Introduction







The Latin American Clubs Evaluation

I.  Introduction and Historical Literature Review
         
           The South & Central American club football history started when the amateur football in Americas was first ever established in Argentina 1893 and afterwards most Latin American leagues turned professional in the mid-1930s and latest in 1977 for Bolivian football. The Latin American clubs competed football with the extreme irregularity of competition formats has left the complexity and difficulty for us to reach the status of each European club in its whole history. .
          All-Time South & Central American cups ranking[1][2] [Raul Torre, 2017] were evaluated by methodological trophy standard points for each Latin American international competition. The world club team all-time ranking[3] and The Worldwide historical club ranking[4] based on mathematics [Marcelo, 2016) ranks the team based on titles criteria which is set the standard points of title acquisition between the leagues and the point given to any league are equally given between seasons. By this context, there is no proven source of standard point and not represents the actual fluctuation of the league/international cup standard from era to era. The evaluations were also not differentiated the performances to achieve the round or title.
   Accordingly, this work’s objective is to study, integrally regulate and standardize the system of the entire Latin American club history for the evaluation, including all performance characteristics (win-draw-lose, goal difference, place, round and trophy) against the determined standard of competitions within the designed system of methodology conformed to the existed format or condition at any point of evaluation.  

II. Methodology

    1) International Club 
         1.1) Determine the winner of each annual Latin American competition by qualitative analysis. For the non-int-club era, the official friendly results are support to stipulate the value, if no enough record, performance of its national team are applied for consideration.
      1.2) Determine the competitive level by counting goal difference to calculate its average for each round and input by the following formula ; 
         (∑ Goal Difference Average/(Number of Round x 4.5))
         (Number of Round +((6-Number of round)/2))/6
       1.3) The standard of competition (STD) = Top Level X Competitive Level
       1.4) The Status Performance (STS) = SQRT(TLS- (FTC – 1) x GS x STD
             Finished Round Coefficient (FRC) (Winner = 1, Runner-Up = 2, SF = 3, QF = 4, R16 = 5, R32 = 6, R64 = 7, R128 = 8)
             GS = Gap Standard = 0.65+(6- number of round)*0.05
             TLS = Top Level Standard (UCL/EC =5, UC = 4.5, CWC/ERP = 3.7)
      1.5) The Raw Direct Performance (RDRT) is calculated by chain of beaten from top level to the evaluated team. Being beaten 1 goal is equal to – 0.4. Then, the performance will be adjusted +0.75 and x 0.85 to give positive value for negative raw data.   
      1.6) The total performance = SQRT(STS X ADRT)

    2) Domestic League 
     2.1) Determine the raw direct performance (RDRT) by point and goal difference         
         Point Ratio = ((Games win x 2.5) +(Games Draw x 1))/Number of Games  
           Goal Difference Ratio = Goal Difference/Number of Games
           RDRT = (Point Ratio x 0.75) +(Goal Difference Ratio x 0.25)          
       2.2) Determine top level 
         2.21) Top Tier League : Referring to the best performance in international club (TEU) against the competitive level by the formula : PSTD (Primary Standard) = (TEU x (2 – Variance)/2)
          2.22) The Second League : Implementing benchmark method by calculating the average place of the promoted teams between the previous season to the calculated season and to the next seasons. The obtained calculated finished place is applied to the table in the calculated season linked to its raw direct performance that is a top level. The decimal > 0.15 and < 0.85 of the finished place value is required to calculate for average value between places. The obtained value is acted as TRDP in clause 2.23 
             2.23) The Top Level Raw Direct performance (TRDP) is adjusted by + 0.75 x 1.5 to give positive value for negative raw data to be the top level adjusted direct performance (TADP)
           2.24)  The top level performance (TLV) is the direct performance against primary standard 
                TLV = TEU+((Y-(((-X2)/8)+(X/8)+5))/2) ; Y = TADP, X = PSTD
      2.3) Standard of League (STDL)        
           STDL = Top Level Performance x Competitive Level 
           Competitive Level = (2-Sc)/2
            S1= Variance = ∑ (x1-µ)2/number of members ; 
            x1 = point ratio (win = 2.5 point, draw 1 point)
            S2= Variance = ∑ (x2-µ)2/number of members ; 
            x2 = goal difference (Separate positive and negative µ value)
            Sc (Combined Varaince) = S1 (0.75) + S2 (0.25)   
       2.4) Final Calculation
           Final Direct Performance (FDP) = (RDRT+0.75 x 1.5) x (TLV/TADP)
        Status Performance (STS) = SQRT[(5-(FP -1)*0.1) x STDL]for Top Flight
          SQRT[5-(N1-1)*0.1] x STDL1 - [SQRT[(5-(FP -1)*0.1) x STDL2] for 2nd Tier
           N1 = Number of team in top fllight
           League Performance = SQRT[FDP x STS]
    3) Domestic Cup
      Implement the same method as International club and the top level is determined from international club as well as the league competition. 

    4) Final Calculation
        Basic Proportional Weight : Domestic League 52 %, Domestic Cup 16 %, Int. Club 32 %    The performance is calculated in aggregate within a season not separated since the performance between competitions were a mutual dependent factors as football is purpose to mainly win the trophy not optimize the performance in any of competition level. As many of competitions are tournaments formats, it is implemented and calculated in aggregate mini-leagues method. For the season without domestic cup, basically the domestic league proportion is expanded to 60 % and increase more 16 % in non-international club era. Exceptionally the league proportion could be increased between 77 at minimum and 80 % at maximum by compensation from over number of participation (> 38 to 46 games per seasons).  However, if the obtained performance is a negative value, it is not applied to the system and equal to Zero. That mean the lowest value to apply for the system has been standardized.
    To standardize the opportunity of international club participation. The standard value of league performance at 3.25 has been set. The clubs that achieved this value but not get the opportunity because its league is competitive, will be compensated the higher proportion for domestic competition by 50 %. In contrary, the clubs that got the opportunity to play in international club with less than 3.25 of league performance in the previous season will be deducted the entire seasonal int. club points that is less than 2.5 in the over-participated number
    The obtained seasonal performance will be matched to multiply with proportional weight of the best 92 seasons whose number is an average of available league seasons for the 50 qualified teams and calculated the sum to obtain aggregate total.
       The trophy bonus is designed in the following table.


      The league trophy bonus is given for only the club achieved the highest league point among Latin American leagues in each season. The domestic cup is not applied as a single bonus as the South & Central American international cup has represented the teams in elimination format. However, it is applied for double and triple trophies if the club won International competitions and also won domestic cup. The international trophy bonus is applied for only Copa Libertadores Cup for South Americas and CONCACAF Gold Cup for only seasons the central American clubs achieved the standard rating (>4). Other than that is not applied to prevent injustice disadvantage for the teams that get deep round in other competitions but not acquire trophy.
5) The Decisive Factors
      0.2 % is required as a minimum value to unanimously decide the rank. If not, consider if the comparison couple has the other seasons than average, if so, compare its other best season by one. 0.1 is a minimum value to beat, if not, consider another season until match the rule. In case of no other season, the peak season is a decisive value with a minimum 0.1 to significantly differentiate. If not, recomparing in the second peak season or more if necessary.   
                                 
III. Implementation
            
       51 clubs are selected for implementation by considering number of available seasons and the entire finished places. 3 Paraguayan clubs are not implemented as none of available league records. The implementation was done by excel formula database by manual input and correction checking. All related Latin American seasonal league tables are calculated for the club performance and standard of competition. All related cup competition games are count for the goal difference to determine competitive level. Finally, all performance and standards result are input the conclusive table. Each club are input the performance data in each part of competition and calculate for the aggregate seasonal point by competition-level proportional weight conformed to the actual condition at the time.   
      The unavailable record : Paraguayan League (1906 – 1991). The Paraguayan clubs are ranked by international performance comparison against the estimative opportune factor of participation. Mexican Cup (1956 – 1962, 1969, 1971 - 1976). For these related years, Club America and CD Guadalajara has a record of finished place. However the competitive level is set by estimation. In the case of record unavailability, the case is equal to the unavailable competition that allows a higher portion of domestic league.


IV. Result

 The 50 Greatest Latin American Clubs of All-Time




*Remark : Universidad de Chile beat Universitario by third peak season

Statistics by nation (also ranked by performance if equal in number)

12 : Brazil, 10 : Argentina, 5 : Colombia, 4 : Chile, Mexico 
3 : Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Ecuador, 2 : Costa Rica, 1 : Bolivia

                   Best League Performer in Americas by Season                   

Statistics by Club

10 : River Plate
8 : Boca Juniors, Penarol
6 : Nacional, 5 : Corinthians, 4 : Independiente
3 : San Lorenzo, Sao Paolo, Palmeiras, Vasco Da Gama, America De Cali, Santos
2 : Olimpia, Racing Club, Cruzeiro, Velez Sarsfield, Colo Colo, Flamengo
   Atletico Mineiro, Universiad De Catolica, Botafogo
1 : Internacional, Millonarios, Universitario, Estudientes, Union Espanola, Sao Caetano


Statistics by Nation 

30 : Brazil, 29 : Argentina, 13 : Uruguay, 5 : Chile
3 : Colombia, 2 : Paraguay, 1: Peru

V.  Discussion

        The methodological implementation allows the rankings to have represented the clubs’ entire performances against the determined standard and greatness throughout the history. However, the qualitative analysis to determine top level performance of the best club in Latin Americas between seasons and eras are provided by author’s cumulative tacit knowledge converted to mathematics that is always debatable but the scale of tolerance is however quite narrowed, possibly effecting on the change of rankings in a minor part. Additionally, the proportional criteria between parts of evaluation and the proportional weight given to highest to lowest performance has a main role to finalize the ranking. 
       The seasonal weight applied to the seasonal rating reduces the disadvantage of the teams that participated in lower seasons than average group in case of achieving a competitive high peak and the teams participated in more seasons than average group is just advantageous as they had more opportunities but the number of calculated seasons is still limited in average value.      
        The result of implementation saw the disqualification of 4 clubs from highest to lowest are LDU Quito, Argentinos Juniors, Atletico Junior and UNAM Pumas. LDU Quito’s total score is lowered than Santa Fe, the last place in the table in the amount that is unanimously differentiable although LDU's aggregate peak is more than that of Santa Fe by 0.8. Argentinos Juniors is the only club that won Copa Libertadores Cup but disqualifies for top 50 ranking list as the majority of club history were spent in the average places of first tier or even second tier.
        Penarol appeared as the all-time best Latin American club ever as approximated, beating the second place River Plate by 0.94 % of point when the aggregate peak is equal between the two clubs. Boca Juniors’ evaluated point is not significantly differentiated to River Plate but the aggregate season enabling River Plate to be eligible for obtaining higher place suddenly.
        The best Brazilian club Sao Paolo appears in top five, considering to beat Olimpia Asuncione, who achieved similar titles and runner-up in Copa Libertadores Cup, by lower value of opportune participation factor. Santos who achieved the highest aggregate peak among Brazilian clubs finished the fourth place among Brazilian clubs. Gremio and Internacional are disadvantageous as the pre-1960s Campeonato Gaucho was competed in elimination format with a few numbers of appearances.    
       Outside the big three nations, Chilean clubs are advantageous in term of domestic cup participation and allows Colo Colo to finish near top 10. Surprisingly, it was Universidad Catolica that achieved the highest aggregate peak season in the continents. In 1962, the club finished runner-up in both domestic league and cup and was defeated by Santos narrowly in semi-final round. The three Paraguayan clubs are ranked by approximation technique with an inevitable large biased as none of league record existence. Colombian and Ecuadorian clubs collected fewer number of seasons than the others and highly impact on its status in history.    
    There are six CONCACAF clubs qualified in top 50 list with the best representative Club America but no one achieve the best league performer in Latin Americas and Only Club America in 1983 achieve the international trophy bonus.  


Reference

   [4] http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/mathclubrank.html



Annex : The Greatest Latin American League Performers Ever




Annex : The Greatest Latin League Performers Ever by Latin American Nation





The European Clubs Evaluation

I.  Introduction and Historical Literature Review
    Throughout the European club football history, there was a chronological evolutionary change of competitions. The first professional football in Europe was formed in England 1892 but most of European leagues turned professional in the 1930s and latest in 1950s. The limitations of football at the early era such as non-existence of international club competition, the irregularity of competition format and qualification, etc has left the complexity and difficulty for us to reach the status of each European club in its whole history. 
   All-Time European club ranking[1] [Van Rijswijck, 2004] were evaluated by methodological standard points for each European international competitions by rounds (QF to Final). The world club team all-time ranking[2] and The Worldwide historical club ranking[3] based on mathematics [Marcelo, 2016) ranks the team based on titles criteria which is set the standard points of title acquisition between the leagues and the point given to any league are equally given between seasons. By this context, there is no proven source of standard point and not represents the actual fluctuation of the league/international cup standard from era to era. The evaluations were also not differentiated the performances to achieve the round or title.
   Accordingly, this work’s objective is to study, integrally regulate and standardize the system of the entire European club history for the evaluation, including all performance characteristics (win-draw-lose, goal difference, place, round and trophy) against the determined standard of competitions within the designed system of methodology conformed to the existed format or condition at any point of evaluation.  
II. Methodology

    1) European International Club 

     1.1) Determine the winner of each annual European competition by qualitative analysis. For the non-int-club era, the official friendly results are support to stipulate the value, if no enough record, performance of its national team are applied for consideration.

      1.2) Determine the competitive level by counting goal difference to calculate its average for each round and input by the following formula ; 
         (∑ Goal Difference Average/(Number of Round x 4.5))
         (Number of Round +((6-Number of round)/2))/6

       1.3) The standard of competition (STD) = Top Level X Competitive Level
       1.4) The Status Performance (STS) = SQRT(TLS- (FTC – 1) x GS x STD
             Finished Round Coefficient (FRC) (Winner = 1, Runner-Up = 2, SF = 3, QF = 4, R16 = 5, R32 = 6, R64 = 7, R128 = 8)
             GS = Gap Standard = 0.65+(6- number of round)*0.05
             TLS = Top Level Standard (UCL/EC =5, UC = 4.5, CWC/ERP = 3.7)

      1.5) The Raw Direct Performance (RDRT) is calculated by chain of beaten from top level to the evaluated team. Being beaten 1 goal is equal to – 0.4. Then, the performance will be adjusted +0.75 and x 0.85 to give positive value for negative raw data.   
     1.6) The total performance = SQRT(STS X ADRT)


    2) Domestic League 

     2.1) Determine the raw direct performance (RDRT) by point and goal difference         
         Point Ratio = ((Games win x 2.5) +(Games Draw x 1))/Number of Games  
           Goal Difference Ratio = Goal Difference/Number of Games

           RDRT = (Point Ratio x 0.75) +(Goal Difference Ratio x 0.25)          

       2.2) Determine top level 

       2.21) Top Tier League : Referring to the best performance in international club (TEU) against the competitive level by the formula : PSTD (Primary Standard) = (TEU x (2 – Variance)/2)

       2.22) The Second League : Implementing benchmark method by calculating the average place of the promoted teams between the previous season to the calculated season and to the next seasons. The obtained calculated finished place is applied to the table in the calculated season linked to its raw direct performance that is a top level. The decimal > 0.15 and < 0.85 of the finished place value is required to calculate for average value between places. The obtained value is acted as TRDP in clause 2.23 

          2.23) The Top Level Raw Direct performance (TRDP) is adjusted by + 0.75 x 1.5 to give positive value for negative raw data to be the top level adjusted direct performance (TADP)

        2.24)  The top level performance (TLV) is the direct performance against primary standard 
                TLV = TEU+((Y-(((-X2)/8)+(X/8)+5))/2) ; Y = TADP, X = PSTD

      2.3) Standard of League (STDL)        
           STDL = Top Level Performance x Competitive Level 

           Competitive Level = (2-Sc)/2

            S1= Variance = ∑ (x1-µ)2/number of members ; 
            x1 = point ratio (win = 2.5 point, draw 1 point)
            S2= Variance = ∑ (x2-µ)2/number of members ; 
            x2 = goal difference (Separate positive and negative µ value)
            Sc (Combined Varaince) = S1 (0.75) + S2 (0.25)   

       2.4) Final Calculation

           Final Direct Performance (FDP) = (RDRT+0.75 x 1.5) x (TLV/TADP)

        Status Performance (STS) = SQRT[(5-(FP -1)*0.1) x STDL]for Top Flight
          SQRT[5-(N1-1)*0.1] x STDL1 - [SQRT[(5-(FP -1)*0.1) x STDL2] for 2nd Tier
           N1 = Number of team in top fllight
           League Performance = SQRT[FDP x STS]

    3) Domestic Cup

      Implement the same method as International club and the top level is determined from international club as well as the league competition. For tournament championship such as German Championship in pre-bundesliga era, it is implemented in the same concept as performance in knock-out tournament is used for identifying value of top level team.       

    4) Final Calculation

      Basic Proportional Weight : Domestic League 52 %, Domestic Cup 16 %, Int. Club 32 % (Except Mitropa Cup 20 % (1927 – 1933) and 24 % (1934 – 1939)
      The performance is calculated in aggregate within a season not separated since the performance between competitions were a mutual dependent factors as football is purpose to mainly win the trophy not optimize the performance in any of competition level. For the season without domestic cup, the domestic league proportion is expanded to 60 % and increase for 16 % in non-international club era. However, if the obtained performance is a negative value, it is not applied to the system and equal to Zero. That mean the lowest value to apply for the system has been standardized.

       To standardize the opportunity of international club participation. The standard value of league performance at 3.25 has been set. The clubs that achieved this value but not get the opportunity because its league is competitive, will be compensated the higher proportion for domestic competition by 50 %. In contrary, the clubs that got the opportunity to play in international club with less than 3.25 of league performance in the previous season will be deducted the entire seasonal int. club points that is less than 2.5 in the over-participated number .     

    The obtained seasonal performance will be matched to multiply with proportional weight of the best 92 seasons whose number is an average of available league seasons for the 100 qualified teams and calculated the sum to obtain aggregate total.

        The trophy bonus is designed in the following table.
       The league trophy bonus is given for only the club achieved the highest league point among European league in each season. The domestic cup is not applied as a single bonus as the European international cup has represented the European team in elimination format. However, it is applied for double and triple trophies if the club won European competitions and also won domestic cup. The European bonus is applied only the competitions whose winner is a potential best club in Europe. The Mitropa Cup is applied between 1927 - 1939. Cup Winners Cup is applied only for 1961 when Inter Cities Fair Cup was mostly competed between cities all stars and UEFA cup is applied between 1962 - 1997. Other than that is not applied to prevent injustice disadvantage for the teams that get deep round in other competitions but not acquire trophy.

5) The Decisive Factors

    0.2 % is required as a minimum value to unanimously decide the rank. If not, consider if the comparison couple has the other seasons than average, if so, compare its other best season by one. 0.1 is a minimum value to beat, if not, consider another season until match the rule. In case of no other season, the peak season is a decisive value with a minimum 0.1 to significantly differentiate. If not, recomparing in the second peak season or more if necessary.   
                                 

III. Implementation
            
    103 clubs are selected for implementation by considering number of available seasons and the entire finished places. The implementation was done by excel formula database by manual input and correction checking. All related European seasonal league tables are calculated for the club performance and standard of competition. All related cup competition games are count for the goal difference to determine competitive level. Finally, all performance and standards result are input the conclusive table. Each club are input the performance data in each part of competition and calculate for the aggregate seasonal point by competition-level proportional weight conformed to the actual condition at the time.   
    The unavailable record : Czechoslovakian Cup 1960 – 1970, Czech and Slovak Cup 1971 – 1980 ; Hungarian Cup 1934, 1935, 1941 – 1944, 1952, 1955, 1958, 1965 – 1968. For these related years, the competitive level is set by estimation. Ferencvaroc rating is effected little as there are the club result record as well as Slavia Prague. In the case of record unavailability, the case is equal to the unavailable competition that allows a higher portion of domestic league.


IV. Result

 The 100 Greatest European Clubs of All-Time



Statistics by nation (also ranked by performance if equal in number)

11 : England, Germany
10 : Spain, Italy  
7 : Soviet Union, France 
4 : Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Scotland 
3 : Holland, Portugal, Belgium, Turkey, Greece, Switzerland 
2 : Austria, Romania, Bulgaria, Sweden, Poland


Remark : FC Porto beat Celtic by the second peak season
           Austria Vienna beat Tottenham in 93th peak season
           Dortmund beat Hamburge by the third peak season
           FC Cologne beat Hajduk Split by the third peak season
           Stuttgart beat Dinamo Bucharest by the second peak season
           Gladbach beat Leeds by the second peak season
                     
                    Best League Performer in Europe by Season                   
Statistics by club

8 : Barcelona, 7 Real Madrid, 6 Bayern Munich, 5 Ajax Amsterdam, Inter Milan
3 : AC Milan, Ferencvarosi, MTK Hungary
2 : Rapid Vienna, Arsenal, Sparta Prague, Torino, Budapest Honved
    Atletico Madrid, Borussia Munchengladbach 
1 : Hamburge, Manchester City, Wolverhampton, Sporting Portugal, Fiorentina,      Glasgow Celtic, Benfica, Bologna, Red Star Belgrade, Nottingham Forest,          Athletic Bilbao, Ujpest

Statistics by nation 

18 : Spain 
15 : Italy
10 : England, Germany
9 : Hungary
6 : Netherlands
3 : Czech Republic
2 : Portugal, Austria
1 : Scotland, Serbia, France


V.  Discussion

        The methodological implementation allows the rankings to have represented the clubs’ entire performances against the determined standard and greatness throughout the history. However, the qualitative analysis to determine top level performance of the best club in Europe between seasons and eras are provided by author’s cumulative tacit knowledge converted to mathematics that is always debatable but the scale of tolerance is however quite narrowed, possibly effecting on the change of rankings in a minor part. Additionally, the proportional criteria between parts of evaluation and the proportional weight given to highest to lowest performance has a main role to finalize the ranking. 
       The seasonal weight applied to the seasonal rating reduces the disadvantage of the teams that participated in lower seasons than average group in case of achieving a competitive high peak and the teams participated in more seasons than average group is just advantageous as they had more opportunities but the number of calculated seasons is still limited in average value.      
       The result of implementation saw the disqualification of 3 clubs from highest to lowest are Ruch Chorzow, Wisla Krakow and Parma. The two Polish clubs were selected as they have a similar number of seasonal domestic places to Legia Warsaw but the results show that they achieved its highest performance in lower level than that of Legia Warsaw for the most parts. Parma is known to achieve one of the highest peaks in their golden era during the second half 1990s. However, the club spent in Series C too long and the post-golden era have also been struggling to sustain their place in the top flight.    
       Real Madrid is unsurprisingly ranked as a number one of Europe. Although the club won league titles much more than Barcelona, they are rated as the best European seasonal league performer less than Barcelona, who is the most winners for this status, 1 time and Barcelona also achieves the higher peak by aggregate season.           
           Bayern Munich’s place implies the absolute difference parts of the club between the pre-Bundesliga and post-Bundesliga era. Between 1920 – 1963, Bayern's place is roughly determined in the same status as German second league around 20 seasons and is also comparable to participate the third tier in 1955 and 1956 when they finished bottom place in Oberliga Sud and the top place in Oberliga Sud second tier.
         Internazionale win in the All-Time Battle of Milan. The overall score is similar. However, Inter achieved higher level within their peak seasons with some of Double and a Triple. AC Milan mostly achieved its peak performance in domestic and international in different seasons.  
        Man Utd VS Liverpool is an important issue. If not applied weight to the seasons and count every available English seasons, Liverpool win by more than 2.5 % of point. Man Utd also would beat Liverpool if applied weights and count all English seasons. For all that, Man Utd surpasses Liverpool more than 0.2 % in the table so they’re eligible to be ranked higher automatically.   
        The non-European international competition era is designed to give the higher point for the highest league performer as well as the point for Mitropa club competition and the result reflected to save the great central European clubs in the pre-European cup era in a high place. The best eastern European club is highly competitive when the Dinamo Kiev, Sparta Prague and Rapid Vienna are ranked adjacently. However, as aforementioned in implementation part, the Czechoslovak and Hungarian Cup record are unavailable in some seasons.    

Reference

    [4] http://www.historical-lineups.com
    [5] http://www.bolletinen.se/


Annex : The Greatest Latin European Leagues Performers Ever




Annex : The Greatest League Performers Ever by European Nation




Continental NT Evaluation


*Update for 2017 African Cup of Nations

The National Football Team evaluation scorecard is provided based on the systematic implementation in the extent of time period as following ; Europe since 1920, Americas since 1916, Africa since 1934 and Asia & Oceania since 1938. The performance includes only qualifying matches and final tournaments. Exceptionally, the zonal competition is permitted in case it was existed before continental final tournament had been created.

The performance score is calculated by the sum of SPR value (S X P X R)

S = Standard of Competition : It is determined based on average of benchmarking performance
P : Performance : It is primarily rated based on result of competition
R : Round : The finished round (For qualification match is given full five point)

Ptcp means the participation time based on actual model combined with assumed model. The assumed model is the expansion of participated teams in major final tournament to set a similar number of participants based on standard of team level at each era. It also include only the participation with qualified performance (at least 0.25) 

Expansion Coefficient : For Deficit Participation amount due to Era factor. As some of continental competition was started later than the others, it is considered that the pre-four continental competition era is less competitive. The proportional expansion to compensate the deficit amount is required in comparison table. The expansion scale is calculated from deficit amount of participation in comparison to European and South American standard as following formula : Standard Amount/Available Amount


The judging parameter is used in case the scores between the comparative couple is different within 1 %

1. The Same System of Competition

Primary : FIFA Confederation Cup, Secondary : Zonal Competition, Third : World Cup

2. The Different System of Competition

*WC : In case the two teams have a score of World Cup and one of World Cup scores is twice times more than the less total score, that team is automatically rated higher. In case one of them has zero in World Cup score, it will be judge by comparison between difference of World Cup score and Total score


The case of union-independent nations : The former USSR, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia performance is combined with the best performance of independent nation within the former union group. However, every model of union-independent nation (Yugoslavia-Croatia, USSR-Russia, etc) is also available in the continental list in MOV series. 

* Remark : Each continent has different participation model. Accordingly, the intercontinental comparison cannot be conducted directly. For the indirect method, please find in NT & Club Evaluation result in WFHC.


The Greatest European Nations of All-Time





The Greatest Americas Nations of All-Time





The Greatest African Nations of All-Time






The Greatest Asia & Oceania Nations of All-Time







The Ranking of Nations By Era 



Continental NT Competition Standard

The European Championship Standard is considered in competitive performance in total 16 teams of each tournament. That means some qualifying round matches of the previous tournaments are included.


European Championship Standard Chart


                                                                             


European Championship Standard Table


Year
Std. Rate
Competitive Standard Analysis
1960
3.4
The first tournament of European competition saw the large absences of Big nations are England, West Germany, Italy and later Spain withdraw in the quarter-final round. However, they all are not a top leading performer in the Europe continent at that time.
Grade A- : Soviet Union
Grade B+ : Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, France
Grade B : Hungary
Grade B- : Austria, Portugal, Bulgaria
1964
3.89
The only big nation West Germany absent again from the participation.
Grade A- : Spain
Grade B+ : Soviet Union, Hungary
Grade B : Denmark, Sweden, Italy, France, East Germany, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia,   Northern Ireland
Grade B- : Luxembourg, Portugal
1968
4.27
The host nation was announced after the qualifying round.
Grade A- : Italy, Yugoslavia
Grade B+ : England, Soviet Union, Hungary. West Germany
Grade B : Bulgaria, France, Spain, Scotland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia
Grade B - : Portugal, Romania, Belgium, Poland
1972
4.19
The first tournaments without absence of any nation. It is considered as the most competitive UEFA Euro tournament ever.
Grade A : West Germany
Grade A- : Soviet Union
Grade B+, Hungary, Belgium, Italy, Romania
Grade B : Yugoslavia, England, Netherlands, East Germany, Spain, Switzerland,   Czechoslovakia
Grade B- : Austria, Bulgaria, Portugal
1976
4.35
Grade A- : West Germany, Czechoslovakia
Grade B + : Yugoslavia, Netherlands, England, Poland, Soviet Union
Grade B : Spain, Portugal, Wales, Italy
Grade B- : Hungary, Romania, Scotland, Ireland, Belgium, Greece
1980
4.22
The tournament was expanded from four to eight participants.
It is the last tournament with Third Place competition.
Grade A- : West Germany
Grade B+ : Belgium, Italy, Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, England
Grade B : Austria, Yugoslavia, Poland, Spain, Greece, France
Grade B- : East Germany, Hungary, Turkey
1984
4.45
Grade A- : France
Grade B+ : Spain, Portugal, Denmark, West Germany, Netherlands, England, Soviet Union
Grade B : Denmark, Belgium, Romania, Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia
Grade B- : Sweden, Czechoslovakia, Wales
1988
4.14
Grade A : Netherlands
Grade B+ : Soviet Union, West Germany, Italy
Grade B : Spain, Ireland, England, Romania, East Germany
Grade B- : Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Sweden, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Scotland
1992
4.1
Yugoslavia was suspended from its internal war and Denmark is eligible to replace and finally won the trophy.
Grade A- : Denmark, Netherlands
Grade B+ : West Germany, Sweden, France, England, Yugoslavia
Grade B :  Scotland, Soviet Union, Switzerland, Romania, Wales, Ireland
Grade B- : Italy, Portugal, Czechoslovakia
1996
4.53
The tournament was first increased from 8 to 16 teams.
Grade A- : West Germany
Grade B+ : Czech Republic, England, Spain, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Italy
Grade B : Croatia, Scotland, Bulgaria, Denmark
Grade B- : Turkey, Switzerland, Romania
2000
3.97
Grade A- : France, Italy
Grade B+ : Portugal, Netherlands, Spain
Grade B : Romania, Yugoslavia, Norway
Grade B- : Turkey, England, Belgium, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Germany
2004
3.54
The tournament saw the lowest competitive standard in history of UEFA Euro in exception of the inaugural tournament in 1960.
Grade B+ : Greece, Portugal, England, Netherlands, Czech Republic
Grade B : Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Germany
Grade B- : Russia, Croatia
2008
3.8
Grade A- : Spain
Grade B+ : Germany, Italy
Grade B : Portugal, Croatia, Turkey, Netherlands, Russia
Grade B- : Romania, Sweden, Czech Republic, Switzerland
2012
3.35
Grade A- : Spain
Grade B+ : Italy, Portugal, Germany, England
Grade B : France, Czech Republic
Grade B- : Greece, Russia, Denmark, Croatia, Ukraine, Sweden
2016
3.27
Grade A- : Germany
Grade B+ : Italy, France, Wales, Portugal,
Grade B : Spain, Belgium, Poland, Switzerland, Croatia,
Grade B- : England, Hungary, Slovakia, Ireland, Northern Ireland


Copa America Standard Chart




Copa America Standard Table

The South American Championship in the first half of 20th century was very unsteady in its participants and distance between tournaments. The standard assessment of pre-war and war-time era is based on a half decade. The second half of 20th century to present is assessed by tournament. 

Era
Std.Rate
Competitive Standard Analysis
Amateur Era
2nd Half 1910s –
1916 : 1.92
1917 1.46
1919 : 1.54
The early South American Championship tournament was participated by regular four nations, Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil and Chile. Almost all host nations could won the title.
Amateur Era
1st Half 1920s
1920 : 1.92
1921:2.23
1922:1.75
1923:2.46
1924:1.84
Paraguay was an additional regular participant and number of members were irregular from 3 to 5 teams. In 1922, the tournament achieved its highest standard with five participants. Almost all host nations could won the title.
Amateur Era
2nd Half 1920s
1925 : 1.59
1926 : 0.5
1927 : 0.55
1929 : 1.23
Brazil was inclined not to take part in any competition. Peru and Bolivia were a new comer of the competition. In 1926, the tournament achieved its highest standard with five competitors.
2nd half 1930s
1935 : 2.0
1937 : 2.32
1939 : 1.38
The beginning era of professional tournament. Ecuador was first appeared in 1939. In 1937, the tournament was participated by six teams.
1st Half 1940s
1941 : 1.54
1942 : 2.22
1945 : 1.89
The tournament was raised up in its standard and saw seven participants in 1942 and 1945. Colombia first took part in the 1945 tournament.
2nd half 1940s
1946 : 2.5
1947 : 2.36
1949 : 1.68
The tournament was first participated by eight teams in 1947 and the first time the play-off final match was held after points equal in the finished league.
1st Half 1950s
1953 : 2.33
1955 :2.0
Argentina absent in the 1953 tournament and Brazil absent in the 1955 tournament
2nd half 1950s
1956 : 2.76
1957 :1.73
1959: 2.12
There were four tournaments in this period including twice tournaments in the same year of 1959.
1963
2.74
The tournament was absent by Uruguay. The standard of competition was deviated in negative direction when the competition was held in Bolivia in which is too much higher than sea level and the atmosphere effect the inhale rate of players.
Grade B+ : Bolovia
Grade B : Paraguay
Grade B- : Argentina, Brazil
1967
1.84
Brazil once again did not enter and Peru also inclined to take part. It was the first participation of Venezuela.
Grade B+ : Argentina, Uruguay
Grade B- : Chile, Paraguay
1975
3.01
The tournament format was transformed from the league to group in preliminary round with knock-out round in the second phase and the previous champion automatically qualified for semi-final round. It is the first tournament all ten members of COMEBOL unanimity entered.
Grade B+ : Peru, Colombia, Brazil
Grade B : Argentina, Uruguay
Grade B- : Paraguay, Chile
1979
3.17
Grade B+ : Paraguay, Brazil
Grade B : Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Peru,Colombia
Grade B- : Ecuador
1983
3.31
Grade B+ : Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay
Grade B : Peru, Argentina, Chile
Grade B- : Colombia
1987
2.93
Grade B+ : Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Colombia
Grade B : Brazil
Grade B- : Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, Ecuador
1989
2.7
The previous champion was not eligible automatically to qualify in semi-final round any longer. The second phase was transformed to league format.
Grade B+ : Brazil
Grade B : Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Colombia
Grade B- : Ecuador, Peru
1991
3.0
Grade B+ : Argentina, Brazil
Grade B : Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Colombia
Grade B- : Ecuador, Peru
1993
3.3
USA and Mexico was first joined and the format was returned in the traditional tournament style once again with 12 nations participated.
Grade B+ : Argentina, Brazil
Grade B : Colombia, Uruguay, Mexico. Peru, Ecuador
Grade B- : Chile, Paraguay
1995
3.6
Grade B+ : Uruguay, Brazil
Grade B : Colombia, USA, Argentina, Paraguay, Mexico 
Grade B- : Chile, Bolivia
1997
2.53
Costa Rica was invited to take part for the first time.
Grade A- : Brazil
Grade B+ : None
Grade B :  Peru, Colombia, Argentina, Bolivia, Mexico, Ecuador
Grade B- : Uruguay, Paraguay
1999
3.31
Japan was invited to take part for the first time
Grade A- : Brazil
Grade B+ : Argentina
Grade B : Mexico, Uruguay, Chile, Paraguay, Colombia
Grade B- : Peru, Bolivia
2001
2.93
Argentina withdraws from the tournament. Honduras was invited to take part for the first time
Grade B+ : Colombia
Grade B : Uruguay, Mexico, Costa Rica, Brazil, Honduras, Peru, Chile
Grade B- : Ecuador
2004
3.15
Grade B+ : Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay
Grade B : Colombia, Paraguay, Mexico
Grade B- : Peru, Costa Rica
2007
1.85
Grade B+ : Argentina, Brazil
Grade B : Uruguay, Mexico
Grade B- : Venezuela, Peru, Chile, Paraguay
2011
3.01
Grade B+ : Uruguay
Grade B : Argentina, Colombia, Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, Peru, Paraguay
Grade B- : Costa Rica
2015
3.17
Grade B+ : Chile, Argentina
Grade B : Brazil, Paraguay, Peru, Colombia, Uruguay
Grade B- : Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Mexico
2016
2.96
Grade B+ : Chile, Argentina
Grade B : Colombia, Mexico, United States
Grade B- : Peru, Brazil, Uruguay, Ecuador, Costa Rica



African Cup of Nations Standard Chart



African Cup of Nations Standard Table

The African Cup of Nations Standard is considered in competitive performance in total 16 teams of each tournament. That means some qualifying round matches of the previous tournaments are included.

Era
Std.Rate
Competitive Standard Analysis
1957, 1959
1957 : 0.77
1959 : 0.12
The first two African Cup of Nations was participated just three teams and there was no qualifying round.
Grade C+ : Egypt
Grade C : Sudan
Grade C- : Ethiopia
1962
    1.95
The qualification round was first introduced. The Final tournament was divided into twice groups with three of each.
Grade C+ : Ethiopia
Grade C : United Arab Public, Tunisia
Grade C- : Uganda, Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana
1963
1.5
Grade B- : Ghana
Grade C+ : United Arab Public, Sudan, Ethiopia
Grade C : Tunisia, Morocco
Grade C- : Nigeria, Guinea
1965
1.82
Grade B- : Ghana
Grade C+ : Tunisia, Senegal, Ivory Coast
Grade C : Ethiopia, Sudan, Zaire
Grade C- : Guinea
1968
     2.1
The Final Tournament was first participated by 8 teams into twice groups in the first round.
Grade C+ : Zaire, Ghana, Ethiopia
Grade C : Ivory Coast, Senegal, Algeria, Guinea, Sudan
Grade C- : Senegal, Mali, Nigeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Congo
1970
    2.04
Grade C+ : Sudan, Ghana, United Arab Public, Ivory Coast
Grade C : Cameroon, Algeria, Senegal, Zambia
Grade C- : Zaire, Ethiopia, Guinea, Morocco
1972
2.37
Grade C+, Congo, Zaire, Cameroon, Morocco
Grade C : Sudan, Mali, Kenya, Togo, Ghana, Algeria
Grade C- : Egypt, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Zambia
1974
2.37
Grade C+ : Zaire, Zambia, Egypt, Congo
Grade C : Guinea, Cameroon, Mali
Grade C- : Ivory Coast, Uganda, Mauritius, Tanzania, Algeria, Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal
1976
2.64
Grade B- : Morocco
Grade C+ : Guinea, Ghana, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Sudan, Tunisia, Ghana
Grade C : Zaire, Egypt, Uganda, Algeria, Congo, Ivory Coast
1978
2.39
Grade B- : Ghana
Grade C+ : Tunisia, Nigeria, Uganda, Zambia, Morocco
Grade C : Algeria, Congo, Gabon, Ethiopia, Senegal
1980
2.36
Grade B- : Nigeria
Grade C+ : Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Ghana, Ivory Coast
Grade C : Guinea, Tanzania, Kenya, Sudan, Zambia, Zaire
1982
2.39

Grade B- : Ghana, Libya
Grade C+ : Algeria, Zambia, Nigeria, Cameroon, Morocco
Grade C : Ethiopia, Guinea, Morocco, Zaire, Tunisia
1984
2.63

Grade B- : Cameroon, Algeria, Egypt
Grade C+ : Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Tunisia. Morocco
Grade C : Togo, Malawi, Angola, Senegal
1986
2.81

Grade B- : Cameroon, Egypt
Grade C+ : Ivory Coast, Morocco, Senegal, Algeria
Grade C : Nigeria, Zambia, Zaire, Libya, Mozambique, Ghana
1988
2.95
Grade B- : Cameroon
Grade C+ : Nigeria, Algeria, Morocco, Ivory Coast, Egypt
Grade C : Kenya, Zaire, Sudan, Sierra Leon, Kenya, Senegal, Zimbabwe, Tunisia
1990
2.68
Grade B : Algeria
Grade B- : Nigeria
Grade C+ : Zambia, Senegal, Ivory Coast
Grade C : Cameroon, Kenya, Malawi, Egypt, Gabon
1992
2.58
The Competition was increased to 12 participants, and was first separated into four group with 3 teams of each.
Grade B- : Ghana
Grade C+ : Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Cameroon
Grade C : Senegal, Zaire, Congo, Zambia, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Gabon
1994
2.49
Grade B- : Nigeria
Grade C+ : Ivory Coast, Zambia
Grade C : Ghana, Zaire, Mali, Sierra Leon, Tunisia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Senegal, Cameroon, Egypt, Algeria
1996
2.24
The Final Tournament was expanded to 16 teams with four groups in the first round.
Grade B- : South Africa
Grade C+ : Egypt, Ghana, Zambia, Algeria
Grade C : Cameroon, Gabon, Tunisia, Sierra Leon, Zaire, Liberia, Ivory Coast
1998
2.57
Grade B- : Egypt
Grade C+ : South Africa, Zaire, Tunisia, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Morocco, Ivory Coast
Grade C : Zambia, Guinea, Ghana
2000
2.66
Grade B : Nigeria
Grade B- : Cameroon, Egypt
Grade C+ :  South Africa, Tunisia, Ghana, Ivory Coast
Grade C : Togo, Morocco, Senegal, Algeria
2002
2.75
Grade B- : Senegal, Cameroon, Nigeria
Grade C+ : Ghana, Egypt, Morocco
Grade C : South Africa, Mali, Zaire, Tunisia, Liberia
2004
2.48
Grade B- : Tunisia, Morocco, Nigeria, Cameroon
Grade C+ : Mali, Algeria, Egypt, South Africa
Grade C : Guinea, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Senegal
2006
2.84
Grade B- : Egypt, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Nigeria
Grade C+ : Senegal, Guinea, Ghana, Tunisia, Zaire, Angola
Grade C : Zimbabwe, Zambia, Morocco
2008
2.34

Grade B-, Cameroon, Ghana, Egypt
Grade C+ : Ivory Coast, Tunisia, Angola, Nigeria
Grade C : Mali, Guinea, Morocco, Zambia, Senegal, South Africa
2010
2.56
Grade B- : Egypt, Ghana
Grade C+ : Nigeria, Algeria, Ivory Coast, Angola
Grade C : Zambia, Cameroon, Gabon, Tunisia, Mali
2012
2.77
Grade B- : Zambia, Ivory Coast, Ghana
Grade C+ : Mali, Gabon, Tunisia, Equitoria Guinea
Grade C : Guinea, Morocco, Sudan, Angola, Libya
2013
2.71
Grade B- : Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Ivory Coast
Grade C+ : Mali, South Africa, Cape Verde, Togo, Tunisia
Grade C : Zambia, Morocco, Zaire
2015
2.58
Grade B- : Ghana, Ivory Coast
Grade C+ : Zaire, Algeria, Congo 
Grade C : Tunisia, Cap Verde, Equatorial Guinea, Senegal, Guinea, Mali, Cameroon, Zambia, Gabon
2017
2.87
Grade B- : Cameroon, Egypt, Burkina Faso, Morocco, Senegal
Grade C+ : Ghana, DR Congo, Tunisia
Grade C : Mali, Ivory Coast, Algeria, Gabon


AFC Asian Cup of Nations Standard Chart



AFC Asian Cup of Nations Standard Table


Era
Std. Rate
Competitive Standard Analysis
1956
1.2
The Inaugural Final Tournament was participated by only four teams in round robin basis. The Qualification round in zonal group was held but most of teams were withdrawn.
Grade C : South Korea, Israel
Grade C- : Hong Kong
1960
0.73
Grade C : South Korea, Israel
Grade C- : China, Iran
1964
1.01

Qualification round in zonal group was held in only Eastern Zone and most teams in other zones were withdrawn.
Grade C : Israel
Grade C- : India, South Korea
1968
0.9
The Number of team in final tournament in the league system was increased from four to five teams.
Grade C : Iran
Grade C- : Burma, Israel
1972
1.24

The Tournament was re-changed in its format with total six teams in twice groups in the first round and was followed by the knock-out competition. Since this tournament, Israel has not been entering due to a long period war with ARAB nations.
Grade C : Iran
Grade C- : South Korea, Kuwait
1976
1.2
North Korea qualified but it did not enter for the final tournament.
Grade C : Iran, Kuwait
Grade C- : Iraq
1980
1.07
The Number of team in final tournament was increased from six to ten teams in twice groups in the first round.
Grade C+ : Kuwait
Grade C- : South Korea, North Korea, Syria, Iran
Grade C- : China, Qatar, Malaysia

1984
1.54
Grade C+ : Saudi Arabia
Grade C : China, Iran, Kuwait
Grade C- : UAE, Qatar, Singapore, Syria, South Korea
1988
1.50
Grade C+ : South Korea, Saudi Arabia
Grade C : China, Iran
Grade C- : Qatar, Syria, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain
1992
1.6
The Number of team in final tournament was reduced from ten to eight teams in twice groups of the first round.
Grade C+ : Japan, Saudi Arabia
Grade C : China, UAE, Iran
Grade C- : Qatar, Thailand, North Korea
1996
1.45
The Number of team in final tournament was increased to 12 teams divided into three group of the first round.
Grade C+ : Saudi Arabia, UAE
Grade C : Iran, Japan, Iraq, Kuwait
Grade C- : China, Syria, Uzbekistan, South Korea
2000
1.55
The Number of team in final tournament was increased to 16 teams divided into four group of the first round.
Grade B- : Japan
Grade C+ : Saudi Arabia, Iran, South Korea, China
Grade C : Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar
Grade C- : Thailand, Lebanon
2004
1.93
Grade C+ : Japan, China, Iran, Uzbekistan
Grade C : Jordan, Iraq, Bahrain, South Korea
Grade C- : Oman, Kuwait, Indonesia
2007
     1.29
Australia first participated in the tournament after its affiliation to AFC.
Grade C+ : Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran
Grade C : South Korea, Japan , Uzbekistan, China, Australia
Grade C- : Thailand, Indonesia, Bahrain, Vietnam, UAE
2011
1.8
Grade C+ : Japan, Australia, South Korea, Iran
Grade C : Jordan, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Qatar
Grade C- : China, Syria, Bahrain
2015
     1.91
Grade C+ : Japan, Australia, South Korea, Iran
Grade C : UAE, Iraq, China, Uzbekistan
Grade C- : Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman

CONCACAF Gold Cup Standard Chart