Impact of Nations Leagues (UEFA original, Concacaf) on World Football? [Multiple R]

Sure, but as Homie points out above, teams making wholesale subs has its purpose. But I guess a compromise could also be considered. Such as not unlimited subs, but more than 3. Say 5 per team. That still keeps the quality level on the field high assuming teams start with a strong XI. To prevent it from slowing the games down too much maybe also add a rule that teams have to make 2 subs at-a-time (accept if its due to injury or a team only has 1 sub remaining, of course).

 

Meaningless friendlies in which almost the entire team will be subbed and that often are a complete crapshoot/hardly comparable to competitive ties ... you'll learn very little ... one of the reasons given by coaches and FAs in favor of the NL is that currently friendlies are inadequate (practicing with teams of your own players will probably be more useful) ... some teams even struggle to find sparring partners and there were teams that avoided playing friendlies (in doing so they improved their FIFA ranking while they obviously cared less about playing useless friendlies) ... besides there will still be enough soft games to blood in youngsters during non-NL friendlies or regular Qs (which are closer to the real deal anyway).

During non-NL friendlies everyone can still play teams from other confederations ... hard to say if there will be fewer interconfed. games ... FAs often arrange friendlies within their own confed. ATM ... as bringing a team from another confed. over costs more money and isn't always practical/the logistics don't work out ... people underestimate the toll travel takes on players as well (in tournaments there's plenty of time to adjust, unlike friendlies) ... in training camps ahead of WCs we'll still see plenty of friendlies with teams from other confederations.

 

Some of the better nations from other confederations deliberately play friendlies in Europe as a large number of their players play their club football in Europe and its actually cheaper and easier to play there than bring those players home. In our case, its pretty impractical for us to play friendlies in Australia during the normal football season. Home friendlies are usually in the late May/June window. Most of our other friendlies are in Europe, even if they are against a non European side.

 

Australia ... just join UEFA ... like you did with Eurovision. Honestly, I wouldn't be against inviting teams from other confeds ... could fill the NL (with 4 leagues of 16 teams each) ... logistically it would be a nightmare though (unless teams from other confeds prefer to keep playing in Europe as they did before). Two non-European sides playing against each other in Europe ... this can simply continue.

Still there will be dates for non-NL friendlies ... as before, there are possibilities in May/June ... there will still be space in the calendar for friendlies, especially for top teams who may want to play teams from outside Europe as they will be in groups of three teams ... can't play against teams that are in groups of 4 so top teams might be more eager to play interconfed. friendlies.

 

Even with the NL tho there is still some small room for friendlies with other confederations right?

Granted the opportunities will be far less but I think the benefit outweighs the negatives here. Especially if teams take this seriously.

 

I don't like this nations league idea.

Just more isolationism from the UEFA teams. Tbh I think it will get kind of boring seeing the same teams play each other all the time. We've already had a 24 team euro which IMO was of poorer quality and not as exciting as former editions.

I think it would be far more interesting to have a world nations league, where we could actually see more match ups and different styles.

It might be a mess logistically, but a lot of top teams outside of UEFA have many top players in Europe.

Also this is going to scew FIFA rankings even more in favor of the UEFA sides than it already does.

Terrible idea IMO.

 

I mean same teams in the same confederation. World football needs more intercontinental competition. Why do you need what is essentially another Euro. It's boring tbh.

Euro teams play each other during WCQ and EQ and the Euros themselves. Why more isolationism ? Why not have more competition between confederations, way more interesting.

 

While a World Nations League would be nice, I just don't see how they do that logistically.

I see more upside than downside. I mean yeah you're reducing the chances teams from different confederations can play UEFA teams but those games are just friendlies anyways. I'm hoping this is another competition that countries take seriously.

Anything that reduces the number of meaningless friendlies is good in my book.

 

Is it more isolation though? It seems to me that currently UEFA teams play other UEFA teams in friendlies fairly often. Not sure what the percentages are though.

Plus does anyone actually watch friendlies? I mean, who's losing out and who's even noticing if there's (for e.g.) a 5% decrease in the number of inter-confederation friendlies?

 

For the Top 5 UEFA teams in July 2016 FIFA Rankings, here is how many friendlies they have played from July 19, 2012 through July 18, 2016:

Belgium: 13 out of 19 vs. UEFA (68.4%)
Germany: 12 out of 21 vs. UEFA (57.1%)
Portugal: 14 out of 22 vs. UEFA (63.6%)
France: 13 out of 22 vs. UEFA (59.1%) (excluding 10 friendlies against the teams in Euro 2016 Qualifying Group I, obviously France was the host and didn't need to qualify)
Spain: 10 out of 23 vs. UEFA (43.5%)
Total: 62 out of 107 (57.9%)

Other than Spain, the range was from 57.1% to 68.4%. Note that when two of these countries played each other, I counted the game twice, once for each country.

 

More info.

http://www.espnfc.us/world-cup-qual...ace-friendlies-with-new-nations-league-format

 

I'm fully behind the Nations' League idea, especially if it gives an opportunity for regular fixtures for the smallest CONCACAF nations who, in several cases, only play 2 competitive internationals per 4 years World Cup cycle when they are eliminated at the first hurdle. Funding may be a issue in terms of travel and expenses for some, so hopefully that can be overcome.

For the larger nations, depending on the format taken, I can envisage this may pave the way to an adjustment in World Cup qualifying format once we go to 48 teams. Given the Hex is much loved for pitting USA and Mexico together every cycle and guaranteeing two high profile clashes, if those games were now part of the Nations League and guaranteed every couple of years, then the World Cup qualifiers could move to 2 final round Hex groups more easily, as may well be necessary in future qualifying cycles.

 

CONMEBOL is going to be left out in the cold here. They will be limited to friendlies amongst themselves and against CAF and AFC and New Zealand.

 

Some teams don't try to qualify for the Gold Cup, but if they did they would get at least 3 Caribbean Cup qualifiers or Copa Centroamericana games twice per 4 years for a total of 8 competitive games per 4 years including that and 2 WCQs.

 

CONCACAF did not pass the LoN. Still in proposal mode...

 

Your point can be looked at from the other POV. i.e. UEFA nations are going to be kept isolated.

Though not sure that's really true. There still seems to be ample opportunity for inter-confederation friendlies, especially for those that don't win their NL group.

 

More easily, yes. But why have two mex-usa NL matches and 0 mex-usa WCQ matches when you can have two of each?
There's only one thing CONCACAF cares about. That's why I don't think CONCACAF will move to a double HEX.

 

You should also note that the 'better' ranked UEFA teams - Leagues A and B - will be in 3 team groups, so there will be plenty of byes to fill with friendlies for them. The lower teams (League D and most of League C) will be the ones with matches on every day, but I don't think San Marino is expecting a call from the CBF any time soon.

J