Report: Copa America & Gold Cup May Merge, be held in US

[Infield Infidel]

This is a translation from ESPN Deportes website - http://espndeportes.espn.go.com/futbol/copa-america/nota/_/id/2695871/copa-america-tendria-a-eeuu-como-sede-permanente

This Sunday, two leaders of Concacaf practically confirmed. The Copa America will be, of all America, every four years, and with the United States as host.

One of the spokesmen of Concacaf was concrete: "Just a few more little details, like that little" precise, while making the sign with the thumb and forefinger of the closeness of the agreement.

Another spokesmen gives more clues: "Conmebol asked to give their response until after the tournament. But today, they are convinced that the next Congress will be approved. "

And there's more: "Security, stadiums, communications, accesses, have convinced themselves that fill their requirements in addition to the absolute flexibility in immigration procedures. Everyone is happy, including, of course the players, their problems traveling with his family ".

In addition, facilities at the stadiums, and hotels, fill and even sometimes exceed the usual standards of players playing in Europe.

And of course, the economic aspects are crucial. The awards for participation in Chile Copa America, and before that of Argentina, were not only disadvantageous, but also were given to some South American federations with more than one year delay ... and not always complete.

The article later goes on to say that there may be pushback in South America. Ya think?

There was also an article on mlssoccer.com but that was taken down.

 

[DJnVa]

I like the idea---not sure why it has to be in America every 4 years though. Why not rotate from S. America to US/Mexico every 4 years?

 

[Titans Bastard]

I like the idea---not sure why it has to be in America every 4 years though. Why not rotate from S. America to US/Mexico every 4 years?

BTW - I'm not entirely sure that the article is suggesting a Gold Cup - Copa America merger or simply a repeat of this dual-federation event in addition to the existing events.

A full merger and the elimination of the Gold Cup + regular Copa America sounds like a non-starter to me. CONMEBOL executives may like this dual Copa, but what's the appeal to South American fans? There are a bunch of CONCACAF countries that aren't very interesting to play against (and one of the good ones, Mexico, is invited to all of the regular Copas anyway). And it's in the US, not on CONMEBOL soil. There would be pushback.

I'd imagine eliminating the Gold Cup would be desperately unpopular in CONCACAF, too, unless they find a way to distribute all the cash from the dual Copa tournament to the Caribbean and Central American federations that will struggle to qualify.

 

[soxfan121]

I like the idea---not sure why it has to be in America every 4 years though. Why not rotate from S. America to US/Mexico every 4 years?

One extremely unfavorable reading (for a USMNT fan) is that CONMEBOL is so secure that they have a competitive advantage - and the financial benefits for the various FAs/players/etc are so huge - as to make it basing it in the USA a way for them to maximize their take from the American market.

They must think that a semifinal featuring 3 CONMEBOL teams & Mexico is more profitable in the USA than in, say, Brazil or Mexico. There's other countries in the Americas who could host, so making the USA the permanent host is (in some way) a money grab predicated on the idea that the USMNT isn't good enough to threaten the "big" soccer playing nations.

It really doesn't seem like Brazil or Mexico would forgo the chance to host this competition if they didn't think miliking the US market was better in every way.

 

[Infield Infidel]

I'd imagine eliminating the Gold Cup would be desperately unpopular in CONCACAF, too, unless they find a way to distribute all the cash from the dual Copa tournament to the Caribbean and Central American federations that will struggle to qualify.

I was looking into how CONCACAF teams qualified for this Copa: USA/Mexico auto-qualified, Winner of Copa Centroamericano, Winner of Caribbean Cup, and top two teams from the Gold Cup that didn't already qualify. Without that last provision, for instance, Canada would have a qualification path, unless they hosted. I'm thinking they could have the Gold Cup still as a qualifying tourney for the Copa America.

 

[Zososoxfan]

I think this is interesting because if you merged the two tournaments, you would potentially be coming up with something compelling. Shed some weaklings in both confederations and produce a more competitive tournament, get the US prominently involved, and there is the potential to make a more lucrative event, which is the only reason anything ever happens. Some money will have to be paid to non-qualifying teams (presumably), but if this becomes a real 8/12/16 team tournament (could work with byes or a competitive "qualifying"/play-in process) with some distribution of slots guaranteed (e.g. at least always 5 to CONMEBOL, 2 to CONCACAF), it could be super fun. Just riffing here, but a home and home 8 team knockout tournament would be awesome. Allow for play-in single games to get more teams involved (I didn't know until just now that CONCACAF officially has 41(!) teams). Looking into CONCACAF a bit, take the NAFU and UNCAF (maybe Jamaica, Cuba, and other teams that may have quality) and add that to the CONMEBOL 10 and you're looking at 20-25 teams. Have a small qualification process to get that down to 16 to get a more competitive tournament or 12/14 with those play in games and I would be HOOKED.

For comparison, the Euros involve 24 of 51 member nations. As an aside, I am against any tournament including 24 teams in a group stage round robin format (e.g. WC '94, Euros '16). The group stage is rendered almost meaningless. Didn't realize that the Euros had this format until now.

 

[SoxFanInCali]

For comparison, the Euros involve 24 of 51 member nations. As an aside, I am against any tournament including 24 teams in a group stage round robin format (e.g. WC '94, Euros '16). The group stage is rendered almost meaningless. Didn't realize that the Euros had this format until now.

I'm with you, I hate any setup where 3 out of 4 teams from a group stage can advance.

This is the first time the EURO final tournament has 24. It had 4 until 1980, 8 from 1980-1992, and then 16 from 1996 until this year. A lot of the talk in the expansion is how it was going to hurt the excitement of the qualifiers, as it pretty much guaranteed all the big teams would make it. That made it even more ridiculous that the Dutch didn't manage to qualify.

 

[Joe D Reid]

I'd imagine eliminating the Gold Cup would be desperately unpopular in CONCACAF, too, unless they find a way to distribute all the cash from the dual Copa tournament to the Caribbean and Central American federations that will struggle to qualify.

I guess the question is whether the CONCACAF minnows could get as much money out of the increased TV pie plus whatever set of qualifying games they'd play against the real teams (right now the big CONCACAF teams don't play Gold Cup qualies, right?)

 

[Spacemans Bong]

I'm with you, I hate any setup where 3 out of 4 teams from a group stage can advance.

This is the first time the EURO final tournament has 24. It had 4 until 1980, 8 from 1980-1992, and then 16 from 1996 until this year. A lot of the talk in the expansion is how it was going to hurt the excitement of the qualifiers, as it pretty much guaranteed all the big teams would make it. That made it even more ridiculous that the Dutch didn't manage to qualify.

The qualifiers were actually interesting for once. Because 32 teams either qualified or made it to the playoff, nobody was out of it bar the minnows, and a whole bunch of mid-sized or smaller countries with a proud footballing tradition like Northern Ireland, Wales, Hungary and Austria all made it.

 

[Infield Infidel]

I'm actually okay with 24 entrants, it made qualifying pretty interesting, but in the tourney, I dislike both advancing 3rd place teams and advancing some 3rd place teams but not others. I would prefer the top two from the 6 groups advance and byes to the quarters for 4 first place teams with the most points. I understand that it'll never happen though.

 

[DJnVa]

BTW - I'm not entirely sure that the article is suggesting a Gold Cup - Copa America merger or simply a repeat of this dual-federation event in addition to the existing events.

Sirius XM's soccer channel had more on this and from what they said it is a merger, and would be an every 4 year thing. There is some pushback from countries like Canada, but you have to think that with only 10 CONMEBOL countries that adding 6 from CONCACAF is very doable, with some fun qualifications for say the last 2 CONCACAF spots, assuming that the US and Mexico are always in.

But I don't know how this is sold to the South American fans. It would be great for soccer fans here, but down there? Yikes. Love to know how this was pitched to the CONMEBOL countries.

 

[The Price Is Wrong]

I prefer more games to fewer games, as long as they can get them all in during the summer window. Whatever happened to the format they used in the (I think) 1978 or 1982 world cup, with two group stages? I'm not sure the Copa America or even the Euros would merit that depth, but certainly the WCF would.

As to this "merger", Yahoo has an article up about it now too. Some snippets:

What, for that matter, would the consequence be for the smaller countries? If the new tournament were to retain its Centenario format, there would be 16 places every four years, rather than 24 – half of which are available every other year as well. This contraction of places at major tournaments could stagnate ascending soccer nations.

As for the fans, if the tournament really were to stay in the U.S., it would make it ruinously expensive for fans from South America to attend. And even if it moves around, a lot of fans would be asked to go an awful long way to witness their hemispheric championships.

It sounds like they're aiming at a rotational schedule where if the World Cup is year 0 / 4, the Gold Cup / CONMEBOL equivalent would be year 1, the inter-confed Copa America would be year 2, and the Confederations Cup (and minor tournaments eg another Gold Cup) in year 3.

I'm not sure I'd say it would be "ruinously expensive" for their fans to attend. I've flown between countries in South America before, the prices aren't that different from those to fly to/from the US, it's just that it's a shorter flight. Lodging and meals would be a bit pricier, but not ruinously so, and plenty of them have family or friends in the States they could call up. (edit: this ignores the possibility that lots of South American fans may currently travel to games by bus, even given the difficulty of doing so, which I may have snobbishly discounted)

The point about the tournament's size is a good one, though. Maybe you have an initial group stage, played in late May / early June, to include more Caribbean countries / Canada, and the CONMEBOL countries # 7-10 (or whatever). The big boys get a bye to the main group stage. Would be a greater risk of upsets, too, because the winners of that initial group stage would have 3 more games to gel as a team.

I do think the USA being permanent host would be a bit upsetting to South American teams who will feel as if something was stolen from them, however. Maybe the US hosts it every other time, and the rest are bid out. It does make a ridiculous amount of sense to host big tournaments in the US, though, because of how many enormous American Football stadiums we have lying around, rarely filled.

 

[DJnVa]

It sounds like they're aiming at a rotational schedule where if the World Cup is year 0 / 4, the Gold Cup / CONMEBOL equivalent would be year 1, the inter-confed Copa America would be year 2, and the Confederations Cup (and minor tournaments eg another Gold Cup) in year 3.

Well, if it doesn't replace the Gold/Copa completely then the South American nations will still get a chance to see their teams in tourney on home soil. I guess they'd still be inviting 2 outside CONMEBOL squads.

There's also been some tweets saying the "US always hosts" isn't necessarily a thing yet. That might depend on if the Gold/Copa survive as independent tourneys with this new combined one added.

 

[Zososoxfan]

The qualifiers were actually interesting for once. Because 32 teams either qualified or made it to the playoff, nobody was out of it bar the minnows, and a whole bunch of mid-sized or smaller countries with a proud footballing tradition like Northern Ireland, Wales, Hungary and Austria all made it.

I'm actually okay with 24 entrants, it made qualifying pretty interesting, but in the tourney, I dislike both advancing 3rd place teams and advancing some 3rd place teams but not others. I would prefer the top two from the 6 groups advance and byes to the quarters for 4 first place teams with the most points. I understand that it'll never happen though.

I get these points, but sacrificing the quality of the format of the tournament in favor of a better qualifying process is bananas to me. Even avid fans wont necessarily watch qualifiers closely, but once the tournament rolls around, coverage picks up considerably. If the goal is to get more participation, they need to get creative. I'm in favor of a play in format (e.g. 4 groups of 4 in group stage, but have the last slot in each group subject to a play-in game or home-and-home --> 20 teams). I'm not familiar with multiple-group stage setups, and I guess you could do something like 4 groups of 5 with top 2 qualifying to get to 20 as well (although that setup is likely to lead to some meaningless games towards the end of the group stage). Groups of 6 would likely necessitate 5 group games, which I think dilutes the average quality of the game and suffers from the same problem of meaningless games. Get through the group stages quickly and get to the knockouts, lest you're interested in more riveting Albania-Iceland matchups.

 

[DLew On Roids]

This is basically a Not My Money problem, but this sets up real health concerns for top CONMEBOL players if it doesn't replace the original Copa America. Between two Copas and the World Cup, getting a summer off to recuperate from playing 50 matches in Europe would be rare.

 

[Infield Infidel]

I get these points, but sacrificing the quality of the format of the tournament in favor of a better qualifying process is bananas to me. Even avid fans wont necessarily watch qualifiers closely, but once the tournament rolls around, coverage picks up considerably. If the goal is to get more participation, they need to get creative. I'm in favor of a play in format (e.g. 4 groups of 4 in group stage, but have the last slot in each group subject to a play-in game or home-and-home --> 20 teams). I'm not familiar with multiple-group stage setups, and I guess you could do something like 4 groups of 5 with top 2 qualifying to get to 20 as well (although that setup is likely to lead to some meaningless games towards the end of the group stage). Groups of 6 would likely necessitate 5 group games, which I think dilutes the average quality of the game and suffers from the same problem of meaningless games. Get through the group stages quickly and get to the knockouts, lest you're interested in more riveting Albania-Iceland matchups.

I think I may have been unclear, by 6 groups I mean six groups of four (the way it is now), not groups of 6 teams, which would take like 3-4 weeks to do 5 matches. That would be interesting but I think unnecessarily arduous. The only change from the current format would be no third place teams advancing. The four best group winners would get byes to the quarters. The other 8 teams would play four matches in the second round, the four winners would play the four best group winners.

I agree with dlew, I don't know how they could have a Copa America and a CONMEBOL-only tourney. Maybe a U-23 tourney or something, but even then a lot of young guys are on the national teams. Retaining a separate Gold Cup would probably get traction though, if only for qualification purposes.

 

[Titans Bastard]

FWIW:

 

[Spacemans Bong]

I get these points, but sacrificing the quality of the format of the tournament in favor of a better qualifying process is bananas to me. Even avid fans wont necessarily watch qualifiers closely, but once the tournament rolls around, coverage picks up considerably. If the goal is to get more participation, they need to get creative. I'm in favor of a play in format (e.g. 4 groups of 4 in group stage, but have the last slot in each group subject to a play-in game or home-and-home --> 20 teams). I'm not familiar with multiple-group stage setups, and I guess you could do something like 4 groups of 5 with top 2 qualifying to get to 20 as well (although that setup is likely to lead to some meaningless games towards the end of the group stage). Groups of 6 would likely necessitate 5 group games, which I think dilutes the average quality of the game and suffers from the same problem of meaningless games. Get through the group stages quickly and get to the knockouts, lest you're interested in more riveting Albania-Iceland matchups.

The tournament was going to 24 whether the fans* liked it or not, there's just too much money in having eight more teams and the huge block of not-elite countries in Europe were totally for it.

The English media presented this as THE WORST THING THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED and said the qualifiers would be super-boring because every big country would have an automatic ticket to the finals. To be fair, they were pretty boring for England, but they were pretty interesting in almost every other group *and* the 2nd best team in Europe (judging by the World Cup) failed to even make the playoffs.

24 is an intrinsically awkward number for tournaments and one can't rule out some dreadful group stage action. Then again, some of the dullness of Italia '90 is no longer possible thanks to the backpass rule and a pronounced shortage of defenders who actually defend and teams might be more likely to play with some freedom as a single loss is not a code red emergency like it is in a 16 team or 32 team format. With 3rd place potentially getting you out of the group, teams will have something to play for on the last day even if they've lost their first two games.

My bold prediction: it'll be fine.

* somehow I doubt fans of Northern Ireland, Albania and Iceland were too opposed to the idea

 

[Zososoxfan]

The tournament was going to 24 whether the fans* liked it or not, there's just too much money in having eight more teams and the huge block of not-elite countries in Europe were totally for it.

[snip]

My bold prediction: it'll be fine.

The money grab is a reality, not a debatable issue. But, if the competition "begins" with the play-in games/series, you still get from 16 to 20 teams (as opposed to the awkward 24 in the group stage). I can't imagine those last 4 nations to qualify comprise a huge windfall and the amount of games can be made comparable (i.e. 12 group games compared to 8 games if the final 4 slots are dealt with by a home-and-home. Hell, if 24 is a magical number, have more play-in games). Bottom line, if we assume that the $ can be made comparably equal, the question then becomes strictly a question of format preference. I would prefer the 4x4 group stage to the 6x4, YMMV.

 

[OCST]

The tournament was going to 24 whether the fans* liked it or not, there's just too much money in having eight more teams and the huge block of not-elite countries in Europe were totally for it.

The English media presented this as THE WORST THING THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED and said the qualifiers would be super-boring because every big country would have an automatic ticket to the finals. To be fair, they were pretty boring for England, but they were pretty interesting in almost every other group *and* the 2nd best team in Europe (judging by the World Cup) failed to even make the playoffs.

24 is an intrinsically awkward number for tournaments and one can't rule out some dreadful group stage action. Then again, some of the dullness of Italia '90 is no longer possible thanks to the backpass rule and a pronounced shortage of defenders who actually defend and teams might be more likely to play with some freedom as a single loss is not a code red emergency like it is in a 16 team or 32 team format. With 3rd place potentially getting you out of the group, teams will have something to play for on the last day even if they've lost their first two games.

My bold prediction: it'll be fine.

* somehow I doubt fans of Northern Ireland, Albania and Iceland were too opposed to the idea

There are fewer minnows in Europe than CONCACAF, and they're not as sad. Once you get past San Marino, Gibraltar, and Andorra, you have sides that can get a result on a good day.

CONCACAF is USA, MEX, CRC, and.....? Some Central American sides that make the Hex because it's impossible to play in their shithole stadiums in 100-degree heat dodging batteries and pissbags, and a bunch of islands, a few of which produce Europesn-quality players once in a while, but 20+ nations who field teams of bartenders and teachers.

Even Canada and Cuba suck.

Albania and Iceland would be good bets to make the hex.

I don't know how you combine GC with Copa and deal with the fact that 3/4 of CONCACAF are hopeless.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

Iceland nearly made the last World Cup coming out of UEFA, they would likely qualify in CONCACAF as often as not.

The money grab is a reality, not a debatable issue. But, if the competition "begins" with the play-in games/series, you still get from 16 to 20 teams (as opposed to the awkward 24 in the group stage). I can't imagine those last 4 nations to qualify comprise a huge windfall and the amount of games can be made comparable (i.e. 12 group games compared to 8 games if the final 4 slots are dealt with by a home-and-home. Hell, if 24 is a magical number, have more play-in games). Bottom line, if we assume that the $ can be made comparably equal, the question then becomes strictly a question of format preference. I would prefer the 4x4 group stage to the 6x4, YMMV.

Play-in games would be played in front of half-empty stadia unless the teams playing in bordered the host country. Northern Ireland fans knowing they're going to be in the tournament for at least a week is a big deal in terms of revenue to the host country.

 

[Zososoxfan]

Iceland nearly made the last World Cup coming out of UEFA, they would likely qualify in CONCACAF as often as not.




Play-in games would be played in front of half-empty stadia unless the teams playing in bordered the host country. Northern Ireland fans knowing they're going to be in the tournament for at least a week is a big deal in terms of revenue to the host country.

Some of these group games are played in front of half empty stadiums too, which may be mitigated by a more competitive group stage.

Regardless, I think I've gotten off-point. I begin from the premise that a 24-team 4-teams-per-group competition is not an appropriate or particularly enjoyable way to run a competition. I would go to great lengths to avoid it and have tried to propose ways to accomplish this keeping in mind the reality that money drives all of this. I'd prefer they go to a straight 32 team format that way they get more money (via more games and more nations participating, but at the expense of an entertaining qualifying process) and the competition has a more enjoyable format (subjectively, for me ).

 

[Infield Infidel]

Schedule wise, having a combined Copa America and a separate Gold Cup changes very little for the bigger CONCACAF sides. Copa America just replaces the Gold Cup in the year after the World Cup. For the rest of CONCACAF having one Gold Cup per 4-yr cycle changes a lot, and this is where the literal payoffs start. They would likely receive a percentage of the Copa revenues if they don't qualify, and even more if the Gold Cup was scrapped entirely.

 

[dirtynine]

The merged tournament seems to be gaining a lot from being played roughly around the same time as the Euros - the two are amplifying each other in the American market. I would hope that if Mega Copa came to pass it was always the Euro summer (2 years in between World Cups), ideally overlapping with the Euro as it is this year.

 

[OCST]

Iceland nearly made the last World Cup coming out of UEFA, they would likely qualify in CONCACAF as often as not.

This is my point. I don't like the bigger field in the Euro but at least the last teams in, like Iceland, are respectable with upside on a good day.

Expanding to 24 in acombined Copa/GC would mean some truly awful sides with zero chance. Look at how bad Cuba and Haiti are, let alone St. Vincent, Turks and Caicos, etc. The last teams into Euro would be mid level at worst.

 

[The Price Is Wrong]

16's a good size for the combined Copa America. It throws a bone to the dozens of minnows in CONCACAF while limiting them to 1-2 bids, so as to not make a total farce of the proceedings. But anything beyond that would be a bridge too far. I think the CONMEBOL countries would have serious, legitimate gripes if they were fielding their Messis and Suarezes and Neymars and putting them on the field for 90 minutes against teams like El Salvador or Guatemala, who know they're only getting close to a result by playing to injure people.

Also, Iceland wasn't a "last team in". They qualified through the group stage, not the playoffs, offing the Dutch en route by 2-0 at home and 0-1 on the road. Albania too finished a group runner-up, winning 3 of their 4 road matches plus a scoreless draw with Denmark. Wales is ranked pretty low but has a very solid roster, took 4 points off of Belgium, and thumped the likes of Israel to make the Euros as runner-up. Even Northern Ireland likewise finished #1 in their qualifying hex, albeit an abysmal one. Those four teams earned their spot in the Euros, they didn't back into anything, although I'd only call it a "glorious" result for the first three.

Take away 4 bids to the tournament, and all 4 of those teams still make it, and it's Ukraine, Sweden, Ireland and Hungary staying home. You want to mock any Euro entrant, mock Hungary, who finished third in the worst group (Northern Ireland's) despite being ranked #18 in the world, and then barely edged Norway (#51) in the playoff round.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

Hungary is the worst team in the tournament if you ask me. There's nobody with even a hint of class in their team.

Neither do Northern Ireland but they're a much more settled squad with a good manager, and they have bags of heart.

Pretty sad really, since 60 years ago Hungary had one of the greatest teams ever.