ZURICH, Switzerland -- South American players with European clubs will not have to play international friendlies outside Europe until at least 2006, FIFA said on Friday.... http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=260166&cc=5739 Anyone else read anything about this? How will this affect qualifying? Does it only affect South American players?
I don't know if Soccernet is a UEFA-based website, but the article is a bit misleading. It could just as well have read "UEFA clubs do not have to release CONMEBOL players for friendlies before 2006". It may affect qualifying by limiting the number of chances a lesser-known player gets with his national team before the culling begins, and by denying a national team's players the benfit of gaining familiarity on the pitch. Witness Brasil's pathetic '02 qualifying campaign. In all fairness, though, CONMEBOL stars must bear some of the blame for this, as their greed caused them to sign with UEFA clubs, and that defection created the talent gap(however large or small) that exists between the two conferences. They could have had the world's best clubs at home, simply by staying home, or they could have made UEFA clubs better by going to Europe at the expense of more World Cups. They've chosen the latter.
This, while true, doesn't change the situation with friendlies against North or South American teams. It'd be nice to see a USA-Brasil match here that didn't involve B teamers (even tho the Brasilian B teamers would give anyone a tough match). Do you write for World Soccer? If so, you may have some inside info. I'm curious about why this ban on overseas friendlies doesn't apply to players from CAF, CONCACAF and AFC. Is it because (comparatively) there aren't as many of them?
Auriaprottu: You may call it "greed" and "defection". I fail to see how the Northeast migration of players has hurt South American national teams. Argentina won in 1978, Brazil should have won in '82, Argentina won in '86, Brazil won in '94, lost the final in '98, and won again in '02. Their players are great because they play against the best players from all over the world, not just one continent, daily. I think it's a good ruling. It is very hard on the players to travel to Asia or South America for a meaningless friendly.
This was accepted by CONMEBOL and is not a ban determined by FIFA. I wouldn't wonder if this was an agreement with UEFA for getting the permit for 2014.
There's no way I can say for sure that CONMEBOL would have more Cups with more matches to gel, but I think it's quite possible, mainly because... They make up such a significant portion of that talent that they'd be playing against equal talent at the very least if they were all in SA. Bear in mind that UEFA's club talent level depends in no small measure to the CONMEBOL players. They bring skills, and they get paid for their skills. If this was about development, UEFA clubs would sign domestic players in their stead. Any conference would. Ajax has served as a developmental team only because the KNVB (and, to a lesser extent, the Bundesliga) can't afford to keep players once they become stars. But La Liga, Serie A, and the Premiership aren't in the business of training other conference's players.
Even European players have a hard time getting released by the clubs to play friendlies IN Europe against other European teams. The national team coaches are contacted by club managers and single deals are worked out. I remember Norway had to use only homebased players from the Norwegian league when they went to play Carlsberg Cup in Hong Kong last year. That's how the game is. After all, the new deal isn't as bad as it seems. If Argentina wants to play a friendly against Germany in Berlin, they can field their strongest side with all Euro based players. For European teams it's the opposite, they can't bring their best sides outside Europe to play friendles. It works both ways.
I was with you until this paragraph. I hardly blame the players for the corruption and glaring holes nad shortcomings of their domestic federations. The CBF is not a well organized league, and is hardly morally just. I am hardly suggesting that UEFA clubs have sparkling halos over their heads. I am saying that the players shouldn't be punished for wanting a better opportunity to make better money in possibly a better environment with better facilities and organization. I would do the same. On that note, I call it the "Elber" effect. As for the ruling, it is a shame that it had to come to this really because if you are looking at International football, well then of course it is a big blow. Especially for CONMEBOL sides gearing up for qualification. I'll bet the way that FIFA and UEFA club managers slant this is by stating: "Everybody wins. The players do not go to far from the clubs, and it is good for the game because now it pushes South American teams to play against 'generally better' opposition in Europe". Great. Meanwhile, the South American federations are for the most part not particularly rolling in exorbitant money to fly across the world for the friendlies just for their best players. IMO, I think what will suffer is the quality of football you'll see in South American World Cup qualifying. Let's face it - club managers in Europe will still whine about that (maybe they'll in-evitably declare that CONMEBOL play it's qualifiers in Europe as well ) too. But you won't have the chemistry needed for consistent high level performances, and the matches will be ugly and dis-organized, worse than 1999-2002. Not having your selection together in the home country, preparing for the different altitude adjustments of a Peru or atmospheres of Bolivia is difficult and not really so fair to the domestic fans. But when has it been about the fans of South America anyway? The main selections this hurts are of course Brazil and Argentina - Colombia and Uruguay and Paraguay will also suffer relative to this. SA teams with home based players clearly have an advantage. Anyway, in the end the real winner of this deal is UEFA. There's no "if's" or "buts" about it. They force S.A. hand.
I know it's not their responsibility to stay home and use their talent/clout to force the CBF and AFA to improve. It might not even work. But the '02 qualifying should have been a wake-up call for both CONMEBOL players and CONMEBOL club league management. I know he wasn't among the 22 who went to J/K, but I don't know why. You're going to have to explain. Is it because Bayern didn't give him enough time to play for Brasil in the qualifiers? Thank you. This is what I've been saying all along would be a negative side effect of the agreement in particular, and the player migration in general. Soccernet has already begun the slant with this very article. UEFIFA doesn't have much work left to do to complete the spin. Damn right they will, like FIFA's sockpuppets, right on cue. Those managers know they can make money, win matches and weaken a World Cup Goliath in Brasil and a possible contender in Argentina at the same time. Absolutely. I expect that the lack of CONMEBOL preparation will result in a UEFA W/C win in '06.
Like Alex I don't know what the players can do about this? He'll explain the Elber factor to you, I hope you'll explain this to us. And as far as your last point, I don't think European managers care one way or another if these things hurt SA more than Europe. They're just selfish idiots who want to have their way. And when they end up coaching a national team they'll want things to go their way then too. I don't think this will hurt Brazil and Argentina too much if they handle it well and do indeed have several friendlies/training camps in Europe and demand that European coaches back off when they call up players under these rules.
We can't all be as good as the football superpower that is China Based on the recent Argentina game against Holland, where they basically had their entire selection in all the European based players, they might actually save money in flying people over from continent to continent if they play in Europe? I see there will be more double-headers instead of single games in qualifying now. Should help the teams build a chemistry (as they will be together for longer periods per time they travel over) They will get more used to the European 'environment' by playing their friendlies in Europe; the next World Cup is in Europe. They will probably play against more European opposition in their friendlies because they are played over here; European teams which they will most likely face if they get past the group stages in the WC. This helps their preparation for Germany2006 if you ask me -------------- Ribbing and kidding aside (I wasn't kidding about China though, they are a football superpower!) I'm not too glad about this decision either, a national team should always have the opportunity to use their players on playing-dates that were formed by FIFA. When I hear people like Arsene Wenger bítch about having to miss his players, I always think "who forced you to buy a Brazilian or a French man?" or fill in the nationality. It's the price you pay for having good players on your team. But I guess CONMEBOL would rather have this agreement, which seriously doesn't hurt them all that much, than whatever else was going to happen if this didn't happen (¿pay the clubs, who actually pay the MUCHO GRANDE salaries of the players, for the player's services?)
'Twas just a suggestion. I don't know myself that the players can do anything. If the people responsible for the leagues not being what they could be are making more $$ than they would if the leagues were being run properly, then you and Alex are right- there is nothing the players could do. But if those people stood to gain even more by making the leagues a place where the Ronaldos and Verons (this is where the Europe-based players come in. They can offer talent that would attract more fans, more sponsorship, thus more income for the league)would stay, the leagues would then draw bigger crowds (by virtue of having a talent level equal to that of UEFA's or anyone else's leagues) and make more money allowing the players to earn in SA what they now earn in Europe. The question -and I cannot answer it- is which method makes the most money for those who have the power to affect change.
The Argentine federation didn't have the problems that Brazil had - Brazil's problems are, IMO, a lot deeper than any of Argentina's. Brazil's struggles from 1999-2001 qualifying was a reflection of the organization within the CBF. Sure, Luxemburgo didn't help. But the federation was equally/more so guilty due to policies and, well, idiocy and the political selection process. Think about it... they called in Tinga for friendlies... At one point in qualifying, there was a set-back for Brazil and Rivaldo said: "The problem? It is easy. I look around the locker room when I return to Brazil and I don't know half of the players." Don't get me started on this guy! Elber's biggest problem was that he was straddling the fence and got caught + fell in 2001. When he brought his club, Munich, right into the middle of his club vs. country roe (which could have been avoided), that was the end of his international career. I'm referring to his dodging friendlies and Copa America 2001. You name it, he did it. Claim injury, claim fatigue, etc. etc. He basically sided with Munich every time and showed his middle finger to Brazil. But that's not the worst part. When he did play in qualifiers, he sucked. He was a dud in every match he played. Character aside, his style of play wasn't for the Selecao. It is like some others and myself said: "He'd be a great player for Germany". Not that Brazil needs him anyway: Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Luisao, Edilson, Denilson, Franca, Romario even... and that is just for the previous qualifying campaign. There are so many new young players out there in Brazil, he's irrelevant. I do think his situation was different from Mario Jardel's - who wanted to play for Brazil.