In 2006 Uefa got 14 out of 32 teams at the world cup, in 2010 and 2014 it's 13 out of 32. so nearly 50% of the teams.
And on the surface that seems fair enough, the europeans are the best in the world at football. They've produced the most winning teams, the most finalists, the most semi finalists etc. In 2006 the top 4 teams were all european, in 2010 the top 3 were.
But well the top teams being european doesn't mean all european teams are top teams.
In 2010 the top 3 teams were all european but those were the only european teams in the last 8. The majority of those 13 teams simply aren't better than the 19 the other continents get. I've been beating this drum for a while but the strength of two or three elite european teams is hiding the fact that the medium range european teams are mostly not that good.
In 2010, 6 out of those 13 european teams made it out of their groups. In 2014, it's the same, 6 out of 13. So less than half of the european teams have reached the second round in the last 2 world cups.
Compared to non european teams, where 10 out of 19 made it. More than half. So by and large, despite the fact that the top 3 teams in 2010 were european, the average non european team has done better than the average european team in the prior two world cups (both held outside europe admittedly).
So you have to question why Europe get more spaces than anyone else. I mean the elite teams will get there anyway, it's the likes of England, Russia, Bosnia etc. who are having to prove that they're more worthy than Peru or Panama or Egypt or Uzbekistan. And by and large they don't really seem to be.
The problem with reducing the amount of european spaces is who gets them, though.
If you look at the 10 non european teams to get out of their groups in both 2010 and 2014, the majority are south american. They got 5 out of the groups in both tournaments. So obviously they are by far the strongest continent in terms of strength in depth. But the thing is there's only 10 south american teams. You can't give them more than 5 or 6 and still have qualifying mean anything.
And if you look at the non south american or european confederations who would presumably win those places from the europeans, their record isn't actually that good. 5 out of 14 asian, oceanic, african or north american teams made it out of the group in 2010 which is a lower hit rate than the europeans. 5 out of 13 did it this time around, which is again slightly worse than europe.
Asia got 4 places this go and none got out of their group. Africa only got 1 out of 6 through in 2010 and 2 out of 5 this go around. Bizarre as it is, the obvious place you'd give places to is North America, who I always slate as being a weak as hell confederation.
So basically, tldr, England should never been at this world cup, Barbados should have had their place.
And on the surface that seems fair enough, the europeans are the best in the world at football. They've produced the most winning teams, the most finalists, the most semi finalists etc. In 2006 the top 4 teams were all european, in 2010 the top 3 were.
But well the top teams being european doesn't mean all european teams are top teams.
In 2010 the top 3 teams were all european but those were the only european teams in the last 8. The majority of those 13 teams simply aren't better than the 19 the other continents get. I've been beating this drum for a while but the strength of two or three elite european teams is hiding the fact that the medium range european teams are mostly not that good.
In 2010, 6 out of those 13 european teams made it out of their groups. In 2014, it's the same, 6 out of 13. So less than half of the european teams have reached the second round in the last 2 world cups.
Compared to non european teams, where 10 out of 19 made it. More than half. So by and large, despite the fact that the top 3 teams in 2010 were european, the average non european team has done better than the average european team in the prior two world cups (both held outside europe admittedly).
So you have to question why Europe get more spaces than anyone else. I mean the elite teams will get there anyway, it's the likes of England, Russia, Bosnia etc. who are having to prove that they're more worthy than Peru or Panama or Egypt or Uzbekistan. And by and large they don't really seem to be.
The problem with reducing the amount of european spaces is who gets them, though.
If you look at the 10 non european teams to get out of their groups in both 2010 and 2014, the majority are south american. They got 5 out of the groups in both tournaments. So obviously they are by far the strongest continent in terms of strength in depth. But the thing is there's only 10 south american teams. You can't give them more than 5 or 6 and still have qualifying mean anything.
And if you look at the non south american or european confederations who would presumably win those places from the europeans, their record isn't actually that good. 5 out of 14 asian, oceanic, african or north american teams made it out of the group in 2010 which is a lower hit rate than the europeans. 5 out of 13 did it this time around, which is again slightly worse than europe.
Asia got 4 places this go and none got out of their group. Africa only got 1 out of 6 through in 2010 and 2 out of 5 this go around. Bizarre as it is, the obvious place you'd give places to is North America, who I always slate as being a weak as hell confederation.
So basically, tldr, England should never been at this world cup, Barbados should have had their place.
