Now, I don't know for certain but given the numbers involved there is a fair chance that the FAI have pledged their support to him. How is that decision come to? Is there any recourse under the new structures in place for transparency on how these decisions are come to?

Excuse the ignorance but if he’s running unopposed what exactly would be the point in saying you’re against him. I understand it’d be good political statement but it’s still meaningless until there’s someone running to challenge him. Or am I incorrect? 

I could be wrong on this but I don't believe another candidate is precluded from going forward at this stage. With only 4 votes seemingly available it might seem futile though.

Surely there’s someone out there, presumably in Europe looking to make a name for themselves by taking a stand, even if he is well beaten in the vote 

I’m sure Delaney had 5 million reasons for giving the bold Sepp his vote.

Am sure uefa has our dear departed leaders portrait just in storage ready to be rehung

The man was beyond humiliation especially when you see his 50th birthday bash.

007 you could say 

Despite Blatter, Platini and Infantino all being European themselves, FIFA have long been at daggers drawn with UEFA, with CONMEBOL having recently rowed in on the latter's side over the former's proposal to stage the World Cup every two years (would clash with the Euro's and Copa America).

Ultimately, this comes down to European resentment over the fact that they generate by far the most money in the game, have most of the best teams and facilities etc, but don't feel they receive the credit they deserve from FIFA (eg World Cup qualifying places etc). While the European clubs sometimes forge an uneasy alliance with UEFA over FIFA demands on their players (World Club championships etc).

Of course, those three chancers mentioned above have long since calculated that with only 50-odd votes in FIFA, UEFA's Member Associations can always be outvoted by the 150-odd Members from the rest of the world, even after CONMEBOL's 10 Members are discounted.

While as we knoiw, many of those ROW Members can easily be, er, "influenced" to vote in the way which certain vested interests require.

The whole system is inherently and probably irredeemably corrupt, but then again, we always knew that.

And to get back to the OP's point, with Infantino already having a clear majority of Member Association votes in his back pocket, no other MA is going to put forward their own candidate for an election which they must inevitably lose, sjnce that would see their card marked by Infantino and bring down reprisals etc.

I can't help thinking President Infantino must have learnt his trade from President Xi of China.

Or do I mean the other way round?

I'm surprised UEFA and CONMEBOL haven't pulled the trigger before now to be honest. They hold the cards, without them FIFA is just a mish mash of second rate sides. If those two federations broke away it's inevitable that the rest would eventually have to go with them to survive, and FIFA would collapse. 

That would allow the two stronger confederations to take control of international football and allow the World Cup to be properly reformed, either back to a 32 team tournament with greater European and South American involvement than there is currently or by keeping the new 48 team format but having 20 to 24 European teams and 8 or 9 South American teams to keep the standards up, rather than the mess of mismatched qualifiers we're likely to see in 2026 as things stand.

Plenty of room for that alongside improving the standards with additional European and South American teams also. It's a nonsense that the likes of Italy can have a bad 90 minutes at the wrong moment in qualification and then don't go to the World Cup.

On the other hand Costa Rica qualified as the fourth ranked Concacaf team and were outclassed last night. At the next world cup there will be six automatic Concacaf spots plus a playoff spot. So, using the 2022 qualifiers as an example, Jamaica, who finished 14 points behind Costa Rica in qualifying, would also qualify automatically. Africa - 0 wins and 1 goal from five teams in the first round of group games - getting four additional automatic spots and a playoff spot next time around. As things stand, 2026 is going to be a disaster in terms of mismatched contests.

Spot on, excellent summary. 

Will be interesting to see what happens if the South American teams join the Nations League as Boniek suggested they would do last year. 

You'd think, but it's getting more and more difficult, since it all comes down to money. And while Europe football generates more money than everywhere else, it's external money which is becoming more and more influential.

That is, for 2022, Qatar was able to spend $220 billion dollars to host this time. Two. Hundred. And. Twenty. Billion. Dollars.

While their regional political enemy Saudi Arabia is also flexing its muscle globally. For example, a biennial World Cup was a Saudi proposal and now they're talking of bidding for 2030! That's right, another Middle East Finals in November, a mere 8 years/2 cycles after this one.

I mean, with the way they're buying Boxing, F1, Golf etc, then it's clear that eg buying Newcastle was small change to them.

All of which is why I'm not so sure that the Rest of the World would fall in behind UEFA and CONMEBOL should those two threaten to break away.

 

Do they ‘own’ or have copyright on the laws? I’d say any breakaway would end up in the courts and considering money involved legal opinions have already been sought by breakaway.

If a new candidate emerges that is a different story

Behind the scenes moves can be done without big public pronouncements

Each to their own, but if you gave UEFA 3 more spots on last qualifying it'd be Ukraine, Sweden and North Macedonia here. Give them more slots and you get the likes of Austria, Czech Rep, Scotland, Turkey, Italy. Give me Nigeria, Egypt, Mali, Congo, Algeria over that. For me, WC is about seeing new teams, not more Nations League.

Dunno whether IFAB has any copyright etc (doubt it), but it's probably not relevant, since lthough FIFA is heavily represented on IFAB, they are still a separate body.

In fact IFAB (founded 1896) actually predates FIFA (1904).

Shedite wrote: For me, WC is about seeing new teams

Then sack all those teams which have qualified in the past and replace them with first timers.

Vanuatu. Tajikstan. Gibraltar - they'd all be new.

For me, it's all about seeing the Best of the Best, with genuinely competitive games - it's why you have qualifying/elimination in the first place.

On which basis it's obvious that Africa (esp) is overrepresented, and has been for years. While future expansion, heavily weighted away from Europe, will only make the problem worse.

Shedite wrote: ... not more Nations League.

Then get rid of the NL.

 Yeah give us more of these tripe African teams please. If you want to watch African teams watch AFCON! Fact is there probably shouldn't be more than 2 or 3 at WCs.

I don't have a problem with the top African/Asian/Nort American teams, they've earned their spots and are more than capable. My problem is they'll be almost doubling the AFC, CAF and CONCACAF spots in the next World Cup. Combining this with the new group format and seeding, it's going to make the group stages a lopsided farce with no consequences. You're going to have the likes of Brazil vs El Salvador and France vs DR Congo in a 3 team group where 1 win will see you through to a 32 round knockout.

So rather than more African and Asian teams embarrassing themselves in an expanded World Cup, you'd rather see more European teams embarrassing themselves in an expanded World Cup instead?

Put it this way; how do you think Ireland would be doing in this World Cup against Morocco or Japan?

I hate the group stage format, should definitely be groups of 4, I suspect/hope they'll revisit that before the tournament.

Your examples are picking the top 2 teams in the tournament against the bottom 2 teams in the tournament, that'll always look lopsided, we've 7-0 and 6-2 results in this tournament, I think Egypt, Nigeria, Algeria would hold their own in groups like Morocco, Cameroon, Senegal are.

Asia I'm less hot on, but understand they want to grow the game internationally, and there's huge populations over there.

Ireland (under current management) are irrelevant. You'd have needed about 30 European qualification spots for us to qualify. If Italy were there I'm sure they'd be doing just fine though and I very much doubt they'd be "embarrassing themselves".

I'd rather not expand the World Cup at all. But yes, expanding it to double the AFC, CAF and CONCACAF nations rather than the current split is particularly stupid. Was done only by Blatter to curry favour with these confederations so they can continue their corrupt system.

UEFA/Europe without doubt should be getting more places for the next World Cup.

This year 8 European teams qualified for the last 16.

In 2018 10 European teams qualified for the last 16.

In 2014 6 European teams qualified for the last 16.

In 2010 6 European teams qualified for the last 16.

In 2006 10 European teams qualified for the last 16.

In 2002 9 European teams qualified for the last 16.

In 1998 10 European teams qualified for the last 16.

That’s over 50% of European teams in the last 16 over the past 24 years with European sides winning 5 out of 6 of those World Cups.

Was thinking that Uefa haven't gotten as many extra place as other federations.

So many south American counries it will be like a Copa America.

Maybe an extra 2 places or however many could have been up for grabs in an intercontinental game, or if your in a certain position by the end of qualifying in the zone goes down to fifa rankings.

Or they could have just left it the same.

The challenge of the World Cup is to beat teams with all different styles of football, so if they're going to 48 (which I don't agree with), they're doing it the right way IMO.

Where did I say UEFA should get over 50% of the spots for the World Cup? It’s not unreasonable to suggest more places should be accommodated for European sides, even if that means they have to face play offs against teams from other confederations.  

Simple answer - no. Yet again, even taking it as a percentage of qualifiers, Europe has over performed compared to everyone else. And that's even with a couple of big hitters messing up and of course the European champions not even qualifying. 

Number of qualifiers for the last 16 for each confederation, as a percentage of tournament qualification spots:

Europe 8 from 13 61.5%

S America 2 from 4 50%

Asia 3 from 6 50%

Africa 2 from 5 40%

N America 1 from 4 25% 

Even allowing for the need to spread the places around the world Europe should really have 20 qualification places in a 48 team tournament. That would still allow all the other confederations to get additional places compared to now while at the same time hopefully preventing substandard North American, Oceania and Asian teams from qualifying, which will almost certainly happen in 2026. If three or four of the 20 are given through intercontinental playoffs, then fair enough. But only having a third of the qualifiers for 2026 being from UEFA devalues the tournament sadly.

In better news it looks like they're moving towards 12 groups of 4 next time, rather than the ridiculous 16 groups of 3 idea that was in place until now. That mistake will likely be corrected next year now by FIFA.

It is pretty outrageous that Africa is getting another 3, possibly 4, spots when Europe is only getting an extra 3.

For if yoiu look at past African participation, their record is pretty crap i.e. with 49 participations, they have only ever had 11 teams get out of their group to the last 16, of which only 3 to date have got to the last 8 and none beyond that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_nations_at_the_FIFA_World_Cup" rel="nofollow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_nations_at_the_FIFA_World_Cup

And if those are there best five teams, how much weaker must their second-rate teams be?

darmack wrote: So many south American counries it will be like a Copa America. Maybe an extra 2 places or however many could have been up for grabs in an intercontinental game, or if your in a certain position by the end of qualifying in the zone goes down to fifa rankings.

I'm also not at all sure about giving South America an extra couple of teams, either. For if you look past perennial qualifiers Brazil and Argenina, they generally have one or two more from Columbia and Uruguay, maybe Ecuador or Chile who can put up a show, but that's it - three or four competitive teams in each finals.

Theres no way all six 2026 entrants will all be "on it" at the same time, and so be competitive in the finals. And beyond that, who does it leave?  Bolivia? Paraguay? Venezuela? Peru? CONMEBOL simply does not have the strength in depth to justify 6 entrants out of 10 members.

darmack wrote: Or they could have just left it the same.

Blasphemer!

Expanding it is purely for money reasons. It has nothing to do with improving the game or the tournament, if anything it'll do the opposite.

With the new allocations its clear they're trying more or less assure the largest populated countries qualify every time.

I hate going to 48 teams, but I'd hate it more if it ends up being basically all the Euros teams.

16 out of 48 teams is 33.3%, of course Europe deserve more than that, I didn’t say they deserve 24 spots.

Japan and South Korea can beat rested Spains and Portugals all they like, one of the worst Irish teams of all time [on paper] was able to do that to Italy six years ago.

It's not that impressive. Most of the Euro teams who didn't progress to the last 16 were eliminated by other European teams, e.g. Switzerland, Belgium, Wales etc. 

Yes it's a nonsense, suggesting that New Zealand who are ranked outside the top 100 in the world deserve pretty much a guaranteed spot rather than giving more of a chance to Norway, Sweden or Ukraine is ridiculous really. 

Not to mention that the new format together with the allocation means the likes of Iraq, Panama, Jordan, Uzbekistan and other teams that simply aren't up to the standard are likely to qualify while quality teams in UEFA are left hoping for a decent draw to have any chance of qualification for even a 48 team tournament. 

It's insane what FIFA are doing - and it's all just politics, nothing to do with growing the game.

that way the likes of New Zealand and Peru can duke it out against Ukraine and Norway for the last couple spots 

This is the way to go. They should get playoff spots not outright places.

Shedite wrote: They want to get in countries with large populations

China - 1.5bn

India - 1.4bn

Indonesia - 273m

Pakistan - 220m

Bangladesh - 165m

Ethiopia - 115m

Philippines - 110m

Vietnam - 97m

DR Congo - 86m

Tanzania - 60m

Myanmar - 54m

They'll be expanding the 2030 WC to 200 teams then, so.

Shedite wrote: ... an opportunity to build a strong domestic league

Did nothing for domestic leagues in Mexico (1970, 1986), USA (1994), South Africa (2010) or Russia (2018).

While even South Korea/Japan (2002) havent shown great progress domestically, considering how populous, wealthy and well-organised those countries are more generally.

And as for Qatar - every single one of their squad this year plays in the Qatari league, where they earn decent money.. And every one of them was sh*te.

Fact is, even if they spout this argument at regular intervals, I dont' think even the blazers at FIFA believe that hosting a World Cup creates a legacy for countries which don't have a strong footballing culture already.

Instead it's quite simply Infantino "buying" votes from the non-UEFA/CONMEBOL members by offering extra invites to the Big Party every four years.

And along with the 3 team group format, I predict (a ) expansion in 2026 will backfire badly, at least as regards the quality of matches, and (b ) Infantino won't give a stuff.

Shedite wrote: Each to their own, but I don't think football belongs to the established countries. Every team should have a chance to playat a World Cup.

But "football" is more than just the World Cup Finals which ultimately are designed to find the best international team(s) in the world. Otherwise why have qualification matches to get there and knockout rounds once you have? Surely such a qualfication process should be based on merit and excellence, not some misplaced sympathy for countries which can't cut it otherwise?

So that if eg Africa wants extra representation at a Finals, then their leading teams should be required to prove by their performances in Finals that their second-ranked teans deserve the chance to join them.

And if these Finals are anything to go by, unless Morocco pull a rabbit out of a hat, then CAF will once again have failed to demonstrate why they deserve even five teams in 2026, never mind eight.

Shedite wrote: Euros going to 8 and World Cup to 24 in the 80's allowed Ireland to qualify, you don't think that had a legacy on the popularity on the game here?

This is NOT a dig at the ROI team in particular, but now you mention it, what exactly was their "legacy"?

Did the FAI get a shiny big National stadium of its own out if it? A modern national training centre? Decent LOI stadia fit for the 21st century, hosting a noticeably higher standard of domestic football before sold-out crowds every week? Better facilities and greater participation at grassroots level, consistent with a growing and wealthier population? More and better coaches, with the best of them moving abroad to top clubs in top leagues? The (GB-born and developed) Granny Rulers of the Charlton/McCarthy years since replaced by equivalent standard home-grown players?

Theres' no doubt ROI gets very impressive crowds for 6 or 8 home international matches every year, and takes great numbers of enthusiastic and welcome supporters to away games etc, but realistically, how many of those are "barstoolers", and/or supporters of Celtic/Man Utd/Liverpool etc?

[And before anyone jumps in, I would level pretty much the same criticisms at the IFA/NI, after our glory years of the 1980's etc.]

If it's a trade-off between watching competitive games involving  European teams with whom we're familiar, versus new, but third rate, teams from Africa or Asia in uncompetitive or  meaningless games, then I am going for the former.

Bear in mind, too, that there will be 63 games in this Finals, whereas 2026 will have 80 games i.e. even if every one was a cracker, there simply isn't enough time in the day to keep up with all of them.

And that's if they don't stick with the format of 16 groups of 3 teams etc. There is talk now of reconfiguring 2026 to involve 12 groups of 4 teams. This would produce 104 games!

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/dec/01/world-cup-organisers-consider-ditching-three-team-group-format-for-2026" rel="nofollow - https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/dec/01/world-cup-organisers-consider-ditching-three-team-group-format-for-2026

So Ivory Coast versus Denmark might be preferable to you over Switzerland versus Denmark, for imstance. But Ivory Coast versus Bolivia, kicking off at the same time as Kenya versus Iraq and New Zealand versus El Salvador, with none of them having any hope of progressing?

What would Dunphy have to say about that!

You're picking all the 4th placed teams in your examples there. They wouldn't be in the same groups. 

And yeah, I'm all for teams like Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Tunisia, Iran, Costa Rica, Ghana, Ecuador, Senegal, Cameroon all who won games in this World Cup over more Wales, Serbia, Denmark who stunk the place up.

I'm not arguing against all those teams you cite admiringly from taking their place in Qatar.

But while they may have had some good individual performances which stick in the mind, you overlook the poor performances eg Spain beating Costa Rica 7-0; or Saudi losing to moderate teams like  Poland and Mexico. Also the failure of 7 of the 9 even to get out of their Group.

More importantly, you seem to overlook that those are the best of Africa, Asia and Central America. How entertaining or interesting do you think the second rate teams from those regions would be in 2026, when a predictable defeat in their first game would effectively render their second game meaningless and send them on their way back home.

I fear that eg Qatar this time would provide a closer template i.e. Played 3, Lost 3, Scored 1 Conceded 7 - and that with the benefit of home advantage!