5 wakil je.

ok brazil argentina uruguay "did that" because of history, am i correct?refer back the old skool format, surely it differs from the one that we're using rite now.& that does not necessarily mean it applies to the other continent.

memang la team eropah lawan final je selalu,
cuba tgk

daripada 2 slots final..dorang ada 16 wakil

continent lain? 2 slots final ---> 4 atau 5 wakil je bertarung?

btw am not arguing..just food for thought

This post has been edited by nanamiwashio: Aug 11 2011, 07:02 PM