Since it began ranking its member countries in 1993, FIFA has updated the scheme it uses for determining its world rankings on two separate occasions, making major changes in 1999 and 2006.
In May 2006, prior to the Germany World Cup, news that FIFA was to revamp its rankings again was met with cheersacross Europe and South America, in particular. Why? Because at the time, most soccer pundits thought that Concacaf giants USA and Mexico, ranked fifth and fourth in the world ahead of thattournament, were ranked too high. The argument was that the old system unfairly benefitted teams that regularly faced weaker competition.
Judging by the results of the 2006 tournament, theywere probably right; Bruce Arena’s USA would go on to finish last in a group containing eventual world champ Italy, the Czech Republic and Ghana. It finished 25th overall. Mexico,meanwhile, managed to barely get out of a group containing Portugal, Angola and Iran, and would eventually lose a heartbreaker in the round of 16 to Argentina in extra-time. El Tri finished 15th.
Fast-forward to today’s rankings, which still use the scheme devised by FIFA after the 2006 World Cup, and Concacaf teams no longer find themselves in the top 30, let alone the top 10. Thisis a mistake; both the USA, currently ranked 34th, and Mexico, currently ranked 41st, definitely belong in FIFA’s top 20 at the very least, and the USA, especially on its current form, probablydeserves to be closer to the top 10.
Of course, the positioning of Jurgen Klinsmann and Miguel Herrera’s teams is not the only anomaly in the recently published FIFArankings. As Business Insider’s Tony Manfred notes, the
For starters, Wales, which is on an admittedly great run of form in thelast 12 months and will likely qualify for Euro 2016, has absolutely no business being ranked 10th in the world. Why? For the simple fact that qualifying for Euro 2016 would be the tinycountry’s second-ever appearance in a major international competition. Its only appearance at a major finals was the 1958 World Cup.
Romania, which hasn’t qualified for a majorinternational competition since Euro 2004, is currently No. 8. As many critics have pointed out, the Romanians, while certainly stronger than in the past, have benefitted from being placed in what isby far the weakest of the Euro 2016 qualifying groups alongside Northern Ireland, Hungary, the Faroe Islands, Finland and Greece.
Portugal, which had a decidedly poor 2014 World Cup, is No. 7.Since crashing out of the tournament last summer in a group containing eventual champ Germany, the USA and Ghana, Portugal has lost at home to Albania (No. 36), away to France (No. 22), at home to theCape Verde Islands (No. 52), and away to Italy (No. 17).
France, the host of Euro 2016, made it to the quarterfinal of the 2014 World Cup, but is ranked all the way down at No. 22.Since it qualifies automatically as the host of the European championship, Les Bleus does not play any competitive matches. However, FIFA’s rankings penalize countries that don’t playcompetitive matches. For example, the rankings weigh Euro qualifiers as being 2.5 times more important than international friendlies.
The rankings reward a strong showing in aconfederation-level competition with an importance-factor of three, meaning that a strong showing in this month’s Gold Cup would see the USA, Mexico and other Concacaf teams receive asubstantial rankings boost. But that doesn’t mean that parity will return.
The main problem with FIFA’s current rankings scheme is that the international calendar is not uniform.Countries in North America are playing different kinds of matches with a different weighted values attached to them while countries in Europe and South America have something totally different goingon. If everyone played friendlies at the same time, or if each confederation held their continental championship at the same time, FIFA’s rankings wouldn’t be having the problemsit’s having right now.
That being said, the actual rules for the FIFA ranking system, which aredetailed by Manfred here, are also unnecessarily convoluted. Why doesn’t FIFA figure out a way to rank the countries using a polling system of coaches or media professionals? It would be fareasier to ask professionals in the game how they rate the field rather than relying on such a messy system.
As Manfred points out, it would be one thing if the FIFA rankingsdidn’t matter, but FIFA now uses its rankings to determine seeding at the World Cup. It’s unlikely that anyone who closely follows the international game would feel satisfied withFIFA’s July rankings. Soccer’s world governing body can’t be happy with them, either, so it’s time to look into changing them, again.
Can you imagine ifWales or Romania is seeded at the next World Cup?
Great, you want to turn it into a popularity contest just like college football? If Wales/Romania beat Germany/Spain/Italy on the pitch they should be rewarded for it by getting ranking points and not be penalized because in the past those countries have been weak, or even worse, because some media hack thinks that one of the perennial powers is better because of their history, or because their players are household names. As for weak Euro qualifying groups you can only play the teams you’re pooled with. Then there are teams like the Dutch, who are having trouble in a supposedly weak group; a popularity contest before the games started would have had them top of their group (ie better ranking). And even when the tournament starts, you might wind up in a weak group too because of the draw.
I don’t believe one second that FIFA’s system is just or fair. It most certainly not very well thought out and it seems to be heavily weighted for the Euro teams… at least, that is the way I read it, and btw, no one is asking that it be turned into a popularity contest, the author is only asking that “…it’s time to look into changing them, again…(sic)” As for Wales and Romania being seeded, this is just about akin to hosting the MWC in Qatar – not withstanding the summer heat, and after all the teams will play in completely air conditioned stadia… that no one will ever use again – if that WC is allowed to remain in that country!
I think ranking teams within their own confederation is the only relevant positioning, outside of world cup and confederation Champions League seedings. For Concacaf, it’s worthless until the year before the next World Cup.
FIFA ranking is not different than league tables. All depends on recent results. Last season, Man United was 7th in the EPL. If you go by their history, they should be always first. There must be some ranking procedure. If people have a better ranking protocol, they should suggest it to FIFA. My only concern is that the host countries’ games should be valued higher than a friendly.
Don’t worry about the FIFA ranking system. Its only purpose, the only reason it exists, is so the media can refer to it in lieu of independent thought.
Rankings?…bunch of crap. FIFA should bring its “laws of the game’ into the 21st century; the game needs an injection of rule modifications in order to have clarity and more scoring.
Here’s the problem: the best way to game the system is to play as few friendlies as possible. Consider: The United States FELL seven spots last month, in a month where they beat both Germany and the Netherlands, both of whom are ranked in the top five! Yes, that’s in a system you would expect to be in an Onion article, but it’s entirely true!Better idea: Have the denominator be the weighted number of matches played (ie. have the total number of “importance of match” figures be the denominator, rather than the simple number of matches).
LOL…USA make your own “ranking” where you will be the “greatest”…The USA benefit that they are part of Concacaf, which gives them the same points in the Ranking for beating, Cuba or Haiti or Canada as if Holland beats the Czechs,Germany,Italy etc.,for example…