i guess the bottom line is that playing in asia would improve us and we would soon be at a point where we would back ourselves against all of the teams mentioned above? makes sense to me.
the negatives so far seem to be all financial
All Whites' Oceania/Asia Confederation Conundrum
The other reason we have always stated for getting teams into junior tournaments is it gives them international exposure and more chance of getting into pro football.
If they play more regular junior international football in Asia they are more likely to get spotted.
I think this has to happen - the question is when really.
I've always though you'd have the nations cup and then the winner goes into the second round of Asian qualifying (one of the 10 in the two groups of 5) - and the 2 half places in Asia/Oceania combine to give a full fifth place for Asia (so no intercontinental playoff).
We need to talk about Oceania.
1. Shambolic Oceania Nations Cup tournament run over one week, on the same sub-standard pitch, in blistering heat. Basically, a lottery.
2. Tahiti concede 24 goals in 3 games at Confeds Cup. Forget the patronising statements about them being 'plucky' and 'having a go' - it's a disgrace. It doesn't do them any good and doesn't do the tournament any good.
3. New Zealand miss Confeds Cup, partly through own incompetence but partly due to Point 1, severely damaging chances of qualifying for World Cup.
Yes, our kids get to qualify for lots of FIFA tournaments, but is that really doing them as much good as qualifying down a more competitive path and then actually being prepared when they get to a tournament?
Yes, the costs of travel in another arrangement might be higher but so might the rewards (TV money for one). Besides, there are probably options to limit the amount of travel other Oceania nations do until the later stages of qualifying, if they ever get there. Also, is there any obligation on us to worry about how the other Oceania nations will cope anyway?
So how do we sort this shit out?
1. Disagree the tournament was "shambolic". The fixture list wasn't good, admittedly, but the tournament itself was well run. The pitch looked worse on TV than it was. The weather - what can you do about that..? It's weather. My view is that nations who want to host tournaments in Oceania have every right to do so and the tournament format has little or nothing to do with them.
Interesting to look back on 1982 qualifying campaign with the quality of the pitch in Singapore panned for its state, yet Mount Smart Stadium itself was abysmal in the first qualifying section.
The OFC Nations Cup 2002 was played in aquatic conditions in Auckland during winter and matches were transferred because of surface water at North Harbour Stadium to Mount Smart Stadium.
I've outlined my views on this a year ago and not really changed my thinking on it a year hence.
2. Tahiti were a shambles and I was disgusted with the way they approached the Confederations Cup. The way they defended in June 1012 and then subsequently throughout the Stage 3 qualifiers, THEN in the OFC Champions League as AS Dragon, was nothing like the dross they served up in Brazil.
It looked to me as if the Tahitian attitude was, "Well, we're going to lose anyway, so to cover up our shortcomings, we're not going to stick by our game plan from the past, instead we'll 'just play' and see what happens." They've been let off the hook by virtue of the civil unrest in Brazil with most locals looking at an amateur side competing "earnestly" and its married up nicely with their beef about expenditure on the FIFA World Cup itself.
In a wider sense, they've emerged from the tournament as a quirky PR feel-good story, the football equivalent of falling into effluent and coming up unsullied clutching a bunch of roses. I don't agree with it myself, but there you have it.
A lot of OFC teams, ourselves included, have got pumped rotten at FIFA events before (Spain U-17 13-0 New Zealand U-17, New Zealand 0-5 Spain, Tahiti U-20 0-8 Spain U-20, New Zealand U-17 0-7 Brazil U-17) and we've survived it in the past, but this Confeds was rank.
3. Blame should be apportioned carefully here. I spoke to a player weeks in advance of the tour to the USA and Solomon Islands and there was concern about undertaking the first leg knowing the conditions that lay in wait in Honiara. The USA preparation was a worthy trip but at the wrong time. The lead-in period would've been better spent preparing and acclimatizing in Brisbane and Honiara. There were plenty of resources and knowledge in New Zealand worth consulting ahead of Honiara about preparing to play up there but sadly that wasn't tapped into.
Youth Tournaments Qualification - This is a reasonable point. An AFC qualification pathway with New Zealand in it, or the OFC shifted into it en masse, might have a different look, its speculative. The political ructions of calibrating an AFC/OFC merger would have a much bigger, broader effect on the entire 'new' Confederation. There would be a lot of issues to work through - we might not get a better outcome, we don't know for certain.
Costs of Travel/TV Money - This is a tricky one because the top ten teams in the AFC fight tooth and nail for the TV money associated with the final stage of qualifying for the FIFA World Cup. Dividing that pie up with an OFC winner (+ an additional AFC side, to make six in each group) would cause a lot of headaches around the negotiating table, for sure. It was mooted back in 2006 for the 2010 FIFA World Cup and the AFC members baulked at the concept with the most acceptable scenario based around extending the final stage from 10 to 12 teams, but not during that (or this) World Cup cycle. It may yet materialise for Russia 2018.
The AFC Champions League is not the Promise Land of a cash rich TV cash cow, either. Hyundai A-League participants struggle to break even in this event, the same as Auckland City FC do by taking part in the OFC Champions League (under the old format).
New Zealand deciding to up and leave the OFC behind - This can't happen without the OFC pushing for it at FIFA. The FFA left the OFC because the then OFC President Reynald Temarii wanted Australia gone to further his political position. OFC put the case directly to FIFA and the FFA had all their Christmases come at once.Australia left, New Caledonia were admitted.
Is there a moral obligation to be concerned about the rest of the OFC? Arguably not, no, but it is probably in their interests to work with them rather than against them politically. Any change in the composition of the AFC/OFC qualification pathway needs to be achieved through a collective rather than individual approach. More realistic may be crossing over inter-Confederation playoffs in the final stages of play in senior men's tournaments, instead of the embarrassment of Tahiti in Brazil. That keeps OFC sweet, furthers NZF's interests in the direction they may want things to head and we haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
New Zealand has benefited enormously from being an OFC member and it would be churlish to forget that fact.
Any discussion of splitting up the AFC into East and West is exciting to contemplate but unrealistic at the moment with the vast majority of the Eastern AFC members unlikely to be enamored with a new West AFC-OFC configuration including an away trip to Port Moresby, Honiara and Port Vila perceived as undesirable.
Gordon Glen Watson
2. Tahiti were a shambles and I was disgusted with the way they approached the Confederations Cup. The way they defended in June 1012 and then subsequently throughout the Stage 3 qualifiers, THEN in the OFC Champions League as AS Dragon, was nothing like the dross they served up in Brazil.
It looked to me as if the Tahitian attitude was, "Well, we're going to lose anyway, so to cover up our shortcomings, we're not going to stick by our game plan from the past, instead we'll 'just play' and see what happens." They've been let off the hook by virtue of the civil unrest in Brazil with most locals looking at an amateur side competing "earnestly" and its married up nicely with their beef about expenditure on the FIFA World Cup itself.
In a wider sense, they've emerged from the tournament as a quirky PR feel-good story, the football equivalent of falling into effluent and coming up unsullied clutching a bunch of roses. I don't agree with it myself, but there you have it.
This is a bit off-topic, but I completely agree with this - essentially Tahiti engaged in a PR exercise rather than playing football in Brazil. Which is all good for them, the guys who were there had a couple of weeks they'll never forget. But it's really done nothing for the credibility of the game in this part of the world.
We need to talk about Oceania.
1. Shambolic Oceania Nations Cup tournament run over one week, on the same sub-standard pitch, in blistering heat. Basically, a lottery.
2. Tahiti concede 24 goals in 3 games at Confeds Cup. Forget the patronising statements about them being 'plucky' and 'having a go' - it's a disgrace. It doesn't do them any good and doesn't do the tournament any good.
3. New Zealand miss Confeds Cup, partly through own incompetence but partly due to Point 1, severely damaging chances of qualifying for World Cup.
Yes, our kids get to qualify for lots of FIFA tournaments, but is that really doing them as much good as qualifying down a more competitive path and then actually being prepared when they get to a tournament?
Yes, the costs of travel in another arrangement might be higher but so might the rewards (TV money for one). Besides, there are probably options to limit the amount of travel other Oceania nations do until the later stages of qualifying, if they ever get there. Also, is there any obligation on us to worry about how the other Oceania nations will cope anyway?
So how do we sort this shit out?
1. Disagree the tournament was "shambolic". The fixture list wasn't good, admittedly, but the tournament itself was well run. The pitch looked worse on TV than it was. The weather - what can you do about that..? It's weather. My view is that nations who want to host tournaments in Oceania have every right to do so and the tournament format has little or nothing to do with them.
Interesting to look back on 1982 qualifying campaign with the quality of the pitch in Singapore panned for its state, yet Mount Smart Stadium itself was abysmal in the first qualifying section.
The OFC Nations Cup 2002 was played in aquatic conditions in Auckland during winter and matches were transferred because of surface water at North Harbour Stadium to Mount Smart Stadium.
I've outlined my views on this a year ago and not really changed my thinking on it a year hence.
2. Tahiti were a shambles and I was disgusted with the way they approached the Confederations Cup. The way they defended in June 1012 and then subsequently throughout the Stage 3 qualifiers, THEN in the OFC Champions League as AS Dragon, was nothing like the dross they served up in Brazil.
It looked to me as if the Tahitian attitude was, "Well, we're going to lose anyway, so to cover up our shortcomings, we're not going to stick by our game plan from the past, instead we'll 'just play' and see what happens." They've been let off the hook by virtue of the civil unrest in Brazil with most locals looking at an amateur side competing "earnestly" and its married up nicely with their beef about expenditure on the FIFA World Cup itself.
In a wider sense, they've emerged from the tournament as a quirky PR feel-good story, the football equivalent of falling into effluent and coming up unsullied clutching a bunch of roses. I don't agree with it myself, but there you have it.
A lot of OFC teams, ourselves included, have got pumped rotten at FIFA events before (Spain U-17 13-0 New Zealand U-17, New Zealand 0-5 Spain, Tahiti U-20 0-8 Spain U-20, New Zealand U-17 0-7 Brazil U-17) and we've survived it in the past, but this Confeds was rank.
3. Blame should be apportioned carefully here. I spoke to a player weeks in advance of the tour to the USA and Solomon Islands and there was concern about undertaking the first leg knowing the conditions that lay in wait in Honiara. The USA preparation was a worthy trip but at the wrong time. The lead-in period would've been better spent preparing and acclimatizing in Brisbane and Honiara. There were plenty of resources and knowledge in New Zealand worth consulting ahead of Honiara about preparing to play up there but sadly that wasn't tapped into.
Youth Tournaments Qualification - This is a reasonable point. An AFC qualification pathway with New Zealand in it, or the OFC shifted into it en masse, might have a different look, its speculative. The political ructions of calibrating an AFC/OFC merger would have a much bigger, broader effect on the entire 'new' Confederation. There would be a lot of issues to work through - we might not get a better outcome, we don't know for certain.
Costs of Travel/TV Money - This is a tricky one because the top ten teams in the AFC fight tooth and nail for the TV money associated with the final stage of qualifying for the FIFA World Cup. Dividing that pie up with an OFC winner (+ an additional AFC side, to make six in each group) would cause a lot of headaches around the negotiating table, for sure. It was mooted back in 2006 for the 2010 FIFA World Cup and the AFC members baulked at the concept with the most acceptable scenario based around extending the final stage from 10 to 12 teams, but not during that (or this) World Cup cycle. It may yet materialise for Russia 2018.
The AFC Champions League is not the Promise Land of a cash rich TV cash cow, either. Hyundai A-League participants struggle to break even in this event, the same as Auckland City FC do by taking part in the OFC Champions League (under the old format).
New Zealand deciding to up and leave the OFC behind - This can't happen without the OFC pushing for it at FIFA. The FFA left the OFC because the then OFC President Reynald Temarii wanted Australia gone to further his political position. OFC put the case directly to FIFA and the FFA had all their Christmases come at once.Australia left, New Caledonia were admitted.
Is there a moral obligation to be concerned about the rest of the OFC? Arguably not, no, but it is probably in their interests to work with them rather than against them politically. Any change in the composition of the AFC/OFC qualification pathway needs to be achieved through a collective rather than individual approach. More realistic may be crossing over inter-Confederation playoffs in the final stages of play in senior men's tournaments, instead of the embarrassment of Tahiti in Brazil. That keeps OFC sweet, furthers NZF's interests in the direction they may want things to head and we haven't thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
New Zealand has benefited enormously from being an OFC member and it would be churlish to forget that fact.
Any discussion of splitting up the AFC into East and West is exciting to contemplate but unrealistic at the moment with the vast majority of the Eastern AFC members unlikely to be enamored with a new West AFC-OFC configuration including an away trip to Port Moresby, Honiara and Port Vila perceived as undesirable.
Gordon Glen Watson
Quality post. Pretty much some stuff I was thinking privately. AFC will not want OFC, FIFA don't want it and I serious doubt it will benefit us.
Well considered post, as always GGW.Excellent.I agree
Ignoring NZ's wishes for a moent, problem is either NZ leaving or Ocania combining with Asia leaves pacific football dead in the water. No-one is going to vote for that as Turkeys don't vote for xmas. Fact is pacific minnows have a far larger influence than they should do (they are tiny but also crap (as are we, but they're a lot worse) and really shouldn't feature in any sensible international competition at either club or country level) because of Oceania's existence so know having got that status they're unlikely to give it up.
GGW you say NZ has benefited enormously from presence in Oceania - yes to a certain extent but you also need to consider the counterfactual. NZ as a full blown member of Asia for the past 20 years might see us in a very different situation
Simple fact is though anyone other than NZ international teams or clubs representing Oceania at FIFA football events is a very bad look and won't be tolerated very long. That itself demonstrates that as a confederation Oceania is unsustainable in the long term in the current format
Here's a joke doing the rounds in the UK.
Q: What is the difference between Arsenal and the Oceania Confederation?
A: Arsenal has more than 30 professional players
Got this from my brother who lives in Europe. He said that initially the general concensus from many in the European football world was that Tahiti was "cute"....as in cute like a puppy dog. However attitudes have hardened and many have been questioned the point of their inclusion. This has flowed on to some negativity about the whole point of the Oceania Confederation. A Confed with 11 countries, one professional club and probably less than 30 professional players.......... getting half a WC slot.
However from the talk of that guy from FIFA recently it seems that FIFA does not see Oceania changing in anyway soon.
The best scenario for NZ in the short term, for Russia, is if the Oceania Qualifier (NZ) folds into the last round of the Asian Qualifying round, expanded to two groups of 6 and Oceania's half WC slot goes into Asia and there is no intercontinental playoff. That would give NZ 5 home and 5 away games to qualify....brilliant!!!! bring it on!!!!
That is more likely to happen than any major changes to Oceania
If FIFA don't want the OFC representatives to be a joke at major tournaments and there's too many barriers to merging OFC with AFC then maybe FIFA should invest some big money into development in Oceania. No amount of investment will bring the island nations up to even a level of an average European team like Slovakia, Montenegro, Albania or England, but I do think that they could be significantly better than they are now with a bit of investment in coaches, training facilities, and travel to other countries for matches against better opposition.
Of course this probably won't happen but it's another way of looking at the issue.
Edit: Realised I might be being a bit harsh on Slovakia, Montenegro,and Albania there...
Well, it's not like FIFA hasn't invested in the development of Oceania football.
Well clearly not enough! FIFA has plenty of money: from each according to his means; to each according to his needs. Redistribute the wealth!
iViva la revolucion!
Well, it's not like FIFA hasn't invested in the development of Oceania football.
A lot of quality discussion in this thread.
GGW - I was glad to see your comments re: Tahiti. I was worried you might be one of the apologists. Oceania needs to get serious about being more than just a source of FIFA feel-good fluff pieces.
I was probably being too harsh calling the last Oceania Nations Cup a shambles but it certainly wasn't ideal. I agree that all Oceania nations have a right to host tournaments but surely there should be some minimum criteria in place about scheduling, pitches etc. You'll probably say that there are. Well, they need to be raised then.
Anyway, there seems to be some agreement that the way forward is for NZ (within Oceania) and Oceania (within FIFA) to campaign vigorously for the Oceania Champs to join the last stage of Asian qualifying for Russia 2018. That would be a first step towards a greater level of integration in the future. The driver for Asia would be that their teams get a crack at 5 qualifying spots through pool play rather than going to the lottery of an inter-continental play-off. If they lose out to the 5th placed team in South America in November this year they might actually go for that.
A lot of quality discussion in this thread.
GGW - I was glad to see your comments re: Tahiti. I was worried you might be one of the apologists. Oceania needs to get serious about being more than just a source of FIFA feel-good fluff pieces.
I was probably being too harsh calling the last Oceania Nations Cup a shambles but it certainly wasn't ideal. I agree that all Oceania nations have a right to host tournaments but surely there should be some minimum criteria in place about scheduling, pitches etc. You'll probably say that there are. Well, they need to be raised then.
Anyway, there seems to be some agreement that the way forward is for NZ (within Oceania) and Oceania (within FIFA) to campaign vigorously for the Oceania Champs to join the last stage of Asian qualifying for Russia 2018. That would be a first step towards a greater level of integration in the future. The driver for Asia would be that their teams get a crack at 5 qualifying spots through pool play rather than going to the lottery of an inter-continental play-off. If they lose out to the 5th placed team in South America in November this year they might actually go for that.
Sure I think it would help the All Whites have more competitive fixtures, if they were entering the third round of AFC qual they would get at least 8 more games if current qualification is replicated for 2018 qualification. However, as I have said before, the biggest benefit of joining Asia would not be with the finished product, 99% professional players of the All Whites but with the youth teams developing better players for the All Whites.
Age group teams is probably where the biggest benefit would be in helping develop better footballers by playing more games against better opposition than is available in the OFC, and that will be for qualification for FIFA events (mens and womens u20, u17, Olympics, WC) plus AFC events (mens and womens u14, u16, u19, asian cup, ACL/AFC Cup) and smaller regional (most likely EAFF/ASEAN) tournaments. Plus the Phoenix could be eligible for the ACL. If all qualification for all tournaments are integrated into the AFC then what's the point of the OFC?
The biggest thing that comes back to this all when everyone says 'Join AFC/jump in with AFC' is who is going to pay for it? A serious, objective point. Who is going to pay for this?
We can't fund our own national league and now we are talking about 4 extra away games (as well as the cost of bringing players home) as well as throwing the age group teams into the same basket? In what lifetime has anyone ever seen a magic money tree?
May I remind people that NZF run at a lost but paint it as a profit by drawing money from the 'International teams reserve' which is a fancy way of saying 'some cash we stored from the WC'. Also take into account they are drawing on that money even though ASB have a record sponsorship deal to the tune of $2.5m per year over 4 years. The numbers just do not stack up and those reserves will not be there forever and even less if we do not qualify. As it stands, NZF reduced their budgets across the board by 33% because of failure to qualify for the Confederations Cup but 'Oh we have never budgeted for or spent that money'.... Don't you bloody believe it.
I'll throw even more onto it. It was not in the best interests of NZF to step in to host the Nations Cup because it would have cost NZF $500k... Contrast that with having it here in 'our' conditions and winning the bloody thing, they might have gotten $1.3m for going leaving $800k left over (and a better build up to the home and away leg), its a damn sight better off than we are at the moment. Tell me how this is not good business sense? How would NOT back yourself?
If they are arguing over spending $500k for a tournament that would pay for itself in winning and leaving nearly a $800k left over, do you really think they are going to say 'yes please we'd gladly lump in the expenses for another round of games on the chances of not qualifying?' Go stand in the corner by yourself if you actually believe that.
Someone, please, tell me how this gets paid for when there is no money at the moment. I'd like to add that television rights, are a non event so lets not even throw that up. Ask AFC Champs league participants.
Imagine what state the game would be in this country if we did not qualify for South Africa? We would not have gotten the $10m from WC2010 and unlikely to have piggybacked the $10m from ASB. The game would be well and truly in the toilet.
Television rights. An attempt at a joke...but I'm sure that for qualification games against and AFC team we would get a split of the TV rights for that game or from that stage of qualification, so it's not just TV rights into NZ + Oceania but Asia as well. Still, probably only financially viable for the AW and not for other national representative teams. Which is a shame as that is where the greatest benefit would be if we were to join the AFC.
Yeah, from what I understand the most valuable TV rights in Asia are for those final WC qualifying group games (GGW confirms as much above). So that would be the place to start - try and get the Oceania champs in on that and, initially at least, just about everything else could be left alone. Yes Jeff, that is making an assumption that playing in that final round of Asian qualifying wouldn't cost much more than now but apart from the TV money the WC campaign would just be so marketable. 4 or 5 top quality games at home, including a massive one against Aussie, you could take games around the country, sponsorship opportunities etc.
I would also personally rate NZ's chances of qualifying by getting one of the top 5 spots in Asia/Oceania, over a full campaign of 8-10 games, as being better than in the inter-continental lottery we have now.
I would also personally rate NZ's chances of qualifying by getting one of the top 5 spots in Asia/Oceania, over a full campaign of 8-10 games, as being better than in the inter-continental lottery we have now.
That is looking at the current strength of competition. You get the feeling the quality of AFC nations is rising faster than us. Japan didn't qualify for the current u20 WC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_AFC_U-19_Championship
If we had age group teams in the AFC we might keep pace with their development.
For everyone claiming that being in Asia would provide age group teams with more and more meaningful games, see above. 3 group games and top team in each group progresses to a quarter final. Our current U20's have lost 5-0 to Australia, 5-3 to Iraq and 3-0 to Uzbekistan meaning it would be unlikely we would progress from the group stage. So every two years we would have 3 group games at NZF's expense if we were in Asia or we could stay in OFC qualify for the WC and have 3 group games at FIFA's expense...
No brainer for me, stay in OFC use the money from senior World Cup qualification to provide the age group teams with some meaningful friendlies.
For everyone claiming that being in Asia would provide age group teams with more and more meaningful games, see above. 3 group games and top team in each group progresses to a quarter final. Our current U20's have lost 5-0 to Australia, 5-3 to Iraq and 3-0 to Uzbekistan meaning it would be unlikely we would progress from the group stage. So every two years we would have 3 group games at NZF's expense if we were in Asia or we could stay in OFC qualify for the WC and have 3 group games at FIFA's expense...
No brainer for me, stay in OFC use the money from senior World Cup qualification to provide the age group teams with some meaningful friendlies.
I think you're missing the qualification process for that tournament. To qualify for the u20 WC, Australia played 4 games to qualify for the AFC u19 champs, 3 group games at the u19 champs and a QF and SF. 9 games in total. Compared to NZs 4 games in total.
Imagine what state the game would be in this country if we did not qualify for South Africa? We would not have gotten the $10m from WC2010 and unlikely to have piggybacked the $10m from ASB. The game would be well and truly in the toilet.
Imagine if we don't qualify for next year's World Cup, which is a real possibility. Could be very dark days ahead.
Precisely. But we shouldn't play guys like Paston though....
Or Chris Killen in midfield
Hey at least I was being sarcastic
I agree. Merging Oceania into Asia or NZ leaving Oceania is not going to happen any time soon. But what should happen is NZ and Oceania should lobby FIFA and Asia to get the Oceania qualifier to play off in the final round of Asia. Expanded to two groups of 6 with top two automatically qualifying and the two third place teams playing off for the 5th automatic entry. Based on what happened this time around and adding NZ to one pool and the next ranked Asian team(Bahrain) to the other this is how it would look
Group A Iran Group B Japan
Korea OZ
Uzbecks Jordan
Quatar Oman
Lebanon Iraq
Bahrain NZ
OK it would not be easy for NZ but you would think that on our day we could beat Iraq, Oman, Jordan at home...the Oz games would be emmense. The rest would be tough but at least we would get a whole pile of tough meaningful games that the NZ sporting public could really get into. Would we ever make a WC again? Yes! I think we could. We have good enough players to sneak into a third spot playoff. It would cost money every time but we would have increased revenue. The bottom line is that the international game is stagnant in NZ. We need decent regular competition that the media, the fans and the public can hook into.
For everyone claiming that being in Asia would provide age group teams with more and more meaningful games, see above. 3 group games and top team in each group progresses to a quarter final. Our current U20's have lost 5-0 to Australia, 5-3 to Iraq and 3-0 to Uzbekistan meaning it would be unlikely we would progress from the group stage. So every two years we would have 3 group games at NZF's expense if we were in Asia or we could stay in OFC qualify for the WC and have 3 group games at FIFA's expense...
No brainer for me, stay in OFC use the money from senior World Cup qualification to provide the age group teams with some meaningful friendlies.
The problem with this approach is it relies completely on qualifying for the World Cup.
I think people have got way ahead of themselves with that. Last time out was a very specific set of circumstances - the planets basically aligned for us. It could easily be another 20 years before we even have another shot at it - think about whether you'd still like to be playing in Oceania in 20 years with no WC money. It's a scary thought
At least in Asia we get competitive matches, the possibility of playing meaningful internationals at home with the ability to sell foreign TV rights, crowds that might cover the cost of playing the games etc etc. I understand the reason for staying in Oceania but I think the time is coming when we the benefits are getting smaller and smaller
For everyone claiming that being in Asia would provide age group teams with more and more meaningful games, see above. 3 group games and top team in each group progresses to a quarter final. Our current U20's have lost 5-0 to Australia, 5-3 to Iraq and 3-0 to Uzbekistan meaning it would be unlikely we would progress from the group stage. So every two years we would have 3 group games at NZF's expense if we were in Asia or we could stay in OFC qualify for the WC and have 3 group games at FIFA's expense...
No brainer for me, stay in OFC use the money from senior World Cup qualification to provide the age group teams with some meaningful friendlies.
I think you're missing the qualification process for that tournament. To qualify for the u20 WC, Australia played 4 games to qualify for the AFC u19 champs, 3 group games at the u19 champs and a QF and SF. 9 games in total. Compared to NZs 4 games in total.
Yes but those pre qualifying games are against the weakest asian nations akin to the games against the islands but more expensive!! And the 9 games only happen if you make the semis and finals!
So 4 weak but expensive pre qualifying games then three group games at the Asian champs.... That is of course presuming NZ actually qualified....
Joining the last round of AFC World Cup qualifying groups wont happen period. CONCACAF nations could partition so its .5 team competes in the CONMEBOL qualifying stage. As dumb as this sounds but hey why should anyone get a better out come? Wont happen anyway.
I see there is a lot of "Know it all's" here, So please tell me : How would the NZFC work under the AFC?. Asking because i know The AFC does not take bullshit from anyone and governs its nations unlike The OFC. Also handout central NZFC would never ever get a spot in the ALC let alone the Asian Cup. Phoenix would be more welcomed, So i guess the Muppets running the NZFC would have to change.
So about change, If you are governed and expected to reach/achieve a certain level/goal within your nation football system, Do you just sit back and stay where you feel safe?. Or do you make changes to get more out of the bigger picture. So far this has not happen in NZ and not in the island nations. Kiwi sides still play shit football - you need to change and start pushing the stink out.
For everyone claiming that being in Asia would provide age group teams with more and more meaningful games, see above. 3 group games and top team in each group progresses to a quarter final. Our current U20's have lost 5-0 to Australia, 5-3 to Iraq and 3-0 to Uzbekistan meaning it would be unlikely we would progress from the group stage. So every two years we would have 3 group games at NZF's expense if we were in Asia or we could stay in OFC qualify for the WC and have 3 group games at FIFA's expense...
No brainer for me, stay in OFC use the money from senior World Cup qualification to provide the age group teams with some meaningful friendlies.
I think you're missing the qualification process for that tournament. To qualify for the u20 WC, Australia played 4 games to qualify for the AFC u19 champs, 3 group games at the u19 champs and a QF and SF. 9 games in total. Compared to NZs 4 games in total.
Nope I didn't miss the qualifying process for that tournament...
The qualifying games for Aus, which look worse than the NZF Oceania games.. 20 goals for 1 against.. Ok a 1-0 vs Singapore, then 3-0, 4-1 and 12-0. These games are no better than the Oceania games NZF have; 5-0, 1-0, 3-2 and 4-0 last time around.
So the extra games you are claiming would be better would be no bett than what we already get. We would be highly unlikely to qualify for the World Cups so by moving into Asia we would get MAYBE 2 extra decent games per year in the final qualification stage... Once we didn't qualify the whole program would end and no further development would take place. At least in OFC we qualify then have a coup,e of warm up game son route to the WC (Aus and Iraq) then play in the World Cup.
STILL a no brainer for me, stay in Oceania.
For everyone claiming that being in Asia would provide age group teams with more and more meaningful games, see above. 3 group games and top team in each group progresses to a quarter final. Our current U20's have lost 5-0 to Australia, 5-3 to Iraq and 3-0 to Uzbekistan meaning it would be unlikely we would progress from the group stage. So every two years we would have 3 group games at NZF's expense if we were in Asia or we could stay in OFC qualify for the WC and have 3 group games at FIFA's expense...
No brainer for me, stay in OFC use the money from senior World Cup qualification to provide the age group teams with some meaningful friendlies.
I think you're missing the qualification process for that tournament. To qualify for the u20 WC, Australia played 4 games to qualify for the AFC u19 champs, 3 group games at the u19 champs and a QF and SF. 9 games in total. Compared to NZs 4 games in total.
Nope I didn't miss the qualifying process for that tournament...
The qualifying games for Aus, which look worse than the NZF Oceania games.. 20 goals for 1 against.. Ok a 1-0 vs Singapore, then 3-0, 4-1 and 12-0. These games are no better than the Oceania games NZF have; 5-0, 1-0, 3-2 and 4-0 last time around.
So the extra games you are claiming would be better would be no bett than what we already get. We would be highly unlikely to qualify for the World Cups so by moving into Asia we would get MAYBE 2 extra decent games per year in the final qualification stage... Once we didn't qualify the whole program would end and no further development would take place. At least in OFC we qualify then have a coup,e of warm up game son route to the WC (Aus and Iraq) then play in the World Cup.
STILL a no brainer for me, stay in Oceania.
Yeah, they had an easy-ish group (one group had Korea, Japan and they didn't finish above Thailand). Though they still had another stage against tougher opposition. I was just comparing the qualification process of Australia and NZ and you can see that just from qualification alone the Australian team has played more games against better opposition and are further developed as a team as a result. Not including friendlies, this group of u20s are only playing 7 competitive games where as the Australian u20s are playing at least 12 (could be more if results go their way).
And this is not just for u20s, there would be more games for age groups down to u14 (AFC WC qual, AFC Qual, Oylmypic, u19, u16, u14 and regional tournaments such as ASEAN Football Federation u16, u19 etc.)
We are sort of stuck in limbo because it seems we can't afford any possible move to the AFC, if allowed, yet we could possibly over time become less competitive compared with other regions due to a lack of adequate competition and preparation we currently get.
There could be a lot of financial gain from joining the Asian Confed, as Australia have experienced - see my post from last year:
#51 on this same thread: http://www.yellowfever.co.nz/categories/all-whites-and-other-nz-international-teams/topics/should-new-zealand-join-the-asian-confederation/page/3
All Asian associations are paid $ one million per game by the Asian Football Confederation for TV rights for internationals and this can include friendlies too.
There's that much money in Asian broadcasting deals for football.
By the way, the FFA across the ditch have negotiated themselves such a juicy new TV deal with Fox, SBS and the Asian Football Confederation, that they will be paying the entire salary cap of about A$ 2.6 million for each A-League team this coming season. They previously subsidised only A$ 1.9 million of it. Now the Nix will pay zilch for at least the four-year term of the TV deal....
http://sportsbusinessinsider.com.au/international-news/ffa-doubles-up-with-new-broadcast-deal/
http://sportsbusinessinsider.com.au/news/ffa-announce-new-broadcast-deal/
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
My communication with NZ Herald reporter Terry Maddaford on the issue:
September 18, 2012 11:28pm #52
Got this reply from Herald journo Terry Maddaford to my email to him on his report on the weekend where he advocates NZ stay in the OFC for reasons of financial gain, after I mentioned info from the report above about the substantial amount the FFA makes from TV coverage revenue.
Can see his point about the cost of assembling age group sides to travel to games around Asia - but surely the TV money from Socceroos internationals would cover that and then leave some over?
His report (second half is on NZ staying in Oceania):
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10834212
His rely to me:
"Hi Peter
Yes, I agree with that but there is no TV income in the other grades and that is what is hitting FFA hard as it costs plenty just to assemble these teams and get them decent lead-up games. Those distances are much greater than Oceania team face. Cheers Terry"
Yes
For everyone claiming that being in Asia would provide age group teams with more and more meaningful games, see above. 3 group games and top team in each group progresses to a quarter final. Our current U20's have lost 5-0 to Australia, 5-3 to Iraq and 3-0 to Uzbekistan meaning it would be unlikely we would progress from the group stage. So every two years we would have 3 group games at NZF's expense if we were in Asia or we could stay in OFC qualify for the WC and have 3 group games at FIFA's expense...
No brainer for me, stay in OFC use the money from senior World Cup qualification to provide the age group teams with some meaningful friendlies.
Asia for me in regards to youth. This would help us at all levels in the long term, plus would increase the chances of players playing professionally outside of NZ lessening the Nix factor that we currently have.
For everyone claiming that being in Asia would provide age group teams with more and more meaningful games, see above. 3 group games and top team in each group progresses to a quarter final. Our current U20's have lost 5-0 to Australia, 5-3 to Iraq and 3-0 to Uzbekistan meaning it would be unlikely we would progress from the group stage. So every two years we would have 3 group games at NZF's expense if we were in Asia or we could stay in OFC qualify for the WC and have 3 group games at FIFA's expense...
No brainer for me, stay in OFC use the money from senior World Cup qualification to provide the age group teams with some meaningful friendlies.
I think you're missing the qualification process for that tournament. To qualify for the u20 WC, Australia played 4 games to qualify for the AFC u19 champs, 3 group games at the u19 champs and a QF and SF. 9 games in total. Compared to NZs 4 games in total.
Yes but those pre qualifying games are against the weakest asian nations akin to the games against the islands but more expensive!! And the 9 games only happen if you make the semis and finals!
So 4 weak but expensive pre qualifying games then three group games at the Asian champs.... That is of course presuming NZ actually qualified....
.I think some are forgetting that flying around the pacific itself is not cheap, far cheaper to fly to Dubai to play Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia then to jet off to some parts of the OFC.
There will be more revenue gathered from NZ vs most Asian teams then anyone in OFC except maybe Fiji.
Asian businesses would be keen for the exposure here while NZ businesses would in Asia. Think about VW/Thai International jumping on in '09.
One question I do have: I was under the understanding that the final qualifaction matches for the WC were underwritten by FIFA to reduce the National teams from finacial exposure.
.I think some are forgetting that flying around the pacific itself is not cheap, far cheaper to fly to Dubai to play Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia then to jet off to some parts of the OFC.
Although NZ Football stand to gain a good income from TV revenue playing in Asia, there is the issue of whether our local broadcasters would be prepared to shell out the much steeper sums for rights to broadcast All Whites matches from World Sports Group who own the tights to all AFC matches.
World Sports Group paid the AFC about US$ one billion for the rights to all AFC fixtures including internationals and AFC Champions League for four years. WSG sell packages to national broadcasters in Asia and the other continents (including North America where a sports satellite channel specialises in Asian sport) of 1300 games in a four year block. Thus very large sums of revenue are generated which the AFC distributes back to national associations. From what I've read, all AFC members are paid US$ one million per international fixture televised.
However, WSG have increased the amount they sell matches for, so much in recent years, some Asian broadcasters have refused to buy rights to even their own country's internationals -this has meant no broadcast of South Korean home World Cup qualifiers in that country recently and Iranian national TV also refusing to pay out.
From a discussion of Iranian TV's (IRIB) dispute and WSG's response: http://kabirnews.com/world-sport-group-clarifies-issues-over-the-price-of-broadcasting-rights/3235/
"The broadcast rights fee which we are negotiating with IRIB for the new cycle is US$11 million for all AFC national team and club competitions, which consist of approximately 1,300 matches over a four year period, not just the FIFA World Cup 2014 AFC qualifying matches. To put this figure into context, it represents only a tiny fraction of the rights fees being paid by other countries in the Middle-East for the same."
Australia are hosting the AFC's flagship event the Asian Cup in 2015 which will make things interesting. Maybe we should aim to join Asia by then? Report on financial ramifications of hosting Asian Cup in Australia:
http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/sport/asian_cup_in_australia_good_for_TI38e6KGJozbcgUB5re9HI
NZ would only ever join Asia if there was a merge with Oceania. Can't see that happening, so IBTL
Well there you have it. FIFA president nufc_nz has said it won't happen.
IBTL