If you go around asking people who the best footballing nations in the world are, you will usually get the same answers, Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Germany, Italy, Holland, Uruguay, France, etc. The FIFA Rankings though tell a completely different story. As we saw with the seeds for next year's World Cup, the top eight sides in the world include the likes of Belgium, Colombia and Switzerland. Whether people agree with that is up for discussion, the question is how did this happen? The answer lies in how the FIFA Rankings are structured. I'm going to analyse how they work, why they don't reflect the true nature of football and look at what alternatives there are to rank national sides.
The FIFA Rankings have always raised controversy but non more so than a few weeks ago when the seeds for the World Cup draw were chosen. FIFA decided to use the October edition of the rankings as the benchmark to decide the top teams in each group. The sole use of the rankings to decide the seeds resulted in the 2014 World Cup groups being more unbalanced than usual. This means we will see some "big" teams eliminated in the first round of the tournament. The problem is not that FIFA chose to solely use the rankings as the measuring stick but it's how the rankings work.
The modern FIFA Rankings were introduced in 1992 with Brazil spending the most time at the top in the past twenty-one years. Since 1992 there have been various changes to the way the rankings are calculated, mostly brought on by criticism that the rankings didn't reflect the true quality of some teams. Examples include Norway being ranked 2nd in October 1993, the USA being ranked 4th in 2006 and most recently Switzerland being ranked 7th in October 2013. The current way that the rankings are calculated is based on match results, match status, the strength of the opposition and the strength of the confederation that the opposition comes from. The current formula is this:
Ranking points = 100 x (Result Points x Match Status x Opposition Strength x Regional Strength)
The formula seems to make sense but the problem isn't in the formula, the problem is that not all teams play the same amount of matches or against the same opposition. Therefore the system is flawed and some teams have an advantage over other teams. For example teams in Europe or South America are given a higher regional multiplier because their regions are defined as being better. Also, if a team plays more matches then they can potentially acquire more points. In fact, Brazil dropped to their lowest ever position in the rankings (22nd) this year since they are the hosts of next year's World Cup and didn't have to play any qualifying matches.
So what are the alternatives? The most popular alternative football rankings are the World Football Elo Ratings, which is based in the Elo ratings commonly used in chess. It is named after its creator Arpad Elo, a Hungarian-born American physics professor. The Elo rating system is based on calculating the difference between two competitors, then trying to predict the outcome and the winner taking the loser's points. In other words, if Spain were to play against New Zealand for example, Spain would be expected to win and therefore if they do they wouldn't acquire as many points as if New Zealand were to beat Spain. The Elo ratings formula is highly complex but provides truer rankings over a long period of time. At the time of the World Cup draw, if the Elo ratings were used, the top eight seeds for the World Cup would have been Brazil, Spain, Germany, Argentina, Netherlands, Colombia, England and Portugal. To read more about how the Elo ratings work see http://www.eloratings.net/system.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_football_rating.
For now the FIFA Rankings are here to stay and we will have to accept them as the official way to rate national sides. However, FIFA should always be looking at evolving and improving the rankings, possibly by taking into account some of the aspects of the Elo ratings system. A lot of people disagreed with the seedings for next year's World Cup but it will make for an exciting tournament that's for sure.
The FIFA Rankings have always raised controversy but non more so than a few weeks ago when the seeds for the World Cup draw were chosen. FIFA decided to use the October edition of the rankings as the benchmark to decide the top teams in each group. The sole use of the rankings to decide the seeds resulted in the 2014 World Cup groups being more unbalanced than usual. This means we will see some "big" teams eliminated in the first round of the tournament. The problem is not that FIFA chose to solely use the rankings as the measuring stick but it's how the rankings work.
The modern FIFA Rankings were introduced in 1992 with Brazil spending the most time at the top in the past twenty-one years. Since 1992 there have been various changes to the way the rankings are calculated, mostly brought on by criticism that the rankings didn't reflect the true quality of some teams. Examples include Norway being ranked 2nd in October 1993, the USA being ranked 4th in 2006 and most recently Switzerland being ranked 7th in October 2013. The current way that the rankings are calculated is based on match results, match status, the strength of the opposition and the strength of the confederation that the opposition comes from. The current formula is this:
Ranking points = 100 x (Result Points x Match Status x Opposition Strength x Regional Strength)
The formula seems to make sense but the problem isn't in the formula, the problem is that not all teams play the same amount of matches or against the same opposition. Therefore the system is flawed and some teams have an advantage over other teams. For example teams in Europe or South America are given a higher regional multiplier because their regions are defined as being better. Also, if a team plays more matches then they can potentially acquire more points. In fact, Brazil dropped to their lowest ever position in the rankings (22nd) this year since they are the hosts of next year's World Cup and didn't have to play any qualifying matches.
 |
| FIFA Rankings used for the WC draw |
The only other alternative would be to take pedigree into account above all other things. By taking into account tournament performances and appearances you would be left with the more traditional "big" nations at the top. This would appeal to the more traditional fans but it would be unfair to the emerging nations in world football. Furthermore, this type of rankings would rarely change.
For now the FIFA Rankings are here to stay and we will have to accept them as the official way to rate national sides. However, FIFA should always be looking at evolving and improving the rankings, possibly by taking into account some of the aspects of the Elo ratings system. A lot of people disagreed with the seedings for next year's World Cup but it will make for an exciting tournament that's for sure.
