By the end of 1985 the qualification saga for the 1986 World Cup ended. There was no universal or even satisfying formula to the qualifications and this time even the orderly European structure was affected. The enlargement of the participants at the finals presented various problems – one of them was that the number of European countries was the same, but the finalists almost doubled and now the qualification groups were no so exciting as they used to before 1982 World Cup: two teams qualified from each group and that made a lot of games meaningless: rarely there was a group made of equally competitive teams – as a rule of thumb, there were two favourites in each group and they easily qualified. Whether first or second, did not matter. However, changes were proposed and for this campaign originally only the group winners qualified to the finals and the 2nd-placed were to go qualification stage between themselves. But FIFA changed that is somewhat dubious formula: only the runner-ups of groups 1 and 5 went to a play-off to decide a finalist. And the runner-op of Group 7 was going to play-off against the winner of Oceania. No matter what, continents were not equal in neither strength, nor clout. There was some objective reasons for that – European football was the strongest on one hand, the nearest to it, South America, had too few countries for either decent qualification stage or enlargement of number of its finalists. Political problems plagued other continents, along with very weak level of football: the most notorious case was Asia – Israel and Taiwan were boycotted, the first from Islamic states, the second from China, and there was always a problem where to place these two states. This time they were placed in Oceania – no big deal, since only two countries wanted to play – New Zealand and Australia. At least, there was some resemblance of a qualification stage, but Oceania did not have a designated lot at the finals: it was only that the winner should proceed to play-off against the 2nd-placed in the 7th European group. However, distances were so great in this ill-assembled zone that Taiwan, short of cash, chose to play all its games away: going to the other countries and playing both legs one after another against the hosts. Political problems outside football affected both Asia and Africa: Iran and Iraq were in war, so Iran withdrew altogether from qualifications and Iraq played all his matches away from home. It was close in Africa as well: Lybia and Egypt did not see eye to eye, so in case they had to play against each other Lybia was going to withdrew, as it ordered its club teams in the African club tournaments. Luckily, Egypt was eliminated early and the stand-off did not happened. As ever before, some countries chose to withdrew without playing any games. This did nothing to change the grumbling inside FIFA – Europe was getting too much: 13 teams qualified directly plus Italy as reigning world champion and very likely the team having to play against the winner of Oceania. 15 teams out 24 finalists were European. Oceania, having no reserved spot, was most likely to be left without finalist. Asia had 1. Africa – 2. South America – 4 spots, but it was 4 teams out of 10 total, almost half of South America was going to the finals. Europe and South America were going to have almost half of their members at the finals, which was way too much. Not to the South Americans, though, who preferred to compare 15 Europeans to 4 South Americans and cry injustice. North and Central America had 2 spots, but with Mexico going directly to the finals as a host, it was felt that this area was having at least 1 team too many, for there was hardly half-decent team behind Mexico. The disaster El Salvador was at the 1982 World Cup was still fresh – two more like that? In general, Africa was seen unfairly handled – football there was on the rise, or so was the popular tale for about 10 years already, and there was feeling that one or two more African teams would be better than CONCACAF teams or, God forbid, a team from Oceania at the finals. As ever before and after, the finger was pointed at the Europeans – with their money and clout, they always got what suited them at the expense of anybody else. It was impasse: Europe rightfully claimed that the only internationally decent football was there and if you want an entertaining World Cup, then get the really best teams. The other continental federations had shaky alliance – all together only to oppose Europe, but from there it was falling apart: the South Americans joined Europe in support of strong final tournament. Africa was all for popular spread, give the smaller countries a chance, it is good for the development of the game, encouraging, but they did not mind Oceania and Asia to stay as it – football too weak there, not good for the game… CONCACAF was on board mostly on principle, well aware it had not only weak teams, but a whole bunch of countries short of money and thus it was never sure who will actually play at the end, or suddenly withdrew, leaving the federation with even worse standing in FIFA. One thing that could be said with some truthfulness is that at this time the European qualifications lost some of its drama for the popular mind – not that people did care to attend, but there was no more real drama and grand upsets. It was quite mellow: the outsiders were well known and the better teams were going to the finals for sure. Lot of games became meaningless and not only between favourites and outsiders. Anyhow, to business:
Europe. Groups 1 to 7, according to FIFA’s structure.
Group 1. It was clear in advance who will be first and second, but this was group where was important to finish on top – the runner-up was going to play-off instead of directly qualifying to the finals. The battle was between Poland and Belgium, the Belgians seen as favourites, according to recent performance and strength of players. However, both Poland and Belgium proved to be a bit shaky and the group winner was decided in the last round, in direct battle between the favourites. Poland had slight advantage: it was hosting the match and needed a tie. Their goal was achieved: 0-0. Thus, Poland ended first not on points or goal-difference – both teams finished with 8 points and +4 goal-difference – but on more scored goals: 10 vs 7. Belgium, irony of ironies, had to go to play-off against its eternal rival Holland.
1.POL^ 6 8 3 2 1 10- 6
Poland qualified for a 4th time in a row, but there was sense they had not really strong and competive squad.
2.BEL> 6 8 3 2 1 7- 3
Belgium had reason to worry: by now the casualties of the bribing scandal were back, the team was restored to full strength and should have been group winner – but it was not. The finger should be pointed at the first match against Albania in Tirana. Against the odds, Belgium lost it 0-2. At the end, it was not sure at all Belgium would be at the 1986 World Cup: play-off against Holland was no joke.
3.ALB 6 4 1 2 3 6- 9
Albania finished 3rd, thanks to better goal-difference. Most likely, the Albanians were satisfied – they had no chance reaching finals, but there was some improvement of their game and they managed to finish above Greece. As anything better, they had perfect excuse – Enver Hoxha died in April 1985 and the match with Greece had to be postponed. Albania lost it anyway, but let say the players were disturbed and grieveing. Suits the official line…
4.GRE 6 4 1 2 3 5-10
Greece was not in great shape – the ascent during the 1970s, culminating with their appearance at the 1980 European finals stopped – generational change was the most obvious problem: the one from 1970s aged and retired and there was no new one of great talent, at least not yet. Perhaps Greece could have finished 3rd, but 3rd or 4th – did not matter. Whatever hopes the Greeks entertained were shattered on May 19, 1985, when Poland destroyed them in Athens 4-1.