The Sweeper: CONCACAF’s Copycat Champions League A Failure?
Big Story
The commercial and marketing success of UEFA’s Champions League since its launch in 1992, with its final now the most watched annual sporting event globally surpassing the Super Bowl, has spawned imitators by FIFA confederations around the world.
We have the AFC Champions League in Asia, launched in 2002; we have the CAF Champions League in Africa, launched in 1997; we have the OFC Champions League in Oceania, launched in 2007; and we have the CONCACAF Champions League in North and Central America (and the Caribbean), branded as such in 2008.
The only confederation that hasn’t renamed its premier international club tournament as a “Champions League” is South America’s CONMEBOL, which of course has retained the Copa Libertadores, founded in 1960. It hasn’t done so for the simple reason that the tournament is already a success; albeit not as lucrative as Europe’s equivalent. The other confederations have all tried to copy the success of allowing in more teams to the champions’ tournament and giving it a snazzy new name.
The most recent effort, CONCACAF’s, has a problem. All four teams in the semi-finals this year are from Mexico (UNAM Pumas, Pachuca, Cruz Azul and Toluca). Meantime, in UEFA’s Champions League, six different nations are represented in the final eight. Now, UEFA’s showpiece has not always been a brilliant exhibition of the continent’s diversity; England has had four representatives at this stage in each of the previous two years. The institution of the Champions League in Europe itself has been a blow to smaller nations, a fact recognised by UEFA with their reorganisation of the qualification process to benefit countries outside England, Germany, Spain and Italy.
But in the CONCACAF Champions League last year as well, Mexico provided three of the four semi-finalists as well and both finalists. Even the final iteration of the CONCACAF Champions Cup in 2008 before it was renamed the Champions League saw both Mexican qualifiers reach the final. This should have been a sign that CONCACAF was not ready for a “Champions League” that allowed in more qualifiers from the dominant country. It has simply entrenched Mexican dominance, especially with MLS still unable or unwilling to prioritise the tournament.
The CONCACAF Champions League may be making more money now; Mexican television will be enjoying their national hegemony. But for countries in the rest of the region, the chances of their champions progressing in the tournament have become slimmer, and that’s a blow to the development of club football around the confederation.
Quick Hits
- Is indoor soccer dead, asks Kenn Tomasch?
- MLS labor negotiations enter extra-time. Fingers crossed, right?
The Sweeper appears daily. For more rambling and links throughout the day every day, follow your editor Tom Dunmore @pitchinvasion on Twitter.
Email This Post
I love the Champions League.
Last season we saw some USL teams do fairly well and this could happen again in the future. Yet, until MLS adds some players to the roster and opening round games don’t take place during the playoff drive. I also believe that Seattle will prioritize this tournament for 2010 as they seem to be the only MLS city that could actually draw large enough crowds to make it financially feasible for their teams (remember how they just got 18,000 for a friendly against Portland?).
Your thoughts on the future?
I think “unwilling” is the correct word for MLS here, in part because the MLS schedule and the CCL schedule simply don’t mesh. The knockout stage kicks off during the MLS preseason, which gives the Mexican clubs in midseason form a decided advantage. With SuperLiga, it was the other way around. Plus, SuperLiga is a SUM creation, and SUM and MLS don’t like it when they can’t control the message.
Of course, that just gets back to my own theories about the isolationist stance of MLS. They play the world’s game, but they don’t want the world interfering in their business.
The real tragedy of this is that with the right policies in place, a well-supported club like Seattle could do really well in a continental competition, not to mention create at atmosphere at Qwest Field that rivals any in Europe. Sadly, if this labor situation plays out the way I think it will, we may never get to see that.
“Plus, SuperLiga is a SUM creation, and SUM and MLS don’t like it when they can’t control the means of making the money.”
Fixed.
While I’m sure you’ve given this more thought than I have, at first blush I disagree. It’s on the Los Estados Unidos to develop the sport to a level where we can compete with Mexican clubs. Let Mexico dominate the tournament for now; it will only make victory sweeter when we start winning.
This was always going to happen, Mexican dominance. I can list on the fingers of one hand the teams not from Mexico who can hold a candle to the Mexicans in terms of support and players (Deportivo Olimpia, Saprissa, and the US clubs) Is this such a suprise?
I don’t think you can blame on the the summer season. CSKA Moscow faces the same problem and it hasn’t stopped them from advancing. Mexico just dwarfs everyone in CONCACAF with it’s resources.
Perhaps time to invite North American clubs into the Copa Libertadores? Although English clubs have largely dominated the European Champions League in recent times, there is still a feel that this is cyclical and there will be plenty of opportunities for teams from a range of countries to make it to the semi final table.
Mexican Clubs are invited into the Copa Libertadores, but unlike the south American clubs, the champions dont get to take part, getting places in the CONCACAF cup instead, which is a far easier trophy to win. UNAM Pumas won last years closing championship, but they are not taking part in the CL. Then again, the Mexican championship is the most Complicated on the planet.
Hi,
Nice post, congratulations.When will the Turkish language? With love from Turkey, respects.
See you later.