What is a World Cup for?

Of all the sports in the world, not many are team sports with a large enough following to appear on free-to-air television somewhere in the world. Each of the biggest holds a world tournament every few years, and I believe these are worth comparing. I will look at association football, cricket, hockey, rugby (union) and rugby league. There are other sports that could also be included in this, but these five have very similar origins, so I'll limit it to them.

2015 sees two of these sports hold their world cup. Cricket's starts on Saturday, while rugby's begins in September. There has been some discussion in the cricketing world about the International Cricket Council's decision to cut the number of teams taking part in their next world cup to ten, down from fourteen this year. The main reason they give is that they believe the CWC should be a tournament for the best of the best. With this in mind, let us examine how true it is that sporting world cups are only meant to be for the absolute best teams to play in.

Governing body and membership

Each of these sports has one central governing body.

FIFA is the governing body for association football. It currently has 209 members, all of which are part of one of six continental confederations. Each confederation hosts a tournament of its own every four years, and members often work together to achieve results for their region within the FIFA congress. All members have equal voting rights. The congress elects the FIFA executive committee every four years. In order to join FIFA, a football association must be responsible for overseeing football in that country. There are only seven sovereign states in the world which are not members of FIFA, of which one (the UK) is represented by four teams.

The ICC is the governing body for cricket. It currently has ten full members, 37 associate members, and 59 affiliate members. Associates and affiliates are organised into regional bodies, some of which are run by the ICC, and some of which are independent and run events on behalf of the ICC. Each regional body has, at some point, organised tournaments, but the regularity and scope of these events varies. The ten full member nations are the only ones with full voting rights. The other 96 members have three collective votes. The ICC executive committee contains a permanent member from Australia, England and India, and two rotating members from the other full member nations. In order to join the ICC as an affiliate, a cricket association must meet certain criteria. Harsher criteria must be then met at least three years later to become an associate. Becoming a full member nation has no clear criteria.

The FIH is the governing body for hockey. It currently has 128 members, all of which are part of one of five continental federations. Each federation hosts a tournament of its own every four years. All members have equal voting rights. The members vote for the executive committee, of which five members will represent their federation on the committee as well. In order to join the FIH, an association must prove that it is the sole governing body for hockey in its nation.

World Rugby is the governing body for rugby union. It currently has 100 members, and 17 associate members, all of which are part of of regional unions. Some members of regional unions are not part of World Rugby. Each regional unions runs tournaments in their own region. Voting rights on the Council are unequally divided. Foundation members have two votes, four long term members have one vote, and the regional associations have one vote. No other members have votes. The executive committee is voted in by the council. In order to join World Rugby, a union must first join its regional union as an associate member. After one year, they can become a full member of the regional union. After two more years, they can become an Associate member of World Rugby. After another two years, they can become a full member.

The RLIF is the governing body for rugby league. It currently has 45 members, divided into two federations. All members have voting rights. The executive committee contains two members from each of Australia, England and New Zealand, while the other four members are elected by the two federations. In order to join the IRLF, an association must meet certain criteria, first to become an observer, then an affiliate, then an associate (though this is only receiving approval from the full members), then a full member.

So, from this we can see that there are two schools of thought regarding membership – open and closed. Association football and hockey are open; a national governing body simply has to prove that it the sole governing body in its country for that sport, and it will be granted full membership. Cricket, rugby and league are closed; members must fulfil certain criteria to join, and even then they don't immediately become full members after joining. However, both the rugby codes have a clear path to full membership. In union, a country could become a full member only five years after joining, although this doesn't include voting rights. In league, there is no clear time frame, only a certain set of standards that must be met to get the approval of the full members, but once this hurdle is passed new members have full voting rights. In cricket, neither of these is the case. Associate members have no clear path to becoming full members. As it stands, football contains the most members with some degree of power, and cricket the least. How does this translate in global tournaments?

World Cup

The first FIFA World Cup was held in Uruguay in 1930. It featured thirteen teams, including seven from South America, four from Europe and two from North America. The most recent World Cup was held in Brazil in 2014. It featured 32 teams, hailing from every continent. Qualification tournaments have been held since the second World Cup in 1934. Seventy-seven teams have played at least one World Cup, with a further six having appeared as more than one nation. Only eight teams have won a World Cup, and of these three (Brazil, Germany, Italy) have won thirteen of the twenty to have been played. A further four nations have only been runner-up. Plans to expand it further have been mooted.

The first ICC Cricket World Cup was held in England in 1975. It featured eight teams, including the six Test playing nations of the time, along with Sri Lanka and an East African team. The most recent World Cup is being held in 2015 in Australia and New Zealand. It features fourteen teams from four continents and the Caribbean. Qualification has been automatic for Test playing nations, while associates have played qualification tournaments since 1996. Twenty teams have played at least one World Cup. Five teams have won a World Cup, with Australia winning four out of ten. England is the only team to finish as runner-up without ever being champions. The ICC plans to reduce the number of teams to ten in 2019.

The first Hockey World Cup was held in Spain in 1971. It featured ten teams from every continent bar North America. The most recent World Cup was held in 2014 in the Netherlands. It featured twelve teams from the same five continents. Qualification is based on a mix of regional tournaments and world league results. Twenty-four teams have played at least one World Cup. Five teams have won a World Cup, with three teams (Pakistan, Australia, Netherlands) winning ten of the thirteen to be held. Two teams have only been runner-up. The FIH plans to expand the number of teams to 16 in 2018, and possibly 24 in 2022.

The first Rugby World Cup was held in Australia and New Zealand in 1987. It featured sixteen teams, including the seven IRFB member nations. The most recent World Cup is being held in 2015 in 2015 in England. It features twenty teams from every continent. Qualification is based on results at the previous World Cup, as well as regional tournaments. Twenty-five teams have played at least one World Cup. Four teams have won a World Cup, with France only finishing as runner-up. There are no official plans to expand the amount of teams in the near future.

The first Rugby League World Cup was held in France in 1954. It featured four teams (the hosts, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand). The most recent World Cup was held in England and Wales in 2013. It featured fourteen teams from three continents. Qualification is based on previous World Cup results, regional tournaments and a qualifier. Nineteen teams have played at least one World Cup, four of which played as another nation (Great Britain) previously. Three teams have won a World Cup, and two teams have finished as runner-up without being champions.

What we can see here is confirmation of the Football World Cup being the greatest of them all. It is surely the goal of every sport to be as big as association football, and the sheer number of teams that have played at a FIFA World Cup compared to the other four demonstrates just how big it is. But despite fifty more teams having played at the FWC compared to the next best (RWC), only three more teams have actually won an FWC compared to their next nearest. Indeed, the top echelon of football seems little bigger than in the other sports. In fact, if World Cup tournaments are only meant to be for the best of the best, none of the sports have done a very good job. Every sport currently includes teams in the World Cup that have no chance of winning. If we assume every previous FWC winner plays in a 32 team WC, that leaves ¾ of teams not having previously won and, presumably, being highly unlikely to win the next time around. And there are already proposals to expand the FWC further! Why could they possibly want more losers playing?

It's worth noting that only one of these sports has, at any point, reduced the number of teams from one tournament to the next. That sport is cricket, which peaked with sixteen teams in 2007, and has since reduced the teams to fourteen, and soon to ten. As mentioned above, the main reason given for this is to ensure that only 'the best of the best' are playing in the major tournament. While this is difficult to believe on its own, given what we know about the people controlling cricket at the moment, it is clear that it doesn't really stack up when compared with other sports either. These other sports must have good reason to pursue expansion, rather than contraction.

The most common reason given seem to be that it is a) a way to expand the game and b) representative of the global nature of the sport. The expansion of the game does not seem to necessarily be tied to on-field results – the winners of the FIFA World Cup historically aren't overly diverse – but, crucially, the game is watched in far more countries than any other. Nations can dream of world cup glory, no matter how far-fetched. Hockey is making a belated push towards expansion on the back of a fairly even top 20 ranked nations (or so they claim). Rugby league has consistently talked about international expansion over the past two decades, although it has struggled to gain traction outside of the Commonwealth. Union has been more successful, and desperately wants to be seen as a genuinely global sport, despite the somewhat slow internal shifts.

What all these sports have in common when it comes to being a global game is that they are genuinely pushing to be seen as global sports, open to all and welcoming those who aren't quite as good as the absolute best, in the hope that one day the new teams will match the old champions.

And then there's cricket.

Here we have a sport which can claim to be the second most popular sport in the world, which has a long history, which any fan can tell you is a great and unique game to watch...and which is seemingly absolutely rock solid in its resolution not to expand. It is both odd and self-defeating.

If it's ultimately all about money, it doesn't explain why other sports are so eager to expand the game now. Don't they need money too? Certainly, money seems to be a part of it. But the absolute centrality of the 'big three' seems to be equally about power, about the continuation of an elite in the sport for reasons best known to those within, and not to be told to those outside.

At least, you'd hope it is, because the alternative is that the administrators simply have no idea of what they're doing, or how to plan for the future, or have any concept of growth, and if that is the case then cricket will be in a deep rut in not too many years from now.

You will know it is in that rut when Australia, England and India are playing yearly tri-series against each other, and the administrators are wondering why crowds are so poor, and why the television rights are worth less than they were when those other countries were playing.