Which parts do you disagree with? National teams play too many games, or FIFA should focus on club teams, or Less useless international dates would be great? And what/where is the proper thread?
Tangentially worth sharing here, particularly for his comments near the end on Saudi investments via Softbank in other sectors:
Eliminating the Confederations Cup, which is the only thing about national teams in the topic title, would only reduce national team games for 8 teams. I don't know if there's a pre-existing topic for if national team games should be reduced, but it doesn't fit in this topic.
I don't think there are too many int'l dates during the normal football season (i.e. Aug to May), but after May the int'l calendar is a mess! Or at least becoming one. Athletes need some rest to rejuvenate. Okay... the season could be extended by a few weeks on occasion to play a big int'l tournament that everyone looks forward to. That's great for the sport and players love playing in them. But there are so many mickey-mouse tournaments in the summer that either already exist or seem like they are about to that I can't even keep track of them all. We've gone beyond player fatigue and are entering the viewer-fatigue realm.
That is more of a Confederation issue. And what a Confederation votes upon is their business. If they want to have a bunch of Gold Cups or African Cups or whatever then that is what they feel is best for their region.
Or whats best to line their pockets. I agree though. My criticism wasn't directed at FIFA, it was just a broad complaint.
I see. And yes, making money is a priority but that is the way it is for most people and organizations. Plus the benefits are obviously there for smaller Federations in those regions that would say they need to play more International games, not less. But I am done with that convo. As I stated in a previous post that discussion is for another thread.
The thread is about creating new summer tournaments and expanding existing ones and we're talking about whether there are too many summer tournaments or not. The discussion seems related to the thread topic to me.
Not if the FIFA Global Nations League comes in to existence - FIFA would pretty much have to obligate all confederations to one championship max per WC cycle.
It becomes a FIFA issue the moment they (confederations) ask for games/tournaments to be put on the FIFA calendar to guarantee player release with the clubs.
This is true. But as long as their tournaments are following FIFA rules and regulations then they have no reason to deny them their requests. Because it is their business and their traditions.
So if CONCACAF want to hold an annual Gold Cup you are swell with that? Clearly there comes a point where FIFA has to deny such requests. Tradition or not.
That is a weird hypothetical question. The likelihood of that happening is decreasing immensely due to the CONCACAF Nations League and the Copa America switching to the even years calendar to correlate with the Euro schedule. Taking it as a hypothetical question I personally would not mind it since I like going to some of the games. and I love International football way more than club football.(But of course it is not going to happen so it is moot.)
Infantino plans to basically sell off everything, including the rights to future football World Cups. FIFA would remain an empty shell. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/sport/fifa-infantino-intrige-skandal-1.4214746
I know it would never happen but something I'd really enjoy just because it's a bit different would be if the confederation cup was actually between confederations, I'd love to watch a UEFA all stars vs CONMEBOL all stars. Just an idea FIFA if you are listening.
Its why Olympic basketball has glamour you get to see the "Dream Team" pound on everybody. But this would be better it would be competitive. Plus they are not actual teams who have been together long so it would probably be high scoring. I dont follow rugby but apparently the Lions games just have a different feel to them they are supposedly more fun. I dont know if thats true, its just what Ive been told I could be talking bollocks.
Lions matches are very competitive and serious. Its the matches involving the Barbarians that are traditionally a fun game promoting lots of open attacking Rugby.
Oh ok, O warned you I didnt know what I was talking about. I remeber seeing clips of that amazing Barbarian try, as great as any football team goal I've seen. But I couldn't tell anyone what tje Barbarians are without looking them up. So why do the Lions lose so often then? Is it because they are not used to playing together?
Yeah, that would be pretty cool, but might want to invite some of the other confederations too Don't see it happening though, I just see it becoming way too political with who gets picked and why, who coaches, etc....
Could be, But they only ever play away from home and they also usually play pretty strong nations when they do. They have an overall losing record, but its not that bad (47-59) and they rarely get beaten badly.