That would be lame indeed--getting only one MLS-Liga MX match up. If that is indeed the format that they go with it would be such a waste of potential.
I'm not sure you understood the setup. There are 17 guaranteed MLS vs LMX matches, as each MLS team is required to play each LMX team at least once. That's 16 group intraleague matches, and the title game. Very likely, this is far too many games, as the teams are also required to meet their league rivals at least once. The negotiations are likely going to bring down the total amount of games played, and create a 4 team playoff that pits MLS vs LMX in each semifinal. The changes that I would make are: 2 groups, each consisting of 4 teams. 2 MLS and 2 LMX teams in each group. Each team plays everyone in their group twice (home and away), which guarantees a total of 6 games played per team. 2 teams advance from each group: Team 1 is the LMX team with the best group record, and Team 2 is the MLS team with the best group record. I would then have the LMX team from group 1, play the MLS team from group 2 with the winner advancing to the title game. The LMX team from group 2, would play the MLS team from group 1, with the winner advancing to the title game.
Why not just have a home and away game with 34 games. The team with the most points wins the trophy?. Heck, why not just call it "Premier League America"
Superliga -'Electric boogaloo'? Don't MLS/Mexico teams play enough games already? Might was well include Academy Teams (like the EFL Cup), while we are at it, include some Ascenso MX and NASL/USL teams. While I'm mildly intrigued with this proposal, we already have the Concacaf Champions League and it seems like extra games that will get little attendance (except in the playoff rounds)
I imagine that the difference is that this will be a straight knockout competition with home/away ties rather than a league format and clubs who are contending elsewhere will simply play to be knocked out early.
The format was also less competitive than it's predecessor due to the massive fixture congestion that only the Mexican clubs are equipped to deal with.
It's all about the money, and the network coverage. Both leagues understand the need to grow their fan bases. The tournament, and all the match congestion that comes with it, will happen. The only question is when will it happen and what formatt?
You'd have to introduce 2nd and 3rd divisions to keep the number of teams down. Why not organize a tournament between MLS, Somali, Iraqi, Iranian, Yemini, Sudanese, Libyan and Syrian teams? Advantage US! .
Because CONCACAF didn't want the competition, plain and simple. Once they introduced the Champions League, the writing was on the wall for SuperLiga. Given the tepid interest in the CL (even from participating clubs) an MLS/FMF-only tournament has every chance to succeed, so long as they provide a reason for the clubs to participate.
iirc seattle tied our record some years later but it hasnt been beaten yet to the best of my knowledge.
Playing 34 matches in MLS is far more demanding than 38 games in EPL. Anyone who doesn't understand "needs to shut it". 1. Average distance to away games for the most traveled team in 2015 - Swansea City: 273 miles x 19 matches - San Jose: 1,450 miles x 17 matches 2. Flights - Stopovers - Delays and cancellations (8 hours for NYC to SLC last season) - Baggage delays - Low oxygen supply and sitting for extended periods causes tightening and swelling of muscles "The longer the flight, the more time an athlete spends in decreased oxygen. Combine that with the change in altitude, and we have a horror show of muscles tightening and swelling." Lampard, Pirlo and Villa flew coach last year. Gerrard had first-class travel in his contract 3. Altitude - Highest stadium in EPL - 582 feet - Highest stadium in MLS - 5,280 feet 4. Weather Averages for Northern and Southern Cities During Regular Season - Coldest monthly average in Newcastle = 3.4°C, 38°F (Jan) - Coldest monthly average in Toronto = 1°C, 34°F (Mar) - Warmest monthly average in Southampton = 18°C, 64°F (Aug) with low humidity - Warmest monthly average in Dallas - 27, 29, 29, 29 °C, 80.6 to 84.2°F (Jun, July Aug, Sep) humidity up to 79% - Warmest monthly temperature DC - 18°C, 80°F (July), humidity up to 80% Record highs - Southampton - 89.6°F - Dallas - 113 °F Ask any European DP about the demands of MLS compared to Europe.
Which gets eaten up pretty quickly by conference sharing agreements and the expenses of traveling all the people they travel to said games. A great many schools lose money on bowl trips.
Champions League existed in some format before SuperLiga. As far as I know CONCACAF doesn't have the authority to tell MLS and Liga MX they can't play each other. If they did wouldn't they just forbid it again? I don't understand your argument. You are saying CONCACAF stopped SuperLiga but for some reason aren't going to this time. #notAVerySolidArgument
The only thing I would be OK with would be a 1 game final between MLS Cup winner and LigaMX winner. Alternate between playing in Mexico and US each year. Or a two leg final home and away.
He's saying that when "CCL" was just a short cup format there was a market for a competition with group play to get competitive games between MLS and LMX, thus SuperLiga. But soon after SuperLiga's creation, CCC was converted to CCL and there was no longer a need for SuperLiga. Now that CCL is reverting back to just a cup format, there may be a market again, especially one that cuts out Central American and Caribbean clubs which didn't draw much interest outside of their own markets.
If there was so much money being made by SuperLiga, MLS and LigaMX would have told CONCACAF to go screw themselves if CONCACAF told them to stop playing it because it hurt CCL. I am not buying the argument that SuperLiga was lucrative and they stopped just because CONCACAF told them to. I don't think SuperLiga was lucrative enough to continue. Please provide evidence otherwise. You can say it was lucrative all you want, but it ceased to operate. Most things that are making money don't stop.
Whether or not SuperLiga 1.0 was financially beneficial is essentially irrelevant. The conditions regarding CONCACAF, the CCL, and the energy at many MLS sides has changed a fair bit in simply the past couple years. What matters now is whether the two entities feel a revised edition would yield such benefits going forward. At the absolute least we can appreciate that the heads of both leagues and the respective teams are looking for ways to advance themselves and the game within their respective regions. That, and until someone convinces all the parties involved of a better model, within the CCL structure or otherwise, we're going to have to accept that every solution is imperfect because the region's soccer makeup is decidedly imperfect.
Sure, but people on here are acting as if a new tournament between MLS and LigaMX is guaranteed to make money hand over fist and pull in all kinds of TV money. I don't agree with this sentiment.
I think it's all relative. Everyone familiar with MLS knows nothing it does will make money hand over fist. Not until average national broadcasts pull in 1M+ viewers, anyway. But arguably this might prove more lucrative than the conventional CCL. We'll see.
We're not on the same wavelength here, at all. The old Champions Cup run by CONCACAF was an utter joke with very little interest amongst participants and their fans. SuperLiga was designed to spark interest in Mexican and American fanbases by pitting FMF and MLS teams exclusively against each other with a cash prize awaiting the winner; the first couple of tournaments featured some quality matches with players actually competing to win...whereas the Champions Cup continued to flounder. Recognizing the problem, CONCACAF tried to make the Cup more relevant by creating the Champions League, modeled after the European version (group stages, knockout rounds and a championship.) They also set qualifications for participating teams, trying to ensure that the "best" teams of each league were to take part in the CL. This all but closed the door to SuperLiga having the best teams in their respective tournament, leaving them to select from a handful of mid-tables that likely weren't going to draw in the crowds to an apathetic American audience. Thus, SuperLiga came to a quiet end...but the CL is still struggling to establish itself as a tournament to be prioritized (much less taken seriously) by the participating nations/leagues/teams. That is why a joint FMF/MLS tournament has every chance to succeed...with the major caveat being that there needs to be an incentive to make it a tournament that clubs WANT to participate in.
Why not put the effort into making CCL more important and trying to get fans and teams to prioritize it? I am not sure how creating a new tournament fixes the issue of lack of fan and team interest. Why not put the incentive you speak of on the already existing tournament?