Now that OFC have direct entry into world cup and the woman's world cup prize money is going to be equal to the men's come 2027. Could NZ now afford to pay a bit more for someone better? Bit of a gamble but pretty much guaranteed woman's wc money...
I think so. If men and women both qualify every four years and we say that NZF receive 20 million every four years. It really is going to change the landscape of the game in NZ, together with the new Auckland team in the A-League. Not sure we realize how great this coming decade is going to be. It would be hard even for NZF to make of mess of it. The equal payment for women's qualification is huge and means leaving Oceania would be a mistake too, unless FIFA changes it because they see NZF benefiting from it disproportionally with NZ officials driving around in Bentleys. So we may as well make hay (not literally bringing him back) while the sun shines. We could also pay bigger money for bringing teams over for friendlies or playing them elsewhere too. I wonder if the Aussies will try and sneak back in to Oceania?
Also if I understand it correctly, Oceania runner up goes into inter-continental playoff, so could be massive for the island teams as well.
I can't really see any reason why Australia would voluntarily give up their place in AFC to re-join OFC. They are improving at a faster rate than New Zealand are and have a greater talent pool to call from. They have qualified for the World Cup out of Asia all four times since 2010 - with only Japan and South Korea joining them in having achieved that. In 2026 AFC will have eight direct spots and one via the playoff and I can't see Australia falling so far to be behind the likes of Qatar, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Oman, China etc. Add to that the minimal pull factors OFC has - five games in a four-year cycle, poor conditions in away matches, minimal prestige.
As for NZF, leaving OFC isn't an option open to them so nothing changes in that respect.
In terms of spending millions of dollars on a coach, there is a ceiling to what NZF can attract even if money is no object. Ambitious coaches want to do well and money will come as a side-effect, and there isn't much scope to be successful as coach of New Zealand. If the All Whites qualify they'll probably be the weakest team at the World Cup, and certainly be massive underdogs in any of their matches. There's the very real possibility any coach would leave with their reputation damaged after three bad losses, especially if they try be recklessly expansive. I doubt Felix Sanchez at Qatar was on peanuts and I also doubt he came out of the recent World Cup with an improved reputation and he was at Qatar and who had just won the Asian Cup with a side better than the All Whites.
As a result, NZF could end up in a niche where you attract mercenaries who were famous a couple decades ago looking for a final payday. New Zealand football circles are suckers for an English accent especially - listen to any national team/National League coach speak. If a guy who was a Premier League coach in the '90s asks for a million NZD, NZF could jump at it. That might work, but it could also backfire.
I do think the All Whites are probably better now than in 2013 and that things will probably improve still. The contention to me is whether the team has improved relative to opposition - to the OFC teams, yes probably, to the European teams, possibly not. There might only be ten/twelve UEFA sides I would consider that are not in a better place than the All Whites . Every country is investing in football development and most countries are doing so with access to many more resources. It's very difficult to improve when there's only three/four professional players starting every week in the country.
A last point is that don't count any chickens before they hatch. Spending money you might earn is fraught business. Never count out OFC's tropical-belt-members' ability to collude to get one over the big bad New Zealanders. The OFC qualifying program isn't set yet and if it follows the path set by the OFC Champions' League it could be one-off games (even if it's just semis and final) hosted in a single country. The last five matches the All Whites have played in the tropical belt have finished 2-2, 2-0, 0-0, 0-0 and 1-0. Anything can happen on a mid-30s, 85% humidity Honiara afternoon and there are ten other OFC members who want nothing more than to see it happen.
Nice reply Carlind, I really respect the time, detail and effort you put into your post and to be clear I agree 100% with the sentiment although not always the details of what you say.
Just for the purpose of discussion I would like to play devil’s advocate even though I don’t have any real opposition to your points and think they are all valid.
Playing devil’s advocate I would question whether Australia have improved that much and that would be the argument from many Australian fans as well. Australia joined AFC in 2006 and that year reached a world ranking of 33 currently their world ranking is 32. In 2009 they ranked as high as 14 and in 2014 they ranked as low as 102.
The success at the most recent World Cup I believe, was mainly due to the excellent managerial skills of Graham Arnold but their pool of players was of as low quality as ever before, they also have less high profile players than ever before. The game in Australia has seen falling attendances for the national team and for the domestic competition (ok so Covid impacted everything).
What would they lose by moving back to Oceania? They would cut costs by not having to travel to Uzbekistan and other far flung locations and they would still get the prestige and profile of playing at the World Cup. They would get the estimated 20 million every 4 years so would still be able to maintain their current operating budget. Although there is 8 direct spots and a playoff there is still more chance than missing out than if they were in Oceania and for far less effort and more importantly, financial cost.
If we look at their results against the teams you mentioned we get the following:
The last time Australia played Qatar they lost 0-1, Uzbekistan 0-0 draw, Jordan they beat 2-1, Syria they beat 3-2 , Iraq 1-1 draw, Oman 2-2 draw, China 1-1 draw.
You could argue that they are not much above the level of these teams now and that any of these teams could beat them as the margins are not that big. The only risk in Oceania is playing New Zealand. I would say there is very little prestige in Asia as they are never a threat or contender for the World Cup title and they produce very few top level stars considering the population base.
Its true the WC qualifiers would be pretty boring but they would still have the cash to play high profile friendlies and none of the teams in Asia are packed with big stars that can pull a crowd. Australia’s strength is its assertiveness and creativeness. They managed to wangle an invite to the Copa America so they would still be able to do things like this.
In terms of Coaches, for the ambitious NZ could point to how it has worked out for Anthony Hudson who could potentially be the head coach of a home team at a World Cup and the biggest footballing event in the states for over 30 years. The seasoned veteran also might see it as a nice pay day while knowing that his entire careers reputation is not going to be damaged by how well NZ do at a world cup. I would say with the expansion to 48 teams it’s likely NZ won’t be the weakest team in the group although by FIFA world ranking metric that will probably be the case. Felix Sanchez who coached Qatar is now coaching Ecuador so that would look like a step up and not a step down. Also we could use the Saudi manager Hervé Renard whose profile went through the roof after beating Argentina and Saudi are not that much better than NZ. I agree with what you said about the British accent as somehow mistakenly being judged the best qualification you can have in NZ football but I am also a huge Des Buckingham advocate, so it can sometimes be true.
I would not say that most countries have access to many more resources than NZ. We are one of the 30 richest countries in the world so have a head start on 170 countries in terms of basic infrastructure, organization and economic prosperity and there is going to more opportunities in the future with the World Cup revenue and the addition of another pro team. We also have an advantage just by speaking the international business language as our native tongue. I think the last count on the number of pros NZ can call on is around 90, so not great in world terms but not bad either (I understand you meant pros starting locally) . Considering Iceland has a population of Christchurch and they can achieve success, there is no reason NZ cannot do something similar.
In terms of not counting chickens before they hatch and the anti NZ bias in OFC, it may be true but not to the level of open hostility. Even if playing in the islands is tough ( I love that you refer to it as “the tropical belt” reminds me of Joseph Conrad) it has still not prevented us from going to at least the World Cup Play off stage every time and only prevented us once in a Confed cup. So if we are going to back test the theory since the last WC qualification in 2010 and say that Oceania men and women got direct entry and equal prize money, NZF coffers would currently be 60 million dollars heavier. Now, with that we could get Jose Mourinho.