They do. Here’s why:
[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK] Before we start a caveat is needed. To justify the spot you need to come at the question from the perspective that teams from outside South America and Europe deserve to be in the mix, even if it’s clear that there are stronger teams from those confederations that are missing out. If you feel that’s important and you are OK with a little less than half of the spots going to CONCACAF, Asia and Africa then you can buy four full slots for CONCACAF. If you disagree with that concept, then no amount of logic or statistics will change your mind.
Assuming that 13.5 spots in total are available for the non traditional areas – and giving a .5 to Oceania – you have 13 spots to distribute. Those spots should be given on merit, within the context of the three confederations involved.
Since FIFA went to 32 teams there has been 50 teams from CONCACAF, Asia and Africa in the Finals. Of those 50, 13 have been from CONCACAF, 21 from Africa and 16 from Asia. Comparing apples to apples we can look at the average amount of points those teams received in the group stages at the Finals.
CONCACAF – 3.0 (4, 5, 1, 0, 1, 4, 1, 4, 4, 7, 5, 0, 3)
Africa – 2.6 (4, 1, 1, 4, 0, 4, 3, 2, 6, 0, 1, 5, 4, 4, 1, 1, 4, 2, 2, 6, 1)
Asia – 2.5 (4, 4, 6, 0, 1, 1, 4, 1, 0, 7, 0, 7, 1, 1, 3, 0)
CONCACAF has had the most average points of the three “minor” confederations. Even with the adjustment apparently coming it’s still receiving the least number of spots. Other than South Korea in 2002 it’s not as if the big (again, context) teams in any of the three confederations are going deep into the tournament.
Looking at those numbers, It’s unclear how you can argue four is too much.
HT to Out of Touch, who first used this formula lastr year
- Read more...
- 312 views