Talk:FIFA Men's World Ranking

	FIFA Men's World Ranking is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 13, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 27, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Football Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: June 27 to July 3, 2021

Archive up till June 2011

The article states that one member, São Tomé and Príncipe, is not included in the rankings as they have not played a recognised international fixture since their 8–0 loss against Libya in 2003. The report for this match is located here. São Tomé and Príncipe were excluded in November 2007 on completing four years without a fixture, as rankings take into account only results over the last 4 years.

Papua New Guinea played their most recent game on 13 July 2007 and have no upcoming fixtures scheduled by FIFA, so we might expect that they will be excluded too when the rankings are updated on 27 July this year, and be ready to reflect this in the article.

FIFA refers to  São Tomé and Príncipe as "São Tomé e Príncipe" (in Portuguese), by the way. --Theurgist (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a list of national football teams ranked by their highest FIFA score ever reached.

Rank	Nation	Points	Date
1	Spain	1920	17 November 2010
2	Netherlands	1730	9 March 2011
3	Brazil	1672	1 July 2009
4	Italy	1653	13 June 2007
5	Argentina	1616	14 March 2007
6	France	1585	13 June 2007
7	Germany	1490	15 September 2010
8	England	1477	13 September 2006
9	Portugal	1323	13 June 2007
10	Czech Republic	1312	13 September 2006

Why did you delete my table, PeeJay2k3? Why do you think is "unnecessary"? Just because England is 8th??? With your point of view almost everything is "unnecessary". Please, respect the work of the others, you are not the Wikipedia's owner.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:89.129.13.168 (talk • contribs)

Again PeePeeJay2k3? If you can not understand the encyclopEdic value of this does not mean is worthless, just your brain. There are another "All-time highest ratings" lists in other articles and no "wisdomlessboy" says "what is the encyclopaedic value of this?". Who do you think you are? We try to make, with our job, Wikipedia larger, greater and with more data to consult and a child, who thinks is the Wikipedia's owner, the only thing he does here is delete the people's work. I repeat: "Who do you think you are??". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.203.171.197 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The table appears to be

original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. If a table or analysis of highest ranking scores has not been published elsewhere, it cannot be included here, as Wikipedia is a tertiary source. I doubt PeeJay is bothered about England's position; he isn't English. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

O.O OMG!! PeeJay2k3 has gone running to find someone to think in an excuse to delete it. Is not an opinion. Is not a theoretical interpretation of something! It's a fully verifiable data compilation on FIFA.com. That rule is not applicable here. Where has been published table "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings#All-time_highest_ratings"? It's the same table. He isn't English, he's British and his favourite team is the ManU... like you. Oh! I see... You two are angry because they lost the UEFA Champions League against Barcelona and now you are trying to find some (invalid) excuse because you hate Spain. Because I can't understand why you two are trying to delete it with nonsense excuses.

Please read the linked policy page, particularly the section headed "

Synthesis of published material that advances a position". I can't help but raise a smile at your accusation of a pro-Manchester United bias on my part, as nothing could be further from the truth. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Pfffff You have no clue about Wikipedia's rules! This table advance a position??? This is not an opinion! This is not a theoretical interpretation of something! You are who must read it (Once and again and again and again... until you understand it) Is there anyone enough smart here? Tell me... how old are you? Ah! And there are something further from the truth: Your excuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.203.171.197 (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could be mistaken, but doesn't the current system quite heavily discourage friendly matches? For example, if a team plays 10 world cup qualifying matches in a year and wins 5 of them, they might get 500 points for that year (1000 for each win averaged [example numbers] times 5, divided by total matches). However, let's say another team also plays 10 world cup qualifying matches, winning 5, but additionally plays 10 friendly matches, also winning 5 of those. In that case they might get (5*1000+5*500)/20=375 points. The straight forward solution would be to instead of using multipliers simply do a weighted average, meaning instead of dividing by total matches you divide by the total "importance rating" for all games. Considering they did "research" to come up with this new method I cannot believe they overlooked something so simple, so maybe the description is wrong rather than the method. MatsT (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only discourages friendlies if the teams' management and associations prioritise ranking above revenue and match practice. But this is a talk page about constructing the article, not a forum for discussing the pros and cons of the rankings system, so this should be dropped. Kevin McE (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the ranking is used for things such as seeding into qualifier groups, it's definitely not trivial, but I agree I should take that issue elsewhere if the current description is correct. MatsT (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed User:98.207.152.31 edited this page a few weeks ago with regards to penalty shootouts in two-legged draws. However, he did not add a source, and rather left the current one which contradicted him and agreed with what was there. So, I have reinserted the original content and left a message on his talk page. If anyone has a source saying he's right, insert it. Smartyllama (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed FIFA have updated the September ranking (i.e. they have published a new ranking this week - one a bit different from the one they've published on Sep 21).

The explanation is here.

I think this should be somehow included in the article, but feel free to do as you see fit. I don't want to make an edit and then to have someone remove the content because "blog not a RS for blogger's claim of his own influence" :)

Edgar (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have now been at least three (and maybe more) occasions when users have merged multiple cells indicating the progressions of multiple teams as one. See here for a prediction of the probable rankings in December. Let's suppose this holds true. How would we then like to have our table on 21 December:

This way? Rankings Rank Change Team Points 1  Spain 1564 2  Netherlands 1365 3  Germany 1345 4  Uruguay 1309 5  England 1173 6  Brazil 1143 7  Portugal 1100 8  Croatia 1091 9  Italy 1082 10  Argentina 1067 11  Denmark 1035 12  Russia 971 13  Chile 970 14  Greece 964 15  France 915 16  Ivory Coast 912 17   Switzerland 898 18  Sweden 891 19  Japan 884 20 3  Bosnia and Herzegovina 867 21 1  Mexico 864 22 1  Republic of Ireland 851 23 1  Australia 838 24  Paraguay 795 25  Norway 788

Or this way? Rankings Rank Change Team Points 1  Spain 1564 2  Netherlands 1365 3  Germany 1345 4  Uruguay 1309 5  England 1173 6  Brazil 1143 7  Portugal 1100 8  Croatia 1091 9  Italy 1082 10  Argentina 1067 11  Denmark 1035 12  Russia 971 13  Chile 970 14  Greece 964 15  France 915 16  Ivory Coast 912 17   Switzerland 898 18  Sweden 891 19  Japan 884 20 3  Bosnia and Herzegovina 867 21 1  Mexico 864 22  Republic of Ireland 851 23  Australia 838 24  Paraguay 795 25  Norway 788

This is sort of an extreme case, because in most months teams play games fairly often and tend to move up and down the rankings quite irregularly, and thus few or no cells can possibly be merged. In my view the practice of merging is: (1) not generally applied for such purposes, both on Wikipedia and off; (2) less intuitive; (3) not contributory to understanding; (4) especially inappropriate when the merging affects just a few cells. I'm reverting the edit for now, and I'm anticipating comments by other users. --Theurgist (talk) 03:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm not that keen on drawing undue levels of attention to minor fluctuations (consider the most recent update: Brazilian football has not suffered any great disaster, but European teams have just had a series of high value matches), and the arrows are garish and ugly. But if they are wanted (and they were introduced without any discussion), then they should be as per the first example above. Kevin McE (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently editors have started adding movement data to the team articles when updating these stats each month. I would suggest that minor month to month changes are unlikely to be very notable, but when there is no movement, the reader is confronted with a meaningless turquoise coloured bar. Readers should not be left to guess what on earth such a thing can mean. I suggest that this extra detail on the updates should be discontinued. Kevin McE (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal. --John (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If suitable

alt text or "hover over" text is provided, then these symbols are just fine. They're are used ubiquitously in business articles to demonstrate an increase or decrease in positioning, likewise in tennis articles on weekly basis when ATP change their rankings. It's far from confusing, but if it is then let's use the tools we have to make it less confusing. I've already asked User:RexxS (who has a clue about ACCESS, which, while not directly pertinent, is useful here) to comment, and in the meantime I don't understand why one user should just wholesale remove all these templates when they actually provide factual information to the general reader. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It usually seems to fall to me to update the Template:FIFA World Ranking leaders displayed on this page each month. This month, although I did nothing other than change the date of the end of the chart as usual, it has refused to display the Spain label at the top of the chart. Has the template reached some sort of maximum length? Kevin McE (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tested some till dates in preview and the only dates where Spain disappeared were 08/08/2012 and 09/08/2012. I don't know whether they hit some boundary issue in the timeline extension or what but the date is not displayed anyway so I suggest to just change it. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it's not just me. Thanks for looking. I've displayed it until 7th Aug: the percentage inaccuracy is negligible. I'll flag it up at the pump, and see what happens next month. Kevin McE (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. If you are referring to the Spanish flag icon. It's being displayed already.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No: it was a glitch in the timeline specific to a couple of dates last month: the top occurrence of Spain's name wouldn't display, compare the link above to the timeline as on the article now. We were able to evade the issue with a marginally inaccurate date last month, and this month it has not arisen. Don't think we ever got to the cause. Kevin McE (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to current discussion at WT:FOOTY, a list of the top 20 can confidently be assumed to be within allowances if FIFA is likely to be protective of copyright. The table has had headers at various times claiming that having more than 30, and later 25, teams could cause copyright difficulties, although whether any specialist legal knowledge was behind that advice is unclear. At least 20, 25 and 30 have the advantage of being multiples of the number of digits most of us have on each hand: an editor this morning is attempting to add a 26th, which seems a rather random inclusion: the "top 26" is rareley, if ever, sougt after data. I reverted, but in apparent ignorance of, or indifference to, the principles of BRD, he continued.

Suggest reducing to the legally confident top 20: if the upshot of discussion here and at WT:FOOTY is that there should be more than 25/30 on the list, then it seems evident that a full list will be a separate article from this one that deals with the nature and history of the rankings. Kevin McE (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

20 sounds good to me. --Dweller (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely no more than 10% in a snapshot, which equates to 20. If we want a full table that's fine by me, and it should be advertised via a hatnote at the very top of the article, but it shouldn't be bolted onto the side of the article. —WFC— 12:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the belated notice on this page. Please visit the discussion here. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems inaccurate when showing how the ranking points are achieved for each match. According to the FIFA website, there is no dividing by 100 in any of the ranking calculations. Besides, when multiplied by 100 later in the formula given by whoever wrote this article, it would cancel out anyway. Just thought this should be corrected. See: http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/procedureandschedule/menprocedure/index.html

65.51.94.15 (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Maverick[reply]

As stated at the begining of this article, it is about Men's teams ranking only. Shouldn't the title reflect that? I would expect a page titled "FIFA World Rankings" to present all of the national teams rankings offered by the FIFA, with links to each of them, including

The simple reason that this article refers to the men's rankings is that this is the name that FIFA uses for its men's ranking system. FIFA do not refer to the men's rankings as the "FIFA Men's World Rankings", but they do use the name "FIFA Women's World Rankings". –

Jay 14:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Well technically, they use "FIFA/Coca-Cola World Rankings". Is the sponsor's name dropped as per some WP policy on advertisement? On another note, the logo featured on fifa.com and on this page does say "Men's World Ranking" in its title, although it is undoubtly a less legitimate reference than the official name given by the FIFA.Racaillou (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also

FIFA Women's World Rankings got 3711.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Alright you convinced me. Thanks for having taken the time to answer these, PrimeHunter! Racaillou (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some changes. [3] 89.172.222.147 (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for only having a snapshot of the top teams include copyright and maintainability. However, having gone through this page's feedback it is clear that a LOT of readers from a LOT of different countries come to this article expecting to find their country's ranking. In my opinion the current solution works well: we have the top 20, with a clearly marked link to the complete list. I'm posting this just in case anyone else has an idea on other ways we can help our readers find what they are looking for. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 16:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, reference link #9 goes to a page that no longer exists 108.90.236.29 (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is strength of Opposition marked with a "T" in the FIFA rankings? I get that "C" is already used for confederation strength, but where does the T come from. I really hoped Wikipedia would have something about the code letters, because I can't find the logic. Unfortunately, the article doesn't seem to use the FIFA code letters at all (maybe because they are confusing?).

I'll make the radical guess that T stands for team strength, exactly as C stands for confederation strength. But given that this page does not use those abbreviations, it is irrelevant to this article. Kevin McE (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that monthly updates to the page are not complete unless the template:FIFA World Ranking leaders is also updated. It is easy enough, especially if the leadership does not change, simply change the end date in the Period field. If there is a change in leadership, copy and paste one of the existing lines and tweak contents as necessary. Kevin McE (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've calculated points of Spain and got some differences between my result and actual FIFA ranking points. There could be any other team but I cite the example of Spain because it's first in the June 2014 Ranking.

That's my calculations for Spain:

Date	Opponent (FIFA Ranking on the match day)	Tournament/Friendly	Result	Match points
2011
09/02/2011	Colombia (50)	Friendly	1:0	3*1*150*1 = 450
25/03/2011	Czech Republic (31)	UEFA Euro 2012 qualification	2:1	3*2,5*169*1 = 1267,5
29/03/2011	Lithuania (54)	UEFA Euro 2012 qualification	3:1	3*2,5*146*1 = 1095
04/06/2011	United States (22)	Friendly	4:0	3*1*178*0,88 = 469,92
07/06/2011	Venezuela (68)	Friendly	3:0	3*1*132*1 = 396
10/08/2011	Italy (8)	Friendly	1:2	0*1*192*1 = 0
02/09/2011	Chile (11)	Friendly	3:2	3*1*189*1 = 567
06/09/2011	Liechtenstein (119)	UEFA Euro 2012 qualification	6:0	3*2,5*81*1 = 607,5
07/10/2011	Czech Republic (40)	UEFA Euro 2012 qualification	2:0	3*2,5*160*1 = 1200
11/10/2011	Scotland (52)	UEFA Euro 2012 qualification	3:1	3*2,5*148*1 = 1110
12/11/2011	England (7)	Friendly	0:1	0*1*193*1 = 0
15/11/2011	Costa Rica (62)	Friendly	2:2	1*1*138*0,88 = 121,44
2012
29/02/2012	Venezuela (46)	Friendly	5:0	3*1*154*1 = 462
26/05/2012	Serbia (32)	Friendly	2:0	3*1*168*1 = 504
30/05/2012	South Korea (31)	Friendly	4:1	3*1*169*0,86 = 436,02
03/06/2012	China (64)	Friendly	1:0	3*1*134*0,86 = 345,72
10/06/2012	Italy (12)	UEFA Euro 2012	1:1	1*3*188*1 = 564
14/06/2012	Republic of Ireland (18)	UEFA Euro 2012	4:0	3*3*182*1 = 1638
18/06/2012	Croatia (8)	UEFA Euro 2012	1:0	3*3*192*1 = 1728
23/06/2012	France (14)	UEFA Euro 2012	2:0	3*3*186*1 = 1674
27/06/2012	Portugal (10)	UEFA Euro 2012	0:0 a.e.t. 4:2 PSO	3*2*190*1 = 1140
01/07/2012	Italy (12)	UEFA Euro 2012	4:0	3*3*188*1 = 1692
15/08/2012	Puerto Rico (140)	Friendly	2:1	3*1*60*0,88 = 158,4
07/09/2012	Saudi Arabia (104)	Friendly	5:0	3*1*96*0,86 = 247,68
11/09/2012	Georgia (97)	2014 FIFA World Cup qualification	1:0	3*2,5*103*1 = 772,5
12/10/2012	Belarus (76)	2014 FIFA World Cup qualification	4:0	3*2,5*124*1 = 930
16/10/2012	France (15)	2014 FIFA World Cup qualification	1:1	3*2,5*185*1 = 462,5
14/11/2012	Panama (43)	Friendly	5:1	3*1*157*0,88 = 414,48
2013
06/02/2013	Uruguay (16)	Friendly	3:1	3*1*184*1 = 552
22/03/2013	Finland (85)	2014 FIFA World Cup qualification	1:1	1*2,5*115*1 = 287,5
26/03/2013	France (17)	2014 FIFA World Cup qualification	1:0	3*2,5*183*1 = 1372,5
08/06/2013	Haiti (63)	Friendly	2:1	3*1*137*0,88 = 361,68
11/06/2013	Republic of Ireland (61)	Friendly	2:0	3*1*139*1 = 417
16/06/2013	Uruguay (19)	2013 FIFA Confederations Cup	2:1	3*3*181*1 = 1629
20/06/2013	Tahiti (138)	2013 FIFA Confederations Cup	10:0	3*3*62*0,85 = 474,3
23/06/2013	Nigeria (31)	2013 FIFA Confederations Cup	3:0	3*3*169*0,86 = 1308,06
27/06/2013	Italy (8)	2013 FIFA Confederations Cup	0:0 a.e.t. 7:6 PSO	2*3*192*1 = 1152
30/06/2013	Brazil (22)	2013 FIFA Confederations Cup	0:3	0*3*178*1 = 0
14/08/2013	Ecuador (17)	Friendly	2:0	3*1*183*1 = 549
06/09/2013	Finland (65)	2014 FIFA World Cup qualification	2:0	3*2,5*135*1 = 1012,5
10/09/2013	Chile (21)	Friendly	2:2	1*1*179*1 = 179
11/10/2013	Belarus (80)	2014 FIFA World Cup qualification	2:1	3*2,5*120*1 = 900
15/10/2013	Georgia (97)	2014 FIFA World Cup qualification	2:0	3*2,5*168*1 = 772,5
19/11/2013	South Africa (61)	Friendly	0:1	3*1*168*0,86 = 0
2014
05/03/2014	Italy (8)	Friendly	1:0	3*1*192*1 = 576
30/05/2014	Bolivia (68)	Friendly	2:0	3*1*132*1 = 396
07/06/2014	El Salvador (68)	Friendly	2:0	3*1*132*0,88 = 348,48
13/06/2014	Netherlands (15)	2014 FIFA World Cup	1:5	3*4*185*1 = 0
18/06/2014	Chile (14)	2014 FIFA World Cup	0:2	3*4*186*1 = 0
23/06/2014	Australia (62)	2014 FIFA World Cup	3:0	3*4*138*0,86 = 1424,16

And now what is on the FIFA website:

And points for the last 5 matches:

Date	Opponent (FIFA Ranking on the match day)	Tournament/Friendly	Result	Match points
30/05/2014	Bolivia (68)	Friendly	2:0	3*1*132*1 = 396
07/06/2014	El Salvador (68)	Friendly	2:0	3*1*132*0.94 = 372,24
13/06/2014	Netherlands (15)	2014 FIFA World Cup	1:5	3*4*185*1 = 0
18/06/2014	Chile (14)	2014 FIFA World Cup	0:2	3*4*186*1 = 0
23/06/2014	Australia (62)	2014 FIFA World Cup	3:0	3*4*138*0,93= 1540,08

It's said that values for AFC and CONCACAF are 0,86 and 0,88 on the page FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking Procedure, respectively. But form the calculation on the FIFA website it follows that values for AFC and CONCACAF are 0,93 and 0,94, respectively.

I would be very grateful if somebody could tell where's my mistake :) Andrey Tsyganov (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, your mistake was trying to calculate these figures at all. The only figures that matter are FIFA's, and it's not up to us to question them. –

Jay 07:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It's the average of the confederation weightings for the teams involved in the match. Thus for a UEFA vs. CONCACAF match it's (1 + 0.88)/2 = 0.94.--Edgar (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a table with the time spent by teams at #1?

I believe this would be a good edition and more clearer than the image placed to the right. Xenomorph1984 (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree - We need to see which teams have spent the most time at #1 since the life cycle of the world rankings. I've searched FIFA's website and see no easy way to get this historical data. Anyone else know where this information could be garnered - Other that going through every single month on FIFA.com and manually totalling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joerow (talk • contribs) 11:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This source differentiates between Team of the Year and First on FIFA Ranking, but this

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930060818/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060525.wfifa25/BNStory/Sports/home to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060525.wfifa25/BNStory/Sports/home

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

As of July 14th, the Criticism section of the article contains a table with discrepancies between FIFA and Elo ranking as evidence that the FIFA ranking discriminates against certain confederations. While I agree in principle that the regional-strength factor is discriminatory, the table is inadequate for several reasons: (i) it compares FIFA data before the recent Copa America and Euro with Elo data from after those tournament (e.g., the ranks for USA and Russia were almost equivalent before); (ii) notable exceptions in the other direction are simply ignored (France 17th in FIFA, 4th in Elo, Algeria 32nd in FIFA, 47th in Elo); (iii) the table is unsystematic and reeks of original research. In my humble opinion, the table ought to be removed, it is enough to say that the regional-strength factor causes different teams to obtain different points for the same performances. -- 138.231.127.2 (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My criticism in the FIFA ranking is not the regional-strength factor, given that it exists, but that it doesn't exist in a intra-regional stregth factor, is the same Germany v San Marino than Brazil v Venezuela...the Ranking ELO has a overestimation of the British teams and the fact that all we know that not is the same the Copa América than the Asian Cup or the OFC Cup181.29.116.218 (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080612172351/http://www.fifa.com:80/worldfootball/releases/newsid=104405.html to http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/releases/newsid=104405.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080612172346/http://www.fifa.com:80/worldfootball/ranking/news/newsid=104272.html to http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/news/newsid=104272.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111225043322/http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/southafrica2010/finaldraw/news/newsid=1142262/ to http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/southafrica2010/finaldraw/news/newsid=1142262/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110427075653/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225199592139&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225199592139&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081116144920/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1226404717350&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1226404717350&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081116143529/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1226404731036&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1226404731036&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614173120/http://www.travour.com:80/fifa-world-cup-2006/fifa-rankings.html to http://www.travour.com/fifa-world-cup-2006/fifa-rankings.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629062404/http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/rawrank/ip590_04e_wrlong_2640.pdf to http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/rawrank/ip590_04e_wrlong_2640.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629062408/http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/rawrank/ip590_05e_q&a_2641.pdf to http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/rawrank/ip590_05e_q&a_2641.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110925162326/http://www.fifa.com:80/worldfootball/ranking/news/newsid=1497612.html to http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/news/newsid=1497612.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720140712/http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/awards/gala/bestmover.html to http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/awards/gala/bestmover.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160721140211/http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/news/y=2015/m=12/news=belgium-and-turkey-claim-awards-hungary-return-2741598.html to http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/news/y=2015/m=12/news=belgium-and-turkey-claim-awards-hungary-return-2741598.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161222224500/http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/news/y=2016/m=12/news=argentina-and-france-take-ranking-awards-2861406.html?intcmp=fifacom_hp_module_news_top to http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/news/y=2016/m=12/news=argentina-and-france-take-ranking-awards-2861406.html?intcmp=fifacom_hp_module_news_top

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/releases/newsid%3D104405.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/news/newsid%3D104272.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/southafrica2010/finaldraw/news/newsid%3D1142262/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225199592139&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.travour.com/fifa-world-cup-2006/fifa-rankings.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/rawrank/ip590_05e_q%26a_2641.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/news/newsid%3D1497612.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101218180552/http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/news/newsid%3D1351535.html to http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/news/newsid%3D1351535.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/news/y%3D2015/m%3D12/news%3Dbelgium-and-turkey-claim-awards-hungary-return-2741598.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/news/y%3D2016/m%3D12/news%3Dargentina-and-france-take-ranking-awards-2861406.html?intcmp=fifacom_hp_module_news_top

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like there is at World_Football_Elo_Ratings#List_of_number_one_teams. 188.27.39.222 (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea when FIFA will get round to publishing a new version? It's 2 months since the last and nearly a month since the World Cup Final. --

@Dweller: According to this official site regarding the ranking procedure, the next FIFA Men's Ranking is scheduled to be published on August 16. Felida97 (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --

old fashioned! 13:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Why it is removed? I also think that it should not be there, but the sources say it is. Like bowser, where did you find the source without that point?--IgorMagic (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This document from FIFA (released in June) shows the match importance without the decimal points. I believe this PDF was the first released by FIFA regarding the new FIFA World Ranking, which suggests decreasing the match importance coefficients by 90% (as shown in the document you added as a source today) might be a recent alteration to the ranking algorithm and not a typo. GazThomas402 (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now this document linked by FIFA in their article today doesn’t include the decimal points. Looks look it was a typo after all. GazThomas402 (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anywhere the detailed calculations of rankings? I tried to calculate points by myself and got the results that slightly differ from those from the FIFA list. I guess the numbers are rounded somewhere, but don't know yet where.--IgorMagic (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I missed some friendlies before the World Cup, now it seems OK.--IgorMagic (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the new calculation method lists the following weights:

• W – the result of the game:
  • 0 – loss after regular or extra time
  • 0.5 – draw or loss in a penalty shootout
  • 0.75 – win in a penalty shootout
  • 1 – win after regular or extra time.

In loss (0+1=1), win (1+0=1), and draw (0.5+0.5=1) outcomes, the W coefficients for opposing teams sum to 1, which means that the opposing teams get/lose the same amount of points. For example, one team gets 7 points, the other loses 7 points. (That’s because W_e coefficients for opposing teams also sum to 1.)

However, in a penalty shootout situation, the winning team gets more points than is lost by the losing team. For example, one team gets 11 points, the other loses 9 points. This means that the total amount of points in the world increases, causing a gradual inflation of the rating points over time.

Shouldn’t the weight corresponding to a loss in a penalty shootout be 0.25, not 0.5?

46.242.13.150 (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation is indeed the case. Even more so, as losses in knock-out matches of final competitions don't subtract points at all. -Koppapa (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, FIFA forgot to hire a mathematician/statistician to oversee the design of the new ranking system. That’s unfortunate. World Football Elo Ratings do not have this design flaw. I also think that the inclusion of goal difference coefficient in the formula (similar to WFER) would result in more exciting games, as every additional goal would count. Hopefully, FIFA will fix this in the future. 46.242.13.150 (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

section to be updated according to 2019 schedule.Sumit Singh ^T 06:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The title on the official website is Men's Rankings and even the logo says 'Men's World Rankings', the current title is not accurate and doesn't account for the women's rankings, so needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.170.112.31 (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Current FIFA ranking includes 210 teams, compared to the previous version's 211 teams. This is probably because one team got removed due to being inactive for four years. I'm curious, which team is it that hasn't played a competitive match in four years? 89.110.8.225 (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been plenty of controversies surrounding Belgium's no.1 position in the FIFA ranking, especially considering how the Belgians have been incapable to take home at least a major international honour. Should have taken this. 27.79.209.4 (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about? The rankings are based on a point system. JoshuaInWiki (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What means "P_before – the team's number of points before the game"? All the games before the last? From the first game in the 19th century?--Maxaxa (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxaxax: "points" does not refer to 3/1/0 points for win/draw/loss if that's what confuses you. It's the ranking points the team had right before the game. The ranking points is a decimal number which is recomputed after each match (but only published with longer periods). PrimeHunter (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is the longer period that confuses me. How long is the period? Maxaxa (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxaxax: "Date" at https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/men?dateId=id13792 shows around 7 published rankings per year but it's irrelevant to the computation of ranking pints. They are recomputed after every match. It's exactly as it says: "P_before – the team's number of points before the game". ${\displaystyle P=P_{\text{before}}+I(W-W_{e})}$ is the formula for the points after the match. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to update the top ten countries in FIFA ranking according to the latest data Dipayan2003 (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The top 10 countries in FIFA ranking is outdated. I want to update the latest rankings which will be helpful to the Wikipedia community Dipayan2003 (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The current rankings at FIFA match what's in the article. When FIFA publishes new rankings, it will be updated. Mindmatrix 17:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they updated it as of 22 December 2022. Might want to edit that quickly. JoshuaInWiki (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MAR/Morocco deserves to be the best mover of 2022 in the Fifa Rating. Benson Mwangi Kirathe (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request:

Please change the dr in the following formula and explanation:

• W_e – the expected result of the game:

${\displaystyle W_{e}={\frac {1}{10^{-{\frac {dr}{600}}}+1}}}$

where dr is the difference between two teams' ratings before the game.

To ${\displaystyle \Delta }$ as:

• W_e – the expected result of the game:

${\displaystyle W_{e}={\frac {1}{10^{-{\frac {\Delta }{600}}}+1}}}$

where ${\displaystyle \Delta }$ is the difference between two teams' ratings before the game.

Reason for request

The dr in the formula denotes a multiplication of d times r, in mathematical terms. Since in this case dr describes the difference between two numbers, ${\displaystyle \Delta }$ should be the correct notation for the variable.

Citation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_letters_used_in_mathematics,_science,_and_engineering#%CE%94%CE%B4_(delta) FalconTube (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done current formula is pulled verbatim from fifa's official description of the calculation. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sticking with the official description is a good idea. However, there seem to be formatting errors in FIFA's document, compare "Pbefore" in https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/f99da4f73212220/original/edbm045h0udbwkqew35a-pdf.pdf. To still comply with official documentation, I would rephrase my request to use ${\displaystyle d_{r}}$ instead of ${\displaystyle \Delta }$. This to me seems like the intended notation. FalconTube (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To track the calculation using the official website FIFA.com - World Ranking. The calculation also match with this source for example from 10th December 2020 Brusselstimes.

from to Days Country 31.12.1992 08.08.1993 220 Germany 08.08.1993 23.09.1993 46 Germany 23.09.1993 19.11.1993 57 Brazil 19.11.1993 23.12.1993 34 Italy 23.12.1993 19.04.1994 117 Germany 19.04.1994 14.06.1994 56 Brazil 14.06.1994 21.07.1994 37 Germany 21.07.1994 16.05.2001 2491 Brazil 16.05.2001 03.07.2002 413 France 03.07.2002 14.02.2007 1687 Brazil 14.02.2007 14.03.2007 28 Italy 14.03.2007 18.04.2007 35 Argentina 18.04.2007 18.07.2007 91 Italy 18.07.2007 19.09.2007 63 Brazil 19.09.2007 24.10.2007 35 Italy 24.10.2007 02.07.2008 252 Argentina 02.07.2008 01.07.2009 364 Spain 01.07.2009 20.11.2009 142 Brazil 20.11.2009 28.04.2010 159 Spain 28.04.2010 14.07.2010 77 Brazil 14.07.2010 24.08.2011 406 Spain 24.08.2011 21.09.2011 28 Netherlands 21.09.2011 17.07.2014 1030 Spain 17.07.2014 09.07.2015 357 Germany 09.07.2015 05.11.2015 119 Argentina 05.11.2015 07.04.2016 154 Belgium 07.04.2016 06.04.2017 364 Argentina 06.04.2017 06.07.2017 91 Brazil 06.07.2017 10.08.2017 35 Germany 10.08.2017 14.09.2017 35 Brazil 14.09.2017 16.08.2018 336 Germany 16.08.2018 20.09.2018 35 France 20.09.2018 25.10.2018 35 FR & BE 25.10.2018 31.03.2022 1253 Belgium 31.03.2022 06.04.2023 371 Brazil 06.04.2023 29.06.2023 84 Argentina

No. Team Days at No. 1 1  Brazil 5070 days 2  Spain 1959 days 3  Belgium 1442 days [note 1] 4  Germany 1148 days 5  Argentina 0854 days 6  France 0483 days [note 1] 7  Italy 0188 days 8  Netherlands 0028 days ^ a b Belgium and France jointly led for 35 days.

Miria~01 (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you edit the FIFA rankings in each of the national teams? Or are they supposed to be automatic? JoshuaInWiki (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. 31 Dec 1992
2. 8 Aug 1993
3. 23 Sep 1993
4. 22 Oct 1993
5. 19 Nov 1993
6. 23 Dec 1993