yeah i know its a bit odd, and prob won't ever happen, but putting the association problem aside, i think the quality of football in a pan american cup would be far higher than the existing 2 tournaments.
I would still keep the Gold Cup and Copa America as is in years like it was in 2007 and how it will be in 2011. My proposal would be for a joint tournament called The Super Americas Cup in 2008 or 2012. You could have the top 4 or 8 finishers from Copa America and the top 4 or 8 finishers from the Gold Cup act as a sort of qualification. It could be either an 8 or 16 team tournament. It would take place every 4 years in 2008, 2012, etc. It would be in July after the Euros and before August's olympics. In a case where Mexico finished in the top 8 you would have the top 8 South American finishers. And Mexico's inclusion into the tournament would be based on their CONCACAF Gold Cup performance as that is their own confederation. Potential 8 Team Tournament with the top two teams in each group advance to the semi finals. Group A - USA - Argentina - Paraguay - Trinidad & Tobago Group B - Mexico - Brazil - Uruguay - Costa Rica Or a 16 team tournament could be this using the same format as the old world cups and the euros. Group A - USA - Uruguay - Ecuador - Panama Group B - Argentina - Honduras - Paraguay - Jamaica Group C - Mexico - Chile - Trinidad & Tobago - Venezuela Group D - Brazil - Costa Rica - Colombia - Canada
thats along the lines of what i was thinking, the 16 team tournament would be the better of the two. only problem is, those guys involved are barely going to get any summer breaks. fixture congestion is heavy as it is. still, they can scrap the confederations cup for a start. maybe this 16 team tournament could be hosted in cycles between N.Am and S.am - mexico or US one time, next time Brazil/Arg etc, then back again. It won't happen of course,just wishful thinking. I'd prefer that tournament to either the gold cup or copa america as they are though.
Not true at all. Not every match up is going to sell that many tickets... The big name countries and latter stage games will of course but some of the early stage weaker matchups wouldnt. A SSS would be perfect for them.
I completely disagree. Look at the attendances of the '94 World Cup. Bolivia v. Korea Republic 54,453 Foxborough, MA Greece v. Bulgaria 63,160 Chicago, IL Saudi Arabia v. Morocco 76,322 E. Rutherford, NJ Belgium v. Morocco 61, 219 Orlando, FL Nigeria v. Bulgaria 44, 132 Dallas, TX (lowest attendance) Romania v. Colombia 93, 586 Pasadena, CA The MLS soccer specific stadiums host between 20-30K. It makes no sense for FIFA or U.S. Soccer to use these stadiums at all. Also you need a 40K stadium to stage games, because that's a FIFA requirement. The Soccer Specific Stadiums will be used as practice and training facilities for teams.
I thought that China had topped the medal table the last couple of times? And with a population of over a billion, I think they have the US in terms of numbers. (Though no-one is anywhere near us in terms of cycling!) Striking a blow for soccer would be good, but FIFA will be looking for bids that promise all that. And a US bid would undoubtedly do the MLS a lot of good, they have to fight off the "legacy" aspects of all the other bids. Not such an easy thing to do.
So does Columbus, Salt Lake City, and Carson but it doesn't mean they'll be one of the World Cup venues. The only venue that is being used as a qualifier and will probably be used as a WC venue is Soldier Field in Chicago. Even in the DC area I would expect them to use FedEx Field instead of RFK. That said Nashville is one of those bubble cities that could get it. The only real locks in my opinion would be E. Rutherford, NJ - Raljon, MD - Chicago, IL - even LA isn't a lock unless they get a decent stadium or renovate one of the old ones. Arlington, TX is probably another lock too.
http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/index.html http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/2004standings/index.html USA top the last couple.
Oh yeah. I remember. NBC switched the calculations round before Beijing. Before, weighting went on winning gold medals, then NBC switched to just counting medals, rather than using the same system as pretty much everyone else of giving priority to golds. http://en.beijing2008.cn/ http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/past/index_uk.asp?OLGT=1&OLGY=2008 (And look for medals by country) http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics/medals_table/default.stm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Summer_Olympics#Medal_table Either way. Does not matter whichever way you look at it. Either the US has lost dominance, or it will do at the next Olympics. China has the population to raid to pretty much guarantee it. (Though they wont be getting our cycling or sailing medals!)
There are many events that no one really cares about, several of those events China is good at. At the olympics in the main events the U.S. still has dominance. Gymnastics, Swimming, Track and Field, Soccer, and Basketball are the most popular events. If your dominating in those that's all anyone cares about. There's peaks and valleys. This past olympics USA womens swimming and USA track and field were below par in 2008. It had nothing to do with China at all. In track it was self inflicted and countries like Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago benefited. In swimming a slew of countries benefited and got medals they wouldn't have normally won. But in all those prime time events the U.S. out performed China. Even in gymnastics when the judging was clearly biased and then it comes out later the China was using girls that didn't meet the age requirements.
The UK athletics team fell under what we hoped for as well (though our goals where far more modest, and made up for by the cycling teams almost total domination! Darn the Argies, Dutch and Spanish!). We could sit here and bang on about underperformance. Except that these athletes have basically prepared for 4 years for that 1 big race, and then blow it. The UK mens relay team basically had to go into hiding. Seeing the US team mess up a handover gave everyone a massive boost, only for our guys to muck it up?!!? The Chinese where better prepared. Sports domination is based on numbers. China won by far the most golds. OK, a lot o them are in sports not seen as "mainstream" But the fact is they picked up bucketfuls of medals, whilst the rest of us could not claim domination in pretty much any sport since there where enough countries to "limit" any 1 nation. Jamaica, Russia and Kenya did a good job on the track, not allowing the US to claim "domination." Russia only had 1 less gold, and a couple less silver. OK, the US where 10 clear of Australia in the pool, but they are viewing their performance in the pool as a total calamity (Another case of "underperforming!"). I do agree over the gymnastics. It even got the Japanese announcers commenting on it mildly miffed. A big move for them! So, it is going to be interesting in London. Will the UK`s athletes step up and amend for their failures on the track? Will the US still own the pool? Will anyone else bother turning up for the cycling? Will the Aussies recover from having the "mother country" beat them? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article4719058.ece Will the Chinese make good on their promise to win more medals? I know they wanted to poach our cycling team manager, but he told them he wanted nothing less than ALL the golds in London, and they could stick their massive offer sideways up a particularly ill-lit orifice! Will we get this thread back on track? I will, by saying that yes, the US should get another world cup, but only after England has hosted it! mainly because its been way too long for England, and interestingly, 2018 marks the 155th anniverary of the effective birth of this game we all enjoy today. So, give the finals to England, bake a really big cake, and all join hands for a round of "happy birthday!" After that, by all means, hand it on to the US!
I also forgot about the U.S. domination in volleyball. They won 3 of the 4 gold and 1 silver. Both mens and womens beach volleyball, and mens won volleyball, while the womens too silver. But to get back on topic I nominate England to host 2018 in turn for and English vote for the U.S. in 2022.