The future of World Cup/Euro Qualifying: Suggestion

[ecc]

I think most fans in the "bigger" football countries ("bigger" meaning countries with a larger population and/or high FIFA ranking) are pretty fed up with international breaks that see their national team play "small" countries where the outcome is certain.

With all due respect to the good people of Andorra, Gibraltar, San Marino and so on I really cannot see why UEFA/FIFA have decided to include them in qualifying for their tournaments.

But they have and they cannot turn round and strip them off that right.

I think the way forward is to take the idea of the Nations League ie groups based on UEFA rankings and strengthen the make-up of the qualifying groups.

The lower-ranking countries could take part in a preliminary round or simply use the Nations League matches as a qualifying round.

I think this will come as we know clubs don't like releasing their players for international duty and I can understand their point to a certain extent when England are playing pretty pointless matches such as the two against Andorra. I know England didn't hammer them but I really don't think the players approach these matches as they do when facing more competitive nations.

There would be more interest if England weren't certain of qualifying every time. More competitive matches would also be of more use to the players for the final phase.

Just my opinion.

[TheFamilyCat]

The lesser nations playing each other more frequently, rather than just turning up and parking the bus against the likes of England will be better for their development too.

[bfcmik]

How would the best teams knocking each out be good for the world cup?

And clubs have always moaned about releasing players for internationals.

[yTib]

england vs andorra is for the tourists.

i'd rather go to benidorm.

[ecc]

How would the best teams knocking each out be good for the world cup?

And clubs have always moaned about releasing players for internationals.

I'm not saying having a group such as England, Spain, France and Portugal.

What I am saying is to have, for example:

England, Portugal, Croatia, Georgia and Iceland. And if they insist on a sixth country that could be, I don't know, Moldavia.

[dvalley69]

I'm not saying having a group such as England, Spain, France and Portugal.

What I am saying is to have, for example:

England, Portugal, Croatia, Georgia and Iceland. And if they insist on a sixth country that could be, I don't know, Moldavia.

The whole system has been designed to make sure all the "big" nations are at the WC; this is purely for commercial reasons. It would be a disaster if, for example, Georgia had a mega campaign and somehow Portugal didn't get to a WC from a commercial POV. This is exactly what FIFA/UEFA is trying to avoid. Unfortunately, let's face facts, the only consideration for those running the game is this, not competiveness.

[SydneyClaret]

Totally agree with the original idea. All the other confederations have preliminary rounds for the minnow countries. Could quite easily have got the draw down to 48 teams and had 12 groups of 4 this time. The international breaks are to frequent nowadays. Alternatively, make the teams play without their on duty international players.

[claretonthecoast1882]

The current system serves the purpose of the minnows like San Marino, Liechtenstein & Scotland playing a few games against footballing countries in the hope of them developing.

Then once the qualifying stages are complete the proper teams play each other in the tournament proper.

[Tribesmen]

Last I read that all countries get a minimum of £14million for TV rights , cut this off and grass roots will sufer . It's not all about the big boys getting all the cake . Maybe if they gave more money to England maybe they would win something , well they haven't in the last 60 years anyway .

[martin_p]

How does any of this make FIFA richer?

[jrgbfc]

The lesser nations playing each other more frequently, rather than just turning up and parking the bus against the likes of England will be better for their development too.

I think this was partly the thinking behind the Nations league. Maybe that could be used as pre qualifying?

[SouthLondonexile]

You raise a reasonable argument there ecc.
To take this discussion further i really think these internationals - as important as they are - are quite disruptive to teams who wish to keep a team morale and momentum going.
For Burnley with so many new faces coming together only to be held back by these qualifiers makes me uneasy and impatient to get established. Especially so after the robbery that is VAR and Old Trafford extra time.

[dibraidio]

Strikes me that increasing the number of games just devalues the product they're so desperate to monetise. When I was a kid I always thought that an international was a harder game, the best against the best, I thought scoring a goal for your country was as good as you could get. Turns out it's far easier to score for England than it is for your club for many of the players as they get to play teams who would struggle in League Two.

[Pickles]

I'm for a World Cup with as many countries as possible. It's a world cup. It's about showcasing and celebrating football from all corners. More diversity, cultures, underdogs, styles, shocks, surprises and stories. Some of the best memories involve the unexpected or lesser known teams.

[jrgbfc]

Strikes me that increasing the number of games just devalues the product they're so desperate to monetise. When I was a kid I always thought that an international was a harder game, the best against the best, I thought scoring a goal for your country was as good as you could get. Turns out it's far easier to score for England than it is for your club for many of the players as they get to play teams who would struggle in League Two.

I'm sure the standard has got worse. Was thinking last night about all the great players that came out of the old Yugoslavia back in the 90s, i know England played well but Serbia were absolutely abysmal.

[dibraidio]

I'm for a World Cup with as many countries as possible. It's a world cup. It's about showcasing and celebrating football from all corners. More diversity, cultures, underdogs, styles, shocks, surprises and stories. Some of the best memories involve the unexpected or lesser known teams.

If you look at a team like the Cook Islands, they have a massive number of games to play against lower nations and never get anywhere near qualifying for a major competition and rarely play against a major nation. In 2022 New Zealand had a play off as the winners of the OCF region against the 4th placed team in CONCACAF, they lost to Costa Rica in a single leg match and failed to qualify for the world cup. I don't think non-European nations get the same exposure or opportunities at all as teams like Gibraltar and San Marino who have a lower FIFA ranking.

Of course the UEFA nations league is a purely European competition, not sure how that could be integrated into world cup qualification. I'm not sure that the footballing powers that be would do anything to reduce the number of games.

[Falcon]

Run it like the North American or Asian federations do.

Have a first round featuring only the lower ranked teams only to weed them down to just a small number, before adding the big boys in for round two.

For example:

55 UEFA nations competing for 16 World Cup places:

Round 1:
Teams ranked 25-55 are split into 7 groups of 4 and 1 group of 3, group winners progress to round 2.

Round 2:
Teams ranked 1-24 joined by the 8 first round winners, and are split into 8 groups of 4. Top 2 in each group qualify for the World Cup.

Easy peasy.