USA - 2016 Copa America

[slipperydog]

I would like to see Farmers Field be a host site, but it will be cutting it close to get it ready for June/July 2016

[MicroX]

Originally Posted by Latin l0cO

Conmebol has the toughest qualifiers bc there always 2-3 decent teams that are left out. Unlike Europe where you only have 1-2 decent teams per group. In South America you have Brazil and Argentina plus Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, and even Venezuela and Peru who are better than most 2nd tier Euro team. On top that you have Bolivia holding down their fortresses 3000m above sea level. Even Brazil(the 2002 champs almost didn't qualify for that tournament) and Argentina struggling in 2010 qualifiers goes to show you the painstaking process.

Bolivia is only trouble for the weaker teams. They seriously aren't much trouble for the stronger teams, they just weed out the weaker teams of Conmebol. The teams that have it tough in Euro are the teams that almost qualify for the Euros and World Cups. In other words the Ecuadors, Colombias, Perus, Venezuelas are the Belgiums, Scotlands, Bulgarias, Romanias, Hungarys because these are the teams that struggle to qualify. They have it as equally hard against Europe's top tier as we do with Argentina and Brazil (and recently Uruguay).

Argentina's problem is a managerial one. Its players can play but few of its coaches can coach.

[Latin l0cO]

Originally Posted by MicroX

Bolivia is only trouble for the weaker teams. They seriously aren't much trouble for the stronger teams, they just weed out the weaker teams of Conmebol. The teams that have it tough in Euro are the teams that almost qualify for the Euros and World Cups. In other words the Ecuadors, Colombias, Perus, Venezuelas are the Belgiums, Scotlands, Bulgarias, Romanias, Hungarys because these are the teams that struggle to qualify. They have it as equally hard against Europe's top tier as we do with Argentina and Brazil (and recently Uruguay).

Argentina's problem is a managerial one. Its players can play but few of its coaches can coach.

Bolivia is only trouble for the weaker teams? The same Bolivia that Argentina lost 6-1 last cycle and tied 1-1 in Buenos Aires in this one? Even Brazil struggles in La Paz to the point that they tried to get high altitude stadiums banned.

And you are comparing it wrong. 2nd tier Conmebol team (ecuador, chile, colombia, uruguay, and paraguay) are more comparable..to the greeces, denmarks, turkeys, russias, irelands, etc. The third tier (peru, bolivia, and venezuela but not for long) are comparable to the squads you mentioned.

The reason why I say south america is hardest to qualify bc every cycle there is always at least 2 decent squads that miss out while several mediocre euro squads and shitty concacaf team are able to go.

[MicroX]

Originally Posted by Latin l0cO

Bolivia is only trouble for the weaker teams? The same Bolivia that Argentina lost 6-1 last cycle and tied 1-1 in Buenos Aires in this one? Even Brazil struggles in La Paz to the point that they tried to get high altitude stadiums banned.

And you are comparing it wrong. 2nd tier Conmebol team (ecuador, chile, colombia, uruguay, and paraguay) are more comparable..to the greeces, denmarks, turkeys, russias, irelands, etc. The third tier (peru, bolivia, and venezuela but not for long) are comparable to the squads you mentioned.

The reason why I say south america is hardest to qualify bc every cycle there is always at least 2 decent squads that miss out while several mediocre euro squads and shitty concacaf team are able to go.

Bolivia was only able to do that because Argentina didn't bring a manager that day and Argentina struggles to find a good coach even today. This is also the Bolivia that lost against Chile and Colombia at home.

If a Conmebol team missed out on a WC, it's probably because they couldn't win at home. A team that struggles to win at home is going to have trouble at the World Cup. I think Conmebol have it good with 4 and a half berths. The best four of South America get to play with a 5th potential berth to fill against another confederation. South America has both won and lost that berth in the past as we've also seen more than half of Conmebol berths fail to advance to the Round of 16 just as we've seen them all advance past the group stage.

By the way, the high altitude ban was removed.

[Archbishop]

I'm excited! It should be a great tournament and hopefully in 4 years the US will be better than they are now. It's a rough patch.

[ryebreadraz]

8-10 venues is normal for a 16-team tournament (the last two Euros had eight, but 2004 had 10) and considering the size of the U.S., my guess is that they will go with 10. Just for fun, throwing 10 venues out there that balance geography and ability to draw decently well.

New York, Meadowlands Stadium
Washington D.C., FedEx Field
Philadelphia, Lincoln Financial Field
Miami, SunLife Stadium
Chicago, Soldier Field
Houston, Reliant Stadium
Dallas, Cowboys Stadium
Santa Clara, 49ers Stadium
Los Angeles, Farmers Field/Grand Crossing/Rose Bowl
Phoenix, University of Phoenix Stadium

[alejo25]

Originally Posted by Paraguay Dreamer

I prefer Brazil to host this event. Usa play footbal with hands.

Yeah and it is so interesting they do call it FOOTball.

Originally Posted by master-chivas

I agree
maybe costa rica... but they don't have the stadiums to host one

Id like a Copa America organized by Central American countries, together they have enough stadiums for this kind of event.

[Fizmo1337]

Originally Posted by Latin l0cO

Bolivia is only trouble for the weaker teams? The same Bolivia that Argentina lost 6-1 last cycle and tied 1-1 in Buenos Aires in this one? Even Brazil struggles in La Paz to the point that they tried to get high altitude stadiums banned.

And you are comparing it wrong. 2nd tier Conmebol team (ecuador, chile, colombia, uruguay, and paraguay) are more comparable..to the greeces, denmarks, turkeys, russias, irelands, etc. The third tier (peru, bolivia, and venezuela but not for long) are comparable to the squads you mentioned.

The reason why I say south america is hardest to qualify bc every cycle there is always at least 2 decent squads that miss out while several mediocre euro squads and shitty concacaf team are able to go.

You really are an idiot aren't you?

Let's have a look which countries didn't qualify for the World Cup 2010 from Europe:

- Belgium: vermaelen (arsenal), kompany (man city), vertonghen (tottenham), hazard (chelsea), dembele (fulham), fellaini (everton), lukaku (chelsea), witsel (benfica), defour (porto), van buyten (bayern munchen), etc...
- Russia: arshavin (arsenal), tymoshuk (bayern munchen), dzagoev, Zhirkov, Pavlyuchenko, akinfeev, malafeev, kerzakhov and host of players from zenith. Reached semi finals of euro 2008.
- Turkey: altintop (real madrid), sahin (real madrid), turan (atl. madrid). Reached semi's of euro 2008 and semi's of WC 2002.
- Croatia: Modric (Tottenham), Krancjar (tottenham), Mandzukic (bayern munchen), perisic (dortmund), jelavic (everton). Drew with spain & italy in euro 2012 and reached QF of euro 2008. Very strong team.
- Zweden: ibrahimovic (ac milan), Kallstrom (lyon), Elm (AZ), etc... A regular country at WC's and EC's.
- Bosnia: Dzeko (man city), Pjanic (as roma), ibisivic (stuttgart), misimovic (moscow), spahic (sevilla), etc... A technical team that causes every country problems.
- Czech Republic: 2nd on fifa ranking around 2004/2005. Reached final of euro 2004. Still has a number of top players like rosicky (arsenal), milan baros, etc... Obviously not as strong as back then but still a solid team.
- Probalby forgot some others. Note: Wales a country with bellamy, gareth bale and ramsey was in the lowest seed last QF and had no chance to qualify.

Just laughable that you compare peru or bolivia to these teams. Now tell me which 'top players' peru or bolivia have to compare with these squads or what these countries have ever achieved in football??? Muppet. Even countries like ecuador or paraguay don't have so many top players compared with some countries from europe that didn't even qualify.

Are you really saying these are all mediocre euro squads?? Most of them are able to beat every south american country except arg/brazil maybe. Just because they didn't qualify doesn't mean they are shit. They all got a lot of quality players but if you have to face spain/germany/italy/netherlands/portugal/france with on every position a top player and only the 1st in the group is automatically qualified, it's normal that some of them can't qualify.

In WC 2006 7 of the last 8 were from Europe including countries like Ukraine or Sweden, countries you seem to think are garbage yet seem to be able to qualify from their group and pass the first knock-out stage (and kicking countries from SA, africa or asia out in the meanwhile). The fact is most european countries that qualify have a decent/good chance to progress out of their WC group. Obviously not all will.

A bit less arrogance would be nice.

There are 9 groups in Europe so obviously some groups will be tougher then others so there's always a chance some lesser teams will qualify and stronger teams won't (spain & france now in 1 qualification group with only first one direct qualified for WC) but overall it's pretty hard.

[MAHS1989]

i'm from colombia, and i think these chances for a better americas championship:
*seattle for santa clara
*detroit for arizona
^l.a. memorial coliseum (renovated)
and so i think that championship equal: 8 from conmebol and 8 from concacaf (because bolivia's football is very poor)

Originally Posted by ryebreadraz

8-10 venues is normal for a 16-team tournament (the last two Euros had eight, but 2004 had 10) and considering the size of the U.S., my guess is that they will go with 10. Just for fun, throwing 10 venues out there that balance geography and ability to draw decently well.

New York, Meadowlands Stadium
Washington D.C., FedEx Field
Philadelphia, Lincoln Financial Field
Miami, SunLife Stadium
Chicago, Soldier Field
Houston, Reliant Stadium
Dallas, Cowboys Stadium
Santa Clara, 49ers Stadium
Los Angeles, Farmers Field/Grand Crossing/Rose Bowl
Phoenix, University of Phoenix Stadium

[JYDA]

Originally Posted by Fizmo1337

In WC 2006 7 of the last 8 were from Europe including countries like Ukraine or Sweden, countries you seem to think are garbage yet seem to be able to qualify from their group and pass the first knock-out stage (and kicking countries from SA, africa or asia out in the meanwhile). The fact is most european countries that qualify have a decent/good chance to progress out of their WC group. Obviously not all will.

A bit less arrogance would be nice.

I like how you used 2006 results because 2010 wasn't quite so rosy with 7 of 13 Euro teams bombing out of the group stage and only 3 making the quarterfinals.

[Fizmo1337]

Originally Posted by JYDA

I like how you used 2006 results because 2010 wasn't quite so rosy with 7 of 13 Euro teams bombing out of the group stage and only 3 making the quarterfinals.

He was talking about '2nd tier' and '3rd tier' european countries and in wc 2006 sweden & ukraine ('2nd/3rd tier nations') reached the QF. That's why I was talking about wc 2006. By the way, 3 of the last 4 were from Europe in wc 2010 (not including any 2nd/3rd tier nations though). Wasn't too shabby aswell.

Btw, I'm not trying to brag here. Just showing his ignorance to call any of those countries 'mediocre' and of the level of Peru/Bolivia. Yet peru/bolivia have never done anything in football or have any top players in their squad while a country like Belgium has 10 players playing for world class teams like chelsea, arsenal, man city, tottenham, bayern munchen, etc... . In other words, peru/bolivia are not even close to being on the same level as the countries I mentionned.

[master-chivas]

Originally Posted by alejo25

Yeah and it is so interesting they do call it FOOTball.



Id like a Copa America organized by Central American countries, together they have enough stadiums for this kind of event.

I hadn't thought about a shared Copa America... still

Panama:
Estadio R. Fernandez - 32 000
Nicaragua:
Estadio D. Martinez - 30 100
Honduras:
Estadio Olimpico Met. - 40 000
Estadio Tiburcia Carias - 35 000
El Salvador:
Estadio Cuscatlan - 45 925

I think a Copa America deserves better... in infrastructure, Mexico, Canada and of course the USA have no problems, Costa Rica would have to build or expand some stadiums... In terms of "tradition" and football level only Mexico and Costa Rica really deserve to host a Copa America, though the USA aren't such a bad decision because of all the immigration.

[MicroX]

Originally Posted by Fizmo1337

Yet peru/bolivia have never done anything in football or have any top players in their squad

Your ignorance is showing.

[Joao Pedro - Fortal]

Totally support this idea.. bringing the CONCACAF teams would make the tournament much more visible worldwide. plus México and the US would for sure improve the level of the competition.. plus all the money stuff.. I see much more advantages than disavantages on this junction..
Maybe ths 2016 event has the intention of putting it togheter with the Euro interval what would help with the clubs permission issue..

[Bandeirante1]

Originally Posted by Joao Pedro - Fortal

Totally support this idea.. bringing the CONCACAF teams would make the tournament much more visible worldwide. plus México and the US would for sure improve the level of the competition.. plus all the money stuff.. I see much more advantages than disavantages on this junction..
Maybe ths 2016 event has the intention of putting it togheter with the Euro interval what would help with the clubs permission issue..

agreed

[Texas_giant]

A tiny nation like Denmark (population 5 million) has a league who's media rights fetch about $80 million per annum. EPL fetch $3 billion per annum.

The US(population 300 million) has a league who's media rights fetch $16 million. That's probably less than Bolivia's media rights, which is the worst league in South America.

Shouldn't this tournament be held in a country where football actually gets good media coverage?

[MS20]

Originally Posted by Texas_giant

A tiny nation like Denmark (population 5 million) has a league who's media rights fetch about $80 million per annum. EPL fetch $3 billion per annum.

The US(population 300 million) has a league who's media rights fetch $16 million. That's probably less than Bolivia's media rights, which is the worst league in South America.

Shouldn't this tournament be held in a country where football actually gets good media coverage?

Did Danish broadcasters or the BBC/ITV in England pay $500m for World Cup rights like ESPN did in the US?

Equating media rights for MLS to interest in major tournaments is ridiculous. A Copa America in the US would get comparable TV ratings to baseball and basketball play offs. In games involving US, it could easily surpass them. Not to mention games involving Mexico.

Sold out stadiums + large ratings and corporate sponsorship would be a complete disaster for the US... Bolivia should host it because their media rights are so much more impressive.

[carnifex2005]

Originally Posted by Texas_giant

A tiny nation like Denmark (population 5 million) has a league who's media rights fetch about $80 million per annum. EPL fetch $3 billion per annum.

The US(population 300 million) has a league who's media rights fetch $16 million. That's probably less than Bolivia's media rights, which is the worst league in South America.

Shouldn't this tournament be held in a country where football actually gets good media coverage?

Stupid post. Big events always get good attendance and ratings in the USA. You only have to point to all the Gold Cups and the 1994 World Cup (when soccer was far, far less popular in the US than today) for that.

[Texas_giant]

Originally Posted by carnifex2005

Stupid post. Big events always get good attendance and ratings in the USA. You only have to point to all the Gold Cups and the 1994 World Cup (when soccer was far, far less popular in the US than today) for that.

4 million for the Euro finals when in Canada the Euro finals were close to 4 million?

[Texas_giant]

Originally Posted by MS20

Did Danish broadcasters or the BBC/ITV in England pay $500m for World Cup rights like ESPN did in the US?

Equating media rights for MLS to interest in major tournaments is ridiculous. A Copa America in the US would get comparable TV ratings to baseball and basketball play offs. In games involving US, it could easily surpass them. Not to mention games involving Mexico.

Sold out stadiums + large ratings and corporate sponsorship would be a complete disaster for the US... Bolivia should host it because their media rights are so much more impressive.

England has a law that the World cup has to be shown on Free to air tv, otherwise the tv rights would be much larger than what they pay here.

And the US tv rights for the previous world cup was much smaller than that, ESPN only paid $100 million for '10-14, it's only in Spanish language telemundo that paid $325 million for '10-'14.

That should give you an idea of the demographics of the soccer watching population in America, and how "mainstream" the sport really is