As many people pointed out, Qatar only got to host it by bribery - good old Sepp Blatter, but sadly during the construction of the new stadia an estimated 4,000 migrant works will die, that's 12 per week until the first game happens. Also many of the workers are officially classified as slaves, for they are denied food and water and their indentity cards are taken from them, making it impossible for them to leave. Have fun watching the games!
We could still have fun watching the games and supporting participating squads. It's one of football's main purpose as sport/game. The only persons responsibles are some qatari and corrupted guys. They are in fact disgusting.
@Nathaniel I would like to think that as a society we have advanced enough for stuff like that not to happen but sadly my faith in humanity is so small that I could not confidently say we will ever get to that point. Sadly, the people with the best ability to do something (because they have money) are the ones profiting from it and keeping it going.
surely a nation should be awarded a world cup when they have a rich footballing history or have at least competed at a world cup, i doubt they will even have a squad capable of putting up a fight against the best in the world. They also want to move it to winter, completely undeserved.
Exactly. So they never should have awarded it to Qatar. What a waste of money! Oh well, I'm sure it will turn out ok. Fully air conditioned stadia and so on. Never mind global warming.......
footballfan99. 1. They want to see how well they can do 2. its hot in Qatar so its better to move it to winter AND FIFA chose to move it. 3. They deserve the chance.
4. New Zealand are the best in their are by a long shot so they get an easy task. Qatar is better than them just they have harder teams to play than the teams new zealand have to play.
KTAR: 1. I'm sure every nation would like 'to see how well they can do' doesn't mean they should get to host the greatest sporting event on the planet. 2. How is that a good thing? The world cup is a summer tournament, it should never be held in the winter and it will completely disrupt European club football. 3. Why do 'they deserve the chance'? 4. What has it got to do with New Zealand? New Zealand have never hosted a world cup.
Totally agree what has NZ got to do with it, someone messed up in the teams admin and they are not even eligible to play anyways, but they did win the rugby :)
Yes I agree, a World Cup in Qatar is quite controversial and I'm totally against it. However, as much as it sucks to admit, Qatar just won the AFC Nations cup, beating Japan in the final. I'm not saying they're a football powerhouse, but they are surprising to say the least. They'll compete in this year's Copa America, let's see how they do.
Uruguay hosted in 1930 without ever having participated before... but anyway, aside from the money (if that's even a factor) I think they're just trying to branch out in different markets. Up until the last one they'd never had a World Cup in Africa before, and Qatar will mark the first time that the World Cup has been to the Middle East. It might have made more sense to have it in Dubai I guess. Though there's probably not a single team from the Gulf that will make it past qualifiers.
But Qatar will get an automatic in for hosting, which has historically kindled interest in and quality of the nearby national teams. It's good business for FIFA to host in areas with struggling teams.
LOL... Uruguay 1930 was the first world cup... and Uruguay were the gold medal winners in football at the 1924 and 1928 Olympics, so it's not like they were chosen at random.
Come on, Uruguay was a world power and 1930 was the first world cup! Qatar got the cup because of the exorbitant bid they put up, the money they paid as bribes to the people making the decision and FIFA's desire to make football more popular in that part of the world. The last is being done in the Olympics.
You should, IMHO, accept Zaïre for DRC, since that was the name of that country at that time. I clearly remember the beautiful kit and the lousy football!
It should be Dutch East Indies instead of Indonesia, they participated in 1938. Indonesia never played at a World Cup Final. Indonesia dind't exist before 1949.
Best kit ever? I'd say so. Mwepu Ilunga also signed for one of the most bizarre events in any world cup when he casually kicked away the ball during a free kick for Brazil. To be honest, they actually were a decent team. After they were told they wouldn't be paid for their world cup performances after the Scotland game they just didn't bother anymore
No, because the UK has three/four football teams for the countries which make up the UK- England, Wales, Scotland, (Ireland). The UK does not play as a football team, and England does not just mean the UK.
UK is not a member of the IOC. GB is, but doesn't enter a football team (with the exception of London 2012). Northern Irelanders get the choice to represent Ireland or GB
Well, according to my research, it is indeed UK that participates at olympics, but is usually called there Great Britain (and branded as Team GB). Northern Irish can choose to represent either Ireland or UK. All other UK possessions are included as well, except Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands and Bermuda, who have their own olympic committees
Nix418- you clearly have no idea how much opposition there was to a team GB football team, as very few if not 0 players were northern Irish and Scotland (politically) despises being in the UK
Hold on. Many Scots may not like being part of the UK but in the recent referendum on independence they voted by a small majority to remain part of the UK.
Please don't call it 'soccer'. I still don't understand why everyone calls it football or 'futeball' or fussball but americans just change it randomly to soccer. Bizarre...
Not biased; nichster is just observing that every country on Earth except one (the US) calls it football. The United States is the sole exception because they established the name "football" for the rugby-style game back in 1876, before soccer/football took hold.
More than that, it's actually the posh public school nickname for it - precisely the equivalent to calling rugby 'rugger'. I don't get this weird dislike of the Americans calling it soccer. So what?
It's difficult in countries like Australia where there are four professional codes of football. If you call it football, people may not know what you're talking about. I often call it football, and then I have to clarify with soccer, so people know what I'm talking about. Here we have Australian Rules(sometimes called Australian Football), Rugby League, Rugby Union and Soccer. There are even gridiron competitions down here, though, they are not professional. Soccer has the most registered players, but Australian Rules probably has the most money, especially in terms of TV rights.
No it shouldn't! UK Does not mean England! Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are all part of the UK too! Although it may be different in a few years....
england, wales, scotland, and norther ireland all have different federations and national teams for FIFA based tournaments, OK, so, no he should not accept UK because therefore that would deem the quiz incorrect and we would have another slew of people arguing about it...
The UK does not have a football/soccer team. There are separate authorities that cover the four constituent parts of the UK, and it is those four separate authorities (i.e. football associations) that are members of FIFA. That's why the England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have listed on this quiz. The quiz is asking for teams who have played in the World Cup, not for sovereign nations (FIFA has a number of other members who enter the World Cup that aren't sovereign nations, e.g. Faroe Islands, Aruba).
No ones watches women's football. Most people are more knowledgeable about men's football. If you watch the women's tournament, good for you. Oh, since none of the 4 main Avengers is a lesbian black feminist woman, the movie is sexist. Really. And that's why it sucks
People do watch women's football. It might be more popular than men's football in the US (probably because the US women's team is so much more successful than the men's).
And kal's comment was not crying sexism for the sake of it. She was pointing out, rightly, that the quiz originally asked for countries that have played in the World Cup. The Women's World Cup satisfies that criteria. It's saying "name all the presidents" without specifying that you're looking only for US presidents. Under that condition, the president of any country is a correct answer. If the quiz wants only men's teams, it should say so. It's not a question of upending social expectations. It's a question of putting precise and accurate instructions at the top of the quiz. And look, the Quizmaster added the note to clarify that it's only the men's team. Yet the site still works and society is still standing. Small miracles.
making an analogy about how people love to screech about sexism, racism, homophobia and such and make such a big deal about it, even when discrimination is not the cause of issues with the subject (in this case, how men's football is much more popular than women's). Playing the constant victim all the time is tiring and ridiculous.
To demand that there should be a black lesbian Avenger is a rididulous hypothetical situation while the case we're discussing is safely within the limits of reason. Whenever there's talk about anything gender-related, many people seem to hallucinate. They're like Don Quijote who believed he fought giant monsters while actually poking at windmills.
yeah I'm certainly not some woke intersectional feminist social justice warrior... far from it... but I feel like the existence of such a thing has provoked an overcorrection in the minds of some and they end up being just as ridiculous as those they are reacting to.
Nobody claimed women's sports were as popular as men's. (though, in the USA anyway, I think women's soccer actually is; probably because they're more successful) But the fact that women's sports are usually treated as if they do not even exist, and men's is the assumed automatic default, is, very obviously, sexism. Anyone defending this ought to be embarrassed.
I think you should tell people in the directions that former countries like Yugoslavia and East Germany count. I missed both because I thought that it was only countries that still exist. Also, you should tell people that the united kingdom is not included but its subparts are. I missed Wales, Scotland and England because of it.
I can only assume you were guessing countries at random, anyone with even a passing interest in international football knows England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are separate teams.
No Berney, it really really isn't. The four home country associations have always played as separate teams and are the four oldest national football associations in the world. They were playing one another in international fixtures for over fifty years before the World Cup was even thought of.
I didn't say they were great. I said they were one of the best teams in Asia. Being 13th out of 48 places them very nearly in the top quartile, so, better than 3/4 of the other teams. God you guys love to nitpick.
Instead of "West Germany", one should always say "Federal Republic of Germany"... The 1990 reunification was not the creation of a new state but the integration of East Germany in the Federal Republic. Thus the quiz is indeed right.
FIFA officially recognises 'Germany' as the successor to 'West Germany' (much in the same way Russia is the successor to the Soviet Union team) and so it is viewed as the same team. East Germany on the other hand was not succeeded by another team.
I don't really like football but of course, it's easy to guess more than 50 countries. I only forgot a few but I discarded North Korea... I never would have thought they had participated.
I think they were in the tournament fairly recently (I'd guess around 2006). I remember it. That was one of the few African countries I entered confidently, rather than just guessing. And I don't really follow FIFA.
Some people are complaining because UK is not accepted, or that they didn't realise the quiz accepted now non-existant countries. Those people don't know anything about football or the World Cup.The quiz isn't for those people. It's for people who may not be able to remember all 78 answers, but who do know that the British teams compete independently and during the Cold War there were different countries.
For us pedants, you really should include the word "Finals" in the header. Almost every nation (and several non-sovereign territories) participate in "The World Cup", but all but 32 (now) are eliminated in the qualifying rounds.
Indeed, Slovakia reached the second round in 2010 and were then defeated by the Netherlands. Algeria participated in the last two World Cups, reaching the second round last time.
Please accept gdr for East Germany.... I typed Germany, then gdr.. then I though.. oh it's probably in the Germany count as it seems with czechoslovakia and czech republic or russia and soviet union....
Cool Quiz! Please put Round 2 (or round of 16) for Algeria and Slovakia. Also, Serbia/Serbia-Montenegro participated twice, not once as you stated. TY!
Slovakia's top finish was not the first round. In the 2010 world cup, they actually eliminated Italy and passed on to round 2, where they were eliminated against Netherlands.
I would really appreciate it if the standard caveat text of "Contains countries that no longer exist" was added. When I was missing 5 I scrolled up specifically to look for it. Since it wasn't there, I assumed that answers like East Germany or Yugoslavia weren't the right things to guess.
Algeria got to Round 2 in Brazil 2014. Serbia and Montenegro played Germany 2006, Serbia played South Africa 2010 and will now play Russia 2018. Shouldn't you consider 3 participations?
I think that you should make Serbia (& Montenegro) and Yugoslavia as one. Both the FIFA and the uefa consider Serbia the successor of Yugoslavia. And if you check the facts for the Serbia team, they also take the Yugoslav results into account. It's the same situation as with Czech/Czechoslovakia, Russia/USSR and Germany/west Germany when considering football
Does India just not have any interest in soccer? One would think that, by sheer force of population numbers, it would have had a few major talents to carry it through to the tournament at least once or twice. The Asian field is not as competitive as others are. Very interesting.
India is, as I write this, the biggest country (both by size and population) to never have competed in the final stage of a FIFA World Cup. Interestingly enough, India qualified for the 1950 Cup in Brazil but withdrew, leaving the group C with only three teams. Indian players were used to play barefoot as they did in the Olympics two years prior.
But FIFA banned barefoot play for the 1950's WC so legend has it that's the reason why India pulled out. However, financial reasons and travel costs might have played a bigger role in the team's decision...
India did once qualify for the finals (1950) but withdrew because an absence of football boots (they had previously played barefooted, or at least some of their players did).
70/80. Missed Belgium, of all places, as well as North Korea (I left them out on purpose, but I guess they still participate in some things), and some other random ones.
South Korea best participation was fourth place in 2002 WC. Never been third place. Serbia has never passed the group phase, so it's very misleading to place their best participation as round 2.
According to Wikipedia "Serbia is considered the inheritor of the records of the Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro teams, which competed from 1930 to 2006."
68/80 missed some easy ones like Denmark and South Africa and other would have really been random guesses. Missed Salvador by going around every central American country but this particular haha.
Besides the no longer existing countries (totally missed the description) and some islands I only missed the cote d'ivoire, angola, senegal and togo. Not unhappy with that.
The record of Yugoslavia should be incorporated with the record of Serbia and Serbia Montenegro. For the same reason why Soviet Union and Russia, West Germany and Germany, Czechoslovakia and Czechia are all together.
Over a billion people in India and they never made it to the world cup, wow! And China only once with little success. I know both countries are successful in other sports, but still!
could you put that the countries of the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) should be guessed separately? Cuz most other quizzes count the UK and not the individual countries so I didn't try them
This quiz isn't guessing countries - it's guessing teams. There's other FIFA teams that aren't countries - Faroe Islands, Gibraltar, Tahiti etc. I think that goes without saying as a sports quiz rather than geography.
Both FIFA and UEFA consider Serbia to be the direct and sole successor of the Yugoslavia team. The same applies to Russia in the case of the USSR and the Czechia in the case of Czechoslovakia. In this quiz Serbia and Yugoslavia are separated, while Russia and USSR and Czechia and Czechoslovakia are placed together.
When typed Montenegro, it read that I'd already guessed Yugoslavia. I can only guess as 2006 they were just called "Serbia and Montenegro". But yes Serbia are the successor to these former teams.
Now obviously we all know that Qatar only hosting because of money. Qatar haven’t even got close to qualifying so how they deserve to even be considered to host it, it’s all wrong. If hosting was chosen for football reasons and a fair spread around the world. The 2018 tournament should’ve been in England ( you know, the nation that has some of the best stadiums in football and has what’s considered best league in world football )
This years tournament should’ve been in Australia, which would have been a summer tournament for us northern hemisphere folks ( winter tournament down under )
Yes I know Australia is more known for its cricket and rugby, but at least they’ve actually qualified for the World Cup on many occasions by ACTUALLY playing qualification rounds.
The order is somewhat confusing. The teams with one participation are all listed in alphabetical order, but the debutantes from the last three World Cups (Iceland, Panama, Qatar) are listed in the end of the list in order of appearance. I guess when the quiz was updated, they were just added, but that makes certain mess. Also, shouldn't Slovakia be under East Germany, as it was a Round 2 participant? And Haiti... Is this meant to be in certain order or not?
It has nothing to do with the notion of nation. West Germany and Germany is the same FIFA-Federation (before WW2, during the Cold War and now) that lasts under the same name since 1900. East Germany was a different one that only existed from 1958 to 1990
Why do you consider Czechoslovakia and Czechia or USSR and Russia as one country but Yugoslavia and Serbia as two different entities? That's not really consistent
4. New Zealand are the best in their are by a long shot so they get an easy task. Qatar is better than them just they have harder teams to play than the teams new zealand have to play.
Well, I guess I'm talking about it
And kal's comment was not crying sexism for the sake of it. She was pointing out, rightly, that the quiz originally asked for countries that have played in the World Cup. The Women's World Cup satisfies that criteria. It's saying "name all the presidents" without specifying that you're looking only for US presidents. Under that condition, the president of any country is a correct answer. If the quiz wants only men's teams, it should say so. It's not a question of upending social expectations. It's a question of putting precise and accurate instructions at the top of the quiz. And look, the Quizmaster added the note to clarify that it's only the men's team. Yet the site still works and society is still standing. Small miracles.
B: "Oh, since none of the 4 main Avengers is a lesbian black feminist woman, the movie is sexist."
---
What kind of mental gymnastics did you perform to get from A to B?
Nobody claimed women's sports were as popular as men's. (though, in the USA anyway, I think women's soccer actually is; probably because they're more successful) But the fact that women's sports are usually treated as if they do not even exist, and men's is the assumed automatic default, is, very obviously, sexism. Anyone defending this ought to be embarrassed.
They are not even qualifed for the last round of qualifications in Asia for the World Cup 2018...
They qualified in 2014 to the second round and lost to Germany in Extra Time
Football fans purely because of Ronaldo/Messi and their teams may not know this.
But FIFA banned barefoot play for the 1950's WC so legend has it that's the reason why India pulled out. However, financial reasons and travel costs might have played a bigger role in the team's decision...
LLLLLLLL
https://www.jetpunk.com/user-quizzes/91117/countries-that-have-participated-in-the-fifa-world-cup
But failed to get italy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea_at_the_FIFA_World_Cup
This years tournament should’ve been in Australia, which would have been a summer tournament for us northern hemisphere folks ( winter tournament down under )
Yes I know Australia is more known for its cricket and rugby, but at least they’ve actually qualified for the World Cup on many occasions by ACTUALLY playing qualification rounds.