Below is a chronological listing of news items leading up to, including, and reviewing the announcement of Oceania's World Cup spot. Some have been updated slightly. A transcript of a letter sent to various newspapers and a look at what the future might entail, then follows. But first, click here to check the history of Oceania that preceded this monumental occasion.
28 February 2002: Blatter to help Oceania get a direct spot.
At a Fifa workshop in Tokyo today, Fifa president Sepp Blatter publicly confirmed his
desire for Oceania to have representation in future World Cups. Those that have been
around the game for a while will no doubt recall similar promises in the past, most
notably for the 1998 World Cup when the number of teams went to 32. That time, any
promises were usurped by Fifa's executive committee - the body representative of all the
confederations that actually makes the final decision - and Oceania was forced to play-off
with Asia's fourth best team. Simple fact of that matter is that the same thing
could happen again this time. However, there are a few considerations that need to
be taken into account that suggests that finally the region will get the representation it
deserves.
First, instead of the previous surreptitious promises made to officials in a far away back office, Blatter's promise was made to the world-wide public at a major Fifa convention. It's rare that a Fifa president would make such an announcement if there was a good chance it would not happen. Of course, as we saw with the hosting rights to the 2006 World Cup, Blatter's and Fifa's public support for South Africa amounted to nothing in the end, when the executive committee voted for Germany. The resultant major public embarrassment suffered by Fifa at the time is something that they won't want to go through again.
So why would he appear confident that the executive committee won't block his wishes as what's happened previously? Well, in another factor that favours Oceanic representation, the recent decision to force champions to qualify for subsequent World Cups means an extra spot has been created and Oceania won't be taking a spot from another confederation. Secondly, Oceania's role in the German World Cup decision (they controversially abstained, which effectively handed the Cup to Germany) means they are owed a favour from the numerically powerful European Confederation. With Africa and Asia bickering for places too, chances are the executive won't be able to resolve the allocation and this is where Blatter's discretionary power comes in. He would simply execute his promise.
That still leaves 30 spots to allocate, which Oceania should seek to gain futher a bonus half-spot. The allocation might see Europe with 13, Africa with 5 (they don't deserve any more), Asia with 4 (they want 5, but will be content with 4), Concacaf with 3 and South America with 4. One spot remains, which could be used in a second chance play-off group, or even in a mini knockout tournament in the World Cup host's country, for the developing regions involving 2nd Oceania, 5th Asia, 4th Concacaf and maybe 6th Africa.
The final factor favouring Oceania's representation is that unlike in 1998, Oceania is now a fully fledged confederation that has every right, according to Fifa's very own constitution, for representation in any Fifa sanctioned tournaments. In fact, they had full status preceding the 2002 World Cup qualifiers and deserved their place then. But the Oceania president of the time, Charles Dempsey, struck a deal with Fifa to play-off against South America and not cause trouble in demanding direct representation for exchange for a guaranteed representation in 2006. Why that deal was done when the confederation seemed to have every legal right for representation is mysterious. There may have been a clause involved at the time when Oceania was upgraded from a partial to full member that precluded a birth for 2002.
Already, some of the confederations are claiming Oceania don't deserve a spot because it effectively gives Australia an automatic spot. That's ludicrous, because teams like Mexico, Argentina and Brazil, Italy and Germany, and even Cameroon, have enjoyed such "automatic" spots through domination of their region for years. Even their query that Oceania (read Australia) is not good enough, does not wash. Facts are, no team outside Europe and South America has reached the semi-finals of the World Cup in the modern era. And how can Asia demand extra spots given their pitiful performance in World Cups? Korea, their best team, is still to win a World Cup game from its numerous appearances. Oceanic teams have done well in recent international competitions with Australia finishing second and third in two Confederations Cup appearances, and even lowly New Zealand pushing Germany and Brazil closely when they qualified in 1999. Their performances at actual World Cups on the two occasions Oceanic teams have qualified exceeded those of the other developing nations that competed at those tournaments. The entire deservedness and competitiveness factor is unjustified, irrelevant and unlikely to be taken into serious consideration.
So it seems direct Oceanic representation at the next World Cup is a fait accompli. However, it's still disconcerting to hear Blatter and Oceania representatives talking about having a lot of work to do, and that there's a long way to go. Well, there should be no work and no distance to go. Oceania is a full confederation, and the only decision to be made is how many spots they get. It just leaves the door open for the inevitable last minute disappointment. Until the decision is fully ratified, don't ignore the worst.
26 March 2002: Oceania gets direct spot to Olympics
For both men's and women's competitions, Oceania will have guaranteed representation at
the Olympics from 2004 following Fifa's announcement that one spot will be allocated to
the region. Since the under-23 era, Australia - Oceania winner on all occasions
except when hosts in 2000 - have played-off against Holland in that memorable match in
1992 when Zelic scored that goal from near the by-line to level the aggregate scores 3-3
and to win the series on away-goals, and against Canada in 1996 when they won 7-2 on
aggregate after a 2-2 draw away in the first leg. For Sydney 2000, New Zealand
played-off against South Africa and lost 3-2 at home and 1-0 away. The decision
means Oceania's goal of representation at the World Cup is a huge step closer, and is the
first significant indication that Fifa will grant not only Oceania's wishes, but their
very right. That decision will be made later this year.
09 April 2002: Asia wants us now. Well, get stuffed
In an amazing comment by Korea's Chung Mong-Joon - a Fifa vice-president and one of the
most powerful men in world football - he expressed his support for Oceania to be
represented at the World Cup but also that Oceania must qualify permanently via an Asian
play-off. Oceania president Basil Scarsella was rightly fuming at such suggestions
as it reeks of nothing but selfishness and yet another slap in the face to Oceania.
Asia are fighting for more representation themselves, and since it's unlikely they will
get it, they want the next best thing - half a spot through Oceania. Well, the only
message I have for Chung is to get stuffed. Excuse the distasteful language, but
that's the most appropriate phrase that can be offered in this situation.
Chung justified his desire for guaranteed Oceanic representation by suggesting they earn the right to one direct spot only by qualifying successively for a few World Cups. Well, get stuffed again. Oceania now has full confederation status. That very factor is the determining point on whether a region is developed enough to warrant guaranteed World Cup representation, not on whether a team can qualify. Otherwise Fifa would not have granted full status. The only thing that performances at the World Cup should determine is the level of representation, or number of spots allocated. Based on that, Asia's abysmal performances at World Cups probably suggests they are over-represented.
Now, while I am against the concept of Oceania, facts are that since it is a fully fledged confederation it must have identical rights to all the other confederations. And that includes guaranteed representation at all Fifa sanction tournaments. If Asia wants Oceania to go through Asia, they must be prepared to allow Oceania to have full integration into Asia. And that does not just include a fair World Cup qualifying route via a group system, but access to all Asian nation and club championships. It's all, or nothing.
With the recent decision to grant a direct spot to the Olympics, the World Cup - ironically the Fifa competition with the most teams - is now the only competition that Oceania does not have guaranteed representation. Despite Chung's statement that he believes Fifa president Sepp Blatter's earlier promise of support for Oceanic representation in the World Cup is nothing but a grab for votes, signs are, especially with Asia now clamouring for half of that spot, that Oceania indeed will be given the guaranteed representation that it deserves. However, for football fans that want to see the Socceroos in regular, big time, meaningful matches, that will be a sad day. It would virtually be the end of any chance Australia and Oceania have to be integrated into Asia, or any other region for that matter. It's just a pity that when former Soccer Australia boss David Hill made approaches to join Asia several years ago, he was embarrassingly shunned by the Fifa Congress that failed to see the vision. Irrespective of whether Oceania gets the direct spot or competes in one of those ridiculous play-offs for the next World Cup, we are, in the short term, in a lose-lose situation come decision time. To Fifa and other powers that be, again: get stuffed.
19 April 2002: Yet Another Step Closer for Oceania
Like Fifa Sepp Blatter, Cameroon's Issa Hayatou, Blatter's only presidential rival in next
month's elections, has pledged to award Oceania one spot if he is elected president.
In a game of political cat and mouse, not only has Hayatou matched Blatter's
promise, he's exceeded it by increasing Asia's spots from 3.5 to 5 spots and Concacaf's
from 3 to 3.5. Europe drops from 13.5 to 13 whilst Africa remain unchanged with 5.
The hosts get a spot, while South America has their quota reduced from 4.5 to just 3
because Hayatou contends that 5 spots (they converted their half spot when they defeated
Australia) is too many in only a 10 team confederation. However, there is a final
half spot not allocated, so I suspect that the half Concacaf spot (fourth placed team)
would playoff with the South American fourth placed team. Of course, all this talk
is meaningless as the World Cup allocation is decided ultimately by the Fifa executive
committee. But with only South America having any real gripe with the proposed
allocation, they will be out numbered by all the other confederations. Even Europe,
who probably feel that they deserve more, will reward Asia and Oceania for their role in
securing Germany the 2006 World Cup. Lets not forget also that Oceania is now a full
confederation, so actually deserve guaranteed representation.
It will be an interesting time with the proposed allocation, especially with the obvious wrath that Hayatou will incur from the South Americans. It does seem a harsh drop in spots, whilst Asia's seem generous. While Asia is large enough to warrant 5 spots, that old argument that is so often directed at Oceania of actually proving competitive at the World Cup before receiving guaranteed representation, if applied to Asian performances, would suggest they don't deserve the increase. South America is in the opposite situation whereby numerically they don't deserve the spots, but performance-wise they do. Four of the five teams made the second phase in France (only Colombia missed out, from Chile, Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil), whilst none of the four Asian teams did, and only one (Iran) could even win a game. I'd have reduced South America to four spots from 4.5, and increased Asia by just a half spot, to four full spots.
With the remaining half spot, I'd have a three-team developing-regions spot that includes fifth Asian, fourth Concacaf, and second Oceania. Yes, Oceania does deserve a lucky-losers second chance spot like the other confederations get. Besides the obvious factor that Oceania has the chance to promote two teams to the World Cup, it would simply be great for the region to host two big qualifying matches in this new era when there'd be none otherwise. That would not only help the development of the sport in the region, but would allow the second placed country some form of financial wind-fall from the gate-takings. And if they are good enough to win the three-team league, then why should they not go to the World Cup? There's also the benefit to the smaller nations who would have a secondary goal to aim at. Whilst the main objective of qualifying for the World Cup would be near impossible for them in the foreseeable future (they'd have to beat both New Zealand and Australia), sneaking into second place would not.
3 August 2002: Oceania representation in the World Cup? Guaran-damn-teed.
On a day when Basil Scarsella was re-elected as Oceania president, Fifa president Sepp
Blatter publicly revealed the fundamental reason why Oceania will have guaranteed
representation come the next World Cup. All the politicking and "fighting for a
place" has been a nonsense in the face of Fifa's very own constitution that states
all full confederations must be represented in all Fifa sanction tournaments. This
website has been aware of this fact for four years, and has been totally mystified why no
official has ever bothered raising it with respects to Oceania gaining guaranteed World
Cup representation.
"I fully recognise that this confederation should have the same rights as the other five confederations," Blatter stated. "One of the constitutional rights of all confederations is to be able to play in all FIFA competitions and that means direct entry into the World Cup. That is a statutory right and I will be fighting for that." No need to fight, Sepp. For an organisation to contravene their very own constitution would be outrageous and incredibly unlikely, even for Fifa. So to all those officials using this fight for a World Cup place over the years as a platform for their self gains, you've been exposed. Go concentrate on fixing the real issues, like the lack of participation in significant competitions like the Asian Cup for this region.
Now, for those wondering why Oceania did not have representation for the 2002 World
Cup, well there was a condition placed on the region gaining full status, when it did in
1996 (when David Hill made that infamous move to transfer Australia into Asia). That
condition was that Oceania was not to protest and lean on its constitutional right for
guaranteed representation in the World Cup in the event that a direct spot was
not awarded for WC2002. The playoff with South America arose due to the fact that
South America had five teams for WC98. However, only four were actual qualifiers. The
fifth - Brazil - qualified as champion. The four qualifying spots were to remain for
2002, with the intention of giving Oceania one spot But South American protested at
having their overall teams reduced, so the playoff against Oceania was enforced to appease
them.
Come 2002, and Fifa's already making provisions for Oceania's spot. There's been the
glaring tell-tale sign of Oceania receiving a spot for the 16-team Olympics
Tournament. Also, Fifa have removed the right for the World Cup holder to have
automatic qualification, which has opened up the extra spot. There'll be only one
host next time, but that spot will go to Asia anyway. Fact is, no one's allocation
will be affected if Oceania gets one spot. South America might just get 4.5 spots again,
but the playoff with be with the extra half spot awarded to CONCACAF. Therefore,
those two regions will have no reason to complain about Oceania's spot, nor will
Europe. Especially given Oceania's role in awarding Germany WC2006. In fact,
they owe Oceania, not that it really matters if Fifa upholds their constitution.
Probable World Cup 2006 Allocation (WC 2002 allocation in brackets): Africa 5 (5), Asia 4 (3.5 including one host), Concacaf 3.5 (3), Europe 13 (13.5), Oceania 1 (.5), South America 4 (4.5). That's 31 teams. Add the host for 32. I believe one host spot should always remain independent of the allocation. Asia want 5 spots, but shouldl be happy with 4. Africa can't justify more spots. Concacaf can, and may get four spots with South America getting four. They may not be happy with that, but four out of 10 teams is a great ratio. Europe lose a spot (they would have taken the Asian playoff for WC2002 as guaranteed!), but get Germany as hosts, so should not complain. However, it is time that Fifa implemented a fair way of deciding allocation, and it should be based on performance, not on inter-confederation bickering. There is a simple solution; look out for a feature soon.
7 August 2002: More sucking-up from Asia.
Following from Fifa president Sepp Blatter's comments regarding Fifa's constitution and
its mandate that all full confederations have a right to be represented in all Fifa
tournaments, and that he will work to ensure that happens for Oceania, the Asian
confederation supported Blatter's call and has pledged its support for Oceania's
constitutional right. This is an amazing back-track from several months ago when they
insisted Oceania should play-off with Asia for a World Cup until it can prove it's strong
enough to warrant a place on its own. There's no magnanimity in this, just Asia's
acceptance of Oceania's destiny and the chance to make "some friends" for when
the time comes that Asia needs some voting power in the Fifa executive. That will no
doubt happen when Asia seeks to gain 5 spots for the next World Cup. Don't be
surprised either to see other confederations unashamedly and disgracefully putting their
weight behind Oceania's quest for guaranteed World Cup representation. The only
thing that Oceania can take out of this Asian move is a further endorsement that World Cup
representation is a fait accompli.
17 August 2002: Blatter's sounding like a broken record; Asia supports whilst
casting a lure.
Fifa president Sepp Blatter, in Malaysia for the Asian Football Confederation congress,
has publicly reaffirmed his support for Oceania to receive direct qualification for the
next World Cup. This was in response to the AFC president's reiteration of his
confederation's support for the direct sport. "They are a fully recognised
confederation and it's the only confederation that has no access to one of the
competitions. They have automatic access to all other competitions, why shouldn't
they have access to the World Cup?", Blatter said. "They should have
one". Despite Blatter making this latest announcement at an Asian media
conference that was devoid of Australia reporters or officials to appease, it's starting
to sound like a broken record. The decision will be made in December, and frankly,
it just can't come quick enough to end this annoying politicking and showboating.
The Asian support for Oceania seems strange, especially when they are after two extra World Cup spots themselves. Yes, that's two. They're claiming one extra spot - from four to five - but in reality it's two, because the fact of the matter is that one of the two hosts spot from the recent World Cup was not part of their official allocation. It's doubtful there is genuine neglect on their part of this factor, but a clever ploy of providing room for themselves to negotiate to ensure they receive the desired four spots. That, in fact, will be up half a spot from the past two World Cups (3.5 spots for 1998, and 2.5 spots plus the second host for 2002).
The most interesting outcome from the AFC conference was the launch of their European-style Asian Champions League for clubs. There's talk of even including one or two clubs from Oceania into the competition. Asia finally seem to be seeing the benefits of links with Oceania, especially Australia, but is it a simple coincidence that all this action is occurring on the precipice of Oceania receiving a World Cup spot? Probably not. Participation in Asian competitions quite possibly will be a carrot for Oceania to integrate its inevitable World Cup spot into a combined Asia/Oceania qualifying round. It would be a win-win for both confederations: Asia gets an extra spot, albeit a tough one, but with the benefit of a having huge country like Australia competing throughout its region; whilst Oceania will receive their much desired integration into Asian nation and club competitions, plus a meaningful World Cup qualifying round. That would then be a prelude to a full merge, provided Oceania officials can put the game in front of their self-interests. As the old saying goes: if you can't beat them, join them. In an ironic twist where Oceania (Australia especially) has been trying to join Asia, that is exactly what Asia will be trying to do to Oceania.
18 September 2002: Oceania prepares for guaranteed World Cup
representation.
In preparation for guaranteed World Cup representation, the Oceania Confederation today
announced its qualifying system. Traditionally, two groups have formed with the
group winners playing-off home and away to progress to the next phase. That will
still apply in the unlikely event that Fifa reneges on their World Cup pledge, however,
with guaranteed representation, the top two teams from each group will instead progress -
this time to play a final home and away qualification round. This "final
four" scenario has been promoted by this website for years, however, there's
always been the proviso of a bye for two seeded teams (obviously Australian and New
Zealand) to avoid those embarrassing 31-0 thrashings that's been seen in the pass.
Oceania's instead forcing its qualifier to play the preliminary games and hence, a
lengthier campaign, so as to show Fifa the team has earned its place.
With twelve teams in the confederation (includes two members in waiting), at least four teams still should be eliminated early. The chance of lopsided games needs to be reduced. Give four teams a bye (eg: Aus, NZ, Tahiti, Fiji), then split the remaining teams into two groups of four to play a round robin. Two teams from each group could advance to join the teams that had the bye. These eight teams are split into two more groups of four and play round robin, with the top two teams progressing to the final home and away series. That would make 9 games for the seeded teams and 12 games for the lowest teams to qualify for the World Cup. If each team plays each other twice in the first two round robins, or even on a home and away basis, then it would be 12 and 18 games respectively. But that would be over-kill, especially given the enormous financial implications.
This three-phase scenario improves on Oceania's two-phase scenario, which is designed to provide more incentive to the smaller nations by having the goal of the final home and away series, by adding that extra intermediary goal along the way. Also, with the round robins traditionally played in one country, having the extra round robins means more countries can host them. Most people now realise that playing big World Cup games with clearly defined and achievable goals, especially at home, is the key to promoting the sport, and therefore, developing the region.
22 September 2002: Farina responds to Oceania's World Cup plans.
While most people have spoken favourably of Oceania's final four home and away series plan
when direct World Cup qualification for the region is granted in December (Oceania is a
full confederation and has the constitutional right for representation. Don't
believe the doubters who think much work is still required.), coach Frank Farina
criticised the emphasis on playing more games to qualify, citing difficulty in gaining
players. This is odd considering that clubs have no choice but to release players
for World Cup matches (how often do people have to be reminded of this?) and that Farina
himself even stated after the recent Oceania Nations Cup debacle that his intention is to
pick the best possible team for all matches. It's only a couple of more games than
usual during the Oceania phase, and the players will be aching to come back to impress for
a spot in a potential World Cup Finals squad. He must also realise that a serious
campaign must be played. While it may be a cakewalk for a full strength Australian
team, he has to look at it from the other teams' perspective - that they will be playing
several meaningful World Cup matches at home. It will be their goal to make this
final four, which is the most crucial element in developing the island nations of the
region. Direct World Cup qualification is all about Oceania's development, not
Australia's. Whether people like it or not, that is Australia's destiny.
20 October 2002: Scarcella plays the politician with links to Asia.
Oceania president Basil Scarcella appeared on SBS's World Game TV show today to re-confirm
the links that he is trying to forge with the Asian Confederation. While there's the
obvious role of Oceania having access to major Asian competitions, Scarcella is
endeavouring to link with Asia at all levels of the game, right down to grass-roots level.
Even at national team level, he's endeavouring to help the smaller nations by giving them
the chance to play in inter-confederation competitions against similarly small Asian
nations. For as it stands, these tiny nations have little short-term chance to
qualify for the major championships. These are all meritorious ideas, and while it's
finally dawned on him that Oceania's future does lie within Asia, he's holding back one
very precious asset to be linked into Asia that, if not offered, would scuttle all other
links: World Cup qualifying.
December 18 (Australian time) will be the date when Oceania's guaranteed spot is confirmed. As what's been reported in these pages previously, it is a fait accompli. So it still amazes that Scarcella, despite the overwhelming facts that support the spot will be awarded, continues to embark on his political-based agenda of having much work to do to gain the spot. It's nothing more than unabashed posturing. Besides, what sort of "work" is there to do? Everything has been put into place for Oceania to get its spot: an extra spot has been created by removing the automatic qualifying spot for the current champion, a direct spot has been granted for the Olympics, Fifa president Sepp Blatter wants it, the Asian and South American confederations have confirmed it will happen, and finally, Fifa's very own constitution demands it. There is nothing to stop it happening other than Oceania ceasing to exist itself.
Instead, Scarcella should "work" at exactly how and why Asia will integrate Oceania into their competitions. They don't need Oceania, so what's in it for them? While South America's support for Oceania's spot is a result of the deal made for the 2002 qualifiers that gave South America that half-chance for their fifth-placed team, Asia's support is probably due to an agenda of increasing their own allocation. Gaining an extra spot themselves will be difficult, so the next best thing is to grab half of Oceania's. That's the lure in front of Asia that's driving them to finally be receptive to links with Oceania.
Of course, the million dollar question is whether that will happen. Realistically, if Oceania gives up the spot and Oceania integrates into Asia, there'd be actually no purpose for Oceania to exist. If Oceania does not exist, Scarcella is out of a job. Yes, it is an outrageous suggestion that Scarcella is against rolling Oceania's spot into Asia to preserve Oceania's, and by extension his, existence, but the cynical side of those that have been involved with the sport for so long (and it's not hard to be cynical) can't help but feel that could be a small part of the reason. In truth, Scarcella's stated reasons for holding the spot are meritorious (that Oceania always has a team in the World Cup), though, as time goes by and World Cup appearances are taken for granted, it's not difficult see that the region would benefit much more by staging 5 or so big home games, as part of a 10 game qualifying campaign, in two of its countries, rather than watching Australia play 3 games at 4am in a foreign country every four years. A little boy in Fiji already understands the magnitude of the World Cup and would already have dreams accordingly - dreams that are impossible to attain with the ogres of Australia and NZ in his region hogging the solitary World Cup spot. Realistically, that may never change. So just how seeing either of those two teams in the World Cup will help him, or the region as a whole, is difficult to fathom. A lower goal is required. One that can be experienced first hand. More games of the calibre and hype of Uruguay and Iran is the solution.
To answer, Oceania won't give up its spot, not in the short-term. Oceania would be foolish to give it up immediately. After the depressing runs of non-qualification, it would be great to see a team in Germany, 2006, no matter how easy it is to get there. The region has survived on only one big game every four years, so surviving for another four years won't be a problem. Especially since the next campaign will see the debut of Oceania's new final round-robin qualifying format, which could be interesting in itself. It should be given at least one chance to determine it's feasibility.
Other than that, Scarcella made suggestions of gaining wildcards into the Copa America - the South American nations championships - who have, with only 10 teams, between 2 and 6 invited teams depending on whether they hold a 12-team or 16-team competition. Really, Oceania and the other confederations should work to have that tournament enshrined as 16 teams, and to have permanent representation in it. It could become a "rest of the world" type tournament to be run concurrently with the European Championships (of nations), if there was less politicking and more action going on.
But it's the Asian link that is the most realistic eventuality. It will be interesting to see how quickly it progresses and how deep it goes. The only link at present - the Asia/Oceania Challenge between the two relevant champions - is tentative at best. It's only been held once so far, and only as a one-off match. Though, the next challenge will involve a home and away series. The likelihood is that Asia won't demand some of Oceania's World Cup spot in return of integration, at least not in the short term. They will simply rely on the natural progression of each confederation gravitating towards one-another.
9 December 2002: Oceania president acts the goose again.
Without trying to sound like a broken record, on the back of Soccer Australia's turmoil
(when half the board stood down citing disharmony and conflict), Oceania president Basil
Scarscella has again shown himself to be a real goose. This website has repeatedly been
critical of his blatant posturing and over zealous usage of issues like Oceania's direct
World Cup qualification as political footballs for personal propaganda purposes. Yet
again, this time on SBS's The World Game show, in a solemn tone and disposition arrogantly
announced that "there is no question in my mind that the instability in Soccer
Australia clearly is going to make it more difficult for us (Oceania) to push our case
(for a World Cup direct spot)".
But, why? Why will it affect Oceania's chances? Scarscella has never substantiated any such statements. He then went on to describe that "we continue to work with the people who are going to make the decision" and despite all indications suggesting otherwise "so we will need to continue work on it". What work? We've been hearing this "work" for ages. Now that really is sounding like a broken record. Suppose some criticism should also be leveled at the interviewers for being so consumed with their desired idea of an Asia/Oceania World Cup spot merge instead of prodding for the more relevant detail.
To Scarscella's credit, at least some truth did prevail when he stated that he was still confident Oceania will gain a direct spot because of the moves Fifa have already put into place and the fact that Oceania is a bigger issue than just Australia and it's temporary problems.
For the final time, the decision to award Oceania a direct World is a fait accompli. Here's why:
* Under Fifa's constitution, all full confederations must be represented in all
Fifa-sanctioned tournaments.
* Oceania was made a full confederation five years ago, albeit, with the condition that it
may not gain a direct World Cup spot for 2002. That condition no longer applies.
* Under Fifa's constitution, all full confederations must be represented in all
Fifa-sanctioned tournaments.
* Fifa created an extra spot in World Cups by decreeing that the champion does not gain
automatic qualification for the subsequent World Cup.
* Under Fifa's constitution, all full confederations must be represented in all
Fifa-sanctioned tournaments.
* In line with their constitutional obligation, and as a significant portent for the World
Cup spot, since the previous occurrences of these tournaments, Fifa have granted Oceania a
direct spot to the Olympics and the World Youth Cup. Oceania already has direct entry for
the U17 World Cup and all women's World Cups. All national teams bar senior-level now have
direct access to their respective World Cups.
* Under Fifa's constitution, all full confederations must be represented in all
Fifa-sanctioned tournaments.
* The Asian, South American and European confederations have already publicly stated and
accepted that Oceania will have a direct World Cup spot.
* Finally, under Fifa's constitution, all full confederations must be represented in all
Fifa-sanctioned tournaments.
The apparent "work" was actually done years ago when Oceania gained full status. Fifa is currently preparing the implementation. Yet even the equally sneaky Fifa president Sepp Blatter continues to mention the "work" that's still to be done, despite the fact he inadvertently let it slip that Fifa's constitution actually takes care of the decision. Oops. The only people it seems that don't accept this inevitability (at least publicly) are those respective presidents of Fifa and Oceania that see a greater benefit of using the issue to further their own causes. Enough already, chaps. The jig is up. December 18 will prove it.
12 December 2002: Does Oceania deserve a World Cup spot?
In the lead-up to the Fifa meeting in Madrid next week to confirm, amongst other things,
Oceania's World Cup spot, the issue of whether Oceania deserves a spot has raised its ugly
head again. South American confederation president Nicolas Leoz made a provocative
statement early in the week that he believes South America, consisting of just 10
countries, deserves 5 spots because they have won nine of 17 World Cups and Australia
failed to beat Uruguay last November. Those against Oceania also state the
fact that it basically hands Australia a World Cup spot. In contrast, Australia's
incumbent team captain Paul Okon, as well as Fifa president Sepp Blatter in the past, has
pushed the fact that because Oceania is a full confederation, they deserve a spot.
Firstly, excluding Uruguay's early cup wins when the competition was in it's infancy, only Argentina and Brazil have won World Cups in the competitive era. South America may have won all those Cups with just two qualifiers. All other South American qualifiers have performed poorly. Argentina and Uruguay did not even make the second phase this year, and Paraguay only just scraped through to be promptly eliminated. Secondly, since when has a play-off against Uruguay been a barometer of deservedness? Half the teams at this year's World Cup would have lost that playoff had they played under the exact same circumstances. In the South American qualifiers, Brazil could only manage a draw and a loss to Uruguay. So logic says they don't deserve to qualify either. Why look at just that playoff anyway? Australia has beaten Concacaf's best - Mexico - twice in recent Confederation Cups, the last time in the 2001 edition whereby Australia also beat France and Brazil. In 1997, they beat then South American champions Uruguay! Considering South America have publicly acknowledged that Oceania will gain its spot, it's odd that Leoz is making such waves anyhow. Finally, and as Okon rightly pointed out, it's not Australia's fault they are located geographically where they are. Besides that fact, teams like Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Korea, Germany and Italy, traditionally strong forces in their regions, have benefitted by their overwhelming strength with almost guaranteed World Cup births, so it's inconsistent to level that argument against Oceania.
The issue of confederations "deserving" spots at World Cups is actually fundamentally correct. But the problem protagonists against Oceania's spot are forgetting is the fact that spots are earned by performances actually at World Cups, not in qualifying. The two occasions that Oceanic teams have qualified for World Cups (Australia in 1974 and New Zealand in 1982) both performed admirably and were not disgraced. New Zealand was in a group with Brazil, Scotland and the Soviet Union (if memory serves correctly) and kept the margins to, on average, 2-3 goals, whilst scoring a few themselves. Contrast that with El Salvador and Haiti of the same era, both of whom were comprehensively thrashed. In 1974, Australia lost 2-0 and 3-0 to the two Germanys, and drew 0-0 with Chile. Both teams put up superior performances in their World Cups compared to teams like Saudi Arabia and China this year, and Jamaica in 1998. On actual World Cup performances, historically, Oceania deserves a spot.
As detailed in the "Big Problems, Simple Solutions" editorial, World Cup performance, most specifically teams that qualify for the second phase, should form the basis of the following World Cup's allocation. In Korea/Japan 2002, clearly South America and Africa performed below expectations and Concacaf above on this critera. All should have their allocations adjusted accordingly.
But Oceania does not even have this chance. They, like all the other teams, need to be able to prove themselves at World Cups before any judgements are made on whether they deserve their spot. If it turns out that Oceania's team fails abysmally over successive World Cups, then yes, that is the time to cull their representation. Then, in accordance with their lack of World Cup representation, Oceania's status as a confederation would need to be questioned. Since repeated World Cup failures would prove the confederation cannot sustain itself at that level, then it should be abolished or integrated into another one. The life and death of a confederation should hang solely on its performance at international, and most specifically, World Cup level. It's time Oceania was given a chance to determine its viability and especially its deservedness for guaranteed World Cup representation.
16 December 2002: Johnny Warren ignores the bigger picture for Oceania's World
Cup spot.
Just days out from Fifa ratifying Oceania's guaranteed World Cup representation, for those
that tuned into the World Game TV show eager for the thoughts of esteemed commentator
Johnny Warren's view of how it will affect the game in this country, would have noted more
Warren rhetoric about trading the spot to Asia for a group phase qualifying. He feels that
Oceania should enter the Fifa meeting with this as Plan B, but preferably as Plan A.
Granting Oceania a spot is to "lower the bar" for Australia. But as detailed in
the previous news item, many countries have, and still do, enjoy a low bar for qualifying.
And as for the rest of Oceania's nations, the bar to qualify is still very high. But not
unrealistically as high as it would be to go through 10 Asian qualifying matches.
While Warren's intentions are correct for the ultimate future of the sport in the region, unfortunately he's forgetting the bigger picture in that the World Cup spot is not just about Australia. It's about Oceania and the validity of the confederation. Forget even that it is Oceania. Lets call it Confederation X. Just accept the situation that there is one confederation, Confederation X, which is equal in status amongst five others, yet does not enjoy the identical rights as Confederations A, B, C, Y and Z. The only correct and fair decision, therefore, which must be embraced by all those that belong to Confederation X, is for it to gain a guaranteed World Cup spot. Otherwise, it's like joining a sporting club as a full member, but not being allowed to play. It's wrong. That is why Fifa's constitution dictates that all its member confederation must have direct access to all its sanctioned tournaments. That is also the primary reason why Confederation X will receive what essentially is its constitutional entitlement for joining the club.
Make no mistake, however, that Johnny Warren is correct: the region's future does belong in Asia. This website has also been such a proponent, but only in fervent opposition to the validity of Oceania itself. It's conceptually flawed and will never develop sufficiently football-wise to sustain a viable future. But while it's an entity, and Australia is part of it, its quest for equal rights must be supported. It can't just be a sub-region of Asia, to be toyed with however they determine. Unless Oceania's nations become member nations of Asia, there's no guarantee of group qualifying, club championships, or anything. For any confederation, it's all or nothing.
17 December 2002: "If Oceania doesn't get a direct spot for 2006, they
should disband the confederation."
That was Socceroo coach Frank Farina's comments in the weekend newspapers, and it is an
absolutely accurate assessment of the situation given the highly unlikely event that a
spot is not awarded at the Fifa meeting in Madrid. Because the decision to award a spot is
more about the acceptance and validity of the confederation, not the difficulty of
Australia's qualifying campaign, nor whether that path is fair or deserved. If one of your
members cannot join the party, then why is he a member? Failure to receive this World Cup
spot must place the viability of the confederation into question. Totally disbandment, or
expansion via the inclusion of south-east Asian countries, are the only options. Remaining
with the status-quo of partial existence, to be toyed with by Fifa's whims, cannot
continue. There's no guarantee of anything that way. Especially not the desired
second option of group qualifying through Asia.
Unfortunately, many commentators fail to realise these wider implications, and it's becoming increasingly annoying to read in the newspapers and hear on TV the opinions of those who selfishly believe that Oceania should hand its spot to Asia in order to play more qualifiers. It's great in theory, and especially for Australia who'd most likely still qualify, but has anyone asked the 11 other members of Oceania if that is their desire? And to those that say it is unfair that Oceania, and by inference Australia, gets a guaranteed spot, is it fair that Mexico, Korea, Brazil, Argentina, and many others, have enjoyed such liberties for a long time? What about being deserved. How deserved are the respective confederations of Saudi Arabia, China, Argentina, Uruguay, France, Portugal Croatia, Russia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tunisia, and Cameroon, all of whom relatively failed at World Cup 2002, for all their World Cup spots? It's amazing that South America want 5 spots (from just 10 countries) yet three of their teams, one of which was the runaway leading qualifier in their region, failed to make the second phase. Africa, so long hailed as the sleeping giant, have gone backwards at World Cup level. Four of their five teams failed to make the second phase. What about the confederation that does deserve more spots - Concacaf? Australia's record against both Mexico and the USA is unblemished the last few times they've met.
What is unfair and undeserved is that Oceania actually exists. But since it does, and is a full member confederation of Fifa, it can't be discriminated against. While most agree that our long-term future lies through Asia, we must keep an open and embrace Oceania gaining its deserved recognition. No one truly knows the future of the implications of the decision anyway. Those thinking that it will be Australia vs New Zealand every four years, this past weekend saw Fiji beat NZ and win their group to qualify for the final playoff against Australia for a spot in the World Youth Cup. Wonder what Fiji'd prefer if was for the World Cup: that playoff, or 10 games through Asia? For the chance to reach a World Cup, any nation in their right mind would take the former.
It's almost unfathomable that for so many years, various commentators have been clamouring for Australia to make the World Cup so the sport can reap the benefits from grass-roots to national team level that playing in the World Cup would provide. The region has been unfairly and undeservedly used and abused by Fifa over the years as a dumping ground for its political outcast nations and second chances for nations from more powerful confederations. These commentators have also observed and echoed their frustrations of how Oceania's champions have suffered unfair and undeserved defeat and despair for so long and called for a direct qualification. Yet now, on the precipice of such a gift that's totally fair and deserved, they want to give it away. It's crazy. For so long there's been no group qualifying and no World Cup appearances, so several more years of no group qualifying, but with World Cup appearances, won't do us any harm. Lets use the gift, and just see what it does. Then make decisions on Oceania's viability.
18 December 2002: Oceania gets World Cup spot, but no time for arrogance.
Unsurprisingly, all six confederations ratified Oceania's single World Cup spot for 2006
in Madrid overnight. There was no need for the issue, which really was Oceania's
constitutional right, to be processed further by the executive committee. It was such a
fait accompli that the announcement was made four hours earlier than scheduled.
Disappointingly, morning news services in Australia reported the decision as
"Australia's virtually guaranteed World Cup spot" and totally ignored the wider
implications of the decision and the fundamental benefits to the region. While it's
true Australia has a prime chance, the sentiment could have been made more
tactfully. New Zealand, the current number one team in the region based upon being
current Oceania champion and being ahead of Australia on the current Fifa rankings, took
particular umbrage at media reports by labelling it as a typical Australian attitude.
Unfortunately these days, that's exactly what it appears to be.
That arrogance also extends to those knockers of Oceania gaining a World Cup spot who'd rather it traded into Asia for group qualifying. It's a notion only conceived because of the arrogant belief that Australia would still qualify in that situation. It's doubtful any other Oceanic nations would want to trade this spot. Certainly not New Zealand, whose newspapers today were trumpeting the huge boost for Oceania and the incentive it provides to Oceania's nations to improve. Former and current Kiwi players are already anticipating the inevitable clash against Australia and detailing how well prepared they need to be. That's a direct contrast to the last campaign when the Kiwis seemed resigned to defeat before they even took to the field. Sure the clash against the Kiwis won't be as big as Australia's recent final playoffs, but it's still going to be huge with a World Cup spot on the line. And if the Oceania qualifiers are structured well, clashes against the likes of Fiji, Tahiti and Vanuatu will also gain greater significance.
The big question with regard to the World Cup spot is what will it do for Oceania. Truth is, no one really knows. The frequently aired analogy with Concacaf and its development is bunk because Oceania has no countries of the likes of the USA, Canada, Costa Rica, Jamaica, etc, that feasibly can develop to a World Cup class level or challenge even Australia. New Zealand will even struggle for the foreseeable future. Oceania therefore has no future in its current form. But with this World Cup spot, that form could change. Populous nations like Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, who do have the potential to develop their football, could apply to join Oceania. That could provoke a shift of east Asian teams joining up too, which means more World Cup spots. On the other hand, Australia could simply whitewash Oceania's other teams every four years and then fail miserably at the World Cup. The thing is, no one knows. So we, meaning Oceania, must try out our much-deserved gift before making any final judgements.
As for the rest of the allocations, and excluding one host's spot from the respective confederation's allocation, the other main beneficiary was Asia. Their spots went from 3.5 to 4.5 with the half spot an easier playoff against Concacaf as compared to Europe last time. That's probably too generous in that while Japan and Korea performed well, China and Saudi Arabia were abysmal. Four direct spots seem ample. Concacaf, with two teams through to the second phase, could feel slightly unjust they did not get four outright full spots. However, both confederations probably feel the playoff is winnable, so there's really few complaints. Europe (excluding auto-qualifiers France as defending champions) and South America lost half a spot each, to have 13 and 4 direct qualifiers, respectively. Given the failures of Europe's top countries like France and Portugal, and three of South America's countries, that's fair enough too. Africa, with four of five teams eliminated in the first phase, can thank their numerical advantage for retaining their five spots. That's probably also the reason behind Asia's extra spot.
On balance, a fair allocation, which saw no confederations complain. It also came out very close to the qualification system proposed in the "Big Problems, Simple Solutions" feature. The key difference is that Africa did lose one spot, which allowed Concacaf and Asia to have 4 and 5 spots respectively.
19 December 2002: Thank Scarscella, remember David Hill, Asia had their chance,
embrace Oceania.
Not since Australia won the right to host 2000 Olympics has a wave of positive sentiment
swept this country, especially for loyal followers of the world game. The media has
responded accordingly, and other than a few self-righteous articles from ignorant, myopic
and/or amnesic columnists whose backgrounds are in other sports, it's all been glowing.
But lets take a moment to reflect on the true catalyst of this monumentous decision.
A fait accompli
Any long term reader would no doubt have noted the recurring opinion of this
website that the decision to award Oceania a World Cup spot was a fait accompli, even from
a few years ago. In contrast, the media has indulged itself on the supposed political side
of the issue, and the lobbying, much like the Olympic decision, that would be required.
Even post the Oceania decision, many commentators are still expressing surprise that
Oceania was able to "win" the spot. Unlike the Olympics, there was nothing to be
won. The Oceania decision was a fait accompli because it was Oceania's constitutional
right to have representation in all Fifa tournaments. Doubters of the decision going
Oceania's way were totally ignorant of this fact. While Oceania President Scarscella and
Fifa President Sepp Blatter may have done some lobbying, it's difficult to imagine what
real purpose it served other than to remind officials of other confederations a
confederation's basic right.
Accordingly, all confederations unamimously ratified the motion without even the slightest hitch, and announced it four hours earlier than scheduled. Even if there had been a problem with the ratification, the decision would have been presented to the executive committee to be adjudicated. But it was never going to require that. The lobbying, or as Scarscella often called it, "work", was more about political posturing than anything else. If that helped, then he deserves our thanks. Oceania helped Blatter gain re-election as president so Blatter returned the favour. The other confederations made no waves against Oceania's spot because, first, not only would that be a futile effort in light of Fifa's obligations to any full confederation, but second, they'd put themselves at odds with Oceania come the time they needed executive committee assistance.
The quotes
After the meeting, the certainty of Oceania's spot and Scarscella's blatant
posturing leading up to the meeting was revealed by none other than Scarscella himself,
'If we were going to be treated as a full confederation, at least one direct spot was
inevitable". Other comments about gaining the spot included: "wasn't a
surprise", wasn't unexpected" and "never a question". Blatter also
added that during the one and half hour of World Cup allocation discussion, the only
jostling was for the other spots. Oceania's desire for one spot was never ever questioned.
It really was that certain. According to Blatter, "We bestowed upon Oceania all of
the rights (for a full member confederation) except one slot at the World Cup and that was
unjust. We have corrected an implicit injustice.". Exactly. It was implicit via
Fifa's constitution. Also, Blatter confirmed that it was a "fundamental right to the
confederation - (a confederation) which was accepted at the Fifa Congress officially as a
recognised confederation in 1996 at the congress in Zurich". Scarscella, however,
closed his comments about the spot in typical politician-style by stating it was
"always difficult". A further contradiction came regarding Soccer
Australia's recent turmoil when Scarscella admitted it was never an issue. That's in
contrast to his earlier statements (news: 09/12/02) that in his mind, clearly there was no
question it would harm Oceania's chances!
Quite seriously, had Oceania not gained World Cup representation, Fifa would have been in breach of their constitutional obligation and could have been taken to court. The only way Fifa could have denied representation and prevented such an outcome, would be to first strip Oceania of its full membership status. But that was never on the agenda.
The turning point
Therefore, the pivotal event in Oceania's entitlement was when full membership to
Fifa was granted at that 1996 Fifa Congress in Zurich. Oceania had just completed a
six year trial period as a "geographical entity", and one of the items on the
agenda was to determine Oceania's viability as a confederation. The then Soccer Australia
chairman David Hill petitioned against Oceania gaining membership because he felt the
region had no future as a separate entity and would be better served merged into Asia.
This lack of support for the region by its key nation provoked a virtual unanimous
decision to grant full confederation status. Although, on the cynically side, there could
have been an ulterior motive to prevent any future badgering of other confederations to
join by finally giving Oceania's dysfunctional nations a home. The only vote of the
171-strong congress against the decision was from Australia and Hill. In desperation, Hill
sought to have Australia join Asia and leave Oceania, but Asia refused. (Interestingly,
this was not the first time Asia had rejected Australia. If fact, Oceania was born
in 1966 when both Australia and New Zealand were rejected for membership by the
Asian confederation. Asia's selfishness has continued ever since.)
Hill was unceremonious rebuffed at the time for his and Australia's "betrayal" of Oceania, but in hindsight, his motives proved quite visionary. Especially to those that believe Oceania has no real future in its current form. The problem with that is that there's never been a choice. Asia have never, ever, wanted us. And don't believe esteemed commentator and 1974 World Cup captain Johnny Warren's nonsense about Oceania trying again now that there's something to offer. Had Asia absorbed Oceania's countries all those years ago, Fifa most likely would have given this new "super" confederation an extra spot. Asia had their chance, and ironically, their selfish attitude is most responsible for the Oceania that we have today.
No one can say when, or even if, Oceania would have gained full status had it not been for Hill's influence at that meeting. But, with full status, comes World Cup representation amongst other rights (like a seat on the executive committee and extra funding), but Fifa actually made that conditional for 2002, which Oceania's delegates accepted. That suggests the decision to grant full status came earlier than Fifa had planned. One thing is for sure, had Oceania entered this recent meeting in Madrid to decide the World Cup spot as only a partial member, then the much talked about lobbying would definitely have been required.
Earned
It's just a pity that not everyone is embracing this well deserved decision. Ray
Richards, 1974 World Cup player, labelled it as a farce; his captain of that tournament,
Johnny Warren, criticised it because Australia (not Oceania) has not earned it and that
it's rewarding mediocrity. He says "...it's a hollow way to get there. There won't be
too much dancing in the streets if we beat Fiji". Maybe not. But what about the
dancing in Suva if Fiji qualifies? With Warren, it's Australia this, Australia that. No
regard for the other nations. Not all countries dance in the streets anyway. Most major
European ones don't. England and Italy didn't. Why would they? They arguably had it just
as easy as Australia will. They had 1.5 chances to qualify in just a group of five. As for
South America, Argentina must have had a real challenge getting one of four spots out of
10 to qualify. Brazil put in their worst performance ever in qualifying, which included a
draw and a loss to Uruguay (at least Australia won a game), yet still qualified. Then what
do you expect when 40% of a confederation's teams can qualify. Europe's is 30%, whilst
Asia's and Africa's is around 10%. Oceania's percentage representation is 9%, whilst
Concacaf's is the lowest at just under 9%.
In terms of actual numbers that qualify, how does Warren justify Africa, Asia and Concacaf having a total of 11 spots under similar mediocre circumstances? He doesn't. When did they earn them? They haven't. It took Asia's best team, Korea, five Cups to even win a game. In France 98, the four Asian teams won just one game out of 12. And that was by Iran, the team that fluked their qualification over Australia. Until the home World Cup in 2002, Asia's record was appalling. Well, except for the hosts, it still was appalling. Even New Zealand would have performed better than China and Saudi Arabia. Yet Asia have "earned" four spots - how? That's rewarding mediocrity. While Senegal and Cameroon have made the quarter finals in the last 12 years, that's only two teams from a total of 16 spots. They've had five spots for the past two Cups yet done little with them. Concacaf's Mexican-dominated pedigree is only slightly better. Really, without Mexico, Concacaf is not that much stronger than Oceania, yet the rest of that region has enjoyed two spots for the past two Cups
In contrast, Warren should understand himself how difficult the path was for 1974 and how well his team played, and of how the 1970 team was crucified by being sent to play Israel a day after arriving from Zimbabwe after 36 hours of flying. Then two World Cups later, New Zealand did it even harder, and out-performed other developing nations from Africa, Asia and Concacaf whilst playing Brazil, the USSR and Scotland. Oceania took on all that Fifa could throw at them then, still qualified, and performed admirably at World Cup level. That was when Oceania earned and proved they deserved their spot. But no, Fifa went and made it even harder, by adding the extra challenge of Scotland, Colombia, the double-whammy of Canada and Argentina in 1994, then the ill-fated Iran game and finally Uruguay, but only after the Oceania winner was forced to sit in limbo for 6 months waiting for their opponent to be decided each time and only having one shot at the title. It was an absolute disgrace. Oceania deserved a World Cup as far back as 1986. Only the limited membership of just four countries (Aus, NZ, Fiji and PNG) was against it then. So don't let father time forget the achievements of our region's best back then. Such short, and selfish, memories.
And Deserved
Even in years since World Cup qualification, our teams have performed incredibly
at World level. Australia defeated Yugoslavia and Nigeria in the 1988 Olympics to reach
the quarter finals. Australia finished second in the 1997 Confederations Cup, beating
along the way the Concacaf and South American champions of Mexico and Uruguay
respectively. Then in 2001, they finished third after beating Mexico again and then none
other than 1998 World Champions France and the eventual 2002 World Champions Brazil!
When New Zealand qualified in 1999 they pushed both Germany and Brazil to narrow 2-goal
losses. How much more deserving does a region need to be? This region has proved itself at
world level and proved it can compete at a World Cup. Oceania certainly have earned and
deserved some form of representation, at least for 1998 when the tournament went to 32
teams and the confederation was numerically established. Performance-wise, it's really
been long overdue.
Oceania and Players
Throughout Oceania, there's been no such criticism that's emanated from
Australia. All have expressed absolute delight. Australia's best players have already led
a chorus of commitment to the qualifiers, whilst New Zealand has stated their intention to
spoil Australia's party. Now, Tahiti is now making threats. Typically, given the
historical hopeless task of playing in a World Cup for Tahiti, their best players have
aimed to play for France. But now, with a World Cup spot in reach, that mindset is already
changing. Most of their players play in (mostly lower division) French leagues, and with
the eligibility to call on players with ancestral links as deep as grandparents, it's
quite possible Tahiti can become the Ireland of the South Pacific sooner than many think.
The overwhelming sentiment from fans and players alike has been one of glowing endorsement, right throughout the region. As Warren keeps reminding us, they are the true stakeholders of the game. But it transcends even that. The simple fact of the matter is that the only confederation without its constitutional right to World Cup representation finally has that injustice rectified. To quote Fifa president Sepp Blatter, "the Fifa family now is complete".
The Future
Rest assured, despite what some commentators are saying, most notably those that want
Oceania to give the spot to Asia so Australia can have group qualifying, Oceania's World
Cup spot is permanent. Even Scarscella concedes that. Time to bring out that broken record
again: the spot will remain permanent because its the confederation's constitutional
right. Fifa would have to first strip Oceania of its confederation status for Oceania to
ever lose the spot. That's incredibly unlikely. Only a succession of World Cup thrashings
from Oceania's representative at the World Cup could realistically provoke that.
Without the need to press Oceania's claims for World Cup recognition any more, it makes one wonder what sort of "work" Scarscella will have to occupy his time nowadays. Clearly, all efforts need to be channelled into improving Oceania. Already Asia have made noises about inviting Oceania's teams into the Asian (nations) Cup and Tiger Cup competition. The former would be for Oceania's champions, whilst the latter is a competition for the developing South East and Eastern nations like Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, and would see teams other than Australia and New Zealand gain the invitation from this region. Of course, it's all talk at present, and the invitation to the Asian Cup does not come into effect until the 2008 tournament. Apparently it's too late for 2004 because the qualifying draw has already been determined. It seems a pretty flimsy excuse to prevent the inclusion of just one team. The good news tournament-wise is that Fifa have given the go-ahead for the lucrative Confederations Cup to continue beyond 2007. That'll continue to give the qualifying event - the Oceania Nations Cup - added significance. Hopefully Soccer Australia will want to win it this time, even if attending the Confederations Cup is "cost-negative", which was SA's dubious reasons for sending a d-grade team to the last year's ONC. Finally, for the clubs, the Club World Championship will be resurrected in 2005.
Most interest will surround the 2006 qualifiers. Oceania has already announced that it will feature a six team home and away series as the final stage. Four teams will be seeded into that final six, with the best two of the rest added to the group after a pre-qualifying section. That means 10 games for Australia over a period of 18 months, and there's already been the predicted murmuring regarding player releases. Of course, as everyone should know by now, clubs have no choice but to release players for qualifiers.
The more valid point is whether coach Farina will put out a first eleven for all games as he has publicly stated. He won't. No countries put out their best eleven for all their qualifiers. Even if they want to, there's injuries and fatigue to consider. Plus, there's the desire to experiment somewhat with different players in different positions and introduce new players. Likely scenario is that he'll call up overseas players for most games, but not always the same ones. It'd be surprising if Kewell, or any one player in fact, plays more than four or five games.
While there'll be no games of the calibre of Uruguay and Iran, a pleasing point of the home and away series is that games will (or at least should be) spread throughout the nation. Typically only Sydney and Melbourne have benefitted from World Cup games, with the odd provincial town, like Coffs Harbour in 2001, occasionally hosting preliminary Oceania qualifiers against the island nations. But those games have traditionally been viewed with an almost disdain from fans and media alike, and why wouldn't they be, when any significance they have is further eroded by playing at such venues. That mistake can't be done with the 2006 qualifiers. They must be played at places like the MCG and Stadium Australia, especially the game against New Zealand. But even the other nations should be given respect and treated to venues like the Sydney Football Stadium, Docklands in Melbourne, Hindmarsh in Adelaide, Lang Park in Brisbane and Bruce Stadium in Canberra.
The thing is that if the games are not treated as significant, they will be regarded as insignificant. And looking at the bigger picture, just playing Australia at the MCG could be the dream of many island footballers. So denying such opportunities is not only harmful to the credibility of the games themselves in this country, but could hinder the develop of the game throughout the region. Remember, the World Cup spot is about developing Oceania, so Australia must exercise its obligation to play a part in that role, even at the possibility of half empty stadiums. Not that that should be the case if admission prices are appropriate. Considering the average price to see the Uruguay game was $100 and Iran was $60, somewhere between $20-$40, depending on the opposition, seems about right for these final stage Oceania qualifiers. After all, it is the World Cup.
Now, because these qualifiers will be spread over two off-seasons, most of those games would be played then, meaning there'll be minimal club disruption to clubs. The three or so remaining games would be played on international weekends when the clubs have the week off, but never for a mid-week window where travel would become too burdensome. The one guarantee is that the very best team will be called for the two New Zealand games, one, or maybe even both, of which will be the final games in the series so as to keep it alive for as long as possible.
When speaking of guarantees, it would be remiss to mention Australia's chances. While Australia already had it comfortable under the older playoff scenario in deciding Oceania's leading team, this new league system, designed as it should to produce the very best team from the region, has made it even more comfortable. That's because the expected goal difference in Australia's favour means that the Kiwis will have to win and draw against Australia. Previously a win a piece could have seen New Zealand advance on away-goals, aggregate or shootout, but a win each won't be enough for New Zealand any more. Only some form of administrative slip, as seen when qualifying for the 1996 Olympics when Australia played a player not on the official playing list and were penalised with a 3-0 loss, realistically can help them. NZ lost to Fiji early in that tournament, which led to speculation that Australia's administrative mistake was deliberate to revive the series into some semblance of contest. But even with that luxury, and despite winning their second game against Australia to finish the series on level points, NZ failed on goal difference.
The most interesting thing about the World Cup spot is actually how beneficial it will be. Some think it will help Oceania develop immensely, whilst others see the champion team getting smashed every four years at the World Cup due to lack of preparation against quality teams in crunch games. In combatting that argument, there's suggestions that as a World Cup qualified team, the champion team will be able to attract quality opposition for friendly matches. The truth is, no one really knows what will happen. The spot has to be tried for at least two World Cups before benefits are determined.
However, Asia's recent approaches to Oceania hint of our true destiny. It's unlikely Asia is making these approaches for simple commercial reasons. Exposure of an Asian company-sponsored Oceanic team in the Asian Cup is minimal compared to exposure through a protracted World Cup qualifying series that travels through many countries. Besides, there's never been a barrier to prevent such Oceanic participation in Asian tournaments before, so why now. Oceania has not qualified through Asia since 1982, so the fear of Australia becoming an even greater threat to Asian teams by playing Asian Cups can't be the case. Clearly the World Cup spot has something to do with; probably they want a bit of it. Oceania should never have been granted confederation status in the first place. Instead, Asia should have been offered sweeteners (like an extra World Cup spot) by Fifa to force an adoption of Oceania. But now that Oceania exists as a fully fledged confederation in its own right, the merge option is now highly unlikely.
A more likely scenario is that Oceania will expand. Weaker South-East Asian countries like Malaysia and Indonesia that have a tough time qualifying through Asia may see Oceania as a more viable option. The confederation could even develop to the extent of an East Asian/Oceanic confederation of countries like Japan and Korea within in proximity of our timezome. Problem is, Fifa can't force these issues. It's up to individual nations to apply to confederations and maybe even for confederations to entice them. That'll be the true work that Scarscella's successors will be involved with if the need ever arises. Until then, embrace Oceania as it is, embrace the qualifying series, and look forward to (hopefully?) Australia in the 2006 World Cup.
Letter to Melbourne's Herald-Sun and The Age
An abbreviated version without the qualifying paragraph was printed in the Herald-Sun of
30/12/2002
Esteemed soccer commentator Johnny Warren is right, and most soccer fans would agree,
Australia would be better served qualifying through Asia for the World Cup. However,
despite the best endeavours of Oceania's countries - particularly Australia - to link with
Asia, the simple fact of the matter is Asia have never wanted us, and forced Oceania into
going it alone.
Oceania only ever came into existence as a direct result of Asia rejecting Australia's and
New Zealand's requests to become members of that region. Fiji and Papua New Guinea then
linked up to found Oceania in 1966.
However, Oceania did most of their qualifying through Asia, which saw Australia winning
through the section to qualify for the 1974 World Cup. Another attempt was to join Asia
came at the time, this time directly by Australia, but again, rejection.
Despite this, Oceania's teams still qualified through Asia: they missed out to Iran for
the 1978 Cup, whilst New Zealand and Kuwait qualified for 1982 when the Cup went to 24
teams. It's arguable that Oceania earned a direct spot at this stage, but the region was
only regarded as a geographical entity by Fifa, and still only had four members. Fifa
really needed to bite the bullet at this stage and force Asia to adopt Oceania. Instead,
qualifying was actually made harder when Fifa incorporated those unfair, frustrating and
heart-breaking play-offs against the likes of Scotland, Israel, Argentina, Iran and
Uruguay over the ensuing years.
The final, most significant and pivotal attempt to join Asia came in 1996 at the Fifa
Congress when then Soccer Australia chairman David Hill argued against the region gaining
full membership as a confederation. Being too weak, he felt it would be better served
merged into Asia. That was against Oceania's wishes as a whole, as well as the majority of
Fifa's Congress. With a vote of 170 to 1, full confederation status was granted. The
vote against was Australia's.
Hill then made one final approach to Asia for Australia to join. Probably in fear that
Australia would use one of their World Cup spots, Asia rejected again. Ironically, had
Asia absorbed all of Oceania, an extra World Cup spot most likely would have been granted.
As for the suggestion of South-East Asian nations joining Oceania to make it stronger,
Fifa has no power to force such matters. Individual nations apply to join confederations
directly. None from outside this region ever have. However, with this World Cup spot, that
might change.
Whether the spot is warranted, or even earned or deserved, is irrelevant. As a full member
confederation, World Cup representation is Oceania's right - a right conferred ostensibly
by a long-term selfish attitude by Asia against the region. So why give it back,
especially before its true benefit has yet to even be determined.