On American Integration: The False Promise
Posted on October 31, 2012 3:01 pm
Previously, we addressed the institutional and political reasons for which a partial exodus to CONMEBOL is unfeasible. One option left on the table, however, is that of a total union: one in which both CONCACAF and CONMEBOL dissolve in favor of a new confederation with 45 FIFA-affiliated members (and hopefully a less convoluted acronym). The hope of an expanded Copa América with CONCACAF participation invariably leads to considerations of a more comprehensive step; the following argument will discuss the reality of such a fusion.
The 2016 Copa América would already provide CONCACAF’s finest the opportunity to test themselves against more demanding opponents, as well as reap significant financial rewards from participating in a tournament of greater international relevance than the Gold Cup. Those who advocate a full union, though, eye an entry into another major South American competition: the CONMEBOL World Cup qualifying league (the Copa Libertadores is left out of this discussion, as CONCACAF clubs can already access that tournament through guest spots).
At some point, pretty much every Mexico fan has dreamed of seeing el Tri take the field in Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Montevideo, Santiago and other South American outposts, as well as hosting some of the world’s greatest selecciones at the Estadio Azteca; even if the road to the World Cup finals got tougher, they reason, the challenge and experience would be far preferable to their current lot. In recent years, US supporters have expressed similar desires, and with good reason: the South American “Super League” is arguably the greatest in world football. Games against Brazil and Argentina practically hype themselves; the rest of CONMEBOL’s membership offer a mix of stunning individual skill, free-flowing technical play and a remarkable variety of difficult environments, from the cauldron of Barranquilla to the literally rarefied air of La Paz. The only way for the rest of America to get in on the action is through the aforementioned union of confederations.
Here, I must break these heartfelt aspirations with an uncomfortable truth:
If CONCACAF and CONMEBOL combine, the Super League is OVER.
The first reason involves the number of fixtures, itself already a cause for concern among the European employers of most South American star players. In a hypothetical Pan-American Football Confederation (with the Spanish acronym CPF), teams would have to qualify for such a final stage; assuming a semifinal round with four-team groups, whoever reaches the Super League would have played no fewer than 24 matches in their qualifying campaign, an excessively high number even before shoehorning Copa América qualifying into the same four-year window. The second reason is more decisive still: assuming the CPF retained the current berths for CONCACAF and CONMEBOL (3.5 and 4.5, respectively), it would be simply nonsensical to have a final 10-team group in which no fewer than eight qualify for the World Cup finals.
Some more realistic qualifying arrangements for the CPF can be taken into consideration by adapting the formats used by other Confederations of comparable size (the current FIFA rankings are used for seeding purposes).
African Style
Principle: The more direct and dangerous, the better.
Format: The 10 lowest-ranked teams are paired together for home-and-away playoffs. The five survivors, along with the 35 participants that received a bye, are separated into eight groups of five. The group winners qualify for the World Cup finals; everyone else goes home.
Sample groups:
Group A
Argentina
Panama
Dominican Republic
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Dominica
Group C
USA 1
Canada
Trinidad and Tobago
Nicaragua
Aruba
Euro Style
Principle: Everyone should play in the same round, no matter how abysmal the mismatch.
Format: The 45 FIFA-affiliated CPF members get split into three groups of seven and three groups of eight. The group winners all qualify for the World Cup finals; the four best runners-up (not counting results against the team that finished last, in the case of the groups of eight) get paired together for home-and-away playoffs, the winners of which also qualify.
Sample groups:
Group B
Brazil
Venezuela
Canada
Bermuda
Grenada
Belize
Cayman Islands
Group D
Uruguay
Paraguay
Bolivia
El Salvador
Puerto Rico
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Montserrat
Turks and Caicos Islands
Asian Style
Principle: The best teams should get more games against each other.
Format: The 26 lowest-ranked teams are paired together for home-and-away playoffs. The 13 survivors, along with the 19 participants who received a bye, are split into eight groups of four. The winners and runners-up (16 in total) are separated into two final groups of eight; the top four in each qualify for the World Cup finals.
Sample second-round groups:
Group F
Mexico
Canada
Guatemala
Guyana
Group G
Colombia
Haiti
Bolivia
Belize
Sample final-round group:
Argentina
Brazil
Mexico
Ecuador
Paraguay
Venezuela
Costa Rica
Honduras 2
Only the latter option would offer the US, Mexico, Jamaica or Central American nations a stronger final qualifying group (from top to bottom) than the current Hexagonal; and the 20 fixtures would leave no room for Copa América qualifying in the same four-year calendar.
Furthermore, we must take into account the perspective of teams that are already living the Super League dream. The likes of Peru, Venezuela and Bolivia get to play 18 matches against high-quality opponents, including two home matches against Argentina and Brazil, every World Cup cycle. Why would any of them (or Argentina and Brazil, for that matter) pass up what they have now for one of the above options, even with an easier path to the finals? Presented with such an outcome, I highly doubt anyone would vote in favor of moving CONMEBOL in this direction.
If CONCACAF members want to play more games against South American opposition, and if CONMEBOL wishes to get more money out of the North American market without diluting its own competitions, the expanded Copa América is the perfect venue for both sides to achieve their goals. Further integration offers fewer benefits than you think, while guaranteeing higher costs than those who already take part in the Super League are willing to bear.
1 – As a top seed, they would get the “benefit” of avoiding all the teams they actually wanted to play.
2 – Keep in mind that Colombia, Chile, Uruguay and the US would miss out on all the big games in this outcome.
Not an option. The Caribbean federations would still control everything
We could use a promotion/relegation type system like Europe uses for basketball and hockey. The countries ranked in the bottom 25 of any given World Cup cycle can’t qualify for the World Cup at all. Instead they play some kind of a tournament wherein the top 2 or 4 or 5 teams then get promoted to the higher “league” for the next cycle.
Meanwhile the top 20 teams are put into 2-4 groups and play each other for World Cup and/or Copa America slots. The bottom 2-4 in any given cycle then get relegated.
I think this is the best way to handle qualification if the two American Feds somehow merged. The biggest downside is that an individual team’s talent level (especially at the lower end) may vary greatly between four year cycles. However, I think this idea could somehow be modified to fit inside a 2 year schedule as well.
FIFA wouldn’t let that proposal see the light of day. Such an idea would be perceived as a threat by the smaller countries in UEFA, the CAF and the AFC, more than enough collectively to quash any attempt to relegate them to a second tier.
European basketball dropped the two-division setup for this cycle.
This apparent Caribbean Power is a FARCE!!!!
The sooner the USA/MEX/UNCAF realize this the better.
1. The money is on our side.
2. The talent is on our side.
3. Blatter on our side one would think with the recent Caribbean Vote Scandal.
4. Warner (Caribbean thug) is a criminal and just ousted.
Let’s talk about the Vote Scandal: in its aftermath, FIFA suspended several Caribbean officials, Lisle Austin ran himself out of the CONCACAF Presidency, and there was not a single Caribbean voice in the CONCACAF Executive Committee. If I’m so far off base with my “Getting Rid of CONCACAF” arguments, why didn’t North and Central America bolt when the Caribbean was at its weakest?
WAS at its weakest??? It still IS the weakest, not in past tense. What has happened in the last 6-12 months where they regained power? Nothing…
You haven’t answered the question. If my earlier arguments are off, why didn’t North and Central America leave while the gettin’ was good?
Maybe it’s harder than we think, I would imagine that decades of corruption don’t get reverse in a few month. We still have to deal with problems that are beyond our control.
I say just Mexico and the US go to Conmebol and take 2 WC spots with them.
Not to pick on you in particular, but: this type of comment is why I wrote up the “Getting Rid of CONCACAF” post.
A couple of big IFS…IF the US hosts Copa America in 2016 and IF it’s a huge financial success (network bidding wars for TV rights – not only here but in several countries south of the border – and the ratings make sponsors eyes spin like slot machines), then both confederations (and FIFA) are going to be motivated to see what can be done to increase the frequency with which clubs and countries from the Americas play each other…everyone loves a money maker.
The big problem is the island nations of CONCACAF will leverage their current ability to unduly influence FIFA’s presidential elections with a bloc of votes to its full measure in order to get as big a piece of the pie as possible out of any deal that gets put on the table.
CONCACAF STYLE :
Format :
First round : the 29 lowest-ranked teams are split into 8 groups , 5 with 4 nations and 3 with 3 nations. The top one of each group qualifies for the second round.
SAMPLE- FIRST ROUND GROUPS :
Group D :
TRINIDAD-TOBAGO
SURINAM
ARUBA
CAYMAN ISLANDS
Group F :
EL SALVADOR
GUYANA
DOMINICA
Second Round : The best 16 highest-ranked teams are paire into 4 groups of six. Plus the 8 winners of the first round. The winner and runner-up of each group qualify for the world cup.
SAMPLE OF SECOND-ROUND GROUPS :
Group C:
ARGENTINA
CHILE
PANAMA
HONDURAS
W B ( BERMUDAS)
W C ( DOMINICAN REP.)
Group B
COLOMBIA
ECUADOR
PERU
JAMAICA
W E ( ANTIGUA)
W H ( COSTA RICA)
ADVANTAGES : the best teams don´t have to play against a lot of minnows. Only the best of the Caribbean islands will reach the second round and compete with the best ranked teams
Group A
URUGUAY
USA
PARAGUAY
HAITI
W A ( GUATEMALA)
W G ( BOLIVIA )
Group D
BRAZIL
MEXICO
VENEZUELA
CANADA
W D ( TRINIDAD-TOBAGO )
W F ( EL SALVADOR )
Not a piece of cake for the USA, but not a mission impossible at all……
playoff until find the best 20, split in 2 group of 10 teams, home and away, best 4 of each group go to next WC, best 8 of each group go to next Copa America (or whateve name).
NAFU + UNCAF = 10
CONMEBOL = 10
That makes 20.
A few changes that could happen are kick out Belize from UNCAF and add Guyana. Guyana should be in CONMEBOL anyways so make it 9+11=20.
Let CFU have a 1/2 spot with OFC. This is good for CFU because lately they rarely qualify out of the Hex. Jamaica and T&T would love this since it give them much better chance against New Zealand than Top 3.5 in the Hex.
Both fero’s and jagum’s proposals are feasible formats. Next question: why would South Americans pass up their Super League for either one?
To Russia 2018 South America gonna have 4 spot, to Paraguay is easier fight for the 8th spot vs Belice and Nicaragua that for the 4 spot vs Colombia and Chile.
If they come to the comclusion that it is better for the bussiness, they gonna do it.
The Super League A or B is still a superleague, with 9 home games.
it depends on which south american countries you mean. would brazil or argentina care? would teams like colombia, chile, etc. who sometimes qualify for the WC–and sometimes don’t–think their odds of qualifying go up if some/all of concacaf’s WC spots come with some/all of concacaf’s member federations?
paraguay have qualified for several consecutive WC finals, and might prefer the super league format. venezuela have never qualified, and might not feel qualification would be any more attainable not matter how many extra spots are up for grabs–bolivia and peru might feel the same way (i honestly have no idea). so i guess that leaves uruguay, chile and colombia? and ecuador? would those federations feel that an increase in both spots and member federations would increase their odds of qualifying for the finals on a regular basis–ie, theyre better than the top concacaf teams, therefore theyd go through and the US or costa rica or whoever would stay home–and would more frequently playing in WC finals be a better option for them than the current conmebol qualifying (which is guaranteed to happen)?
what do brazil and argentina gain from conmebol qualification? obviously they get to play each other, but “everyone plays brazil” doesn’t offer the same incentive to brazil. what would they gain from PAFU or WHFC (or whatever acronym it would go under)?
Hilarious Formats. Argentina or Brasil will never some round robin format with the islands. It’ll be a CONMEBOL style format. 10 teams from the Conmebol and 10 teams from Concacaf. Two groups broken into 10 each wherer everyone plays everyone.
Group A : Argentina, Uruguay, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Jamaica, Panama
Group B: Brasil, Paraguay, Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela, USA, Honduras, Guatemala, Canada, Granada/T&T/Guadalupe
Top 4 from each groups goes to the World Cup. LMAO. the Conmebol will take this ALL DAY!!!
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.