Join Now  | 
Home About Contact Us Privacy & Security Advertise
Soccer America Daily Soccer World Daily Special Edition Around The Net Soccer Business Insider College Soccer Reporter Youth Soccer Reporter Soccer on TV Soccer America Classifieds Game Report
Paul Gardner: SoccerTalk Soccer America Confidential Youth Soccer Insider World Cup Watch
RSS Feeds Archives Manage Subscriptions Subscribe
Order Current Issue Subscribe Manage My Subscription Renew My Subscription Gift Subscription
My Account Join Now
Tournament Calendar Camps & Academies Soccer Glossary Classifieds
FIFA seeds discontent, raises qualifying questions
by Paul Gardner, October 8th, 2009 1:38AM
Subscribe to SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner



By Paul Gardner

So FIFA is killing soccer. That is the opinion of the Italian who now coaches the Republic of Ireland, Giovanni Trapattoni.

The immediate cause of Trapattoni's sinister accusation is an unexpected announcement from FIFA that it is going to seed the European teams that have to play off later this year for a place in next year's World Cup. He called that "a bit like killing soccer."

The seeding procedure will apply to the second-place teams from eight groups -- including, in all probability, Ireland, which currently lies in second place in Group 8, four points behind Italy, with two games to play.

The previous means of deciding who should play who among that group was a simple draw: all eight teams went into the pot, and were drawn out successively, with 1 playing 2, 3 playing 4 and so on. Very democratic.

Now, FIFA will seed the four best teams -- meaning the four teams with the highest positions among FIFA's world rankings -- and put them in a separate pot, thus ensuring that they do not have to play against each other. In the other pot will go the less likely four which will -- again, presumably -- include Ireland.

With his gloomy prediction for Ireland's fate, Trapattoni is of course jumping the gun. But things don't look good for the Republic. The bad news for Ireland is its 38th place ranking on the FIFA world list. This puts virtually all of the likely second-place finishers ahead of it, and almost certainly ensures that Ireland will go into the second pot with the minnows and will have to play a team ranked above it.

Only three groups have so far been decided, and they include Group 9, which has been won by the Netherlands, which is thus guaranteed a place in South Africa. Group 9's second-place team, Norway, is unlikely to finish among the top eight second-place teams that reach the playoffs.

Looking at the other groups, England has won Group 6 and Spain has won Group 5. Likely second-place finishers are Croatia or Ukraine in Group 6, and either Bosnia-Herzegovina or Turkey in Group 5.

Of those four, only Bosnia-Herzegovina (at 46th) ranks below Ireland. These are the second-place options in the other groups: it will be either Germany or Russia in Group 4; Group 1 is wide open - it could be Denmark or Sweden or Portugal or Hungary; in Group 2 Switzerland, Latvia and Greece are all possibilities, as are Slovenia, Northern Ireland and the Czech Republic in Group 3. Group 7 looks like either France or Serbia, with Bulgaria the likely team in Group 8.

That makes a total of 19 possible teams. Alas, 14 of them are ranked higher than Ireland. Of the other five, Sweden (41), Bosnia-Herzegovina (46) and Hungary (47) are only slightly behind Ireland; the stragglers are Slovenia (54) and Latvia (58).

Statistically, then, Trapattoni's Ireland is highly likely to find itself playing a higher-ranked team, possibly even France or Russia, which are Top 10 teams.

Obviously, what Trapattoni really meant was that FIFA is killing Ireland's chance of World Cup qualification. But does he have a point anyway? I rather think he does. Actually, I strongly favor seeding -- but not at this late stage of the competition.

Preferably, seeding would be done at the beginning of qualifying. It has never made much sense to include teams like Andorra, Liechtenstein and San Marino (who is ranked 203rd, dead last in the world) in the these groups. Ideally, I'd like to see a preliminary round of qualifiers in which, say, Europe's 16 weakest teams (decided either on the FIFA rankings, or possibly on their finishing positions in the previous World Cup qualifiers) play each other. Four groups of four would produce four winners, who would then enter the main competition. One obvious advantage is that such a system would reduce the number of teams by 12, and therefore the number of games -- mostly meaningless games.

There is an objection to such a system. One that carries a lot of emotional weight. A preliminary round would deprive the 12 eliminated teams -- not of their chance of winning the World Cup, that's too absurd to contemplate --- but of playing a game or two against a top team, Spain or England or Italy, say. Now that is a big deal -- a rare chance to draw a big crowd and to make some money.

I am not sniffing at the commercial advantage here -- it is very important to the small countries, and why should they be locked out of the immense wealth circulating in the sport? Well, they needn't be. FIFA could quite easily offer financial compensation to those countries.

But once the small countries have been eliminated -- once we are down to the eight second-best teams in Europe, I don't see the need for seeding. Indeed, it seems downright unfair -- especially as it will be based on a team's rather artificial world ranking, rather than its immediate performance in the group games just played.


  1. Ian Plenderleith
    commented on: October 8, 2009 at 8:44 a.m.
    Fifa has shifted its rules because it's scared that France might meet Germany in the playoffs - the usual shabby shenanigans. On the other hand, as you say, the Fifa rankings are artificial, so ultimately it doesn't really matter who plays who, seeded or not - every team enters the World Cup with the presumable aim of winning it, so to get the title you have to be able to beat any other country, whether they're ranked second or 202nd. And if Bosnia or Ireland beat, say, France in the playoffs, then all the better - they've really proven they're good enough to be at the finals, and the rest of us enjoy laughing at the current dreary French team for getting knocked out.
  1. Gus Keri
    commented on: October 8, 2009 at 1:20 p.m.
    "But where the other eight groups contain six teams, Group 9 contained only five and is therefore the only group that will not qualify a second-place team." I am sorry to say that you are wrong here, Paul. The rule states that the 8 runner-ups from the six-team groups will have their results against the lowest team of the group nullified. And then they will be compared to each others and to the runner-up of group 9. The top eight teams qualify for the play-off. Also, I, strogely, agree with you on the staging of the qualification and the elemination of the lower seeds in the first stage. this staging happens in Africa, Asia and the CONCACAF. Not only it will reduce such huge mismatched games, but also it will make the qualification process shorter and more straight forward.
  1. Kent James
    commented on: October 9, 2009 at 9:19 a.m.
    Although having a preliminary round would eliminate the possibility for the minnows to have financially lucrative games against the big boys, the upside of such a change would be that the games the minnows play against each other should all be relatively competitive, which generally is a good thing.

Sign in to leave a comment. Don't have an account? Join Now



Recent SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner
MLS games compare well with EPL but referees in both leagues reluctant to call PKs    
During this past weekend, I watched -- on television, of course -- 15 games. Well, not ...
Of tattoos and voodoo and science ... and soccer    
My calendar says March 1. But, quite possibly, global warming has advanced things. The weather is ...
Suddenly, the sport itself rebels against low-scoring Scrooge soccer    
We haven't seen anything like this for quite a while. In fact it was beginning to ...
Pep snubs Kun -- modern soccer at its worst    
Back in 2005 the word from Argentina was that maybe -- of course maybe -- a ...
Where soccer fails, the NFL gets it right    
An impertinent book, this. The title and subtitle tell you succinctly what you are getting: "The ...
More urgent than Van Basten's rule changes: soccer needs a total reversal of referees' negative mindset    
The problem is this. To praise Marco van Basten for speaking out on a topic that ...
Clearance: an ugly play, a useless stat     
For some time now I have been wondering about the soccer term "clearance." A term, admittedly, ...
Roberto Cabanas & the Beautiful Game    
From the happiest of thoughts and memories about Roberto Cabanas to total bewilderment and sadness ...
Soccer & Concussion (Part 2): What needs to be done -- before the lawyers move in     
The suspect nature of the enforcement of protocols is by no means the only barrier to ...
Soccer & Concussion (Part 1): A Disgraceful Lack of Action -- Protocols are not enough     
There is, it seems to me, one thing above all others that soccer totally failed to ...
>> SoccerTalk with Paul Gardner Archives