The CONCACAF 0.5 Spot

[Karl]

And how has that benefitted the rest of the CFU? Be careful what examples you cite to defend the indefensible...

(Not so)Very nice anymore some of them, and very empty; you must have seen some of the CONCACAF's champions league games... tell me how many of those stadia are even 1/10 filled when ANY kind of games are played?

But back to FIFA U17...Jack managed to line his and families pockets at that time; FIFA money to be spent on sundries all went to Jack and Co, the T&T govt built the stadia.
FIFA allocated $2M US to build hospitality booths; Jack's family got the contracts and if they spent $100K US they spent plenty on these booths.

I won't even bring up the travel agency fiasco at WC 2006 where the sale of tickets were married to a travel agency owned by whom? somebosy whose last name begin with W.

HL, you guys are defending a man who is so corrupted him could make Madoff and dem man look like angels.

As far as I am concerned he is about power, and all for his own agenda in spite of his public mouthings.

You know what he calculated the players' share of the 2006 WC earnings for T&T to be? Less than $1000US per player!!

You and Karl surprise me that you are willing to overlook the blatant and obvious and excuse and low de man cah him "do plenty" for CFU football.

I am disappointed. You label every tangible thing Jack did as "cho?! ...suh a dat deh likle sinting?"

Where is your call for the local administrators and local stakeholders to "run wid di likle" Jack did/Jack put before them? ...as I said, you cannot blame Jack for the failure to build on what he presented.

- In terms of what we could do to build on what Jack did - Why is there not more use of...any use of parlying the opportunities the additional places JA and TT used to visit the World Cup brought. It is not Jack's fault JA and TT has done zilch with those opportunities!

Those were tremndous opportunities gotten as a direct result of Jack's work that should have had us, like Croatia (who the REGGAE BOYZ gave a good run for their money and who visited at WC '98 and grabbed its opportunity with both hands) as one of football's big boys! The opportunity Jack put before us was priceless! We turned it into pittance!

What of the opportunities brought about by say, Tony James' seat on the FIFA's committe dealing with Youth? Why aren't we having Tony lobby to bring top coaches to teach our coaches...lobbying to having our many junior age group coaches spend time at top academies...to learn the how of developing junior players?

Well Tony James is where he is because of Jack!

Why isn't Horace Ried running a million seminars passing on his considerable gained experiences to assist our organisers of local tournaments...sharing his now vast adminsitrative experiences? It is not Jack's fault...Jack did! He opened the door to Horace. He presented the opportunites! We are not using them!

Jack can...and he does...take the horse to water...but by God the horse must want to drink and actually do the drinking.

It is arrant nonsense to speak about Jack not having done anything or only a likle thing for the CFU. Hiowever, it is right on the mark claiming the CFU administrators are just sitting on the 'goldmine'...doing nothing in many cases or doing damn little.

I could list the opportunities that abound....but a little search of the FIFA web site shows the major commitees CFU persons sit on. It also shows the work the various committees do...it takes but a little thinking to see the vast...almost inexhaustable set of opportunities available.

That our football is the pits is not Jack's fault...it is the fault of the 'arses' who are our benchwarmers 'in' FIFA and CONCACAF and the
good-for-nothings supporting cast resident in the various CFU nations.

Jack has set the table - Jack has said, EAT! The benchwarmers have not as they should...they sit and do just about absolutely nothing! You can take a horse to water...

--------------

btw - How do you think Burrell was able to after 1998 get us so many mtches with high profile top national teams?

His standing in FIFA and his friendship/association with Jack leverged. Why do you think it is now slowing to a trickle?

Follow this - The door was opened to these teams...but our effort at making ourselves worthy opponents...is a result of local failures. Sure the big boys will play us as 'a favour'...but to have them continually play us...we must keep that door open by building our game/improving the level of our pl;ay/ proving we deserve to be played against...often. Jack opened the door! Jack cannot get us to play good football. It is ourselves (our administrators (by building - improved coaching/teaching of our talents) that are the failures! Jack who kicked the door wide open and said, enter and eat!

[Warlord]

[quote=Zeppo;196061]

But Mexico did make it out of their group; that makes it 1 out of 3 CONCACAF teams advancing in 1998. Africa was 1 for 5, and Asia was 0 for 4.

1 of 3 for Concacaf looks better on paper as opposed to 1 of 5 for CAF but keep in mind that at time FIFA didnt allow the 3rd best finishers to advance. Had that been the case Morocco wouldve also advanced making it 2/5. By the same token Asia wouldve had Iran possibly advancing giving that confederate 1/4. CAF teams have had a history of being more competitive beating top ranked squads and advancing since '90. Whether or not you like hearing it, there is a reason why FIFA awarded 5 spots to CAF and only gave 3 to Concacaf.

But you still did nothing to show that Asia is a stronger region than CONCACAF.

Asia with the exception of Korea/Japan in '02 has not had a stellar record but I do believe with the exclusion of USA and Mexico, their teams are better than the remaining teams in Concacaf. Canada has lost WC playoff series with Australia on more than one occasion. You seriously cannot believe that the rest of Concacaf is better than Australia/Japan/South Korea which are the natural qualifiers from that region. Those three nations all have better more competitive leagues than that of CR/HON/EL SAL/JA/TNT.

I was talking about the last 3 World Cups, since they are the ones in the current 32-team format. But if you want to look at the previous two that you brought up:

1990 - 1 out of 2 CONCACAF teams advanced from their group. 1 out of 2 African teams advanced from their group.

1994 - 2 out of 2 CONCACAF teams advanced from thier group. 1 out of 3 African teams advanced from their group

.

As I stated. On paper the stats for Concacaf look a lil better, but Concacaf truly has had only ONE dominant team in terms of consistently making it past the first round and that team is MEXICO. US made some noise in Korea/Japan when they made it out of the group stages and onto the QF. The only other time US made it out of group stage was '94 WC which they hosted. Thats twice in 16 yrs. CAF has had 4 different teams often within its region either eliminate top seeded teams and also beating out strong contenders at various WC finals since '90 while advancing to R16 and Quarterfinals. Thats how competitive they've been as a confederate.

No, it is exactly that: when only 1 team out of 5 advances it is a 20% advancement rate. And it has been that way for Africa in the past 3 World Cups.

If that makes you feel better then run wit it. The fact remains they've had more success than Concacaf overall at this level.

I'm not claiming that CONCACAF should have another 0.5 spot to bring our total to 4. But to claim that our region should only have 2 automatic spots is a joke when considering that the current finals format has 32 teams, and the fact that we have been performing at least as well as Asia and Africa in recent years.

What success has Concacaf had consistently at this level that deserves more than 2 automatic spots?

[Zeppo]

1 of 3 for Concacaf looks better on paper as opposed to 1 of 5 for CAF but keep in mind that at time FIFA didnt allow the 3rd best finishers to advance. Had that been the case Morocco wouldve also advanced making it 2/5. By the same token Asia wouldve had Iran possibly advancing giving that confederate 1/4.

And if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle. The history of the World Cup is littered with would've/should've/could've stories, but let's try to limit the discussion to events that actually happened, shall we?

Whether or not you like hearing it, there is a reason why FIFA awarded 5 spots to CAF and only gave 3 to Concacaf.

Because it is a bigger federation with more member nations, naturally.

You seriously cannot believe that the rest of Concacaf is better than Australia/Japan/South Korea which are the natural qualifiers from that region. Those three nations all have better more competitive leagues than that of CR/HON/EL SAL/JA/TNT.

We're talking about national teams here, not domestic leagues.

CAF has had 4 different teams often within its region either eliminate top seeded teams and also beating out strong contenders at various WC finals since '90 while advancing to R16 and Quarterfinals. Thats how competitive they've been as a confederate.

And Mexico, USA and Costa Rica can also make the same claim of having beaten strong contenders at various WC finals since '90. Meanwhile CONCACAF still can make the claim of having better advancement rates than CAF over all those WCs.

The fact remains they've had more success than Concacaf overall at this level.

Wrong. There has still never been a World Cup in which more than one African team managed to advance from their group. And to illustrate, let me extend the earlier comparison I made to bring us up to the present.

1990 - 1 out of 2 CONCACAF teams advanced from their group. 1 out of 2 African teams advanced from their group.

1994 - 2 out of 2 CONCACAF teams advanced from their group. 1 out of 3 African teams advanced from their group.

1998 - 1 out of 3 CONCACAF teams advanced from their group. 1 out of 5 African teams advanced from their group.

2002 - 2 out of 3 CONCACAF teams advanced from their group. 1 out of 5 African teams advanced from their group.

2006 - 1 out of 3 CONCACAF teams advanced from their group. 1 out of 5 African teams advanced from their group.

What success has Concacaf had consistently at this level that deserves more than 2 automatic spots?

See above.

Look, perhaps you think I'm claiming that CONCACAF should have more berths than Africa or Asia at the World Cup, but I'm not. Both those federations are larger than ours and have more member nations, so it's logical that they have more spots.

I'm just saying that it wouldn't be fair to reduce CONCACAF's to 2 out of 32 total places when we have consistently managed to have at least one team advance to the 2nd round. Our current status of having 3.5 spots is plenty fair. Actually, I would say 3 minimum; I'm fine with the 0.5 spot being dependent on how our performances go (USA and Mexico both advancing in '02 was instrumental in earing the 0.5 spot for '06).

And once again, since I think this bears repeating, CONCACAF has never in the current era had a total flop World Cup like Asia has twice, in both '98 and '06. If you're going to talk about taking away spots from a federation then that's the best place to start...

[Warlord]

[quote=Zeppo;196138]

Because it is a bigger federation with more member nations, naturally.

A confederate with more member nations doesnt necessarily guarantee more automatic spots. Concacaf has 40 member nations, (3.5) AFC has 46 (4.5) and CAF 55, (5) UEFA 53 (14). The fact that UEFA has 14 spots at every WC has more to do with politics and money than anything else.

We're talking about national teams here, not domestic leagues.

Where do you think the core of their players come from? That is one of the major ingredient to their football and their success.

And Mexico, USA and Costa Rica can also make the same claim of having beaten strong contenders at various WC finals since '90. Meanwhile CONCACAF still can make the claim of having better advancement rates than CAF over all those WCs.

Still dont get it yet do you? I'll repeat it again. CAF has had FOUR different teams advance past R16 even reaching QF's level at most WC they've showcased in. Concacaf has done that QF appearance 1 time in 16 yrs (USA) Mexico has been the only to team in this region to get out of GS consistently but not make it after that. Like I said b4 CAF has hade more success overall. FIFA seems to disagree with your analogy because they've given them 5 spots as a result.

Wrong. There has still never been a World Cup in which more than one African team managed to advance from their group. And to illustrate, let me extend the earlier comparison I made to bring us up to the present.

1990 - 1 out of 2 CONCACAF teams advanced from their group. 1 out of 2 African teams advanced from their group.

1994 - 2 out of 2 CONCACAF teams advanced from their group. 1 out of 3 African teams advanced from their group.

1998 - 1 out of 3 CONCACAF teams advanced from their group. 1 out of 5 African teams advanced from their group.

2002 - 2 out of 3 CONCACAF teams advanced from their group. 1 out of 5 African teams advanced from their group.

2006 - 1 out of 3 CONCACAF teams advanced from their group. 1 out of 5 African teams advanced from their group.

You can post up watever you feel like posting to try and compare Concacaf to CAF overall success but its not even worth discussing. The bottomline is the powers that be think their a stronger confederate and allotted them more based on that reasoning.

Look, perhaps you think I'm claiming that CONCACAF should have more berths than Africa or Asia at the World Cup, but I'm not. Both those federations are larger than ours and have more member nations, so it's logical that they have more spots.

No that never crossed my mind and even if you thought that Concacaf deserved more that would be dumb. BTW, Asia doesnt have that much more members than concacaf. CAF has more than members than UEFA yet a significantly less amount of allotted spots. Try to figure out why that be the case.

I'm just saying that it wouldn't be fair to reduce CONCACAF's to 2 out of 32 total places when we have consistently managed to have at least one team advance to the 2nd round. Our current status of having 3.5 spots is plenty fair. Actually, I would say 3 minimum; I'm fine with the 0.5 spot being dependent on how our performances go (USA and Mexico both advancing in '02 was instrumental in earing the 0.5 spot for '06).

I agree but if your realistic Concacaf really doesnt deserve the 3.5 spots thats currently allocated to us. It should really be 2 maybe 3. Conmebol should have an additional spot making it 5 outright qualifiers. But having said that I'll thank JW for the extra spot and that .5 spot because it will benefit this region and already have.

And once again, since I think this bears repeating, CONCACAF has never in the current era had a total flop World Cup like Asia has twice, in both '98 and '06. If you're going to talk about taking away spots from a federation then that's the best place to start...

Both confederates can do much much better though. Asia got an additional spot because of Korea/Japan being joint hosts and their success at that WC. Australia joining AFC in my opinion is a good thing for that region and no I wouldnt take away that half spot from them just yet. I wont take anything from Concacaf either.

[Peter R]

Karl,

I am not going to dispute jack's resume... however i'd rather be left in the dark ages of football, have no one on any committee, have only 2 spots etc etc than be DICTATED to by one of the most corrupt individuals in the Caribbean. Unfortuntaely, the way he has comported himself with public monies for me, mitigates any good thing he might have done.

Can you argue that Stanford didn't do good for cricket? filled a void that the WICB should have? and yet if the allegations are true, how many people would have been destroyed by his companies and their illegal behaviour?

[Zeppo]

You make some good points, Warlord.

And I agree that politics and money play a big part in how the spots are allocated. As you point out, UEFA has a disproportionate amount when considering the size of their confederation. But clearly it is the richest region, brings in the most money for FIFA and also boasts the highest quality of football in the world. So obviously they get more spots.

But at the same time the size of the confederation plays a part, too. It simply makes sense for Africa to have more spots than CONCACAF when they have significantly more member nations. And in the past they were getting shafted; in 1990 they had just as many spots as CONCACAF (2) despite being a significantly bigger confed.

We obviously have different views on just how successful Africa has been at the World Cup. You feel that having four different teams over the past 5 WCs advance (w/ 2 making the quarterfinals) constitutes great success. But I say that when only 25% of their total teams advance (as opposed to 54% of CONCACAF's) that the success of their region is completely overstated. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

Also, you seem to believe that our 0.5 spot came to us solely because of Jack Warner, and I'm sure he pushed hard for it, but you're completely reluctant to give any credit to the CONCACAF teams that really earned it for us. I mean, do you really think it would have been awarded to us without USA and Mexico having such a strong WC in 2002?

And last, if you're going to use the logic that "the powers that be" allotted Africa more places based on the strength of their performances, then you can say the same thing as to why CONCACAF got theirs increased after 1994. That is, if you're going to say that Africa deserve their spot because FIFA said so (Your words: "FIFA seems to disagree with your analogy because they've given them 5 spots as a result") then it is also the case that CONCACAF deserve all of the spots they currently have because, after all, FIFA gave them to us. The argument works both ways.