This one (2016), is not precisely the only "special edition", as there have been others before it which although diferent to the regular tournament, still count for the records. The 1935 edition, played in Peru and won by Uruguay,seconded by Argentina, also was a "special edition" of the traditional tournament, which was used by South America as qualifiers for 2 of our teams that would qualify for the 1936 Olympics the next year. As after the tournament, both Uruguay and Argentina declined from going there, Peru (3rd there), took their place instead. Same as the editions of 1924 and 1953, which also were "special editions", both were hosted by Paraguay, but played in 2 diferent countries, as by then, Paraguay didn't have any of the required infrastructure to do them in their own country, so 1924 was played in Uruguay (won by Uruguay), and 1953 played in Peru (curiously Paraguay won their first title here, being host, but playing it in Lima). And all those titles also counted for those who won them. Why should this one (2016), receive a diferent treatment ? Still counts for the records, but doesn't take anything away of them still being "special editions" diferent from the regular tournaments.
We've done enough trash talking, to be fair four of the Concacaf representatives were not awful even if each had one game where they were blown out - Panama and USA by Argentina, Mexico by Chile, and Costa Rica by the USA from their own confederation. Still, we see scores such as Argentina 6 Ecuador 1 in CA04, Brazil 7 Chile 0 in CA07, Argentina 6 Paraguay 1 in CA15, without calling those losing teams awful in general. I still feel that sixteen teams is a tad too many for the depth of the combined regions to make a truly competitive tournament.
Jamaica weren't awful either - they weren't competitive, but they weren't awful. As for Haiti - at least we scored a goal Remind me what was the final score of Haiti-Peru?
Don't know which final you watched last year, but Chile outplayed us over 120 minutes. Their high press ran us ragged and we couldn't get anything going. Pipita had an opportunity to steal it in injury time, but we know how clutch he is in tournament finals.
Two very hungry teams with a lot to prove and much in their repertoires, not to mention what I'd call an underrated local rivalry fueled in part by historical issues. Last year, some visiting fans sang to the hosts, "... you are a traitor … in the war you sold us out … we hope the sea covers you and that the English help you swim." I even saw footage of a confrontation in the stadium, and one fan shouted "traidores!" The historic and eternal rivalry with Brazil notwithstanding, I'm not sure that these fans harbor this kind of non-soccer animosity even towards us Brazilians. On one side, a loaded squad which is tired of reaching finals and losing - and which will not want to lose a 3rd final in 3 years. Several players from 2014 and 2015 remain, and a win wouldn't just be the end of a 23-year drought, but it'd also finally bring a senior NT title to a generation that has seen great talent but which bears the burden of not being champions. On the other, a team which first won a cup only last year, but which has shown itself to be a serious contender in recent competitions. The 7-0 win over Mexico was no fluke - I didn't think they'd run Colombia ragged so "easily" as they did in the first half last night. And now they have a chance for payback for the 2-1 loss in the group stage. Argentines and Chileans, good luck. The post-game posts here will definitely be... peculiar, not unlike they were in 2015.
Here at the AUF, we are at this time polishing that good old ASTERISK, just in case we need it. If Chile wins it we'll let you guys have it. * (includes the 2016 Copa America Centenario)
Overall strength of teams today JMO- Argentina Chile Colombia Mexico (7-0 in one game doesn't make a team trash) Brazil (7-1 in one game doesn't make a team trash) Uruguay USA Ecuador Peru Costa Rica Paraguay Venezuela Panama Bolivia Jamaica Haiti
I'd give a little more credit to both Panama and Bolivia. After all, whom else in this whole tournament got the "big luck" of having to face at their preliminary group, the two teams that will finally decide whom wins it all ?. For the case, if the USA or Colombia (both 3rd place opponents) or any other team, would've been in their place instead of them, they could've perfectly receive the same treatment as Panama and Bolivia did, which of course would have almost no one saying anything positive about them, as well. Besides how can Brazil, be 3 to 4 places above the 2 teams that eliminated them at group phase ? . You are just showing your bias here.
It depends on what he means by overall strength. It could be about the teams overall or overall talent.
Looks like Your judging the team strengths, based on just this one tournament.. Mexico shouldn't be on top of Brazil.. and USA shouldn't be on top of Ecuador and Peru.. USA should be below Ecuador and Peru.. and Mexico should be below Brazil.. it's more accurate that way.
For the issue, he may be even refering himself to other sports as well. But, if you are going to refer yourself to what teams did and have shown in this particular tournament, there are many flaws in his listing, being those I mentioned some of the ones that catches anyone's eye's, right away.
There is plenty to criticize with this tournament; but even with some weak draws in the group stage, it is the best-attended Copa América in history in spite of having had the highest ticket prices in history. CONMEBOL sure as hell ain't waiting another century to dip back into this well...
Except all money from attendance stays in theUS, Conmebol sees no money from that, so I don't know what well are you talking about.
CONMEBOL got 2/3 of the TV revenue, right? Which, for the first time ever, included real $$$$ in English-language US TV rights from a major broadcaster (no disrespect to GOLTV or BeIn Sports, but FOX is another level). At any rate, CONMEBOL must have thought the deal good enough to forego ticket revenue, and there's no reason that they couldn't demand some of that pie as well as a condition for continued cooperation. Highest average attendance as well.
wouldn't be the same if the copa america was played in chile , argentina , peru , ecuador , etc ,etc. The attendance money stays in the country ( I m sure conmebol gets a % ). I'm sure conmebol gets some type of money for the tournament , depending on the deal they made , I m pretty sure making copa in the usa pays a lot more than making the copa america in chile. They not only get money from attendance , but sponsors, tv deals , etc ,etc.
Then say that the well is the commercial rights not the meaningless-for-conembol big attendance. Now the question is if the 2/3 of that is more than a regular Copa America, I guess yes but not so much.
The Copa America Centenario has broken a number of records. Read more: https://t.co/xDbBol78E0 #CopaAmerica #Copa100 pic.twitter.com/Z61pek8TBV— CONMEBOL Copa América™️ (@CopaAmerica) June 24, 2016 I think the most important points are the TV ratings locally and Globally. Also the Blue chip sponsors and the World wide appeal.
Conmebol could get a percentage of the attendance, and as mentioned above, any host always gets most of that revenue. And the TV rights and sponsorship payments are huge. @Paul Calixte is right.
It's different when a Conmebol member hosting the tournament gets the money from attendance. Beceause that host is a member. USA is not a member of Conmebol, the money stays outside Conmebol, so for Conmebol it has no effect in terms of money if the attendance was big or not. Commercial rights is another matter.
GET OUT! really? .. CA has existed for years and years.. but this edition is the Most Viewed? NO WAY!