From: cluck@pollux.usc.edu (Carlos L. Luck)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.soccer
Subject: WC slot distribution South America vs Europe
Date: 26 Aug 1992 18:03:49 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <1992Aug26.204318.10641@nntp.hut.fi> f36655e@taltta.hut.fi (Kalle Mikkola) writes:
>In article <7826@public.BTR.COM> car@public.BTR.COM (Carlos Rimola-Sarti  car@btr.com) writes:
>>Incidentally, my personal opinion is that South-America's 3 spots with
>>the chance to fight a 4th is fair.  Europe's 13 I think is a bit high
>At least it would be fairer, but doesn't SA have only 2 1/2 spots?
>In last WC all SA teams did qualify to the second round, but many 
>European teams didn't. Doesn't that make it clear that worst European
>teams are worse that worse SA teams (that got into WC) and thus the
>number of Europeans spots should be decreased in favor of SA.
>
>And what kind of soccer do they play in SA! The games here in Europe
>are nothing compared to that elegance!

This discussion will probably last forever (or until all participants get
overbored) without practical results. The reason for that, IMHO, is the
fact that slots-per-region is an obsolete criterion, bound to be replaced
gradually by a more competitive and integrated qualifying phase.

The point I made right in the beginning of this thread still hasn't been
challenged, namely European "big teams" have higher chances to qualify
than South American "big teams" (and Africans as well). Somebody replied
that Brazil and Argentina always made it. Well, true, but that was not
as easy as it sounds. Should we wait until an upset happens before some action 
is taken? If we decrease European slots, increasing South American slots
accordingly, soon enough the argument could be reversed. Every national
team has its ups and downs, and the WC qualifying rounds should reflect
these "seasonal" changes by expanding the integration. The financial
burden is ridiculous. An air ticket Rio-Caracas is just about the same as
Rio-Madrid, so distance is not a factor.

European fans are eager to protect its chunk which represents more than
half of the entire world cup and will continue to produce all sorts of
statistics to claim that it's fair. Perhaps it is, but that's not the point.
The point is that some of those slots could be won with merit by some
African or South American team. Could also happen that Europeans end up
with more teams in a more competitive tournament, but the way it is, one will
never know.

If I recall correctly, the WC had originally 16 teams. It was increased to
20, then to 24, the reason being the inclusion of African and Asian slots
without having to sacrifice Europeans and South Americans. The first
3 games (nearly half the number of matches the first four will eventually 
play) will be spent (in my opinion wasted) to narrow down the competitors
to 16. Instead of doing that, take a couple of months of intense 
competition all over the world and let the 16 best gather for a sequence of
8 or 9 exciting matches. The way it goes, soon enough the world cup will
resemble a tennis tournament: countless matches, one loss and you're out.
The only difference being 4 grand slam tennis tournaments a year against
one world cup every 4 years...

-- 
Carlos Ludolf Luck <cluck@pollux.usc.edu>
Office: University of Southern California, SAL309 - tel. (213)740-6500
Private: 322 S. Reno St. Apt. 301 - Los Angeles CA 90057, tel. 736-5221
Program: Aspects of Redundant Manipulators - PhD Robotics