merging of CONCACAF/CONMEBOL and AFC/OFC [Archive]

View Full Version : merging of CONCACAF/CONMEBOL and AFC/OFC

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Pike

29 Jun 2006, 01:17 PM

There is some debate concerning the logic of merging CONCACAF with CONMEBOL. While I do not think it willhappen anytime soon. It is a compelling possibility.

First the name: Confederation of America's Football Associations (CAFA)
I would further divide it into three federations.
1.) North American Football Federation/ Association (NAFF/A)
It would include 9 member:
United States
Mexico
Canada
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Guatemaula
Hondurus
Panama
Nicaragua

2.) Caribbean Football Association (CFA)
26 members
Aguilla, Aruba, Barbados, Bermuda, Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Netherland's Antilles, Puerto Rico, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & Grenadines, Surinam, Trinidad & Tobago, Turks & Caicos Islands, and US Virgin Islands

NOTE: Surinam and Guyana are geographically in S. America, while Belize is in N. America.

3) South American Football Association (FASA*)
*Guessing on how it would look in Spanish
9 Members
Brazil
Argentina
Colombia
Peru
Venezuela
Paraguay
Uruguay
Ecuador
Chile (corrected, thanks)

Qualifiers:

I figure it would work pretty similar to the way it works now. Assuming they will combine for 8 spots,...

All 9 member of FASA enter, I figure two from the Caribbean advances, NAFA complicated. Two Options

Option A: All 9 member progresses.
4 groups of 5 (top seeds: 2 each from South and North America). Currently, Caribbean does not get a seeded spot.
Top two from each group qualifies for the World Cup

Option B: Caribbean Repecharge
The 3 rd place finish in the Caribbean to create afield of 10
2 groups of 5 teams. Top 3 advances to Finals (4th place teams play a home and away playoff).
7 teams advances to finals

7+9= 16 Four groups of 4 teams. Top team qualifies. 2 each from North America and South American have top seeds.

Option C: CONCACAF still manatains its control:
Same format as 2006 World Cup, except, hexigonal becomes 7 teams instead of 6.
This will also create a field of 16 teams.

Tyhere's a delicate balance that must be maintained here. You do not want to eliminate the possibility of dreams being made in the Caribbean or Central America. The goal is to promote the game everywhere in the region. At the same time, The stronger countries are suffering through the lack of competition. In the United States case, its our own fault we donot participate in Copa America. We claim it interferes with MLS, but we forget we have plemty of European base players.

I hope you enjoyed your read

Pike

EuropeanSoccerFan

29 Jun 2006, 01:41 PM

I had similar ideas - merging CONMEBOL and CONCCAF sounds logical to me. This confederation would have 45 members ( I think you forgot at least Chili in south america) - that would be pretty much the same number as uefa, caf and afc.

Out of this field it should be possible to held a continental championship with 16 teams you have to qualify for. Regarding WC qualifying it could be a final round which 24 teams (all from north, central and south america plus five to qualify from the carribean - or any other combination based on performance). They could form four groups of six (teams being devided in six pools due to their strength - probably brazil, argentina, mexico and usa in pool A); two of each group would qualify.

Pike

29 Jun 2006, 04:24 PM

I made errors on my original post. There are actually 10 member within CONMEBOL. I neglected Bolivia. Consequently I made revisions,...
(Changes are in italics)

There is some debate concerning the logic of merging CONCACAF with CONMEBOL. While I do not think it willhappen anytime soon. It is a compelling possibility.

First the name: Confederation of America's Football Associations (CAFA)
I would further divide it into three federations.
1.) North American Football Federation/ Association (NAFF/A)
It would include 9 member:
United States
Mexico
Canada
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Guatemaula
Hondurus
Panama
Nicaragua

2.) Caribbean Football Association (CFA)
26 members
Aguilla, Aruba, Barbados, Bermuda, Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Netherland's Antilles, Puerto Rico, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & Grenadines, Surinam, Trinidad & Tobago, Turks & Caicos Islands, and US Virgin Islands

NOTE: Surinam and Guyana are geographically in S. America, while Belize is in N. America.

3) South American Football Association (FASA*)
*Guessing on how it would look in Spanish
9 Members
Brazil
Argentina
Colombia
Peru
Venezuela
Paraguay
Uruguay
Ecuador
Chile
Bolivia

Qualifiers:

I figure it would work pretty similar to the way it works now. Assuming they will combine for 8 spots,...

All 9 member of FASA enter, I figure two from the Caribbean advances, NAFA complicated. Two Options

Option A:
Eliminated

Option B: Caribbean Repecharge
The 3rd place finish in the Caribbean to create a field of 10
2 groups of 5 teams. Top 3 advances to Finals: 6 teams advances to finals

2+6+10= 16 Four groups of 4 teams. Top team qualifies. 2 each from North America and South American have top seeds.

Option C: CONCACAF still manatains its control:
Same format as 2006 World Cup. This will also create a field of 16 teams.

There's a delicate balance that must be maintained here. You do not want to eliminate the possibility of dreams being made in the Caribbean or Central America. The goal is to promote the game everywhere in the region. At the same time, The stronger countries are suffering through the lack of competition. In the United States case, its our own fault we donot participate in Copa America. We claim it interferes with MLS, but we forget we have plemty of European base players.

I hope you enjoyed your read

Pike

Pike

29 Jun 2006, 04:50 PM

Using Option C, this is a fictitious example of how the final group may look.

NOTES: I used the final standing from the 2002 qualifying competition to determine seeding. I used the current hexigonal as basis from the 2006 qualifying to determine the seeding. I actually used the results from stage 2 to determine seeding.
1. Mexico 2. United States
1. Argentina 2. Ecuador

GROUPS

Group A
Argentina
Trindada & Tobago
Colombia
Chile

Group B
Ecuador
Costa Rica
Uruguay
Peru

Group C
Mexico
Paraguay
Guatemaula
Bolivia

Group D
United States
Brazil
Panama
Venezuela

One problem: CONMEBOL teams will go from 18 games ( alot) to only 6 games (not a lot).

It may make more sense to combine two groups

Group A
Argentina
Trindada & Tobago
Colombia
Chile
United States
Brazil
Panama
Venezuela

Group B
Mexico
Paraguay
Guatemaula
Bolivia
Ecuador
Costa Rica
Uruguay
Peru

Now we have 14 games! Top four in each group advances! This also solve the unequal numbers problems. There are 3 CONCACAF in each group and 5 CONMEBOL in each group.

Pike

mauro_

29 Jun 2006, 07:49 PM

midknight

29 Jun 2006, 08:35 PM

I don't think there's any real need to break up Concacaf into continental and caribbean zones.

The basic problem with a merger (other than logistics and money) is equalising the number of games conmebol and concacaf teams play while making sure there are a sufficient number of games.

A decision has to be made whether an open winnowing contest should be organised from the start, whether the 10 conmebol teams should et automatic passes to the second stage or whether there whould be zoned elimination of "minnows" in every zone from the start.

Fairness would suggest an open winnowing competition (even though common sense might not agree) What this virtually means is that you can get Brazil against the British virgin islands (if seeding is installed from the beginning) or brazil-costa rica (if it isn't). A compromise might have to be sought such as doing semi seeded home and away playoffs to winnow out the minnows while giving the us, brazil, argentina and mexico byes.

Assuming Puerto Rico participates there will be 36 Concacaf participants plus 10 Conmebol. = 46 - the big 4 = 42.

That gives 21 home and away ties leaving 21 + 4 teams = 25.
Since 25 is problematic, i say let the bottom 4 teams do a round robin to decide which 2 get the honour of going through the eliminating rounds. (of course 2 might save us the trouble and not bother to participate)
Therefore you'll have 34+10 = 44 - 4= 40/2 = 20 home and away ties.
(instead of home and away these can all be played in the US for the benefit of the diaspora populations to limit the travelling strain on the caribbean islands)

uru 22 v 202 Montserrat
cr 26 v 201 Aruba
col 27 v 199 Anguilla
par 33 v 197 US Virgin Islands
ecu 39 v 196 Puerto Rico
hon 42 v 194 Bahamas
jam 46 v 182 Cayman Islands
tnt 47 v 180 Belize
gua 62 v 175 Dominican Republic
chi 64 v 174 Dominica
per 66 v 173 British Virgin Islands
ven 71 v 170 Netherlands Antilles
cub 80 v 162 Guyana
pan 81 v 162 Bermuda
can 83 v 160 Antigua and Barbuda
Bol 102 v 158 Surinam
hai 106 v 157 Nicaragua
bar 119 v 155 Grenada
slv 129 v 133 St. Vincent and the Grenadines
slc 131 v 133 St. Kitts and Nevis

I'm going to gamble and assume all 8 conmebol teams will get through.
the fifa rankings give us

Bra Arg Mex USA
+
par ecu col uru chi per ven bol
+
crc hon jam tnt gua cub pan can hai bar, slv, slc

4 groups of 6 = 1 seed, 1 south american 3rd tier, 1 sth american 2nd tier, 1 concacf minnow, 1 concacaf outsider, 1 concacf 2nd tier

bra bol uru slc can tnt
arg per col slv pan jam
mex ven ecu bar cub hon
usa chi par hai gua crc
(an argument can be made for switching the places of el salvador and cuba)

Working with 8 qualification berths one gets the best 2 in each group qualiying
= 10 + 2 games for everyone except the seeds 10. At worst if one of the 4 concacaf ultra minnows gets to the hex he'd have played 16 matches

midknight

29 Jun 2006, 08:41 PM

Pike

30 Jun 2006, 10:49 AM

for the sake of tweaking u may want to use the final standings for 2006 in conmebol if you're going to use the 2006 hex. (or the 2002 hex if you uses the 2002 conmebol standings)

At any rate I don't believe its fair to put brazil and argentina in the same group, whatever system you use...same goes for the us and mexico

The reason why I used the particular standing because I was supposing if it were used for the current World Cup. If I were to go back in time to the WCQ, I would not know the final result of the hexigon. Iwould not know it because it would not have been played at all. The top two finishes of each group (totalling 6) would have been chosen. The only thing I could determine for top seeding would be the top point earner. This year, Stage two top point earner was Mexico. (Although USA would win the Hexigon).

Also, 2006 WCQ in CONMEBOL would never had taken place in my pretend World. Therefore, the only data I would have is the results of the previous WCQ.

Now, if I want to speculate on the 2010 WCQ,.. I would use CONMEBOL's 2006 WCQ results. I, however, still wouldn't know CONCACAF until stage 2 of the 2010 WCQ. This is why I chose this World Cup to illustrate Option C. I guess I could had pretended the results would be the same for 2010 as in 2006. I chose not to...

Pike

Pike

30 Jun 2006, 10:55 AM

3) South American Football Association (FASA*)

in spanish that would be ASAF

to stay a little on-topic, i don't like your system neither the idea of merging confederations. plus it will demand a lot of unnesesary travelling unlike europe or asia.
cya!

I am not sure what "unneccesary travelling" you are speaking of
I did another drawing and came up with a different result, lets look at the trvel schedule.

Group A
United States
Panama
Guatemala
Ecuador
Venezuela
Peru
Uruguay
Colombia

Remember each group would contain 3 CONCACAF teams & 5 CONMEBOL treams. This would mean that CONMEBOL would be the one's least affected by longer customary travel. With the exception of Mesxico, Canada (if they make it this far),a nd the Ubited States, all countries are reasonably close to each other. That is, they will be no further away than Morocco to South Africa.

I don't think traveling would be prohibitive

Pike

goke313

02 Jul 2006, 03:10 AM

i like what i see

Millos

02 Jul 2006, 07:38 PM

What? O_o leave our system the way it is, don't ruin it.

We all play against each other in south america and therefore only the best ones from here reach the WC.
I'm against any kind of merging.

Pike

03 Jul 2006, 12:28 AM

What? O_o leave our system the way it is, don't ruin it.

We all play against each other in south america and therefore only the best ones from here reach the WC.
I'm against any kind of merging.

I am glad you express your opinion,however, why do you hold this opinion. Is the top part about playing each other a reason? It seems it only states a fact, not a reason for your opinion.

Would you be against accepting the Unites States and Mexico as full members?

Pike

Millos

03 Jul 2006, 01:08 AM

I am glad you express your opinion,however, why do you hold this opinion. Is the top part about playing each other a reason? It seems it only states a fact, not a reason for your opinion.

Would you be against accepting the Unites States and Mexico as full members?

Pike
But Mexico and USA are not in South America, plus, accepting them would mean accepting the other dozen of countries in North and Central America and it'd be a neverending story.
Making groups is not the best way to know who's the best, check this WC for example, there are teams in semifinal that if having to play some of the ones already eliminated would not likely be there, yet they are. If we want to get the best from each continent, then the best way is as it is right now (at least here), let everybody play against each other and gain points. By the time it ends you only get the best.

Plus, we only get 4 places for the cup, two are most likely to always be taken by Brasil and Argentina (unless something really odd happens), wich leaves two other spots to be disputed by the rest. Now, adding Mexico would mean only one free spot. I don't think it's fair. And even if merging means two more spots or three, they'd most likely be taken by other south american countries and it'd mean that caribbean ones wouldn't be able to take part in a world cup EVER. I thought the idea was to allow each region to have their chance.
Besides, why can't there be a North/central america confederation of its own? I really don't see the need for any kind of change nor merge.
I really don't like the idea, and most likely, no other south american does. It means less games, less "classics"... no, I don't like it.

Pike

03 Jul 2006, 01:32 AM

But Mexico and USA are not in South America, plus, accepting them would mean accepting the other dozen of countries in North and Central America and it'd be a neverending story.
Making groups is not the best way to know who's the best, check this WC for example, there are teams in semifinal that if having to play some of the ones already eliminated would not likely be there, yet they are. If we want to get the best from each continent, then the best way is as it is right now (at least here), let everybody play against each other and gain points. By the time it ends you only get the best.

Plus, we only get 4 places for the cup, two are most likely to always be taken by Brasil and Argentina (unless something really odd happens), wich leaves two other spots to be disputed by the rest. Now, adding Mexico would mean only one free spot. I don't think it's fair. And even if merging means two more spots or three, they'd most likely be taken by other south american countries and it'd mean that caribbean ones wouldn't be able to take part in a world cup EVER. I thought the idea was to allow each region to have their chance.
Besides, why can't there be a North/central america confederation of its own? I really don't see the need for any kind of change nor merge.
I really don't like the idea, and most likely, no other south american does. It means less games, less "classics"... no, I don't like it.

This is an excellent opinion.

Right now there are a similar debate about Oceania and the AFC. Oceania, however aren't debating to be merge for the reasons you stated. They want Oceania to be separate because they get funding from FIFA for development of soccer in that region. Merging would mean less funding, which means less development. Its a very vaild point.

How does this relate to CONCACAF? You raised the issue of every region being represented in the World Cup. I would not dispute this at all. I completely agree that every region should have an opportunity to represented at the WC. If, we, for the sake of argument, let US and Mexico join CONMEBOL, then does this mean that CONCACAF will be less advantaged? I would say no, that is, no more than Oceania would be disadvantage. In fact, except for the US, Mexico and maybe Costa Rica, the rest of CONCACAF isn't much better than Oceania.

The US and Mexico have clearly outgrowned CONCACAF. CONCACAF still needs developing, much like Oceania. So maybe, it isn't a good idea for a complete merger. It may only be predunt to allow US and Mexico to move to CONMEBOL much like Australia's moved to AFC.

If you are concerned about representation, let Mexico and US to take their 2.5 places to be combined with CONMEBOL's 4.5 to total 7 places. Or mybe just two places,... making 6.5 This will make two groups of 6, with the top three in each moving on, and the two fourth place finisher's playing off for the half spot against the half spot of CONCACAF.

Even if this results in the US notmaking it to the World Cup, that would be better than having them make it, and "bomb" out when the media actually starts to pay attention. In the end, it wil lprove for too beneficial to the US and Mexico developments. A developments that can no longer happen within CONCACAF.

Pike

westsidepunk

03 Jul 2006, 01:34 AM

I really don't see the need for any kind of change nor merge.
I really don't like the idea, and most likely, no other south american does. It means less games, less "classics"... no, I don't like it.

I understand your reasoning here and accept the basic premise that not many from SA would like to see a merger with NA. I also think that beyond the USA and Mexico, not many CONCACAF countries would be very happy about this. The carribean teams may be minnows, but in a one member one vote system they will likely block this from happening in the near term. Things work for them very well currently in that they have enough votes to protect their little interests and keep those of the more advanced footballing nations on the back burner.

westsidepunk

03 Jul 2006, 01:49 AM

This is an excellent opinion.

Right now there are a similar debate about Oceania and the AFC. Oceania, however aren't debating to be merge for the reasons you stated. They want Oceania to be separate because they get funding from FIFA for development of soccer in that region. Merging would mean less funding, which means less development. Its a very vaild point.

How does this relate to CONCACAF? You raised the issue of every region being represented in the World Cup. I would not dispute this at all. I completely agree that every region should have an opportunity to represented at the WC. If, we, for the sake of argument, let US and Mexico join CONMEBOL, then does this mean that CONCACAF will be less advantaged? I would say no, that is, no more than Oceania would be disadvantage. In fact, except for the US, Mexico and maybe Costa Rica, the rest of CONCACAF isn't much better than Oceania.

The US and Mexico have clearly outgrowned CONCACAF. CONCACAF still needs developing, much like Oceania. So maybe, it isn't a good idea for a complete merger. It may only be predunt to allow US and Mexico to move to CONMEBOL much like Australia's moved to AFC.

If you are concerned about representation, let Mexico and US to take their 2.5 places to be combined with CONMEBOL's 4.5 to total 7 places. Or mybe just two places,... making 6.5 This will make two groups of 6, with the top three in each moving on, and the two fourth place finisher's playing off for the half spot against the half spot of CONCACAF.

Even if this results in the US notmaking it to the World Cup, that would be better than having them make it, and "bomb" out when the media actually starts to pay attention. In the end, it wil lprove for too beneficial to the US and Mexico developments. A developments that can no longer happen within CONCACAF.

Pike

I think you raise some very good points and if it were possible to convince the South Americans to go along with it, Mexico and the USA would be better off. If they were not willing to make the compromise you suggested, maybe other ways of working togehter could be tried. What about having a intercontinental championship together, with qualifying? Maybe as the compromise all the SA teams get in and the CONCACAF teams play qualifiers for the last 6 spots. This could put a foot into the door and allow for a rejuvination of a stagnating Copa America. It could be staged in July of the even numbered non world cup years. If desired, CONCACAF and CONMEBOL could both play their own seperate tournaments in an odd numbered non world cup year. It is not as if these tournamnets have always been played on a regular schedule. This would not be that disruptive. And depending on how it played out, whether the seperate confeds held tournamnts on their own or not, the top finishers from each could have the confederations cup spots.

Millos

03 Jul 2006, 02:11 AM

I really have no problems with merging Mexico and USA if we get more spots :p

There is a problem in starting a new tournament besides the Copa America, eliminatories, friendly games and I think we'll have the olimpic's eliminatories before the next WC and the Olimpic games, and also the confederations cup and who knows what else LOL we're already having problems with european clubs, they don't allow our players come to play in their national teams.
I'd love the idea of having more games (ya know, the more the better :cool: ) but I don't see that being possible.

I forgot another reason to add in my previous post, I think some time ago a possible change in the eliminatories system was discussed to make it not that long, mostly proposed by the european clubs who didn't want their players (theirs?) so tired... but there's a huge bussiness behind the broadcasting and organization of the eliminatories games, therefore, the idea was put to sleep. -_-

Pike

03 Jul 2006, 12:09 PM

I think you raise some very good points and if it were possible to convince the South Americans to go along with it, Mexico and the USA would be better off. If they were not willing to make the compromise you suggested, maybe other ways of working togehter could be tried. What about having a intercontinental championship together, with qualifying? Maybe as the compromise all the SA teams get in and the CONCACAF teams play qualifiers for the last 6 spots. This could put a foot into the door and allow for a rejuvination of a stagnating Copa America. It could be staged in July of the even numbered non world cup years. If desired, CONCACAF and CONMEBOL could both play their own seperate tournaments in an odd numbered non world cup year. It is not as if these tournamnets have always been played on a regular schedule. This would not be that disruptive. And depending on how it played out, whether the seperate confeds held tournamnts on their own or not, the top finishers from each could have the confederations cup spots.

Basically, whether there is an out right merger, the elimination of Both confederations as we know them, or a pseudo merger what you have desctribed above and what I have mentioned in other post as well, I think both could work with the latter being the most likely senario.

While some posters include South American teams into a preliminaries, I have never advocated. I think any systemt hat would require any of SA teams to "play-off" would be doomed from the start. I think any system that would reduce the number of game below 10 qualifiers (mostof the UEFA qualifiers are 10 games) would also be objectionable.

Basically I see two ways of approaching this,....

US and Mexico out right leaves CONCACAF
A merger

Complete merger (as describe originally
Psuedo Merger ( Both sides keep their identities... CONCACAF have premliminaries to determine the 6 representatives in the final America's qualifiers.

NOTE: I won't re-iterate whats already written. I think whatever sysem that works, somethings needs to be done. If FIFA really cares about the development of the game, it is clear that the US and Mexico have reach an impasse within CONCACAF.

Pike

midknight

03 Jul 2006, 06:44 PM

The thing is, since Australia left Oceania I've been hearing calls for an outright elimination of this confederation. If the US and Mexico leaves Concacaf, I won't be surprised if the same phenomenon repeats itself.

midknight

03 Jul 2006, 06:45 PM

If FIFA really cares about the development of the game, it is clear that the US and Mexico have reach an impasse within CONCACAF.
Pike

And what about the development of the game in the 40 something other countries in the confederation?