When Eritrea withdrew from the 2026 FIFA World Cup qualifying campaign, the Confederation of African Football (CAF) faced an awkward problem.
One of its nine qualification groups would shrink from six teams to five, meaning teams in that group would play only 8 matches (maximum 24 points) instead of the 10 matches (maximum 30 points) played by second-placed teams in all other groups.
To address this imbalance, CAF decreed that for the purpose of ranking second-place finishers, all second-place teams from 10-team groups would have the results against the sixth-placed team in their group excluded (i.e. “deducted”) so that they would in effect be compared on an 8-match basis.
However, that decision has now sparked outrage. Teams like Burkina Faso that met all the rules and played their full complement of matches have been penalised by this adjustment and they have lost eligibility for the play-off stage, whilst Nigeria (originally not among the top four runners-up) have gained entry.
Many observers argue that CAF’s method is unfair and arbitrary. The withdrawal of one team should not lead to the elimination or demotion of otherwise deserving teams.
Why the current CAF method is Problematic?
- Punishing Strong Performance
Burkina Faso, for example, earned high points over all ten matches, including those against the bottom team. By removing those results, they drop in the ranking among second-placed teams. - Lack of Proportional Fairness
The CAF method treats match results as binary. That is to count or not to count but it ignores that in a 10-match group which excludes two matches is far more punishing than excluding none. Teams in Eritrea’s group effectively had no matches removed, whilst teams in other groups lose weighting for their “easy” results. - Transparency and Fairness Concerns
The decision to deduct matches against the bottom side was announced late (around March 2025 after the qualification has started). Such a method penalizes teams or countries that fairly accumulated points across all fixtures. - Distortion of competitive incentives
Once the bottom-team exclusion rule is known, teams may alter tactics, rest players or deprioritise certain matches and that will undermine competitive integrity.
In short: why should Burkina Faso lose their rightful place in a play-off just because one group had one fewer participant? The withdrawal of a nation should not cascade into penalising innocent competitors.
A better approach: Use Percentage/Average Points
A more equitable and mathematically sound approach would be to normalise performance by percentage or average points per match. Concretely:
- For teams that played 10 matches, you compute:
(Points earned ÷ 30) × 100 = Percentage score - For teams in Eritrea’s group (8 matches maximum), you compute:
(Points earned ÷ 24) × 100 = Percentage score
Using that approach, every second-placed team is judged relative to its maximum possible, not by discarding selected matches. No country loses a result it earned; no team is advantaged by exclusion.
This is fair, transparent, and proportionally balanced.
Re-ranking the Second-place Teams Under the Average System
The second-placed teams in Africa following the 2026 World Cup qualifications earned the following total points: Burkina Faso in Group A with 21 points, DR Congo in Group B with 22 points, Nigeria in Group C with 17 points, Cameroon in Group D with 19 points, Niger in Group E with 15 points, Gabon in Group F with 25 points, Uganda in Group G with 18 points, Namibia in Group H with 15 points, and Madagascar in Group I with 19 points.
Using the solution proposed here, these are the percentages of the second-best teams from Group A (first group) to Group I (last group).
Burkina Faso scored 70.00%, Dr. Congo 73.33%, Nigeria 56.67%, Cameroon 63.33%, and Niger 62.50% (calculated by dividing by 24 instead of 30). Gabon achieved 83.33%, Uganda 60.00%, Namibia 50.00% and Madagascar 63.33%.
In light of this, the top four countries are Gabon with 83.33%, Dr. Congo with 73.33%, Burkina Faso with 70.00%, and Cameroon and Madagascar each with 63.33%. The total number of goals and other known tie breakers could be used to select one between Cameroon and Madagascar.
Thus, the average-method delivers the same top four, but in a way that is fairer, defensible, and removes the moral grievance.
Conclusion and Plea
CAF’s decision to deduct matches against the bottom team is understandable in intention to equalise match counts but flawed in execution. It burdens innocent teams and injects a distortion into the ranking.
A simple percentage (points ÷ maximum possible) system would have ensured that no team is penalised for a third party’s withdrawal. No one loses “earned” points; all are judged on relative performance.
If CAF wishes to maintain its integrity and avoid controversies, it should adopt the average-points approach immediately for this and in future tournaments so that no country is unfairly punished for events beyond its control.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Source link
