A set of competitive pro/rel leagues certainly are likely to garner more interest - and hence more fans - than a bunch of half-assed friendlies. So in that respect I agree "it's all about MONEY".
Gee, how did the United States fare in the CONCACAF Nations League? Citation needed. Honestly, American sports fans couldn't care either way...it's not like Guatemala and Dominican Republic are attention-grabbing matchups.
Don't know nor care... Didn't realize it was just about "American sports fans", nor even just about CONCACAF's copycat tournament, especially given this comment started the discussion: "And yes UEFA are hypocrites complaining about a 2 year W.C. and player safety when they added the Nations League to the calendar."
You do understand they haven't added any windows, they've just replaced friendly fixtures with the Nations League. I think the smaller nations have gained the most from it. Andorra vs. Latvia now has meaning.
Moving into a landscape that was already populated and decimating the existing population via your wealth and power and then convincing people that you discovered it...yeah, seems like it tracks more with American soccer than with the pro/rel leagues
Huh? I’ve evinced my support of the Nations League. I reposted that comment from some other poster for the benefit of the poster who’s struggling to keep up. Lots of countries have benefited from the Nations League and its pro/rel. Take Iceland for example.
So is there a mechanism for pro/rel with the biennial world cups? Semi finalists from the also ran tourney move to play with the big boys, 4 "worst" (points, goal differential) from the big tourney play in the scratch & dent verion next cycle?
From a competitive pov you're right. Nations compete with same level nations in groups to either go up into the semi finals/final, stay in their "league" or relegate. But that ignores the whole idea with friendlies, preparing a team for the tournement they qualified for. In those "meaningless" friendlies the coach can experiment with players not fully recognized as first team players yet, tactics etc. That's not possible in the NL matches, as these impact first your chance for a spot in the mop up qualifiers after the group stage phase, and second your standing in the coefficient ratings and thus your seeding for the next qualifying stage and/or the group stage of the tournement right after the NL. So you really can't experiment in the NL as your paired with equals that are keen on taking your scalp. The NL from that pov is/was a very bad idea and in my pov only a money grabbing event for UEFA. The friendlies revenues went straight into the pockets of the two countries involved. Now UEFA can take a part of that as the organizers of it.
The USA and Mexico are the losers in this NL game, as the possibility to play against serious opponents in Europe has decreased significantly and in return they get "meaningful" NL matches in their confederation that most likely wouldnot even be considered worth while as friendlies.
But that's the key, by making it a competitive tournament they're putting more strain on the players.
See my other post about it. The stars were called up anyway as these were preps for the coming tournement and the seats were filled (at least for the Orange matches) nicely.
Like the pro/rel nature of the nations league (obviously) what I don't like is adding more competitive matches to an already incredibly congested calendar.
A little bit of hyperbole here but I actually broadly agree with you in that clubs and leagues should get more leeway in adding competitions because they are the ones paying the players. And are also the ones who suffer when players are over played. Now in a perfect world all the stakeholders would get together and work on an international calendar that works for everyone and limits the number of minutes a player can play for both club and country, but I'm not holding my breath.
How did it help Iceland considering they nearly Qualified for the W.C. in '14, made the QF of the '16 Euros and then qualified for the W.C. in '18. All of which happened before the nations league started. And yes I am the one who started this. And remember I like Pro/rel so this doesn't need to be the typical pro/rel divide. I just think there's to much international football. And I LIKE International football. Like a lot of Americans that was may gateway into the sport and still get a guilty pleasure chanting U-S-A U-S-A while wearing my 2006 US Jersey (The one the one Michael Cain and Pele worein "Escape to Victory"). But I think International football should be quality over quantity. And with Europe already having a full qualifying series for the Euros and the W.C. adding another tournament was to much for me, and just reeks of greed. Especially when it made the Euro qualifiers both complex and often redundant.
The NT managers will still rotate because they want to see marginal players. Only 4 England players who started against Croatia in the NL started against Iceland.
You're right. I should have said Finland - originally at the third level in 2018 Nations League, got promoted to the second level, qualified for Euro 2020 and had a a 4-0-2 record in the 2020 Nations League.
You're aware the US has struggled in WCQ? I'm not saying they shouldn't dominate the region, but I wouldn't be shocked to see them drop an elimination game to someone other than Mexico over the next few years...
FWIW, most of the European fans I know seem to like it. Then again, most people will probably enjoy the biennial WC as well, even though I don't care for it at all.
From a fan pov of course they like it. You're not likely getting a match up like in the first NL with in one group the WC France, the abdicating WC Germany and the Netherlands in the qualifiers for WC and EURO's nor in their group stages. Exactly because of NL being league like formed, not cup competition like set up you get more or less even quality against each other and no slaughter of the clueless. For the fans great, for the coaches preparing for the tournement coming not so much.
Some will some won't there are plenty of international managers who are happy to get the most minutes possible from the players then send them back to the clubs for recovery. Not every manager but adding more competitive matches makes it more common place. I don't have a problem with the nations league per se. I like the pro/rel aspect and that it gives smaller nations more competitive games. Honestly if they had used the nations league format as the qualifiers and gotten rid of the regular qualifying groups then I wouldn't be complaining. Honestly at the end of the day the NL is the one of the lesser evils in world football. The only reason I highlighted it was to point out that nobody is the good guy. And all anyone cares about is protecting their piece of the pie rather than what's best for the game.
I've had the opposite experience. Talking with my own friends, who are a mix of brits and Americans who follow Euro club football, the consensus is negative. Also the case with the fan media I follow entirely against. Now obviously a small sample size heavily biased towards Liverpool supporters (who broadly aren't as into international football as other supporters) but I am not sure I have talked with anyone who likes it.