IT may not be a new comperition but it is a new Format during a totally different part of the calendar year. It is also being run in a different fashion because of the way it is structured with foreign investors. So based on those factors having some historically good teams from generations past that have won trophies (and have huge fan bases) is not really all that bad for the very first tournament like this.
The first edition is pretty important. If this tournament isn't seen as one that declares a world champion, then its potential isn't great. Yeah, but its not a step-up from the ICC. Big Boys? You get that by inviting the CL finalists and winners, no? That's why the idea is so stupid. Hopefully it won't come to pass, although that article made it sound like this it is a bit beyond the consideration stage.
When this tournament occurs millions of people will watch and the big name teams will make it more likely more people watch. Call it a terrible idea or illegitimate or Donald Duck all you want. The point is they want to make it an event and a spectacle and creating a buzz is necessary. The December editions in Japan and the Middle East were stale yearly events nobody really cared about so they have devised a new strategy with a good business model in my mind.
Yeah, we're not debating 8-team versus 24-team formats. We've already accepted that 12 UEFA teams will be there. This isn't about the reasons for having Man Utd instead of Melbourne Victory. Its about having one big UEFA teams instead of another big UEFA team. Why even bother?
The 2014-2015 through 2017-2018 Finals have had Barcelona, Real Madrid, Atletico Madrid, Juventus, and Liverpool. Adding in the seven clubs with the next best coefficients would give Bayern Munich, Sevilla, Paris Saint-Germain, Manchester City, Arsenal, Borussia Dortmund, and Porto. The two clubs tied for the best coefficient out would be Manchester United and Chelsea.
If they plan to organize a test tournament, then it could be organized in 2019.. And already from 2021 to play a normal tournament on a sporting principle every 4 years.
A 2019 test tournament would conflict with Copa America. Unless they wait until mid-July to begin the tournament, giving certain players no summer vacation at all.
UEFA Council meets to agree battleplan to challenge Infantino’s ‘takeover’ plan: http://www.insideworldfootball.com/...attleplan-challenge-infantinos-takeover-plan/
I came to post http://www.espn.com/soccer/blog-fif...-and-global-nations-league-plans-concern-uefa which is about the same topic.
Seeing PSG president Nasser Al-Khelaifi is among the PFSC representatives while the Saudi-backed investment group are the ones who aim to secure rights to the new CWC is it safe to assume the Qatar–Saudi Arabia feud has a role in all of this? Real Madrid and Barca (after cutting ties with Qatar Airways and the €222m Neymar ordeal) have warmed to the proposal but according to Ceferin "at least three of the seven clubs" donot agree. Infantino also spoke with PSG, Bayern, Juve and top Premier League clubs. PSG, Man United (Woodward also is a PFSC representative), Bayern and maybe Juve as well could disapprove the proposal while Man City (and Arsenal?) are the least likely to object? For leagues (and their clubs) around the world Infantino's proposal is an awful, distorting plan at a time when competitive balance needs a helping hand instead of a punch in the stomach. Infantino has a hard time operating under the pretense that it's about inclusivity. Smaller leagues, via Olsson and Scudamore, have come out against the plans and Infantino has been catering to the biggest clubs, offering them most of the prize money, the most spots and even going as far as making the inaugural edition an invitational one (with some clubs getting in because of commercial/TV reasons). The goalposts move quickly and often when Infantino is involved, whenever the moneyed elite want even more than what's already promised expect them to get their way.
I've always wanted to know why it was Vasco instead of Palmeiras in that inaugral competition. What was the justification given? The 1999 Copa Libertadores winners were known since the summer, so it's not as if it was too late for them to make plans (plus at that point the Brazilian champions and CAF CL winners weren't determined). I've tried to find articles about it, but there doesn't seem to be anything out there (in English anyway).
Here is the reason. Corinthians were national champs and Palmeiras Libertadores champs. They are both teams from Sao Paulo. In Brazil there was pressure to have a team from Rio participate. Vasco was conveniently the past year Libertadores champs. Palmeiras went agreed as long as they were guaranteed a spot in the following year's edition. Traffic went bankrupt and the next year's CWC was cancelled. Still a sore spot in my team's history specially because Corinthians went on to win it (without ever had winning the Libertadores at that point). It was pretty mickey mouse because European players took it as a vacation. Roberto Carlos who was at Madrid said the European players on the team were drinking by the pool same day of some match games.
I think this new CWC is a great idea. As long as club teams can only use players from their own continent.
I see similar shenanigans playing out ahead of the 2023 tournament. Someone cook up a massive batch of popcorn so we can sit back and watch FIFA embarrass themselves (and HomietheClown defend them every step of the way )
The only smart thing about this, and it's from a business perspective not footballing, is that it's once very 4 years. Make it rare and many fans will tune in. Although once every year wasn't really an option.
In a way you can blame this on the clubs. They started these pre-season tours to Asia and the US playing different teams for global marketing reasons. And then they started calling it International Champions Cup. With fan attendance very good, seemed like a no brainer for FIFA.
Yah, I guess 12-team tournament every 2 years was the other option. The 24-team option is probably the better choice, but having to play 5 games puts a huge dent in a teams's summer vacation once every 4 years.
You mean 2021? This article has a Boban quote that denies the invitation angle. Hope that's the case: https://sports.abs-cbn.com/football...d-expects-fifa-cash-streaming-platforms-41753
Good piece by the FT, especially the Nations League bit at the end: https://www.ft.com/content/71bbe454-59d8-11e8-b8b2-d6ceb45fa9d0 So UEFA needs to “transfer the commercialisation” of Nations League games to FIFA for a fee. My gut feeling is most of the UEFA outrage revolves around this. I could see a scenario where Infantino pushes through the CWC next month and revisits the Nations League later.
It's behind a paywall, so can't say much about it. The expanded CWC, getting their claws into the lucrative club game, always looked like FIFA's main objective and there was already a story in the media that FIFA would put the NL plans in the freezer but push ahead with the expanded CWC (yet less money on offer). Neither of the expansion plans could have received a warm reception from UEFA. Infantino's deadline has expired now. If there was in fact no deadline, and it can be decided next month, rushing it through was yet another underhanded tactic. "New" FIFA is the same, probably even worse, as old FIFA. Selling the rights off to a Saudi-backed investment fund also is a way to take money out of football. Once that vehicle is in place it wouldn't be a surprise if the rights of other competitions, like the World Cup, will be for sale. It might already make the Qatar 2022 head-ache even more complicated.
So FIFA are basically pulling a Drake, hearing something new on the streets and cribbing it @Blondo if you look up the article's title on Google, you can access it that way.
Of course but UEFA hold much better cards in the Nations League scenario, especially if the clubs themselves want to participate in an expanded CWC. I just hope UEFA uses its influence to insist that the Europa League winners get to participate. That way they get some benefit out of it (added profile for the confederation's secondary club competition). I enjoy the Europa League and as always tuned into the final this week. Added EL exposure is one of the few plus points for me personally in this proposed expansion.
So far I've seen quotes from only two clubs, RM and Barca, plus your FT article mentions Juve (was a ? for me). At least as many clubs are against it, of the seven that Infantino tried to convince. Also, one of the comments below your FT article echoes the criticism that can easily be levelled at Infantino's proposal to sell off the rights, i.e. money leaving football, something FIFA should actually fight against. @Paul Calixte thanks for the tip