What does record Asian qualification for Qatar 2022 mean for the region?

For the first time in World Cup history, a tournament will play host to a record six teams from the Asian Football Confederation (AFC). The achievement follows on from Russia 2018, where the previous record was set by the five Asian teams (Iran, South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Australia) who qualified for that year’s tournament.

On a surface level it appears that the qualification of six teams to Qatar 2022 wholly reflects the region’s growing stature within world football. However when viewed in the context that Qatar is obviously assured a spot as hosts and that Australia’s result on penalties against Peru glosses over what was undoubtedly a campaign dominated by pragmatic thinking over possible effective utilisation, one must ponder the impact Asian teams as a whole will have on the tournament, particularly when looking at past editions.

According to Soccerment, an analytics platform focusing on accelerating the adoption of data analytics by a wider audience of football fans, Asian teams struggled most with shot accuracy (15% against a 29% tournament average) in Russia four years ago. In addition, it appeared Asian teams valued long balls the most of any continent in the tournament as well as hitting a collective average top speed of 27.7 – the lowest at the tournament that year.

Japan v Belgium

Of course, one has to comparatively look at the squad composition, subsequent utilisation and ultimate effectiveness of these five sides versus the teams in their respective groups. Furthermore, the flaws and generational situation of their opponents and the consequential effect has to be taken into account (exemplified best by South Korea toppling a regressing Germany). It is fair to even potentially play down Japan’s progression to the Round of 16 due to accruing fewer yellow cards than Senegal, but as a whole, teams from Asia fared far better in 2018 than in 2014 where they accumulated a total three points out of a possible 36 between four teams in the group stage (Japan, South Korea, Iran and Australia). By contrast in 2018 Asian teams secured 15 from of a potential 45 points, an 18% increase in points amassed.

Furthermore, viewing the Russia 2018 results through the context of where these teams are at ahead of Qatar 2022 is arguably ignoring the impact of the changes that have been made since. Of the six teams to have qualified only one side have retained the same coach across qualification campaigns, this being the tournament hosts Qatar, who have kept Félix Sánchez ever since his taking over the side when they were last in their qualifying group for Russia 2018 and who went on to win the 2019 Asian Cup on home soil.

The current ‘big six’ of Asia have qualified for the tournament, and perhaps it is just reward for Asian football’s increased investment into the sport over the past few decades. In saying that, a set of countries’ ambitious development efforts does not necessarily reflect a whole region’s shared emphasis. For some nations, the development, alignment and tailoring of resources serves as a challenge they’re unwilling to take – irrespective of the passionate and parochial fan base of some club teams. When one looks at Indonesian side Persib Bandung’s nearly 20 million total followers across social media platforms and impressive crowd numbers matching the likes of mammoth Iranian sides like Tractor S.C, it feels like more could be done to improve Indonesia’s international standing as a footballing nation.

AFC

In terms of the development of top-tier players in domestic Asian leagues, the infrastructural foundations need to be laid outside of the likes of South Korea and especially Japan, where for example J-League sides select youth players from age 11, a factor which has hugely contributed to their consistent youth production line.

Often the determinative factor of a region’s influence on football is the number of names plying their trade in top-level overseas – mainly European leagues. And by this measurement, Asian football is at an all-time high with representatives from across the continent making a name for themselves at the top level of the game. When considering that 92% of the teams that reached the quarter-finals in the last three editions of the FIFA World Cup were from Europe and South America, it will be interesting to see if an Asian team pushes beyond the Round of 16 with the greater base of players based in Europe especially.

From the 2026 World Cup onwards, an increase from four to eight direct slots alongside an extra spot via the intercontinental playoffs affords Asian teams a greater chance to shine on the world stage. It is more likely than that the jointly hosted 2026 edition will provide greater evidence of Asia’s elevated levels of competitiveness when facing far better developed footballing nations.

The reality is we simply do not know how the Asian confederation’s representatives will fare until the 2022 World Cup in Qatar plays out. But nonetheless, the strides being taken by sections of the AFC region to improve their infrastructure and to foster a distinct identity will have massive long-term benefits in a manner quite possibly akin to Japan in terms of youth development. Time, as always, will tell.

Previous ArticleNext Article

Manchester City must pay the ultimate price for financial cheating

Manchester City’s financial scandal has reached boiling point. On the 29th of September, an independent commission found City guilty of all charges relating to serious breaches of the league’s financial rules across nine seasons, from 2009/10 to 2017/18. The commission also upheld three of four charges concerning the club’s failure to cooperate with the Premier League investigation.

The Premier League says City used sham commercial arrangements and disguised owner funding to inflate revenue and reduce costs by more than $1.7 billion (£900 million). Abu Dhabi United Group funded $1.58 billion (£830.69 million) that appeared in City’s accounts as sponsorship money from Abu Dhabi companies. The commission concluded that City’s accounts concealed the true financial position from auditors and regulators.

The 115 charges cover inaccurate financial information, player and manager payments, financial rules and the investigation itself. City has lodged its appeal against the guilty verdict, but for such a serious sporting scandal, attention has already turned to the potential punishments. In a Premier League era where foreign investment is king and revenues have skyrocketed, we should be asking questions. How did Manchester City get away with this for so long, and how can the punishment act as a deterrent to keep the reputation of football’s biggest league intact?

The hack that exposed the story

The most uncomfortable part of this saga is how the authorities discovered it and how most likely City never would have been exposed. In 2018, German publication Der Spiegel published leaked internal City emails and documents obtained through Football Leaks. Rui Pinto, the Portuguese hacker behind Football Leaks, supplied material that alleged City had disguised owner investment as sponsorship revenue and manipulated arrangements to satisfy financial regulations.

The Premier League investigation began in December 2018. City were formally charged in February 2023, after a four-year investigation, and the hearing finally began in September 2024. That timeline is nothing short of extraordinary; eight years between the leaks being exposed and charges being brought to Manchester City does significant sporting damage.

Man City won eight major titles during the alleged period, including three Premier League titles. Recalling titles in any sport leaves a sour taste in any sports fan’s mouth. The fans of opposing sides given titles feel robbed of the special moment, and Manchester City fans could feel rightfully deceived. But it goes beyond even this as we look at who Manchester City signed during those seasons. Players such as Ilkay Gundogan and Kevin De Bruyne played vital roles in City’s later titles beyond the 2017/2018 season. Would they have joined if this had been uncovered earlier? It’s impossible to say, but it shows how City’s early investment from 2009/10 still contributed to their titles in the 2020’s.

The Premier League’s credibility

That delay is not just embarrassing for City; it damages the Premier League. The league is the most competitive and commercially powerful domestic competition in football. Its rules are supposed to create a framework in which clubs compete on sporting merit while remaining financially sustainable. If a club can allegedly distort its accounts by hundreds of millions of dollars and the process takes years to reach a verdict, despite City’s potential obstruction, every other club has a reason to question whether the system works.

The irony is obvious: if Football Leaks hadn’t shared what they found on Manchester City through its hack, the scheme never would have been uncovered. If financial rules were designed to stop clubs gaining an unfair competitive advantage, then the Premier League may need to change how it investigates how its clubs’ finances are being managed. If anything should be gained from this, it may be that financial regulation needs to be improved as the Premier League and its clubs spend billions.

As for Manchester City, punishment cannot simply be a fine that becomes another operating cost.

Relegation is the only serious answer

If the verdict survives the appeal, Manchester City should be removed from the Premier League and those three aforementioned league titles removed. A fine would be inadequate and, depending on what points deduction City got, would punish the club in one season while leaving the historical record largely intact. Nottingham Forest received a four point deduction for a charge of Profitability and Sustainability rules in 2023-2024. City’s 114 charges will see much greater punishment then that.

Even if City are relegated they would almost be guranteed to be promoted the next season so even that feels like a slap on the wrist. Despite their investment during the nine seasons being questioned their five titles subsequent to that period will be expected to remain in their hands. My solution is to relegate City to the Championship without the potential of promotion for three seasons, one for each title won during that time.

City fans will call that harsh but their is strong reason to come down hard and that’s because this is bigger than Manchester City. Foreign ownership has brought huge investment into English football, but investment cannot mean exemption from the rules. Owners, executives and clubs must know that the Premier League’s financial regulations carry consequences that cannot be negotiated away.

The league has a choice. It can impose a manageable punishment and move on, or it can demonstrate that competitive integrity matters more than the commercial power of its biggest clubs. If City’s appeal fails, the answer should be clear: relegation, a reckoning over the titles and a message to every owner that the Premier League’s rules are not optional.

Football must set financial rules of engagement following FIFA Forward Enterprise crisis

Never before has football had such deep access to capital, or faced such complex questions about what that means for the future of the sport.

Private equity firms are investing in clubs, institutional investors are moving into stadiums and sports infrastructure, and clubs are looking beyond broadcasting and matchday revenue towards property, hospitality, entertainment and technology.

The question is no longer whether football needs investments. It’s what happens when investment starts influencing the way the game is run.

The issue came sharply into focus this year when FIFA proposed creating FIFA Forward Enterprise, a new FIFA-owned subsidiary that would bring together its commercial and event operations. The concept would effectively place the World Cup, the crown jewel of global football and FIFA’s blue chip stock, inside an investable structure. 

The proposal envisaged raising up to $6 billion by selling minority, non-controlling stakes in the subsidiary to external investors, based on an initial valuation of $29 billion. FIFA said the additional capital would help increase development funding for its 211 member associations.

The proposal triggered a governance crisis, while major questions about Gianni Infantino’s tenure as FIFA President continue.

UEFA, CONCACAF and (to a lesser-extent) the AFC were among the confederations to object, variously stating they had learned about the proposal through media reports rather than through FIFA’s own consultation process.

Amid a firestorm of criticism, the proposal was ultimately abandoned.

Now, Gianni Infantino has proposed an independent review of the organisation’s governance framework for major strategic initiatives, including how responsibility is divided between the president, Bureau, Council and Congress.

That makes this bigger than one investment proposal.

It’s a debate about who should control football’s commercial future.

Capital isn’t the enemy

There is an obvious argument in favour of private investment.

Football is an expensive business.

At club level, the relationship between capital and football is becoming increasingly sophisticated and complex.

RC Lens recently brought infrastructure investor Entrepreneur Equity Partners into its ownership structure, with the club saying the investment will fund development around the Stade Bollaert-Delelis and help create new revenue opportunities beyond matchdays.

Alas, there is a cost that comes with the capital. 

Investors ultimately expect a financial return. This won’t always conflict with supporters’ interests, but it can create different priorities.

Whereas a supporter might value affordability, identity and competitive success, an investor might instead look at property development, hospitality, commercial growth and the long-term value of an asset.

Neither perspective is inherently wrong.

But problems begin when financial objectives and football objectives stop overlapping and start pointing in different directions.

The ownership question

Chelsea provides a useful example of how quickly football ownership can change.

Clearlake Capital has now taken full control of the London club after acquiring the stakes previously held by Todd Boehly and Mark Walter, in a transaction that values the club at around $9.5 billion including debt. Todd Boehly only invested in the club four years ago.

That does not mean Chelsea’s new ownership structure is better or worse than before.

It demonstrates something important about modern football.

Football is becoming an asset class

That is perhaps the biggest change.

Football is no longer simply something wealthy individuals buy because they love the sport.

It is increasingly being viewed by institutional investors as an asset class with multiple potential revenue streams.

That means the investment opportunity can extend beyond owning a club.

There is private capital in stadiums, infrastructure, media rights, technology, sponsorship businesses and surrounding property.

It also explains why the FIFA proposal was so significant.

FIFA was effectively exploring whether the enormous commercial value of its competitions could be packaged into an investable structure.

FIFA argued investors would hold minority positions and would not receive control over sporting decisions or governance. It also argued the additional commercial value could increase funding available to football associations around the world.

That is a legitimate commercial proposition.

But once an asset is valued in the billions and external investors are being invited to participate, questions about control inevitably follow.

Who decides which commercial opportunities are pursued?

What happens when investors want one thing and football stakeholders want another?

And perhaps most importantly, who ultimately gets the benefit from football becoming more valuable?

The danger isn’t investment. It’s misalignment.

Football should not pretend it can grow without capital.

Football today requires enormous amounts of it.

The challenge is ensuring investment strengthens the sport rather than gradually redefining what the sport means to fans.

There are good reasons for clubs to develop their stadiums, diversify revenue and attract institutional capital.

There are also good reasons for supporters, players, federations and communities to ask what they receive in return.

FIFA’s recent episode demonstrates how quickly these questions can become political as well as financial.

The fact FIFA is now considering an independent governance review following such backlash shows the debate is not simply about whether the investment proposal was commercially sensible, but also about how decisions of that scale should be made.

That may be the most important question for football’s next financial era.

Private capital is here to stay. The tap isn’t turning off.

So, it’s critical football determines its rules of engagement before the next billion-dollar proposal lands on the table.

Most Popular Topics

Editor Picks

Send this to a friend