View Full Version : FIFA World Champions League...
TheMasterAtCornerKicks
18 May 2006, 03:45 AM
I don't think that the current global club championship tournament's official name dosen't quite have the same ring or global appeal as a World Champions League Champion could have IMHO. Is it possible have a name change? Or would/could this be a totally new global tournament altogether??
Comments?? Suggestions??
----TMACK
Alex_K
18 May 2006, 03:06 PM
I don't think that the current global club championship tournament's official name dosen't quite have the same ring or global appeal as a World Champions League Champion could have IMHO. Is it possible have a name change? Or would/could this be a totally new global tournament altogether??
Comments?? Suggestions??
----TMACK
That's a joke, right? :D
TheMasterAtCornerKicks
18 May 2006, 03:53 PM
No. It'd be like when the UEFA Cup changed it's official name to the "Champions League". It's just a more marketable name for the tournament.
I'd rather be the "World Champions League Champion" than "World Club Cup Champions"... It just sounds alot better...
Anyone remember when the SuperBowl was called the "AFL-NFL National Championship Game"?? too long and bulky...
Same deal here...
SheffWedFan
18 May 2006, 04:06 PM
No. It'd be like when the UEFA Cup changed it's official name to the "Champions League". It's just a more marketable name for the tournament.
Except the UEFA Cup didn't change its name to the Champions League - the European Cup did. Either that, or 20,000 people in Seville have all just woken up from the same bizarre dream...
TheMasterAtCornerKicks
18 May 2006, 04:08 PM
And, Quite frankly, We've had a hard time getting some of the bigger clubs in the "World Club Cup" simply cause they don't care about it. All Euro teams care about is... "UEFA Champions League". But if there was a larger "Champions League" with the same name sanctioned by FIFA, teams IMO would be more encouraged to enter- "Well, we lost the UEFA Champions League, But we'll get them back in the World Champions League where it really counts."
Right now you could win the World Club Cup and no one would give a rats rump as long as you do well in the UEFA CL.
I'ts time for FIFA to force the first true 'World' Champions League to show UEFA teams that there are other confederations in the world now and whether they want to or not they'll have to play all the world's league champions to PROVE thier percieved global dominace once and for all.
SheffWedFan
18 May 2006, 04:12 PM
You really think the winners of the various UEFA/AFC/CONCACAF championships are going to want a *bigger* World Club championship? When they're already playing between 55-75 games a season, depending on domestic cup runs and continental success? When they're *already* complaining about fixture congestion? When Manchester United caused huge controversy when they withdrew from the FA Cup to play in the World Club Championship?
I can't see it happening. Maybe, if it doesn't happen every year, *maybe*...
SwissGCZ
18 May 2006, 04:15 PM
Oh boy... :rolleyes:
1. Something called a league should at least have a group stage.
2. The Club World Cup format is fine the way it is. Why that is we have discussed ad nauseam.
TheMasterAtCornerKicks
18 May 2006, 04:18 PM
That's the point. We have enough domestic titles... What we DON"T have is a TRUE global club tournament with the same importance as the CL where we award a TRUE World Champion. Who cares about Man U missing another FA Cup game against Barnsley when they could be playing River Plate in the World Champions League?...
SwissGCZ
18 May 2006, 04:21 PM
That's the point. We have enough domestic titles... What we DON"T have is a TRUE global club tournament with the same importance as the CL where we award a TRUE World Champion. Who cares about Man U missing another FA Cup game against Barnsley when they could be playing River Plate in the World Champions League?...
You should really use the search function. Having the same old thread over and over again is really getting tiresome...
TheMasterAtCornerKicks
18 May 2006, 04:22 PM
Nothings wrong with a group stage...
They do it the World Cup. If it's important enough it can be done. Most Euro teams are just afraid of getting embarrassed and exposed as overhyped primadonnas.
Highbury
18 May 2006, 04:25 PM
There's too much of a gap between the CONMEBOL/UEFA champions and the other federations to take the competition seriously. I can't see the other federations gaining a large amount of progress either considering all their best players will play in Europe.
SwissGCZ
18 May 2006, 04:31 PM
Most Euro teams are just afraid of getting embarrassed and exposed as overhyped primadonnas.
Yeah, that's it... :rolleyes:
(you probably just made the 'Dumbest Post' thread on World Rivalries)
This thread is pointless, use your common sense and put one second of thought into it.
SheffWedFan
18 May 2006, 04:33 PM
Nothings wrong with a group stage... They do it the World Cup. If it's important enough it can be done. Most Euro teams are just afraid of getting embarrassed and exposed as overhyped primadonnas.
That's a load of rubbish and you know it.
Think about it logically - how would you choose who got into the competition? Lets take Europe as an example, as that's where my experience is.
Currently, ONLY the Champions League winner plays in the WCC. If you're wanting to expand it, then how many teams per continent? Four? Eight? Lets say four... so you'd have all four semi-finalists from the Champions League qualify for the WCC. Fair enough, but that would mean that each team, in addition to having played their domestic league (their way INTO the Champions League), their domestic cup (100 years of tradition, not going anywhere), and then the Champions League itself, that means at least 60 games - plus, with an expanded WCC they'd have an additional 7-8 games once the league has finished. Then, if its a World Cup or European Championship/Copa America year, you can virtually guarantee that the majority of the players involved will also be on international duty as well.
When do they get a rest? Do you expect them to play 52 weeks out of the year?
I agree, it's a nice idea, but its logistically impossible.
leg_breaker
18 May 2006, 05:16 PM
I don't see the point when 99% of the world's best players play in Europe and the other 1% want to play in Europe.
The club world championship will never be important to European teams. Let's say you've beaten Milan, Chelsea, Juve etc, would you be that bothered about travelling half way round the world (mid season) to play Heart of Oaks or a teams of amateurs from Vanuatu?
Maybe when the world's footballing talent is evenly spread around the world we could REPLACE the champions league with a global version, but the logistics and timezone differences would make it a complete disaster.
TheMasterAtCornerKicks
19 May 2006, 01:26 AM
(1) I don't see the point when 99% of the world's best players play in Europe and the other 1% want to play in Europe.
Well as for your point #1, The reason WHY 99% of soccer players either do, or want to play in europe is EXACTLY BECAUSE of the prestige of the CL. If americans and non-european players KNEW that the World CL Title would be respected and that thier regional Top flight teams would get to play Man U, Barca, Juve, Etc... then the incentive to play for a local team would increase and the need to go to europe to find top notch play would diminish. If MLS featured a schedule of all the top clubs from erupe every year, then INSTANTLY MLS could draw a higher level of player which could increase interest and attendance. If a club like Sao Paolo(sp?) played a more competetive schedule against all the eurpean superpowers dosen't it increase the stature of Sao Paolo globally and give them more tools to keep Brazillian players at home??
Imagine if Brazillian clubs could keep the Ronaldos, Ronaldihnos, and Roberto Carloses of the World... You might be seeing more Sao Paolo jersyes than Barca or Man U jerseys right now (yes, Iknow about the terrible economic structure of pro Brazillian Soccer, that's another story).
(2)The club world championship will never be important to European teams. Let's say you've beaten Milan, Chelsea, Juve etc, would you be that bothered about travelling half way round the world (mid season) to play Heart of Oaks or a teams of amateurs from Vanuatu?
Point (2): Of course not because of all the reasons stated above. It appears that only European Clubs can have a big stage for bragging rights while they raid non-european countries all over the world for talent that supposedly aren't world class soccer nations (Hello Sam Etto)
(3) Maybe when the world's footballing talent is evenly spread around the world we could REPLACE the champions league with a global version,
but the logistics and timezone differences would make it a complete disaster.
Point (3): Yea cause we can't get 16 to 32 teams from all over the world in one host country for a tournament. that's NEVER been done before.
Fact is Europe DOSEN'T WANT non-european teams getting global exposure, recognition, and develope the financial resources to keep thier own players that they've spent time developing.
THAT'S why it probably won't ever happen.
Riker
19 May 2006, 01:42 AM
I'd drop the Confederations Cup and replace it with a larger version of the WCC. Just my 2 cents though.
Alex_K
19 May 2006, 02:43 AM
Oh boy... :rolleyes:
1. Something called a league should at least have a group stage.
I just wanted to second this! ;)
TheMasterAtCornerKicks
19 May 2006, 03:25 AM
The World Champions League, being held in a host country like the WC, could also have a 3-game group stage. You don't have to have one game in England and another in Brazil.
SwissGCZ
19 May 2006, 05:35 AM
Point (3): Yea cause we can't get 16 to 32 teams from all over the world in one host country for a tournament. that's NEVER been done before.
I really wish all the posters who occasionally come to the FIFA board to "bless" us with their CWC reform ideas in revolutionary threads like this, would spend at least one second analyzing their own ideas. Club football thrives on local support, yet some people think we can just bring together 32 teams in a host country and a have a smashing success. Ever think how Al-Ain vs. Raja Casablanca would draw in Mexico? It is much easier to sell national teams to a neutral crowd (and the travelling support will always be much lower for clubs.) There is another major flaw in applying NT scenarios to the club game. In the world of club football we need an annual tournament, not biennial, not quadrennial. Club rosters are extremely volatile due to...uh...the player market, an issue national teams don't have to deal with. What is the point of having - say the CAF champion - in a tournament two years later when nearly all the players have left (not to mention a drop in form.) Buy hey, all this has only been discussed numerous times... :rolleyes:
I said it before and I will say it again: the current CWC format is fine the way it is.
Fact is Europe DOSEN'T WANT non-european teams getting global exposure, recognition, and develope the financial resources to keep thier own players that they've spent time developing.
THAT'S why it probably won't ever happen.
You sir, are an idiot.
leg_breaker
19 May 2006, 01:36 PM
Point (3): Yea cause we can't get 16 to 32 teams from all over the world in one host country for a tournament. that's NEVER been done before.
If there were going to be that few teams, it would need some sort of qualifying contest, which is even more games. The top teams don't want to play another two games in Japan, why would they want to play seven?
The World Cup is possible because it brings in money. There wouldn't be much TV money for Sydney vs LA Galaxy, so who's going to pay all that money to host a giant meaningless tournament?
Fact is Europe DOSEN'T WANT non-european teams getting global exposure, recognition, and develope the financial resources to keep thier own players that they've spent time developing.
Take your tin foil hat off, no-one cares about Al-Ityad or Deportivo Chivas.