In 2008, the AFC compiled a so-called AFC Final Assessment Ranking to determine participation in their prime club tournament, the AFC Champions League, in 2009.
This ranking, in which 500 points could be obtained, was compiled of 10 different criteria, as follows:
Description Maximal Points
1. Organisation 20
2. Technical Standard 100
3. Attendance 100
4. Governance/Soundness 50
5. Marketing/Promotion 20
6. Business Scale 100
7. Game Operation 20
8. Media 20
9. Stadia 20
10. Clubs 50
The leagues of the member associations ('MAs' as abbreviated by the AFC but for convenience referred to as 'countries' below) were measured according to these criteria, based on official visits, a survey sheet and submitted documents. It is not entirely clear which organisations (AFC, member FAs, leagues) submitted which data and documents and how (if) they were verified.
When establishing the ranking in the spring of 2008, only one country (Japan) was classified as meeting the 'Champions League criteria' (no detailed description of these appears to be available on-line, apart from a note 'commercial entity of club by December 15, 2008', a description leaving a few questions by itself, but these criteria eventually denied at least three countries (Bahrain, Lebanon and Vietnam) entrance (and possibly also Syria)). Ten other countries (Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates, abbreviated UAE hereafter) were described as being 'ensured to meet the criteria by 1 October 2008'; six others (Qatar, Singapore, Syria, Thailand, Uzbekistan and Vietnam) as 'not ensured to meet the criteria by 1 October 2008', and four more (Bahrain, Hongkong, Malaysia and Oman) as 'not meeting the criteria'. The latter four were therefore not eligible to inclusion in the 2009 AFC Champions League at all.
Below, we list the outcome of this AFC Final Assessment Ranking, first by ranking the countries involved by their achieved totals, and then by a detailed split according to the 10 criteria listed above.
NB: it is not known why Iraq were not included in the comparison;
presumably because the country currently has no nationwide
league but a system based on regional groups followed by a
playoff; likewise the non-inclusion of Lebanon is not clear;
here one problem may be that all league matches are currently
(2008/09) played behind closed doors.
Overall Ranking
Rk Country Points
1.Japan 470.1
2.South Korea 438.0
3.China 414.8
4.Saudi Arabia 359.0
5.UAE 349.3
6.Iran 336.4
7.Australia 306.0
8.Indonesia 286.5
9.Singapore 237.1
10.Syria 228.8
11.Uzbekistan 228.7
12.Qatar 226.4
13.Thailand 212.5
14.Jordan 211.8
15.Vietnam 210.7
16.Kuwait 203.3
17.India 199.1
18.Malaysia 178.8
19.Hongkong 148.0
20.Oman 139.9
21.Bahrain 138.6
Ranking Split by Criteria (point totals rounded to whole numbers)
Rk Country Points Org Tec Att Gov Mar BSc GOp Med Sta Clu
maximal 500 20 100 100 50 20 100 20 20 20 50
1.Japan 470 20 82 88 50 20 100 20 20 20 50
2.South Korea 438 15 95 65 39 18 99 20 20 20 49
3.China 415 19 62 70 39 18 100 20 18 20 50
4.Saudi Arabia 359 17 79 60 50 10 43 20 18 20 43
5.UAE 349 17 54 48 40 18 77 20 15 15 46
6.Iran 336 20 70 55 48 14 42 20 13 9 45
7.Australia 306 13 51 76 13 19 27 20 17 20 49
8.Indonesia 287 19 24 69 42 15 25 20 15 13 45
9.Singapore 237 15 41 38 6 18 39 20 10 3 46
10.Syria 229 18 49 66 13 10 7 13 12 9 33
11.Uzbekistan 229 18 60 41 13 9 8 20 14 7 39
12.Qatar 226 17 46 42 17 12 18 20 16 7 33
13.Thailand 213 18 33 26 35 14 3 20 9 12 41
14.Jordan 212 17 51 33 13 15 2 20 15 3 43
15.Vietnam 211 17 27 41 35 13 5 20 12 4 37
16.Kuwait 203 16 35 31 13 12 25 17 14 5 36
17.India 199 17 23 45 13 13 4 20 16 11 39
18.Malaysia 179 17 19 41 13 9 3 20 11 16 30
19.Hongkong 148 16 31 33 13 8 2 7 8 1 30
20.Oman 140 17 42 21 13 6 0 7 6 7 21
21.Bahrain 139 17 46 2 13 11 2 13 6 1 26
Some of these markings (e.g. organisation for Australia (how can they be ranked below all other countries on this point?!), governance/soundness in the cases of Australia and Indonesia, business scale for the UAE, technical standard for about half the countries) are hard to understand and of course impossible to verify objectively (presumably this is not unintended).
The actual number of participants in the 2009 AFC Champions League was subject to one more hard criterium (a division of 16 clubs from East Asia and 16 from West Asia, where India and Uzbekistan were included among West), and the desire to include play-offs and arrange for some sort of mechanism to allow clubs from countries previously playing in the second-tier AFC Cup to enter the AFC Champions League.
In addition, a lex Australia was imposed (possibly because it proved impossible to get the country below 300 points, see below): the maximal number of entrants of a country was limited to at most one third of the number of teams in that country's top division, rounded downwards (Australia's A-League has 8 clubs, including one from New Zealand, so is automatically limited to 2 clubs in the AFC Champions League, while e.g. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have 12 clubs in their highest leagues, and so with only 4 more (and very mediocre) clubs at the top level are allowed up to 2 more entries for no obvious reason).
Finally, the following, entirely arbitrary but apparently highly convenient criterium was chosen to allocate places:
4 slots for countries with 300 or more points 1 slot for countries with less than 300 points with the proviso (directed against Australia) that no country may have more than one third of its top level clubs enter.
No justification whatsoever of the absurd difference of
three slots between a country with 300 and another with
299 points was given (and none, in fact, is possible).
It is also clear that the sixth criterium (Business Scale)
was used to propel the UAE above 300 points (had they
received equal points with Australia on this item, their
total would have been below 300).
This then led to the following distribution of slots:
Legend
Rk = overall ranking
Pts = points
Grp = spots in group stage
Qual = spots in qualifying stage
AFC = spots in AFC Cup
T/3 = one third of number of teams in top division (lex Australia)
West Asia
Rk Country Points Grp Qual AFC T/3
4.Saudi Arabia 359.0 4 - - 4.00
5.UAE 349.3 4 - - 4.00
6.Iran 336.4 4 - - 6.00
14.Jordan 211.8 1 - 1 3.33
16.Kuwait 203.3 1 - 1 2.67
17.India 199.1 1 - 1 4.00
10.Syria 228.8 - 1 1 4.67
11.Uzbekistan 228.7 - 1 1 5.33
12.Qatar 226.4 - 1 1 3.33
20.Oman 139.9 - - 2 4.00
21.Bahrain 138.6 - - 2 4.00
AFC Cup 1st/2nd - 1
Total West 15 4
NB: apparently, Jordan, Kuwait and India are ranked above Syria,
Uzbekistan and Qatar for being more likely to meet the
Champions League criteria (see beginning of this file).
East Asia
Rk Country Points Grp Qual AFC T/3
1.Japan 470.1 4 - - 6.00
2.South Korea 438.0 4 - - 4.33
3.China 414.8 4 - - 5.33
7.Australia 306.0 2 - - 2.67
8.Indonesia 286.5 1 - 1 6.00
9.Singapore 237.1 - 1 1 3.67
13.Thailand 212.5 - 1 1 5.33
15.Vietnam 210.7 - 1 1 4.67
18.Malaysia 178.8 - - 2 4.33
19.Hongkong 148.0 - - 2 3.33
AFC Cup 1st/2nd - 1
Total East 15 4
The AFC Cup spots were to go to 2008 finalists Muharraq (Bahrain) and Safa (Lebanon) but both countries were excluded for failing to meet 'Champions League criteria' (they also are both in West Asia so the above scheme would not have worked in any case). The same happened to Vietnam (concretely, their 2008 champions Binh Duong) and Kuwait were suspended by FIFA at the time of the final distribution of places. Eventually, the actual distribution for the 2009 AFC Champions League was as follows:
Legend
Rk = overall ranking
Pts = points
Grp = spots in group stage
Qual = spots in qualifying stage
AFC = spots in AFC Cup
T/3 = one third of number of teams in top division (lex Australia)
West Asia
Rk Country Points Grp Qual
4.Saudi Arabia 359.0 4 -
6.Iran 336.4 4 -
5.UAE 349.3 3 1
11.Uzbekistan 228.7 2 -
12.Qatar 226.4 2 -
17.India 199.1 - 1
10.Syria 228.8 - -
14.Jordan 211.8 - -
16.Kuwait 203.3 - -
20.Oman 139.9 - -
21.Bahrain 138.6 - -
Total West 15 2
NB: presumably, Syria were excluded for failing to meet Champions
League criteria; Qatar and Uzbekistan apparently did meet
criteria in the end, were therefore ranked above India,
Jordan and Kuwait, and suddenly obtained two (!) fixed slots
instead of one qualifying place. It is not known why one UAE
club was 'relegated' to the qualifying stage and none from
lower-ranked Iran; possibly AFC saw the absurdity of ranking
the UAE ahead of Iran.
East Asia
Rk Country Points Grp Qual
1.Japan 470.1 4 -
2.South Korea 438.0 4 -
3.China 414.8 4 -
7.Australia 306.0 2 -
8.Indonesia 286.5 1 1
9.Singapore 237.1 - 1
13.Thailand 212.5 - 1
15.Vietnam 210.7 - -
18.Malaysia 178.8 - -
19.Hongkong 148.0 - -
Total East 15 3
NB: it is not known why Indonesia got an extra qualifying spot,
this may be due to there not being a 2008 AFC finalist from
East Asia. Otherwise, there are no changes with the AFC
document apart from the exclusion of Vietnam for not meeting
'Champions League criteria'.
It is hopefully superfluous to point out that any allocation based on past performances in the AFC Champions League (and AFC Cup), such as the UEFA uses for its tournaments, would have led to entirely different distributions.
Sources: AFC document (see also html-version by google), wikipedia
Prepared and maintained by Karel Stokkermans for the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation
Author: Karel Stokkermans
Last updated: 9 Jan 2009
(C) Copyright Karel Stokkermans and RSSSF 2009
You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper
acknowledgement is given to the author. All rights reserved.