UEFA International League of Nations

[HibeeJibee]

There's a similar precedent in Asia, where the winners of the AFC Challenge Cup (a tournament for diddy nations) are given a qualification berth for the AFC Asian Cup.

I also like the Asian way of doing things, AFC Challenge cup last won by India I think? They qualified and were humped in the tournament but scored 2 or maybe 3 goals.

I immediately though of the Asian cup qualifying too, bit I think that's to help get massive tv audiences from India, china etc. can't think of any parallels in Europe tbh.

Interestingly:

http://www.the-afc.com/en/about-afc/afc-departments/competitions-division/27547-revamp-of-afc-competitions.html

In order to provide more number of international matches to Member Associations, the AFC Competitions Committee has decided to revamp the confederation’s national team competitions.

The committee, which met on the sidelines of the AFC U-22 Championship on Saturday, also decided to simplify the assessment criteria for participation in AFC club competitions.

Addressing the committee members, AFC President Shaikh Salman Ebrahim Al Khalifa urged the Member Associations to adhere the changes that are proposed in the meeting.

“Competitions are the main products of AFC and I am happy that it is in the good hands,” said AFC President.

“We must market our product and generate income to sustain football across the continent.

“I am sure that the changes that happen will have big impact in Asian football and will benefit our Member Associations,” he added.

Under the new format, Asia’s showpiece event – AFC Asian Cup – will have 24 teams in the tournament proper instead of 16. The 2014 AFC Challenge Cup, to be held in Maldives in May this year, will be the last edition of this competition.

[ShawfieldAggro]

Certainly there will be 10 groups of 5/6 nations each in both World Cup and Euro qualifying. Winners qualify for World Cup; top 2 for Euros.

Not clear what happens with the 3 remaining WC slots, but we know there are 4 for the next Euros.

Initially I thought the implied system was as follows:

* 4 best non-qualifiers from all Divisions 1-4 go into an overall play-off system, SFs no doubt seeded 1v4 + 2v3 , in March 2020

* 4 sets of Semi-Finals & Finals

* my guess was 1 country would host each set, with Semi-Finals on Thu/Fri/Sat and Final on Sun/Mon/Tue, the winner of the Final qualifying

However it seems the system is actually as follows:

* 4 best non-qualifiers in each Division hold seperate Divisional play-offs, in March 2020

* so 1 set of Semi-Finals & Finals per Division

* so some nation from Division 2, Division 3 and Division 4 all guaranteed to qualify

I just think that's unfair, there should not be finals slots ringfenced for the worse countries.

Some countries could actually be best served by getting relegated... easier being a big fish in Division 4 than a small fish in Division 3.

It's also messy... League played before Euro qualifiers are known, there'll be hosts (after 2020), and some groups will only have 3 teams.

Not strictly true that last bit though....the LofN would still surely feature all of the countries, the hosts would only miss out from qualifying through the designated group?? Confusing as f*ck. Think it'll have one run out then disbanded.

[HibeeJibee]

Not strictly true that last bit though....the LofN would still surely feature all of the countries, the hosts would only miss out from qualifying through the designated group?? Confusing as f*ck. Think it'll have one run out then disbanded.

Precisely my point...

... in November 2018 the League of Nations ends.

... throughout 2019 the Euro qualifiers are played, ending November 2019.

... in March 2020 the Euro playoffs are held, with entry decided by finishing positions in the LofN completed 18 months before.

... 20 nations spread higgledy-piggledy across the LofN will have qualified automatically, meaning the playoff places cascade down.

... then add-in complications of 3-team groups and, post-2020, hosts (also already qualified).

It'll be a huge guddle, as the Euro qualifiers approach their conclusion, trying to know who/what may or may not get you into the playoffs.

That also means most nations won't, IMO, treat the LofN like friendlies. Most should want a high finish as an insurance policy for 18 months down-the-line.

[ShawfieldAggro]

Bizarre format and a half. But then again, there are those who still scratch their head about a team finishing 4th competing in a 'Champions League'. Off the top of my head, i'd hazard a guess that a 10-20-24 format wouldnt be bad........top tier simply 2 pools of 5 playing each other once, in leiu of two home and away games, top two in each contesting the Semis n Final. Bottom in each relegated. Second tier similar but with 4 groups, with the winners playing for the 2 top-tier places. Again, bottom side in each drop out. Third tier of 8 groups with 3 teams each, playing home and away = 4 games same as other tiers. Again, winners of each playing off for the 4 spots available upstairs. But the beauty....the competition could be played in a maximum of seven matchdays. And each and every nation would have a clear free one to play who they liked. And no fannying about with qualifying series either...

[Quentin Taranbino]

So does that mean that one of the bottom 14 teams in Europe will qualify for a major tournament?

It almost seems like getting relegated ensures an easier path to qualify for a tournament

[gannonball]

Dont think its a bad idea tbh, not a massive lover of international football but if it means less stupid friendlies happy days.

[IceCoolSuperStud]

I do not like the sound of this. It just seems obvious this is a way of getting the big countries in the top division so they always qualify for the world cup and european championship and they always only play eachother. So instead of getting the chance ot play Germany, Spain, Italy we will just play small countries no one wants to watch. The small countries should make sure this does not happen. Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Ulster, Norway, Sweden etc: we all need to shoot this idea down. It will be the like the champions league the big country sides qualify automatically while small countries get chicken feed. .

[craigkillie]

So does that mean that one of the bottom 14 teams in Europe will qualify for a major tournament?

It almost seems like getting relegated ensures an easier path to qualify for a tournament

It's hardly a sustainable route though - in order to qualify you would have to win your group and by doing that you would gain promotion again and this wouldn't be able to qualify that way the next time.

Plus, by deliberately getting relegated you'd be chucking away your chance of qualifying for something during the current season.

[craigkillie]

It'll be a huge guddle, as the Euro qualifiers approach their conclusion, trying to know who/what may or may not get you into the playoffs.

I don't see this as a real problem. Everyone will head into the Euro qualification trying to finish in the top 2 to ensure automatic qualification.

Anyone who has finished top of their "Nations League" section will have the security of a "fall-back" option of a play-off should they miss out on automatic qualification.

Anyone who didn't finish top of their Nations Cup group (top section apart) will know that they only have a small chance of a play-off spot and should therefore just treat it as a bonus if it does happen.

Nobody is going to approach any qualifier in a different way under this system than they would normally. The fact that media/FAs/fans might find it difficult to keep on top of who will get play-off places should only be a minor consideration - it's generally going to involve results in matches you have no control over anyway. As long as the rules are clear in advance, it should be fine.

That also means most nations won't, IMO, treat the LofN like friendlies. Most should want a high finish as an insurance policy for 18 months down-the-line.

That's surely the whole point of making it a factor in EC/WC qualifying. If the tournament wasn't going to be taken seriously then there wouldn't be any point in having it.

[sergie's no1 fan]

Is it just me or does anyone else want to see the likes of San Marino and Faroe Islands go head to head in these groups?

Would be good to see the minnows win a few games.

[HibeeJibee]

That's surely the whole point of making it a factor in EC/WC qualifying. If the tournament wasn't going to be taken seriously then there wouldn't be any point in having it.

I know, it was in reference to some of the posts saying that countries will just treat them like glorified friendlies... I doubt anyone bar the really big ones might, and even they may not do so given the trophy available and given the quality of their opposition.

[BarraJag]

Is it just me or does anyone else want to see the likes of San Marino and Faroe Islands go head to head in these groups?

Would be good to see the minnows win a few games.

It would get quite waring though, at least in Asia there is only 4 or 5 strong teams and there not even THAT strong. A group of Spain, Belgium, Romania and San Marino would be crap. Spain but Tahiti 10-0 and Tahiti are a long way ahead of San Marino in the world. Scotlands place could be lost to a shite team like Malta, Luxembourg etc.

[BarraJag]

I'd say the only bottom-division nation to benefit from qualifying would be Kazakhstan, they have potential to be a good nation, they have the population, the size to be a top nation. Gibraltar, San Marino, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Malta, Andorra, Faroes IMO will always be whipping boys. Cyprus i'd say have an OK chance of getting better but not as great a chance as Kazakhstan have.

[Bully Wee Villa]

It's surprising how shit Kazakhstan are. Do they all like basketball or something?

[ShawfieldAggro]

I've less of a problem with one spot from 24 being made available to the teams in the lowest rung of this, than i have 'highest ranked non qualifiers' having yet another safety net on top of a 43% chance of qualifying legitimately. The likelyhood is the place eill.invariably fall to a country like Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania and the like....small but respectable nations who rarely get thrashed, but are never really in serious danger of sneaking a place otherwise. For the ultra minnows, at least competing at tha level over a period of time might eliminate the expectancy of getting totally ploughed every time they play.

[craigkillie]

It would get quite waring though, at least in Asia there is only 4 or 5 strong teams and there not even THAT strong. A group of Spain, Belgium, Romania and San Marino would be crap. Spain but Tahiti 10-0 and Tahiti are a long way ahead of San Marino in the world. Scotlands place could be lost to a shite team like Malta, Luxembourg etc.

I reckon San Marino would be a substantially better side than Tahiti.

[craigkillie]

I've less of a problem with one spot from 24 being made available to the teams in the lowest rung of this, than i have 'highest ranked non qualifiers' having yet another safety net on top of a 43% chance of qualifying legitimately. The likelyhood is the place eill.invariably fall to a country like Belarus, Estonia, Lithuania and the like....small but respectable nations who rarely get thrashed, but are never really in serious danger of sneaking a place otherwise. For the ultra minnows, at least competing at tha level over a period of time might eliminate the expectancy of getting totally ploughed every time they play.

I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make here, but it's not correct to say that the very top level sides like Spain, Italy, Germany etc have an better "fall-back" opportunity if they fail to qualify.

In fact, an elite side who fail to qualify automatically will have a reduced chance of qualifying via the "Nations Cup play-off" than they would if they finished 3rd in the group and took part in "normal" play-offs. Instead of having a tie against someone like Slovenia or Estonia, they would end up facing off against three other "elite" sides for just one qualifying spot.

[forameus]

Tahiti are a long way ahead of San Marino in the world

Wait...what? World Rankings wise maybe, but surely you can see that's not representative?

With the greatest respect to the Oceanic countries, they are mostly terrible with the exception of New Zealand. They pretty much only play each other, meaning Tahiti have a great chance of picking up points. San Marino are a tiny fish in a huge pond, and they regularly get absolutely pumped. If they went up against Tahiti, I'd be confident of a San Marino win, or it being a close match at the very least. Certainly not Tahiti running out clear and easy winners, a team that has lost twice in the last couple of years to the mighty New Caledonia.

[BarraJag]

Wait...what? World Rankings wise maybe, but surely you can see that's not representative?

With the greatest respect to the Oceanic countries, they are mostly terrible with the exception of New Zealand. They pretty much only play each other, meaning Tahiti have a great chance of picking up points. San Marino are a tiny fish in a huge pond, and they regularly get absolutely pumped. If they went up against Tahiti, I'd be confident of a San Marino win, or it being a close match at the very least. Certainly not Tahiti running out clear and easy winners, a team that has lost twice in the last couple of years to the mighty New Caledonia.

Wrong in so many ways, both teams were humped by top sides Spain etc, id go for a 2-0 win for Tahiti

New Zealand are also shite btw, very very shite

[forameus]

Wrong in so many ways, both teams were humped by top sides Spain etc, id go for a 2-0 win for Tahiti

New Zealand are also shite btw, very very shite

Given they've never even come close to playing each other, so what exactly are you basing it on? San Marino haven't played Spain recently, or any of the sides who pumped Tahiti.

Plus, you're arguing that Tahiti would easily beat San Marino, then say how shite New Zealand are. So if they're that shite, what does it make Tahiti, given that New Zealand regularly dominate their continent?