A One-Time Deal?
Posted on March 26, 2012 3:05 am
The recent falling out between Brazilian authorities and FIFA General Secretary Jerome Valcke served to expose serious, justifiable concerns about Brazil’s preparedness for hosting the 2014 World Cup. The problem only becomes more amplified when one considers the glut of international competitions that Brazil had been slated to host in the next four years: the 2013 Confederations Cup, the 2014 World Cup, the 2015 Copa América and the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. Fortunately for the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF), Chile stepped up and offered to make things easier by swapping hosting responsibilities for the Copa América: now, the 2015 tournament will take place in Chile, while the 2019 edition will be held on the other side of the continent.
Why do I care, you may ask? The Copa América itself lies outside of my main interests; and even if one or two CONCACAF teams get to participate, the fact that they are invited (rather than qualifying through a process open to all CONCACAF members) underlines the reality that the tournament is a CONMEBOL affair, first and foremost. However, the news that Brazil is already planning on hosting a 2019 Copa América directly affects the hopes of those that wanted to see the potential 2016 Copa “Panamericana” become permanent.
The last time this topic came up, I specified the reasons why European clubs would refuse to allow CONMEBOL to regularly hold two continental championships in a World Cup cycle (namely, CONMEBOL’s 18-game World Cup qualifying format). While they would be hard-pressed to impose on the confederation’s 100-year anniversary, such leniency would prove the exception to the rule: “Don’t wear out our employees.” If the “Panamericana” format is to be preserved from 2018 on, it will only be possible through the expansion of the Copa América itself.
The choice of year presents a particular complication vis-a-vis the Gold Cup, normally held in the year after the World Cup in order to select CONCACAF’s representative in the following Confederations Cup (…and then rehashed two years later, just to make more money). If both the Gold Cup and Copa América are held in 2019, then an expansion of the latter will force the national teams that play in both to split their squads. Remember how the US sending second-stringers to the 2007 Copa América turned out? I’m not sure it’s in anyone’s best interest to have four more participants like that.
There is a workable alternative, depending on the flexibility of both sides. If CONCACAF is willing to postpone its Gold Cup to 2020, then its member associations will be able to call up their strongest available squads for both tournaments (give-or-take European cooperation with releasing players for the 2019 Copa América). For the question of which teams would get to play in the latter, an agreement could be reached in which the six participants in the final round of qualifying for the previous World Cup (i.e. the 2017 Hexagonal) also qualify for the 2019 Copa América. During the same summer, the rest of CONCACAF could get a head-start on qualifying for the 2022 World Cup.
With such a deal, the normal World Cup cycle for CONCACAF teams would be as follows:
—
Year 1 – 16-team Copa América / first rounds of WC qualifying
Year 2 – Repesca Centroamericana 1 / Gold Cup / semifinal round of WC qualifying, 1st Caribbean Cup 2
Year 3 – Hexagonal 3 / Confederations Cup
Year 4 – Copa Centroamericana 4 / World Cup / 2nd Caribbean Cup 5
—
The main challenge, then, would be convincing CONMEBOL that the increased exposure and TV revenue would be worth giving CONCACAF six permanent guest spots; having at least two countries not named the US, Mexico, Costa Rica or Honduras in their championship; sharing the proceeds from the tournament with CONCACAF (although any bitterness could be smoothed over with a cut of the Gold Cup money); and possibly having to include North America in the permanent rotation for hosting the Copa América. One can’t help but think that both sides would be better off cooperating on a long-term basis, and hopefully the 2016 tournament will demonstrate as much; but there is plenty to be negotiated if we want to see another “Panamericana” before the year 2116.
1 – Copa Centroamericana finalists and third-place exempted, two qualify for the Gold Cup held in the same year.
2 – Top two qualify for the following Gold Cup.
3 – All six qualify for the Copa América.
4 – Top three qualify for the Gold Cup.
5 – Previous finalists exempted, previous third place automatically qualifies for Finals; two finalists qualify for the Gold Cup.
This will never happen, because it makes too much sense.
But I suppose so long as the CFU kleptocrats are being duly cut in to all of the above, it is plausible.
There’s no reason to invite you Concacaf members. You have rarely made it out of the group stage. You rarely send full or even competent squads.
What kind of response will you have when none of you make it past group stages? You’ll be bitching about how unfair the competition is.
There’s no room in chile for 16 teams, there’s only 5 or 6 stadiums fit for the copa.
Beyond that what do we get in return? Some extra matches with teams that don’t compete with our level. You even retain your own Gold Cup without inviting us over. There’s absolutely nothing in this for South American teams.
This idea is dead on arrival.
“There’s no reason to invite you Concacaf members. You have rarely made it out of the group stage.” IIRC, the last Copa America was the first time that Mexico has NOT made it past the group stage. Also, the US made the knockout round in 1995, Honduras in 2001 and Costa Rica in 2004.
“You rarely send full or even competent squads.” Mexico and Costa Rica did send Olympic teams last time, but that was because of an arbitrary one-time restriction; and the US in 2007 had to split its team for the Gold Cup and Copa America.
“There’s no room in chile for 16 teams, there’s only 5 or 6 stadiums fit for the copa.” So, how many teams played in the 1962 World Cup?
“Beyond that what do we get in return? Some extra matches with teams that don’t compete with our level.” A more straightforward 16-team tournament (no more “best third-place finishers”), more TV revenue, and yes, some competition (the US, Mexico, Costa Rica, Honduras and Panama regularly provide stiff competition for South American teams…except when playing at altitude, e.g. Ecuador).
“You even retain your own Gold Cup without inviting us over.” According to Chuck Blazer, the invitations were never rescinded; rather, CONMEBOL decided to stop sending guest teams.
>some competition (the US, Mexico, Costa Rica, Honduras and Panama regularly provide stiff competition for South American teams…except when playing at altitude, e.g. Ecuador).
Don’t make me laugh. The little friendlies you create or the Copa de Oro you often invite South American teams to isn’t competition. Jesus half the time we send our sub-20 squads to those things.
The only times that Mexico and USA have made it past group stages were in tournaments where even the South American teams didn’t bother sending their full squads.
If you think the USA or Mexico, much less Costa Rica or Honduras or Panama could compete against the teams that played in the last Copa America you have to be joking.
Ill remind you when full squad latin american teams compete things like Venezuela beating Chile, Bolivia nearly beating Argentina, Paraguay beating Brazil, and Peru beating Colombia happens. There are no teams that are weak and the USA and Mexico would have easily lost to Venezuela and Bolivia, in fact a lot of them did.
“If you think the USA or Mexico, much less Costa Rica or Honduras or Panama could compete against the teams that played in the last Copa America you have to be joking.”
So was I hallucinating when Costa Rica’s u-23 team beat Bolivia 2-0?
Actually the level of the game by its members, in any of the Confederations, shouldn`t be taken as the key point of this dicussion.
Copa America is for only CONMEBOL members, and CONCACAF is a completely diferent Confederation and has nothing to add or take away from it, about it. The same in reference to the Gold cup.
As long as each Confederation exists on their own, the only tournament where we will face each other at full strength, will be the World cup.
No need to bother, Paul, with those insults. When they are delivered in perfect English with imperfect grasp of the competitive situation, we know it is from Americans who love to disrespect their own country. All those Colombians are not playing in MLS because our soccer is infterior. And, if they are, they are improving it. So which is it, South American snobs?
Um, Colombian league plays average of 10k to 15k dollars a year for wages and they can get much higher wages overseas?
99% of the Colombian MLS players are washed up has beens. There’s a reason none of them have ever been called up to the national team.
There’s not a single MLS Player that would make the Colombian B National Team.
If you really think a league that can’t even compete in the Concacaf Champions League could beat a country that regularly reaches the semifinals and finals of the Libertadores you have to be joking.
If a Panamerican tournament is to exist, only if Copa America must disappear, then the Panamerican tournament you want, is doomed.
No one in CONMEBOL would think about that “new” tournament, as it being serious.
Copa America here, is almost as relevant as the World Cup.
If Mex & Concacaf is so inferior why do you invite Mexico to Copa A and to Copa Lib?
Hosting any international tournament in Brazil is a joke. Nearly 10% of their population lives in extreme poverty, which is defined as living on less than $1.25 per day. Instead of spending money they don’t have on expensive tournaments they should be helping their own people.
I agree, the South African government should strongly reconsider their hos … wait, we’re talking about South Africa, right?
Oh, it already happened?
I felt the same way about South Africa. When you look at all the money they lost, which was money they couldn’t afford to lose it proves me right.
You know as well as I do that FIFA doesn’t give a whit about how the development state of the host country as long as they get their tournament and their money. World Cups are always huge prestige plays, and big money losers for the hosters and I make the assumption that everyone bidding knows that. If they don’t, well then honestly they shouldn’t be bidding at all.
USA 94 is still the best attended and most profitable in world cup history. It doesn’t have to be a money losing proposition.
Hosting a International Tournament in the United States is a joke. Nearly 10% of their population is unemployed. Which is defined as not having a job. Another 30% of their population has no health insurance. Instead of spending money they don’t have on a expensive tournaments they should be helping their own people.
And not worrying about Brazil which has had socialized healthcare for all citizens, and has only 5% unemployment rate.
Brother, I’m with you, i was just pointing out the 3rd verse is the same as the 1st.
it’s ridiculous that new stadiums need to be built in some countries but yet not in others. How many of Germany’s stadiums were completely new, as opposed to being refurbished?
Why was South Africa required to build new stadia in Cape Town and Durban when the old ones – Newlands and ASBA – would have been perfect for soccer/football matches?
Absolutely ridiculous
It’s not just the infrastructure though, there’s security costs and all that good stuff as well as FIFA’s cut in terms of tickets and broadcasting rights. It never comes out in favor of the host country, even if they put a single shovel in the ground. I believe USA 94 was like that, IIRC we lost money as a whole from that WC even though to my knowledge we didn’t build any infrastructure for it at all.
You are incorrect. The US made out like bandits.
“U.S. bid officials remain confident the country offers the sport’s global organizing committee the right combination of growth and sure-fire safety and profits to win the right to host its second World Cup after staging the most profitable tournament ever in 1994.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/28/us-soccer-world-unitedstates-bid-idUSTRE65R44D20100628
Conmebol has not been preserving the sanctity of the game by not having thought of this before. The smallest players in the Americas, the caribbean federations, have held the idea hostage. They have much power in Concacaf and know they would essentially be excluded. Conmebol doesnt invite Mex cause Mex is strong, but because of the TV revenue in that country. Establish revenue for Conmebol tournaments in the US, and they’ll make a play for a stronger presence by inviting US teams (nat or club level). Trust me, when Univision or Telemundo in the US start following Mexican teams in Copa Lib the S. American federation will start inviting MLS teams. Millions of Mex/Amer watch FMF in US, and millions will watch when its Copa lib on regular US spanish networks.
Popular Store Items
Popular Posts
Latest from the Forum
About Big Soccer
Copyright © 2011 Big Internet Group, LLC. All rights reserved. Click here for our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Views expressed by the bloggers and users of BigSoccer do not represent the views of Big Internet Group, LLC.