Colin's Column - World Cup Qualifying

Colin's Column - World Cup Musings

It’s that time again - after the podcast with Seb last week, it’s time for me to expand on what I said in the latest episode.

There is never a shortage of talking points - Seb’s endless list of questions sees to that - but this column will be different in that we dive into just one discussion - the newly expanded format that will be brought by next year’s World Cup.

On the surface, having more nations at the World Cup appears like a good thing. The more competing nations there are, the more true to its name the competition becomes, and to see brand new footballing nations on the world stage will be a fascinating watch for everyone involved.

However, in other ways, the extra 16 slots available could bring controversy, complaints, and a lack of competitiveness rarely seen before on the biggest stage of them all.

The World Cup Expansion Is A Bad Idea

Look, the 48-team World Cup has so much going for it - the FA of so many underdeveloped footballing nations will receive funds to improve their grassroots facilities, thus boosting their chances of becoming more competitive in the future, and we will see a whole host of players, many of whom, unless you are a die-hard obscure football fan, you will never have seen play or even heard of.

Having these teams competing also makes the tournament richer - the different cultures, fanbases, style of football and the unique moments these all come together to create are gold dust in the football world, and in the view of some, the more obscure nations we have, the better.

However, I don’t think the move has come at the right time - there are not enough viably competitive nations to validate the shift to 48 teams. If there were 40 or so nations ready to make a knockout run at the World Cup, then I would 100% support it.

But as it is, only around half, perhaps just over that number, have a reasonable chance of reaching the knockout stage. At a 32-team World Cup, this is fine, and it was what had been working for countless years. However, the 48-team format has the potential to truly underline the gap between the international elite and the rest of the pack.

Which Teams Shouldn’t be going to the World Cup?

On the podcast, I said, “I don’t think the World Cup should be 48 teams. There isn’t any deadwood, because of course they’ve qualified, and some of those teams would have qualified anyway had the World Cup stayed at 32 teams.”

Seb then asked me the big question: who would I eliminate from the 48-team World Cup in a bid to cut it back to its 32-team format?

A hard question, and one which could spark controversy amongst a host of fan bases. And I started off with arguably the most controversial choice of all, eliminating the USA from the tournament out of a choice of the three different host teams.

Mexico are legends of international football, so there is no way I’m getting rid of them. And I know the USA has a supremely talented team, guided by the steady hand of a former Champions League final runner-up in Mauricio Pochettino.

However, I think Canada are there on merit as much as their noisy neighbours. “Canada has good players - they have someone who was the best striker in France consistently for a while. You’ve also got Alphonso Davies, and you’ve got Tajon Buchanan.”

“The USA has got to go. No disrespect, they should always be qualifying for the World Cup, for the Gold Cup, etc. Getting in as hosts should not be a metric that the United States of America football team needs to qualify for the World Cup, because they should do it anyway.”

From the Asia qualifying group, I more understandably chose Jordan: “I’m going to have to pick Jordan, only because I’m ill-informed about them.”

I think many people would say the same - I couldn’t name a single player from their team, couldn’t tell you a single result they got in qualifying, and although I’d be fascinated to see them and learn about them at the World Cup, they just scream a group stage knockout.

Then posed with one of Panama, Curacao, Haiti and New Zealand, I picked to eliminate New Zealand - of course, New Zealand can make very valid claims that they are a far superior side to all of these nations, but that on its own is not good enough.

“This is not me saying they haven’t got good players. It comes down to the fact that if you say to me, ‘Who do I want to watch’ out of New Zealand, Panama, Curacao and Haiti, it’s not New Zealand.”

“Curacao is going to come with some vibes, not just their style of play, but their fans; they are going to come with guys who have grown up in Holland, so technically, it’s going to be beautiful football. And they are going to be dark horses in terms of one-game wins and shock results, the same as Cape Verde. They’re going to be tough.”

Now the South American group - arguably the most difficult pick of all. Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay. All have a rich history at the World Cup, and more broadly across international football as a whole, and all of them have a realistic chance of advancing to the knockouts. However, a choice had to be made.

“My friends are going to kill me, man, but I’m going to take out Paraguay - Balbuena don’t kill me, bro! The reason I’m taking out Paraguay is I just feel like when they’re there, they don’t end up doing anything.”

This reasoning has a solid foundation - they haven’t qualified for any of the last three editions, and have generally been very poor throughout those failed qualifying campaigns. However, I was wrong in saying they don’t get far when they do qualify.

They were eliminated in the group stage of the 2006 edition but in 2010 made the quarter-finals, and eight years previously also managed to get out of the groups. However, I’ve made my pick – to my friend Fabian Balbuena, again, I am truly sorry.

Africa next - this was the toughest one to take away. Morocco, Tunisia, South Africa, Senegal, Algeria, Cape Verde, Egypt - all have a more than valid claim to being there, and all are historically strong football nations.

However, to shrink the size of the World Cup, I had to choose Tunisia. Seb said it was the wrong call, and I had a simple reason as to why: “Cape Verde, I want to see them at the World Cup, but, if it was just football, it would probably be Cape Verde.”

Finally, I was asked to eliminate two European teams - this was the main event.

However, a pick had to be made, so I eliminated Austria and, to the great shock of Seb, Scotland.

“I think Switzerland is a better team than Scotland, so I’m not eliminating them. I think it is because of the 48-team format that Scotland has been able to qualify. If it wasn’t 48 teams, I don’t think they’d have been able to. I know they came top of their group, but they wouldn’t have been in that group in the first place if it was 32 teams!”

Unsurprisingly, I didn’t have much to say about Austria.

This was not an exercise in cutting the World Cup down to the initial 32-team format - it was more of an exercise in testing which nations are there due to the new format alone.

World Cup qualifying was significantly harder and held significantly higher stakes in its old layout - now, with 48 available slots, almost anyone can qualify.