Article Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4960906/Liverpool-star-Mohamed-Salah-sends-Egypt-World-Cup.html
European Teams: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/preliminaries/europe/index.html
African Teams: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/preliminaries/africa/index.html
Focus on the amount of teams qualified for each continent: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/teams/index.html
Questions:
- Looking at the effect that this qualifying game had on Egypt (with the celebrations, etc), how do you think the World Cup affects other countries and the world as a whole?
Egypt hasn’t qualified for a world cup in 28 years. The amount of teams that qualify from each continent vary (ex. Europe 14 teams, Africa 5 teams) to try to raise the competition. This is because there are more top European teams than African.
- Does Egypt deserve to qualify over stronger teams (ex. Sweden, England, etc) because they had an easier qualifier group in Africa?
- Should qualifying should be based on the strength of the team or should they try to diversify the teams by picking the same amount of teams per continent?
- What are the repercussions for each scenario above?
1. The word cup effects countries around the world massively. Other countries may not be celebrate as much as Egypt when making the tournament, as some countries expect to be there. But when the world cup comes around al countries are watching and cheering on their country just like Egypt did.
ReplyDelete2. There definitely is a fair argument that they have it easier, But stronger teams such as England have much better scouting programs, facilities, and leagues to get players from so it does even out that Egypt gain there advantage through who they play. The world cup also has to represent the world so teams from Africa also need to qualify.
3. It shouldn't be the same amount f teams per continent as certain continents such as Europe are much stronger than others. But I think each continent should have a minimum amount of teams qualify so all continents get teams in, but the stronger ones have more teams.
1.The world cup has a very big effect on the world. It is one of the most watched sporting events in the world even more than the super bowl. The world cup is a way to bring an entire country together and root them on. Sporting events with this many viewers gives people the opportunity to be heard by hundreds of millions of people across the world.
ReplyDelete2. Yes I believe Egypt deserves to qualify over these stronger European teams even though they had easier competition. It is called the world cup for a reason, they are not supposed to take only teams from one continent because they are better on paper. The purpose of the tournament is to watch teams from all over the globe play and this wouldn't be the case if they just took the good teams.
3. I don't believe every continent deserves the same amount of teams allowed considering Europeans teams are much stronger and people want to watch the best teams play. If they allowed as many African teams as they did European, we would lose the chance to watch many good teams that are capable of winning. The competition would also suffer because there would be more teams in the tournament that don't actually deserve to be there.
1. I believe that Egypt winning their first world cup game after 28 years is great for the sport and all over the globe. I think that it affects other teams around the world as well in a way that motivates them to accomplish what Egypt did. 'If they can do it why can't we?' By this question being asked, more fierce competition will occur throughout the teams and in the games.
ReplyDelete2. I have always been a firm believer in the better teams should be the ones that are seeded higher and have the right to play in big games. But, the fact that it is called the world cup means that it needs to bring in the best teams from ALL over the globe. So, in a way I do believe that they have the right to play in the games, but I also think that other teams that are proven to be better should play over them in the world cup.
3. I do believe that the world cup should be a representation of the best teams all over the world. But I also think diversifying the cup by bringing teams in from all over the world with different skill levels in important to unify not only the sport but the world as a whole. If these teams that might not be as good prove that they can play at the highest level, then there is no reason that they shouldn't be included.
4. There are many different ways that each question above can be answered and each person has the right to their own thought. Problems such as talent level, diversity and unification of teams can all be brought up through these questions. Will be interesting to discuss these in class.
I think that the world cup has a huge impact on other countries because soccer is a world wide sport and the world cup is a very important because the countries that go get to represent their country while the whole world watches. This also has an impact on the world because most of the world loves soccer and when the world cup comes around everyone is excited to watch.
ReplyDeleteYes Egypt deserves to qualify because they worked hard and put in the work to beat all the other teams in their group. Just because Sweden and England have different types of world cup qualifying teams doesn't mean that Egypt should have to not qualify
Qualifying should be based on how strong the team is because teams like Spain, France, Germany, and Italy are all strong teams and just because they are strong teams doesn't mean that they can't qualify over bad teams like Egypt.
The repercussions for the first one is that people all over Egypt were shocked be there win. And for the second one people would be upset if they didn't qualify for the world cup. And for the third people would be upset if they didn't get their country in the world cup based on the strength of the team.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the effect that this qualifying game had on Egypt (with the celebrations, etc), how do you think the World Cup affects other countries and the world as a whole?
I think the World Cup has a massive effect on most countries and even the world when it is taking place. Personally, the only time I watch soccer is during the World Cup and I am very interested in it. Many presidents and leaders of countries will often watch their teams play, and it seems like every country feels united and goes on pause whenever the World Cup is being played. I think it is so important for the world to show the power of sports and how all nations have something in common.
Does Egypt deserve to qualify over stronger teams (ex. Sweden, England, etc) because they had an easier qualifier group in Africa?
I do not think they deserve to qualify because of a lack of competition. Although it may make the World Cup more interesting to people in Africa, it is not fair to strip a better and more deserving team of the opportunity to play in the World Cup. This is such a rare experience and one of the biggest events in sports, so the best teams need to be the ones playing in it.
Should qualifying should be based on the strength of the team or should they try to diversify the teams by picking the same amount of teams per continent?
I think qualify should be strictly based on the strength of the team. It makes the competition at the World Cup better and more balanced, and gives the best players an opportunity to show what they can do on a big stage.
What are the repercussions for each scenario above?
The repercussion of my choice is that many parts of the world may not be interested in the World Cup if there are no teams representing them. This could hurt the ratings and interest of the World Cup around certain areas of the world. The repercussion of picking teams by continent is that a more deserving team could be denied a rare opportunity to play in a World Cup that they have worked their whole career to experience.
Looking at the effect that this qualifying game had on Egypt (with the celebrations, etc), How do you think the World Cup affects other countries and the world as a whole?
ReplyDeleteThe world cup is the largest sporting event in the entire world an thus even qualifying is enough to prompt great celebration especially for teams who do not often qualify. The world cup can have a great effect on the countries participating as it gives the nations as a whole something to rally behind an can be a great source of common ground for all people.
Does Egypt deserve to qualify over stronger teams because they had an easier qualifier group in Africa?
Egypt absolutely deserves to be a part of the world cup despite not facing the highest quality of competition. This debate greatly reminds me of March madness and the general thought process that goes into whether a mid major has done enough to make the tournament. While sometimes it may be a mistake to let these teams in as they can be less talented, it is simply unfair to penalize them for who they played. Some of the greatest upsets in history come from teams that many underestimate from because of their opponents, an while egypt may have simply benefited from playing bad teams they still have earned their place.
Should qualifying should be based on the strength of the team or should they try to diversify the teams by picking the same amount of teams per continent?
While each continent should have at least one team in the world cup, it would be unfair to more competitive continents if a quota was placed. For example if they decided to allow each continent to have only three represent them than the quality of the games would simply be worse. Teams that do not belong in the world cup could easily gain entrance with such quotas an as a result the games would be less competitive. Furthermore teams that play in highly competitive regions would struggle to earn their spot despite having the talent to do so in other continents.
What are the repercussions for each scenario above?
The largest repercussion from the scenario above would be an imbalance of the talent level an potential lack of competitive games. While I argued that Egypt did earn their spot I must admit that many teams in that region are teams that are considered world cup level. If each continent were allotted a certain number of teams to send to the world cup than continents with lower levels of play would send multiple teams that have no chance at such a high level of competition. The point of the world cup is to have the very best soccer teams compete at the international level an thus should be chosen with this in consideration.
I think the world cup has a very large impact on the world as a whole. Often sports are used to resemble the strength of a nation and the world cup, just like the Olympics, does just that. Countries from all of the world are put on display in front of the whole world. This is why it is so important for so many countries to not only qualify for this event but to also succeed.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I don't think Egypt should have a place in the world cup due to their easier bracket thus forcing better teams outside of the event. The world cup is a world wide event to distinguish the absolute best soccer teams in the world. We shouldn't stray away from intent and let worse teams in in order to diversify the competition. The best teams should play in my opinion.
If this continues, the integrity of the even will fall due to the unevenness of the teams participating. Allowing teams that would otherwise have no business in this event just because they are in an easy pool creates unequal paths to the crown and an unjust tournament. The world cup is lacking the competition factor that has made it synonymous with world entertainment if it chooses to continue in this path.
Looking at the effect that this qualifying game had on Egypt (with the celebrations, etc), how do you think the World Cup affects other countries and the world as a whole?
ReplyDeleteThe World Cup generally has a positive effect on countries around the world. The teams usually represent unity and national pride for a positive and friendly competition. Fans around the world are emotionally attached to the teams they support, and rather than a club team, they get to see all of the best players from their country compete at a high level. Oftentimes, star players will leave and play for higher level clubs in countries like France, England, Germany, or Spain, limiting the amount of exposure to their local fans. So, the World Cup is like a showcase for players to don their national colors and represent their people.
Does Egypt deserve to qualify over stronger teams (ex. Sweden, England, etc) because they had an easier qualifier group in Africa?
They do deserve to qualify over stronger teams in spite of their easier route. This is because of the nature of the tournament that hey are trying to qualify for. The World Cup encompasses many teams from every eligible continent. So, Egypt should be able to have a spot in the World Cup because they did everything required and represent Africa in the Cup.
Should qualifying should be based on the strength of the team or should they try to diversify the teams by picking the same amount of teams per continent?
The World Cup should ideally be broken down in an Olympic style, so that only the top teams and a few other nations are represented. However, people might not feel as incentivized to watch the World Cup if only teams from Europe and North or South America compete against each other; they might as well just watch the European Cup or Concacaf Cup. So, the World Cup showcases top teams from every continent, which is good for viewership and the sport.
What are the repercussions for each scenario above?
Viewership may decrease if teams are solely admitted based on ranking. Also, local tournaments would not matter as much or receive as much viewership, losing revenue for many of the national teams that would not otherwise be broadcasted on a wide scale.
1. The world cup has a massive affect on countries around the world. It's an event where everyone around the world can be patriotic about their country and enjoy competition. It's especially fun when your country wins for the first time in a very long time. The celebration in Egypt after qualifying for the world cup says it all about the competition and the pride people have in their country. Therefore, it brings people together inside the country and the competition from country to country is a lot of fun for most people so the world cup has a positive impact on the world as a whole.
ReplyDelete2. I do not think Egypt deserves to qualify over stronger teams due to the easier qualifier group in Africa because it brings down the competition so much in the world cup. For top teams in the tournament it is almost a free win when they play most teams from the Africa region. To increase the competition I think there should not be any regions to qualifying, it should be the top teams in the world. It is not fair to teams like England and Sweden who would crush Egypt in a match but did not qualify for the cup.
3. I think the cup qualifiers should be based off of strength of teams rather than a certain amount of teams from each continent because this would increase the competition. I think many more people would want to watch an exciting close game between two great teams rather than a beat down between an amazing team and a really bad team. Therefore, the world cup qualifiers should be based on the strength of the team.
4. The repercussions are if the strength of the team is put into affect for the qualifying teams, most likely a lot of teams from around the world will not make the cup. For example, the cup will be mostly teams from Europe and possibly none from Africa and very few from other places around the world so the viewing of each game will most likely go down because it won't really be a "world" cup.
Looking at the effect that this qualifying game had on Egypt (with the celebrations, etc), how do you think the World Cup affects other countries and the world as a whole?
ReplyDeleteThe World cup affects other countries and the whole world in a very big and positive way. It unites people as they watch their country take on other countries, and brings out a lot of national spirit and pride. Being able to watch the best players of your country is very exciting so it draws so many viewers, which makes it even crazier.
Does Egypt deserve to qualify over stronger teams (ex. Sweden, England, etc) because they had an easier qualifier group in Africa?
Yes they absolutely deserved to make it over teams that may be stronger. Despite the fact they had an easier route than some other teams, they won what they had to win, so not allowing them to play would just be un-ethical. They are representing Africa, so the whole country will be behind them as they fight against other countries. If they win a few games and make it out of pool play, it will be an unbelievable story, and they will be proving a lot of doubters wrong.
Should qualifying should be based on the strength of the team or should they try to diversify the teams by picking the same amount of teams per continent?
I think that they should try to diversify teams by picking from different continents. Every continent should have the same amount of teams which would give them the same chance to win the world cup. Even though not using this style would allow for better competition, it wouldn't be fair if there were 10 teams from Europe and 2 teams from Africa. It should be fair. Also, it would allow for amazing stories/headlines around the world if an underdog team was able to pull of a miracle.
What are the repercussions for each scenario above?
For the case of having stronger teams in play, this would mean less teams in for certain continents. This would decrease viewership because a lot of places wouldn't be interested in watching if they don't have a team to root for. This format would also lose FIFA a lot of money as the world cup wouldn't be as popular, as the fans would also decrease.
For the scenario of having an even amount of teams per continent, something that may happen is the level on competition would lessen. Teams from Africa that may not be as strong as teams from Europe would all be playing against eachother, so the chances of a boring game resulting in a blow out could happen. But with this format, the "world cup" would be able to live up to its name as teams from all around the world play, instead of teams all coming from one location.
1. Looking at the effect that this qualifying game had on Egypt (with the celebrations, etc), how do you think the World Cup affects other countries and the world as a whole?
ReplyDeleteThe World Cup has a massively positive effect on countries around the globe. National teams represent unity and pride for a country, as well as a way to support the country when directly battling another. They also have an emotional attachment to the team, as instead of watching clubs that may be hundreds or thousands miles away, they can support the best their countries have play together on what team. Therefore, the World Cup, with the pure passion that it brings out in both players and fans, is the ultimate showcase for players to don their national colors and represent their people.
2. Does Egypt deserve to qualify over stronger teams (ex. Sweden, England, etc) because they had an easier qualifier group in Africa?
Yes Egypt deserve to qualify despite having a easier group. Every team in the World Cup has earned their right to be competing in the World Cup. The competition is made out of the best from each continent. Egypt should be able to have a spot in the World Cup because they did what was required and are one of the teams to represent Africa in Russia.
3. Should qualifying should be based on the strength of the team or should they try to diversify the teams by picking the same amount of teams per continent?
The World Cup is about getting the best of best to battle against each other to see who is the best soccer country on earth. If the teams that were in the World Cup were purely the top 25 in the world, they would be mostly from Europe and South America. Now there is already competitions for those two continents, the Euros and the Copa America. Plus the viewers grow exponentially when people from every continent are watching. The World Cup is the showcase for the top teams in the world, and the way it is the way it should stay.
4. What are the repercussions for each scenario above?
Viewership would decrease massively is the teams competing were chosen solely by rankings. Also, local tournaments would not matter as much or receive much less viewers, losing revenue for many of the national teams that would not otherwise be broadcasted on a wide scale.
1. Soccer plays a very important role in most countries around the world. To some it is only second to religion. Soccer provides unity and entertainment for countries that might not be the most economic stable. It also is a source of revenue for the country.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that the Egypt soccer team should be qualified for the World Cup. Just because they may of had an easier route, they also had to compete for much less spots. Egypt worked just as hard as other countries in order to have the opportunity to compete on such a stage. After all, it is called the World Cup, so it shouldn't just consist of countries from Europe and other domination continents, but include countries from around the world.
3. I think qualifying should be based on the system that is now with a limited amount of team spots per continent. I think that the current system allows for smaller teams to get the opportunity to prove that they too can compete at a large stage. Although just having ht big teams would bring in more revenue, it is not all about the money.
4. One repercussion if teams only qualified based on rank would be that it would cause uproar. The World Cup allows smaller nations and players to show their national pride and to bring attention to themselves. Qualifying based on rank would eliminate this and possibly prevent potentially great players form making it big.
Questions:
ReplyDeleteLooking at the effect that this qualifying game had on Egypt (with the celebrations, etc), how do you think the World Cup affects other countries and the world as a whole?
Soccer is the worlds sport. It is the biggest sport in almost every country, so obviously qualifying for the world cup is a huge deal. Small countries especially love the world cup so that they can prove themselves on the world stage. The world cup is the biggest sporting event in the world and countries all around the world treat it that way.
Does Egypt deserve to qualify over stronger teams (ex. Sweden, England, etc) because they had an easier qualifier group in Africa?
The world cup is all about making a name for yourself and being discovered on the world stage. It is where history is made. Although many people think it should be just the best teams in the world, giving smaller countries such as Egypt a chance is that the world cup is all about. I think they do deserve to be in the World cup over larger countries.
Should qualifying should be based on the strength of the team or should they try to diversify the teams by picking the same amount of teams per continent?
I think the current system is very good. It is a mix of the best countries in the world with some smaller countries trying to prove themselves. It keeps the world cup competitive and makes both large and small countries happy.
What are the repercussions for each scenario above?
If the world cup was all of the best countries in the world it would be extremely competitive. However, there would be no long shots or upsets. There would be no big surprises and that is a huge part of the world cup. At the same time putting an equal number of teams from each continent would make the world cup lose some of its value. It would no longer be as competitive.
Looking at the effect that this qualifying game had on Egypt (with the celebrations, etc), how do you think the World Cup affects other countries and the world as a whole?
ReplyDeleteThe world cup is so rare for many countries, and it is an emotional battle once they reach it. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, and the world cup is its largest stage.
Egypt hasn’t qualified for a world cup in 28 years. The amount of teams that qualify from each continent vary (ex. Europe 14 teams, Africa 5 teams) to try to raise the competition. This is because there are more top European teams than African.
Does Egypt deserve to qualify over stronger teams (ex. Sweden, England, etc) because they had an easier qualifier group in Africa?
Yes, it is like the electoral college. It receives viewership from every continent, and gives players from different regions an opportunity to make a name for themselves. For many players, the world cup is where they prove themselves to big named clubs
Should qualifying should be based on the strength of the team or should they try to diversify the teams by picking the same amount of teams per continent?
The strength of that team in that continent.
ReplyDeleteQuestions:
Looking at the effect that this qualifying game had on Egypt (with the celebrations, etc), how do you think the World Cup affects other countries and the world as a whole?
The world cup affects the whole world greatly, especially because soccer is the most popular sport in the world. The World Cup is a very popular tournament that combines nationalism and sport on a broad scale from big countries to small countries. The world cup can give countries and the people of the countries a larger sense of nationalism and unity amongst their country while also enjoying the sport of soccer.
Does Egypt deserve to qualify over stronger teams (ex. Sweden, England, etc) because they had an easier qualifier group in Africa?
Teams from Africa would need to qualify for the World Cup regardless. All in all, Egypt has not made it to the world cup in 28 years so I believe they deserve it. It is good to have a new mix of countries each year and have the competition not be just the same teams every year and Egypt qualifying does that. While the bigger european teams if they are better they for sure deserve to go to the world cup over Egypt just for better teams which mean better games.
Should qualifying be based on the strength of the team or should they try to diversify the teams by picking the same amount of teams per continent?
I believe it should be the strength of the team. I understand why smaller countries would want to be at the world cup, but, it is important to have the best teams at the world cup that is possible. This boosts the entertainment factor because the best teams and players are playing on a huge stage.
What are the repercussions for each scenario above?
The repercussions include that the smaller countries might not get as fair of a shot at qualifying, yet, if they are good enough they can qualify. Having not as many teams qualify can cause a smaller chance for an underdog or upset but it is more likely for blowouts if more African teams could qualify. While, as a viewer, I would rather watch two powerhouses battle it out than a blowout.
Looking at the effect that this qualifying game had on Egypt (with the celebrations, etc), how do you think the World Cup affects other countries and the world as a whole?
ReplyDelete- I think the world cup is a unifier for African and European countries who heavily are involved in the sport of soccer. It has always been more than just a game and it has always brought countries together.
Does Egypt deserve to qualify over stronger teams (ex. Sweden, England, etc) because they had an easier qualifier group in Africa?
- I think that if they won, then they deserve to be in it. It should not matter if stronger teams did not qualify because they were in a stronger division. Egypt should not be penalized for that.
Should qualifying should be based on the strength of the team or should they try to diversify the teams by picking the same amount of teams per continent?
- Qualifying should be how it is now. Based on continents. Strength of teams should not be considered. They should have to win a certain amount of games to qualify, no matt who they play.
Questions:
ReplyDeleteLooking at the effect that this qualifying game had on Egypt (with the celebrations, etc), how do you think the World Cup affects other countries and the world as a whole?
- The world cup does a great job of bringing unity to a country. Egypt has had a rough past few years, but this will do a great job of restoring some peoples happiness and the people will all come together to root for their country. The world cup brings out the nationalism in every person and country to see how much everyone loves their country and it brings every country together.
Egypt hasn’t qualified for a world cup in 28 years. The amount of teams that qualify from each continent vary (ex. Europe 14 teams, Africa 5 teams) to try to raise the competition. This is because there are more top European teams than African.
-
Does Egypt deserve to qualify over stronger teams (ex. Sweden, England, etc) because they had an easier qualifier group in Africa?
Egypt deserves to make the world cup because there is a set number of teams that should make it from each continent. Although there may be better competition in Europe, they need to give a fair shot to every country and England made the world cup.
Should qualifying should be based on the strength of the team or should they try to diversify the teams by picking the same amount of teams per continent?
-Qualifying should be based on strength of team in each qualifying group. Picking the same amount of teams per continent would be unfair because there would be less than 10 in North America while there are 14 or more in Europe.
What are the repercussions for each scenario above?
Some of the teams in continents like Africa will struggle to make the world cup because the European teams are all solid.
Questions:
ReplyDelete1) Looking at the effect that this qualifying game had on Egypt (with the celebrations, etc), how do you think the World Cup affects other countries and the world as a whole?
People are very passionate about their soccer around the world. The people in Egypt were so happy that their team made it, and I find that very interesting because when the US makes the world cup, people do not go crazy and celebrate in the streets.
2) Egypt hasn’t qualified for a world cup in 28 years. The amount of teams that qualify from each continent vary (ex. Europe 14 teams, Africa 5 teams) to try to raise the competition. This is because there are more top European teams than African. Does Egypt deserve to qualify over stronger teams (ex. Sweden, England, etc) because they had an easier qualifier group in Africa?
I think that they do deserve to qualify because one of the great things about the world cup is that each continent is represented. Just like in the NFL, some divisions are weaker than others, so sometimes better teams will not make the playoffs because they play in a strong division. It is not a problem for weaker African teams to play in World Cup over stronger European teams because it is good to represent every continent.
3)Should qualifying should be based on the strength of the team or should they try to diversify the teams by picking the same amount of teams per continent?
I think that they should try to diversify the teams more. I think it is cool to see all the different countries represented. The World Cup would be all European teams every year if only the strongest teams played in the world cup.
What are the repercussions for each scenario above?
One of the repercussions is that stronger teams will not make the world cup. It's probably very frustrating for them because there are worse teams that make it over them, just because of where the team is located.
Looking at the effect that this qualifying game had on Egypt (with the celebrations, etc), how do you think the World Cup affects other countries and the world as a whole?
ReplyDeleteSoccer is a sport played worldwide. This tournament unifies each country, and even the world as a whole, as we all connect over the sport. This meant so much to Egypt, as it was something for them to be excited about, while for other countries like America, not many people paid attention until we didn't make it.
Egypt hasn’t qualified for a world cup in 28 years. The amount of teams that qualify from each continent vary (ex. Europe 14 teams, Africa 5 teams) to try to raise the competition. This is because there are more top European teams than African.
Does Egypt deserve to qualify over stronger teams (ex. Sweden, England, etc) because they had an easier qualifier group in Africa?
I think they still deserve to because of the fact that each continent is represented. It isn't their fault that the competition wasn't as good, they won the games they needed to. Every continent should be valued, making it even more impressive to make it out of continents such as Europe.
Should qualifying should be based on the strength of the team or should they try to diversify the teams by picking the same amount of teams per continent?
I think that each continent should be represented, but maybe they should have a few more from the stronger and larger continents. This way everyone is represented, and the best teams are playing.
What are the repercussions for each scenario above?
If the best teams play, countries such as Egypt don't ever get the chance for a great experience. For countries going through tough times, the World Cup is a great way to take your mind off of the struggles. But, if each continent is equally represented, then the best teams don't get to play. We are trying to find the best team on earth, and maybe one of these teams won't meet the tough requirements of their continent.
I think the impact of the world cup on countries varies by the popularity of the sport in each country. In the U.S, people aren't even that upset that we didn't qualify, while countries like Egypt and Brazil value it way more than us, as soccer is the world's top major sport.
ReplyDeleteI think that while the system may be flawed, it is important to have different regions of the world represented in the World Cup. If a country in Europe didn't qualify for the tournament, that means they lost to a better team that DID qualify, meaning theoretically they would have been eliminated from the tournament anyway.
Should qualifying should be based on the strength of the team or should they try to diversify the teams by picking the same amount of teams per continent?
They should have a mix of both, like they have now. If it was strictly based on team strength, then much of the world would go unrepresented in the tournament. On the other side, if all regions had the same number of slots, more better teams would be left out of the tournament for spots given to worse countries.
As I said, if it was strictly based on team strength, certain countries would end up left out of the tournament, and if all continents got the same number of spots, larger continents, which have better teams, find certain better teams left out of the tournament.
1.I think that world cup has massive effect on most countries, fan from all over the globe watch it. With a team not making it for 28 years and then they have qualified causes great excitement from a region where they have not had success.
ReplyDelete2.I think if it was just the very tops teams that would get in it removes the diversity of different. People in egypt worked hard to come up with a decent squad. And the range of different teams in the world cups is what makes it such a world wide event/
3.They should do a different number of team per content because Europe has so many elite teams that it would be unfair, if the same number of Eupro Teams qualifies as African teams because that would make it too easy for African teams
4.If they had the same number of team from each continent than that would leave out many European teams from the tournament. Even though many of the unqualified could probably beat some of the best teams from other continents.
With different number of team it would give a nice mix of range of teams and still allow decent teams from Europe to still qualify