Latest rumors have Argentina still trying to decide what to do: https://in.reuters.com/article/socc...uld-miss-out-on-2020-copa-games-idINKCN1RG31U
And the soap opera of rumors continue. The latest one being that a neutral site like Peru may host the Final match because neither Colombia or Argentina want the other country to host it. Especially if the Final is between the two teams.
Final decision apparently this week: http://www.insideworldfootball.com/...opa-america-hostng-doubts-argentina-increase/
I wouldn't mind that at all. Five good reasons for Colombia to host 2020 alone: 1) Colombia easily big enough to host on their own. 2) Argentina just hosted a Copa America not long ago. 3) Avoids the squabbling over who should host the final. 4) Its just plain dumb to have 2 countries at opposite ends of a large continent co-host. 5) From Argentina's POV, hosting in 2020 could only delay them hosting their next real Copa America. As of right now, I would think they have a strong case for hosting the 2028 tournament.
I don';t need any convincing as a fan of Colombia. 2001 brings back great memories but it felt to me almost like a fake Copa America since Argentina did not even go and most teams that did go brought "B" and "C" teams. This one would be the real deal and would be great for the country. I would even venture to say the atmospheres would be the best ever since locals will all come out in full force just as they did in 2001. Who knows if Colombia will ever host anything like this on their own ever again? Fans would cherish this moment. But let;s see how it all plays out.
Well after all the speculation it seems as if it will be shared between Colombia and Argentina after all: https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2019/04/09/la-copa-america-2020-se-disputara-en-argentina-y-colombia/
Welp - the FMF and USSoccer can still bid to get an invite (and from a selfish perspective, I hope they do), but it looks like the ship has sailed on a longer-term cooperation b/w Concacaf and Conmebol (to your delight @Nico Limmat , if I'm not mistaken ). Two things particularly stick in my craw: 1) It remains ridiculous to host it on different ends of the continent - yes, you could complain about the Copa América Centenario, but this would be equivalent to only having games on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts in the US. Plus, now they have to sort out the mess of scheduling the knockout round: keep the QFs and SFs in the same respective host country (at the cost of early rematches) to only have one team travel for the Final? Mix it up and have 4+ teams on cross-continental travel? Just have one country do all the honors? 2) It's hilarious how FIFA spent years trying to square the circle wrt how they could expand the WC finals to 48 without making teams play more than 7 games to win the thing...continental championship expansions have hit a maximum of 7 games to the title (see: Euro, AFCON, Asian Cup)...and here comes Conmebol, with only 12 teams, obligating the winner to play EIGHT games en route to the title! I'm sure European clubs just love this change, and this for the second Copa América in as many years.
It all came down to how they could make more money without having to do much. Separating it into different regions helps when it comes to the people in the stands. Making it two Groups of 6 adds more games which then allows them to charge more to TV Networks and Sponsors.
By that logic, FIFA should have given complainers the middle finger and expanded the World Cup to 64 teams, extra game be damned.
There must be order! My main objection was the "cake and eat it" scenario for teams like the US and Mexico. "Easy" qualifying for the World Cup and access to a more prestigious nations cup with all the bells and whistles of FIFA calendar protection. But now that the World Cup has been expanded and qualifying is nearly guaranteed for some (even in CONMEBOL) I no longer strongly oppose a combined 24-team Copa Panamericana. Provided it's quadrennial (during the Euros) and the Gold Cup fully merges into it. You can alternate hosting between North and South. At this point I don't blame the Euro clubs for getting their pitchforks out. Four Copa Americas in six years is simply too many.
So Copa Cordeiro in 2020? US, Saudi, UAE and for extra pepper - Qatar? The Gulf leagues have their off-season in summer and can send their strongest teams, even as guests.
It doesn't say if there will be a cross-over for the knockout stage, or do the teams stay in the same region throughout? But 30 games to eliminate 4 teams?
It wouldn't even have to be an extra game. You can have double-elimination format with 64 teams, meaning just 7 games tops for the WC finalists.
CONMEBOL never fails to make a mess of things. And the irony herein lays in its efforts to finally merge its calendar with UEFA's so that both confederations' NT competitions take place at the same time. I'm not against either Argentina or Colombia as hosts per se, but to have both? Hypothetically, let's assume that the final rankings are: Brazil Colombia Ecuador Peru Argentina Uruguay Chile Paraguay The rules already dictate that in the quarterfinal round, two teams who have already met each other in the zone stage are not to meet. If this is to be followed, the recipe for confusion only gets worse. To follow this rule, two teams from each zone must relocate. So let's say the rules further say the 1st and 2nd of each zone stays put; the 3rd and 4th must move as "payment" for worse results. Let's further suppose that the best of each zone faces the 4th-ranked of the other zone and down the line we go. So Ecuador and Peru fly southward; Chile and Paraguay fly northward. Q1: Brazil Paraguay Q2: Ecuador Uruguay Q3: Chile Colombia Q4: Argentina Peru Brazil hosts Paraguay and Colombia hosts Chile in Colombia. Uruguay vs. Ecuador in Argentina, and Argentina vs. Peru on home ground. Let's then hypothesize the semifinals: Brazil vs Uruguay Colombia vs. Argentina Two of the four semifinalists will have to travel. In the second matchup, both Colombia and Argentina are host nations; who gets to decide which host gives up "home field advantage?" And if both hosts indeed meet in the semifinals, will the venue of the final be condition upon which team wins it? Or will it be set up ahead of time? Because if it's the former, the other semifinalist will be forced to wait before it knows whether it must travel or stay put. This could be avoided if each host country gets two quarterfinals to reduce travel. Thus, the North Zone would host: Q1: Brazil Paraguay Q2: Colombia Chile And the South Zone would host: Q3: Ecuador Uruguay Q4: Argentina Peru Each Zone then hosts one semifinal and the final happens... in a venue to be determined. But in this case, if Colombia were to advance to the final, will Colombia relocate to Argentina for the final? Will Colombia accept that - to relocate just for the final, disrupting its momentum and leaving behind home ground and support? We can say the very same about the South Zone; if Argentina defeats Peru and reaches the final, how happy would the South Zone host team be about suddenly having to pack and to fly north, while its fans and home support are all abandoned? And how will the final's venue be chosen if both hosts get to the final? If it's chosen ahead of time, in a possible Colombia vs. Argentina final, will the non-host finalist simply grin and bear it? A single host should have been picked from the start. This is not Korea-Japan 2002, when neither host team had a truly realistic chance of reaching the final. CONMEBOL.... what a joke.
BocaFan's post before yours makes a great case for your country alone being the host for next year's edition. Argentina could also host alone, but it did so in 2011. Your country hasn't hosted in almost 20 years... it's about time it did.
Technically, my Country is the USA and I would have preferred that again because I enjoyed the Centenario matches I attended. But yes, it would have been nice for Colombia to host by themselves but the CONMEBOL head honchos had other priorities and ideas.
You lost me somewhere along the way. I assume they would just put one half of the bracket in Colombia and the other half in Argentina. Meaning some teams will have to travel after the group stage, but then they would play at least 2 matches in that other country before having to do another major trip. But at most only 1 team out of the 12 would have to do a big trip twice.
But the counter argument to this is 1) There will not be a Confederations Cup this cycle. 2) South American Qualifying will probably be less grueling if the rumored expansion occurs. It may just go back to two Groups of 5. 3) The next Copa America will not take place until 2024. Europe can't really complain about things moving forward.
Highly doubt it, for the same reason that you suggest Conmebol heads think this format for 2020 is a good idea: the "league" format is way too valuable as a TV property to break up.
I don't know if they would keep the format if they know that 70% of the teams could qualify. Also if you have two Groups of 5 with the top 3 teams automatically making it through you could have a playoff with the 4th place teams that make it more exciting for fans and television Networks. Then that Winner would go on to the Inter-Continental Playoff in Qatar. But we shall see. IT could go either way.