Getty Images It’s poor form to start a post with an admonition, but please, don’t comment about how FIFA rankings are a joke. Of course they are! Almost nobody takes these seriously, so think about the significance of that observation. Pointing out FIFA rankings are laughable is like pointing out the U.S. men’s national team is made up of males. It’s inherent to the subject. Sure, it could change, but that’s highly unlikely.
With that in mind, take a moment to look at the list (below) and laugh at number three. Laugh until your discs bulge, because that’s the highest England’s ever been. Laugh, because they’re nowhere near that good. Laugh because these are the type of little coincidences that leads some of the soccer world to loathe England.
Laugh, and then note if it weren’t for England at number three, Portugal at five might not look so weird. Denmark, Russia, and Greece at 10 through 12? Greece?!? And all three ahead of Brazil? Yes, and Mexico’s only the 18th-best team in the world.
That we’re even asking those questions shows we’re taking this too seriously, but as much as we want to completely dismiss this order as a joke, we can’t totally write them off. For many confederations, these rankings decide seedings for draws, draws that determine the routes to regional championships and World Cups. That’s the main reason we still post them.
CONCACAF used the FIFA rankings to determine at what stage each country entered the World Cup qualifying tournament. The difference between Mexico (18) and the U.S. (36)? Insignificant. They’re first and second in the region. The difference between sixth and seventh? That’s the difference between playing in the second round of qualifying and being passed into the third.
So approach these with that kind of sad, pathetic humor that eventually descends into tears. This is the sport you follow, NationalTeamFan. But there is a big, thick, obvious silver lining: Absolutely nothing about this matters once the clocks start counting.
World Top 20:
| Rnk | Team | Pts | +/- |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Spain | 1605 | 0 |
| 2 | Germany | 1474 | 0 |
| 3 | England | 1294 | 1 |
| 4 | Uruguay | 1236 | -1 |
| 5 | Portugal | 1213 | 0 |
| 6 | Italy | 1192 | 0 |
| 7 | Argentina | 1098 | 0 |
| 8 | Netherlands | 1053 | 0 |
| 9 | Croatia | 1050 | 0 |
| 10 | Denmark | 1017 | 0 |
| 11 | Russia | 1016 | 2 |
| 12 | Greece | 1003 | 0 |
| 13 | Brazil | 991 | -2 |
| 14 | France | 980 | 0 |
| 15 | Chile | 953 | 0 |
| 16 | Côte d’Ivoire | 939 | 0 |
| 17 | Sweden | 909 | 0 |
| 18 | Mexico | 862 | 1 |
| 19 | Czech Republic | 854 | -1 |
| 20 | Ecuador | 836 | 7 |
For more, including CONCACAF’s rankings, go to FIFA’s rankings page. Just don’t get too real about it.
-
- larryharry59 - Aug 8, 2012 at 5:36 PM
-
I don’t see how Portugal at 5 is weird. They were semifinalists, the only team to shutout Spain, beat the Netherlands and came 2nd in the Group of Death. If they could have beaten Spain they would most likely have beaten Italy too in the Final.
-
- ll8078 - Aug 8, 2012 at 11:16 PM
-
this makes the BCS look legit!
-
- joeyt360 - Aug 9, 2012 at 9:21 PM
-
Yeah, you gotta go beyond ‘FIFA rankings are a joke.’ You gotta ask yourself HOW England accumulated those points, and target areas for change. The last time FIFA changed the system (memory’s fuzzy, it was maybe 4 years ago) it did seem to get a little better, not rewarding simply playing a lot of games as much as it used to. . . but seriously, who again did England beat to get this many points????
The best ranking system I’ve seen is Nate Silver’s for ESPN. (Not surprising, because Silver is a political polling guru.) His system inherently over-rates England, too, but at least I can figure out why: he does the one thing that no other rating system does, but ordinary fans nearly always do–attempt to factor in the club pedigree of the individual players. That will always over-rate England, because it’s the richest league in the world, but yet insists on playing English players, even if they’re overpaid and the clubs could have found someone better [see Andy Caroll vs Clint Dempsey, etc]. But for most other national teams it’s a pretty good guide. If your players are playing for Barca and Bayern and Manchester City, you’re probably pretty darned good; if they’re playing for Valencia and Kaiserslautern and Everton, you might be good, but probably not quite as much.
