Paul Marcuccitti is a passionate
soccer fan from Australia who will share his views about the World Cup in this column.
Read earlier columns
The wrong question
This website has been asking whether or not Oceania deserves a
guaranteed spot in the World Cup. The poll has been neck and neck and
that doesn't surprise me seeing as there are plenty of good reasons why
at least one Oceania team should be at the finals and just as many
reasons why an automatic place for our much-maligned confederation is a
bad idea. FIFA was obviously troubled by the debate as well seeing as it
initially awarded Oceania a full place at Germany 2006 only to withdraw
it months later.
I've held my fire over this issue thus far. Overall, I'd probably prefer
that Oceania did get a spot but you'd expect that from an Australian. I
can, however, see the drawbacks.
What I'd rather promote, is a debate not about whether Oceania gets a
spot but how the best Oceanic team (or teams) gets treated through the
Before I warm to that subject, I'll put some perspectives on what I
regard as the wrong question: Does Oceania deserve a guaranteed spot?
On the "Yes" side is the fact that Oceania represents a corner of the
globe and a "World Cup" should include representation from each corner
of the globe (FIFA's own rhetoric has been consistent with arguments of
that nature for years). In fact, a few years ago, Oceania was given
"full confederation status". Now, call me stupid, but I still don't
exactly know what "full confederation status" actually means or what it
entitles you to. (One thing's for certain, your entitlements as a "full
confederation" don't necessarily extend to a place at the World Cup
Then there's the "development" argument. Other confederations have been
(or are) over represented at the finals, supposedly, to give their teams
the chance to improve at the highest level. In 1998 CONCACAF's
allocation of three places was a touch farcical given how unlikely two
of its teams (Jamaica and the USA) were to progress beyond the group
stage. At Korea/Japan, CONCACAF did so well that its allocation
increased for 2006. What about Africa? It raced from two places to five
in no time at all and that's despite the fact that Africa has never had
more than one team advance past the group stage at a World Cup
tournament. Asia? Its four teams at the 1998 finals finished with a
combined record of 1 win (over the USA), 2 draws and 9 losses (a
statistic I have to temper with the fact that one of those Asian teams
knocked Australia out in qualifying for that tournament). And while
South Korea and Japan performed brilliantly on home soil in 2002, China
and Saudi Arabia were almost embarrassing. [Fiji might have done
So there's a performance argument as well. The World Cup finals have not
seen a team from Oceania since 1982 so we can't compare ourselves on
that front. But Australia, at least, has had excellent results in both
friendlies and the Confederations Cup. Not only have the Socceroos
beaten Mexico (twice) and Uruguay at the Confederations Cup but France
and Brazil as well. The tournament may be considered a bit of a joke to
many football fans but, nonetheless, the only other victories by teams
from the "lesser" confederations over top European/South American
opposition have been: USA over Germany in 1999, Mexico (at home) over
Brazil in the 1999 Final and Cameroon over Brazil last year.
Ironically enough, New Zealand's poor performance at last year's
Confederations Cup was used as one of the excuses for FIFA's decision to
return the extra half a qualifying place it had originally awarded to
Oceania back to South America. [Hilariously, FIFA's other excuse was the
turmoil/chaos within the ranks of Australian soccer's governing body.
Presumably South America is a bastion of good administration, free from
politicking, corruption and in-fighting.]
Now you might say "but you haven't qualified for the World Cup finals
since..." and you'd have a point. But since New Zealand qualified in
1982, the Oceanic winner has had to face a sudden death play-off against
a team from Europe or South America in every cycle except France '98.
And politics has played its part in keeping things that way. Note that
as soon as Oceania went back to half a place and CONMEBOL went back up
to four and a half, Asia and CONCACAF insisted that they still play-off
against each other and not against either Oceania or CONMEBOL.
Why would they do a thing like that? Surely Asia, with its proximity to
Oceania, could see the sense in playing off against its neighbour?
Surely it makes more sense that the teams from the Americas played off
against each other? But no, the Asians are scared of us (and, no doubt,
even more scared of the South Americans). They haven't forgotten the
Iranians' Houdini act saving them after being slaughtered by the
Socceroos in 1997 and they won't risk it happening again. Playing off
against Jamaica (beaten by Australia last year) or Honduras gives them a
better chance of getting a 5th team (an extra embarrassment) to Germany
Hmmm, I'm starting to think I've built a reasonable case for direct
qualification for Oceania. So perhaps its time for the down side.
Well for starters, it'll be way too easy for the Aussies, won't it? Call
that arrogance if you like but it's a fact. In the last three qualifying
cycles, the Oceanic winner has been decided by a home and away play-off
between the top two teams. You'll be amazed to learn that on each
occasion, the top two were Australia and New Zealand. Australia won
every time and the aggregate scores were: 4-0 in 1993, 5-0 in 1997 and
6-1 in 2001. OK, so the Kiwis have beaten us in a couple of Oceania
Nations Cups in recent times but we didn't field anything like our best
team in those tournaments. And yes, that was a mistake but it doesn't
change the fact that our best team is way ahead of anything else in the
I used to point at how easy the Mexicans had it in CONCACAF because
their pass to the World Cup finals was nearly as guaranteed as
Australia's would be if Oceania had a full place at the finals. In
recent years, other CONCACAF nations have improved (most notably, of
course, USA) but you'd still expect that Mexico will make it more often
than not. You should have to earn your place at the finals and I'm not
sure that knocking over a handful of small rugby playing countries is
really earning anything.
And would it really do us that much good? Going to the World Cup finals
when our only competitive matches have been against New Zealand, Fiji
and co? The experience of playing at the World Cup finals might be
invaluable but our build up to them would consist entirely of
friendlies. Every other confederation offers better competition - the
chance to play qualifiers of higher quality. Getting through tough
qualifiers is good preparation for the finals but you won't get many in
this part of the world.
Finally, if we did make it to the finals as a result of a guaranteed
place for Oceania, we'd really be under the microscope. Given the nature
of the Oceania debate in recent years, higher standards will apply to
Australia (OK, or New Zealand). A woeful three matches, or even a narrow
failure to reach the Second Round, will no doubt see
Africa/CONCACAF/Asia jumping up and down and asking what the point of
all that was (while they ignore how badly their lesser teams perform).
Then the automatic place for Oceania might get taken away and the debate
will never end.
It might surprise people around the world to learn that many Australian
soccer fans don't themselves believe that Oceania should have a full
qualifying place for the finals - for the reasons I've just described.
Now, what do we do about Oceania? What's the answer to the question of
how the Oceania winner gets treated?
My main concern ties in with what I've described as one of the drawbacks
of automatic qualification for our maligned confederation - the lack of
a good build-up through qualifying.
Once upon a time, the leading Oceania team (or teams) played off in
combined Asia/Oceania groups for World Cup qualification (this was
before we were so fortunately granted "full confederation status"). In
fact, it happened in three consecutive World Cup Cycles ('74, '78 and
'82). And, would you believe it? In two of those three series, an
Oceanic team qualified - and played some half-decent matches in the
This is really all I'd ask for now. Put the best Oceania team in one of
Asia's final groups. If we're good enough to make it from there, our
preparation for the finals would be better and you couldn't really say
that we didn't deserve it.
Because here's the real problem with existing arrangements: the winner
of Oceania is denied a right that teams from every other confederation
have and that's the ability to qualify directly for the World Cup finals
by winning (or finishing high up in) a group with a league system. When
Iran played off for a finals place against Republic of Ireland in 2001,
it was because neither was able to WIN its qualification group. When
Australia played Uruguay in that year, Uruguay had finished 5th in
CONMEBOL. The South Americans could have qualified directly if they'd
done well enough in their group. Australia, however, can't avoid a
sudden-death play-off. (And think, who would have been better prepared?
The team that had 18 tough qualifiers against quality opposition or the
team that beat up a few small islands?)
Now, repeat after me:
The unfairness does not lie in the fact that Oceania does not have an
automatic spot in the finals. What's unfair is that the Oceania winner's
fate is always decided in a sudden-death play-off against a team that
could have qualified through a group and had better quality qualifiers
to prepare for the two play-off matches.
A sudden-death play-off means that all your good work can be undone in 5
minutes - as happened to Australia in 1997. At least in a league system,
even one where only the winner advances, there is usually some chance
for redress. If Australia was told tomorrow that it had to qualify
through any confederation (even Europe or CONMEBOL) you wouldn't hear
any complaints from me IF we got to go through the group phase in the
same way that all the teams in those confederations do. (Though please,
someone tell CONMEBOL to go with two qualifying groups, not one.)
Of course, it would make most sense for Australia or New Zealand (hey,
why not both?) to go through the final groups of Asia. But at present,
the Asians don't want us. This is despite the fact that with our half a
place and their four and a half places, we would have a fair chance of
being granted a combined five places at the finals if we presented FIFA
with decisive qualification groups which included the best eight to ten
Asian teams and the best team (or best two teams) from Oceania. It isn't
going to happen in the 2006 cycle and if South America knocks us off
again and if Asia loses its play-off with CONCACAF, guess what? We end
up with four places between us.
The challenge for Oceania is to now build (or rebuild) a relationship
with Asia so that this sort of plan might be more than the want of an
obscure columnist. Along with that, Oceania must start persuading FIFA
that our route to the finals is the problem - not whether or not we get
a full place there.
So please, Herr Blatter and friends, don't give us an automatic spot,
just a fair crack at qualification. Is that too much to ask?
Info on how
the World Cup was founded and about the trophy as well.
on every match in every tournament.
Interesting columns about the past, present and future of the World Cup.
with appearances in the World Cup. Detailed info on every country.
of many of the most influential players in history.
An A-Z collection
of strange and different stories in World Cup history.
A big collection
of various statistics and records.
since it was introduced in 1966.
knowledge about the WC. Three different levels. No prizes, just for fun.
lots of stuff. For instance Best Goals, Best Players and Best Matches.
of links to other soccer sites with World Cup connection.
and buttons for you to link to us if you want.
A little information
on who keeps this site available.