With the exception of the U.S. always hosting it you can find all of your examples present in other confederation championships. So why, other than your known bias, is CONCACAF the joke here?
I wish I could be a Gold Cup ref and not worry about checking credentials of players. Baseball friends ride me sometimes about how much rigmarole attends youth soccer rostering Funny how the dynamic shifts at higher (?) levels.
How is it "doctoring the bracket" to structure a tournament for the two top teams to meet in the finals? Isn't that how most tournaments/playoffs are? And, of course, Mexico/US wasn't the final in 2015.
And Costa Rica and Mexico are the current top two. I'm surprise the Tournament committee hasn't documented how teams are going to advance! Or have they? Maybe they want to set the matchups to increase the probability of a US-Mexico final or maximize attendance and profit. Which one gets the Ticos in their semifinal?
I knew that, but I thought (seemingly incorrectly, it appears), that they changed it back for 2021. Qualification issues aside, then, it still means that either Mexico or the USA is actually at the Confederations Cup the same summer as the pre-WC Gold Cup, which does more to diminish the quality of the tournament anyway.
Wikipedia has a bracket, don't know if its accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_CONCACAF_Gold_Cup#Knockout_stage
No. The seeds for almost all other international tournaments get placed randomly atop the groups. Sometimes that means the perceived two best seeded teams could meet as early as the quarterfinals in the World Cup. But it's random so as to ensure no team is unfairly getting a better path than another top tier team. In the Gold Cup, Mexico and the USA get placed in groups and then the knockout format ensures that the only way they can meet before the Finals is if one of them finishes third in their group. In a 3-group system, one group winner must play a runner-up and one-runner-up plays another runner-up. Somehow, someway, those two matchup can never be USA-Mexico. For a non-Final USA-Mexico match to occur, one of the teams has to slip all the way to 3rd place in the group stage, which we know is nearly impossible. Checkout the bracket and you'll see what I mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_CONCACAF_Gold_Cup#Bracket Notice further how it's setup so that the runners-up from Group B and C would face a rematch with their own group winners in the semfinals, rather than crossing over to play the group winner from another group. That little quirk is the giveaway--CONCACAF ensures a group stage rematch instead of a possible USA-Mexico semifinal. And they do it every tournament. Four times since 2005, when CONCACAF went to this format, either the US or Mexico did not win its group. Yet, somehow, someway, they've never been on the same side of the bracket in the knockout stages and haven't met in a QF or SF. But it would have been, had the US won its semi.
Yes and no. There are detailed passport checks at FIFA events, though those aren't done by the referee team. At the professional level you're usually not going around asking for driver's licenses or registration cards from players, though. There reaches a point where the onus is on the teams, because they're going to get caught if they field an ineligible player. For international and professional matches, the referees get paperwork that shows who is suspended to there is usually an obligation to make sure such players don't get rostered and (if applicable) don't sit in the technical area. But beyond that, it is and should be on the teams.
I understand all of this. What is the point of being a referee on the FIFA list in the first place? It is being recognized by FIFA in order to referee matches between official FIFA members. Anyone can referee a match involving non-FIFA members. Most all-star games do involve players and entities that are FIFA affiliated. The issue of membership in a Confederation and membership in FIFA is bizarre. It would be like a State Association having a member club belonging to it that was not also a USSF member. That is why there is the confusion over the Malouda business. To my mind a confederation should not be able to have a member who is not also/(automatically) a member of FIFA. That would avoid a lot of confusion. But overall, given the state of disorder, chaos, disorganization and corruption in FIFA and many of the Confederations, particularly CONCACAF, perhaps it is not surprising after all. PH
So, in other words, the tournament is set up for the best teams to play each other in the finals. That's been stipulated from the start of this discussion. That's different from other major soccer competitions, and similar to other major sports...most of which, granted, don't involve group stages. I support that, others don't.
Are there others that go from 3 pools to 8 team bracket? The bracket, to me, doesn't seem completely nuts. Assuming games go to form, two pool winners have to play in the semis, and the other doesn't. The bracket makes it the winner of C that doesn't -- why not have that be the advantage for the top ranked team? The bracket gives the winner of pool C (which I would guess has the top ranked team?) two advantages: the other winners are on the other side and it only has to play a 3rd place team in the first round.
True, but the passports are checked by the referees in individual competitive matches. I recall one particular case where a player forgot his passport, and was rejected by the referee, even though everyone involved, the referee included, knew that the player was legitimate. It was the referee's decision even though he was asked to allow him to play based on personal knowledge. No passport, no play. True! PH
No. It's setup to ensure the highest possibility of the most lucrative final. And before we go on, that's a smart business decision and not necessarily a bad thing. But it doesn't pass the smell test from a sporting perspective. USA and Mexico are the most well-known teams and usually the best teams on paper going into the tournament. But they are not always unequivocally the best teams. For example, as noted, four times since 2005 (actually since 2007) one of them failed to win their group. When you fail to win your group, usually there's a consequence to that. But the way CONCACAF structures the knockout stages, unless the USA or Mexico slip all the way to 3rd, they face none. If all we care about is who the best two teams are on paper, let's just have a two-team CONCACAF championship! The point of having a tournament is to have competition. The results of that competition in a tournament are often surprising and determine how teams progress (it's why we watch). The point @RedStar91 is making, and one with which I agree, is that CONCACAF does everything in its power to ensure the US and Mexico do not face each other until the final, no matter how they perform overall. If one of them fails on their own in the knockout stage, like the US did last time, then oh well. But nothing in the group stage is going to prevent the US v Mexico final. And again, from a business perspective, that's smart. But it's naive to think there's some altruistic sporting principle behind it. If other sports did this, it would be like restructuring the NBA or NHL playoffs each year to ensure the perceived top 2 teams weren't in the same geographic conference so that they could meet in the final.
It's not that there's any issue with this particular bracket. Someone has to get the "easier" path at each tournament. It's that this particular bracket is the bracket every Gold Cup, regardless of which groups the USA and Mexico are on top of and regardless of how well they may be performing at the time.
So couldn't you consider them a 1 and 2 seed then, and the bracket is set up to give the 1 and 2 seed the easiest paths to the final, which includes avoiding each other as much as possible? That's not exactly unusual in sports. And the fact it happens every time would be eyebrow-raising except that for the last 15 years or so those two teams have been pretty clearly the top 2 teams in the region. I don't know if by your qualitative measure of choice (FIFA, ELO, etc.) if they've always been the best two teams come Gold Cup time but it wouldn't at all surprise me if thy were.
If you want to argue this for the quarterfinal matchups, then fine. It's somewhat defensible to always ensure the US & Mexico can't face off in the QFs. But the progression from QF to SF is, in my opinion, indefensible from a sporting standpoint. Because the way it's done, it ensures that they can't face each other even when one of them slips up and finishes second in their group (again, which has happened four times). It's one thing to give the US and Mexico a favorable path if they perform well, but the QF-to-SF bracket choice always determines that there is an additional safety net even if one or both of them performs poorly. That's the point where I support @RedStar91 's use of "doctored." And, once again, this is all a smart business decision. So I don't expect it to change.
Meh. I think a bigger point of contention is that the U.S. always hosts. Again for business reasons but that's much harder to defend from a sporting perspective when Mexico and Canada could manage it, possibly Costa Rica.
Oh, sure. Agreed. If we are talking about competition, this is lower on the totem pole--I just went down this path because the issue came up.
There is nothing present or even close to what is going on in the Gold Cup in other confederation championships. It's not even close. Look at the Copa America (12 team one). The Copa America is the same size as the Gold Cup, but they actually have a draw for the group stage that is public. It would be in their best business interests to try and ensure that a Brazil vs. Argentina Final occurs. They don't manipulate their bracket and draw to ensure that though. Look at the 2015 Copa America. The way the draw worked it meant that Argentina and Brazil would have met in the semifinals if both teams won their quarterfinal match. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Copa_América_knockout_stage Also, they have a rule where all 10 countries have to host before a country gets it again. https://www.si.com/planet-futbol/20...-controversy-corruption-referees-fifa-scandal This article by Grant Wahl sums up some of the problems quite well with Gold Cup. Ignore the nonsense about Geiger though. Every other international tournament in the world that I'm aware of has a draw with pots and seeds that is available to the public. There is no draw or one that is available to the public in the Gold Cup. A draw is just part of international soccer. The teams are just placed in groups to ensure that Mexico and the US can't meet until the Final regardless of how poorly they play. It is one thing to ensure that they don't meet in the quarterfinals or Final if they play well or play to their "seed." It's another if they don't play to their seed and are still protected. It would be like Bayern Munich finishing 2nd in their Champions League group and UEFA saying that they can't meet Real Madrid (who finished 1st) in the Round of 16. What CONCACAF is doing with the bracket is, for me, almost crossing the line into match fixing and match manipulation. @MassachusettsRef Summed it up way better than I ever could. Even if Mexico and US perform poorly, they still can't meet prior to the Final. It's anathema to sport and competition. There needs to be consequences for failing to perform. CONCACAF ensures that there are not for the sake of making money. I'm not naive in that tournaments don't have business interests or obligations, but the sanctity and values of sport and competition can't be just thrown out completely for the sake of making an extra buck. Otherwise you become professional wrestling. I'm not advocating for a pure open draw where they could meet in the group stage. I just want there be to some consequence for not winning your group which every other tournament in the world has. I would be okay with a system where the top two group winners (group winners with most points and goal differential) get a by directly into the semifinals. If teams are level on everything, use FIFA rankings or some other metric so you can ensure Mexico and US get the by. Then you can have the three group runner ups and other group winner play each other to get into the Final Four. It would get rid of the nonsense of having third place teams advance.
You saw my discussion with MassRef about the seeding so I won't repeat it here. It doesn't particularly upset me. But you also complained about the Gold Cup being held every other year, which isn't unique to confederation championships. Weak teams being in a confederation championship is also something that isn't solely a Gold Cup thing. I understand the concerns about the seeding and why some are upset about it, it just doesn't bother me enough. Other than that the only thing that's "Gold Cup-specific" is the hosting.
I'm actually more okay with that than most. Other countries should host a couple matches. I would like to see the Final played somewhere else. Possibly in Mexico City or in Canada. Maybe have a couple of knockout matches in Costa Rica, Mexico or Canada. Have a match or two in the Caribbean involving an island nation It just doesn't make any financial sense to host the entire tournament anywhere else. No one is going to go to the games or is going to be able to afford to go to the games. You think anyone is showing up to watch French Guiana and Honduras in Mexico? Jamaica vs. El Salavador in Costa Rica? Martinique vs. Nicaragua in Panama? Also, most of the countries apart from Mexico and Costa Rica don't really have the infrastructure of stadia to host it.
It is only unique to the African Cup of Nations and CONCACAF. Everyone else plays every four years. Even the OFC (Oceania) plays every four years! The Copa America used to be every two years, but teams and players weren't taking it seriously and the quality and importance suffered. Now they have moved it to every four years and it has grown in stature, quality and importance. It is now making a run at the Euros as the best confederation tournament in the world. A big part of that was because they moved to every four years where teams take their best squads and also because the Euros were expanded and diluted in quality. The Asian Football Championships is held every four years as well.