Would a 16 teams Copa America get a lot of TV revenue in USA?

What about Jones, Williams, Johnson and Davis? There is no German equivalent to those names. The 5 most common surnames in the US are Smith, Johnson, Williams, Brown and Jones. The 5 most common surnames in England are Smith, Jones, Taylor, Brown and Williams. Taylor is #10 in the US, Johnson is #7 in England. This is not a coincidence. The US was founded by English people as an English colony. Until the 1800's, the vast majority of white immigrants to what is now the US came from England. Most white Americans are descended from English people, whether they are aware of this fact or not.

Williams= Wilhelm
Jones and Johnson = there are similar surnames in Scandinavia, Northern Germany.

I am not against your thesis - but I don`t think you can base it on surnames. Part of my German family emigrated to the US and changed their surname from Furtner to Ford. And there are probably millions of other imigrants who changed their surname after coming to the US. Many even got a surname that had no similarities to their original surname. And that`s why I think you shouldn`t base your theory on the origion of surnames. There were porobably hundred of thousands Müllers who moved to the US from Austria, Germany and Switzerland, who had to change their surname to Miller because of the lack of umlauts in the English language.

You also have to take into account that during WWI and WWII many German Americans took on typical English surnames to actively hide their German ancestry. While Müller to Miller is somewhat obvious Schneider to Taylor isn't (it's also a direct translation, though). Per capita, names like Smith are also more common in England than Müller or so is in Germany. There is a shitload of last names in the German language, thousands existing only in one village. Due to the various dialects of German, there is also a huge amount of variant spellings, Wikipedia for examples lists 5 German last names as the equivalent of Smith: Schmid, Schmidt, Schmitt, Schmitz, Schmied.

The vast majority of black people in the US also has English or Welsh surnames, which inflates the number further (if your purpose is to use common names to establish pre-US ancestry).

This thesis (which isn't mine, this is widely held by professional historians and demographers) isn't just based on surname analysis. Surnames are just one piece of the evidence, and I'm well aware that surnames are not a perfect indication of ancestry. I have an obviously German surname but most of my ancestry is Scots-Irish and English. While I don't doubt that many German immigrants did anglicize their surnames, isn't this also evidence in support of the thesis. German immigrants changed their surnames to English surnames because they sounded more American. They wanted to better fit in to an Anglo-centric society. Would this have been the case if "German blood" outweighed "English blood"?

No doubt that is true, but think about why its true. Most African-Americans have English or Welsh surnames because most Southern whites outside of Appalachia were of English or Welsh descent. Again, your point about African-American surnames bolsters the argument that most US whites have English ancestry.

It doesn't bolster any argument either way - especially the Deep South wasn't densly populated (my US history is a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure that blacks significantly outnumbered the relatively small group of white landowners there at the very least during the 18th century), and the vasty majority of German immigrants at the time of slavery lived in the North. The major waves of German immigration to the US also happened during the late 19th and early 20th century, way too late for a major role in this.

Also significant - the former slaves chose their names for different reasons, so they might also be based on prominent figures, anti-slavery activists or the first name of their parents (John -> Jones for example).

Anyway, the big stumbling block for a Copa America in the US is that the games would be in prime time when there is more competition, whereas ESPN isn't really showing anything else of importance during the timeslots when the Euros are on. I could see ESPN showing the US games, Deportes showing the Mexico games, and one or both showing the Brazil/Argentina games, but hard to picture anyone paying a bunch to show Boliva-Paraguay at night.

FIFA needs to give its blessing

Copa PanAmericana 2016, being proposed by CONCACAF, will only work if CONMEBOL were willing to work with Traffic Sports again.

Remember that CONMEBOL dumped Traffic and switched to Grupo Full Play.

Full Play is essentially being bankrolled by Qatar Media.

Lots of politics at play here.

Traffic is selling product to Qatar Media (in the U.S. market as well as MENA).

We'll see how this plays out.

What's on ESPN/ESPN2 or NBC Sports Network during prime time?

If the Euro is on at 9PM ET / 6PM Pacific on ESPN/ESPN2, wouldn't the rating be better?

It depends. If today's Euro Quarterfinal was at that time, it would conflict with two 8:00 P.M. ET baseball games, Yankees at Mets on ESPN and the College World Series on ESPN2.

Oliver continues to post something that is reasonable and others seem to reply as if the Copa America in its current form will disappear. That's not going to happen, nor will the Gold Cup disappear. Remember that there is money to be made from each of these tournaments *and* the even years following the WC decide a berth in the Confederations Cup.

Copa America seems to run irregularly, but the Gold Cup is a joke during years in which a Confed Cup berth is not at stake. So it would make sense to do a Panamericana Cup during the year following the WC. This could rotate among the Americas (realistically US, Mexico, Canada, Brazil, Argentina). I would assume that many nations would still use something closer to a U-23 squad or a squad of players on trial, but would still be more interesting than what we have now.

The reality is that the Euros are interesting because (A) the teams are of a high quality and (B) they do not happen every 2 years like CAN and the Gold Cup.

Hold this in July after the MLB All Star game. There is nothing on ESPN at night outside of Monday and Wednesday night baseball during the month of July after the All Star game

In case you haven't done so, I wanna see a link.

I know you're wrong, I have a degree in American history, I just want to figure out how to prove it. So I need to tell me how you think you know this.

If it was in 2016, July would make sense since June would likely have Euro 2016 on the air. It would make sense to seperate the two by a month ( FIFA and the sponsors would likely insist on it ).

Might have to work around Olympics as well which will also be in summer of 2016.

To the people arguing about English v. Germanic heritage, wouldn't most of the English people actually be of Germanic descent anyways regardless of how they identify? The Anglo-Saxons are Germanic tribes after all.

If you put it that way, everybody's Kenyan.

So, the Birthers are right!

My 2 cents...

It would make sense for ESPN, SUM, NBC and other entities to entertain and lobby for an "Enhanced Copa America" version replicating the EURO. This would bring more revenues for the tournament. The tournament will be a hit in the US and Canada market. For example, ESPN would love to have a tournament like this during JULY 2015. ESPN is going to feel the void of WC after 2014 (John Skipper even eluded to this).

ESPN will be able to show prime time matches for this tournament, and with the possibility of adding Mexico, US, and Canada as host countries in the future.

The last Copa America failed to deliver the audience that Univision wanted. The tournament was not exciting as some of the previous ones. Copa America needs a serious makeover, otherwise it will become less relevant in the competitive world of Football.

To suffice, I think this is going to become a reality rather than wishful thinking. ESPN will have something to fill voids of WC.

Add this to the mix: The US men's soccer matches keep trending higher for ESPN. I wouldn't be surprised for ESPN to take a look at the Gold Cup (if the tournament stays) as a good alternative to fill the void during those summer days. A meaningful tournament will bring very solid ratings for ESPN during those summer nights and days. Gold Cup should only be played every 4 years as well (in non-World Cup years, and Copa America tournament)

Gold Cup 2013(?)
Confederation Cup 2013 (ESPN)
WC 2014 (ESPN/ABC)
Copa America 2015 (ESPN/NBC?)
Women's World Cup 2015 (FOX)
EURO 2016 (ESPN)
Gold Cup 2017 ? (ESPN/NBC?)
2017 (Nothing Scheduled for ESPN/NBC?)
WC 2018 (FOX)
2019 Copa America (ESPN/NBC?)
Women's World Cup (FOX)
EURO 2020 (ESPN a frontrunner to keep the tournament)
Gold Cup 2021

Dude what does this have to do with football. There are over 305M Americans, which less than 70% are of European heritage, that's about a little more than 210M people. So there are about 95m of other heritage which is mostly made up of African and Mexican heritage.

But what does this have to do with football.

1 Traffic is the company pushing for this tournament.

2. No way the Conmebol countries move Copa America from South America.

3. This would have to be an extra tournament not an expanded Copa America played in a non-copa America year.

4. 2016 Brazil holds the Olympics, I doubt they would want a distraction of the full National team playing a tournament at the same time.

5. Maybe 2020.

6. Another possibility would be an expanded Gold Cup with 4 South American teams (the not important but the GC 2013), but Conmebol qualifications may be going on at the same time so that could be a no. Also if Conmebol teams are invited to the Gold Cup this means it is not an Official tournament for them, so Clubs are not required to allow their players to participate. (Same with Concacaf/AFC teams invited to Conmebol tournaments).

7. So if this tournament were to happen, I doubt it would be with the star players, this would be mostly alternative teams IMO.

Based on everything I have heard, Traffic has 2 motives for proposing Copa PanAmericana 2016:

1. Leverage against CONMEBOL with respect to pending litigation in the State of Florida over CONMEBOL's decision to switch from Traffic to Grupo Full Play.

2. Dangling "bait" at Qatar Media, which has the appetite to buy almost U.S. rights to any "big time" international soccer product.

If Copa PanAmericana were to come to fruition, then the logical U.S. TV outlets will be beIN Sport 1 and beIN Sport DOS, with overflow games (if necessary) and a handful of big games on NBC Sports Network (and possibly NBC) and either Telemundo or mun2.

Don't see either ESPN, FOX, or Univision (either in a 3-day partnership or individually) being able to outbid Qatar Media-NBCUniversal.

2016? The same year as the Euro and Olympics? I can't see it happening. I imagine Platini (by then will probably be FIFA president) will makes sure that the tournament either is all youth players or if it is not make sure it doesn't happen in June at all and isn't the IOC and FIFA buddy-buddy? I'm sure IOC will want it not happen in July to August so it doesn't compete with the Olympics.

Lets see. This afternoon ESPN is showing Wimbledon, and at night they are showing 2 -hour edition of SportsCenter (read: filler) and men's softball (which I thought was a female sport until just now).

I realize there is more competition from other channels during prime time, but ESPN 1/2 hardly has a packed schedule at night this time of year.

Here come the beIN Moment again... The Invasion from Qatar...It is is all over the place...Watch out...lol

Dude, everything you post always point to NBCUniversal/Comcast, with no evidence that any of this is ever going to happen.

Please, come up with a different scenario. CC