• What's the relative value of the World Club =?UTF-8?B?Q2hhbXBpb25zaGlw?

    From Mark@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 25 12:51:28 2024
    1960-2004: 2 clubs playing in it, from by far the dominant continents in football. The obvious weakness was that it wasn't open to teams from
    other continents, but from a pragmatic perspective that made some sense. (Although now I know that the North Americans tried to compete in the
    late 1980s and got turned down, I'm not so sure that's a valid excuse.)

    2000-2023: 1 (or 2) teams from each continent playing in it. A genuine
    World Championship. The obvious weakness was that the runners-up
    couldn't claim to have proved themselves to be the 2nd best team in the
    World.

    2025: Too many European teams playing in it. Obvious weakness being
    that. It's totally unfair.

    I've always thought of the Intercontinental Cup from 1960-1998 as equal
    to the Club World Cup, but given less weight to it from 1999 to 2004
    because there was an official World Championship by then.

    The new format from 2025 is totally unfair, so I'd give significantly
    less weight to that. It's probably worth significantly less than the Intercontinental Cup after 1999.

    What do you guys think?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Blueshirt@21:1/5 to Mark on Sat Dec 28 08:16:01 2024
    Mark wrote:

    1960-2004: 2 clubs playing in it, from by far the dominant
    continents in football. The obvious weakness was that it
    wasn't open to teams from other continents, but from a
    pragmatic perspective that made some sense. (Although now I
    know that the North Americans tried to compete in the late
    1980s and got turned down, I'm not so sure that's a valid
    excuse.)

    Not letting teams from Mexico or the NASL into the
    "Intercontinental Cup" in the 70's - when CONCACAF first looked
    for it - was a big minus... but with all those super-stars it's
    possible a New York Cosmos or LA Aztecs might have given the
    South American/European Champions a run for their money... so of
    course, that wasn't going to be allowed to happen. Ignoring the
    Asian and African confederations as well probably didn't help
    the development of club sides in those continents either. But
    did UEFA or CONMEBOL care about the rest of the world? Of course
    not. It was 'their' tournament and they were not letting the
    footballing equivalent of barbarians in to it!

    Which is why the winners of the Intercontinental Cup can't
    really claim to be "world champions" when they were only the
    "champions" of two of the continents of this planet... out of
    seven! So not really champions of any world, just a small bit of
    it. In other words, it was a meaningless Mickey Mouse trophy.


    2000-2023: 1 (or 2) teams from each continent playing in it. A
    genuine World Championship. The obvious weakness was that the
    runners-up couldn't claim to have proved themselves to be the
    2nd best team in the World.

    2025: Too many European teams playing in it. Obvious weakness
    being that. It's totally unfair.

    I've always thought of the Intercontinental Cup from 1960-1998
    as equal to the Club World Cup, but given less weight to it
    from 1999 to 2004 because there was an official World
    Championship by then.

    The new format from 2025 is totally unfair, so I'd give
    significantly less weight to that. It's probably worth
    significantly less than the Intercontinental Cup after 1999.

    What do you guys think?

    Who said anything about fair? Do you really think 'fair' comes
    in to it with modern day football, especially anything involving
    FIFA?! The only thing driving these spurious "world" club
    tournaments is money. Club football at the top level is rolling
    in money and FIFA wanted a slice of that pie.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)