A truly ‘World’ Cup
In a few weeks the FIFA World Cup will take place in Brazil, and the eyes of the world will turn to South America to follow the fortunes of thirty-two
qualifiers. It is the twentieth time that teams have officially gathered for a
World Championship, and there will be a huge global television audience,
boosted by internet access and media saturation. It is big, big business. An
indication of how big is that last time FIFA, the world governing body, produced
a seventy-three page document called ‘Television Audience Report’ to analyse in
minute detail just how many people watched the finals in South Africa. The main
concern of the report is how many people are ‘reached’ by coverage, and
consequently how much influence the games have had in furthering the fortunes
of the senior partners of FIFA; which include Adidas, Coca-Cola, Sony and Visa.
FIFA find it difficult, and financially compromising, when
things do not go to plan. They are still baffled as to how the Beautiful Game
has failed to make in-roads into India,
and has only had limited success in the USA. There is uncomfortable
shuffling of paper when politically sensitive issues rear up, such as their
refusal to sanction any of their member nations playing against Tibet. Things
that do not fit into the big money-making plan are gently and subtly
manipulated so that, in time, the problem goes away.
A problem for FIFA is that professional sport is still
unpredictable and no matter how careful the organisers try to be to keep
everyone happy, mistakes happen. I use the term ‘mistake’ here in the FIFA
sense of an event that does not maximise revenue for everyone at the top table.
A clear example this time was the European qualification of teams. In the play-off
to decide the remaining finalists after the group winners had been decided, Sweden were drawn to play Portugal. It
might not seem like an important mistake until you look down the team-sheets of
the two countries. Cristiano Ronaldo is Portuguese. Zlatan Ibrahimovic is
Swedish. Over two games, the World Cup was bound to lose one of its star
players, eliminated before even a ball has been kicked in the final stages.
Both players are world stars, and both earn millions through lucrative sponsorship
deals. Both raise the status of their national teams and both would grace the
finals in Brazil.
Thankfully for everyone concerned, the bigger world star prevailed
and the immaculate pectorals of Cristiano Ronaldo will grace the final stages,
while poor Zlatan lies on a different beach somewhere, thinking about his next
sponsorship deal.
It is not the first time, though, that things did not go
quite according to plan. In 1974, when there were only sixteen teams taking
part; England, France, Spain,
Hungary, Mexico and the USSR
did not qualify for the finals in West Germany. England, Spain
and France
all had large television audiences to satisfy. Mexico were the previous hosts. Hungary were a
fading former football powerhouse. The USSR
were disqualified after a shameful play-off against Chile. They failed to turn up in Santiago after a coup d’état.
Although the 1974 World Cup was meticulously organised by West Germany,
and won by the home team, it must have seemed rather flat, especially for PaniniStickers. They had produced a glossy sticker album for the children of Europe, and had to shoe-horn in a special section at the
back featuring four stickers from each of the ‘big’ countries who had not
qualified.
In subsequent series, FIFA have gradually manipulated the
qualification procedures in line with their ‘vision’ for the spread of football
across the world. It is unlikely that a major European team will have problems
qualifying in future, as thirteen of the thirty-two places on offer go to
Europeans. Africa, so often viewed by FIFA as
an important market-place, received the finals tournament in 2010 and have five
guaranteed qualifiers in 2014. Asia have four or five places; but Oceania with limited population, televisual punch or
corporate value to big sponsors, have ‘half’ a place for each World Cup. What
that means is that the single qualifier still has to beat an Asian team in an eliminator.
So, in terms of making sure that the best players in the
world are seen every four years, FIFA have it about right. It is controlled,
and as much as possible predictable. Footballing backwaters are ignored.
The Australian FA became so disillusioned with the system
that it withdrew from Oceania qualification and ‘joined’ Asia,
to give themselves a better shot at qualification.
The FIFA website makes promising pronouncements about the
prospects of teams in the bottom half of its rankings. There are 209 FIFA
member associations. Realistically, any from the bottom one hundred could play
on forever and never make it to the finals. We will never see San Marino (208th) against the Turks and Caicos Islands (209th) in any World
Cup.
I think that is a shame.
It is at this point, every four years, that I dust off my
plan for a truly ‘world’ cup. It is so different to the current system that I
can guarantee that if any FIFA official ever read it, he (for it is always a
man) would wince, and have to lie down in a dark room.
My idea, quite simply, is to play the qualification like the
FA Cup. You put all the names into a hat, and draw all the teams against each
other, irrespective of global status, FIFA Ranking or geographical location.
It would work like this: in the first round, 162 teams are
drawn against each other. 81 would be knocked out, leaving another 81 to
advance in the competition and meet the other 47 who had been lucky enough to
be given a ‘bye’ in the first round. You then have 128 teams, who are drawn
again, just like in the FA Cup. You continue until you have whittled it down to
32 or 16 teams, or however many you want to take part in a ‘finals’ tournament in
whichever country has bribed FIFA the most heavily to stage it.
The possibility for upset is vast. Brazil and Argentina
might be paired against each other in the first round, as might England and Scotland.
Equally, the possibility for excitement is unconfined. Imagine
what might happen if Brazil,
for example, had to play a one-game eliminator in North Korea. Or if Spain were drawn against Andorra. In a
twelve-game group style qualification, as happens now, the wise money would be
on Brazil and Spain. But how
about in a single game?
There are many very sensible objections to such an
unpredictable World Cup. The main problem is travel. How would the stars of Italy find the time to travel to Indonesia?
Could it be afforded? To this objection I would simply state that FIFA, in
their wisdom, have decided that Qatar
will host the 2022 World Cup in desert conditions. Suddenly my idea does not
seem quite as silly. Countries from all over the world will be flown into the
desert state, which at ridiculous cost will have to build indoor stadia from
scratch. Money talks.
The other main objection is one of spectacle. If the major
footballing nations were eliminated in football backwaters, would the finals be
worth watching? To this I counter that to truly be world champions, a country
needs to be able to confidently approach any opposition and prevail. If Spain, the current World Champions, cannot beat Tonga or Andorra
or Sierra Leone,
can they truly claim to be the best team in the world?
