Gold Cup 2023

[Watchmen]

17 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

The US would have a much harder time playing a GC in Mexico or Costa Rica, would make less finals, that is true. Canada would probably get better results if it were to be held here one of every 4-5 times. No question. But just think about the US:  it'd be good for them to have the experience of competing away from home. The GC at home makes them soft. Then they compete below expectation at most World Cups. So from that perspective, even the US should be in favour of rotating it.

This is what I've always found odd.  The complete blind spot from the USSF that constantly hosting the GC is actually a negative for them.  And the initial proposal a few years ago to always host the Copa America (a ridiculous notion that CONMEBOL rightly ridiculed and rejected) would have been an even bigger detriment to their development.

[gigi riva]

6 hours ago, Watchmen said:

This is what I've always found odd.  The complete blind spot from the USSF that constantly hosting the GC is actually a negative for them.  And the initial proposal a few years ago to always host the Copa America (a ridiculous notion that CONMEBOL rightly ridiculed and rejected) would have been an even bigger detriment to their development.

I think you are bang on . I have always found the Americans are a different team when they play away from the confines of the USA.

 

[Unnamed Trialist]

4 hours ago, Watchmen said:

This is what I've always found odd.  The complete blind spot from the USSF that constantly hosting the GC is actually a negative for them.  And the initial proposal a few years ago to always host the Copa America (a ridiculous notion that CONMEBOL rightly ridiculed and rejected) would have been an even bigger detriment to their development.

Look at what Australia did: deliberately choose a much harder confederation, with the longest most arduous travel conditions, and climate extremes. To prepare them to compete better at the World Cup. A risky proposition too.

And they've risen to the occasion, they classify in hard conditions, leave major nations out (China). And then, even when they are not touted at all and perhaps have their weakest national team in years, still show well on the biggest stage, pushing the Champions late in a knockout round.

[Bigandy]

10 hours ago, Watchmen said:

This is what I've always found odd.  The complete blind spot from the USSF that constantly hosting the GC is actually a negative for them.  And the initial proposal a few years ago to always host the Copa America (a ridiculous notion that CONMEBOL rightly ridiculed and rejected) would have been an even bigger detriment to their development.

I think that its not entirely a negative. The gold cup is a profitable tournament so the USSF gets a nice cash injection from the Gold cup that the CSA would kill to have. Why would the USA want to give that up? If they did, and the GC moves to canada (or most other concacaf nation), it is historically unlikely it would be profitable (maybe thats different recently because of the rise of the past few years). 

They also only had 5 players from their 2021 GC squad on their WC squad (Turner GK, Johnson GK, Zimmerman, Acosta, Roldan). They are essentially using the GC to test out new/different players. I am not sure that you can say that the WCQ squad is soft away from home as a direct result of hosting the GC everytime. It's different players. 

I fully agree that the USMNT misses out on getting more experience playing in adverse conditions away from home, but if from an organizational stand point, I think theres plenty of positives from hosting the GC (even though I dont personally agree with it). 

[SpursFlu]

Side note.. watching the National Championship game on Monday my takeaway was that Stadium will be an amazing location for the Gold Cup final and probably between there and Cowboys Stadium for the WC final. If there's a nicer stadium on earth I'd like to see it

[Shway]

1 hour ago, SpursFlu said:

Side note.. watching the National Championship game on Monday my takeaway was that Stadium will be an amazing location for the Gold Cup final and probably between there and Cowboys Stadium for the WC final. If there's a nicer stadium on earth I'd like to see it

The Qatar stadiums didn’t have raving reviews…

Edited January 11, 2023 by Shway

[EJsens1]

10 minutes ago, Shway said:

The Qatar stadiums had raving reviews…

Aside from the food, what were the issues? 

[Shway]

20 minutes ago, EJsens1 said:

Aside from the food, what were the issues? 

Wow meant to say “didn’t”.

I only heard great things inside and out other than the food, and it being freezing cold.

[SpursFlu]

56 minutes ago, Shway said:

The Qatar stadiums didn’t have raving reviews…

They seemed fine mostly because they're all pretty new but not much personality 

[Watchmen]

2 hours ago, Bigandy said:

I think that its not entirely a negative. The gold cup is a profitable tournament so the USSF gets a nice cash injection from the Gold cup that the CSA would kill to have. Why would the USA want to give that up?

Because I don't think USSF gets that much directly from it, CONCACAF does. So I know why CONCACAF doesn't want to move it (they need it to fund every other region), but the USSF really only benefits from "home field" advantage and probably indirectly from increased merch sales. But it comes at the cost of having the national team plateau.

Side note: even more than the men's side, it really feels like the women should have a combined Copa. US/Canada/Brazil is a good start there and then you work on improving other nations further.

[Ottawafan]

1 hour ago, Shway said:

Wow meant to say “didn’t”.

I only heard great things inside and out other than the food, and it being freezing cold.

Didn’t find them cold at all. A few did but overall they seemed to shut the AC down for the 7/10 pm games and became a non factor. 

[Bigandy]

16 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

Because I don't think USSF gets that much directly from it, CONCACAF does. So I know why CONCACAF doesn't want to move it (they need it to fund every other region), but the USSF really only benefits from "home field" advantage and probably indirectly from increased merch sales. But it comes at the cost of having the national team plateau.

Side note: even more than the men's side, it really feels like the women should have a combined Copa. US/Canada/Brazil is a good start there and then you work on improving other nations further.

I guess thats my point. They benefit financially (more than if they didnt host it), they probably have indirect benefits such as increasing awareness and popularity of the national team. Those are some of the pro's and they may not be massive, but they shouldnt be ignored.

As for the con of plateauing - Do you think having a "B" team play at home or away at a GC will have a major influence on how the "A" team preforms at the world cup or in away WCQ matches.  If the GC was treated like the euros are, then i agree, but I dont know how much impact at a world cup/WCQ Away games there is on guys like dest, mckennie, adams etc because Hoppe, Dike, and Arriola played at a home GC.  

I think your sidenote would solve this. A combined copa would likely see "A" teams sent to actually care about winning. 

[Watchmen]

3 hours ago, Bigandy said:

I guess thats my point. They benefit financially (more than if they didnt host it), they probably have indirect benefits such as increasing awareness and popularity of the national team. Those are some of the pro's and they may not be massive, but they shouldnt be ignored.

As for the con of plateauing - Do you think having a "B" team play at home or away at a GC will have a major influence on how the "A" team preforms at the world cup or in away WCQ matches.  If the GC was treated like the euros are, then i agree, but I dont know how much impact at a world cup/WCQ Away games there is on guys like dest, mckennie, adams etc because Hoppe, Dike, and Arriola played at a home GC.  

If the current format for the GC is so useless to them in WC preparation that they're fielding a B team, then yes I think constantly hosting has caused the team to plateau.

[Bigandy]

17 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

If the current format for the GC is so useless to them in WC preparation that they're fielding a B team, then yes I think constantly hosting has caused the team to plateau.

I am not sure I follow. 

Are you saying that if they didn't host, then they would send their A squad and therefore not plateau? 

[Watchmen]

2 hours ago, Bigandy said:

I am not sure I follow. 

Are you saying that if they didn't host, then they would send their A squad and therefore not plateau? 

Yes. There's still a limit because of the region they're in, but if it was held outside of the US I think they'd send their A team for a more challenging experience. That's what they need, something that forces them to elevate their game. The current GC format (all games on home soil against mostly weaker opposition) doesn't really do that.

[Unnamed Trialist]

17 hours ago, Watchmen said:

Side note: even more than the men's side, it really feels like the women should have a combined Copa. US/Canada/Brazil is a good start there and then you work on improving other nations further.

I know this is sacrilege, but you could even argue that the Super League model would be even better for the women, while for the men it does not make sense (and my club president, stupidly, supports it). 

A combined Americas Copa for nations. A Mexico-USA super league; in UEFA as well. They would all help to drive the women's game. Or else reduce the league fixtures and expand the superleague fixtures, because the women's game needs to have bigger fixtures, the elite needs expansion as that will fast-track sponsors, fans, merchandising, tv interest.

I just want to see the Gold Cup rotated because it is the right, equitable thing to do on a sporting level, revenues be damned.

[Bigandy]

14 hours ago, Watchmen said:

Yes. There's still a limit because of the region they're in, but if it was held outside of the US I think they'd send their A team for a more challenging experience. That's what they need, something that forces them to elevate their game. The current GC format (all games on home soil against mostly weaker opposition) doesn't really do that.

I fully agree the current GC format doesnt do that and the team can benefit from a more challenging experience. I just think that a gold cup in jamaica or el salvador reduces the liklihood that the mckennies, dests, aaronsons, adams, will attend as its less appealing than a GC in the USA. 

[red card]

On 1/11/2023 at 10:15 AM, SpursFlu said:

Side note.. watching the National Championship game on Monday my takeaway was that Stadium will be an amazing location for the Gold Cup final and probably between there and Cowboys Stadium for the WC final. If there's a nicer stadium on earth I'd like to see it

SoFi is beautiful inside but there are many more stadiums with beautiful exteriors & backdrops. There are also already a few complaints.

NFL players including from the 2 teams that play there say the turf is too hard and have caused injuries. Something was off with the roof on Monday as it rained in the stadium. Wind swirls in the stadium. No tailgating allowed. No real public transportation to the stadium. Man-made lake/pond just outside the stadium has already seen one body dumped in.

[InglewoodJack]

They'd never do it, but I think a GC final at a big college stadium is the way to go, and the best way to get that European/South American crowd vibe (which USSF probably doesn't want). You wanna keep soccer for the middle class soccer moms, have it at Cowboys Stadium or SoFi. You want to make soccer for the people, have it at The Big House, the Rose Bowl, Penn State, or where the Buckeyes play. I don't know if even a US x MX final would draw close to a sell out there, but a final game there + tailgating would be an insane experience.

[Olympique_de_Marseille]

37 minutes ago, InglewoodJack said:

They'd never do it, but I think a GC final at a big college stadium is the way to go,

Durring the last edition, Mexico played two games at the Cotton Bowl in Dallas.

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_Bowl_(stadium)

That is somewhat of a college football stadium.

[Ruud]

On 1/11/2023 at 12:19 PM, Watchmen said:

Because I don't think USSF gets that much directly from it, CONCACAF does. So I know why CONCACAF doesn't want to move it (they need it to fund every other region), but the USSF really only benefits from "home field" advantage and probably indirectly from increased merch sales. But it comes at the cost of having the national team plateau.

Side note: even more than the men's side, it really feels like the women should have a combined Copa. US/Canada/Brazil is a good start there and then you work on improving other nations further.

No other format makes them as much money thanks to immigrants in New York Florida and Texas. Maybe a game or two in Toronto and the final in Azteca could work to share.  But revenue is key. 
 

as an aside revenue must also be driving Copa America.  Honestly having this in America is going to be huge money maker and draw for travellers!  Especially since it won’t be as easy getting tickets in 2026

[Watchmen]

40 minutes ago, Ruud said:

No other format makes them as much money thanks to immigrants in New York Florida and Texas. Maybe a game or two in Toronto and the final in Azteca could work to share.  But revenue is key. 
 

as an aside revenue must also be driving Copa America.  Honestly having this in America is going to be huge money maker and draw for travellers!  Especially since it won’t be as easy getting tickets in 2026

I'm not disputing that it makes a lot of money for CONCACAF by having it in America every time. It's why they do it. I'm saying it doesn't help the USMT by doing so, and the USSF should absolutely care about that.

Yes, revenue drives the Copa as well, but they've at least shown a willingness to move the tournament around quite a bit. A tournament in America followed by another combined tournament in South America could still be huge. People forget, but one of the biggest traveling supporters groups for Brazil 2014 was the Americans, and I'd think that would be similar (though not quite at the same levels) again. The joint tournament makes the Copa a bigger deal.

[Kent]

11 hours ago, Bigandy said:

I fully agree the current GC format doesnt do that and the team can benefit from a more challenging experience. I just think that a gold cup in jamaica or el salvador reduces the liklihood that the mckennies, dests, aaronsons, adams, will attend as its less appealing than a GC in the USA. 

Hosting it every time has helped them to the tune of winning 7 Gold Cups. If they weren't constantly hosts I'm sure they would have lost some of those, maybe only winning 4 or 5 (assuming they still host more than a couple, and of course they are still a top 2 team in the region). If it's a harder tournament for them they just might feel it's necessary to send their best team possible.

I would add that if it got switched to every 4 years instead of every 2 years, that would also raise it's relevancy when it happens. I love international soccer, but I wish it was a 4 year cycle.

[RJB]

What they lose by playing at home, they gain in money generated. Whereas concacaf certainly gets lots of money, surely the USSF gets plenty to the reinvest in the program.  I'd say that does them better than some away games across central America. And judging by their progress since the gold cup started, I'd say the proof is in the pudding!

[Watchmen]

1 hour ago, Kent said:

I would add that if it got switched to every 4 years instead of every 2 years, that would also raise it's relevancy when it happens. I love international soccer, but I wish it was a 4 year cycle.

Joint Copa every 4 years and a Gold Cup every 4 years off-cycle from the Copa would probably work.