News: Club World Cup to Expand; Confederations Cup to End

The NHL became a joke league once the Americans got their hands on it. Shootouts, TV timeouts galore, a ruined World Cup, etc.
And then people wonder why I don't want soccer to become popular in the US even though I live here.

 

I agree.

 

NBA wouldn't need to cut any games. Well, maybe cut the first round to a best-of-five.
More in need is contracting the ridiculously long playoffs which last roughly two months. Games within a series are sometimes played three days apart. Games 2 and 3 of last season's Western Conference Finals were four days apart. And the seven game Finals (Cavs-GSW) were played in an 18 day span. Too stretched out.

 

Why are we even comparing anything regarding basketball with soccer? Soccer is the most popular sport in three continents and probably over 150 countries. Is basketball the most popular sport in even three countries?


So I completely understand why FIFA is talking about expansion. It's a business and like any business they want to grow and cut waste. In terms of popularity soccer has pretty much reached critical mass in South America, Europe, and Africa. These proposals for expanding the World Cup and CWC are all about maintaining support in those areas while growing the game in parts of Asia and North America. Most FIFA tournaments (men's and women's U17 and U20 tournaments; futsal and beach soccer World Cups) probably lose revenue but still serve a purpose. Things like the Confederations Cup doesn't really serve a purpose since the World Cup serves as the flagship international tournament. The CWC not only serves a purpose, but in my opinion has massive potential to be a huge revenue earner. Right now it's viewed like the World Cup was during the first several editions because people can't see past the logistics.


The problem with this announcement, just like the 40 or 48 team WC is that it leaves a lot of room for speculation. Would a 32 team CWC be held every year and what would the allotment between confederations be? This is my proposal and would admittedly take a lot of negotiation and synchronization:


I'd have a 16 team CWC every two years. I'd have four confederations (Europe; Africa; merge Asia and Oceania; and merge the Americas) each having a primary (Champions League) and secondary cup competition every year. The winner of each on a two year cycle goes to the CWC. So 4 confederations x 2 winners from each confederation x 2 year cycle = 16. It could be increased to 32 by adding the runner-ups but I think that would be unnecessary. Then at the CWC have 4x4 groups with one team from each confederation in each group drawn randomly. I'd also have the confederations have the same standards for continental championships (i.e. played once every four years with 24 teams). So this is how the FIFA calendar would look like:

Year 1: World Cup
Year 2: Club World Cup + U17 and U20 WC and Beach Soccer WC
Year 3: Olympics + Continental Championships (AFC & CAF in Jan-Feb and Americas & UEFA in summer)
Year 4: Club World Cup + U17 and U20 WC and Futsal WC

 

3? Is basketball the most popular sport in even one country?

 

Basketball in the Philippines - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball_in_the_Philippines - Cached - Similar
Basketball is the most popular sport in the Philippines, played on both the
amateur and professional levels. Basketball, which was invented at a YMCA in ...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball_in_Lithuania says "Basketball is the most popular sport in Lithuania."

 

Basketball is very popular in Spain, Greece, Serbia, Turkey and Israel.

 

Basketball is the most popular sport in exactly two countries: Lithuania and the Philippines.

Even in the U.S., basketball is way too overhyped when compared to it's actual popularity.
Based on that poll, there's no justification for basketball receiving as much coverage as it does in the U.S.

I don't see how that's possible considering the Confed Cup is held every four years while the CWC is yearly and they seem to have comparable attendance numbers. That's with the CWC being held in December. This is all speculation but does FIFA really care more about the Confed Cup rather than it's one and only club tournament? You have to look at the expectations and growth potential of both. Wasn't the Confed Cup developed as a test run for the World Cup? Obviously the CWC can fill the role of a test run tournament. If the CWC was a biennial tournament played in summers and expanded to 16 teams, those minor tweaks would probably create a big impact. There's no worries about clubs needing to release players since it's a club tournament. The change between international and club competitions every summer would also be a nice contrast and the dominance of European and South American clubs shouldn't be a problem since that same issue hasn't affected the popularity of the World Cup.

 

One issue is voters for FIFA are FA's (who run national teams), not clubs. So the Confed club pleases a voting constituency. Plus, I suspect the viewing numbers are better for the Confed club; although part of this is the time of year (summer) and time zone related.

 

Well that is where the negotiations come in. FIFA can get all 211 FA's (at last count) in there and say something along the lines:
"We've decided to scrap the 8 team Confed Cup in exchange for a summer CWC but we're also adding 16 teams to the World Cup. We also plan to increase the amount each FA receives annually from $250K to $500K. Or we could keep things the way they are. Let's put it to a vote."

Not to mention that clubs are the ones paying the players and making the CWC an expanded biennial summer tournament would probably be a well-received gesture in exchange for expanding the World Cup. If those glorified club friendlies in late summer in the U.S. and China are popular I don't see how the CWC wouldn't be a success.

 

Off-topic, obviously, but the CWC should be the host league winner, the defending champion, and the six continental champions, split into two groups of 4 with the final between each group's winner. The way it's structured now is awful.

 

I don't think FIFA has anything against the format of two groups of 4 in general, the problem is that it isn't really feasible in terms of scheduling.

 

I'd rather not have it at all than keep it going in its current form. That said, it shouldn't take much than two weeks (Confederations Cup is the same format; it takes 15 days. The current tournament takes 10 days. If they can't figure out how to schedule around five extra days, that's their problem.

 

No, the holders and host do not deserve to be there unless they win their CL. 2 groups of 3 is fine. Keep it to CL winners only.

 

Key point here is that they are popular because usually it is the home team, the one usually facing a top team from somewhere else. Take the home team out of the picture (play it with 2 clubs diferent than the home team, and more so, if no one even knows the teams playing it), and they almost instantly become a disaster in terms of money revenue.

Clubs usually don't pull with themselves the amount of fans as a National team might do (and I'm not talking about at continental level, but restricted to country level), as in many cases local rivalries exist to the point where many local fans don't care a cent about the fate of the other local clubs from their own country (many of which, even want them to get trashed while being there, in the process). There are very few exceptions to this issue all around the world, where most of them (which really aren't so many neither), only belong to Europe or South America.

In a CWC, when 2 "unknown champions of who knows where they come from", face each other, it will only atract their own fans, where not many are going to make the trip, asuming the costs it takes, to a distant country to follow them. Host country fans, usually don't care and many aren't willing to go, even if the tickets are given to them for free (in many cases, even if they get paid they will not want to go).


This issue, has always been the "spine up the ass" for clubs all around the world, whenever it gets to comparing, Clubs vs. National teams.

 

I don't think that is correct, in the USA they are often between two European super clubs. One difference is they are during the summer, when it is pleasent to travel around and take in an event. One other difference is that are not yearly, you get one chance to ManU in your region, they may come back to the USA- but not to you region the next year. Actually, FIFA should probably study what they do for the summer tours, because they are obviously doing a better job than FIFA.

 

That would do horribly in terms of attendance, but a 32-team CWC is too diluted to consider. I think four groups of 4 played in four different cities would do pretty well in the US. Wouldn't sell-out every match but most would have good crowds. The 4 UEFA clubs would all draw well, as would the "host" team (if they play in their city) and probably the Mexican team as well.

I also don't think December is a problem. The host cities would be warm-weather venues so I don't see the issue that @AlbertCamus brought up above.

Of course the main problem is still finding time in the calendar for a 16-team tournament. Even if it were to be played only once every 2 years, it doesn't really fit.

 

Wanna a revolucionary thing that make some good money, make a round robin in south Europa in december with African, Panamerican, European and Asia-pacific champions, 4 champions, 6 finals, Europe is full of inmigrants, and Italy is full of nice but ently stadiums.
You dont need the host and you dont sufer the waikikis irrelevancy; Panamerican cup in November gonna get full attendance home and away only the real american champion go to europe.