When after USA 1994 the expansion to 32 teams became evident, a discussion arose who the 8 new places should be granted to. Finally they were given to the smaller (in meaning of the success of their football) continents. But one suggestion had been to assign one extra-place to the assigned continental confederation for each semi-finalist. This had been the unconcealed attempt to establish a way of thinking that ensures European prerogative with the help of a logical cheat. Because it reflects a common way of thinking in seeding, a common way of the big ones clamp down on the small ones.  
 

Some points have to be discussed in the following:  

- why are some statistics cheating? and how can this be filtered from the results?  

- what might be better ways to deduct the number of starters from the success on the pitch  

- why results at the finals cannot be the exclusive measure and what other points have to be considered  

Why are some statistics cheating? 
 

 Imagine, Arsenal London becomes English champion. Should then Fulham become promoted on the expense of Middlesboro, because Fulham is from the same area as Arsenal?  

Liverpool finishes only 10th - does Everton have to pay? 

 Imagine Liverpool finsihes only 10th in the English Premier League. Should then Everton get relegated in place of Bolton, because it is from the same town as Liverpool while Bolton is not?  

What does this have to do with the World Cup? 

 Normally in football, if it comes down to who gets promoted or gets relegated you look at the zones of the tables where relegation and promotion takes place. Not so at the World Cup. Strange, when Cameroon got into the quarter-finals, Africa got granted another place. When before (1982) Africas two teams had collected 7:5 points aggregated in the first round and thus had finsihed better than half of the starters field, there had been no adjustment.  

 When you look at the 'World Cup relegation zone', as one might name it, you will see for 1994, that, while 7 Europeans qualified for quarter-finals, in the same moment the worst team of the whole World Cup had been from Europe as well (Greece, no points, no goal). For 1998: When you look at the figures below, while 3 of four semi-finalists are from the home continent, among the seven worst teams of France 98 are two Europeans!  
 

- Even if Brazil or Argentina will win every World Cup from now on, there are only 10 South-American countries. And Venezuala has nothing to look for at a World Cup finals stage. Imagine an extrem-case World Cup with a final Brazil-Argentina and the three other South-Americans finishing with no points and no goals. Would South-America deserve a place more or less? 

- More starters guarantuee more places in the semi-/quarter-finals (A tricky thing this time was that because of the schedule only 3 African / 3 Asian semi-finalists had been theoretically possible despite 5 starters / 4 starters). Another interesting thing is: At junior and Olympic levels where the key is different, Europeans almost never win. But here other reasons might add. 
 Imagine all teams same strong: then half of the continents contigents should qualify for the next round. The number of 10 Europeans qualifying for the second round at France 98 has been 2.5 above the 'expected normal' (half of 15 starters is 7.5). 
 But only if you neglect the following important point: 

the influence of seeding 
 

- The seeding guaranteed for 6 Europeans and 2 South-Americans easier opponents in the first round because an encounter between them was made impossible while all others were ensured to play against one of those giants. This might be wished for the discourse of the tournament but when it comes to the evaluation of success it has to be taken into consideration: 

 To have a less deceiving picture of the success of the continents you can only compare the 24 unseeded teams and consider 33% as a 'normal' average-value for how many teams of those should advance: 

South America: 3 teams, 2 advanced =  66% 
Europe: 9 teams, 4 advanced = 44% 
North/Central-America: 3 teams, 1 advanced = 33% 
Africa: 5 teams, 1 advanced = 20% 
Asia: 4 teams, 0 advanced = 0% 

 But then it has to be considered also that for example Africa was put at disatvantage because of the seeding: No African team could have been drawn against one from North/Central-America. As from the statistics above and the results it can be seen, USA, Jamaica had been easier opponents than Paraguay, Colombia, Chile. The inverse way to look at it: North-Central-Americans could play the weak Asians, but not the stronger Africans. In the same moment Asians could not be drawn against those strong second row of South-Americans. 
 Before the tournament The Shot That Passed Right Through The Net examined who was considered to have the strongest opponents by the experts, the betting offices. You can see the result in the following diagram. It suggests that the draw has been a factor, when CONMEBOL, the South American Confederation was considered to have the easiest program: 
(AFC=Asia, CAF=Africa, UEFA=Europe, CONCACAF=North/Central-America)

 Applying all those recorrections South Americans have been the clear winners, Asians the clear losers. For the rest of the field the deviation has not been strong enough to draw conclusions.  

 But Jamaica is not Mexico, Tunisia not Nigeria, Austria not Spain. To get a more precise picture let's take a look, first at the winning perecentage of those 24, second on the results of the continents encounters. Then we get into the real problem: we take a look at the bottom 2/ or bottom 3 performances of each continent. (As the bottom 1 can be an unlucky dropout, thus accumulating the bottom 2 or 3 can transmit a better picture)  

winning-percentages 
 

Stats and Figures 

what is and why winning-percentage?: winning-percentage measures wins per game. A draw counts half a win. This is prefered to the 3-point-rule because the 3 points are more relevant for motivation than for measurement. Also important: By using winning-percentage, a comparison is possible to the time when there were only 2 points for a win 

by convention: at these kind of statistics always the result before penalties counts and the 3rd place play-off is neglected. 

1a) continents after winning percentage 
1b) only intercontinental matches 
1c) the direct comparisons 

2a-c) the same, but only for the unseeded teams 

3a) the true 'relegation zone': the table from bottom 
3b-c) the bottom 2/bottom 3 of each confederation accumulated 

1a) continents after winning percentage 
 

1	Europe	0.608
2	South-America	0.543
3	Africa	0.375
4	North/Central-America	0.300
5	Asia	0.167

why this table deceives: 1) it includes innercontinental matches which shift the value towards 0.500 (because for every winner is a loser 
2) it includes 'arranged' matches. matches in which unseeded teams have to play seeded teams. This means for some (8) teams difficult matches have been avoided, for the other 24 they have been determined. 3) This becomes relativated because the matches in the final 16 become more difficult for the seeded teams too 4) interpretation is still necessary, facts like homefield advantage or that the low number of matches for each teams boosted the influence of chance, for example referee decisions. Also some intercontinental comparisons have been avoided by seeding (see paragraph above), others favoured. 
 

The following table filters out the first point: 

1b) only intercontinental matches 
 

1	Europe	0.679
2	South-America	0.548
3	Africa	0.375
4	North/Central-America	0.300
5	Asia	0.167

why this table deceives: the same points as in the table above (1a), only the first point is avoided here 
 

AFRICA vs. AFRICA (-) 
AFRICA vs. ASIA (1) 0.500 
AFRICA vs. EUROPE (11) 0.455 
AFRICA vs. NTH/CTL-AM (-) 
AFRICA vs. SOUTH-AM (4) 0.125 

ASIA vs. AFRICA (1) 0.500 
ASIA vs. ASIA (-) 
ASIA vs. EUROPE (7) 0.071 
ASIA vs. NTH/CTL-AM (3) 0.333 
ASIA vs. SOUTH-AM (1) 0.000 

EUROPE vs. AFRICA (11) 0.545 
EUROPE vs. ASIA (7) 0.929 
EUROPE vs. EUROPE (26) 0.500 
EUROPE vs. NTH/CTL-AM (6) 0.833 
EUROPE vs. SOUTH-AM (15) 0.600 

NTH/CTL-AM vs. AFRICA (-) 
NTH/CTL-AM vs. ASIA (3) 0.667 
NTH/CTL-AM vs. EUROPE (6) 0.167 
NTH/CTL-AM vs. NTH/CTL-AM (-) 
NTH/CTL-AM vs. SOUTH-AM (1) 0.000 

SOUTH-AM vs. AFRICA (4) 0.875 
SOUTH-AM vs. ASIA (1) 1.000 
SOUTH-AM vs. EUROPE (15) 0.400 
SOUTH-AM vs. NTH/CTL-AM (1) 1.000 
SOUTH-AM vs. SOUTH-AM (2) 0.500 

why this table deceives: the same points as in the first table (1a), only the first point is avoided here 

Surprisingly Africa did much better than it appeared. but they had only 1 single match against the weak Asian and North-American teams. Althogh one has to be careful (Africans had more troubles with Asians recently), it springs to the eye that Africa against Europe is almost even while Africa lost heavily in the 4 matches against South-Americans. 

trying to develop less deceiving statistics to discuss the problem

2a+b) continents after winning percentage, only unseeded teams and only intercontinental matches 

the thesis: taking out the 8 top teams might deliver a better picture of the strength of the teams on who it should come down to, when readjusting the contigents is discussed. So all matches with seeded teams remained unconsidered. In fact, there remained 3 matches in each group plus one 2nd round match, Nigeria-Danmark 

(in brackets the orig. value from table 2a) 

1	Europe	0.676 (0.679)
2	South-America	0.583 (0.548)
3	Africa	0.417  (0.375)
4	North/Central-America	0.409  (0.300)
5	Asia	0.250  (0.167)

why this table deceives: interpretation is still necessary, the low number of matches for each teams boosted the influence of chance, for example referee decisions. Also some intercontinental comparisons have been avoided by seeding (see paragraph above), others favoured. A further comparison (negative play-offs) is missing 

AFRICA vs. AFRICA (-) 
AFRICA vs. ASIA (1) 0.500 
AFRICA vs. EUROPE (7) 0.500 
AFRICA vs. NTH/CTL-AM (0) 
AFRICA vs. SOUTH-AM (3) 0.167 

ASIA vs. AFRICA (1) 0.500 
ASIA vs. ASIA (-) 
ASIA vs. EUROPE (4) 0.125 
ASIA vs. NTH/CTL-AM (3) 0.333 
ASIA vs. SOUTH-AM (-) 

EUROPE vs. AFRICA (7) 0.500 
EUROPE vs. ASIA (4) 0.875 
EUROPE vs. EUROPE (2) 0.500 
EUROPE vs. NTH/CTL-AM (3) 0.833 
EUROPE vs. SOUTH-AM (3) 0.667 

NTH/CTL-AM vs. AFRICA (-) 
NTH/CTL-AM vs. ASIA (3) 0.667 
NTH/CTL-AM vs. EUROPE (3) 0.167 
NTH/CTL-AM vs. NTH/CTL-AM (-) 
NTH/CTL-AM vs. SOUTH-AM (-) 

SOUTH-AM vs. AFRICA (3) 0.833 
SOUTH-AM vs. ASIA (-) 
SOUTH-AM vs. EUROPE (3) 0.333 
SOUTH-AM vs. NTH/CTL-AM (-) 
SOUTH-AM vs. SOUTH-AM (-) 

interesting: for each comparison such a low number of matches remain, that conclusions have to be drawn very carefully. The biggest number of matches have been the 7 clashes between Europe and Africa, and those were absolutely even. 

why this table deceives: the same points as in the first table (1a), only the first point is avoided here 
 

EuropeI/II=qual. as one of the 9 group-winners (I) or as one of the 5 runners-up (II) 
Asia, Sth-America, and Nrth/Ctl-America=here a ranking of the participants after the qualification performance is possible (Asia only 3 and 4) 

32	USA (Nth/Ctl-Am 2)	0.000
31	Japan (Asia 3)	0.000
30	South Korea (Asia 1-2)	0.167
29	Bulgaria (Europe I)	0.167
28	Saudi Arabia (Asia 1-2)	0.167
27	Scotland  (Europe II)	0.167
26	Tunisa (Africa)	0.167

and here the complete table: 
(sorted on wpct, goal-difference) 

team wpct 

FRANCE 0,929 
ITALY 0,800 
NETHERLANDS 0,750 
ARGENTINA 0,700 
GERMANY 0,700 
CROATIA 0,667 
BRAZIL 0,643 
ENGLAND 0,625 
YUGOSLAVIA 0,625 
ROMANIA 0,625 

SPAIN 0,500 
DANMARK 0,500 
MEXICO 0,500 
PARAGUAY 0,500 
NORWAY 0,500 
MOROCCO 0,500 
BELGIUM 0,500 
NIGERIA 0,500 

CHILE 0,375 
AUSTRIA 0,333 
IRAN 0,333 
COLOMBIA 0,333 
CAMEROON 0,333 
SOUTH AFRICA 0,333 
JAMAICA 0,333 

TUNISIA 0,167 
SCOTLAND 0,167 
SAUDI ARABIA 0,167 
BULGARIA 0,167 
SOUTH KOREA 0,167 

JAPAN 0,000 
USA 0,000 

3b) the bottom 2 of each continent accumulated 

this table delivers a better image, as 'drop-outs' (like Greece for Europe was in 1994 do not stand out as much. Making a package out of the worst teams from each continent can show who has really had too many weak teams (if you want to put it that negative): 

below 0.500 are: 

Asia1	(Jap/Kor)	0.083
Europe1	(Bul/Sco)	0.167
Nth/Ctl-Am1	(USA/Jam)	0.167
Asia2	(KSA/Ira)	0.250
Africa1	(Tun/Cam)	0.250
South-Am1	(Col/Chi)	0.357
Africa2	(RSA/Nig)	0.429
Europe2	(Aus/Nor)	0.429

3c) the bottom 3 of each continent accumulated 

alternative to 3b) 

below 0.500 are: 

Asia1	(Jap/Kor/KSA)	0.111
Europe1	(Bul/Sco/Aus)	0.222
Africa1	(Tun/Cam/RSA)	0.278
Nth/Ctl-Am1	(USA/Jam/Mex)	0.300
South-Am1	(Col/Chi/Par)	0.409

why statistics and figures are not the exclusively important measure

why statistics and figures are not the exclusively important measure

What aliens from outerspace might think about East or West you can read in the essay World Cup 2002 - Who Owns The World? that examines the role that the structural relationship of Asia, Africa, and Europe plays in the reception of the game in the world. 

(this parts remains unfinished with just some thoughts given unstructured) 

- the number of fans 
what fans mean to FIFA is hard to discuss without polemics, it will be subject to a future essay in the Football 2002 series. Anyway in Asia there is by far the biggest potential of unrepresented World Cup fans. It will take eternities before we see India, Thailand, or whoever at the World Cup and even China, although a candidate for the 2002 qualification, has not be seen. 
The message is: Think of the fans. Also the countries with the biggest fans should be represented 
There are three confederations with a relationship of few places at the World Cup compared to a big number of associations. 
Asia and Africa have fewer places although structured similarly to Europe. This means that some forces never see a World Cup or if they do, there is no experience. Today Kuweit, the next cup Iraq, the next one United Arab Emirates and so on. Although it has not helped South Korea or Saudi Arabia this time, lack of experience makes things look odd. Experience especially is necessary for the staff not only for the players. To help those Continents improve and become competitive the over-average contigent is necessary. How big it should be remains open to discussion and probably - politics. 
Different it is at North/Central-America. Here a lot of small confederations take part that sometimes produce extra-ordinary genarations but usually are not very strong. It seems unlikely at this moment that Haiti is a sleeping giant like India. But one never knows - they have been at a World Cup - 1974 they scored the first goal Dino Zoff had to concede after about 1000 minutes. 
Anyway, the message is: Help develop the footbal else where. See it as a 24 World Cup with some 8 extra development places. 
Who wants to see a overgigantic European Championship plus Argentina and Brazil? The others do no harm 

The World Cup is an event for the World and not for Europe alone. The World should be represented then. Even to learn their deficits on the field. Aside the field Germans and English could learn a lot from the Japanese, the Nigerians, the Koreans, or the Jamaicans. 
The match Iran-USA was much more for the world than the match Norway-Scotland. 

One does not have to mention money. A world's world Cup is far more attractive than a Europes' World Cup. And even Europeans will profit from a greater popularity of football in the world. Bayern München will sell shirts all over Iran and the TV rights will become more attractive. Only two of those points. 

Those arguments are especially relevant to understand why Asia is never underrepresented and Europe never overrepresented.  
- different concepts of football 

- the 'world event' 

- different structures of the confederations 

- experience helps to gain competitiveness 

- money for everybody (in football) 

back to top