Time to merge CONCACAF and CONMEBOL

America

Primavera
Primavera
Joined
Oct 29, 2017
Messages
428
Likes
0
Favorite Player
Fabio Cannavaro
My uncreative name for this merged confederation would be CONCASAF (Confederation of North, Central and South American Association Football).

The open spot left by the absence of CONCACAF would be taken by the Caribbean Zone that currently occupies a zone in CONCACAF. Of the 41 members in CONCACAF, 27 are from the Caribbean. 4 are from North America, 7 are from Central America and 3 are from South America. In comparison, CONMEBOL only have 10 members. That's even less than the Oceania Football Confederation. Giving the Caribbean football confederation a level playing field amongst themselves, will only help them reach higher levels. However, mainland CONCACAF have already surpassed the growth necessary to be considered competitive. USA, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Panama are considered some of the brightest and strongest teams, on the rise. They need something to bump them up.

Anywho, by combining CONCACAF's 14 major members into CONMEBOL, you will create a juggernaut that would be a rival to UEFA. The USA and Mexico, along with some nations like Panama and Costa Rica, churn big money and attract millions in viewers. By watching the Copa America in 2016, you can see how quality this new super confederation would be. Not only that, but it will help to grow the sport.

Imagine a star studded Brazilian team making frequent rounds to the USA or to Costa Rica. The coverage, economics and growth for the sport in the considerably weaker former CONCACAF members would be greater than ever before. Forcing teams to play against different competition, stronger competition and more well-known competition only grows the game. The economics are there, as well. A case can be made for greater travel expenses due to a large confederation, but I imagine it wouldn't be the hardest thing to achieve. Africa and Asia are much larger and see greater competition than the smaller regions like CONCACAF.

Routinely, the most viewed games in the U.S. are against continental rivals over European teams. That would only increase when the continental rivals are teams of greater prestige like Brasil and Argentina. It's extremely beneficial for the game in North America and just as beneficial for the economics of the game in South America. It needs to happen.
 

Quantum

Capitano
Capitano
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
2,067
Likes
0
Favorite Player
Handanovic
Old username
QuantumOfSolace
Imagine a star studded Brazilian team making frequent rounds to the USA or to Costa Rica.

The distance between São Paulo and capitals like Washington and Mexico City is over 7.500km. That alone is a perfect reason for them to remain separated, it's logistically impossible for South American teams to visit North America routinely and vice-versa.
 

America

Primavera
Primavera
Joined
Oct 29, 2017
Messages
428
Likes
0
Favorite Player
Fabio Cannavaro
The distance between São Paulo and capitals like Washington and Mexico City is over 7.500km. That alone is a perfect reason for them to remain separated, it's logistically impossible for South American teams to visit North America routinely and vice-versa.
I don't, literally, mean on a routine basis.

Nonetheless, Cairo to Johannesburg is nearly 9,000 KM and that doesn't change the fact that they play in the same confederation. They don't have to play every month, nor will they ever. A South American or North American team would likely have to travel 2-4 times a year, if that, to play a competitive game against a counter-part team. Hardly impossible.
 

ADRossi

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
13,920
Likes
2,571
10 years of FIF
Forum Supporter
Honestly, I don't think this will create the juggernaut you're envisioning. I think this would mean that the South American teams would whoop Mexico and the U.S. regularly, and as a result 6 or 7 South American teams would qualify for the World Cup instead of 4 or 5. You're underestimating the talent gap between the two federations, imo. I think if you put a middling team like Peru or Chile in CONCACAF, they would win it
 

America

Primavera
Primavera
Joined
Oct 29, 2017
Messages
428
Likes
0
Favorite Player
Fabio Cannavaro
Honestly, I don't think this will create the juggernaut you're envisioning. I think this would mean that the South American teams would whoop Mexico and the U.S. regularly, and as a result 6 or 7 South American teams would qualify for the World Cup instead of 4 or 5. You're underestimating the talent gap between the two federations, imo. I think if you put a middling team like Peru or Chile in CONCACAF, they would win it
I'd have to disagree. There's an obvious talent gap between the two confederations, but it's not that big to the point where Peru would defeat the U.S. or Mexico, in a serious tournament. There's been hiccups, but the quality in CONCACAF's biggest teams is easy to see. Copa America 2016 was a prime example, where the U.S. made it to the Semi-Finals.

Also, I don't think CONCACAF's bigger teams can improve unless they have serious competition breathing down their neck. How good can a team get when their only opponents are Caribbean shrimp fishers? There would be a lack of CONCACAF teams making big wins or strides in tournaments, but in a few years time within the merger, they will have to improve. They have the infrastructure, and finances, they just need the incentive and kick in the ass to move it up a notch.
 

crzdcolombian

La Grande Inter
La Grande Inter
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
11,953
Likes
183
Favorite Player
Radamel Fkingco
10 years of FIF
Merge

Pot 1
Argentina
Brazil




Pot 2
Mexico
Colombia
Uruguay





Pot 3
Chile
US
Paraguay



Pot 4
Peru
Costa Rica
Venezuela
Ecuador

After that they don’t exist and have 0 chance of qualifying
 

ADRossi

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
13,920
Likes
2,571
10 years of FIF
Forum Supporter
I'd have to disagree. There's an obvious talent gap between the two confederations, but it's not that big to the point where Peru would defeat the U.S. or Mexico, in a serious tournament. There's been hiccups, but the quality in CONCACAF's biggest teams is easy to see. Copa America 2016 was a prime example, where the U.S. made it to the Semi-Finals.

Also, I don't think CONCACAF's bigger teams can improve unless they have serious competition breathing down their neck. How good can a team get when their only opponents are Caribbean shrimp fishers? There would be a lack of CONCACAF teams making big wins or strides in tournaments, but in a few years time within the merger, they will have to improve. They have the infrastructure, and finances, they just need the incentive and kick in the ass to move it up a notch.

I mean, that same U.S. just failed to qualify for a WC against the likes of Honduras and Panama, who we both agree wouldn't even crack the best six teams in CONMEBOL. You make an excellent point that if the U.S. and Mexico want to get better, they need to play better teams (i.e. when Australia left Oceania to join the Asian league). However, it makes a lot more sense for Mexico to pull an Australia (which they never will) than it does for the confederations to merge.

Keep in mind Australia was willing to merge because they knew they would still be a proverbial favourite to qualify for all major tournaments. Mexico would no longer be a lock, and therefore would not be willing.
 

brehme1989

La Grande Inter
La Grande Inter
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
25,973
Likes
1,649
10 years of FIF
Most Serious Member
Most Stubborn Poster
A merge of the two would be great for football but as Quantum pointed out, the logistics would be hell.

A group system like Europe could be arranged of course so it'd only 2 big trips at most. Africa is sort of struggling with this whenever there's just 1 trip and the financials of the American football associations shouldn't be far greater than their African counterparts despite the potential financial gap of the economies as a whole.

There's 8 spots (4,5 + 3,5 south and central&north respectively) in a 32 country system and they want a 48 team World Cup in 2026 where that will grow to 12 (6+6).

41 CONCACAF teams so far and there are a few more obscure islands that want to join. CONMEBOL is just 10. Europe's pretty much the same numbers but travelling is much easier, probably cheaper and much faster. So a different setup is needed. Similar to Africa's, who also has 50something countries.

A regional pre-tournament could take place based on coefficients, then set up 8 groups of 4 teams like the CL and current World Cup and top one of each group goes to World Cup. But is that really better? You will lose out all the rivalries.
Brazil will not play Argentina for competitive games. Or Uruguay.
USA and Mexico might play once every 5 tournaments.
I'm not gonna list them all, but you get the point.

It will end up like Europe where people are waiting for the Euro or the World Cup to face their rivals but the best part about South America is the rivalries and the passion in those games. Having a WC qualification group of Argentina, Canada, Jamaica and Guatemala isn't really beneficial and there's probably much less money for the South Americans. And less prestige.

Another way is to split between two large groups of say 10-12 teams and have 4 teams qualify from each. That way you might end up having bigger games and more upsets.
Basically, if it ever goes to this direction, the system must be unique. A group stage similar to Africa's and Europe's is not really a good idea. Something like an enhanced Asian system would be preferential. With regional locks as well to avoid huge trips.

As for quality, I think we'll have some upsets and the Panamas and Honduras could be able to potentially upset a bigger team like Argentina or Brazil when least expected. Once every three or four generations at best, but still, it could happen.
 

firmino

La Grande Inter
La Grande Inter
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
12,960
Likes
12
would south american teams agree? i mean, i can plan on moving to another home, live with flatmates paying my parts of the bills, but what if they don't want me? even more than the geographical distance, i would consider the lack of a cultural continuity.

an exception was made for australia in Asia. but would that be repeated in this case? mexico and half of the caribbean states would make more sense under this point of view.

Suriname, Guyana and French Guiana are geographically south american, but play in concacaf.
 

ADRossi

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
13,920
Likes
2,571
10 years of FIF
Forum Supporter
Suriname, Guyana and French Guiana are geographically south american, but play in concacaf.

It is not a coincidence that what would be the three worst teams in South America all joined CONCACAF. Mind you, they're also among the furthest north.
 

crzdcolombian

La Grande Inter
La Grande Inter
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
11,953
Likes
183
Favorite Player
Radamel Fkingco
10 years of FIF
would south american teams agree? i mean, i can plan on moving to another home, live with flatmates paying my parts of the bills, but what if they don't want me? even more than the geographical distance, i would consider the lack of a cultural continuity.

an exception was made for australia in Asia. but would that be repeated in this case? mexico and half of the caribbean states would make more sense under this point of view.

Suriname, Guyana and French Guiana are geographically south american, but play in concacaf.

Hell yea that’s at least 2 more guaranteed spots

We merge and we should have at least the spots we have now
3.5 - NA
4.5 - SA

So even if only let say 8 teams qualify that still gives SA an extra spot. Tho with both half spots then 9 go so 2 more South American teams make it.

If it happened in 2018. Paraguay and Chile would be in instead of Panama and Honduras.

My fear is they go ok so only 6 teams qualify now and other spots go to Europe or Africa.
 

firmino

La Grande Inter
La Grande Inter
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
12,960
Likes
12
by the way, have there been talks in the US federation for such a move? i mean, in all of this i didn't undrstand whether it is an idea of the user America or also something people who love "soccer" are talking about in the US.
 

America

Primavera
Primavera
Joined
Oct 29, 2017
Messages
428
Likes
0
Favorite Player
Fabio Cannavaro
by the way, have there been talks in the US federation for such a move? i mean, in all of this i didn't undrstand whether it is an idea of the user America or also something people who love "soccer" are talking about in the US.
It's not a serious suggestion by the USSF, but I think it should be.

I think a good way to qualify for a World Cup would be to use CONCACAF's current format of zones. Currently there's a North American, South American, Central American and Caribbean zone. Each zone can operate as a semi-separate federation, as it does now. But since the Caribbean, in my scenario would be granted its own confederation, it will not be in this super confederation. There would be 3 zones, used as Pots.

North American Zone, Central American and South American zones. To e

North American Zone:
USA
Canada
Mexico
Guatemala
Belize
El Salvador

Central/Intermediate Zone:
Honduras
Costa Rica
Panama
Nicaragua
Venezuela
Bolivia

South American Zone:
Brazil
Argentina
Colombia
Peru
Chile
Paraguay
Uruguay
Ecuador
 

Wings

Capitano
Capitano
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
3,750
Likes
44
What would South American nations get out of this? They would get to host Mexico and the US a few times every four years, but would that really bring in that much money to make it worth it?
 

America

Primavera
Primavera
Joined
Oct 29, 2017
Messages
428
Likes
0
Favorite Player
Fabio Cannavaro
What would South American nations get out of this? They would get to host Mexico and the US a few times every four years, but would that really bring in that much money to make it worth it?
There's a lot of financial incentive. There's a reason every team tries holding a tour of the US, and that includes national teams. Mexico holds as many national team games in the US as it does in Mexico, due to the sheer amount of money and the infrastructure can accommodate it. That's also the reason Copa America was held in the US. I'm unsure how well Mexico does in the business aspect, but the US is a gold mine for teams and players to sink into, in regards to the potential increase of revenue.
 

crzdcolombian

La Grande Inter
La Grande Inter
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
11,953
Likes
183
Favorite Player
Radamel Fkingco
10 years of FIF
What would South American nations get out of this? They would get to host Mexico and the US a few times every four years, but would that really bring in that much money to make it worth it?

easier qualifiers and more spots. That is what South America gets out of it.

Also many of us are annoyed the US and Mexico wants to host everything like the rich kids who own the ball and will take it away if we dont play by their rules. They want to get better by playing better teams but dont want to risk out in qualifiers.

For Brazil and Argentina really nothing changes. To a lesser extent Uruguay....

For everyone else in South America you just made it way easier to qualify. North America has 3.5 spots.... all of them for grabs. US didnt qualify this time and Mexico only qualified to 2014 because the US did them a massive massive favor haha

I always thought the half spot that South America has should be played against the North America team regardless
 

Wings

Capitano
Capitano
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
3,750
Likes
44
There's a lot of financial incentive. There's a reason every team tries holding a tour of the US, and that includes national teams. Mexico holds as many national team games in the US as it does in Mexico, due to the sheer amount of money and the infrastructure can accommodate it. That's also the reason Copa America was held in the US. I'm unsure how well Mexico does in the business aspect, but the US is a gold mine for teams and players to sink into, in regards to the potential increase of revenue.

Okay, but those are friendlies. I'm sure if South American nations wanted to, there would be nothing preventing them from playing friendlies in the US as is. Mexico also makes a lot of its money from the large population of Mexican descent in the US. And it's a far greater distance for South American nations to travel. So I don't think South American nations have as much financial upside, and even if they did, I don't see why merging confederations makes this any easier than it is now. It's true that they would have qualifiers against the US, but that's one and maximum two competitive matches that they would play in the US every WC cycle.
 

crzdcolombian

La Grande Inter
La Grande Inter
Joined
Aug 2, 2007
Messages
11,953
Likes
183
Favorite Player
Radamel Fkingco
10 years of FIF
Colombia plays 90% of our friendlies in New York City or Miami because of $$$$$. Only if we play a good Euro team do we play in europe

Ecuador and Venezuela also seem to play in the US a lot. Not sure about the other 7 teams tho. Barranquilla(Where colombia plays) is 8 hours from Buenos Aires (Argentina). Barranquilla to NYC is 8 hours as well. Fine that is the start of South America... but same distance.

If South America gets more spots and More $$$$$ then why not. You think we let the US host the 100th edition of the Copa America for anything other then money and you are kidding yourself
 

America

Primavera
Primavera
Joined
Oct 29, 2017
Messages
428
Likes
0
Favorite Player
Fabio Cannavaro
Okay, but those are friendlies. I'm sure if South American nations wanted to, there would be nothing preventing them from playing friendlies in the US as is. Mexico also makes a lot of its money from the large population of Mexican descent in the US. And it's a far greater distance for South American nations to travel. So I don't think South American nations have as much financial upside, and even if they did, I don't see why merging confederations makes this any easier than it is now. It's true that they would have qualifiers against the US, but that's one and maximum two competitive matches that they would play in the US every WC cycle.
Major tournaments have been held in the US, for similar reasons. Also, the American market isn't just for ethnic majorities. Americans would pay loads of cash to see the likes of Neymar, Messi, Vidal, Suarez and every other major South American star, play in any competitive match. Hell even friendlies, involving international teams in the US, are churning more money than most league matches in South America.

As for a benefit for South America. Spots, money, TV exposure in massive markets like Mexico and US. CONCACAF gets money, more exposure and competitiveness and competition.
 

Wings

Capitano
Capitano
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Messages
3,750
Likes
44
Major tournaments have been held in the US, for similar reasons. Also, the American market isn't just for ethnic majorities. Americans would pay loads of cash to see the likes of Neymar, Messi, Vidal, Suarez and every other major South American star, play in any competitive match. Hell even friendlies, involving international teams in the US, are churning more money than most league matches in South America.

As for a benefit for South America. Spots, money, TV exposure in massive markets like Mexico and US. CONCACAF gets money, more exposure and competitiveness and competition.

My point isn't that there's no financial upside. My point is, why do CONCACAF and CONMEBOL have to merge for this to happen? As crzd mentions, Colombia already play friendlies in the US despite being in a separate confederation. I'm sure other South American nations can do so if they want, merger or no merger.
 
Top