Why playing the world Cup? Lest just schedule a Brazil-Germany Final on 2006 and that's it. Even better, lest just give the Cup to Brazil from now on. We all know that England isn't going to win a WC soon.
Well, that's your opinion. I disagree. Seeing your subsequent listing of teams, I think I am inarguably right, as well. But whatever. Yeah, because as even just this thread proves, I am never anything less than utterly meticulous in that regard ... I agree that the WCC is a rather naff preoccupation of the type of South American who really burns inside that we are content in the knowledge that our footballing structure and the quality of the competitions we stage in Europe are superior to anything else in the world, but that does not mean Boca Juniors are worse than Newcastle.
Couldn't have said it better myself. It seems to me though, that it appears that it is those in North America that seem most obsessed with staging a club championship. Auriaprottu: I believe that there is an agreement this time around that allows much more flexibility in regards to European clubs letting their players participate inthe qualifiers this time around. Uruguay has not had a problem getting the players they want this time around.
This has been an interesting thread. I agree with the above comment, but I also think it's telling. I think it's true that the European "footballing structure" and the "quality of competitions" is superior to anything else in the world. That explains why Europeans don't care about the WCC--they are satisfied with what they have and feel that they have nothing to prove. But that structural argument doesn't quite make the point that the WCC is supposed to; namely, which is the best team in the world. The CL is clearly the best-run and most prestigious club competition on the planet; TV ratings for its final rival that of the World Cup final. It's understandable that teams with the chance to participate dont' feel compelled to compete in any further competitions. Yet I think a lot of Europeans make the mistake of assumign that merely because the CL carries much prestige, generates lots of cash, etc., that it necessarily also determines the highest quality team in the world. According to what evidence is available, it well may not. The only WCC in history was won by a Brazilian team (beating another Brazilian team in the final); the Toyota Cup has been won more times by South American than by European teams. See http://www.vilacom.net/football/intercontinental.php I realize those indications may be imperfect. The Toyota Cup is a one-off game that can hardly be said to be representative of the relatively quality of football on the two continents. The WCC was, as has been pointed out above, deeply flawed. And I wouldn't suggest that European football is not, on average, the world's best. If I were to pick the top 16 teams in the world, I'd probably add only about two South American ones (Boca, maybe River or Santos). But I'd be interested in seeing a WCC (if it were well-run and taken seriously by all participants), because then I think we'd have a credible way of picking the best team in the world. I can't disagree with the assessment of European football as on average the world's best, but the South Americans are right that who the best team in the world is will remain merely a supposition until it is proven on the pitch.
And there's the faultline for this subject. Non-Europeans care about who the best team is. Europeans do not. ON AVERAGE, we get the best football there is in any case. Those of us bothered to go further can, should we so wish, also watch the Copa Libertadores or the Argentinian or Brazilian leagues. Not many do, but it's there for them what wants it. Other than that ... this is a non-issue. And that is what is so enduringly pointless about the WCC. It's purported raison d'etre only matters to people outside of Europe and yet it is also they who get all antsy at the suggestion that we're fine as it is, thank you very much. Conclusive proof of which team is the best of those invited to some form of tournament is of no interest to us. We don't care.
Right now the CL champion is committed to 2 games: the Toyota Cup and the UEFA Super Cup. The latter is truly meaningless, maybe it meant something once but with the expansion of the CL it is now completely worthless. Why not scrap that game and add a semi-final game to the Toyota Cup and make that a true World Championship and you haven't added any games to the European schedule.
Well, that way you'd add one--a semifinal is two games, while the Super Cup is only one. Still, a good idea. How about this: SF #1: Champs League runner up v. Copa Libertadores winner SF #2: Champs League winner v. Copa Libertadores runner up Winners play for first place, losers for third. Only a few extra games added on to the schedule. South Americans can have a better sense of how they stack up against Europe's best. Europeans are free not to care. World soccer fans can enjoy four games featuring some of the world's best teams. Any objections?
Im not worried about my team being out of the big stages on international Competitions (like Japanese, Koreans, Yanks, etc.. should be), my team already have acces to Copa Libertadores and then, if we have the merits, to Toyota Cup. But I do belive that a WCC can be a valuable tournament. I believe that could be fun to watch the best J-league team competing againt the best MLS team and debate on Bigsoccer, with at least some references, which league is stronger. I think that could be fun to watch Milan being surprisly defeated by a Nigerian team made of 19(?) years old Kids and read what the european press have to say about it (like it was when France was out of Japorea). I enjoyed when the australians adminted our superiority on internet after days of smack talk when Necaxa won 3-1. International soccer its beautifull. Its a game and we should enjoy it.
Well yes, there would be 2 semi-finals, but the European champ would still only play 2 games (assuming they won the semi).
From, say Real Madrid or Man U or whomever wins: Why should we have to do this, when we can go on a tour of the US or Asia, play games at half speed, and make 10 times the money? This is the problem: there's so much money in the European game right now that FIFA can't make it worthwhile for the big clubs to give a rat's ass about it. Hence Man U not caring in Brazil. There was nothing in it for them to care about.
True all that about the $$, but (1) Unlike with the WCC, the proposed mini-WCC in my post would only take a couple of days (semi on Fri, Finals on Sun, for example), as opposed to several weeks for group play etc. So it doesn't necessarily trade off with a lucrative world tour. (2) If the mini-WCC I described above was popular enough, it could garner enough advertisements, sponsors, etc. that it could be a very lucrative way for four club teams to spend a weekend. Plus, if ManU is going on a world tour or sthg, it could be a good way to kick that off (if it were held in Asia, for example), so the two could be combined.
Well, it's only two games, but they're at a location not of their choosing, at an inconvenient time, played at a pace more conducive to injury than a meaningless, but considerably more lucrative, friendly. I mean, as you say, it comes down to money, and unless FIFA can come up with a source of huge prize money, the big European clubs aren't going to treat it seriously.
Nice idea, but this format would go against everything Fifa wants from the WWC. The only reason the WWC was created was to line the pockets of Fifa. The less games played, the less money Fifa get. Fifa want there to be as many games as possible to collect on the gate reciepts, hence, they would almost certainly include a group stage (and a pointless 3rd place playoff) to ensure the maximum amount of games.
I recently watched the "History of Football" DVD set, which makes the claim that CL final interest approaches WC final interest in its feature entitled "Club and Country." If I get a chance later today, perhaps I'll re-watch to see what their exact claim was.