...20 percent of the profits from the World Cup go to the clubs that have players called up for international duty. So says G-14. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=265701&cc=5901 Doesn't sound like something FIFA is willing to accept so easily. But for the opposition to the World Club Championship to be dropped, I say take it.
The WCC and the Con Cup combined probably don't even make 20% of what the World Cup brings to the register. I'd like to see what happens if the clubs don't back down on this one.
I believe that a WCC is good for nations like Australia, New Zealand, Canada & the USA who are still developing football nations. A WCC would bring recognition of these developing nations and hopefully raise their standards as well and it will build up and benefit the international squads like Australia and New Zealand not to be dependent on european player all the time, They are still important as the home of football is europe but home grown talent can raise the bar and be just as skilled.
First off, this is a wonderful topic for discussion. However, it is obscured by such a horrible thread title. Will one of the mods please re-title this thread to something more appropriate? Anyway, I don't see the value of this Confed Cup. To me, it's just another money-grubbing venture by FIFA. FIFA might as well do the World Cup every other year if they were that greedy. And I don't think the rest of the world won't object that much.
Having the World Cup every other year...are you turning into crazy Sepp now? ;-) But I mean really, that's a ridiculous idea and yeah I would think most of the world WOULD object to that; I know I would. Now I realize that the Conf. Cup may be another money venture for FIFA but it still is a good way to display some of the best teams in the world without taking too much time on the international calendar. And having a World Cup every 2 years would clog the calendar. When would the Qualifying Round take place? Not only that but the drama would be decreased as well. Having it every other year would decrease the value of the World Cup significantly. And like now they want to have a 36 team World Cup...what are these people thinking? All I have to say is don't fix something that isn't broken.
As a Kiwi I couldn't agree more. However, I am not sure I would class the US as a "developing football nation". Possibly but the Confed Cup is really important to the developing nations so if making FIFA more money is the only way to get regular fixtures then so be it. Crowdie.
or FIFA could simply sanction teams that fail to release players. I can imagine that if FIFA were to move to disqualify the non-complaint teams out of international tournaments, you'd get some squealing. Of course, what would result is some kind of bizarre split. I can see the G-14 balking, UEFA backing them up, and then FIFA having to boot UEFA out of the World Cup (the only property FIFA has that's worth anything), or perhaps cutting the UEFA berths in half or something. That'd pit the (many) minnows against the (few) big countries and perhaps subdue UEFA through a divide and conquer strategy. Frankly, anything to break the backs of the G-14 can only be a good thing for the sport. G.
Kick UEFA out of the World Cup? LOL Without UEFA there is no World Cup. UEFA would just continue to play the European Championships and invite Argentina and Brazil to join in. It cuts the crap out for a start.
This I can agree with. But that has nothing to do with the confed cup (worthless piece of crap, let's be honest) or the WCC (not such a big piece of crap, but not really important either).
Lord have mercy... What would happen if Brasil or Argentina were to win, which is at least as likely as not? As it stands now, UEFA at least has a Non-European-Hosted-World-Cup-Consolation tournament. In your scenario they would be left with nothing. Remember, this ain't club ball- you'd have to try winning with your own players. Not saying FIFA would ever deconstipate itself and get rid of UEFA, but are you really willing to risk not having even at least one tournament you can count on winning due to the absence of Brasil and Argentina?
If it was played in Europe then Brazil/Argentina hardly have claims for believing they'd dominate. As much as they like to point out that no European side has ever won the world cup outside of Europe, in Europe there has only ever been one solitary non-European victory. Still a daft idea though, and there's no reason to believe UEFA would back the clubs anyway.
Believe me, we're still developing. Until we have countries quaking in their boots everytime we step on the field, we're still developing. We routinely struggle against UEFA & CONMEBOL teams, so in my eyes, the USA is still developing despite the last world cup and our top 10 ranking. I think our team has a good chance of winning everytime we step on the field, but we are far from dominant and soccer still isn't deeply rooted in the culture.
The FIFA Confederations Cup competition is a sure thing to secure regular internationals that developing countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada & USA to play top quality opposition like France and Brazil. USA is still a developing nation as most of the squad plays in the local mls. I am not saying the mls therefor is crap, I am saying that UEFA is the place to be with top quality players. Virtually the Whole Socceroo squad play in Europe. This quality however hasn't been reflected in the world cup qualifiers of the past (especially against Uruguay and Iran!)
A more interesting reason for why the G-14 oppose the CWC is that as long as they don't have to play on the pitch against the rest of the world, they can trumpet how great they are. When they take to the pitch and lose to Necaxa or the Galaxy or something, they are likely to lose a lot of jersey sales internationally. Ultimately, the G-14 answerable to their shareholders, and that means doing everything to maintain the brand. The downside risk to their mystique is too great for them to be involved. Being world champion is nice, although the bulk of their customer base is parochial enough not to care about the rest of the world, so they don't get a big boost up from it, while the risk of damage is great. It's solely about branding and money, really. Guinho
Which they do every.....hey, they don't do this. Weird, you saying things that aren't true, that never happe....oh wait.
We already have a Club World Championship. It's called the Toyota Cup and it involves the two best teams in the "real" football world (Uefa and Conmebol). It's about time that you people understand that Concacaf, Asia, Africa and Oceania DO NOT EXIST footballistically speaking. Face it and stop whining already!
And yet the winner of the Toyota Cup finished fourth when they actually had to prove it on the pitch. One word: scoreboard. Some World Champion, huh? Calling the Toyota Cup a "world championship" is a total joke. Why not just declare the Premiership the best league in the world and say that Man U is the world champion and not bother with this whole Champion's league nonsense. In fact, why don't we just have Real Madrid be declared the world champion in perpetuity and stop playing the sport at all? Hey, we can declare France the World Champion too, even though they failed to score a single goal! There's an idea! Prove it on the pitch, or quick your swaggering. G.
Partially right. But the vast majority of G-14 clubs don't even have any shareholders. And most of them don't have big jersey sales all over the world. Hardly anything relevant anyway. At Ajax the whole stock exchange story was done to get a one time injection of money into the club by selling shares. And after that to tell supporters even more BS stories as to why they do the stupid things they do. "We have a responsibility to the shareholders". But in fact theses shareholders are all supporters who wanted a share for fun. Nothing else. So it's total BS. Don't know how it is at Man Utd. Finally, try and understand that in all the tournaments and competitions our players play in the WCC is the least important. It's the tournament where you're the least eager to take risks with your players. Do you honestly think a club that's not from SA or Europe will ever win it? The toyota cup isn't even THAT popular (although it has grown)... and that should settle it.
Or any of the Italian teams with shareholders. Once those shares are sold, you can't just get away with saying "oh, they're only fans" because not all of them are and you have legal obligations to people you sell stock to. But that's not really relevant, much. Yes, I do think that teams from SA and Europe could well win it in the not so distant future. Of course, I can see why the Toyota Cup isn't that popular: it isn't for a title of any kind. Ultimately, it gets down to what the fan base wants, and for the G-14 fans, being world champions doesn't really count for anything since they're pretty famously focused solely on the continent of Europe. That makes a certain amount of sense, but still I find the notion that a world championship is irrelevant kind of a curious one. I suppose you could make the same argument about the UEFA CL, in principle. After all,it's only the championship of the continent. Why stop there are declare the national league (for the championship of the country) irrelevant too. It just seems odd to not actually play the matches to find out. G.
As far as I know they have a legal obligation to have a few meetings. That's it. 51% of the sharers are owned by Ajax (at least) and I think this is the same everywhere. And the toyota cup IS for a title in fact. In both SA and Europe it is generally accepted as the world championship match.
Then why was it, that when Cruz Azul of Mexico was about to play in the finals of Copa Libertadores, that SA said that even if Cruza Azul won the 2-leg tie, that they would not be allowed to take part in the Toyota Cup? Cruz Azul lost (under strange circumstances I must add), so we weren't actually faced with that possibility...God forbid the CONCACAF squad would have won and then gone on to beat Bayern Munich? If it wasnt such a big deal...then why did SA block the Mexican team to begin with?
Ah yes, Mexico is not in SA. Do you honestly think any team outside mexicao, sa or europe will ever win it?
The Intercontinental Cup is a match to determine the better team between the club champion of the South American (i.e. CONMEBOL) and European (i.e. UEFA) continent, as far as I know, Mexico is not part of CONMEBOL (or South America for that matter) so I can think of a reason why a club from that country wouldn't play for the Intercontinental Cup even if they had won the Copa Libertadores. It would be like, if Japan wins the Copa America, and then CONMEBOL sending Japan to the Confederation Cup to represent South America.
Which basically goes to show how parochial Europeans and South Americans are, which is precisely why the rest of the world does't like them. Imagine this: Bill Gates and Warren Buffett join forces and buy Real Madrid's front line for $1million, stop off in Manchester to pick up van Nistelrooy, buy the best defenders etc.. and move them to their new club: Shimizu S-pulse. No matter how good Shimizu is, not matter how much they spank all comers, they wouldn't even be allowed in the door at this "world" championship. That's a pretty big hint that this *isn't* a world championship. If the Europeans and South Americans think it is, then they're just wrong, that's all. If that's the definition of the World Championship, then the answer is no, no team outside of Europe or South America will ever win, because they would never be allowed to play. Since the world is now defined as Europe and South America I guess the rest of us can stop playing, huh? Until the championship is determined on the pitch by two squads of 11 players there is no championship. Popular acclaim or press adulation are no substitute for playing the actual game. Period. Anyone not willing to have the games played is no real fan of the sport. G.