UEFA World Cup Qualifying

Almost immediately after Italy's latest World Cup qualifying failure (how does a four-time World Cup champion miss three tournaments in a row??!!), there was bellyaching (and not just from Italian fans) about how "unfair" World Cup qualifying is for UEFA teams.  Apparently, one of their issues is how UEFA "only" gets 16 teams in the field.  Because, you know, having 1/3 of the qualified teams come from the same confederation evidently isn't enough!

What they either don't know or are conveniently forgetting is that when World Cup expansion was first being discussed, UEFA only wanted 16 teams.  Because there are more European teams than groups at the World Cup, there had to be groups with at least two European teams.  UEFA didn't like that.  They didn't want European teams facing each other in group play.  And, since the original plan for the 48-team World Cup was 16 groups of three, having 16 European teams would've accomplished that goal.  Each group would only have one European team.

FIFA eventually changed the format for this year's World Cup (going to 12 groups of four, meaning four groups will feature two UEFA teams).  But that wasn't done until after the qualifying slots for each confederation were already allotted.  Who knows if it'll be different in 2030 (when Spain and Portugal are already qualified as co-hosts)?  But FIFA wouldn't have been able to give UEFA more teams in this year's tournament even if they wanted to, which I'm not sure they did.

Qualifying for the next World Cup will be different.  There are six host nations, all of whom get automatic entry.  Those berths come out of their continent's allotment, but there are also the two "host confederation" spots in the final playoff tournament.  So, I wouldn't be surprised if UEFA was given an extra playoff place (or two) at the very least.  Which would obviously give them an opportunity to have another team in the field.

The whole point of expanding the World Cup (other than to make FIFA more money) was to give more nations, especially those from Africa and Asia, a chance to qualify.  So, you can bet those confederations wouldn't be too pleased if UEFA were to be given, say, 18 berths in the 2030 tournament.  Nor should they be.  Because UEFA teams already account for 33 percent of the World Cup field.

There are 55 national federations that are members of UEFA.  Just under 30 percent of them qualify for the World Cup.  CONMEBOL, meanwhile, has 10 members and six guaranteed World Cup berths, so at least 60 percent of CONMEBOL qualifies.  The percentages for the other four confederations, meanwhile, are under 20 percent of their members.  Yes, UEFA and CONMEBOL are the two strongest confederations.  That's why they make up nearly half of the World Cup field between them.  Or, to put it another way, 65 nations are competing for 22 World Cup berths, while 146 compete for the other 26.

Europe has more good teams than World Cup berths.  That's always been true and always will be true.  As a result, good European teams will always be left out.  That's what makes UEFA World Cup qualifying so competitive.  But, just because it's competitive, that doesn't mean it's "unfair."  And it certainly doesn't mean UEFA needs more teams in the field.

Another factor that needs to be taken into account is the UEFA Nations League.  UEFA loves the Nations League.  So much so that they've tied the Nations League into qualifying for both major tournaments (the World Cup and the Euro).  Which adds an entirely different wrinkle to UEFA qualifying.  Because UEFA is the only confederation where teams can get a guaranteed second chance no matter how well they do in the initial stage. 

Just ask Sweden.  They went 0-2-4 in six games and finished last in their group, yet they advanced to the UEFA playoffs because of their Nations League performance.  Sweden went on to win their playoff path and qualify for the World Cup.  I'm sure they don't find the format unfair.

One element of the European playoffs that could reasonably be considered unfair is how there are home teams for every game.  In the 12 UEFA playoff games, eight were won by the home team (and Sweden's win over Ukraine was played at a neutral site since Ukraine can't play home games right now due to the Russian invasion).  Playing at home is such a tremendous advantage, especially in a one-and-done setting.

In the past, UEFA's final playoffs always a two-legged home-and-home series.  Now that qualifying is tied to the Nations League, that gives more teams the opportunity to participate in the playoff, but it also makes the two-legged home-and-home impossible.  So, instead, UEFA decided to go with four four-team mini-tournaments, with the winners of each qualifying for the World Cup.  Which also meant every game was single-elimination.  That's great for suspense and definitely adds to the urgency, but it also makes it incredibly tough for the team playing on the road.

It's been suggested that if UEFA's going to stick with four-team tournaments as the final stage of qualifying (which it sure looks like they will), they should do it at a neutral site.  That certainly seems like a solution that's both fair and doable.  Look at the Champions League Final as an example of a neutral site playoff conducted by UEFA that works.  It would eliminate the built-in disadvantage of playing a winner-take-all game on the road, which is something that's determined entirely by the luck of the draw.

And, with Spain and Portugal both hosting the next World Cup, they could each host two of the UEFA playoff tournaments as World Cup tune-up events (the third co-host, Morocco, could then host the two interconfederation playoffs).  That could be the perfect test run for the neutral site final qualifier, which would definitely level the playing field for the participants much more than randomly deciding who gets the benefit of playing at home.  Then, if it works, that could be the way to go moving forward.  Which, I agree, is better than having home teams that are determined by draw.

While there are definite questions about the fairness of UEFA's qualifying format, what isn't unfair is the number of berths reserved for UEFA in the World Cup.  Italy didn't get the job done.  It's as simple as that.  Even if UEFA had, say, 18 berths instead of 16, they still might not have qualified.  The whole system doesn't need to be overhauled simply because Italy was upset in qualifying again.  Especially when the system is already incredibly weighted in UEFA's favor.  (Besides, Italy's a baseball country now.  LOL!)