Was Gattuso right – is World Cup qualifying unfair on Europe?

Italy coach Gennaro Gattuso wasn’t happy this weekend.

And that was even before his team lost 4-1 at home to Norway on Sunday, confirming they will now enter the lottery of play-offs to secure a place at the 2026 World Cup.

You can understand why Gattuso would be concerned, given Italy missed the World Cup in 2018 and 2022 after being beaten by Sweden and North Macedonia respectively in the play-offs.

For the first time, the 2026 tournament – which will be staged in Canada, Mexico and the United States next June and July – will feature 48 nations.

By finishing second in their group, Italy have to face two single-leg play-offs to secure their place at the World Cup, which they won in 1934, 1938, 1982 and 2006.

Gattuso bemoaned that having a good qualifying record – Italy won six of their eight games – isn’t enough because they finished as runners-up, and highlighted South America’s six direct qualification slots and Africa’s nine.

Was Gattuso making a fair point? Or was it just sour grapes?

The Italy coach was speaking on Friday, when goal difference meant their fate was effectively sealed before they played Norway.

«In my day, the best [group] runners-up went straight to the World Cup, now the rules have changed,» Gattuso said.

«Italy’s record of six wins? You’d have to ask the people who make the groups and the rules.

«In 1990 and 1994, there were two African teams, now there are nine. It’s not a controversy, but there are difficulties, and we know it well.

«If we look at South America, where six out of 10 teams go directly to the World Cup and the seventh heads into a play-off with a team from Oceania, that does give you regrets and a certain sadness. That is the disappointment. The system needs to change in Europe.»

There are some factual inaccuracies in what Gattuso said.

Firstly, three African nations took part in the 1994 World Cup. And Bolivia – who finished seventh in South America – are not certain to play a team from Oceania, which would be New Caledonia. Even if they did that would be in a semi-final with another game against one of the two highest-ranked nations to win one of the last places at the World Cup.

Also, in 1990 not all runners-up automatically qualified automatically, with Denmark missing out.

Firstly, we need to consider why European World Cup qualifying works as it does.

There used to be far fewer countries playing international football than there are today. In 1990, 32 Uefa nations took part in qualifying and in 1994 there were 39.

Today, there are 54 Uefa nations competing to be one of 16 European teams that will make it to next summer’s World Cup finals.

More teams means more games, especially if you try to keep a system of group winners and runners-up qualifying. Technically, you could do this by having eight groups of six or seven countries.

However, a seven-team group would need 12 matchdays, and the international match calendar only has 10 slots each year. You would have to increase the footprint of World Cup qualifying and scrap the Uefa Nations League.

Uefa decided to go with smaller groups of four and five nations partly to limit the intensity of qualifying – the opposite of what Gattuso suggests.

Italy were the top seeds in their group and were perhaps unfortunate to be placed with Norway, one of the fastest-improving teams. But they lost both games convincingly, by an aggregate score of 7-1.

Brazil qualified for the World Cup despite losing six games, but would anyone question their participation?

Only 10 countries in South America take part in World Cup qualifying, with six automatic slots. That is 60%, compared to 29.62% of Uefa.

But we need to consider the relative strengths of the confederations.

The lowest ranked country in South America are Bolivia in 76th, while eight of the 10 sit inside the top 50. That’s by far the highest proportion of top-level countries.

Uefa has 26 teams inside the top 50 – just under 50% – and 20 countries ranked lower than Bolivia. Of the 20, only Kosovo still have a chance of qualifying.

Granted, Bolivia’s 10 defeats while still having a route to the World Cup sticks out, but they did have eight matches against teams in the world’s top 20.

Italy had it much easier, with Norway ranked 43rd at the start of European qualifying (they’re now 29th).

Then there’s the travel, with the best players having to fly from Europe to South America for 18 qualifiers across nine separate two-game international breaks over two years. They usually play one game at home and one away, and that means more travel.

It’s a more gruelling process, while Italy played eight matches this year with minimal relative travel.

With the exception of Cape Verde, who are making their debut next year, Africa’s qualifiers are all established on the world stage: Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Morocco, Senegal, South Africa and Tunisia.

Six are in the world’s top 50 with Ghana, in 73rd, the lowest-ranked of the nine. It would be a stretch to suggest any of these countries don’t deserve to be there over a European nation.

But what do the numbers tell us? Let’s use relative strength again by looking at the top 50 and weighting it to the confederation.

Uefa has seen its share of the World Cup places fall, from 54% in the 1990s, to 33.33% today – yet nearly half of its teams (46.30%) are inside the top 50.

So, is it fair that Europe was only given three more slots when Fifa added another 16 places for the 2026 event?

Africa now gets nine places with 53 participants, 21.43% of the automatic slots but only seven (14%) are inside the world’s top 50. That suggests they might be over-represented by a small amount, but not too much.

Concacaf is about on point with relative strength. It now gets six nations at the World Cup (14.29%), with five of its 32 teams (15.63%) in the top 50.

The real outlier is Asia, which has only four of its 46 participating nations (8.70%) in the top 50, yet it gets eight automatic places (19.05%).

So perhaps Gattuso did have a point in there somewhere, but he’s unlikely to get any sympathy.