Making the combined Copa America a permanent thing

Just before the U.S. men’s national soccer team played its second Group A match in the Copa America Centenary, a lot of the soccer sites, blogs and message boards I follow were stirring with the rumor that this combined Copa America might be a permanent—or at least recurring—thing and that it would be held in the United States for the succeeding renditions. My initial reaction to this was both yes and no. 

Copa America Centenario—USA 2016

Firstly, I love the idea of a combined championship between the CONMEBOL and CONCACAF regions. These two regions are very closely tied in both a style of play and culture. Also, since the dawn of international football, there has been a rivalry between Europe and the Americas (OK, South America) about who is the best continent for soccer. 

The one area in which Europe has South America beaten is the tournament competitions. Both the UEFA Champions League and European Championships overshadow their South American counterparts. One of the reasons Copa America is a weaker competition is because CONMEBOL only has 10 teams, and therefore has had to two invite teams to play in the recent competitions. Expanding to a 16-team competition featuring the best North and South American national teams would make the competition more attractive and competitive. 

Secondly, this competition would provide a better test to the U.S. and Mexican national teams. These two teams have dominated the Gold Cup, as in have won all but one of the biennial competitions since it began in 1991. Bringing the prize fighters from CONCACAF against the best of CONMEBOL would provide these teams with better competition outside of a World Cup year. 

What I dislike about this idea is the U.S. hosting every time. I think this cheapens the competition much like the Gold Cup is cheapened by having the tournament in the U.S. every playing. Yes, there is a lot of money to be made by playing a major international soccer competition in the U.S. every four (or whatever) years; however, this would make it seem like the U.S. is the host and not the confederations combined.

If this is to be a recurring event, the two confederations should alternate hosting. Obviously, the U.S. would be the most preferred choice of the North American countries to host, but there are a few South American countries who could also host. Brazil and Argentina being most prominent, but several countries could also pump enough money to host the tournament. 

Ultimately, I think this could be a good idea for both confederations. This would increase the level of competition the countries play outside of a World Cup and would reduce the need for friendlies between the confederations.

Furthermore, a tournament like this would bring in a ton of money to both confederations. There would have to be a revenue sharing plan negotiated, but both confederations would stand to being in a lot of cash from a major tournament. Obviously, that would be an almost guaranteed sum if the tournament were to be hosted in the U.S. every year, but there is certainly a large pile of money to be amassed from a tournament in another large country. 

Whether this is a rumor or not is yet to be officially determined, but I do plan on running with this idea for a couple more posts, so be on the lookout for those!

CONCACAF Confederations Cup Playoff date moved to Oct. 10

The playoff match for CONCACAF's spot in the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup in Russia has been moved to October 10, according to U.S. Soccer's Twitter feed. The time has also been set for 6:30 p.m. PT--9:30 ET--and the location is the Rose Bowl Stadium in Pasadena, Calif. (already known). The USA and Mexico are facing each other s the winners of the last two Gold Cups (read: because CONCACAF decided that they wanted more money).

Credit U.S. Soccer

This slightly upsets me because I'll be in Morgantown for WVU's Homecoming game against Oklahoma State, which will most likely be a 3:30 p.m. kickoff, meaning I'll be doing other things that day. I'll have to make sure to watch it with The Liberty Forum or American Outlaws-Morgantown while I'm in up in West Virginia.

Y'all make plans accordingly.

Self implosion: U.S. bombs 2015 Gold Cup test

The U.S. men's national soccer team has tried to make its claim as the top dawg in CONCACAF the past decade.

They won last World Cup's final qualifying round. They won the 2013 Gold Cup. They have not lost to Mexico since 2011.

So going into the 2015 CONCACAF Gold Cup, the USMNT had a chance to solidify that claim; having won the 2013 tournament, they could win the 2017 Confederations Cup spot outright. A win in back-to-back tournaments hasn't happened often for the USMNT, only doing it in 2005 and 2007.

Despite head coach Jurgen Klinsmann touting this tournament as the highest priority in 2015, his team failed to medal. That hasn't happened since 2000. That's not good, Jurgen.

Yes, we lost to a Jamaica side that was playing like lightning, a hurricane and an earthquake rolled into one perfect storm, but the entire tournament left USMNT supporters wanting more. More goals, more passing, but the only thing we have more of is questions. So allow me to ask them here.

1) Why did Jurgen choose the Alvarado/Brooks pairing at centerback, when he claimed that his goal with his roster selection was Gold Cup experience?

This I utterly do not understand. What makes sense is to bring these two on board. Alvarado and Brooks have showed promise this year and prior, but together they weren't quite ready for CONCACAF. Why not pair Brooks or Alvarado with Besler or Gonzalez? I am a strong believer that you learn by doing, but it's good to have a teacher alongside you.

You saw this with the outside backs. Every single one has proven himself in CONCACAF competition. I believe Besler/Gonzalez would have given the stability that was needed in the backline.

2) Why is Zardes always on the field?

Why, Jurgen? He hasn't a first touch anywhere. He can't shoot. He can't pass all that well. He's really just a cheap Deandre Yedlin, except a converted forward, not a converted right back. Why Yedlin kept coming off the bench baffles me.

3) Other than against Cuba, why did we only score six goals all tournament? 

Hell, even with the Cuba match, why did we only score 12 goals in six matches? Ultimately, all the problems we had with the defense started with this team's inability to possess the ball. Who is to blame? Well, everyone, but let's start with the captain. Yes, Michael Bradley was absolutely crap this Gold Cup. Like...2014 World Cup bad. Where is the MB who was called "the best player in the world" by Miguel Herrera in 2013? The last two major tournaments have been nightmares for him.

Short passes were either mistimed or just off-the-mark. Long passes were decent, but never amounted to many chances. The most telling part of his problems may be with his positioning. Bradley has done so well with making late runs or collecting balls at the top of the box. That wasn't seen at all this tournament. I don't know if the "attacking" midfield roll is for him, but the problem when MB isn't on his game is that we don't have a guy who can do that for him. His lackluster 2014 WC was made up by Jermaine Jones' awesome tourney. We didn't have that this Gold Cup.


These are just a few questions I have for Jurgen Klinsmann, but there are a plethora of others. He MUST be questioned after this performance. Bob Bradley was fired after losing the 2011 Gold Cup, yet Klinsmann is apparently not on the hot seat after this abysmal performance. Step one in answering these questions would be to win the Oct. 9 CONCACAF Confederations Cup playoff match against 2015 Gold Cup champs Mexico.