CLIMBING THE LADDER
Steve Menary examines the issues with changes to the FIFA rankings
Since being introduced in December 1992, the FIFA World Ranking has routinely been the subject of controversy. In nearly three decades, only eight teams have topped the list: Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and most recently, Belgium, who unlike their predecessors have never won a senior international trophy.
This sort of anomaly is why the rankings are questioned, but the system is most contentious with countries lower down.
“A couple of years ago it was easier with a few good results and regular matches during FIFA dates to climb up faster for the lower-ranked teams,” says German coach Michael Weiss, who has coached the Philippines and left Mongolia in January 2020. “At the time if you beat, for instance, a team ranked ten or 20 places higher you would automatically jump ten spots up.
“In my case in Mongolia, we reached several milestones during my three years and got results in Malaysia, Laos and Cambodia, and beat Myanmar at home. Myanmar were 130th in the rankings but we only moved up a few spots. Ten years ago a victory for a 190th-placed team versus 130th would have meant a minimum of ten or 15 spots up.” Research by website We Global
Football, which analyses football ratings, shows that half of the teams on the FIFA rankings have moved six places or fewer in the last two years.
“It’s almost impossible to climb the FIFA rankings and it’s affecting every country that is lower ranked,” agrees Tom Saintfiet, the well-travelled Belgian coach, who has managed all over the world and took over the Gambia in July 2018.
“Since 2018, they’ve changed the FIFA rankings so that you can win fewer points if you win a friendly. Before it depended on how strong your opponent was and if it was home and away, but now the points are worth much less.”
Prior to 2018, the world rankings were calculated using a points system that allocated average points for each game, including friendly matches. This system prioritised qualifiers, and countries that did well in those games could protect their ranking by avoiding friendlies.
As the system averaged out points, playing and losing a friendly, particularly at home to a lower ranked side, hit the ranking. So, countries playing fewer friendlies benefited more than those looking to actually play more games.
In 2017, Poland and Switzerland were in the top five after only playing a single friendly in the previous year. Wales were ranked as high as eighth in October 2015 following a 17-month break from friendlies.
There was a different problem in Asia, where two thirds of the countries are outside the top 100. Steve Darby, who has managed Thailand and coached Laos from 2015 to 2016, explains: “When I was with Laos, the world rankings had started to become important as people realised that seedings in tournaments relied upon them. It became possible for smart administrators to plot their friendlies to try to gain a better seedings via the rankings.
“Laos found it difficult. It was economically more attractive to have Thailand at home with low costs and a full house but probably get beat, than to travel to Nepal and win but face massive air fares.
“Another danger was that it opened an avenue for match-fixers to arrange friendlies under this guise and manipulate the results.”
Friendlies were being fixed in Asia, Africa and also Europe, such as the 2011 matches in Turkey between Bolivia and Latvia, and Estonia and Bulgaria.
FIFA took action and in 2018 changed the rankings to reduce the value of friendlies and boost competitive games, particularly at major championships. The new system was based on an independent system, called the Elo ratings, but with crucial differences.
Ed Jagers, a Dutch software analyst, who runs an independent website,
Football-Rankings.info, explains: “This system is a zero-sum calculation method where for each played match, points are exchanged from the losing team to the winning team. [But] FIFA disregarded the home advantage. It is widely known that, especially in national team football, home advantage plays a role in the determination of a match result. Studies showed that it determines some 6% of the match result, while in club football it only determines some 4%.
“FIFA also disregarded the goal difference and uses lower weights than Elo for corresponding match types.”
When the new system started, the Nations League began in Europe and CONCACAF to replace friendlies staged in fallow years, when there was no World Cup or continental qualifying, but Nations League qualifiers carry only marginally more points than friendlies.
In contrast, the Elo system offers 20 points for a friendly win and 40 points for a continental qualifier.
“This explains why the FIFA ranking is much less volatile than Elo,” adds Jagers, who says that the biggest difference is the approach to points won in the final stages of major tournaments.
He explains: “FIFA defined exemptions from the zero-sum approach: for matches played in the knockout stages of continental or World Cup final tournaments a team can’t lose points anymore. The points exchanged are calculated normally but they are not subtracted. This means a huge advantage for teams reaching those knockout stages.
“That’s partly why Belgium, France and Brazil are so far in front points wise of the rest of the current top ten in the ranking. This also makes changes at the very top of the ranking quite rare.”
In contrast, the Elo system is much more representative of performances, particularly amongst the smaller nations. For example, Tom Saintfiet’s Gambia have produced a string of impressive results against significantly higherranked opponents since he started in 2018. These include victories over Benin, Angola and Gabon, and two draws with Algeria in Africa Cup of Nations qualifying, and a friendly victory over 2018 World Cup finalists Morocco.
In the FIFA rankings, Gambia are 157th – four places behind Eswatini, who have not won any form of international for more than 20 matches. But in the corresponding Elo rankings, Gambia are 114th and Eswatini are 177th.
With smaller countries such as Mongolia, Laos or Gambia less likely to reach later stages of continental finals, improving their FIFA ranking to get a better seeding is now harder and the transition to the new system has not helped.
“The strange thing is that they
“It’s almost impossible to climb the FIFA rankings and it’s affecting every country that is lower ranked” Tom Saintfiet, Gambia coach
kept the previous points from the old system,” says Tom Saintfiet, who adds: “Probably this rule was created to keep the big teams higher up the FIFA rankings and countries like the USA and Netherlands to go to the big tournaments. Remember, in the last tournament they were not there.”
While this was perhaps the only fair way of making the change, for countries that were higher up the rankings in 2018 staying there – and guaranteeing a better seeding – is easier.
All this is why smaller countries, bogged down by the current system, are unable to make any significant moves up the FIFA rankings. In the reduced window for friendlies, particularly in Europe and CONCACAF, countries are also looking up the rankings for opponents to the frustration of their managers.
“Bigger countries are not going to play smaller countries in friendlies,” says St. Lucia coach Jamaal Shabazz. “If it’s without dictating too much there must be some method to allow smaller countries to get that opportunity. Even if it is to be used as target practice.
“I think if once in two years a smaller ranked country with ambition is allowed a friendly against a powerhouse, it gives you an indication of how far you’ve got to improve physically technically and tactically.”
The consequences of the changes mean that not only are smaller countries unable to challenge themselves, but making significant moves up the rankings is almost unachievable.
Michael Weiss adds: “For lowerranked teams it’s very difficult as they really need to participate in all FIFA designed periods and need victories against stronger teams, preferably away, which is difficult to achieve as most lower-ranked teams mostly start preparation late for certain prestigious tournaments.”
FIFA says its aim with the new rankings is to encourage teams that perform well in major championships, particularly at the finals. A FIFA spokesperson explains: “The main aim of the new formula that was introduced in August 2018 was to identify an algorithm that is not only intuitive, easy to understand and improves overall accuracy, but also addressed feedback received about the previous model and provides fair and equal opportunities for all teams across all confederations to ascend the FIFA Ranking.”
With no prospect of another revision, smaller nations are likely to be left permanently lagging behind their bigger rivals in the FIFA rankings.