That's ok. It obviously gnaw in many south americans that we are demonstrably not able to compete in top tier, and for a long while at that (I'd argue since the Bosman Ruling), that opened the floodgates for talent being syphoned entirely to Europe.
But I'm not one of them, I'm more of a "roll up your sleeves and do something about it" guy. More on that later.
So, I think it's natural for Europeans being dismissive of this first edition, especially when it is so obvious that this tournament is meant to become a knock-off champions league after the round of sixteen. The rule is actually that teams of the same confederation should not be in the same group, except Europeans (due tor the sheer number of participants). And it makes logical sense, if the goal is that sides that never play each other meet, but the fortunate (perhaps intended) side effect is to create the opportunity for a very high number of Europeans to be on the round of sixteen, and assuming Europeans being group heads, just in time to knock out the rest of the world before the round of eight.
Which leaves me divided as to the wisdom of FIFA's business plan, If they really want this tournament to grow. Well, obviously they do - this is FIFA's chance to bite a bit of that juicy pool of club money - and the fact that UEFA today dominates that source of income is something they surely don't enjoy. What means that they should double down to their strengths, which are a larger pool of teams and tactics and passion. For the long game, it's necessary, for FIFA, to achieve that, because their "side" champions league won't ever outshine the real one.
So, the only real chance FIFA has to get where they want, IMHO, is if the rest of the world, or at least one region (like the South America sides or the Saudi sides) prove to be, and become regarded, as legitimate adversaries, which beating becomes a challenge. I doubt it will happen in this first, or in a hypothetical second, edition, but if in these moments, such teams prove to be able to challenge the second tier of European powers, and be at least entertaining opposition to the galactic first tier teams, in time, the European perception might no longer be that this tournament is a mere promotional cash grab.
Which brings me to the source of that perception and what to do...
Before the Bosman ruling, when Europeans and South American teams met, results were uncertain, and if memory serves, Americans won the intercontinental more often than Europeans until that time. Than after that, all economy of football changed, and for a good while, the difference grew in favor of European sides. The issue is that the size of the difference might not have been as large as perception suggested. I say that because, even within Europe, there is an abyss between the top ten teams (sides like the Big Six of the premier league, the "el classico" teams, PSG and Bayern) from the second tier. But the only circumstance in which south american teams met an European, was facing the League Champion, which means that we were only measured against a team that is a standout even within Europe. And particularly in the case of Brazilians, it always happened in the end of our season, with the European champion in peak competitive capacity, and our teams always in the last legs after an 80 games (yes, 80; our calendar is crazy, this disadvantage is 100% our fault) season.
So, the south American teams were always meeting far wealthier teams (which is a legitimate source of strength) in their prime, coupled with a few hidden disadvantages that are rarely talked about (the composition of the European Union citizenship allowing for multinational selection of top players, while we still had to observe teams made of national players and no more than three "foreigners", and a far worse competitive moment of the season). Even with the general lack of interest, if you scan the European press that is actually covering the event, many are highlighting that the lack of the expected gap comes from the fact that Europeans are playing before they are competition-read, and the irony of that theory was so obvious from this side, that I had this reflection which I just shared.
And the problem with all that perception is that the dynamics of Europe are intuitively extrapolated to America (America at least, I can't talk about Saud or African league dynamics). Sounds logical that if the best European team is invincible to the best American team, follows that the average European team is invincible to the average American team. I know it's never articulated this concisely, or maliciously, but this perception of lack of challenge is what makes the European attitude to this tournament be dismissive as you expressed - the fact that Europeans don't see those teams as worthy adversaries, that the real competitive merit lies inside the continent, and those from other regions can offer, at best, the ocasional upset.
It is actually true against the very best of the best, but the whole truth is more nuanced. Thing is power is much more balanced in South America than it is in Europe, so a large pool of teams can compete in the level that the Libertadores' champion can deliver. "Top" south american offer is a larger collection, which makes the intuitive conclusion be flimsy. Recently, teams like Flamengo, Palmeiras and River Plate are beginning to position themselves as standouts with budgets that can Rival teams like Porto and Benfica, but this is a very novel phenomena; we are talking the last 5 or 6 years, even less in the case of River. And it displays growth, not spread, of that dynamic. Thus, I think this is the real source of interest in this tournament, at this side of the world; isn't really the idea that our teams can be consistent matches to the wealthiest European teams, but the opportunity to measure our teams against more down to earth European sides. As a long game business plan, I think FIFA's best hope is to play to this tier of power, to try to imbue rivalries between America's top teams and Europe's second tier. This would give a unique flavor to this tournament, different to the Champions League, and than it would get it's Europe tournament emulation only in the latest stages, like the semi finals, for example.
Maybe one day South America will again have the capacity to compete top tier. Brazilian Serie A is displaying 10% yearly growth for about 12 years now (except covid times), and back in 2010's the difference of Budget between, for example, Flamengo and Liverpool, would be 15 fold. Today, it's about four times.
If the tournament catches on - that, only time will tell - and South America reclaims it's position as an equal competitor, maybe this dismissal won't age well. I remember the 90's, before the Premier League, when the English teams were considered European Low tier compared to teams from Spain, Italy and even the Netherlands....
Regards
.
But I'm not one of them, I'm more of a "roll up your sleeves and do something about it" guy. More on that later.
So, I think it's natural for Europeans being dismissive of this first edition, especially when it is so obvious that this tournament is meant to become a knock-off champions league after the round of sixteen. The rule is actually that teams of the same confederation should not be in the same group, except Europeans (due tor the sheer number of participants). And it makes logical sense, if the goal is that sides that never play each other meet, but the fortunate (perhaps intended) side effect is to create the opportunity for a very high number of Europeans to be on the round of sixteen, and assuming Europeans being group heads, just in time to knock out the rest of the world before the round of eight.
Which leaves me divided as to the wisdom of FIFA's business plan, If they really want this tournament to grow. Well, obviously they do - this is FIFA's chance to bite a bit of that juicy pool of club money - and the fact that UEFA today dominates that source of income is something they surely don't enjoy. What means that they should double down to their strengths, which are a larger pool of teams and tactics and passion. For the long game, it's necessary, for FIFA, to achieve that, because their "side" champions league won't ever outshine the real one.
So, the only real chance FIFA has to get where they want, IMHO, is if the rest of the world, or at least one region (like the South America sides or the Saudi sides) prove to be, and become regarded, as legitimate adversaries, which beating becomes a challenge. I doubt it will happen in this first, or in a hypothetical second, edition, but if in these moments, such teams prove to be able to challenge the second tier of European powers, and be at least entertaining opposition to the galactic first tier teams, in time, the European perception might no longer be that this tournament is a mere promotional cash grab.
Which brings me to the source of that perception and what to do...
Before the Bosman ruling, when Europeans and South American teams met, results were uncertain, and if memory serves, Americans won the intercontinental more often than Europeans until that time. Than after that, all economy of football changed, and for a good while, the difference grew in favor of European sides. The issue is that the size of the difference might not have been as large as perception suggested. I say that because, even within Europe, there is an abyss between the top ten teams (sides like the Big Six of the premier league, the "el classico" teams, PSG and Bayern) from the second tier. But the only circumstance in which south american teams met an European, was facing the League Champion, which means that we were only measured against a team that is a standout even within Europe. And particularly in the case of Brazilians, it always happened in the end of our season, with the European champion in peak competitive capacity, and our teams always in the last legs after an 80 games (yes, 80; our calendar is crazy, this disadvantage is 100% our fault) season.
So, the south American teams were always meeting far wealthier teams (which is a legitimate source of strength) in their prime, coupled with a few hidden disadvantages that are rarely talked about (the composition of the European Union citizenship allowing for multinational selection of top players, while we still had to observe teams made of national players and no more than three "foreigners", and a far worse competitive moment of the season). Even with the general lack of interest, if you scan the European press that is actually covering the event, many are highlighting that the lack of the expected gap comes from the fact that Europeans are playing before they are competition-read, and the irony of that theory was so obvious from this side, that I had this reflection which I just shared.
And the problem with all that perception is that the dynamics of Europe are intuitively extrapolated to America (America at least, I can't talk about Saud or African league dynamics). Sounds logical that if the best European team is invincible to the best American team, follows that the average European team is invincible to the average American team. I know it's never articulated this concisely, or maliciously, but this perception of lack of challenge is what makes the European attitude to this tournament be dismissive as you expressed - the fact that Europeans don't see those teams as worthy adversaries, that the real competitive merit lies inside the continent, and those from other regions can offer, at best, the ocasional upset.
It is actually true against the very best of the best, but the whole truth is more nuanced. Thing is power is much more balanced in South America than it is in Europe, so a large pool of teams can compete in the level that the Libertadores' champion can deliver. "Top" south american offer is a larger collection, which makes the intuitive conclusion be flimsy. Recently, teams like Flamengo, Palmeiras and River Plate are beginning to position themselves as standouts with budgets that can Rival teams like Porto and Benfica, but this is a very novel phenomena; we are talking the last 5 or 6 years, even less in the case of River. And it displays growth, not spread, of that dynamic. Thus, I think this is the real source of interest in this tournament, at this side of the world; isn't really the idea that our teams can be consistent matches to the wealthiest European teams, but the opportunity to measure our teams against more down to earth European sides. As a long game business plan, I think FIFA's best hope is to play to this tier of power, to try to imbue rivalries between America's top teams and Europe's second tier. This would give a unique flavor to this tournament, different to the Champions League, and than it would get it's Europe tournament emulation only in the latest stages, like the semi finals, for example.
Maybe one day South America will again have the capacity to compete top tier. Brazilian Serie A is displaying 10% yearly growth for about 12 years now (except covid times), and back in 2010's the difference of Budget between, for example, Flamengo and Liverpool, would be 15 fold. Today, it's about four times.
If the tournament catches on - that, only time will tell - and South America reclaims it's position as an equal competitor, maybe this dismissal won't age well. I remember the 90's, before the Premier League, when the English teams were considered European Low tier compared to teams from Spain, Italy and even the Netherlands....
Regards
.
Last edited:
