OK, so again, how would YOU make a World Club Championshiop?

[Guinho]

I love how we get to hear how the European champion is the best in world, blah blah, blah, but the only time we get all the champions on the pitch, the Euro squads come out no better than 5th. So much for the cakewalk. In the intercontinental up Euro squads win only half the time.

We always hear about how great these squads are, but until it's proved on the pitch, it's all just talk. The highest paid? Yes. The best? Maybe.

Guinho

[Luther_Gabriel]

"Even if Europe has the best teams its not a certainty that UEFA will always win a World Club Cup.

In the past ten years, the South American teams have won the Intercontinental/Toyota Cup four times:

1992 São Paulo 2-1 Barcelona
1993 São Paulo 3-2 Milan
1994 Vélez Sarsfield 2-0 Milan
2000 Boca Juniors 2-1 Real Madrid"



Even though South American teams have won this international cup multiple times, this is just a one game playoff between the champions of two different tournaments. I think that if the SA teams were to play through the same tournament, having to face multiple European teams to reach the top, the likelyhood of a non-European champion would be less likely. I am not saying that it couldn't happen. But I don't think its fair to say that SA teams are as good as or better than European teams just because the SA champion has beaten the European champion in the past.

[Luther_Gabriel]

"""All I say is at the end of the day which country has won 5 World Champions all on foreign soil?"""



I didn't say that European football players were superior to South Americans. But even if you don't like it, the best players from SA play in Europe. Would Brazil have won the WC without Ronaldo, Rivaldo,Ronaldhino,R.Carlos,Cafu,etc.? I think not. How about Argentina's national team - Crespo,Batistuta,Aimar,Lopez,Riquelme,Ayala - all play for European clubs. What is so wrong with my logic in thinking that the teams with best players in the world are also the best teams in the world?

[Nobby]

Actually its the western European clubs that are considered the best. But all clubs in Europe east and west are elligible for the Champion's League. The reason why they are included is the same reason why all confederations should participate in the some kind of tournament to determine the world's best. The UEFA Champions League doesn't cut it.

[Elninho]

The only time we actually brought teams from all the confederations together, what happened? Real Madrid and Manchester United finished 4th and 5th, respectively. And even though the Brazilian teams that finished 1st and 2nd were playing at home, how does one explain the fact that the big Euro clubs were unable to defeat Necaxa? A team from lowly CONCACAF played Manchester United to a draw and beat Real Madrid on penalties!

Money may buy you a lot of expensive players, but it doesn't always win on the pitch.

[PSUdude]

Originally posted by Prenn
Exactly.

It's like calling the champions of Brazil "The South American Champs"

I agree...look at all the morons in the US here that say that if you win the league chamionship, you're the WORLD champ??? who the hell outside the US did they beat (Canada doesn't count, that's US Jr.)

[RichardL]

Originally posted by Elninho
The only time we actually brought teams from all the confederations together, what happened? Real Madrid and Manchester United finished 4th and 5th, respectively. And even though the Brazilian teams that finished 1st and 2nd were playing at home, how does one explain the fact that the big Euro clubs were unable to defeat Necaxa? A team from lowly CONCACAF played Manchester United to a draw and beat Real Madrid on penalties!

Money may buy you a lot of expensive players, but it doesn't always win on the pitch.

I don't know about Real Madrid, but Manchester United had aready stated that they didn't want to take part in the tournament. The only reason they went was because it was thought if an English team snubbed FIFA's latest money-making exercise then it would harm England's world cup bid. Consequently thay played like a team who were going through the motions.

I think if the tournament that was supposed to have been held in Europe had gone ahead things might have been different, as no team would want to lose at home in front of their own fans. So I'd say if you want the Europeans to take it seriously then the next one has to be held in Europe.

It's be interesting to know how much coverage the current unofficial world club match gets in South America because even when Man Utd won it a few years ago it was hardly headline news in England.

[cosmosRIP]

Europeans don't care about this, S. Americans already get to play the European champion, which I suspect is all they really care about, the only Americans who care are the few dozen people who post here. Are the Asians and Africans clamouring for this? I don't know.

[cosmosRIP]

If this was held today these are the teams who would be involved:

Real Madrid
Olimpia
Pachuca
Zamalek
Suwon Samsung Bluewings
Wollongong City Wolves

If you're looking at some of these and saying "who?", you are not alone. What country in the world could you hold this in where you wouldn't have to pay people to attend most of these match-ups?

[tpmazembe]

Originally posted by cosmosRIP
What country in the world could you hold this in where you wouldn't have to pay people to attend most of these match-ups?

Why have it in one country? We aren't thinking outside the box. When the intercontinental champions meant something was in the 60's when Euro & S.American teams played home and away. I say keep that concept.

Only the champions of each federation should participate - validate the individual continental champions' efforts in winning their respective tournaments.

1st Stage (home and away):
1a) AFC plays OFC champs
1b) CAF plays CONCACAF champs

2nd Stage (home and away):
2a) EUFA plays 1a
2b) CONMEBOL plays 1b

Finals (home and away)
2a plays 2b

Since it is EUFA doing most of the bitching over having the "hardship" of playing against the world, how does this scenario increase their burden? It would add a total of 3 games to their current calendar (2home + 2away - 1existing Toyota game). Three f******* games!

Games that can be squeezed out from Worthington cups, and league cups and other BS tournaments they add to their fixtures. Plus, if the other teams are as awful as made out to be in this thread, the Madrids, Milans and Uniteds of the world can surely send their expensive benchwarmers or B squads for 2nd stage games?

I have no doubt that the teams from the other confederations would break their necks for the opportunity to play such a tournament.

Other problems solved:
1) no need to find a "viable" candidate to hold a WC type event as the tournament is not centralized
2) attendance will be guaranteed from hometown supporters, who no longer have to fork out for travel related expenses
3) keeps integrity of World Club Champion title by taking all Confederations into account, and only their champions.

As for not generating much European interest in the beginning...so what. Every existing tradition had a humble start. Uruguay declined to participate and defend its 1934 WC title in Italy four years later -- could you imagine that today? At one time English teams didn't feel the need to participate in euro continental tournaments since they "knew" that they would always remain the best at the sport they invented...things change.

Plus, I'd like to see these great teams have to play in circumstances not so familiar to them. I'm not so sure that Euro champions would always beat the African champs under local conditions. It would make the whole process fascinating and help raise the bar around the world.


This would of course be helped if Euro champions league was shortened (as is being discussed), and if these Confederations would join their national team tournaments with FIFA WC qualifying.

[RichardL]

Originally posted by tpmazembe
Why have it in one country? We aren't thinking outside the box. When the intercontinental champions meant something was in the 60's when Euro & S.American teams played home and away. I say keep that concept.


I don't think any European club would want to play in South America if the games were as brutal as the away matches in the old 2-leg match days. Maybe things are different now, but certainly the South American sides were famous for using every trick in the book (and some more that weren't) in their efforts to unsettle opponents.


Since it is EUFA doing most of the bitching over having the "hardship" of playing against the world, how does this scenario increase their burden? It would add a total of 3 games to their current calendar (2home + 2away - 1existing Toyota game). Three f******* games!

Games that can be squeezed out from Worthington cups, and league cups and other BS tournaments they add to their fixtures. Plus, if the other teams are as awful as made out to be in this thread, the Madrids, Milans and Uniteds of the world can surely send their expensive benchwarmers or B squads for 2nd stage games?

I think only England & Scotland have a league cup, so there's not exactly a plethora of 'BS tournaments' out there to be culled.
A 'B' team might be good enough to beat the poorer sides, but with 5 subs required for league games (+ a few more for contigency) they'd be sending 'C' teams rather than 'B' teams, and that would be asking a bit much (Man Utd pulled out of the FA Cup that year as they didn't want to have to field a 'C' team).


As for not generating much European interest in the beginning...so what. Every existing tradition had a humble start. Uruguay declined to participate and defend its 1934 WC title in Italy four years later -- could you imagine that today? At one time English teams didn't feel the need to participate in euro continental tournaments since they "knew" that they would always remain the best at the sport they invented...things change.

But how long did it take for the world cup to become really popular? I've heard England players from 66 say that even when they won the thing it didn't grip the nation in the way you might expect. Some of the early lack of popularity was due to the fact there weren't satellite communication links, so you couldn't watch matches live on TV, or often even hear them on the radio.


This would of course be helped if Euro champions league was shortened (as is being discussed), and if these Confederations would join their national team tournaments with FIFA WC qualifying.
I have no idea what this means, sorry.

[tpmazembe]

Originally posted by RichardL

I have no idea what this means, sorry.

No problem. One of the reasons the very good players don't have any time off is that they spend two years participating in Euro qualifications & finals, followed almost immediately by two years of WC qulifications & finals. Merge the two. Give WC qualification berths to the teams that finish 1-13 (or whatever the number is now) through the Euro nations finals. This almost halves the number of international fixtures for the Beckhams et al.

As for your other points:

1) Don't think teams will get away with that level of violence today

2) Every country has worthless competitions. The FA cup may mean something in England, but the Copa Italia derives little interest from participants and fans

3) It won't take as long to popularize precisely due to your point -- communications and marketing today are light years ahead

Finally, all these teams' commercial interest supercede their stated love for the game. Have a guaranteed, significant monetary payoff and they'll come to the table.

[cosmosRIP]

You're suggesting we eliminate European WC qualifying so that we can have a new tournament that next to nobody wants?

[tpmazembe]

Originally posted by cosmosRIP
You're suggesting we eliminate European WC qualifying so that we can have a new tournament that next to nobody wants?

Not exactly. I'm suggesting that eliminating European WC qualifying is a good idea regardless.
Its pointless -- it follows much of the same format as Euro Championships qualifications. Why double the international players' duty?

My point is that with a less conjested fixtures schedule, a World Club championship is easily done.

I think CAF is considering making its African Nations Cup qualifications and finals tournaments the defacto WC qualifications process. I'm sure that is going to make the Arsene Wengers of the world happy.

[tpmazembe]

Originally posted by cosmosRIP
You're suggesting we eliminate European WC qualifying so that we can have a new tournament that next to nobody wants?

Some analysis. The results of almost two years of Euro qualifications + two years of WC qualifications :

WC 2002---------------EURO 2000

France.........................France
Turkey.........................Turkey
Denmark.......................Denmark
Spain...........................Spain
Slovenia.......................Slovenia
Portugal.......................Portugal
Germany......................Germany
England........................England
Sweden........................Sweden
Italy..............................Italy
Belgium........................Belgium
Poland------------------- Czech Rep
Rep Ireland--------------- Holland
Croatia------------------- Romania
Russia------------------- Yugoslavia
--------------------------- Norway

Is it really worth it to get a marginally different list of participants?

[Oscar]

yes

[cosmosRIP]

Absolutely

[Nobby]

I've gotta side with the realists on that point. I still like the home-away tournament idea. Even without Europe, it might work.

[El CHarro_NEgro....]

Originally posted by cosmosRIP
If this was held today these are the teams who would be involved:

Real Madrid
Olimpia
Pachuca
Zamalek
Suwon Samsung Bluewings
Wollongong City Wolves

If you're looking at some of these and saying "who?", you are not alone. What country in the world could you hold this in where you wouldn't have to pay people to attend most of these match-ups?

USA?

[RichardL]

Originally posted by tpmazembe
Not exactly. I'm suggesting that eliminating European WC qualifying is a good idea regardless.
Its pointless -- it follows much of the same format as Euro Championships qualifications. Why double the international players' duty?

My point is that with a less conjested fixtures schedule, a World Club championship is easily done.



It isn't a very practical suggestion. Take Holland & Belgium for example, who hosted Euro 2000. Under your system they'd have had to have been given automatic qualification (or barred) from WC 2002.
Germany are currently competing to qualify in Portugal in 2004. If they make it then do they qualify twice in 2006? Easy to say take the next team down in the group table, but what if the second place team had to play a play-off to qualify? Do you automatically give them a place? And what if the second placed team won the play-off? Do you give a spot to the team who they beat in the play-off?

It would also mean that every European team would turn up at the world cup without having played a competitive match for 2 years - hardly ideal preparation.
Spreading the qualification over the full 4 year gap between Euro champtionships would be awful too. If it was implemented now, with qualifying for Portugal 2004 having started in the 2000/2001 season then teams would only be playing 2 or 3 international matches a year. It would be almost impossible to build a team playing so infrequently.

Also, of the 11 teams who were in both 2002 & 2000, Turkey, Slovenia, Portugal and Sweden were not there at all in 1998. Austria, Scotland, Bulgaria & Croatia were, but only Croatia made it to either of the 2 most recent competitions.

I think you'll have to except that both the World Cup and the European championships are far more important overall than a world club championship, and neither are going to be jeopardised to fit in with a revised football calendar. In Europe the European Championship is viewed as being not far behind the world cup in importance. It isn't some tin-pot gold Cup style trophy that could be scrapped without anyone caring.