You see if you go strictly by the numbers it does not seem fair how they decide the number of teams that will advance to the World Cup by continent. The best example is to compare Europe and Africa. Both have almost the same number of teams overall - 53 and 52 respectively. But, the big difference comes in the number of teams each continent will provide to the big event. Europe will send on 13 teams and Africa only 5. So by the numbers this seems so unfair. But, is it really?
It all depends on what you are trying to achieve. In this case how many people will try and watch let alone attend in person a game if you have a bunch of so-so teams no one has ever heard of?
European teams have a long history within the footballing sport. For that matter Football was invented in England. Some African teams have just a few years history and little or no governmental support or infrastructure. Add that up and it is clear why FIFA chooses to send the number of teams that it does from each continent. The one with the highest percentage of teams attending is South America. It's in the 45 percent range. Oceania has the lowest with a mere 4.5%. Europe has a 25% ratio, Asia 10-11 percent and North America 10% and Africa about 10%.
Statically, and numerically this is not fair but, it provides for a quality tournament worth watching.
Let's examine why this works better then going by pure numbers in a bit more detail. The easiest way to do this is to see a list of those that made the final since the World Cup began and the champions.
| National team | Finalists | Winners | Runners-up |
|---|---|---|---|
 Brazil |
7 | 5 | 2 |
 Italy |
6 | 4 | 2 |
 Germany |
7 | 3 | 4 |
 Argentina |
4 | 2 | 2 |
 Uruguay |
2 | 2 | 0 |
 France |
2 | 1 | 1 |
 England |
1 | 1 | 0 |
 Spain |
1 | 1 | 0 |
 Netherlands |
3 | 0 | 3 |
 Czechoslovakia |
2 | 0 | 2 |
 Hungary |
2 | 0 | 2 |
 Sweden |
1 | 0 | 1 |
It is very easy to see where the teams that win come from. Europe and South America.
I'm not even sure how many times teams from Asia or Africa have even made it into the semi-finals. The USA for example has begun to consistently make it out of group play to the round of 16. They have been improving and down the road there may be a chance at making it to the final. For the time being they become one of the many wild card teams that may play that perfect game and really give a contender for the cup a run for their money.
So there is that trade off. Do you want to be fair numerically or do you want to have a quality game?
The quality of the game is more important to the world Cup then to say some other sporting events or activities. For the World Cup you are looking for the very best teams the world over. You don't want the best proportion of teams the world over, but, the best teams of the world.
In younger youth sports that do not have a financial incentive attached things change. You might require fairness in the games played at school or by those still in primary grades. This keeps things positive and helps get away from the "win at any cost" issue.
Now some start to say there should be fairness in hiring practices, school admissions, and other societal things. But, what are you really achieving? What is your aim in forcing things to be fair by some predefined criteria?
Brazil has begun to implement affirmative action when it comes to university admissions. Federal university is free in Brazil (tuition at least) if you can make it in. Thus there is a big process each year to see who can gain one of the few slots available for a specific area of study. Many people take training courses there much like the ACT or GMAT trainings/testing here in the USA just so they have a change at passing Vestibular. Now, what ends up happening is that the more well off families can afford to pay for such courses. Poor families are highly under represented. That does not mean poor people are not taking the test to see if they can get into university. Thus they are starting to implement affirmative action.
A very large portion of the population in Brazil are of mix-race. And the majority have some African blood. Negros are highly under represented at university and then it goes down from there.... the more Caucasian you are the more you are likely to go to university. Not a guarantee but, statically the reality.
So with affirmative action you basically declare we have to have 10% of college applications, or students say be Amer-Indian or negro. Now this creates a different problem of fairness. Are you being fair by saying if your race is X percent of the population therefore you automatically get X percent of the college admissions slots?
This leads to some people that might wonder - 'Did I get into this school simply because I'm ______ race?'
Now your not getting into school based on merits but, race. And do you use merits after race since you will always have a limited number of slots?
One small problem you begin to find in Brazil is the number of people claiming they are negro to take advantage of the affirmative action but, at the same time looking white as heck. They may have some African blood in them but, when do you cut it off and say you have to be at least 30% African blood or 45% Amer-Indian blood? Is that provable blood or not? Some people may look dark as heck and could qualify as Amer-Indian possibly but, can not prove one way or another their background.
These and many other issues arise when you begin to get involved in correcting social injustices by way of quotes and the like. Abuse of the system will exist. It could also do some good and right some wrong however, is their a better way to handle this.
It appears no one has found it yet since, places like Brazil are now trying affirmative action just like the United States did over 35 years ago.
Have you ever thought how it would be to have a color blind job interview? One were the interviewer and interviewee don't even really see one another. Where the voice and/or face are distorted or blurred. Imagine how this changes the make up of a company. because now a days you can't judge someone just by their name.
There are Garcias that don't seem Latino at all and McDaniels that are so Black their appear blue. You can't judge a person just by their name.......
So we have to be careful with how fair we want to be!
For we can go to far to the other side in trying to right past wrongs or making up for racial injustice perpetrated hundreds if not thousands of years ago. You might just say the Holocaust is an example of over stepping ones bounds to right a perceived wrong carried out years earlier.
We must guard against be fair for all the wrong reasons
Buaidh - NO - Bas
No comments:
Post a Comment