it's definitely not the same thing, just ask the euro clubs. also what merit was it based on for LAFC to host the game? it should have been at a neutral sit. and yes I'm sure lots of those americanista fans went home crying for that massive failure.
Just ask Chelsea fans if today felt like a neutral site though. Atmosphere and fans can effect things. So sure, it was a LAFC home game in many ways but in some ways it was not when most of the fans are rooting for Club America. MLS team usually lose in that situation.
fan's don't make it a home game. traveling, sleeping in a bed thats not yours (doesnt matter if its 4-5 stars), playing in a stadium not home, playing in a field condition that you don't always play in. this whole narrative of support on the stand =/= home game.
I never said it officially made it a home game. Just that it mentally does not feel like a home game which usually gives the advantage to the Mexican side against MLS sides in that specific type of knockout situation.
Pertaining to the venues of past World Cups which is the context of this conversation Brazilian teams and Argentine teams would rather play in USA than Japan and UAE and such.
The conversation is not about what Mexican players think. It is what USA teams do and MLS does within these situations. Take a look at USA-Mexico for instance. 9 times out of 10 if USA chooses to play in Rose Bowl or Coliseum against Mexico they will lose and feel like it is not a home filed advantages. That is the reason why they play in Ohio where they win the majority of the time. It is all psychological and really no team likes playing in front of thousands of fans from other countries. It is why Argentina sometimes avoids Buenos Aires to play Uruguay and plays in Mendoza or Cordoba.
way to move the goal post. yet you're still wrong. LAFC looking horrible down 1-0, greedy by the tunisia player could have been 2-0
It is not moving the goal posts at all. It is talking about what feels like a home field advantage and what does not. And when it comes to USA teams playing in front of thousands of fans yelling "Mexico" or in this case "America!" by the Americanistas it is far from an advantage.
I think this still stands. But LAFC fans should be frustrated. The lack of intensity stood out to me. LAFC didn't come across as if they were playing in a must-win match at a World Cup. Though credit to Seattle fans for having a better turnout in their second match.
At the very least Liga MX should’ve been able to choose to replace Leon with another league team. It seems that representatives to this tournament will be mainly Liga MX teams anyways. I don’t see the MLS winning any champions leagues soon.
Olise es un fuera de serie, las cosas como son https://t.co/2foUVAg1c1— Eliminatorias Mundial 2026 (@Mundial2026E) June 21, 2025
URU never played in Cordoba. Regardless, each CBOL federation restricts visiting fans to a small percentage of stadium capacity. Changing venue of home qualifiers has to do less with *crowd vibes* and more with stadium renovations/sanctions. Or for cash-grab events, like ECU moving from Quito to Guayaquil. 27 years since CBOL began all-vs-all qualifiers: - ARG had 8 home qualifiers vs URU across that period: 2 in Mendoza, 6 in Buenos Aires. Overall, ARG moved its home qualifiers from Buenos Aires 10 out of 70 times. The experiment stopped in Feb 2022: - 0 of 8 in 1998 qualifiers. - 0 of 9 in 2002. - 0 of 9 in 2006. - 1 of 9 in 2010 (L at Rosario). - 2 of 8 in 2014 (Ws at Cordoba and Mendoza). - 4 of 9 in 2018 (Ws at Cordoba, Mendoza and San Juan; L at Cordoba). - 3 of 9 in 2022 (W at Cordoba; Ds at San Juan and Santiago del Estero). - 0 of 9 in 2026.
Not much futbol from Boca but they were energized by the crowd to keep this thing close. First loss by a CONMEBOL side but it could have been worse. 2-1
awful timing, middle of the night, but it was a very good game, definitely worth getting up. it was my first night game this time and I do not regret it. bayern is strong and one of big favorites, no doubt about that but if they lost musiala tonight it might be a huge setback. my problem is I simply can’t force myself to take this tournament seriously, too many things went wrong and FIFA screwed up many things as well. even the weather god doesn‘t seem to like it
On the tiebreaker, looks like I was mistaken - they are using head-to- head. So, indeed Botafogo are safe unless they lose by 3 goals in their last match (for e.g.). If GD was the 1st tiebreaker, a 2 goal loss would've been enough.
I think this forum needs a separate thread to discuss what does and doesn’t feel like home advantage, judging from my sofa.
Well, the UCL coefficient rankings give a more realistic top 8/12 picture than the UEFA ones. That's what they have been using for this tournament, for every region. But yeah, 4-year window is too much. Should be 2 max. And just because the tournament is played every 4 years, doesn't mean they cannot use 2-year coefficient rankings. To give a sense of how absurd it is to use a 4-year ranking, we are already deep into qualifying for the 2029 CWC if the same formula is used. ManUtd are essentially already out of consideration for the '29 CWC (unless of course they win the CL in 2027 or 2028). And yes maybe they'll still suck in 2029, but they shouldn't already be out of qualifying.
Lightening threats aside, I hope visitors take precautions against the summer heat for the next 5 days. Regardless of whether you are in the stadium or not, take care of yourselves.