WHEN the idea of a World Cup every two years was first floated, South America initially expressed a slight interest.
But the continent had a quick rethink.
Towards the end of last month, Conmebol, the South American Confederation, announced that its ten nations could see “no motive, benefits or justification” for the proposal, accused Fifa of “turning its back on a century of tradition” and affirmed that they would not take part in a World Cup every two years.
Even though the continent has just ten votes, this is a serious blow to the prestige of the proposal launched by Arsene Wenger.
South America started the World Cup back in 1930, and its traditional big three – Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay – have nine titles between them, as well as some of the biggest and most exciting names in the global game.
Brazil have played at every tournament. Could a World Cup without them really be a World Cup?
Why, then, has the continent turned against the biennial idea so quickly and radically?
It would seem to be because they have looked at the small print. Wenger’s proposal would seem to be a war on the qualification tournament, fearing that it has too many games and involves too much travelling. South America can hardly agree.
First, the qualifiers are the main moment when the continent gets to see the players it produces. Every weekend and often in midweek the likes of Lionel Messi, Neymar and Luis Suarez are parading their talents for a European audience to enjoy.
The qualifiers are when they come home, a rare moment for their own public to enjoy them. And if the travelling is the price, then the players seem willing to pay it.
And then there is the question of too many games. World Cup qualification in South America is indeed a marathon, with 18 rounds of matches. But in normal circumstances – when not derailed by a pandemic – it uses the same Fifa dates as anywhere else.
The Copa America has no qualifiers, so when Europe is working out who will make it to the Euros, South America has already started on the next World Cup.
BENEFITS FOR SMALLER NATIONS
And the marathon format, all ten nations playing each other home and away, has done wonders for the smaller and less traditional nations. It was introduced in 1996, and the consequences are clear.
Ecuador had never made it to a World Cup before 2002. Four years later they gave England a game in the second round. 2010 was the best World Cup in the history of Paraguay, 2014 was the same thing for Colombia.
2010 and 14 were the best ever for Chile, with the exception of 1962, which it hosted. Uruguay have returned to the top table, something which seemed unthinkable some twenty years ago.
All of this has been based on the World Cup qualifiers. They provide a regular calendar of competitive games, with guaranteed income, making it possible for the countries to hire better coaches and invest in youth development.
This week the thirteenth round of the current campaign is played. All five games are live affairs, with plenty at stake for one, or – in most cases – both sides.
The qualifiers work as they are in South America, both a source of income and as a stepping stone to improving the teams.
It is hardly a surprise that South America does not want to give them up and cut them back in exchange for a World Cup every two years.
Source: Soccer - thesun.co.uk
