Over-ranking and under-ranking: FIFA’s trademark

By Bernard Asubonteng, Atlanta, GA..

In almost every human endeavor, at least, everybody or a group of people may be good at performing some form of function(s). So, it’s not an exaggeration to say that the Federation of International Football Association (FIFA) is a good organizer of soccer events. But on the flip side, however, a careful observation of FIFA’s monthly rankings regarding current performance of respective national soccer teams, worldwide, is nothing less than an exercise based on selective rendition of reality. Almost every month FIFA comes out with ratings supposed to reflect fairly on the performances of the senior national soccer teams, but a dispassionate reflections on the rankings make one questions the statistical models or the criteria by which FIFA applied in arriving at its consistently lopsided rankings or ratings of national football teams.

It may not be appealing to employ these clichés—bias and favoritism—nevertheless, many level-headed soccer observers, including fans alike, strongly believe that the international soccer governing body overrates or underrates teams as well as some soccer players. Based on that, many football followers argue that not only does FIFA need to embark on contemporary soul-searching vis-à-vis its unrepresentative and century-old ranking systems, but also many people contend that it’s time the organization come out of its comfort zone of favoritism toward some soccer nations whose performances at the time of most the rankings leave much to be desired. It’s puzzling to many soccer enthusiasts because they have been trying in vain to understand whether or not FIFA primarily based its so-called latest rankings on a particular national team’s past glories or strictly on a team’s current performance. The so-called changes FIFA claims to have made in the 1990s regarding her modus operandi in the ranking universe didn’t result in any significant disengagement of its comical ratings.

Let’s us put things in historical context here. We know that FIFA was formed in the 1900s—an era in which football was in her rudimentary stages. Back then one or a few national teams dominated the world soccer scene; FIFA didn’t have to preside over highly competitive and modernized soccer contest as well as a host of skillful players. In those dim past football was not well developed globally; and, soccer encounters were highly predictable as opposed what is prevailing in soccer circles now. Indeed, times have changed. Thus, the so-called soccer underdog labels no longer apply in an increasingly unpredictable game of professional football. I guess the FIFA knows that, too. But guess what? FIFA is helplessly knee-deep and still caught up in the roadblocks of bias and the past-glory mentality. The past-glory mentality seems to assume that some countries have been with the FIFA since its inception. No doubt these nations have past track record of enviable soccer accomplishments; so, it does not matter whether or not some of these national teams’ current performances spin around mediocrities, the Blatter-controlled FIFA dutifully rank those teams among the top six or seven almost all the time. It’s not hard to figure out that the Swiss-based soccer body cannot let go of its primitive rituals of babysitting the so-called top-seeded national teams at the expense of equally best or more talented teams from the emerging soccer nations from Africa and other “non-traditional” soccer places

such as Asia. The point is, if FIFA is to be taken seriously, it has to embark on a true change that reflects on the realities of highly competitive modern soccer devoid of veiled biases or favoritism. The entrenched practices of FIFA whereby some national teams are almost always pegged at the top of its monthly rankings are worsening the soccer governing body’s already tainted credibility relating to fairness and a clear sense of direction. It’s no wonder many nations, including the U.S. do not take FIFA seriously as far as rankings are concerned.

As soccer junkies, we know the meaning and the tremendous impact, including the fever-pitch excitement the World Cup soccer competition brought to bear on soccer fans. The FIFA-organized World Cup is the most important and the ultimate soccer event in which every football-loving nation worldwide tries to be part of it and excel in it too. So, to qualify among the 32 finalists and compete for the most prestigious prize in soccer (World Cup) is not an easy undertaking. Teams that qualify to get the chance to represent their nations in the event are regarded as the current world best.

Admittedly, the unique role FIFA plays in making the quadrennial soccer event possible with its accompanying broad networks of corporate sponsors cannot be played down. However, there is a veritable chasm between FIFA, the well-organizer of soccer, and the other FIFA, which is confused and a biased rater of national soccer teams. Clearly, FIFA’s ranking activity is not a reliable barometer in determining a team’s performance. The least one can say is that FIFA caters to certain countries, period! The soccer body either overrates or underrates some national teams, including some footballers, especially if a player comes from a favored country. This practice has become a pattern; and, it’s has been FIFA’s stock-in-trade over many decades. For what sense does it make for a team to win the World Cup--an ultimate prize in soccer, and be placed or ranked behind the losing team(s)? For example, Italy won the 2006 World Cup competition held in Germany, but in the following month, FIFA ranked Brazil number one over the world champions—Italy—including the runners up, France who happened to yank the South American soccer giants in the quarter-finals in Germany. Also, Ghana making her first appearance at the World Cup level and at the time ranked in the 40s, beat the highly-ranked Czech Republic (then ranked #2 at the time), but after the competition, FIFA still rated the latter higher than the former.

Some of the mind-boggling questions many people want answers are: what is the essence of the World Cup competition? Does any FIFA-organized soccer event supersedes the quadrennial soccer event—the World Cup? Let’s forget everything for a minute and just talk in terms of the game’s status, global strength, patronage and the like. Isn’t the World Cup the pinnacle or the climax of all soccer events? Certainly, FIFA’s low credibility vis-à-vis rankings stems from the soccer body’s persistently questionable and skewed methodologies which have become intrinsic part of its culture.

The reality is that if a national team lifts the World Cup, the question of who should occupy the top spot of FIFA’s latest rankings right after the tournament is a no-brainer. It should not matter whatever age-old statistics FIFA or its affiliates have already compiled on a different team. The same should apply to the rest of the national teams that made it to the World Cup. At this point those competing nations should form the “nucleus” of the rankings after the competition. One may think that at this juncture all FIFA rankings immediately after a World Cup would consider or rank all the 32 finalists before the non-competing countries. However, it’s not uncommon to see some nations that didn’t even qualify to play in the mother of all soccer (World Cup) get higher rankings from FIFA right after the World Cup event than some of the national teams that actively played in the games. Prior to the 2006 World Cup, the USA national soccer team was ranked fifth in the world to the surprise of even the US soccer officials, including the national team players. In FIFA’s clueless universe, anything goes.

Similarly, if one takes a close and an unbiased look at how the soccer ruling organ rates footballers, perhaps one can fully come to grips with the worldviews expressed in this article regarding FIFA’s bogus ranking mechanisms. African countries have been producing some of the best and world-class footballers that one can think of, but how many of them had ever been adjudged the FIFA world player of the year? None, if I’m not mistaken. And the answer may not be far-fetched. These African players are not nationals of Europe or South America, I suppose. This probably explains why a world-class African footballer such as Abedi Pele, who spearheaded the French soccer giants Marseille’s successful European championship Cup in the 1990s, never won the FIFA’s world player award.

One can also talk about the current African footballers such as Didier Drogba of Chelsea, Samuel Eto’o of FC Barcelona and what have you. These guys are not only top-notch soccer players, but they are among the deadliest strikers the world has ever produced, but in FIFA’s thinking, perhaps it may take generations for a player from an Africa country to win the award. Quite pretentiously, almost every year FIFA puts one or two African footballers on its world player award shortlist, making it appears as if the body wants someone from the continent to lift the yearly award. But Africa should know better than this FIFA’s mind-playing gimmicks.

Consider the just-ended European Cup soccer competition: soon after Spain became the 2008 winners in Vienna, Austria, FIFA didn’t waste time ranking the Spanish national team the number one. On the other hand, what happened whenever Africa countries stage a similar soccer event and one of those nations emerges a winner such as the Egyptians did in the early 2008 in Accra, Ghana? As usual, the world soccer body acted as if the Africa Cup of Nations is non-event. However, the eventual winners (Egypt) were ranked somewhere in low 20s or 30s. Meanwhile, when the African soccer event was in progress, the FIFA president was there, but with a hidden agenda: subtly and softly pushing Africa soccer officials to shift their competition calendar so it doesn’t keep disrupting the services of the African players in the European soccer clubs. At any rate, in an interesting turn of events, perhaps beyond its control, the unpredictable FIFA has been forced to make Eto’o the official face of the 2010 World Cup competition to be held in an African soil for the first time ever. Ironically, after unveiling the superimposed face of the Cameroonian superstar in South Africa, the FIFA president Joseph Blatter commented on Eto’o that “There will be no problem to recognize that it’s Africa and you have the face of one of the most popular and well-known faces of the continent…He [Eto’o] was not able to participate in the last World Cup but what is more important here is to give this continent a face, a human face in football.” Well, President Blatter, practice what you preach, and give the FIFA ratings or the ranking system “a human face” before you leave the scene. At any rate, Mr. Blatter, you are hereby reminded that Samuel Eto’o’s face is also widely known in the soccer world outside the African continent. How about that?

Views expressed by the author(s) do not necessarily reflect those of GhanaHomePage.