Your response time is slipping. We had this back-and-forth during the Centenario thread and I for one am not interested in having it again. Look, I don't care if "nobody cares" about this angle. It matters to me on principle and I will continue to bring it up as long as I see it relevant. But as I said earlier in the thread, the World Cup expansion has probably made this objection moot. Instead I will focus on the increasingly congested FIFA calendar. Suit yourselves regarding the merger. If the end result is a quadrennial Copa Pan-Americana replacing both the Copa America and Gold Cup then frankly I don't really care that much whether the Americas are merged or not. But if you insist on having all three then I will take the club side in all of this because such lunacy threatens to break up the game as we know it. In fact, I have yet to see you truly consider the club game interests in this equation. And I am not just talking about the "Deloitte Money League" that is looking for (and getting) excuses to walk away from the international game. FIFA are desperately looking to gain a foothold in the lucrative club game. It is the final frontier for them. There is a reason UEFA's revenues dwarf those of FIFA and Infantino has immediately spotted those revenue gaps. You can't launch an expanded Club World Cup in June/July if the Americas continue to clutter them on the FIFA calendar. In order to get this off the ground FIFA will have to tell off CONMEBOL and CONCACAF at some point and cold hard cash for your own sports governing body ultimately trumps any political favors obtained by rubber-stamping more "Centenario" tournaments.
I loved your take on this. Thanks! I have two question: a) why a Caribbean Football Confederation would be a bad idea? b) what Central American teams would fear in a merger between them, the North Americans (MEX, USA, CAN), and Conmebol? Thank you.
Why? From an European perspective, there already are three competions in June/July (World, Euro, Confed.). They are moving toward completing the World Cup cycle with competions. Then, why would the Americas break up the game by doing something similar?
Only so much time in the day. That's fine. Doesn't alter the validity of what I said. It is your prerogative to bring up what matters to you on principle. Conversely, it is perfectly within reason for me to point out the limits of you "principle" in reality and its low likelihood of actually impacting real-life decisions. You think that the USA and Mexico shouldnt be able to run CONCACAF and also participate in competitions with CONMEBOL. You say that this goes against the natural benefits and drawbacks that come with confederation membership, and this is wrong on principle. You can continue to believe that's a problem, but I'll still be here to tell you that in the real world, that "principle" is irrelevant. Nobody in power is going to halt the staging of combined Copa Americas based on some principled belief in the notion of confederation membership that adheres to the limits you believe in. It just isn't happening, especially with all the political and financial interests aligned completely against that principle. Again, you can keep believing in the principle, but somebody has to point out the reality, which is that said principle has absolutely zero traction outside of your own personal belief system. Football decisionmakers/administrators, as well as all of the relevant financial/political/social interests that help to govern them, are simply not taking that principle into account. It is irrelevant to them - they see no problem with USA/MEX having and eating all the cake they like. Thus, if we're going to be talking about the future of the game and what might realistically come about, we should take that into account. The Gold Cup isn't going anywhere. As I said before, it is simply too crucial to CONCACAF. Nations in the region need games and tournament experience, and eliminating the Gold Cup completely kills that for all but the top tier in CONCACAF. The whole objective here is to allow teams more exposure, preparation, and game time. The Gold Cup is needed for that, because absent that there will be no game time for the vast majority of CONCACAF nations (who likely wouldn't make even a 20-team combined Copa). Montagliani knows this and has staked much of his political platform on the promise to get more activity for federations. He can't keep that promise and completely eliminate the Gold Cup. Now, he might eliminate one of the current Gold Cups and turn it into a quadrennial tournament (meaning that the combined Copa would effectively just replace one of the biennial Gold Cups), but that's about as much as you're going to get. It is just as likely that both Gold Cups stay and we have a tournament every summer (ex: 2020 combined copa, 2021 Gold Cup, 2022 World Cup, 2023 Gold Cup, 2024 Combined Copa, etc). Actually, the current proposal is right in line with what clubs have been asking for. Aligning the copa america with the Euros (as opposed to forcing clubs to release players for one tourney one year and then another the next, etc) is an idea that is to the benefit of the clubs. Calendar alignment with tournaments is a positive, and it is what FIFA wants as well. As for clutter and player us, I've already addressed this - the solution is player rotation. Players do not have to play in every single tournament. National team pools are deep enough to facilitate rotation. That is the solution. FIFA can try to tell CONCACAF and CONMEBOL off all they like, and compromise (as described above) is certain to be pushed for on all ends, but at the end of the day more tournaments and activity are in the interests of the federations and a FIFA effort to totally quash that will not go over well the next election cycle. That's the reality here - Infantino cannot follow the path you want him to follow ("have a combined copa only if we completely eliminate the Gold Cup") and expect to have a political future. This is not what federations want and it is not what they need. Club interests are going to have to be cognizant of that. Fortunately, there's a way for everyone to get what they like (ex: player rotation, as discussed above), so nobody is a loser here.
Here are the negative things associated with the Caribbean Football Confederation idea: 1. Caribbean nations do not have competent administrators and officials to organize the game in the region. 2. Revenue would be tougher to get. 3. Level of competition would go down (fewer games against better teams in North and Central America). There are positive things too: 1. Caribbeans teams would get guaranteed World Cup places every cycle 2. Caribbean teams could focus on their own interests However, right now CONCACAF is working very hard to keep the Caribbean nations together and invest in them. CONCACAF does not want to lose the Caribbean - Montagliani has been very clear about this and he has bet his entire political future on keeping the region united. He has also put tremendous resources behind this idea, with many programs and proposals designed to help the region grow. Because of this effort by CONCACAF and Montagliani, any move to split the region is unlikely - CONCACAF's leadership is committed to unification, and a merger with CONMEBOL guarantees a split (and also harms nearly every member). Also, given the promises Montagliani and CONCACAF has made, it is possible that the benefits to staying in CONCACAF now might outweigh the costs, and it may not be worth it to leave. Caribbean teams cannot be sure that this is true, but they are definitely going to wait and find out what Montagliani can offer to benefit them over the next few years - he has made more than enough promises to keep their interest. The fears of the Central Americans (as well as Canada) are the same as those of the Caribbean: they will move to CONMEBOL and go from competitive nations with good chances of making the World Cup every cycle to eternal doormats who never see a World Cup again. A combined CONMEBOL + CONCACAF would probably get 12.5 spots (that is according to the current projection of berth allocations that has been leaked, which predicts 6.5 for CONCACAF and 6 for CONMEBOL). Realistically, the top 12 spots in this combined confederation will be occupied by all of CONMEBOL (10 nations) plus the USA and Mexico. Costa Rica might squeeze in there, but that's about it. There's no room for everyone else. This means that the odds of ever making a World Cup go from decent to very bad for nearly every nation in CONCACAF beyond Mexico (even the USA might be at risk, especially if you look at some of the ups and downs they have had this cycle). Pretend that you are Honduras. Right now, you are a team that regularly qualifies for the World Cup. When expansion occurs and CONCACAF gets 6.5 berths, you're almost certain to get to every World Cup. All you have to do is be among the top 7 sides in CONCACAF, which Honduras already consistently is. If they can just a) be a top 3 team in Central America and b) beat out at least 24 of the 25 Caribbean teams, they will be a lock to qualify, even if they fall behind the USA and Mexico. Just to give you an illustration, here is what that scenario would look like in a typical cycle after expansion to 48 teams and with 6 berths (plus a playoff spot) available: 1. Mexico 2. Costa Rica 3. USA 4. Panama 5. Trinidad 6. Honduras 7. (Playoff team - probably one of Jamaica, El Salvador, Haiti, or Canada). Here, Honduras finished behind the USA, Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica, and a top Caribbean team (Trinidad) in World Cup qualifying. They STILL qualify with the 6th spot, and could probably have afforded to fall to 7 and qualified anyway via playoff. If there is a merger with CONMEBOL, this is all off the table. There would only be 12.5 spots (12 full berths + a playoff berth for the 13th team) available, and most of those berths would be spoken for by the USA, Mexico, and 10 CONMEBOL nations. To have a realistic chance to qualify, Honduras would have to beat out EVERY other team in Central America and EVERY Caribbean team just to be team number 13 and secure the playoff spot after the 12 guaranteed berths (remember, there are 12.5 total for the combined confederation). If they wanted a guaranteed spot, they would have to surpass a CONMEBOL nation or one of the USA and Mexico. I am not saying Honduras is incapable of reaching that level, but it is FAR less likely that they would do so on a consistent basis. Doing what they did in my first example above (finishing in the CONCACAF top 6 and being a top 3 Central American team, beating out 24 of 25 Caribbean teams, while still falling behind the USA and Mexico) is something they can do regularly. Beating out ALL of the rest of central America + a CONMEBOL nation and/or one of the USA/Mexico is not something they could regularly do - in fact, they would fail to do this more often than not (and, in a combined confederation, failure to do this means no World Cup for Honduras). This means that a merger would result in Honduras qualifying much more rarely. I used Honduras as an example, and they are one of the better teams in CONCACAF. Everything I have said about them above would apply for every nation in Central America (I am including Costa Rica, who generally surpass Honduras but are still behind the likes of Mexico), every nation in the Caribbean (whose best teams are usually only about on par with Honduras, if not slightly worse off) and Canada (who are generally inferior to the best teams in the Caribbean and who have a hard time against any of the top 5 nations in Central America, nevermind a top 3 like Honduras). After a merger, all of these nations would go from having a decent chance of getting to World Cups (with CONCACAF having 6.5 berths to fight for) to just about no chance at all (in a merged confederation where there are 12.5 berths, but they now need to fight CONMEBOL nations for them). Teams like Honduras and Costa Rica, who qualify regularly now, might risk going decades without ever making a World Cup. Teams like the USA, who are automatic qualifiers now in CONCACAF, might start missing World Cups regularly. Teams like Canada, El Salvador, and Trinidad, who already do not qualify regularly, would face the possibility of being permanently locked out of the World Cup and becoming irrelevant minnows who could never again aspire to reach the game's biggest stage. That is what those teams have to fear, and that is why a merger will never happen.
Surely even someone as bullish on tournament expansion/calendar stuffing as you recognizes that having a combined Copa in addition to a biennial Gold Cup is absolute madness? You may get away with extending the (ultimately unsatisfactory) status quo of two CONCACAF nation cup dates in a world cup cycle to a quadrennial Gold Cup and quadrennial combined Copa. But adding a second nation cup date for CONMEBOL (should they wish to keep their own Copa) will be a red line for the European club elite given the sheer number of world class players from South America. No, shrugging your shoulders and coming up with the grand idea of player rotation isn't good enough. You have to give me something more. If the associations have the right to call up the players they will. They too are under sponsor pressure to field their stars as often as possible. Just because Mexico tries to accommodate this particular situation in years where they play back-to-back summer tournaments with the Gold Cup and Confederations Cup (what folly) doesn't mean others will do the same with spaced out annual tournaments. Creating an increasingly fierce "club vs. country" struggle for players will not serve the international game in the long-run. It's not a power struggle FIFA and the confederations are going to win. Mark my words. Look, I don't care if confederations want to play their nations cup more frequently. CONCACAF can organize a Gold Cup every month in your home town for all I care. It's the matter of the FIFA calendar that needs to be addressed. Urgently so. For someone who claims to be in close touch (if not clinch) with reality you sure don't seem to follow through when it comes to the club game. You conveniently ignored the following embedded question so I am going to explicitly ask it again. Where on this cluttered "hooray for everyone" calendar does the ambitious new Club World Cup fit? From what I can gather it is Infantino's priority number two after pushing through the World Cup expansion so how about you spend a couple of paragraphs on that? FIFA are in dire need of diversifying their revenue streams. Keeping the Americas happy takes a back seat to that.
The Confederations Cup is very unpopular with European clubs while associations as a whole are largely indifferent. Rumors are strong that Russia 2017 could be the last edition but we have a different thread for that discussion.
Wait for it... ...here we are. Now I can continue. As I said before, the answer is player rotation. I am able to shrug my shoulders and come up with this "grand idea" because, in actuality, it isn't so grand and I did not come up with it. It is something that has been done for a long time now, and not just by Mexico. We saw Uruguay and Argentina utilize this strategy as recently as 2016 (see: Copa America Centenario), and nations like Jamaica and the USA have been using player rotation regularly to help maintain club relationships and avoid overusing certain players. Player rotation is a regular occurrence, even when nations have the binding right to call whoever they like during FIFA dates. I've seen Jamaica voluntarily leave players at home for these reasons on many occasions, and they're not alone. It is flatly incorrect to claim categorically that players absolutely will be called when associations have the right to call them. As I just noted, we've seen nations willingly forego the chance to call players when holding back has been beneficial to their relationships with clubs. The truth is that clubs do have actual soft power - the pressure they can place on individual players can easily lead to soft "withdrawals" that actually just negate call-ups (this is, again, something I have seen happen to Jamaica regularly and something that isn't uncommon with other nations either) and a general unwillingness to assist associations by making players available when they need it and there is NOT a binding right to call-up a player (example: most Caribbean Cups are not on FIFA dates. Jamaica has many key MLS-based players who do not have to be released for these games - Jamaica secures their release by asking nicely and being as deferential to club interests as possible when it does come time to call an MLS-based player up on a FIFA date. It is quid pro quo - Jamaica does MLS clubs the occasional favor when they have the leverage, and they get it returned on non-FIFA dates when the clubs have the leverage. This is key to Jamaica remaining competitive during Caribbean Cups, which are crucial competitions for them). Associations must negotiate with clubs in order to check that soft power by maintaining an amicable relationship. This leads to voluntary no-calls and/or call-ups that bring players into the squad, but limit their usage (see: Messi and Suarez at Copa 2016, or Deshorn Brown with Jamaica during the summer of 2014 when Jamaica waived its right to call him for multiple FIFA-date friendlies and instead agreed to send him back to the Colorado Rapids after just one game). Failure to maintain amicability leads to player "withdrawals" for personal reasons, sudden "injuries", and a host of other things. All of this quid pro quo and discreet negotiation is already happening, so if FIFA wants to be certain not to enhance club vs. country tension, all they'd need to do is add some teeth to the gentlemen's agreements that already exist regarding the overuse of certain players. Associations will agree to that if that is what it takes to get more games on the calendar. I actually disagree with the bolded assumption. I don't think the Club World Cup is a major priority at all for Infantino or FIFA, which is part of why I think we've not heard very much about it. Infantino knows his (and FIFA's) bread is buttered with the international game and the associations who voted him in, and I do not expect him to jeopardize said bread for the sake of the Club World Cup. If it comes down to maximizing revenue for Confederations and their associations (via new combined tournaments like the Copa Centenario and additional confederation championships) vs. sacrificing that for the sake of what is a relative afterthought of a tournament, I expect the Confederations will come out on top. That being said, if the Club World Cup dream does come to pass, I expect it to come as a replacement for the Confederations Cup. When the Confed Cup goes, it will be supplanted by an expanded Club World Cup to run during the summer. This will create a conflict since this World Cup would take place during summers in which Gold Cups and Copa Americas (but not Euros) are both running. Much as is the case with the current Confederations Cup, players will need to choose, and I expect the Club World Cup to take priority. This means that Gold Cups and Copa Americas held in Club World Cup years will likely miss out on a few star players. Fortunately, this will impact relatively few players and there will be more than enough talent left to fill rosters for the international tournaments, so everybody can win here (except the Confederations Cup, which clearly loses by disappearing). As you have noted, European clubs dont like the Confed Cup and it has relatively little fanfare beyond that anyway, so it probably won't be missed much. At the same time, expanding and marketing a big new Club World Cup in its place as the new pre-World Cup has the potential to not only enhance FIFA's revenue streams, but also that of clubs, giving them a benefit to help counter some of the enhanced club vs. country tension that may have risen.
That's underrating Canada. El Salvador is fifth in Central America in the FIFA Rankings. They're 5 spots ahead of Canada in the FIFA Rankings, but Canada has done better head-to-head. Canada finished ahead of El Salvador in World Cup Qualifying. Canada won 3:1 at home, played a scoreless draw at El Salvador, and played a scoreless draw against El Salvador in Gold Cup 2015 in California. I wouldn't call that a "hard time" against El Salvador. Honduras is better than Canada, but if you treat the two Canada vs. Honduras World Cup Qualifiers as a two leg series judged by goals and then away goals, Canada would have won with a 1:0 win at home and a 2:1 loss at Honduras.
OK fair enough, that was harsh on Canada. They're at least as good as El Salvador and, on the results, could be argued to be the better side. My larger point still stands, though. They're in the same boat that Honduras and El Salvador would be in should a merger go forward.
You can dress it any way you want to. In the end the associations have all the hard powers in their corner. That is a fact. When push comes to shove they can call a player if they want to. Examples of informal compromises don't negate that. Not to mention soft power differs from club to club. Manchester United for example enjoys quite a bit more than some of its peers. Just because a direct club-association dialogue was born out of pure necessity in a space where FIFA dropped the ball as a regulator doesn't mean it is sustainable in the long-term. I maintain that this calendar stuffing is playing with fire. Yes, so far FIFA have resisted putting regional events on the calendar as well. The Gulf Arab associations tried to get their GCC Nations Cup on it but that was rejected - twice if memory serves right. Probably the only time I have seen FIFA show some spine in this matter. Do you support adding such regional competitions to the calendar? After all it's nothing a bit of player rotation can't fix - right? If you are such a great believer in direct club-association negotiations then why are you so opposed to shifting some of that hard power to the clubs and creating a clear-cut list of A and B tournaments on the FIFA calendar? In the former scenario players must always be released while the latter is subject to club-association negotiations. For example: "A" List Cycle: World Cup, First Nations Cup "B" List Cycle: Second/Third Nations Cup, Regional Competitions, Anything Else This is what a sensible compromise looks like. Instead you continue to advocate a nebulous "gentlemen's agreement" full of ambiguity and differing levels of negotiating power. Why is this preferable again to a detailed agreement between the stakeholders? Why take your chances adding fuel to the club vs. country conflict? In summary, the secret sauce to never-ending prosperity in all galaxies of the football universe is more "A" events but with less "A" teams. Gotcha. Not. good. enough. You need to think about this for a few minutes longer. A successful Club World Cup in June/July could be very lucrative for FIFA. Remember Infantino's UEFA background and appreciate the fact that UEFA's revenue dwarfs the one of FIFA. He must be watching the International Champions Cup and saying there is no reason FIFA can't fill that summer gap in club football - at least in odd years. Diversifying and increasing FIFA's revenue allows him to hand back more to all of the 211 member associations through the usual profit sharing channels. That kind of move gets you re-elected. Rubber-stamping Gold Cup after Gold Cup only gets you so far. A lucrative Club World Cup even makes the clubs happy for a change. Yes, even the European ones if the money is right. This is a winner all around. Why wouldn't he pursue it? With the Copa America alignment to the Euros that only leaves the Gold Cup standing in the way of a "competition free" biennial Club World Cup in odd years - assuming the Confederations Cup gets axed as rumored. Move the Gold Cup to even years (or combine with Copa America for 24-team event) and things line up even more. Without the Confederations Cup is it really necessary to keep a biennial Gold Cup given that the tournament has built its prestige as a "qualifying event" for the Confederations Cup? In any case, I'll let you have the last word. See you back here after we hear something new.
With all the comments here I'm a little confused on the actual proposal. Can someone put it in rather simple terms please. I'm thinking its 2019 - Copa (Conmebol only) and Gold Cup (Concacaf) 2020 - Combined Copa 2021 - Gold Cup (Concacaf) Copa scheduled is cancelled 2023 - Gold Cup (Concacaf) 2024 - Copa (Not sure if combined 16 team or just Conmebol). Please correct me if I have this wrong.
They are aligning Copa with Euro so it would be 2019 followed by 2020, 2024 (instead of 2023, 2027) in, as it seems, format as it was until now - 12 team tournament. But they are, as articles suggest, trying to make the 2020 tournament another Copa panAmerica (Copa Centenario). That's surely the reason why 2019 tournament wasn't moved to 2020 - they want to repeat 2015-2016 scheme. It's crazy move, players, so as fans, are drained. For ********s sake. Chile might be involved in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 tournaments. Seven tournaments in seven years. There should be no Confederations Cup in 2021 so they'll finally get a break. But everything is possible in this retarded world so we must wait for confirmation from both confederations. If we see Lunar base constructed with people living there, fat corrupted guys of CONMEBOL and CONCACAF might start Copa LunAmerica with teams fighting for Neil Armstrong Trophy.
Thanks. I realise now there is no copa in 2021 as they dropped the biennial format some time ago. Just having a senior moment.
I've no problem with some regional competitions entering the calendar if there's room for them, but I think they've done just fine off the calendar and would be alright with them remaining off the calendar. I'm not. In your rush to disagree with me, you missed the bit where I pretty much backed precisely what you're saying here. For review, this is from my last response (pay very close attention to the bolded part): The "teeth" I'm talking about are basically what you're suggesting - some sort of FIFA rule/mandate that would take the gentleman's agreements upheld with regard to certain players' overuse (which are, as noted, already very common) and give them some real force. The addition of those "teeth" would, by definition, shift some of the hard power toward clubs, turning their soft power into hard power. I am not opposed to this and, as I suggested above, I believe associations will also generally accept it if it means they can get more action onto the FIFA calendar. Infantino doesn't have to make the decision you're trying to force here. The Club World Cup and Gold Cup can coexist in the same summer - all one needs to do to resolve this conflict is have the Club World Cup take precedence for players who may otherwise be involved in both competitions. Infantino can lean on the already existing gentleman's agreements to make that happen (with cubs and associations agreeing to allow players to prioritize the Club World Cup) or he can do what I suggested above and add some "teeth" (ex: a mechanism by which clubs would have the power to veto association call-ups that would interfere with the Club World Cup). Going down either of these two paths gets Infantino what he wants (a big Club World Cup) and allows him to do so without pissing off the entirety of CONCACAF (who generally want more Gold Cups, not fewer, and will probably be willing to compromise on player call-ups in order to get more Gold Cups). And yes, the biennial Gold Cup is necessary for most CONCACAF teams who, without it, would have very little to do or aspire to. This is part of CONCACAF's current mandate and a ky interest of nearly all of the region's nations: the need for more games and more competitive opportunities. Merging with the Copa America and/or eliminating the Gold Cup altogether defeats that purpose.
You have yet to give me an example of these "teeth" whereas I have given you a concrete proposal. To me the FIFA calendar is the control mechanism. It's the only tool in place right now. Piling on the competitions and then trying to resolve player conflict later (once everyone has a sense of entitlement) is not a sensible approach. A tournament needs to be scrutinized with club stakeholder input before it is placed on the calendar. Not after the fact. Fine. Like I said earlier, CONCACAF can organize a Gold Cup every year for all I care - as long as only one of them is on the FIFA calendar as an "A Level" event. That is a reasonable compromise. Drawing a clear distinction between A and B level events also makes it clear to fans/media what they can expect in terms of sporting quality - i.e. not "A Level" events in name only filled with B teams. B level events will still have their audience (like the Olympics) but the approach would finally be a transparent and honest one.
The President of FIFA many, many moons ago in an interview on FOX sports basically said he does not mind seeing a Combined Copa every four years in the USA as long as both Confederations can agree on how it is organized. I would venture to say most people in FIFA outside of the Western Hemisphere don't care much if it happens or not either. In fact they may be wanting a piece of the proverbial pie ($$$$$$) and hope they get invited too. (Remember Japan and Korea accepted invitations to play in the Copa America and Gold Cup respectively. And China at one point reportedly accepted an invitation to play in the Copa America but had to change plans due to conflicts with Asian Qualifying. *Edit, South Africa played in the Gold Cup too.) What CONCACAF and CONMEBOL organize is their business and as long as it get's FIFA approval and is not doing anything illegal people should just shut up and mind their own business.
I must also concede that Infantino did also say that it would be difficult to have two Gold Cups and multiple Copa Americas on the FIFA calendar and there should be two Confederations with Two distinct Champions... ... but he said if the first Combined Copa is successful (and it was) that then there naturally would be talk about another one in the future...
It is entirely their business right up until the point where it lands on the FIFA calendar as a "Level A" event (i.e. where players must be released). From that moment onwards it instantly becomes the business of many clubs around the globe. So far FIFA has a rather poor record looking out for their interests as the lead regulator and until the aforementioned "hard powers" are distributed more evenly in a clear and concise agreement people won't shut up.
Do even fans in South America care if it happens or not? Serious question. I'm not sure how much traction the 2016 tournament got outside the U.S.
The Asian Cup is usually held in January and will not clash with a mid year club world cup. There may be a push at some stage for all continental championships to be held mid year in the same cycle as the Euros and the Copa, but I don't think we have reached that stage yet. There needs to be more Asians playing with big clubs in Europe for that to happen.
No, again, we agree more than you seem to think here. I said that the "teeth" would be something like what you are proposing. In short, I endorsed your idea or something similar to it that would focus on creating a mechanism for clubs to deny and/or negotiate call ups for certain players and take some of the hard power away from associations. You didn't get a specific example from me in my last post because I'm on board with the gist of your concrete proposal. So yes, a solution in which the calendar was divided up and certain tournaments/dates were given "B" classifications (more leverage for clubs) and others "A" classifications (more leverage for associations) would be agreeable to me, and I suspect most associations could agree as well if it meant getting more games on the calendar and limiting the club v. country tension. Now, which tournaments/dates precisely would get which classification would be up for debate and negotiation (some tournaments or matches typically held outside FIFA windows, like the Caribbean Cup, may not even need classification). The precise details of this solution would have to be worked out, though I doubt there'd be too many hurdles. Broadly, however, I agree with you. Using the calendar as a tool to categorize these competitions (with club and association input) and assign them a classification before the calendar is finalized is an approach I can get with, so long as it means more matches on the calendar. If associations have to trade some of their "hard power" to clubs in order to get that, then I have no issue and I'm sure most associations could agree. That isn't an overly burdensome price to pay, in my view.