A couple of days ago I started thinking about new format ideas for the FIFA Club World Cup. The current tournament just doesn't seem to make a lot of people excited, including myself, so I tried to come up with an idea to include more teams and create a more entertaining tournament. Unfortunately, a format like this could probably never happen due to scheduling conflicts and the amount of time the tournament would take to play.
My CWC tournament would have 16 teams with 4 groups of 4 in a group stage. The overall format would be the same as the World Cup only with half the amount of teams.
How the 16 teams would be selected
2 - UEFA Champions League Finalists
2 - Copa Libertadores Finalists
2 - CONCACAF Champions League Finalists
2 - Asian Champions League Finalists
2 - African Champions League Finalists
2 - UEFA Europa League Finalists
2 - Copa Sudamericana Finalists
1 - Oceania Champions League Winner
1 - Host Nation League Champion
Clubs that would have qualified in the last 5 years
2010
Inter Milan (Italy)
Bayern Munich (Germany)
Internacional (Brazil)
Universidad de Chile* (Chile)
Pachuca (Mexico)
Cruz Azul (Mexico)
Seongnam Ilhwa Chunma (South Korea)
Zob Ahan F.C. (Iran)
TP Mazembe (DR Congo)
Espérance ST (Tunisia)
Atletico Madrid (Spain)
Fulham (England)
Independiente (Argentina)
Goiás (Brazil)
Hekari United (Papua New Guinea)
Al-Wahda (UAE)
*In place of Mexico's Chivas Guadalajara who would not qualify for a South American spot
2009
Barcelona (Spain)
Manchester United (England)
Estudiantes (Argentina)
Cruzeiro (Brazil)
Atlante (Mexico)
Cruz Azul (Mexico)
Pohang Steelers (South Korea)
Al-Ittihad (Saudi Arabia)
TP Mazembe (DR Congo)
Heartland FC (Nigeria)
Shakhtar Donetsk (Ukraine)
Werder Bremen (Germany)
LDU Quito (Ecuador)
Fluminense (Brazil)
Auckland City (New Zealand)
Al-Ahli (UAE)
2008
Manchester United (England)
Chelsea (England)
LDU Quito (Ecuador)
Fluminense (Brazil)
Pachuca (Mexico)
Saprissa (Costa Rica)
Gamba Osaka (Japan)
Adelaide United (Australia)
Al-Ahly (Egypt)
Cotonsport Garoua (Cameroon)
Zenit St. Petersburg (Russia)
Rangers (Scotland)
Internacional (Brazil)
Estudiantes (Argentina)
Waitakere United (New Zealand)
Kashima Antlers (Japan)
2007
AC Milan (Italy)
Liverpool (England)
Boca Juniors (Argentina)
Grêmio (Brazil)
Pachuca (Mexico)
Chivas Guadalajara (Mexico)
Urawa Red Diamonds (Japan)
Sepahan (Iran)
Étoile du Sahel (Tunisia)
Al-Ahly (Egypt)
Espanyol (Spain)
Sevilla (Spain)
Arsenal de Sarandi (Argentina)
Millonarios* (Colombia)
Waitakere United (New Zealand)
Kashima Antlers (Japan)
*In place of Mexico's Club America who would not qualify for a South American spot
2006
Barcelona (Spain)
Arsenal (England)
Internacional (Brazil)
São Paulo (Brazil)
Club America (Mexico)
Toluca (Mexico)
Jeonbuk Hyundai Motors (South Korea)
Al-Karamah (Syria)
Al-Ahly (Egypt)
CS Sfaxien (Tunisia)
Middlesbrough (England)
Sevilla (Spain)
Atlético Paranaense* (Brazil)
Colo-Colo (Chile)
Auckland City (New Zealand)
Urawa Red Diamonds (Japan)
*In place of Mexico's Pachuca who would not qualify for a South American Spot
I think you would have to find a way to cut this down to 8 teams. Too many games I think.
ReplyDelete1 - UEFA Champions League winner
1 - Copa Libertadores winner
1 - CONCACAF Champions League winner
1 - Asian Champions League winner
1 - African Champions League winner
1 - UEFA Europa League winner
1 - Copa Sudamericana winner
1 - Oceania Champions League Winner
1 - Host Nation League Champion
and the Oceania Champs play a play in game with the local league champs.
I agree that 8 teams would be more feasible but it would still probably be too many games with the current scheduling. If every league was on the same calendar I bet they could find 3 weeks or so to do a tournament like this but unfortunately I don't think that will ever happen.
ReplyDeleteThis post was never a realistic idea anyways, just a fantasy land thought of what I think would make a tournament like this more entertaining. Your idea is definitely closer to reality.
Personally, I'd be more likely to watch it with interest if there was a larger variety of teams and more than 2 teams that are capable of winning it.
Yeah is isn't a very good tourney. I personally disregard it completely.
ReplyDeleteThe Club World Cup is the club championship of the world. That means that it should have only the VERY BEST of each continent. You do realize that the Europa League winner is 17th place in Europe right? Why should they get a shot at the top prize instead of places #2-#16?? Same with Copa Sudamericana. Those are 2nd level tourneys. It's like wanting a 2nd Division team in the Champions League.
ReplyDeleteThe current format is fine, except for the host berth, but oh well. It will never expand, and that's good because the CWC is played year round anyway. All Champions League games, in every continent, are CWC games. I hope you guys realize that too.
Everything you say is probably true so it's hard to disagree too much.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if you take things literally the "Champions League" has many 3rd and 4th place league teams enter the tournament that aren't really the champions of anything (and are not the VERY BEST of each league). I don't see why the Club World Cup has to be literally the best single team from each continent.
By your logic you could take the 4 semi-finalists from Copa Libertadores and UEFA CL and exclude the Europa and Sudamericana finalists.
However, I personally think it would make those "2nd tier" tournaments more worthwile and interesting to include their finalists. This year for instance, I think Europa finalist Porto is probably a top 5 team in Europe right now based on form. Just because they're not in the CL doesn't make them the 17th/18th best Euro team IMO.
I do agree with you in a "real world" sense but what I'm saying in this post is that in fantasyland I would like the CWC to be a bigger, better, and more globally inclusive tournament.
Appreciate your thoughts, thanks for the comment.
"However, if you take things literally the "Champions League" has many 3rd and 4th place league teams enter the tournament that aren't really the champions of anything (and are not the VERY BEST of each league)."
ReplyDeleteIf a geographic region is allotted a certain number of spots, then it should be the top teams. If they get 4 spots, then it should be the top 4. If 3, then the top 3. And so on. 3rd and 4th place aren't the "VERY BEST", but they do deserve to go over #5-#20 in their league.
"I don't see why the Club World Cup has to be literally the best single team from each continent."
Because it's the undisputed world championship of club football. The top prize. Let's not trivialize it.
"By your logic you could take the 4 semi-finalists from Copa Libertadores and UEFA CL and exclude the Europa and Sudamericana finalists. "
If each continent were allotted 4 teams, then those should be the teams selected. The top 3 CFU teams make the CCL. The top 3 UNCAF teams used to make the CCC. Like I said, it's gotta be the top teams from each geographic region.
"However, I personally think it would make those "2nd tier" tournaments more worthwile and interesting to include their finalists."
But that would be at the expense of teams that were too good for those 2nd tier tournaments. Why should they be penalized for being better than 2nd tier teams? They shouldn't.
"This year for instance, I think Europa finalist Porto is probably a top 5 team in Europe right now based on form. Just because they're not in the CL doesn't make them the 17th/18th best Euro team IMO."
In tournaments, you gotta go by results, not opinion. Many feel Barca was the best in Europe last year. But Inter won the title. It's all about results on the field, not fan opinions.