I said again and again that the reason why Mexico is not capable of hosting a gold cup is because of the lack of fanfare not the infraestructure in any way. And once again if in those world cup, games of not popular teams weren't that well attendend, why would it be any different in something that is less in EVERY conceivable way. Yeah because people in Mexico just go to see a game and it doesn't matter who the rival is? Is this about making money or doing just some huge charity? Why should the government spend money and resources in something that MAKES NO ECONOMIC SENSE? Why would it make a tournment when you have to give free tickets to see a match? All the thing you mention are idiotic for Mexico to host a competition. A Jamaica vs Panama game may get low attendance in the US but there is no question that it would be lower in Mexico because people don't care about teams in CONCACAF there. Oh right because then it's better to go with your argument based on totally flawed logic and speculation that something concrete like the fact that olympic qualifiers and youth wC qualifiers have been total failures except for the mexico home games. Watch the crowd in Culiacan or Guadalajara for ANY match not involving Mexico and get back to me. First off you exclude from the fact that Brazil is no longer part of the Gold Cup. Second there is not a single NT, not a single one as popular as Brazil is in Mexico. And yet the match was a total failure. And I was in mexico city during the game, it was heavily promoted. And now it's the excuse that they aren't impressed but other cities are. Are you kidding? Why would people in Chiapas care about Costa Rica or Toluca cares about Honduras. Have you seen the crowds in the CCL in Torreon against caribean teams? Did you see the crowds in Culiacan or Guadalajara for neutral games? Copa America is a lot bigger deal than the Gold Cup. And even so, why would government and countries spend in a regional tournament that doesn't have the fanfare of bigger tournament? This just adds to my point that it would be a giant waste of money and that it doesn't make financial sense? First off, it's not the highest rated tournament most countries can attend, the WC is. All the countries that are there, would much rather be at the WC, which is why every single country that was in the hex in 2009, much prefer to concentrate on the Hex than in the Gold Cup. It's only a huge deal to minnows and that is less than half the countries participating in the tournament. Second it is different, it means that a lot more time to spend on the country and more time to see more games, etc. That means a lot more time to spend on infraestructure outside the games to facilities that Central American countries mostly don't have. Also you keep saying that it's because things are closer, more people should go which is BS. The travel is still far and most countries are relative poor which shows there is no argument that shows that travel will increase in those countries from other countries except in your utopic mind. Really, because what argument do you have except totally baseless things based on utopic actions that aren't sure to be taken? The immigrant communities you were basing it on in Mexico weren't there to begin with , so what else? You keep on discounting the real examples and base them on what?
The year was,1986.Fast Forward to 1999 when Mexico hosted the Confederations Cup.The third place match between the US and Saudi Arabia was attended by 38 000 at the Estadio Jalisco in Guadalajara,and that was the only match of the day and that was when the tournament was still a new born child, the first time that the Confeds Cup was played outside of Saudi Arabia.That tournament was well attended in Mexico.Attendances for group stages matches in the group that Mexico was not playing were good but tickets were sold for two matches. That was Brazil's U-23 team by the way,not their senior squad!And as I stated above,The Confederations Cup of 99 was well attended,then why were the matches of the Gold Cup not attended very well 4 years later?It has to have something to do with the reputation of the tournament itself don't you think? Yes it's true,but all that could change if they were given the chance to host a tournament of ''higher quality''.Host rotation works elsewhere,why couldn't it work for CONCACAF? You are making some sense here.However I do not believe that there is no way that we can't make things they way it's done elsewhere!CONCACAF should atleast give it a try once.Sure it would take a few years to get good crowds,but CONCACAF(Jack Warner) probably isn't interested in waiting all that time! It already is a failure in the US(given their population) when Mexico isn't playing...
I went to all the games in Mexico city. The crowds for the non mexico games were beyond pathetic. They did do know that and they did do something smart and piggybacked all the matches to the Mexico and Brazil games (so you had to buy tickets for the other games to watch them) and still people didn't really respond outside those two. The problem is that Mexico and Brazil are by far the most popular teams in Mexico. In the gold cup you would have only 1 group with Mexico and 3 groups of teams that people don't care about. At all. And in Mexico, CONCACAF is considered the bottom of the pile so it would be the most unsellable of all teams. It would be a recipe for horrible attendance. Which wouldn't change at all because the Gold Cup would still be the Gold Cup. A Copa America would have better attendance than a Gold Cup in Mexico but there is really no amount of promotion that would make the tournament a financial sucess. If they give the tickets away, then it would totally defeat the purpose of having it somewhere else. Yeah but unlike other confederations, they are pretty balanced in the capabilities of hosting. Only 3 countries in CONCACAF have the infraestructure to pull it off (Mexico, US and Canada) and one of those doesn't have the fanfare to do so. It's the only place that makes financial sense for CONCACAF. They may not get big crowds always but everywhere else (except Canada) they would get lower crowds and less money. So it makes sense. If people and federations were clamoring for it, then it would make sense but they aren't. There is a reason for it and it's because it will not make financial sense for them to do so.
And what makes you think they wouldn't?Sure it isn't as appealing as seeing Argentina play Colombia but it could be down the road if it's advertised properly.If there's no advertisment,then there is no interest. I meant footballwise/soccerwise.A league that folded just a few years before that and their last appearance on the world stage was at the 1950 World Cup.That's all the US had footballwise/soccerwise in 1988(38 years later) when they were awarded the World Cup.
Advertising can only do so much. It can be down the road but it also might never be. Regardless it's a pretty long road. Canada doesn't have a league and yet it would make a lot more sense for it to host than countries that have established leagues because they have everything else going for them. It might be a nice sentiment but tournaments aren't held because of tradition but capabilities.
Have you ever been To Guatemala or Honduras?? It's not like people have disposable incomes to fling around on things they may take an interest in if advertised properly. Most people live on less than $1000/year and attending any sporting event is a huge ask. Domestic clubs the locals actually care about have a hard enough time drawing even 1000 fans.
Soccerfever, Do you speak Spanish? I do. Have you ever lived in Mexico or Central America? I have. In Mexico there isn't the interest to host a successful world cup. Mexicans don't care about other concacaf nations and wouldn't go to matches not involving Mexico. Central America does not have the resources, marketing ability, nor the infrastructure to host a successful tournament. As to your comment about the selfishness of Americans, that was so stupid it doesn't even deserve a comment, but I will anyway. How old are you? 15? I would love for the Gold Cup to be rotated if it made financial sense. I wish it were possible to rotate it. The image/ lack of interest in the Gold Cup is already bad enough. Your idea is to send it some place where it will be played in front of a few hundred people. Seriously? Wow. Just wow. Also comparing FIFA awarding the US a world cup to a potential Gold Cup in Central is so incredibly stupid beyond belief. The 1984 Olympics in LA set the soccer attendance record. That was what made FIFA consider the possibility of the US as a host. Not too mention all the obvious potential revenue streams which eventually did come to fruition. FIFA didn't grant us the world cup as some sort of charity. They saw the dollar signs. The 1994 world cup still is to this day the best attended and most profitable world cup of all time. Some how you think that compares to sending the Gold Cup to Guatemala? I await your typical illogical incoherent argument, ripe with plenty of nationalistic insults, with baited breath.
Costa Rica has a large American expat community (not sure how many of them are into soccer though,) and some decent sized populations from other Central American nations. A game involving Nicaragua in Costa Rica for example would fill any stadium.
Seeing how CONCACAF has handled the matter after all those years,they've made the road pretty damn long indeed unfortunately! All that you have said in the above quote is true.But why isn't CONCACAF willing to try it?By now they should have suggested it!
To answer your question,I've never been to Guatemala or Honduras,not yet! It's true that most people in the above countries you've mentionned aren't that wealthy.However people aren't that wealthy in other countries from Asia and Africa where they have hosted a continental tournament not so long ago.Yeah I have to admit that a Gold Cup in Central America wouldn't probably be as attended as it would be in the US but CONCACAF should at least give it a try,atleast once!I mean they are contributing to this region somehow so they have to get something in return somewhere down the road.CAF has done if and AFC has done it aswell,why can't CONCACAF?
I speak Spanish, and I've lived in Mexico, and I think you are full of shit if you think you have to live in either in Mexico or central America to have any credibility. ??????? Mexico '86 was one if the not the most successful world cup at the time. In fact, Mexico was going to make a bid for the WC in 2022, but the pressure from concacaf and the current narco problem made it remove the candidacy, so don't tell me there is no interest. That we should see. If he tournament is rotated and grows in prestige, people will go. Condescending bullshit. Central American nations are not rich, but they can hold their own, and host a descent tournament, however, Concacaf will have to step in. After all, what is all the revenue obtain for the Gold Cup for, if not to improve infrastructure in the region? Are you telling me there is not a selfish-condescending attitude? the fans alone (although they got no saying) keep saying that they should let us host it, but not in the edition that decides the confederations cup. in the U.S. also there are lots of interests that prevent the cup from being rotating, because they are making money. That is not to say its wouldn't be profitable elsewhere, but the promoting companies in the U.S. would lose money. First of all, it doesn't have to make financial sense, it is supposed to promote the sport and help build infrastructure. Second, most of the money generated from the Gold Cup is through sponsorships and tv revenue, and those will follow the tournament anywhere it goes. That is because it is a mickey mouse tournament held in the U.S. every year. If it was rotated, Honduras and Costa Rica and other nations would have a bigger chance of winning it. If it is more competitive and transparent, it will draw more interest. Seriously??? please show me the quote where soccerfever advocates for the matches to be played in front of a few hundred people. "wow. Just wow." Don't be naive, the 1994 World Cup was awarded to promote the sport in the U.S. The U.S. is the biggest economy in the world, and fifa would love nothing more than to make real football the main sport in the U.S. And of course, the immigrant population had a lot to do with it.
This right here is what it all boils down to. People say the gold cup can't be rotated because nobody will go to games. Well, they may or may not be right, but we won't know until it's tried. But more importantly, even if rotating the gold cup (and hopefully coming up with a less ridiculous name for it) does not translate in instant revenue, it will do wonders to increase its credibility and make it a more competitive tournament, which in due time will increase its popularity and make it profitable (or as profitable as it can get while staying balanced and fair, being as it is that it involves countries that are far from rich). As it stands right now, it has zero credibility and is nothing more than a handful of glorified friendlies every other year, that aren't taken very seriously by any of the participants. You'd think concacaf would want to improve on the current situation...
To honestly answer your question,I've never lived in Mexico or Central America.I don't speak spanish yet but I'm learning slowly but surely. You meant Gold Cup.As for what's in bold,how do you explain the 38 000 that attended the third place match of the 1999 Confederations Cup between Saudi Arabia and the United States?The US is a country from CONCACAF. I'll take your word,having lived there you're in a better position than I am to comment on the matter.However,remember that most African countries aren't wealthy either and yet they manage to organise a 16 team regional event every 2 years with host rotation.I mean with efforts,CONCACAF could manage aswell one would have to believe. First of all,I'm not here to start a fight or a war of insult...When I red your post,that's how it sounded to me!Can you blame me for thinking that your argument sounded selfish?Well just go a few pages back and read that post of yours again.If you got back to that post of mine,you will notice that I did put the word ''some'' just before Americans,therefor,not labeling every single Americans as selfish as you seem to be implying(Yes it's a small 4 letters word that has its importance in the context).And you not reading that properly and misquoting me can be seen as equally as stupid!And as for the second part of your quote above,you asking my age and throwing a wild guess by mentionning 15...Are you implying that my comment was/sounded childish or something?What sounded childish about it?Had you quoted me,maybe I wouldn't be asking this question but you didn't even quote me. No conclusion can/should be drawn before it has actually been tried,given a reasonable time frame and proper advertising. Just like I told the other poster before,I meant footballwise/soccerwise.I know that your country is a huge market,there's no denying it. You misinterpreted my post,I only questionned the fact that you were denying Central American countries to host saying that they should get their shit together(the words you used) in terms of attendance to their UNCAF championship calling it a joke.Well whether it'a joke or not,it shouldn't be used as the only measuring stick to decide if they should host the Gold Cup or not.Yet your argument from that initial quote suggested that. Yeah and yet,you were unable to quote any of what I said. Plenty???So since when one is plenty now?Show me in that quote the ''plenty of nationalistic insults'' you are talking about... Whatever Shakespear.
What is it with you and your recent offensive on Americans and there lack of geography knowledge? Lol Don't blame them, blame the American edumicational system. They will never fully grasp the concept of the American continent, and the idea that they aren't the only Americans on this earth.
Once again you keep comparing the world cup to the gold cup at it's not even close to the same. First off Mexico can't compete for a world cup nowadays mostly because the demand for the world cup means it would lose out against other candidacies but that neither here or there. Second, like it has been said during that World cup, the least popular teams didn't have well attendend games, what would make you think a competition that has no interest in Mexico and is considered widely subpar would have fanfare of teams outside the home team? That we should see. If he tournament is rotated and grows in prestige, people will go. No they can't. When I was in UNAM, I had to study the Plan Puebla-Panama (a treaty for development of Central America region and southern Mexico) and it wasn't even close. Southern Mexico blew CA out of the water in every infraestructure way. And that's the southern region of Mexico, the poorest and least developed region in all of Mexico. It's not a strecth to say that they aren't economic powerhouses and don't have the infraestructure to host a tournament like this sucesfully and this far exceeds CONCACAF ability, besides the fact that CONCACAF isn't there to build up the nations outside soccer. Are you telling me there is not a selfish-condescending attitude? the fans alone (although they got no saying) keep saying that they should let us host it, but not in the edition that decides the confederations cup. in the U.S. also there are lots of interests that prevent the cup from being rotating, because they are making money. That is not to say its wouldn't be profitable elsewhere, but the promoting companies in the U.S. would lose money.[/QUOTE] Ehh yeah it does have to make financial sense. This isn't charity. Why should CONCACAF be on the business of losing money over it. The whole basis of profesional sports is to make money or at least not to give money away. That's why your argument is so utopic that it doesn't make sense. That tells you everything you need to know. The fact that they went to the US looking for the money, says the reason why tournaments are held and it was the most sucesful world cup in atttendance even if it didn't have a league. Same thing why Canada would be a better place to host than any CA or Carribean country. Money trumps tradition all the time. Because most people bought the tickets in a series and thus had tickets for all the games in Guadalajara to watch Brazil. Plus the Confederations cup was a bigger tournament than the gold cup. Same thing would happen if a Copa America was played in Mexico. CONCACAF is looked really down in Mexico.
Alright!Mexico will host one of the youth World Cups next year,don't remember if it's the U-17 or U-20 but anyway...My question to you is,what kind of crowds will they get for matches not involving Mexico in your opinion?
I'm really not sure. I expect huge crowds for Mexico and normal to good crowds for the latter round games. I'm not sure of the group games. I expect the seeded teams to get good crowds and for some sort of group tickets sells so it would all depend on the seeds. The group that has a Brazil or a Spain should get better crowds that one that has France or something like that. I expect non seeded games to have poor crowds (how poor I'm not sure).
I know, but the "American name" was stolen by the U.S. by repeating it over and over again, and introducing themselves as American citizens and saying they are from America every time they invaded a country. The theft became worse after the U.S. became a super power after WWII, and they started teaching in the U.S. schools that the sub-continents of North and South Americans were continents themselves, and the central American sub-continent belonged to North America. The brainwashing became official after that. In Asia, I read they are already teaching the same way as the U.S. particularly China and Japan (not sure to what extend) Good thing Canada and Europe have not caved in. Anyway... Going back to my original point, if they were able to steal the name by repeating it, then maybe we can gain it back or at least create awareness of non-US citizens that Americans are those of the one and only American Continent, and those from the U.S. should be called United Statians.
Would've been easier if they had just come up with an original name for the country (preferrably one word) to start with rather than a short sentence describing what the country comprises and where in the world it's situated.
you need to stop getting your information from Rush Limbaugh. Mexicans aren't even close to being as racist against Central American's as American's are to hispanic's. Stop being silly. Although, that racism clearly comes mainly from Republicans, it's still far outweighs any racism central american's experience by a landslide.