Juls and Gab discuss what North Macedonia could bring to their game against Portugal. (1:45) With World Cup qualification reaching its dramatic conclusion around the globe over the past few days, Gab Marcotti takes a slightly different approach to his Monday musings. There is a look at the weird way in which teams book their place at the World Cup, as well as the impact on national teams when a lot of players come from somewhere else. - ESPN+ viewers' guide: LaLiga, Bundesliga, MLS, FA Cup, more
- Stream ESPN FC Daily on ESPN+ (U.S. only)
- Don't have ESPN? Get instant access
The biggest moments in the world of football are discussed by Gab.
Fix World Cup qualification? Italy is hurt by a lot of foreigners.
World Cup qualifying is a headache: they should have a suggestion box ...We are almost there. There are 20 countries that have qualified for the World Cup. The winner of the inter-Confederation playoffs will play the winner of the Oceania vs. fourth place in CONCACAF game.
The countries forfeited games because they refused to travel. We have had countries who entered and then withdrew. We had countries withdraw before their first game due to volcanic eruptions and the fear of Communism in North Korea. We have had countries travel all the way to Qatar for a confederation qualification tournament only to have to pull out due to a COVID outbreak.
We had games postponed due to a bureaucratic mess and war broke out in Europe.
The United Arab Emirates and Australia will play 20 matches if they qualify for the World Cup. The Solomon Islands will have played a total of three if they manage to do so.
What is the point of this? When you're also dealing with natural disasters, Pandemics and war, you can easily get into a situation where the qualification campaign for the World Cup is a bit of a cluster-mess. It's real life getting in the way of sports.
Gab and Juls preview the second legs of the World Cup qualification.
There will be 48 World Cup slots next time around, a 50% increase, but don't expect it to get easier logistically. We know how many extra slots each confederation will have, and we know there will be a six team inter-Confederation playoff tournament for the final two spots. We don't know if the host nations will automatically qualify, and we don't know how the tournaments will work in each confederation.
I don't envy the men and women who are buried away somewhere and charged with developing a format that gets the job done, maximises revenue and keeps everybody happy, especially at a time when we have no idea what the international match calendar will look like after 2024. The club game is squeezing international football.
The World Cup playoffs can be watched on the internet.
- Stream ESPN FC Daily on ESPN+ (U.S. only)
- World Cup playoff schedule: UEFA | CAF
- World Cup 2022 qualifying: How it works around the world
There are many unknowns. What happens to the region if the three co-hosts all get automatic bids? Will it be commercially viable without the region's three biggest economies/TV markets? Do the US, Canada and Mexico play each other over and over again?
Can you tell me about CON MEBOL? South America's qualification tournament has many benefits -- it builds rivalries, it ensures freak results don't derail qualification, it's a consolidated tradition, and it's hugely competitive. If Brazil or Argentina have already secured their spot halfway through, will it become boring?
Africa, who will jump from five spots to nine, should have a slightly less cruel system compared to what is going on right now, where you can win every game in your group, draw the playoff home-and-away ties and still get knocked on the away goals rule. How do you do it in a rational way?
What about places like Asia or Africa? Take the country of Gambia. They played both home and away against Angola. They made it to the Africa Cup of Nations quarterfinals. Does it make sense for their campaign to last 180 minutes? The Cup of Nations was held in Gambia. Those two games were the only football they have played in the past two years.
They put their thinking caps on to find a format for a 48-team World Cup without increasing the number of games, so they should do the same for World Cup qualification. For nations that don't make the World Cup, it should be a chance to improve and a minimum offer of drama, fairness and a chance to improve.
How? I am open to suggestions, but that part beats the heck out of me.
It is one of those questions that is asked a lot. The elimination of Italy from the World Cup playoffs prompted some critics to suggest that the country has too many foreign players. The highest number of minutes played by foreign players in Europe is in the Big Five leagues. It makes sense, right? There are fewer opportunities to grow.
Is that the reason why Italy will be watching the World Cup on TV? It's easy, partner. Nobody would accuse Portugal of not being good at producing top football players if they beat North Macedonia on Tuesday night and win a spot in the World Cup. Guess what? Non-Portuguese players gobbled up 60.7% of the minutes played in the Portuguese top flight this season.
Gab and Juls talk about Roberto Mancini wanting to stay in charge of Italy.
All these foreigners don't stifle Portuguese talent production lines in the same way. There is an answer to that. Portugal exports tons of players, so it's okay to have many foreigners domestically if you want to send a lot of your own players abroad.
That makes sense. Italy does not export many players. They have four in the French league, one in the German league, and three in the English league. Only eight are in total. Got it.
What about England? More foreign players played in the premier league this season than in Italy They don't export top talent. There were 15 Englishmen playing in the German, French, Italian and Spanish top flights. Three of them ( Jude Bellingham, Tammy Abraham and Fikayo Tomori) have been capped in the past few seasons, which is less than the number of foreign-based Italians who made it into the squad.
Maybe that is not it. How easy theories can explain national team success is underscored by this. I believe that having to compete with foreign players for playing time does not stifle your development. If you want to play, you need to raise your level so that those that do play are better.
My sense is based on anecdotes and conversation with football folk. I could be wrong. The point is to point out the pitfalls of using out-of-context data to extrapolate grand theories.
The new list of potential Manchester United managers was discussed by Gab and Julien.
One of the more interesting things I read this weekend was a Nick Harris poll of more than 100,000 fans of the premier league, asking them how they felt about the owners.
Some of it was predictable. The approval rating for the Glazers was 4% from the Manchester United fans. I wondered how it was that high. Matthew Benham, who built a new stadium and steered the club to mid-table while working on a budget, was the top of the pile.
The latest news and reaction from Gabriele.
If you exclude the two clubs that have changed hands since the survey, just four owners had an approval rating of less than 50%.
The distaste for the Glazers is well-chronicled by United fans. You assume that Moshiri pays the price for the poor performance of the club. A few months ago, it felt like they were drifting, at least relative to the golden years of the Arsne Wenger era. The poor performance of the West Ham owners suggests that some fans don't just care about league position and results on the pitch, but also about who their owners are.
12 of the owners had approval ratings of more than 75%, which is a level of devotion from your fans. Supporters may be a little more enlightened than the other way around. What do they want from their owners? Someone who can be a good steward for the club will not use the club as a personal piggy bank, will listen to supporters and will leave it better off than when they arrive.
You don't actually own a football club, but you look after it for the next generation.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
