Mike Gibbons is an aspiring young journalist
from the UK who has followed the World Cup with passion from an early age. He will share his views about the past, present and future of
this event.
Mail Mike
Read earlier columns
|
|
|
The World Cup numbers game
Well, we’re back, and it feels like we’ve never been away. It’s good to be home, good to be writing about the World Cup
again, and kind of appropriate as the long haul to Germany 2006, at least for the South American teams, has just begun. As
Peter pointed out in his article, 199 teams are all set to battle it out for the 31 remaining tickets to the greatest show on earth.
That’s right, 31 places. Not 36, as was threatened by FIFA a few months ago, and not 30, as was the case for Japan/Korea
02 and France 98. You may get the sense that there are a couple of gripes set to blemish what should be a nice fluffy article
on how much I love the World Cup and how pleased I am to be writing about it again. You would be right.
First things first, I think it is absolutely ridiculous that Brazil have to qualify for the next World Cup. Before you start to think
I’m in the camp that always wants Brazil to be in there regardless, so they can weave their particular brand of magic, think
again. If Brazil had not qualified for the last World Cup, which was an all to frightening reality for them at one point, I could
not have cared less. They weren’t world champions then.
Here’s the deal – you win the World Cup, you get the right to defend that title at the next tournament. You rightfully enjoy the
four years of your reign, before turning up at the next tournament to play in the opening fixture. Everyone will wonder if you
can do it again, whether the same stars can shine four years on. Everyone will know – this team are the world champions.
It’s their title; we have to take it off them.
Not for FIFA though, who have now binned this ‘outdated’ concept for all time. Does the World heavyweight champion win
fifty fights, then fight for and win the title, only to be told he then must fight his way through all of those contenders again, even
the part-time milkmen and bar-keepers of his first few contests? Of course he doesn’t. Lord knows Brazil isn’t my favourite
football team on the planet but at last years World Cup, football’s world heavyweight championship, they beat all comers.
They won their title and by definition they should have the right to defend it.
Some of you are probably wondering what the problem is – it’s Brazil, how can THEY not qualify, especially as five of the
ten CONMEBOL teams can go through. Well, you may have a point. Only seven nations have ever won the biggest prize in
the game and all of them are usually present at the final stages (possible exception Uruguay, but their last win was over fifty
years ago). Consider this though – at France 98, Holland were within a few penalties of the final. Had they not
self-destructed in the shoot-out (I know, I know, but stick with it) they could well have won the tournament. If FIFA’s
concept of making the champions go through qualification had existed back then, remember which major footballing nation
was the glaring omission from last years finals, depriving the tourname! nt of Davids, van Nistelrooy, Kluivert and Makaay?
Holland were squeezed out of a ridiculously loaded qualifying group by Portugal and the Republic of Ireland, and therein lies
the danger, especially in the European qualifying groups.
Winning the World Cup is not like rolling out of bed and sticking the kettle on, it takes years of planning, hard work,
commitment and the ability of the players to raise their game to even higher levels, right through the qualifiers, group matches,
knockout phases and the final itself. I suppose the prospect of the World Cup holders not qualifying for the World Cup may
never happen (imagine the outcry if it did), but to me it’s just one more layer of gloss stripped off the tournament I love.
Another is the number of participants in the Finals seems set to spiral out of control. FIFA did for a small while pimp the idea
of having 36 teams in the finals, provided it could still retain the quality and integrity of the tournament (!).
It’s time to ask the question – just how big do we want the World Cup to be? 36 teams = 9 groups of four, so which
Einstein is in charge of sorting out the seven best runners-up out of nine to make a 16 team knockout round? Where are we
heading with this – 40 teams? 48 teams? Are we to reach the point where the tournament is played as a straight knockout
cup competition as in 1934 and 1938?
Thankfully FIFA backed down on this and kept it to 32, but the very fact that they’ve thought about it suggests it’s in the
pipeline for the future. Why? We could go all around the houses and say it’s about opening up more places for Africa, Asia
or Oceania, but let’s cut to the chase, it’s a money-driven objective. The bigger the tournament, the more money it will
generate (in theory).
One thing does irk about the reduction to 32 teams, and that is the treatment of Oceania. Guaranteed (although we’ve all
heard this before – when will Africa get its World Cup Finals exactly?) a place in the 36 team schematic, the backing down to
32 teams caused FIFA abruptly to withdraw the automatic place for Oceania. After years of going cap in hand to FIFA and
practically begging for a place at the table, the Oceania Confederation have been shafted yet again. Just how much longer
can FIFA justify this? I’ve written previously about the continental qualifying system, but if we must persevere with it then
surely all six should be represented? We’re only talking one place after all, and I’m sure most people would rather see a
more tha! n useful Australia team at the finals than the lame, non-committal performance of Saudi Arabia last time out.
Isn’t there also a danger the World Cup could outgrow the ability for one nation to host it? After all, do they co-host the
Olympics? Co-hosting has never sat right with me. I know Euro 2000 (probably the best international tournament in my
lifetime) and the last World Cup were co-hosted, but I think the focus should be on one country – wasn’t it a little harsh that
South Korea, whose team and fans contributed so much to last years event, watched the final be played in Japan? I am
pleased at least to see a return to sense for Portugal 2004 and Germany 2006. If we spread the tournament thinly over
multiple countries you drain the intensity you get with one host nation. Look no further than the Rugby World Cup of 1999,
held in five nations no less and poorly attended.
Despite its flaws, I still love the World Cup, I just think it’s very poorly organised. Are we one day to see a World Cup first
round fixture of Scotland versus Zimbabwe, the winner through to face Norway in round 2 of the
Colombia/Venezuela/Chile/Peru World Cup Finals? Even more frightening, will it exclusively be yours for just £9.99 on
pay-per-view TV?
If I saw that at eight years old, something tells me I wouldn’t be writing about it seventeen years later.
|
[HOME]
BACKGROUND
Info on how
the World Cup was founded and about the trophy as well. |
THE
WORLD CUPS
Detailed info
on every match in every tournament. |
COLUMNISTS
Interesting columns about the past, present and future of the World Cup. |
THE
NATIONS
Every nation
with appearances in the World Cup. Detailed info on every country. |
LEGENDS
Player profiles
of many of the most influential players in history. |
A-Z STORIES
An A-Z collection
of strange and different stories in World Cup history. |
STATISTICS
A big collection
of various statistics and records. |
MASCOTS
Every mascot
since it was introduced in 1966. |
QUIZ
Test your
knowledge about the WC. Three different levels. No prizes, just for fun. |
TOP
10 RANKINGS
Rankings of
lots of stuff. For instance Best Goals, Best Players and Best Matches. |
LINKS
Our collection
of links to other soccer sites with World Cup connection. |
LINK
TO
Some banners
and buttons for you to link to us if you want. |
ABOUT
US
A little information
on who keeps this site available. |
|
