Point of order: Mexico is indeed multi-cultural. It's not AS multicultural as the US or Canada, but it's not nearly monolithic.
It could be hosted in the Caribbean and have those countries that qualify for it be the host countries. so in this years we could have had Jamaica and T&T host (not sure about Cuba politically and Haiti infrastructure wise but if the boxes are ticked in both cases why not) A joint T&T/JA could work logistically with some concessions being made BUT it would be expensive. Would be great but what would have to be given up to make it work??? Now about the numbers (money wise). It is all; about money. Hosting it in the USA is a sure fire way to be profitable. You don't pick up money in the streets. Even FIFA in the WC draw ensure that certain countries ended up in groups that have 7 teams (actually the request may have come from UEFA) but it is all for commercial concerns. There is nothing wrong with that. All federations should be walking away with more money than if it was hosted elsewhere. And the advantage that you say the US gets does materialize always. they lost this one didnt they. In fact the GC hurts the US more than it helps. It needs to be playing more in Copa America tournaments and against top European teams. I think the GC is competitive enough for the Jamaicas and T&T like countries and if doing it in the US keeps it economically viable then leave it. complaining about it is just finding something to complain about for complaining's sake.
Yes, I tried to put tht in parenthesis. I know Mexico is not monolithic, it is just not as diverse as the other two. +1 on the complaining point! The other countries aren't protesting because they know where their bread is buttered at.
I know Jamaica just hosted a youth tournament fairly recently. How did the venues fare and how many were there? Would they translate to running a full-up international tournament (I'm guessing there are probably 2 venues in Jamaica that would work, and possibly 2 in T&T, but The Office can be an unruly jungle, pitch-wise, and the primary ground in T&T is a cricket oval prone to waterlogging).
Cant speak for T&T but we can always throw some green paint out there or something not saying we are turn key but it could (emphasis on could) with the right leadtime and investment and planning. some work yes for sure. but that is the point? the region gets to visit the US play in some semi decent stadia with not too shabby accomodations and for the most part get to focus on playing their games. profits flow and if the federations are not huge crooks (little crooks are okay ) players get a decent change and everyone goes home semi-happy. now you want to take all the capital and investment in getting a couple more fields in JA or elsewhere up to a decent level etc etc and all the profits if any go back to replacing the captial you just laid out. we should be smart about this. as long as we are not leaving the smaller nations behind (Antigua Grenada etc etc) lets keep it this way and one day they will be making some decent noise on the field of their own.
Complaining about it is about making it a fair sports competition which is what this is supposed to be. There isn't a single valid argument for having it in the USA always beyond the fact that it makes the most money. However that is not the point of this competition. So long as it's profitable outside the USA still then rotating hosts should happen and the TV deals make that possible Also not all Federations make money Costa Rica in 2013 either broke even or lost money. Most other FA's don't say where the money goes so it can very easily just be going into their pockets which we now know is case. Eduardo Li Costa Rica's fa President who should have tried to host it by now to give his country a better shot at the confederations cup was recently taken down for embezzlement. Just because countries FA's aren't complaining or making attempts to host it doesn't mean they shouldn't we know what their motives for not doing so are it is beyond me that fans are defending corrupt fa presidents just linning their pockets instead of making this a real competition. Also you mention money going to help build the infrastructure of stadiums as being a bad thing really? It's better that money was spent on a condo for Blazzers cats or Jefferey Webb's house. The USA lost after having a poor cup that doesn't mean they don't have home field advantage while playing Panama
Uh-huh. Hopefully youre never selected for jury duty. Didnt know diversity was such a factor when choosing a host for a futbol tournament . It's obviously impossible for you to admit that hosting the cup is a clear advantage for the USMT. Thats fine by me.
good points. my post makes some inherent assumptions one being that the fat cats are not taking the bulk of the money for themselves. i am assuming that the bulk of the money goes to the areas in teh federations that it is supposed to go to. now, regarding the infrastruture - sure it may not be a bad thing in a relative point of view. but is that what the federation needs? i think JA football (and I will throw in T&T in here as well) needs exposure for its players. there are enough fields and teams for the players to occupy. these ballers need to be send abroad to train with teams in Europe, SA if they can and get some contracts from MLS teams and some lesser known European teams where they can push through and make a name for themselves. more stadium is not the answer in those cases for me. those players can then play for their national teams and showcase there. bigger better stadia is not always the answer. Costa Rica is a decent shout though. They should be on the level as Mexico and US in terms of play and hosting ability. So I could make an exception there but the money in this case should be followed. Killing the goose that lays the golden egg is a huge mistake. And make no mistake, CR is a country that should be winning the GC no matter where it is played. As is Mexico and the US. and to the bold bit, it is a romantic notion to rotate it. but we live in the real world. come on now. money drives most decisions and while we would like to say it is not the point we know it plays a part. now tell me this, how will holding it in a different country each time benefit Jamaica or Haiti or El Salvador in terms of development?
It would help Haiti and El Salvador because the groups will be different it won't be set up to just have a USA Mexico path to the final. If this had a different host they would most likely be the seaded group A team and El Salvador wouldn't just be put in with Costa Rica in group B to sell tickets for the fourth year in a row. That isn't benefiting El Salvador. It would also help them get used to playing in different countries instead of just facing Costa Rica or Mexico in a do or die wcq away game they can gain experience in the cup. Having better stadiums doesn't come at the expence of players getting scouted less. If they perform on the field scouts will find them at the moment the gold cup is probably scouted less than even the afc championship based on the number of players that join new teams after the tournaments having better fields to play on can actually help them show their talent. Several World Cup qualifying games have to be played in very ugly ways due to field conditions. Having better fields will make that be less the case and can improve scouting Hosting outside of the US will not kill the golden goose because the TV contracts are big enough to still make this profitable
This is what happens when you don't quote properly. P.S. Had I not clicked on "expand", I wouldn't have been able to copy and paste the pieces I did.
That doesn't necessarily follow. The competition aspect is separate from the logistical/revenue one. They could change the draw procedure right now (but they won't).
MK3 you say that someone esle shoudl host it. You are asked in who in the Caribbean and you are like, someone should answer that. So you want to fight for an idea but but can't follow through Yes diversity is important so is location and ease of ability to travel. These are all factors that must be considered when you award a tournament to a country, if we are doing it straight up and not on the WC in Qatar style bribe. Does the nation have a quality infrastructure for travel, quality roads, quality hotels and such. As a Ghanian, I know when the hosted the CoN they had to go into debt with China to get the stadium upgrades needed. You need a location that can get the enough attendance at each match to break even. A soldout Azteca for a Mexico game is great, but what about the other games. And if your talking Caribbean, loads of Equipment have to be flown in to allow for the match to be televised globally. There are massive logistics involved, and someone has to be willing to eat the cost of the logistics to make this happen. In a perfect world there would be no corrupt officials and the stadiums would all have good pitches and so on but that is not the way life is. Mexico doesn't want to make the outlay needed to host the GC, they rather let the USA do it and get there cut. Tell you what, if you expect me to admit that the USA has a clear advantage, I will. right after you admit, that if not for the dubious penalty calls against CRC and Pan, Mexico wouldn't be in the final and corrupt CCAF officials made it happen. Mexico has parity with the USA in advantage when the GC is hosted in the USA and everyone else gets a solid crowd. Move it to Mexico, the scales tip 90% to Mexico, 10 percent to everyone else. Not just the USA doesn't find that good, the other nations in CCAF see no point of that. None of the other nations want to play in a WC qualifying match enviroment when they play Mexico, because that is what your asking for and no one wants to see 10K people in a 50K stadium. Slamin, CCAF will always pit Mex and USA on different sides of the bracket. A USA v Mex in theory creates a final between the two best teams. That is what all tournament organizers want.
I did answer his question, Smarty pants. When i was asked "who should host it?" I answered him. I said it could be a joint effort the the Caribbean. He then asked me about the logistics of a joint effort, to host the cup, thats when i said that, there are people more qualified to plan such an event. You know, people that are paid to do that. Why do you keep on bringing up Mexico as a possible host, there are other countries that could host it. Either alone, or as a joint effort. And again, why does the Cups profitability matter so much to you? Im starting to think you are making money off the cup as well, by all the hoops you're jumping through to justify CCAF. I don't expect you to admit the US's clear advantage of having every Gold cup at home. That's precisely why i said that it is impossible for you. And thats fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, im not going to call you shameful or anything because you disagree with me. You keep on thinking that the Gold cup in the US is the same for Mexico, in terms of Home field advantage, but it is simply not true. Its clear you have never been to a Mexico game in Mexico. There is a stark difference. But your mind is clearly set, and im tired of going in circles with you. Apparently "home field advantage " is hard for you to understand. Yes if Mexico hosts a Cup, and in turn has a 90-10% advantage, thats the whole point of it. Just like if Canada, C.R, Panama, Honduras etc. then they would have a crowd advantage too. Thats not even taking into account the mental advantage that comes when playing in your homeland. And around your people. So now you know what other countries feelings are on the matter, and speak for them too? Didnt know you were the representative of the smaller CCAF nations.
I don't think any reasonable person, no matter how big of a USA supporter they are, would try to claim that having the Gold Cup in the US isn't a significant advantage for the US MNT. IMHO it's a huge advantage. And as much as I disagree with some other points MK3owner makes, I agree that just because Mexico enjoys a lot of fan support during Gold Cup, it's not nearly the same advantage as playing the tournament in your own country, in your own culture, with your own people around you. This is especially true for younger players who might not have spent much time abroad yet. If Gold Cup was played in Mexico, Mexico would be overwhelming favorites to win it. And with that being said, I'd be in favor of moving it out of the US in future years. But I don't think it's happening because CONCACAF's net profit will go down too much. I am sure they do the math every 2 years to see if it's feasible, and the answer always comes back 'no' for the reasons everyone is citing. The costs of doing it elsewhere goes up (stadium upgrades, logistics, etc.), while ticket revenue goes down. Even if they get similar sized crowds in a caribbean or Mexico or Central American tournament, can they charge the same ticket prices? I don't think so. It may even be that American casual fan interest and TV ratings in the US would go down if it were played elsewhere, and like it or not, I'm sure US TV rights and ad revenue is a big part of CONCACAF's revenue. If we have a Caribbean-hosted tournament, maybe they'd open it up to 16 teams to allow in a few more Caribbean teams? With just 4 (Jamaica, Haiti, T&T, Cuba), they probably need more venues. And Americans can't freely travel to Cuba (yet) but maybe that'll be fixed soon. How much needs to be spent on stadium upgrades? How expensive would it be to travel around between these countries and watch matches? How much do televising costs go up to fly in TV crews/gear, and move them around by plane, etc? I'm not saying it can't be done, I just don't think it's feasible [yet] financially.
T&T's hosted both the FIFA U17 men's and women's tournaments in 2001 and 2010 respectively using 5 stadia. The HCS holds around 25k with the others around 10k. T&T can probably do it
I recall you specifically used it for a qualifier against the US (because of its awfulness), and I thought that was the last cycle. Point taken if it's no longer primary. It would probably have to be used in a hosting situation, though, no?
here's a list I found of the top 7 stadiums in T&T: Hasely Crawford Stadium (Port of Spain) 27 000 Larry Gomes Stadium (Malabar) 10,000 Ato Boldon Stadium (Couva ) 10,000 Manny Ramjohn Stadium (Marabella ) 10,000 Arima Stadium (Arima ) 9,500 Marvin Lee Stadium (Tunapuna ) 8,000 Dwight Yorke Stadium (Bacolet ) 7,500 Seriously do you think that's adequate for hosting an entire Gold Cup tournament? Not only are there not even close to enough seats for fans, I'm wondering about the conditions of these stadiums. And obviously no luxury boxes for CONCACAF officials and their friends and also all the sponsors. Also, we need to consider practice facilities for the 11 visiting teams. I'm guessing they aren't any. For a U-17 tournament, OK. But for a Gold Cup, the idea T&T can host it alone is a non-starter. Now using HCS as one of the stadiums in a Caribbean-based tournament, that's something to consider.
Yes we used it purposely against the US I think in 2006 qualifiers. The last cycle that we played the US was 2010 and we played in the Hasley Crawford Stadium (actually won that game) If hosting, the oval would need to be considered as it holds around 20k. Having said that 10k sized stadia probably would work too? Plus all of those stadia could easily add temporary seating to up capacity (has been done before) Its still unlikely that hosting this would ever happen. Just saying that infrastructure may not be the biggest barrier.
Agreed I don't think its practical for T&T to host it alone. Actually wasn't suggesting we do. This would have been part of a joint bid. As far as the other stadia are concerned, the Ato Boldon and Dwight Yorke could probably host as is the others would need renos.
Yikes. Thanks for the clarification on the oval. That all said, I think that only a co-hosting would even sort of work, given the above. Temporary seating just to hold a continental tournament is pretty much a no-go.
I believe just by shear atendence figures the USA doesn't get the home field advantage that every other nation would if they hosted it so it is not that huge an advantage. As for MK3, there are only 3 nations that can host the GC by themselves. Canada's attendance is in doubt so that leaves Mexico and that is why I talk about the fan support they get. Furthermore I live in the real world where money talks. No one is gonna do a venture that loses money? FIFA did a WC in Germany before SA because they knew the SA tourney would not be as profitable that is why they went to areliable place like Rio next. Corruption aside. The 94 WC holds the attendence record for WCs.