All Whites' Oceania/Asia Confederation Conundrum

It all screams a mix of money making by having more games and longer world cup and placating the other conferences who feel Europe has too many spots.

Sure there have been some thrashing even now, just think you would start seeing more results like that.

Why some people are so obsessed with expanding the WC? I like the current system, first and second go through, pretty simple. Really hate the best-second-place system.

The last WC was played in over a month with 3 matches per day. How much time do you want it to last? A month and a half just to let 4 or 8 teams qualify? Let it stay in 32

Bigger is always better don't you know *sarcasm emoticon*

Would be great for football here. Each group will be increased from 4 teams to 5, and each team will play 4 games in the group stage instead of 3. Top 2 still to go through - no changes to knock-out stages. Fairly easy.  Might add 7-10 days to the length. One issue is that there will be 'byes' in the group stage, so last games in the group stage can't be played concurrently.

To be clear, I think the current tournament setup is best, but it seems inevitable that it will be expanded because more teams equals more money for FIFA, and because the nature of the FIFA patronage system means that confederations and individual nations will continue to lobby for more teams - UEFA and CONMEBOL because they can legitimately argue that quality sides are missing out at the expense of weaker ones from other confederations, and every other confederation because they want it to be a more 'global' tournament. If there's one thing you can be sure of with FIFA its that they'll make decisions based on money over all else *cough* Qatar *cough* 

So if it's going tochange then at the very least you can hope it changes in the best way possible, even if that change is worse than the current setup.

I disagree direct entry is good for the All Whites.

Regular meaningful matches (heaven forbid, even some here in Aotearoa) are what's good for the All Whites - and will help build their profile here; as individuals and as players. That in turn will benefit the Nix, and the A-League.

But since when are any strategic football decisions made for the good of the game?...

Well, with more $ from continued participation in WCs could result in more matches in NZ - even if they are friendlies. Participation in WCs could help our FIFA rankings also making us more attractive for opposition teams.

Without much greater changes to the structure of the OFC within world football - seems less likely than increasing WC to 40 teams - I don't see how else to get regular meaningful matches with how things stand.

I'm not saying it's likely, 40 teams is (much more) likely.

More $$$ isn't the issue because NZF (under varying regimes) can't effectively manage money whether they have heaps or not. What happened after '82?... lot's of talk about growing the game and increased opportunities - where were they five years later? And the same again in 2010... with (arguably) added, and broader incompetence.

Saying that more kids play football than any other sport is meaningless if those running the game can't translate that into revenue, fans, and performances. They've shown time and again they can't.

Qualifying for the WC means money and money means more friendlies. Would love to see NZ going through without having to play a playoff but not for a 40-team abomination

You mean like after we returned flush with cash from the 2010 World Cup, right?

Like the two friendlies we've had in NZ against Jamaica and SA. Yeah. Nah.

Also had Paraguay and Honduras post 2010 :P

What are NZF books going to look like if we play a smaller South American team and get little TV revenue and don't qualify for the WC  :S

No, I mean when we qualified. Six matches in 2010 (Nine with the three 2010 WC matches), like the 2009 Confederations Cup, five friendlies in that year (8 with the Confederations matches). Without a prize money we usually fail to get many matches, just three this year and five in 2014. 

From the last six years the two in which we played more friendlies where 2009 and 2010, when we qualified to the Confederations and the WC.  

From a global football purists point of view you'd keep the tournament at 32. It's perfect. A month of heaven with (mostly) close games with participants there on merit- no because there's no one else. That's what gives the WC it's unique position as the only real WC going. 32 is also good as the draw allows for no manipulation of final group stage games as they are played concurrently. 

However from an NZF perspective 40 teams with direct qualification (or even a playoff v Asia each time for a slot) would be great for the following reasons:  

1) Neutral sportspeople pay NO attention to "friendlies" as they are bred on "test" rugby and cricket. Eg a test match between the ABs and USA, Samoa or even Scotland where we play a B Team and the opposition have no chance of winning is still considered a more meaningful game than a friendly. Even the confeds cup or WC Ocenaia qualifiers isn't understood or given any weight by Joe Public. It's the WC or bust. So if the vision for NZF is to have an All Whites side that the public of NZ truly engage with then it's pretty simple- get them to the WC any way you can.

2) Having more WC appearances and a greater profile for the All Whites will seriously help fund the game in NZ through the prize money and sponsorship from having more profile. NZF arguably has the second best captive market of any sport in NZ behind rugby as its a middle- high income sport. It's ridiculous how much latent funding is just sitting there being spent in cricket, rowing, golf etc. To unlock it the AWs need to be playing in WCs and at home against teams the public see playing in the WC rather than the current crop of teams we have played. This requires spending money but if oubwnat to achieveteh aforementoned vision then it's the only way. It would also have spinoffs for the ASB Prem and women's game. 

So NZF need to be getting into Asia or confident about this expanded WC  - otherwise they are wasting their time. 

We all know the term "test " is an Aglophone/Commonwealth term for friendly so lets just call AW internationals "tests", be they friendlies or otherwise.

I would rather see that in 2022. It should of happened for 2018.

Tim Brown has waded in on this:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/football/nz-teams/761...

Would love to read the thesis.

T Brown for NZF CEO!

You could probably find it on the LSE website if you had a bit of a look around

Not for me.

I know this has been hashed around a bit before, but the key issue is that for any team to switch confederation, the move has to be approved by both of the two confederations involved... when Aus moved to Asia, sure, there was loads of lobbying on their part for Asia to accept them, but a key aspect was that at that time, the Oceania hierarchy actually wanted them to move on too, so it was a perfect storm for Australia's move - if the people at OFC has said "no", then no amount of lobbying in Asia would have made any difference...

So in our case, it could perhaps be possible, if compelling cases could be made, for the AFC to agree to accepting NZ in - especially if the big powers there felt we weren't really a credible threat to their own World Cup qualification hopes... but it would all still hinge on OFC agreeing - and I can't think of a single reason why they would... currently NZ is just about the sole shred of footballing credibility they have (not to put down Fiji's great efforts at the last U20 World Cup etc), and so if we're gone, then Oceania is knackered...

And yes, while it'd be awesome if Asia split into two confederations, with Oceania absorbed into an Eastern Asian entity, what would really be in it for them?  Unless FIFA guaranteed them a stack of World Cup places, why would Japan, Korea, China, even Australia for that matter, see any benefit in now adding the likes of Vanuatu, the Solomons and American Samoa to their playing schedules??

I have no doubt all the reasons in Tim's thesis are spot on and make total sense - from a NZ point of view, and maybe even from an Oceania development point of view... but if I was looking objectively from the AFC's point of view, I don't see what benefit there would be for them... they were reluctant enough initially to take on board Australia, and even now there's still some countries harbouring resentment about it, so in terms of us - not likely...

The only possibility (perhaps) would be to make all the right noises in Asia to the point there's tacit agreement, and then get NZers on to the OFC board, vote in NZ's favour for a move etc - but anyone see that being a likely scenario?!

SO unless there's an edict from FIFA, we're stuck... it's annoying and frustrating, but yeh...

You wouldnt be adding fiji and the like to Japan or Koreas schedule - theyd be gone in round 2 and if one snuck through itd be the same as travelling to bhutan or something.

There is one very important and troubling aspect to leaving Oceania.  We effectively get to send U17 boys & girls teams as well as U20 mens & womens teams as well as (usually) mens and womens teams to age group world cups and the Olympics.   The advantage for our age group sides in Oceania is that its relatively cheap for us and we get all that experience at age group world cup level.

If we go to Asia then our appearances for our age group players will drop away dramatically. We may not be able to afford the qualifying costs each time and may have to limit when we attempt to qualify at age group level.

Australia have struggled with the costs involved in qualifying and they have also seen a drop in the numbers of age group sides making it to age group world cups for both sexes.  Is there any correlation between Australia moving to Asia, their reduced appearances in age group world cups and the current state of their senior side?

...where they are Asian champions and generally in the mix for a WC spot? Seems like move to Asia is going ok really.

As to Aussie junior teams, I don't think anyone is re-thinking their move out of Oceania for the much tougher and longer qualifying cycle through Asia; Aussie have invested in qualifying preparation tournaments. 

The key difference (apart from confederation issues) between Aussie and NZ kids is that per capita more young Aussies are playing at higher levels than young Kiwis. Our problems in the youth game start at home. Age group WC qualification through Oceania doesn't do a lot for the game here.

Wasn't there a proposal for us to move to the South American confederation as well? Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I read an article somewhere regarding this.

Just quoting my own post because I stand by it still. There's no way we are leaving OFC for AFC any time soon so we should just deal with it. You gotta dance with who you came with.

I remember hearing that too but I think it was a case of crossed wires. I think we were maybe being considered for the Copa America spot they always have free for non-CONMEBOL sides. I think Jamaica got it in the most recent tournament?

Stats?

The A league.

Plus...

OS Aussies list

NZ Footballers OS

2013 census. Australian popn 23million approx

2013 census. NZ popn 4.5 million approx

Sorry but that simply isnt true.  

higher-ish levels

Why? Plenty of Aussie kids in professional environments in A league and certain state league clubs. Only 2 professional clubs in NZ - and only a handful of kiwis youngsters in either first team.

I agree with a lot of stuff you post Alf (in AW and ManU threads); in this case I'll have to bite though. I'd argue Asian competition is better for age group development than Oceania/WC qualification.  It's a longer competitive match cycle, tougher competition etc - the benefits seem obvious. (Also it is a moot point as change will never happen until Oceania is absorbed into a modified East Asia/Western Pacific confederation).

Conversely WC qualification at age group level via Oceania doesn't benefit young player development as much. The only positive might have historically been the 'shop window' argument, ie, it's a well scouted tournament, but less so these days; and European clubs place more emphasis on European U19 and U21 tournaments. The last U17 Kiwi male player who was scouted from U17 World Cup was Jack Pelter I think; and he lasted less than 12 months at Sunderland - presumably because he wasn't ready for the transition to a pro environment. The only other player in recent time may have been Bill Tuiloma, but I think he had already trialled at LA Galaxy when he played U17 WC. 

Why do you think WC qualification for U17/20s via Oceania benefits the game here more than tough regular competition in Asia, hypothetical as it is?

Fudge it, we might aswell just join any confederation that would take us. I would rather us learn against the best in South America or Central America even if it is a steep learning curve spanking we recieve. Asia won't take us and anything is better than the steaming pile of sharke Oceania is.

Um, I'm pretty sure Oceania is the only confederation which would take us. Why would any other? What do we bring? A weak team, a tiny domestic market for sponsors, and brutally long distance to travel for games. Plus OFC would have to let us go. 

We wouldn't necessarily get more matches qualifying for FIFA age group tournaments as a member of AFC and it would cost us way more. We could get dumped out after as few as two qualifiers and travelling many thousands of kilometers.

AFC qualifying at age group level is complicated and very expensive compared to participating in one tournament in an Oceania nation as at present.

Take the last AFC u-19 Championship whereby even Australia failed to qualify for our 2015 FIFA u-20 World Cup in NZ after costing them a lot of money to participate in two tournaments thousands of km's away.

Qualifying for FIFA age group finals through Asia requires playing in both qualifiers for the Asian finals and (if you make it) then the Asian finals themselves.

Take the AFC qualifying process for our FIFA u-20 World Cup in NZ last year as an example.

First there was the qualifying round to make the AFC Championship Finals:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_AFC_U-19_Champi...

Only 36 AFC countries entered qualifying, ten countries did not (mostly due to the expense).

If NZ joined AFC, then the whole of the Oceania Confederation probably would have to as well . (FIFA wouldn't see OFC as strong enough to exist without NZ) And Pacific Island countries wouldn't be able to afford to enter AFC qualifying for FIFA tournaments (even many AFC countries currently can't afford to enter the age group qualifiers).

Making up the groups for the 2014 AFC u-19 qualifying round was an erratic process, bringing together teams many thousands of km's apart. Each group played its games in one country.

Two groups had five countries, five groups had four countries, two groups comprised only three countries.

It's a complicated process determined by geographical position and relative strength of teams:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_AFC_U-19_Champi...

Every group required teams to travel thousands of km's to the host country of their qualifying group.

Australia had to travel 6622 km from Sydney to Kuala Lumpur to play their group matches in October 2013.

I was in Kuala Lumpur in October a couple of years ago. It was 30 degrees and extremely humid. The heat hit me as soon as I stepped off the plane from Christchurch and I felt weak.

It could just as well have been held in another country of a group member, say Vietnam (6853 km from Sydney)

If NZ joined AFC we could be drawn in such a group.

Distance from Auckland to Kuala Lumpur: 8736 km

Distance from Auckland to Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam): 8864 km

Some of the qualifying groups had five teams but some had only three.

So NZ could be faced with travelling many thousands of km's for only two games if drawn in a group of three.

e.g. Group C was held in Iraq (Erbil: 15,682 km from Auckland) and comprised only three teams.

NZ could have to travel 15,682 km to a hell hole like Iraq just to play two matches.

And then be knocked out after only two matches....and then goodbye until the next qualifiers two years later.

Because in some groups the top two sides qualify for the AFC Championship Finals - but in others only the top team qualifies.

And this is not determined by how many teams make up the group, but by a complicated array of factors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_AFC_U-19_Champi...

So in every two year AFC age group qualifying cycle, it is far from certain that NZ would even get past the qualifying round for the AFC Finals.

Some years we might travel thousands of km's for just two games (maximum three in a group of four teams).

And not necessarily quality games: we might play one decent country but also someone like Bangladesh, the Maldives or Brunei.

Australia only finished second in their qualifying group in Kuala Lumpur behind Vietnam who thrashed them 5-1

Australia were lucky to qualify for the 2014 AFC u-19 Championship Finals as the second-placed team in their four team group because in Group D (also four teams) only the top team qualified and strong Asian country Saudi Arabia in second place failed to, with the same two- win, one-loss record as Australia.

If NZ did make the AFC Championship Finals, the there is a lot more expense playing in the Finals and in difficult conditions (the 2014 edition was in Myanmar).

Australia in Myanmar 2014 could only scrape a 1-0 win over Indonesia and draws with UAE and Uzbekistan in their group and then were on the plane home.

The Olyroos last week crashed out at the group stage of the AFC u-23 Olympic qualifying finals, finishing third in their group behind UAE and Jordan.

Thanks for the detailed info Pete. Of course there are pros and cons. I agree we could only play a couple of games and fail to qualify; but that goes for any qualification process (Honiara Horror!) - but we could get through and play more games. If we cannot beat supposed Asian minnows, then that's a heads-up we need a paradigm shift in our approach to youth development.

The point you make about confederation change is the thing; this is all a HYPOTHETICAL discussion, because, as you rightly say FIFA will not allow Oceania to exist as a confederation without NZ; so the only hope is for an east-west split between AFC and OFC and for us to play in the East Asia/Western Pacific confederation.

On balance, as I've argued here, I believe a hypothetical move would be better than WC qualification via OFC, which effectively only delivers exposure to world football once every 4 years; at best. Continued and more ties with the likes of Japan, Korea, China etc will be good for our game on many levels long term. 

If we are talking hypotheticals, what about if OFC got merged into CONMEBOL? Make a South America/Pacific confederation with 5 WC spots. CONMEBOL gets an extra half a WC spot and some cannon fodder for their weaker teams, OFC gets regular games against quality opposition. Auckland City could play in the Copa Liberaderos! The distance between Brazil and NZ would be less than the distance between NZ and the Middle East, and probably roughly the same as the distance to Japan

;)

I can't see any reason why Conmebol would want to merge with OFC, not even the half  WC spot.

Exactly! I should have put a winky face.

There's no reason any other confederation would want to merge with OFC, and no reason OFC would let NZ go, or any other confederation would want NZ.

This thread just goes round and round in circles. 

We need to make the best of being in OFC and that is it.

Yeah but remember that AFC could split in two and then OFC would merge with East Asia, that's something I can see happening (/Sarcasm)