I hate that the hosts get an auto spot and a deserving team is left out. The World Cup is not lacking for fans or atmosphere who cares if the host fans are able to support their team?
Earn your spot in the World Cup

Wasn't FIFA really fearful of U.S.A not qualifying for the second round in 94? Colombia was a supposed team that could go deep in to the tournament, Romania was strong and the Swiss were pretty good aswell.

As far as the host getting an automatic birth I don't have a problem with, I did have a problem with winners of the previous cups not having to qualify. That meant for years their were no battles in qualifiers between brazil and argentina!

World Cup is not lacking for fans or atmosphere who cares if the host fans are able to support their team?
Earn your spot in the World Cup

Posted by: jgildea | April 22, 2008 10:17 AM

________________________________________

Wasn't there an investigation into FIFA paying people in Japan and Korea in 2002 to show up to games and make stadiums look semi-full? Yet their games were complete sell-outs. I think you can't run the risk of the country you are having the cup in not be excited and thrilled about their own team in the cup.

Everyone was saying Korea and or Japan were going to be the first teams not to make the second round, same with the US in 94. Still South Africa has to be a favorite to not advance the way they are playing. I think South Africa is the best bet since the US in 94 to not make it out of their group.

I agree with DCchilidog in that the previous winner should still have to qualify for the next Cup.

As for the host country gaining an automatic berth, it should stay. It's the world's game and all segments of the world should be able to participate.

I feel exactly the opposite of JC. Let the reigning champion have an automatic bid, but make the host country qualify. It was one thing when only the perennial powers hosted, but now that they let lesser countries host, including those that have never qualified before, a symbol of credibility is important.

and I meant to add that all segments of the world DO participate. That is why there is regional qualifying.

Goff, have you heard anything about this US Boca Juniors tour of the US, mainly of playing in Washington DC this July 12-26? Could a DC vs. Boca friendly be in the works soon?? Here's the article in spanish for those that are curious. It also states in the article that they will be playing Mexican sides also in Washington DC.... which I dont get, but who knows. Goff you hear about anything close to this?

http://espanol.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080419/deportes/fbl_arg

I think you can't run the risk of the country you are having the cup in not be excited and thrilled about their own team in the cup.
==========================================

If I recall correctly, in '94 the advance prediction was that attendance would be split roughly 50-50 between domestic and visiting fans, and hotel operators and others planned accordingly. In fact, the number of foreign football fans fell well below projections, in part because the U.S. dollar was strong at the time. However, American sports fans stepped into the breach, and most of the matches sold out, but with a split that was closer to 70-30. Everyone went away happy, except for hotel operators who were stuck with vacant rooms. If the U.S. hadn't been in the tournament, would there have been such a level of domestic interest?

So maybe realdeal has a point. In the case of South Africa in '10, it may be concerns about crime, transportation, amenities, etc., that keep the furriners away, so they may be relying heavily on locals to fill the venues. And this in a country with historical soccer/rugby fault lines that largely parallel racial fault lines, and which are only slowly being eroded. So FIFA had better hope that the country gets behind the Bafana Bafana.

Speaking of which, are they now past the point where any remaining concerns about stadiums/infrastructure/logistics/whatever could keep the tournament from coming off as planned?

Can you imagine if our country hosted the WC again, but weren't in it? That would just be depressing...keep it the way it is, but I think the last winner should still automatically get a bid.

A lot of it depends on the draw. If they get a second tier Euro team (Poland or N. Ireland for example) the #3 CONCACAF team and the #5 Asia team they can move through.

If they get England, Mexico and Austrailia they're toast.

The other African nations would be very well represented and would more than make up for the fact that S. Africa's sorry excuse for a team was not in it.
Sorry I am kinda pissy today, but the idea of The Netherlands or another team like that not making it in and S. Africa being there would be sad.

South Africa have a chance, because I think it's going to be a bonkers tournament - like most seem to be when they are outside of Europe. Could bode well for the US as well!

For all the BS you have to put up with at host, you should be in it. I don't think even FIFA is so arrogant that they would have someone build billions of dollars worth of stadiums and infrastructure and security measures, then say, "Now go away and sit on the sidelines."

Is it an advantage or disadvantage not having to play world cup qualifiers if you have an automatic birth? Are you going to rely on friendlies to see who best fits your squad?

Perhaps they should keep the automatic bid for the host country, but give greater weight to the competitive position of the country's national team in the process. South Africa is now 69th in the FIFA rankings, after a quick exit in the African championships earlier this year. I don't know where they were in '04, when the decision was made. Of course, such a criterion would have worked against the USA in '94 (a decision that was made in '88, I believe).

"However, American sports fans stepped into the breach, and most of the matches sold out, but with a split that was closer to 70-30. Everyone went away happy, except for hotel operators who were stuck with vacant rooms. If the U.S. hadn't been in the tournament, would there have been such a level of domestic interest?"

Very good points. My father and I went to RFK the day before Belgium-Saudi match in 94, got tickets and saw the goal of the tournament the next afternoon!

When I heard that "Carlos Alberto Parreira, the renowned Brazilian, stepped down as South Africa's national team coach" I assumed the best man to ride in and take the job was Bruce Arena.

It does make some sense that Parreira is staying on in some consulting capacity while a fellow Brazilian will coach South Africa, but I do think it would have been the ideal job for Arena to step into and prove that 2002 wasn't a fluke.

Will Arena ever coach again?

If Boca plays a Mexican squad, you can probably bet their playing Chivas who will also be in the DC area as part of SuperLiga.

@jgildea

Its called the World Cup for a reason, not the Euro Cup+friends. UEFA knows how many slots they get each cycle and they determine how to select the teams that qualify.

Besides a team is only as good as their record says they are. If the Dutch or England isn't good enough to qualify for this WC they have nobody to blame but themselves.

In 2010, will South Africa become the first World Cup host to fail to reach the knockout stages?

South Africa will most likely get through to the second round. Of course a lot depends on the draw, but the host teams have typically been given a "seed" for the draw, have they not? South Africa should be in a position to advance out of their group. Anything can happen.

Anyone know what are the chances of the U.S. hosting another World Cup in the next 20 years????

I have no problem w/ the host country or the champion getting an automatic bid (I like the idea of the champion defending their title).

However, I think both should come at the expense of their respective federations.

FWIW, Egypt (currently ranked 30th) and Morocco (ranked 46th) were the other serious candidates to host the next WC. The highest-ranked African team is Ghana (14th), which also recently hosted the African Cup of Nations tournament more or less successfully.

They didn't have FIFA rankings when the USA was selected in '88. The earliest historical ranking I can find at the FIFA site is for December 1992, at which time the USA was ranked 24th. By coincidence, it was a 24-team tournament then.

I'm very much in favor of the host getting an auto bid but I do see a problem with them always being one of the "seeded" teams. I think this is the real advantage they get since it ensures that they don't have to play one of the top 7 teams in the world in the group stage. As a result the host country group is one of the weakest groups unless the host is truly deserving of the seed.

1994
Colombia
USA
Switzerland
Romania

2002
South Korea
USA
Portugal
Poland

2006
Japan
Belgium
Russia
Tunisia

All these groups have at best one team who was a "darkhorse" to win the tournament and the rest are decent to good teams. So what you end up with are relatively evenly matched groups where of course home crowds will push the host into the top 2 spots(or 3rd in the US' case)

Make that 2002 for the Japan group above

Yep they will be a seeded team. Which means they will likely get:

1. An unseeded Euro team (could be as good as England or Croatia or as low as Belgium or Israel if they got in, really there is no bottom, if San Marino got in they could be a potential draw)

2. Either a N. Americna or S. American (unseeded) team

3. An Asian or S./N. American team

I am assuming the pots will be thus:

Pot 1: Seeds (2 S.A., 5 Euro, host)
Pot 2: All remaining Euro teams (8)
Pot 3: Africa (5) plus N.A. (3) or remaining S.A. (3) *Note they can't draw another African team so it would have to be an N.A. or S.A. team.
Pot4: Asia (5) plus either N.A. or S.A. (3)

Now if N.A. gets 4 and S.A. has only 2 unseeded teams that could throw off the Pots a bit. In that case if Oceania (aka New Zealand) can upset the Asian #5 it would help make the groupings easier for the draw.

It is a World Cup without the best teams in the world. I am not a huge fan of that, but I understand why they are doing it and no doubt the US benefits as well.
That being said Africa would be represented regardless. I guess I should of said, If Ghana or The Ivory Coast does not make it so S. Africa can...

In May 2004, when the decision was made, the three candidates were pretty close together in terms of rankings: Morocco (32nd); Tunisia (34th); South Africa (40th). Cameroon, Nigeria, and Senegal were ranked higher, but they did not submit bids, and my guess is that only Nigeria could have put together a credible bid, if there was a lot of oil money behind it.

"Anyone know what are the chances of the U.S. hosting another World Cup in the next 20 years????"

I don't think anyone knows, but I'm guessing Fifa would be fairly keen on the idea.

I'm pretty sure the US is likely to formally bid to host the 2018 tournament, and I'd say they have a fairly decent shot of being selected as hosts.

I think that 2018 will go to England, 2022 here.

I guess I should of said, If Ghana or The Ivory Coast does not make it so S. Africa can...
==========================================

But Ghana, Cote D'Ivoire, etc., are competing for five slots, just as they were in '06, with South Africa being a sixth African entrant. I agree with KLB that the total number of slots per continent should be held constant. If the host nation gets an automatic bid, then it should go to a nation that likely would have qualified anyway.

It is a World Cup without the best teams in the world. I am not a huge fan of that, but I understand why they are doing it and no doubt the US benefits as well.
That being said Africa would be represented regardless. I guess I should of said, If Ghana or The Ivory Coast does not make it so S. Africa can...

Posted by: jgildea | April 22, 2008 11:41 AM

Not that I'm trying to pick on your posts...(hope you understand)

The top 12 teams from the Big East were better than much of the field in the NCAA tournament. They all didn't make it. Wouldn't you have rather seen Ohio State than Kent St.? What about VCU missing out even though they were far superior to GMU?

Was the tourney any worse for not having those teams? I didn't think so and I'm sure it will be the same for the WC. And just like the NCAAs we'll see upsets in the WC that make it worth while.

There is no way South Africa will make it to out of the group stages, they are horrible. I meant there is still a chance that South Africa will lose the tournament if everything isnt ready and they can bring down the staggering Jo'Burg murder rate. If that happened would South Africa still be allowed in the tournament?

http://www.futink.com

In May 2004, when the decision was made, the three candidates were pretty close together in terms of rankings: Morocco (32nd); Tunisia (34th); South Africa (40th).
==========================================

Oops! Make that Egypt in 34th place.

I think that 2018 will go to England, 2022 here.

Posted by: Kev | April 22, 2008 11:54 AM
==========================================

Europe will indeed get the '18 event, with England the best bet. CONCACAF will probably get the '22 nod. If the USA were to lose out to, say, Mexico, we'd probably have to wait until '34, by which point many of us will no longer be around. Although there is no longer a formal rotation, it is highly unlikely that FIFA would come knocking more than once every 12 years. So let's get that '22 bid ready.

I agree to an extent tri, honestly, I think that England and the US are the strongest host picks in the world. As you said, FIFA has thrown out the rotation system, seems their relations with The FA are thawing. (Although The FA seem worried about a trouble filled Liverpool-Manchester United Champs League Final in Moscow - if it were to go down)

Both countries have terrific stadiums and can organize the event at the snap of a finger. They are experimenting with 2010, bringing it to the game's soul in 2014 - I think practical choices (England & US) would do nicely for the two after. I think that Mexico and Australia will have some gripes, but they'll be in the mix after that.

I also think that the chaos surrounding Beijing this summer will influence safer Olympic and WC choices in the future.

I meant there is still a chance that South Africa will lose the tournament if everything isnt ready and they can bring down the staggering Jo'Burg murder rate. If that happened would South Africa still be allowed in the tournament?
==========================================

As it happens, a single tournament will be used as the qualifier for both the Africa Cup of Nations and the WC, which will be held several months apart. South Africa's performance in this qualifier could be used to determine whether it would get one of the five African slots, if it lost its host nation status for any reason.

This is yet another reason to let only nations with competitive national teams to host such an event. The only case of an eleventh-hour change of venue in recent memory is the 2003 WWC, which was hastily relocated from China to these shores because of the SARS outbreak over there. China was allowed to keep its berth in the tournament. Nobody had any problem with that, because they would have been shoo-ins to qualify anyway.

South Africa lost out on some tiebreaker (goals for?) with Paraguay in WC2002 and didn't advance -- so they've been close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Cup_2002

This is yet another reason to let only nations with competitive national teams to host such an event.

Posted by: tri-village | April 22, 2008 12:31 PM

Good thing that isn't true, or we never would've seen the US, Japan or Korea host and advance...

A friendly with Boca would be sick if we had a well rested, in shape team.
The way things have been going the thought of United playing Boca sound like a scarey embarrasment waiting to happen.
I do believe United could be settled in and rocking the house in July( I sure am hoping for that), so maybe it could happen. We'll already be playing Chivas,Atlante, and Dynamo then and really close together soooo...
Gallardo VS Boca does sound pretty cool though.

South Africa lost out on some tiebreaker (goals for?) with Paraguay in WC2002 and didn't advance -- so they've been close.
=========================================

In addition to getting to the big show in both '98 and '02, the Bafana Bafana's performance at the regional level during that era was quite impressive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_national_football_team#African_Nations_Cup

Let's hope their next coach straightens some things out.

I don't take anything on the Internut too seriously Matt ;-)
I see your point, and underdogs are always exciting...
But I would rather see the prettiest soccer represented. The African Nations Cup was awesome this year, but I am not sure they need that many teams in it.
Either way I am going to try to get down to S. Africa for this Cup!

Good thing that isn't true, or we never would've seen the US, Japan or Korea host and advance...
=========================================

Agreed, except that I would say "wasn't". All of us in the US, Japan, and Korea should be grateful, because I doubt that FIFA will take such gambles in the future. Similarly, after South Africa '10 and Brazil '14 (and the WWC and Olympics in China), FIFA will probably no longer be in the mood to gamble on host nations whose stadiums, infrastructure and overall environment are iffy. As Kev put it, they'll go with "practical" choices.

I hope the U.S. gets drawn into Group A with South Africa as the seeded team. The only group without Argentina, Brazil, and the top five Euros. Whatever teams get drawn into Group A will be jumping up and down during the draw.

Europe will indeed get the '18 event, with England the best bet. CONCACAF will probably get the '22 nod. If the USA were to lose out to, say, Mexico, we'd probably have to wait until '34, by which point many of us will no longer be around. Although there is no longer a formal rotation, it is highly unlikely that FIFA would come knocking more than once every 12 years. So let's get that '22 bid ready.

Posted by: tri-village | April 22, 2008 12:07 PM

That's the first time I've seen anyone refer to '34 and not mean 1934. I'm not that old yet when someone talks of '34 as looking forward and not back it makes me feel somehow old.

FIFA has recently taken the approach of letting some countries host in an effort to really kick start the popularity of the beautiful game in those countries (USA and S.Korea/Japan). South Africa is certainly another. Stop your whining, the current system works fine and the'll rise to the occassion.

FIFA has recently taken the approach of letting some countries host in an effort to really kick start the popularity of the beautiful game in those countries (USA and S.Korea/Japan). South Africa is certainly another. Stop your whining, the current system works fine and the'll rise to the occassion.

Posted by: Sean G | April 22, 2008 2:40 PM

Soccer is already extremely popular in South Africa and throughout most of Africa. It was picked so that Blatter could come through with his promise to deliver the tournament to the continent (ego?). I certainly have zero problem with 2010 going to South Africa, I'd love to go. But from a FIFA perspective, it's a headache.

From the view of FIFA pragmatism/greed - why would they not have it in countries completely prepared for the event? It's a license to print money. IIRC, 94 was the best attended and most profitable WC Finals.

It kills me when people who write for a living misuse the phrase "begs the question".

Automatic berth = not having to qualify
Automatic birth = immaculate conception

Even the most devout soccer fans shouldn't confuse the two.

Argh: I was just popping in her to post the same thing. Regular folks misuse the expression "begs the question" all the time; but a writer should know.

The point of hosting a World Cups is growing your local league and game by showcasing the greatest football on earth. If the host didn't qualify it would be LAME. Also, it's not like they take a spot from some other federation, Africa will get one less qualifier than they normally do. The African fed knew that when they bid of course so it's not like it's a shock.

Oh and the previous champ not automatically qualifying is a great move. Not all champs go on to the next tournament and light it up. That is a bigger blight on the game than anything else. Look at France in 2002, they were an utter embarrassment. They had no business being in that tournament.

@Posted by: tri-village | April 22, 2008 12:07 PM

There is NO WAY Mexico will be allowed to host a THIRD World Cup before the US has had a shot at a second one. NO WAY.

England will probably get 2018. 2022 will be a decent shot for the US though Australia and China will launch pretty stern bids as well I'm sure. If the Olympics are the disaster many people are guessing they will be, China may fall by the wayside for 2022. 2022 is no lock for the US. Most are thinking it won't happen until 2026 for US. Thank God I'll only have to wait til I'm near 50 for it. 8|

Good thing that isn't true, or we never would've seen the US, Japan or Korea host and advance...
=========================================

Except the U.S. and S.Korea had already qualified for WCs before they were hosts. I agree with you on Japan, though.

There are a couple of compromises suggested in this thread that I like: 1)let the host have a bid, but make it at the expense of the region's allotment, and 2) let the host have a bid, but don't make them an automatic seed. This keeps the groups on a relatively equal footing.

Well I'm goin' away to leave
Won't be back no more
Goin' back down south, child
Don't you want to go?
(McKinley Morganfield)

tri-village - you might get a kick out of this video:

http://www.last.fm/music/Muddy+Waters/+videos/+1-A45M1vY98SM

Also, it's not like they take a spot from some other federation, Africa will get one less qualifier than they normally do.
==========================================

Actually, Africa got a sixth berth, so some other federation got one less.

Yeah, maybe someday that guy will be performing at that church on a bluff that overlooks I-270, exit 1.

Except the U.S. and S.Korea had already qualified for WCs before they were hosts.
=========================================

In the case of the USA, they hadn't qualified since 1950, which might as well have been 1750. The Yanks qualified in 1990 by a whisker, which sort of vindicated the decision that had been made by FIFA two years earlier.