FIFA International Match Calendar: Proposed Changes & General Discussion

No one is complaining about it except one person here. That is the funny part.

 

If you don't care about soccer in smaller Latin-American nations once every 4 years makes sense.

 

They have an ample schedule between CNL and Gold Cup and World Cup Qualifiers.

The additional Gold Cup is unnecessary and should be discontinued.

 

But it makes money.

 

Yup.
And it also provides competitive matches for Central American teams/ Caribbean teams that will probably never play in a World Cup.
These are the biggest stages they will ever play on.

 

Will they make $100 million?

 

No, CAF announced last month it has been discontinued.

https://www.ysscores.com/en/news/13...cellation-of-the-African-Nations-Championship

 

I do not complain. I just laugh and mock at their stupidity.
Huge difference.

 

The second AFCON had a disruptive effect on world football that CONCACAF doesn't have when playing competitions in ordinary windows.

 

They've not, really. Right now, there's a Nations League + Two Gold Cups. You want one Gold Cup going forward. That leaves a gap, competitively (more limited tournament access for the region) and financially. What fills that gap?

It sounds like the answer you're leaning is "nothing, there were already too many tournaments so just deal with it", and that's ok but we should at least be honest about what it is.

This seems like a compromise that could work given that many Gold Cups are viewed as semi-voluntary exercises anyway with certain higher profile players strategically sitting out. Even an off-calendar Gold Cup will still have plenty of players released and enough quality to mitigate the competitive and financial shortfalls described above for the region were the second Gold Cup to disappear entirely.

 

This is a reality for the modern football fan. Your club is often not at full strength because it is a cup, or a summer tournament such as the CWC, or they've already qualified for the knockout phase of their continental tournament, or their missing players due to the player's national team.

Same for national teams. I don't know if it is good for the game, but it feels like a growing reality.

 

It is all just complaining with no evidence of it really mattering in the long run.
There is no Club manager or team executive head honchos saying "Man, why are my players playing against El Salvador, Guadalupe, Bolivia and Belize Four consecutive summers in a row! It is really making them too tired and look bad this season!"

It is just silly to think about.

 

Just in case someone forgot, I’ll add that there are “modern” football fans in America, Africa, Asia, and many other places around the planet, that would like to see their national teams playing at full strength once in a while.

 

I agree. And fans would like to see their team at home in a stadium in their own country with high stakes (such as qualifying for the World Cup). But other interests want to monetize every game to the max. It is a bummer, in my opinion.

 

Whether its good for the game would be an interesting consideration if fatigue-related injuries resulted from a player having to play 8 full WC matches the previous summer. However, the recent uptick in # of matches top players are expected to play is largely a result of the expansion and invention of low-value tournaments played far away. Like two-legged quarterfinals of Nations League. So yeah.... definitely not good for the game.

 

That;s not true because two-leg UEFA NL QF ties are played in the March window of odd years the space for which has been found by truncating the European Qualifiers.

The new format of the European Qualifiers from 2029-30 - which should be announced in May - will I expect be built around NL knockout matches in the March window of odd years.

This UNL format seems here to stay.

 

Okay, maybe. But just to recap, "this format" has only existed for a couple of years, and we have seen 3 significant changes to the NL format in 7 years.

But even if UEFA finally settles on the current format doesn't imply the UNL quarterfinals offer good value to fans, and its a simple fact that they water down the importance of the group stage games.

 

Do they?

Even ignoring the financial and FIFA world ranking point rewards for winning your group, the new QF round proved popular with fans and - therefore - broadcasters and sponsors.

It also feels more natural calendar-wise to have NL games in March rather than the previous long interval between the conclusion of the group stage in November and the Final Four in June.

 

As do the semi final and final stage. It's just competitive friendlies, that's what the Nations League is.

 

I think that's very harsh.

It has become a popular competition in its own right with very competitive fixtures and the bonus of a place in the European Qualifiers playoff semifinals for four teams.

 

But you will agree that by doubling the size of the playoffs, and giving 2nd place teams a chance for promotion and 3rd place teams a chance for relegation, it reduces the meaning of NL matches?

Now, NL games rate somewhere between UNL games in 2018 and friendlies. And of course, below qualifiers.

 

No, because the objective is to win your group and secure automatic promotion rather than a promotion/relegation playoff, so there is a significant difference nowadays between finishing first (automatic promotion), second (promotion playoff), third (relegation playoff) and fourth (automatic relegation).

The difference between first and second in the League A groups is slightly decreased but nevertheless there remain legitimate sporting and commercial reasons to finish first rather than second.

 

And the consequences of relegation aren't that bad. England got to play Ireland, Finland and Greece which were ideal opponents to play in the warm up to World Cup qualifying. The only qualifying game they failed to win by two goals or more was in Andorra.