Answer: By making the tournament inclusive! 1/5 I will not write the whole proposal in one post inside this thread, but in many, inserting details while it progresses. First, the simplified version: a) 64 teams, divided in 16 groups of 4. Six games later, the top-2 from each group advance. b) Then, two-legged playoffs: Round-of-32, Round-of-16, Quarterfinals, and Semifinals. c) The Final would be in one game. --- Here, with more details: First and Second Rounds: from March to May - 8 matchdays 64 teams - 24 from Concacaf - 40 from Conmebol First Round (Group Stage) - 6 matchdays 16 groups of 4 - 6 from Concacaf - 10 from Conmebol Top-2 from each group qualifies to the next round. Second Round (Round of 32) - 2 matchdays 32 teams - 12 from Concacaf - 20 from Conmebol Knockout stage, home and home series. Teams still play within their Confederation. Third to Sixth Rounds: from August to October - 7 matchdays Third Round (Round of 16) - 2 matchdays 16 teams - 6 from Concacaf - 10 from Conmebol Knockout stage, home and home series. Teams still play within their Confederation. Forth Round (Quarterfinals) - 2 matchdays 8 teams - 3 from Concacaf - 5 from Conmebol Knockout stage, home and home series. The 3 Concacaf teams play against Conmebol's. The remaining Conmebol teams play against each other. Fifth Round (Semifinals) - 2 matchdays 4 teams Knockout stage, home and home series. Sixth Round (Final) - 1 matchdays 2 teams Final in one game, played in predeterminated venue (one year in Conmebol's, other in Concacaf's).
2/5 FIFA Clubs World Cup spots: - a) WC semifinal - Copa Libertadores Champions. - b) WC quarterfinal - The best team after the second round from the other confederation of the Libertadores champion. How to define this "best team"? The same way Copa Libertadores orders its teams in the playoffs: (a) group champions over runners-up; (b) group stage record. In this case, it should be considered only those teams qualified to the Third Stage.
3/5 Group Stage Draw (Concacaf) Four pots of 6 teams each: Pot 1 - MEX 1, USA 1, CRC 1, HON 1, GUA 1, PAN 1. Pot 2 - MEX 2, USA 2, MEX 3, USA 3, CAN 1, ELS 1. Pot 3 - MEX 4, USA 4, CRC 2, HON 2, GUA 2, PAN 2. Pot 4 - ELS 2, NIC 1, BLZ 1, Car 1, Car 2, Car 3. Teams from the same federation cannot be in the same group. Group Stage Draw (Conmebol) Four pots of 10 teams each: Pot 1 - BRA 1, ARG 1, CHI 1, PAR 1, COL 1, URU 1, ECU 1, PER 1, VEN 1, VOL 1. Pot 2 - BRA 2, ARG 2, CHI 2, PAR 2, COL 2, URU 2, ECU 2, PER 2, VEN 2, VOL 2. Pot 3 - BRA 3, ARG 3, CHI 3, PAR 3, COL 3, URU 3, ECU 3, PER 3, VEN 3, VOL 3. Pot 4 - BRA 4, ARG 4, BRA 5, ARG 5, BRA 6, ARG 6, CHI 4, PAR 4, COL 4, URU 4. Teams from the same federation cannot be in the same group.
4/5 Playoffs Second Round (Concacaf): - Group Winners: seeds 1-6 - Runners-up: seeds 7-12 Matches 1 x 12 2 x 11 3 x 10 4 x 9 5 x 8 6 x 7 Second Round (Conmebol): - Group Winners: seeds 1-10 - Runners-up: seeds 11-20 Matches 1 x 20 2 x 19 3 x 18 4 x 17 5 x 16 6 x 15 7 x 14 8 x 13 9 x 12 10 x 11 --- On the third round, there is a re-seeding, respecting the same criteria of the previous round and applying them to the qualified teams. The top seeded team from each Confederation [marked in bold red below] has preference to a WC spot (see 2/5 above). They win, respectively, the "Copa Boreal" and the "Copa Austral". Third Round (Concacaf): Matches 1 x 6 2 x 5 3 x 4 Third Round (Conmebol): Matches 1 x 10 2 x 9 3 x 8 4 x 7 5 x 6 --- On the forth round, again, there is a re-seeding. Same rules. Forth Round: Matches Concacaf 1 x Conmebol 5 Concacaf 2 x Conmebol 3 Conmebol 1 x Concacaf 3 Conmebol 2 x Conmebol 4 --- On the fifth round (semifinals), the matches are decided by a free draw. Fifth Round: Matches A x B C x D
5/5 I believe this would be the best way to create a Copa Libertadores that covers from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego; meaning MLS teams would play it. Competition would be regional until the quarterfinals. Only than there would be inter-conferences matches. There would be no problem defining the 24 Concacaf teams because it is the same number in the CCL. The 40 teams from Conmebol needed a trick. I kept the current Copa Libertadores representation (34 teams), but added one extra to the six federations with most teams in the Top-40 of Conmebol rankings: BRA, ARG, CHI, PAR, COL and URU.
I like the idea, for several reasons, but only in part. As I have said elsewhere, I don't like the CONCACAF Champions League and feel that it is basically a waste of time and a pale copy of the UCL. To me, there is simply not enough talent or public interest to justify the competition. Now that I think about it, frankly I see CONCACAF as being a weak confederation--mostly because of the Caribbean. I wouldn't mind if the Caribbean countries were jettisoned to become Oceania 2.0 (maybe the two could share a whole World Cup berth between them) while North and Central America stand on their own. However I believe that it would be best for U.S. soccer to join CONMEBOL, and take North and Central America with them--if the South Americans would have them. Joining the U.S., Mexico and CONMEBOL would increase the level of competition that both MLS and the USMNT faces--which in the long run would make them better, even in the face of defeat in the long term. Regular competition against quality South American teams would make the USMNT better for World Cup play even if they can't win Copa America while playing against South America could increase the attraction of playing in the MLS or increase the money available to MLS. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Now as to the proposed tournament format, I have two issues and a question. Firstly I feel that 64 teams may be too big. If the Caribbean tags along, then a play in round or two before the group stage could be worked out. I could probably live with a 48 team group stage though. And secondly, I'd say that if a joint cup were to be held then at least combine the two regions earlier. I realize that travel considerations may make having a combined group stage a problem, but I would think that combining them before the quarterfinals would still be plausible. And lastly, my question. I am not a fan of a single game final after two-legged preliminary rounds, I realize I am in the minority and that most people believe that a neutral final and two-legged ties that overrride home field advantage is a fair system. But where can the final for this tournament be held?
How to include MLS in Copa Lib: 1. Convince the 10 nations in Conmebol to give up their unequaled power in the world of international sporting politics. 2. ??? 3. Profit
The post is not about it, but the answer would be never. South America stands where it deserves. It is not unequal, it is just fair. The point is, however, your #3. It would increase profit. The fact that it would help develop soccer in North America (Concacaf) is bonus.
It is unequal, and it's not fair. Paraguay, as the 6th best team in the 2nd best Confederation is afforded more international "clout" than Norway, the 15th best team in the best Confederation, even though Paraguay is a worse team. It's happenstance, yeah. "We're on a continent with only 13 countries" isn't exactly Paraguay's fault, but they benefit unduly from that.
Hey winning World cups brings power and Conmebol (3 countries) have won a lot of them, Paraguay is just lucky to be next to them. Maybe if in 100 years Concacaf (USA or Mexico) win a few WCs then Concacaf can have some power.
I'm not saying "Oh, boo hoo us". What I'm saying is that the International French-Swiss Conspiracy running FIFA is taught the European-style continents. Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and America. It's by pure luck that Conmebol has survived this long. Inviting MLS teams to Copa Lib is the same thing as inviting the Nats to Copa America. It weaknes Conmebol's confederational integrity. The writing is on the wall, Conmebol knows that Sepp doesn't like the idea that 10 Nations on the complete opposite side of the world hold so much sway. Conmebol is a rational actor and they'll only do what makes sense for them. And part of that is protecting their continental integrity.
Oh, my apologies. How could I have been so silly? Were you going to make an argument or just say I'm wrong? Paraguay, with 1/10 control of the Second best Confederation in football has more clout than they otherwise would deserve. Are you really going to argue that fact?
Come on now, that's not the same thing as Norway being a better team than Paraguay, or not ... you know that.
Those were two different (true) statements. Paraguay has more cloat than Norway. Norway is a better team.
I liked your post, TGM. I believe we agree in the diganostic, but desagree in the treatment. Let me quote the most relevant parts: The problem is not talent (CCL can claim to be the third best first-tier continental tournament of the world), and the lack of public interest is due more to the fact that there is no parity in Concacaf than anything else. CCL is dominated by the Mexican teams. If Central America and USA/CAN grow, the competition will be better, and the public interest will follow. Second, I believe OFC is a mistake. Hence, I cannot agree to repeating it anywhere. It is not what we are talking, but I would rather see Oceania joining Eastern Asia federation to form a Pacific Confederation than a Caribbean Confederation. Finally, I believe it is better for both South American and North American federation to be split apart. Not only because it would keep the spots they have in Clubs WC and Confeds Cup, but it would complicate the WC Qualifying as well. Having said that, I think they should work together more than they do. I would join forces with Copa Libertadores (as I have shown above) and Copa America (bu that is another issue). The fact is 64 not much. Today, it is already 62 with two competitions; and they seem OK. I have just merged than. Combining before could be plausible, but I think it should be tested first. My proposal is not idealistic. I think it could become real next year without much effort. By the way, some other suggestion (as a merger, for instance) would need a huge effort and time to become true. Finally, the one-legged final is not a matter of justice. It just fits to become an event on itself, as the WC final, the UCL final or the SuperBowl. It increases value. A Copa Libertadores final could be played in Azteca, OmniLife, Sun Life Stadium, Maracanã, Único de La Plata, Nacional de Santiago, Nacional de Lima, etc. I hope you got the picture...
I have made a statement in the same level as you did. You said Norway is footballistically better than Paraguay, but you did not bring nothing to support it. On your second statement, it is false. Internationally, Paraguay has the same weight as any other national association. Its relationship to Conmebol concerns Conmebol only.
I tried to avoid that. This is the reason why inter-confederation matches start only in the quarterfinals. Do not forget that Mexican teams play nowadays in Copa Libertadores as early as the preliminary round...
Two posts, really? Two people who can't check the FIFA rankings No, de jure Paraguay has the same weight. De facto, mid-level Conmebol teams have more clout than mid-level UEFA teams.
STOP TROLLING!! Just to show you, Elo Ratings has Paraguay at 18th; Norway at 28th. http://www.eloratings.net/world.html Actually, South America has FOUR teams in the top-10. By the way, Conmebol had FOUR quarterfinalists in the last WC, including Paraguay. I am sorry if the world does not fit in your Eurocentric view...