football thread No11

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 :).
 
Last edited:
It also a seasonal thing, summer is coming here - in few weeks everything will close, people will go on holiday, not to return before the middle of August, then they will start thinking of football again.

Perhaps they should have it in South America, to draw the crowds ?

Once in 4 years you can tell your wife you’re travelling half way around the world to watch a football game or three,

not every year. 😊
 
I'm not sure what the end goal is for this club world cup. It has a million less pros than cons, and is clearly not thought through. The crowds in american stadiums are minimal, the TV audiance is low, the players are losing some much needed rest for an obvious cash grabbing scheme by FIFA and some clubs. Whatever small legitimacy it could have had is undermined by Bayern's 10-0 result.
If FIFA is attempting to bolster US football by doing flashy superficial events like this one instead of substancial grassroots support they're making a huge mistake.
 
It also a seasonal thing, summer is coming here - in few weeks everything will close, people will go on holiday, not to return before the middle of August, then they will start thinking of football again.

Perhaps they should have it in South America, to draw the crowds ?

Once in 4 years you can tell your wife you’re travelling half way around the world to watch a football game or three,

not every year. 😊
You guys take vacation from sports as well During holydays? That is Indeed cultural clash!

I agree that from the competition standpoint that would make more sense, but doing it in the US to try creating local interest makes sense from a financial standpoint, also considering the next World Cup.

If it was a successful move, though, is an entirely different story...

Regards :).
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what the end goal is for this club world cup. It has a million less pros than cons, and is clearly not thought through. The crowds in american stadiums are minimal, the TV audiance is low, the players are losing some much needed rest for an obvious cash grabbing scheme by FIFA and some clubs. Whatever small legitimacy it could have had is undermined by Bayern's 10-0 result.
If FIFA is attempting to bolster US football by doing flashy superficial events like this one instead of substancial grassroots support they're making a huge mistake.
I think they are playing the long game.

The end goal is to syphon club cash, true, but I'm not sure how that makes it illegitimate. And the only argument they have is "this will feature even more teams". If they can manage to sell the sport to the US public (no evidence of sucess so far), even better.

Player health is a sacrifice move in the board. We have that much worse here in Brazil, 18 dates committed to local tournaments EVERY YEAR, that creates those insane calendars I mentioned before, that don't make a lick of sense to our top teams, but we can't get rid of due to politics in the national confederation....

Fifa's move might work, might not work. But I'm sure if they could simply take over the Champions League, that would be satisfactory and they would stop. What is clear is that they are not willing to settle for the current status quo...

Regards :).
 
Last edited:
Even youth leagues close for the summer, only football though, not all sports.

Soon the Tour will start, that draws thousands of viewers every day during daytime, and people travel to the Alps or Pyrenees and camp there, perhaps some things are not meant to be global, and club football is one of them.
And of course every 4 years the Olympics, and the WC for national teams, and the Euros, they all take place in summer and do draw spectators, this may just be the tournament too much.

Incidentally - I hear three games have been stopped due to bad weather already, that’s not normal is it, maybe it is hurricane season there :smoke:

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.

I don't know if that's case, South American football is held in high regard here, we always look forward to games against Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay etc. - and is always difficult to drag out a win there, certainly worthy adversaries.

Even less traditional teams like the USA and the Canadians have given us a run for our money on more than one occasion.

But club football is a different animal, it thrives mostly on local rivalries, not intercontinental ones. French or Belgian supporters from other teams will not travel thousands of miles to see PSG play, for example, like they would to support the national team.

Nor will supporters of Real Madrid travel that far to see their own team to play Miami, they can see that, or something very similar, every week, for a fraction of the cost and without messing up their summer holiday plans.
 
Last edited:
Northern hemisphere outdoors sports is a nightmare. Rugby and football both stop for a while then, and for good reason. I remember the 13:00 august games I went to : they were always very poor, and the players were clearly struggling.
Also, from a viewer point of view, it's good to have some rest. Makes you more excited for the return of football 2 months later.
The champion's league final feels like the climax of the season (particularly this year in Paris), so this tournament feels super weird.
 
OK. This was the round in which top south american teams met the first tier of Europeans for the first time.

Botafogo won a chess game against the very powerful PSG. Despite a reactive strategy, Botafogo executed it to perfection and PSG did not manage to create a lot of opportunities. It was "anti-football", but wasn't a fluke.

Then (my) Flamengo faced Chelsea. And this time the win came with another dominating display from the south american squad (like it happened against Esperánce in the first round), was very deserved and could have happened by a larger margin.

Then Bayern faced (the probably weakest south american team) Boca Juniors, and secured the first European win on these match-ups.This game I didn't see - I had people visiting at the time - but I see that it ended up 2x1, which is a respectable performance. Maybe Bayern rolled over Boca and the result does not translate the match circumstances, but considering this group results, only Auckland is a real mismatch. If Boca also manage a wide result against them, like 5 or more goals, they still might qualify because Bayern beating Benfica would not shock anyone.

The scenario so far is, IMHO, the most promising for the legitimacy and longevity of this tournament, and the prospect of an outsider being in the round of eight grows, specially because Botafogo X Inter Miami and Flamengo X Boca are now possible match-ups for the Round of sixteen.

I still think the most likely scenario is that, at least by the semifinals, this will be a knock-off champions league, and I still doubt these will be acknowledged by the large European audience as legitimate results. This Cup will need to get a couple more editions in which non-europeans keep proving to be worthy opposition. But scanning the coverage of european specialized sports outlets, I'm already seeing a shift in the narrative, and caution and attention being urged to the European squads.

Another issue to consider is that one of the reasons there is such budget gap between Europe and the rest of the world is the fact that their teams have grown global, what bolsters enormously the TV rights negotiations and the advertisement deals. Even with this tournament being dismissed in Europe, it might work as an appeal boost in other markets for the Brazilian' Série A and Argentina's Apertura, as well as the Libertadore's Cup (Commenbol's answer to the Champions league), and if that happens and diminishes the budget gap, the performance gap will shrink as well. Flamengo is particularly well positioned for that, because the team have been investing in "embassys" (supporters regular meetups) in several nations worldwide to promote the club for the last 10 years, retained exclusive rights for international transmissions in the last TV negotiations and, this year, very deliberately enhanced it's already very popular media channels in a a self-owned full blown production studio.

And, amazingly, we've seen the union of South American countries to support local teams. I've seen things I never expect to these last days, like Argentinian River Plate fans rooting for Flamengo. They have it in for us since we took the 2019's Libertadores from them in a 2x1 comeback that happened between the minutes 88 and 92 of the match.

Just like I could not believe when I caught myself rooting for Boca in the Benfica match-up.

So far, in terms of self image, and in terms of business, this Club World Cup have been very productive to the Brazilian and, to a lesser but still meaningfull scale, Argentinian sides.

Regards :).

PS.: let me register that I did not forget Al Hilal and Monterrey; just these two are not south americans. Anyway, the stats so far against Europeans top tier are 2 "rest of the world" wins, 2 draws and 2 European wins, both by Bayern.
 
Last edited:
My friends are pretty football fan heavy.. its telling no one has mentioned this tournament once. It is pretty much being ignored in the UK.
 
My friends are pretty football fan heavy.. its telling no one has mentioned this tournament once. It is pretty much being ignored in the UK.
Timezone differences are not helping. I might have been interested in PSG-Botafogo, but the game was at 3AM.
 
That's the script, so I'm not surprised. For the European teams, other than prize money, this tournament makes no sense, and the fact that it's in odds with UEFA politics means that there is even less incentive to push it to fans.

But i've seen several European influencers talking about it. So there is a degree of interest, even if it is fringe.

That said, consider this: don't you think that PSG fans would love to cross paths with Botafogo again to show the defeat was a fluke, the proverbial "occasional upset"? Or that Chelsea fans would love to show Flamengo who is the boss? Portuguese press surely seens butthurt with the poor performance from Porto and Benfica, and the Spanish press have been teasing them that Fluminense might be a more formidable adversary to either River or Monterrey than Benfica. If Benfica meets Flamengo, River or Monterrey, all probable paths, won't the core of hardcore fans have any interest in a little peek, after being rosted by their neighbours?

This is how those things begin! I still think this is a deficitary tournament, sure, that is a long term investment, but things are playing much more in Fifa's favour than one could expect before the first kickoff.

Speaking of digital influencers, I've seen one arguing that, as fun as this tournment is proving to be, if football's ecosystem is working, why change it? And this is the crux of the issue, that is a very eurocentric perspective. But there are conditions pushing for a change. Fifa wants in the club money pool (political), American clubs are reorganizing and receiving investment and want to reclaim their competitive status (legitimacy) and asian teams have a seemingly endless pool of oil money to invest in their teams (financery).

Will it happen? The current status quo is a seemingly unexpected byproduct of the bosman ruling that is stepping on a few toes for some time now. Whatever is the end result of this tug of war, the struggle will be an interesting watch.

Regards :).
 
Last edited:
Timezone differences are not helping. I might have been interested in PSG-Botafogo, but the game was at 3AM.
There are already talks for the next edition. Brazil and Spain are candidates.

An european-hosted edition surely looks like a smart move from where i'm standing.

Regards :).
 
And a little sidebar:

Very little problems with referees so far. I hesitate to say this, as there are a large number of decisive matchs ahead, but if the trend keeps, it will be very encouraging.

Doubly so to the three innovations they are testing. The Referee first person camera is just fluff, but is interesting to see. The 8 seconds rule have sped things up, and above all, the pairing of semi-automated offside and sound cues to the refereee have restored the instant gratification of the goal.

Regards :).
 
PSG fans don't care about the Botafogo loss. PSG just won its first ever champion's league, so nothing matters now life is 100% bliss. For fans of other french clubs (like me) it was just funny for PSG to lose to a club owned by the owner of Lyon, who is a known moron.
 
And so they should. Look, in 2019 Flamengo got it's second Libertadores win, in epic fashion against a very good River Plate side, after 38 years. The fact that we lost the intercontinental to liverpool in extratime the same year did not detract an inch of my enjoyment.

And I'm not saying the same thing does not apply to PSG. What I am saying is that these sort of things will create bubbles of interest. I stand by that.

Regards :).
 
Last edited:
All Right. Round of eight reached, and out os the 8 clubes, 3 are not Europeans. And necessarily one non European will reach the Semi-finals, as Fluminense is Playing Al Hilal. Also, I wouldn't discount a non-European finalist, as Flamengo has proven in group stage that Chelsea, while still favorite and expected to up their game in the elimination rounds, is more accessible today than the likes of Bayern or PSG.

That there is already a much bigger disruption than everyone was expecting in this tournament.

And while I am saddened that my Flamengo got the bad luck of landing on probably the hardest Bracket as a reward for wining our group, and facing in the round of 16 one of toughest sides in Bayern - one of those I've been saying from the start that is probably not accessible at this point (I've been calling it "Bully" Munich these last days :)) - I am pleased with our performance, because I think we could have beaten Benfica if we had more luck in the pairing, to join the 8 best party.

For me, Flamengo's performance, as a whole, but specially in the game against Bayern, was a microcosmos of my theory about this tournament.

One of the good, but not top, European teams show up (like current Chelsea), do your best or we can win fair and square with an attacking and pressing strategy. Against the top five, like Bayern, well, they can control the game entirely and never be at risk... but not slacking off. We took an unluck own goal and they scored a deserved second very early (2x 0), so they tried to slow down and preserve their players. Didn't work, Noier had to pull off an amazing save and five minutes later we did score (2 x 1). Than they upped their game again, and scored a little later (3 x 1). Again with a 2 goal lead, they tried the slow down and control one more time, and again didn't work and we managed to score (3 x 2). Than Bayern upped the game one more time, scored the fourth (4 x 2), and this time they managed to control the game until the end. So Bayern is clearly the superior side - I never denied that - but it's not as superior as to dominate without effort.

I say that because all teams other then Flamengo that managed wins, did that with reactive strategies (which are valid and I'm not diminishing merits at all), but Flamengo wants to eventually be able to face the top Europeans head on. It's still a prospective goal that is distant, but we always saw this tournament as an experiment.

Well, to be fair, Al Hilal was not entirely reactive and also deserved their win, but this one has investment that is analogous to Europeans, what is not true to Brazilian sides.

Anyway, google statistics are showing a massive increase in searches for "Brazilian league", which was the real prize for us in this competition, trying to secure interest to selling the international rights to our own tournament and decrease the pay gap with European leagues. I think this was entirely achieved.

Now, I think I should support Al Hilal following the tournament. While I've been rooting for Brazilians in general, I don't need the hassle of a direct rival being world champions for four years.... ;)

Regards :).
 
Last edited:
Aaaaannnnnd..... Club's World Cup is over. Congratulations to Chelsea.

Reviewing what transpired, some conclusions stand out.

First, even with Chelsea's title, the biggest winner was Fifa. The performance from Brazilian sides, Al Hilal and Monterrey demonstrated that there is a reasonable degree of challenge and entertainment to be had, to a greater extent than even tournament enthusiasts previously believed, and thus, landed legitimacy to the dispute. And ironically, having an all-european final after the rest of the world managed to push through to the semi-finals is precisely the best result Fifa could conceivably get. I say that because the fact that the absolute best sides are in Europe right now is not under dispute, so the title going elsewhere would enforce the perception that European teams were not taking things seriously. However, having the rest of the world going almost there, but the final being between some of the richest European sides, both being current champions of regional tournaments, sells the other story - exactly that the difference between Europe and the rest of the world is less significant than previously though outside the select few top sides... especially considering that prior to final, both had one defeat each, both to non-European teams.

There is even more context to be remembered. Save for Auckland, which, let's face it, is a semi amateur team that is a clear mismatch (more on that later), the best results and largest scores from European top sides were against other Europeans. Also, again, save for Monterrey being eliminated by Borussia Dortmund (in an evenly matched game), all other non-European sides were eliminated by either Brazilian teams (Botafogo fell to Palmeiras and Al-Hilal to Fluminense) or one of the top five European Budgets (Flamengo to Bayer Munich and Palmeiras/Fluminense to Chelsea). Again, this context gives credence to the argument of the perception of "an overall insurmountable difference" being overblown.

And even the argument of disinterest from the European sides is shaky. From a public perception, audience metrics has grown in Europe during the tournament (not to the extent hoped but still), with England being the football-oriented nation which's public really didn't care (and Man City really seemed to be taking this as pre-season to be fair, even in the round of 16). Other European teams seemed more interested, expect for Bayern and PSG (but on group stage, bringing their top game in the elimination rounds), even if it's only for the financial reward. A growth is expected in more acute stages, that much is normal, but this normality presupposes an extent of interest.

Finally, I'd like to leave two anecdotes:

The first:

This is a particular football discussion in Portugal about Brazilian teams before the Club world cup:

This is the same panel (some variations) after the tournament:

Notice (if you can speak portuguese) how the discussion about "how Brazilian sides would fare if brought to a European environment" changed a lot between the two takes, even for the member with the strongest pro-Portugal view.

(PS.: these cuts are made by pro-Brazilian team locals. Ignore their comments, I used them just to take advantage of their cuts. The focus here is what the pannel said)

The second:

Before the tournament, Chelsea published about it in it's official channels, and cared so little about the other teams that used the wrong logo for Flamengo, displaying the one from América do Mexico (a team that disputed a spot in the group with LA FC but ended up losing). When Flamengo convincingly beaten Chelsea in the group stage by 3x1, they struck back and posted that the victory was against the "London Blue", faking a similar "dismissing attitude". Now weeks later, when Chelsea secured the title, Flamengo posted in it's international media channel a "Congratulations, Chelsea" message, and now it was time for them to take a shot back, and answered "Chelsea? We thought it was London Blue.". Which is a pretty well earned comeback, but one that shows the previous dig had stung at least enough to merit a reprisal.

This is precisely what I was talking about in my earlier post; this is how rivalries are built.

Now, after the fact, we have 4 years of politics ahead about the continuation of this tournament. UEFA and European national leagues will obviously still be against it and try to prevent a next edition, because of all the previously stated reasons, to stop that push for a globalization, not of the sport, but of the excellence in the sport, because it can threaten their relative importance. For the tournament, all the forces I mentioned before, and possibly some UEFA internal dissent, as the select few clubs that can expect to be playing regularly are making an important amount of money (and Infantino is already defending to remove the ranking spot limitation; without it, Barcelona would have been in the tournament instead of Salzburg; that's an obvious move to push politically strong teams for their side).

What side will come on top of this struggle is still to be seen... but sure as hell it'll be interesting to watch.

Regards :).

Endnotes:

1 - Don't be mistaken by final positions. Fluminense is the weakest of the Brazilian teams that participated, both in talent and tactics, and Flamengo is the strongest right now. Second place amongst participants could go either way to Botafogo or Palmeiras. But the actual "second" best current Brazilian team is Cruzeiro (and an argument to it being the actual best one could be made). Not a dig at Fluminense here, they are not a bad side, have a great talent in John Arias, and showed a lot of heart, but their position is explained by more luck in the pairing. In a more long winded form of dispute, like our league matches, they will fall behind all the other sides I mentioned.

2 - Argentinam sides were the disappointing ones here in South America, and Boca Juniors were, frankly, the overall weakest side from this corner of the globe, by a lot. Still, it is much, much better than Auckland, and still, a real mismatch there. That draw derives from the fact that Boca is at their strongest defending (playing anti-football) and applying what we call "catimba" (which is basically a mental game to irritate their adversaries and take them out of their balance); when they have to actually play an attacking game (what is not that common as they rarely play semi-professional teams), their shortcomings become more obvious.
 
Last edited:
I reach very different conclusions.

What you seem to say is that some pundits used to say stupid things about south american football and are now more nuanced. I'd say that this is more of a sign that most pundits are stupid and don't know anything about what they're talking about. Anyone with some sense could have predicted that the south american sides were likely to go at least to the quarter final, because they're good and the calendar + timezones + weather was much better for them.

I watched the PSG semi final with friends in a bar, and clearly the atmosphere both in the stadium and at the bar was nonexistent. My personal hype currently is for the women's EURO, much more than the club worlds cup.
But more generally what everyone noticed is that PSG just finished its season, while other squads have had their holiday, then 2 weeks of training and are having their first pre-season games. The calendar is awful, and there doesn't seem to be a solution to it. Players have been complaining about number of games and length of season, and this competition goes in the wrong direction in every way. Also, all of us who dislike the fact that money is now much more important than passion in football should be against this competition who is not made for fans at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom