FIFA International Match Calendar: Proposed Changes & General Discussion

Is it erroneous because you say it is? Take it up with the sports websites who made the comparison. I'm just reporting the findings because I see it as perfectly valid. There are 68 teams in the tournament, not 80, but aside from that, it's disingenuous to imply that because there are 68 teams vs 16 NBA playoff teams, the NCAA has an edge over the NBA because of sheer quantity. The majority of these teams are from small market towns that have no ability to compete with the star power and following of the NBA. The fans that watch are invested in the process more than the teams. It's the format and the marketing behind the tournament that gets people invested by filling out brackets.

So oversaturation is a thing?

In our previous conversation, I was advocating for change. Yes, I would've preferred to see a merger with CONMEBOL, but when you said CONMEBOL didn't want the Caribbean, I suggested N. and C. America should join S. America, with the implication that the CFU would be it's own confederation. If I didn't outright say it back then, I'll say it now: the CFU is much better off on its own then it is as part of CONCACAF, and they would fully deserve a spot in any FIFA competition. In our discussion you seemed to be arguing to keep the status quo, since you were adamant that the Caribbean was rapidly improving within CONCACAF. I didn't know you also wanted CFU independence, so I apologize for the mischaracterization.

Our discussion was from 6 years ago and there's more evidence that the CFU has actually regressed over time with sporadic performances. In the 2019-2020 NL, out of five FIFA-affiliated Caribbean teams in League A, only one managed to stay up (Curacao). The 2021 Gold Cup had a single CFU quarterfinalist (Jamaica). And we won't even bring up the 2018 and 2022 WCQs (or discuss Jamaica losing to Nicaragua at home ). My point is that I find it confusing that you're advocating for a biennial WC when the Caribbean isn't even assured of a representative with a 48 team field. If the CFU had a direct spot like the OFC, then I'd be more understanding.

On the other hand, in a mock seven league GNL format, the CFU would be well-represented. CONCACAF would have one slot each for Leagues 1-4 and two slots each in Leagues 5-7. Based on current FIFA rankings, only the CONCACAF League 1 group wouldn't have a CFU rep. Leagues 2-7 would all have at least one Caribbean team (and many lower groups having only CFU teams) that would compete for spots in the finals.

 

I don't know where you're going with this, but apart from the problems in comparing NCAA b-ball ratings with NBA playoffs, its not a great analogy to begin with because those are 2 different products. If you're selling something completely different there is potential because it could attract a different group of people, especially if you're operating in different markets (as you point it yourself, NCAA teams play in some small markets where the college basketball team is often the only big local sports team).
But GNL and WC would involve the same set of teams and players. And the WC is the one with the history and the one that determines the world champions. As such, the GNL would always be secondary.

 

FIFA need to look to the bloated Olympics which really peaked between 1994 and 2012 and imho are on the decline. One bidder for 2032

 

You are correct sir, 72 NCAA teams participate in March Madness, not 80.

Would mind sharing those findings, where viewership for NCAA matches is higher than NBA playoffs?

I want to confirm that their arithmetic is correct. You will be surprised how many misleading stats are published out there.

 

A simple Google search reveals


For the 2021 men's Final Four games, an average of 14.9 million viewers watched Saturday's Gonzaga-UCLA overtime buzzer-beater, and that game peaked at 18.8 million viewers. Baylor's win over Houston had 8.1 million viewers, which is down 37% compared with the 2019 early semifinal contest.Apr 6, 2021.

The 2021 NBA Finals presented by YouTube TV featuring the Milwaukee Bucks and the Phoenix Suns averaged 9.91 million viewers on ABC for the six-game series, up 32% vs. the six-game 2020 NBA Finals (Miami Heat vs. Los Angeles Lakers). The Finals propelled ABC to win the night across television and in all key demographics for every game of the championship series. Game 6, in which the Bucks defeated the Suns 105-98 to win their first NBA title in 50 years, averaged 12.52 million viewers, up 50% vs 2020.

 

My point is that the GNL and WC would look very different from each other, in terms of qualifying, participants, and the format, but it doesn't mean that a GNL can’t be successful since it wouldn’t be competing against the World Cup. I created a mock draw to provide an example of what the GNL Finals could look like. I took the allocations that each confederation would receive for each league, used the FIFA rankings to make four team groups, and picked out the highest ranked team in each group.


League 1: UEFA x3; CONMEBOL x2; CAF/AFC/CONCACAF x1 each. (Belgium, Spain, Germany, Brazil, Colombia, Senegal, Iran, Mexico)
League 2: UEFA x3; CAF x2; CONMEBOL/CONCACAF/AFC x1 each (Wales, Austria, Scotland, Tunisia, Ivory Coast, Ecuador, Jamaica, Qatar)
League 3: UEFA x3; CAF/AFC x2 each; CONCACAF x1 (Romania, Finland, Albania, South Africa, Benin, China, Jordan, Curacao)
League 4: UEFA/CAF/AFC x2 each; CONCACAF/OFC 1x each (Israel, Belarus, Equatorial Guinea, Namibia, Vietnam, Thailand, Antigua and Barbuda, New Zealand)
League 5: CAF x3; AFC/CONCACAF x2 each; UEFA x1 (Kazakhstan, Mozambique, Gambia, Comoros, Kuwait, Myanmar, Dominican Republic, Belize)
League 6: CAF/AFC/CONCACAF x2 each; UEFA/OFC 1x each (Lithuania, Ethiopia, Eswatini, Indonesia, Macau, St. Lucia, Cayman Islands, Fiji)
League 7: CAF/AFC/CONCACAF x2 each; UEFA/OFC 1x each (Liechtenstein, Chad, Seychelles, Laos, Sri Lanka, U.S. Virgin Islands, Martinique, Samoa)


So as you can see, the further down you go the less likely you’ll see any of those teams at a World Cup or Continental Championship. Yes, the World Cup determines the best team in the world. It has one winner. Second place is the first loser. However, as a direct result of its purpose, there is an imbalance by design and obviously favors bigger nations and the most powerful confederations (UEFA and CONMEBOL). Europe and S America have less than a third of FIFA members (65/211) yet will have almost half the WC slots in 2026 (22 or 23/48). I'm not saying that's wrong, but the GNL would be a perfect counterbalance since it rewards and values less powerful confederations and smaller nations just as much as those at the top. There are large parts of the world that might not even be represented in a 48 team WC, like SE Asia, South Asia, East Africa, Southern Africa, and possibly even the Caribbean. The GNL Finals would have 7 champions (1 global winner in each league). It would have promotion and relegation, so every team that made it into the GNL Finals would be promoted to the next higher league for the next edition of regional qualifying while the fourth place teams in each group would be relegated to the next lower league. In GNL, qualifying groups would be universal four team groups (with some 3 or 5 team groups as necessary). You wouldn’t see the disparity in competitive matches that you see in WCQ and there would be far fewer mismatches.

The comparison I was referring to was this article:
https://bleacherreport.com/articles...ess-gets-better-ratings-than-the-nba-playoffs
It didn't give exact numbers so I found an article that did:
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2013/06/clearing-up-some-confusion-about-basketball-tv-ratings/
And I looked at the NCAA and NBA numbers for 2021 to see if there was an anomaly and March Madness and the Final Four consistently have better average ratings than the NBA Playoffs and NBA Finals. Gonzaga-Baylor had 16.92M viewers and 9.4 rating. Game 6 of Phoenix-Milwaukee had 12.52M viewers.
https://www.sportsvideo.org/2021/04...in-ncaa-womens-tournament-hits-ten-year-high/
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/21/buc...9-million-viewers-up-32percent-from-2020.html

 

There is no universe where the CFU gets a direct spot like the OFC. The CFU is not going to split from CONCACAF - indeed, in the last few years, the CFU has gone in the opposite direction and become more tightly woven to CONCACAF. A split is not on the table, whether I like the idea or not (the CFU and CONCACAF more broadly do not care what I think).

There's nothing to be confused about when you acknowledge that reality.

Our choices are an increase in 48 team WC frequency or no increase. An increase clearly improves the odds of Caribbean access to WC finals dramatically. From a Caribbean perspective, it is the obvious choice. An independent CFU with direct qualifying berths would be very nice, but it is simply not an available choice.

I just don't understand why you can't see how unappealing this is. Nobody is going to watch leagues 2 to 7, and you've just insisted that no CFU team would be beyond League 2. Representation in those leagues is not a viable alternative to a biennial world cup, for anybody who supports a biennial WC (read: most of the planet).

If the goal is to present alternatives that might genuinely get people to forget about pushing for a biennial WC, this is not going to get you there. It offers no meaningful financial benefit and no meaningful competitive advantage for teams that already have a nations league competition to play in. This is a waste of time.

 

Thanks bro. I will take a closer look at those numbers.

It does look higher for NCAA than NBA, if only their final championship games are measured.

 

https://www.insideworldfootball.com...iennial-world-cup-says-internationals-needed/

Some of the takeaways:
Concacaf president Victor Montagliani has voiced reservations over a biennial men’s World Cup, saying that it is problematic and questioning where confederation championships, including the fast-growing Concacaf Gold Cup, would fit in.

So if not a biennial World Cup then what? The thinking now looks to be leaning more towards some kind of world Nations League competition, not a long way from the old Confederation’s Cup tournament but with more teams and perhaps played as a knock out competition.

 

https://www.insideworldfootball.com...iennial-world-cup-says-internationals-needed/

"So if not a biennial World Cup then what? The thinking now looks to be leaning more towards some kind of world Nations League competition, not a long way from the old Confederation’s Cup tournament but with more teams and perhaps played as a knock out competition"

Pretty much what I suggested the compromise had to be - some sort of beefed up confederations cup-style tournament. Unsurprising.

 

That is a strange statement by Montagliani because the proposed IMC post-2024 maps out the dates for each competition, including the Gold Cup.

Anyway, we await next week's FIFA Congress for an update.

 

Nobody wants a biennial World Cup except for all the minnows who would benefit financially from it. That's what happens when you go to a one nation, one vote system where roughly 2/3 of the member nations have never qualified for a World Cup.

The best option would be a 12-team tournament the year after the continental championships featuring the finalists from the five continental championships + the two losing semifinalists from the Euros.

 

As you admit in the next sentence, this is the vast majority of the world. There are 211 FIFA member associations, and at least 160 of them look likely to support a biennial tournament if it came down to a vote. Thats not really "nobody". It's actually just about everybody outside of Europe and South America.

Can't see how that's helpful if the goal was to satisfy those who want a biennial world cup without providing a biennial world cup (which has to be the goal because, as noted above, most of the planet supports a biennial world cup and are going to want to see something significant if they don't get it). You need a much larger tournament than 12 teams (there's just not enough revenue in this), and you need much higher representation from the non-UEFA + CONMEBOL confederations who support the biennial tournament.

This can easily be done, but there has to be some will among the anti-biennial crew to admit that it needs to be done. All of this noise is really just a warning that the status quo isn't going to work too well for much longer.

 

I'm not a fan of having a world cup every two years but would like to see more interconfederation competition. With more World Cup places most confederations could cut back on qualifying matches eg AFC could stop after current round two and send the group winners as their 8 teams, which may leave some room for other competition. Maybe a nations league of some sort could fill the hole. Those confederations that have biennial championship tournaments (Concacaf and CAF) do so because they and their teams need revenue. To get them to go to a 4 year cycle and add an international nations league it needs to be able to generate more money for them. It also needs not to reduce the value of European club competition. An interesting balance to maintain.

 

Well it seems that UEFA is out. CONMEBOL will presumably agree if the money is right.

 

Now make the same calculation with where the money is. Let me be generous, only put the money from UEFA against those 160.

Says who? And make clear why.

 

There's a difference between member associations and actual people, so not sure what this post has to do with the one you were responding to.

I can't say I've seen anyone get excited over the biennial WC idea. Not in person, not on TV, nowhere. But maybe I'm just lucky to have never met one.

 

So tired of this populist BS. There are many countries with scarce financial resources or small populations that develop good players and have pretty strong football national teams.

Just throwing more money is not gonna make those that are bad better. The reason why they have awful systems is the same reason why the extra money would just go down the drain. They should fix themselves internally before asking for handouts.

 

Well....from a footballing perspective, countries that have never qualified for a single World Cup are "nobodies".

Nobody cares about them, they rarely produce good players, and they don't generate any revenue.

IMHO, only countries that have qualified for a World Cup should be allowed to vote on matters related to the World Cup.

 

Edgar Davids, Clarence Seedorf, Aron Winter and Jimmy Floyd-Hasselbank were all born in Suriname but moved to the Netherlands as small kids, so there must be some serious talent in Suriname that never got the same opportunities.

However, Suriname is a fairly developed country and Dutch clubs would be mad not to have a presence, plus any world- class talent would probably opt to play for Holland anyway.

 

Pretty much this. I mean, it sounds pretentious but its the way to make things work. Could you imagine if Papua New Guinea had the same say on the future of ice hockey as Canada? Sure, soccer is more popular but its still nowhere near global.

 

Surinam FA not so long ago did a stupid move by ditching the process that was ment to infuse Dutch talent development and coaching. No money can compensate stupid officials.

 

I think similar stories could be repeated across the developing world.

 

I don't get what you mean.
No Surinam player born after their independence can wear the Orange colours, unless he moved in the 5 years window after independence.
Players don't have quality because of being Surinam, but because of quality development training in the Netherlands.
Otherwise it wouldnot be necesary for the Surinam coach to enlist players from the Netherlands with Surinam roots, but play home grown ones.