Why The Case For More CONCACAF World Cup Spots Is Wrong

About a week ago I penned an article for Soccerly.com that suggested CONCACAF’s exuberance at having three out of four countries qualify for the last sixteen of the World Cup was premature. Three countries from CONCACAF (the countries from North and Central America) had never before reached that stage of the competition at one World Cup but the point I was stressing was that new ground had yet be trodden.

It engendered a very lively and intense Twitter debate on Saturday morning that only came to a premature end when Brazil and Chile kicked off.

As it turned out Mexico and the USA failed to breach the last sixteen. Mexico conceded two late goals in losing to the Netherlands 2-1 while the USA went down to the same score to Belgium after extra time.

Valiant efforts both but nonetheless these were defeats #9 and #10 for CONCACAF nations in the last sixteen since the 1986 World Cup.  It is now left to Costa Rica to fly the CONCACAF flag in the quarter-finals after they beat Greece on a penalty kick decider and face the Netherlands on Saturday.

Costa Rica is only the third CONCACAF country to make it this far as the last eight at a World Cup since 1986 and now they are looking to shatter the glass ceiling and become the first country from this region to play in a World Cup semi-final since the USA in 1930.

Should Costa Rica succeed CONCACAF as a confederation will be entitled to celebrate a magnificent and historical achievement.  If not, the 2014 World Cup for CONCACAF can be considered a success but not one of significant progress.

A number of writers have used the measure of three CONCACAF countries in the the last sixteen as a reason to boost World Cup places for the region. And just yesterday CONCACAF president Jeffrey Webb took up the battle.

“The strong performances by our teams certainly justify the debate to push for a fourth full spot and we will do so accordingly.” “Only South America at 83% had a higher share of its team advance to the knock out stage of this World Cup”

Does CONCACAF have a case?

The first place to start is with the allocation of spots since the first 32-country World Cup in 1998.

*Brazil + 4.5

The half positions indicate the need for an inter-continental play off to decide the spot.

So for 2014 Mexico (4^th place finisher in CONCACAF) beat New Zealand (OCEANIA champion); Uruguay (5^th in South American qualifying) beat Jordan (5^th in Asia qualifying).

When you take into account hosting positions, the loser since 1998 has been UEFA (Europe) with their loss of 1.5 spots being picked up by Asia (1), CONCACAF (0.5). Ironically, a primary driver (beyond economic interests) for the additional half spot for Asia was based on their representatives exceeding expectations at one World Cup when hosted by Japan and South Korea.

A number of writers have used Europe’s relative poor showing as a reason to further reduce their allocation.

This table shows the percentage of countries qualifying for the last sixteen since 1998 as a percentage of each region’s final numbers.

Europe has certainly dropped off, South America is the power house, Asia is very poor while Africa has contributed little but at least consistently. CONCACAF – the number bounces around as you might expect with a small sample.

But there is a far more fundamental problem with the argument put forward by proponents of an additional allocation for CONCACAF – their logic is deeply flawed.

They are using relative success as their measure and success should have very little to do with the allocation of spots. In fact, it is the opposite. The allocation of spots should be largely based on weakness or lack of success. I know it sounds counter intuitive but bear with me.

By adding an allocation you are awarding a spot to the next weakest team in the respective region not to the strongest. FIFA needs to look at how the poorest performers did at the World Cup not how the strongest did.

For example, Argentina won the South American group qualifying tournament. Colombia, Chile, Ecuador all qualified automatically while Uruguay won an inter-continental play off.  If additional spots had been awarded to South America Venezuela was next in line. But Venezuela is not better than any of these countries and so logically the best measuring stick of how Venezuela might have done at this World Cup is to use as a benchmark the worst performing South American team at this World Cup.

In this case it was Ecuador and they finished 3^rd in a group with France, Switzerland and Honduras. Ironically, CONCACAF representative Honduras finished last in this group and four points behind Ecuador. So in a head to head battle of South America’s poorest against CONCACAF’s poorest, South America wins hands down.

If CONCACAF really is intent on using 2014 World Cup data to lobby for more spots then they need to get in line behind South America because their neighbors to the south have a far stronger case.

STATS and CHARTS

In group play the top two countries qualify and 3^rd and 4^th are eliminated - % terms.

The overall record of the confederations in inter-continental qualifying from 1998 is:

Europe - won 1, lost 0

Asia - won 1, lost 4

South America - won 3, lost 1

CONCACAF - won 2, lost 1

Oceania - won 2, lost 3