2024 CONCACAF Champions Cup

[Kent]

9 hours ago, Shway said:

It is...and it isn't. 
I get it because teams spend differently, and with less restrictions on free agency it has changed this. 

But parity to me is equal opportunity. And every MLS club has this, whether they take advantage of it or not doesn't dispute the reality of what parity is.

How is there more equal opportunity in MLS than in European leagues? In both scenarios if you have lots of money you can spend lots of money. In both scenarios if you have a great academy pool of players to choose from you can do so. MLS has a draft, so there is that, and they probably share TV money more equally, but if in MLS you can argue there is equal opportunity to spend lots of money, then in Europe there is equal opportunity to perform well to get a bigger share of the TV money.

[Shway]

2 hours ago, Kent said:

How is there more equal opportunity in MLS than in European leagues? In both scenarios if you have lots of money you can spend lots of money. In both scenarios if you have a great academy pool of players to choose from you can do so. MLS has a draft, so there is that, and they probably share TV money more equally, but if in MLS you can argue there is equal opportunity to spend lots of money, then in Europe there is equal opportunity to perform well to get a bigger share of the TV money.

This is a multi-layered discussion so I'll try to separate them by your points. 

Spending:
MLS has salary mechanisms that allow teams to be on the same level playing field regardless of how rich their owners are. The DP & TAM Rules only account for a few players that allow owners to flex their muscles.
Europe has FFP to control how teams spend based on their club's overall revenue performance. As we see with Newcastle, they have one of the richest owners, but they can't display their financial power until they have the books to show for it. Owners can't freely pump their own money into the squad like they can in MLS. 

Players:
One of the biggest arguments about the increase in competitions for MLS teams is that they don't have the depth required. Because everyone has the opportunity to be in win-now mode after every season, very few have plans to incorporate academy players into their systems like you see in Europe where the clubs that do are looking to sell players on for a profit. The business models are different across European top teams to the bottoms in the same league. Plus the draft is very hit or miss. It's easier to rotate in top leagues, by giving academy players opportunities in games against lesser opponents. In MLS every game is possible for teams to win.

Performing/Winning:
Within the past 10 years, MLS has had 9 different winners. Within the past 10 years, EPL has had 5 different winners, LA Liga 3, Bundesliga 1, Ligue 1 3, and Serie A 4.
When you win the league, it earns revenue. When you perform in the league or win, it earns you additional revenue potential through the Champions League. Winning/performing in the Champions League can fund your club. All of that puts clubs at a greater advantage than the rest of the teams that don't perform well. Whereas in MLS if you win the league you are the Supporters Shield champion, if you win MLS Cup you are the MLS Cup champion. Winners get a 300,000 bonus. If you suck so badly in the MLS you are given allocation dollars to better support your season next year. You are given better draft picks.

All in all, parity does exist in MLS for all the reasons stated above. There are a lot of rich owners in the league I don't think there is a valid argument to say teams don't have the liberty to spend lots of money...they have the option to not, and go with the status quo of the salary rules while staying relatively competitive. As you can see there's not much of a difference between Colorado and Toronto FC, their payrolls are completely different, but their owners are on par.
 

[Kent]

1 hour ago, Shway said:

This is a multi-layered discussion so I'll try to separate them by your points. 

Spending:
MLS has salary mechanisms that allow teams to be on the same level playing field regardless of how rich their owners are. The DP & TAM Rules only account for a few players that allow owners to flex their muscles.
Europe has FFP to control how teams spend based on their club's overall revenue performance. As we see with Newcastle, they have one of the richest owners, but they can't display their financial power until they have the books to show for it. Owners can't freely pump their own money into the squad like they can in MLS. 

Players:
One of the biggest arguments about the increase in competitions for MLS teams is that they don't have the depth required. Because everyone has the opportunity to be in win-now mode after every season, very few have plans to incorporate academy players into their systems like you see in Europe where the clubs that do are looking to sell players on for a profit. The business models are different across European top teams to the bottoms in the same league. Plus the draft is very hit or miss. It's easier to rotate in top leagues, by giving academy players opportunities in games against lesser opponents. In MLS every game is possible for teams to win.

Performing/Winning:
Within the past 10 years, MLS has had 9 different winners. Within the past 10 years, EPL has had 5 different winners, LA Liga 3, Bundesliga 1, Ligue 1 3, and Serie A 4.
When you win the league, it earns revenue. When you perform in the league or win, it earns you additional revenue potential through the Champions League. Winning/performing in the Champions League can fund your club. All of that puts clubs at a greater advantage than the rest of the teams that don't perform well. Whereas in MLS if you win the league you are the Supporters Shield champion, if you win MLS Cup you are the MLS Cup champion. Winners get a 300,000 bonus. If you suck so badly in the MLS you are given allocation dollars to better support your season next year. You are given better draft picks.

All in all, parity does exist in MLS for all the reasons stated above. There are a lot of rich owners in the league I don't think there is a valid argument to say teams don't have the liberty to spend lots of money...they have the option to not, and go with the status quo of the salary rules while staying relatively competitive. As you can see there's not much of a difference between Colorado and Toronto FC, their payrolls are completely different, but their owners are on par.
 

I get all that. My point is just that rules like DPs and TAM is enough to signal to me that the salary cap in MLS isn't about league parity, it's about penny pinching on the bulk of the player roster (and giving an illusion to fans that it IS about their terrible team having a chance), keeping the salaries lower than they otherwise would be, to make more money for the owners.

[Shway]

8 minutes ago, Kent said:

I get all that. My point is just that rules like DPs and TAM is enough to signal to me that the salary cap in MLS isn't about league parity, it's about penny pinching on the bulk of the player roster (and giving an illusion to fans that it IS about their terrible team having a chance), keeping the salaries lower than they otherwise would be, to make more money for the owners.

I'm saying, you can't understand all of that, and then compare it to England/Europe as being the same or parity not existing in MLS. I don't think you can say penny-pinching when the average league salary for senior players is 500K. That doesn't include DP's so essentially everyone's on a level playing field. How you structure your roster is where the separation happens, and you can't overpay (which happens a lot) for senior players who simply aren't that good.
Whether a DP is paid 4M or is paid 15M each, that team has that option. But because it's capped at how many times you can do that, it levels the playing field as you have to be really strategic and overpaying doesn't result in results. 

But this is a separate conversation because I don't think MLS penny-pinches on salaries especially when you compare it leagues of debatable comparison like Ligue 1, Eredivise, Bundesliga etc. 

[Shway]

22 hours ago, narduch said:

The Central American countries are actually unhappy that they get no automatic places in the CCC.

I think it's a valid argument that Honduras,  Costa Rica, Guatemala and Panama should have at least 1 guaranteed spot.

As it stands now, there may not be any Honduras teams in the CCC

It's bullshit. Concacaf is bending over for MLS/Liga MX (can't even say USSF because they don't control MLS) by allowing them to control League Cups, and then allowing sooooooo many teams from two federations. 

It's crazy to think that of the 27 teams, 55% of the teams are coming from 2 leagues. I thought that's what the Leagues Cup was for? In this setup, getting rid of the Concacaf League was more of a detriment to all the clubs outside of MLS & Liga MX.

We haven't even started this iteration but the breakdown of the clubs should look to similar to below:

North America (2)
Leagues Cup Winner
League Cup Runner Up

Mexico (4)

Liga MX Apertura Winner
Liga MX Clausura Winner
Liga MX Apertura Runner-Up
Liga MX Clausura Runner-Up

USA (4)
MLS Supporters Shield Winner
MLS Supporters Shield Runner-Up
MLS Cup Winner
US Open Cup

Canada (3)
CPL Shield Winners
CPL Champions
Voyageurs Cup

Central America (2)
Central American Cup Champions
Central American Cup Runners-Up

Costa Rica (2)
Liga FPD Apertura Champions
Liga FPD Clausura Champions

Honduras (2)
Liga PDN Apertura Champions
Liga PDN Clausura Champions

Panama (2)
LPF Apertura Champions
LPF Clausura Champions

Guatemala (2)
Liga NDG Apertura Champions 
Liga NDG Clausura Champions

El Salvador (1)
Primera Division Grand Final Champions

Caribbean (3)
Caribbean Cup Winners
Caribbean Cup Runners-Up
Caribbean Cup 3 place winner

[SpursFlu]

I think 3 more central American teams, 1 more Caribbean team, 1 more CPL team. Booyah. You've got 32 teams

That could easily be accomplished thru the current structure 

Edited October 26, 2023 by SpursFlu

[chalms04]

On 10/25/2023 at 9:00 AM, Kent said:

According to Wikipedia, if Vancouver wins they will use the MLS Cup spot rather than the Voyageurs Cup spot (MLS Cup spot skips the first round), so Montreal gets the Voyageurs Cup spot because they were runners up. But I don't know where the source of that info is. If anyone has a link to something official that'd be great to see.

Here's some light reading that was finally uploaded:

https://www.concacaf.com/champions-cup/regulations/

https://stconcacafwp001.blob.core.windows.net/media/atwi3fxa/2024-concacaf-champions-cup-regulations-eng.pdf

[Kent]

I think I said earlier they should drop Leagues Cup, Central American Cup, and the Caribbean Cup. But we probably would need to keep the Caribbean Cup because the Caribbean leagues are too numerous and frankly, weak, for all of them to get a spot in the Champions Cup.

But while Shway's allocation above is 100x better than what CONCACAF came up with, I'd still rather it get sorted out with a formula instead of a political decision, like UEFA does it. Maybe today Costa Rica has the 3rd best league in the confederation, Canada 5th, and Guatemala 7th. Maybe 5 years from now Guatemala is 3rd, Canada 4th, and Costa Rica 6th. Why can't the slots dynamically reflect the results we see in the Champions Cup?

[xcalibre]

11 hours ago, chalms04 said:

Here's some light reading that was finally uploaded:

https://www.concacaf.com/champions-cup/regulations/

https://stconcacafwp001.blob.core.windows.net/media/atwi3fxa/2024-concacaf-champions-cup-regulations-eng.pdf

Be funny if this happened:

5.1.1.5 Should one club hold multiple slots (i.e. MLS or CanPL) and wins the Canadian Championship, then the runner up club in the Canadian Championship should qualify to the Round One... If the runner-up holds multiple slots, then the semifinal club in the Canadian Championship with the greatest number of standing points in its respective league will qualify to the Round One of the Competition.

What the hell is a standing point? Imagine MLS points being put against CanPL (or even League1 BC) points

[Unnamed Trialist]

7 hours ago, xcalibre said:

Be funny if this happened:

5.1.1.5 Should one club hold multiple slots (i.e. MLS or CanPL) and wins the Canadian Championship, then the runner up club in the Canadian Championship should qualify to the Round One... If the runner-up holds multiple slots, then the semifinal club in the Canadian Championship with the greatest number of standing points in its respective league will qualify to the Round One of the Competition.

What the hell is a standing point? Imagine MLS points being put against CanPL (or even League1 BC) points

Points as they stand in the table when the decision is made?

 

Edited October 27, 2023 by Unnamed Trialist

[Shway]

8 hours ago, Kent said:

I think I said earlier they should drop Leagues Cup, Central American Cup, and the Caribbean Cup. But we probably would need to keep the Caribbean Cup because the Caribbean leagues are too numerous and frankly, weak, for all of them to get a spot in the Champions Cup.

But while Shway's allocation above is 100x better than what CONCACAF came up with, I'd still rather it get sorted out with a formula instead of a political decision, like UEFA does it. Maybe today Costa Rica has the 3rd best league in the confederation, Canada 5th, and Guatemala 7th. Maybe 5 years from now Guatemala is 3rd, Canada 4th, and Costa Rica 6th. Why can't the slots dynamically reflect the results we see in the Champions Cup?

I thought my berthing algorithm was pretty accurate based on Concacafs club rankings, and performance. But on second thoughts I would change Costa Rica having the same amount of berths as Canada (3) and taking one from Guatemala (2 instead of 1) due to historical performance in the past iterations. And the fact that Canadian teams are in a regional tournament. 

Canada, and Costa Rica are the only clubs in previous years outside MX, US to make it to either (CCC->CCL->CCC) final.   

[Kent]

3 hours ago, Shway said:

I thought my berthing algorithm was pretty accurate based on Concacafs club rankings, and performance. But on second thoughts I would change Costa Rica having the same amount of berths as Canada (3) and taking one from Guatemala (2 instead of 1) due to historical performance in the past iterations. And the fact that Canadian teams are in a regional tournament. 

Canada, and Costa Rica are the only clubs in previous years outside MX, US to make it to either (CCC->CCL->CCC) final.   

Sure, but the point is that you are basing the spots on the results at this particular time and determining spots indefinitely based on present day results. Instead of having a list of allocations, I want an algorithm that is closer to future proof, so if a country like Guatemala goes through a big improvement, their clubs are automatically rewarded for it, rather than having to raise a stink and getting CONCACAF to reopen the books on how many spots each country should have and lobby for more.

I'm not one to say Europe = immediately better no matter what the question is, but in this case I think their system is very, very good and we should mimic it. They don't have to ask themselves if the Norwegian league is better than the Austrian league, or if Turkey or Scotland are getting the right number of spots. The results in European competition tells them all that and the math spits out the answers without guesswork.

Look at that, apparently Netherlands is actually the 5th ranked league right now. We wouldn't know that without these coefficients. We would probably continue on saying France is top 5, even if the results don't bear it out.

[narduch]

Cavalier of Jamaica clinched their spot in the CCC tonight, advancing to the Caribbean Cup finals. 

[Watchmen]

Comunicaciones of Guatemala advance to the CCC on penalties.

[Kent]

Big game tonight between Motagua and Saprissa. Either Saprissa is out or there will be no Honduran teams. I am assuming that would be the first time there would be no Honduran team in the Champions League/Cup (but I'm not looking back to previous formats to confirm) and the 2nd time Saprissa weren't in the Champions League/Cup since the 2014-15 edition. The previous time they missed out was actually this year, so it will be 2 in a row if it happens tonight.

[Watchmen]

3 hours ago, Kent said:

Big game tonight between Motagua and Saprissa. Either Saprissa is out or there will be no Honduran teams. I am assuming that would be the first time there would be no Honduran team in the Champions League/Cup (but I'm not looking back to previous formats to confirm) and the 2nd time Saprissa weren't in the Champions League/Cup since the 2014-15 edition. The previous time they missed out was actually this year, so it will be 2 in a row if it happens tonight.

I was curious to see if Costa Rica could get 4 teams to the Cup proper. Can still get 3. And its working out that basic every Central American country will have representing at it. Honduras is on the bubble, El Salvador missed, and Belize missed but generally always does anyway. Still, I'd prefer league winners just automatically made it 

[Kent]

Saprissa up 3-0 early in the second half. Looks like they will be in and Honduras out.

[Watchmen]

4-0 final.  Good.  Screw you Honduras.

[RJB]

There will be 10 MLS teams in the tournament. It's not a Champions Cup.

[Kent]

26 minutes ago, RJB said:

There will be 10 MLS teams in the tournament. It's not a Champions Cup.

It's "Leagues Cup + Annoying Little Brothers That Mom Is Making Us Bring Along"

[narduch]

Costa Rica's Alajuelense booked their place in the Central American Cup final yesterday. 

At stake is a spot in the round of 16.

[Watchmen]

3 hours ago, narduch said:

Costa Rica's Alajuelense booked their place in the Central American Cup final yesterday. 

At stake is a spot in the round of 16.

3 spots for Canada, 3 spots for Costa Rica. Looking forward to the draw and seeing how both countries do.

[SpursFlu]

I actually like the Central American Cup.

1 it kind of is a step towards a Central American Super League

2 part of the complaint before was there was a drop off from MLS Liga MX to all others. This kinda ensures that Central American teams are putting their best foot forward.

I have no doubt the Champions Cup will expand to 32 teams. Most of additional 5 teams should definitely come from Central America 

Edited November 2, 2023 by SpursFlu

[Kent]

4 minutes ago, SpursFlu said:

I actually like the Central American Cup.

1 it kind of is a step towards a Central American Super League

2 part of the complaint before was there was a drop off from MLS Liga MX to all others. This kinda ensures that Central American teams are putting their best foot forward.

I have no doubt the Champions Cup will expand to 32 teams. Most of additional 5 teams should definitely come from Central America 

I'd rather they just bring back a 2nd tier CONCACAF competition. If a couple Caribbean teams up their game, they could potentially do well in a 2nd tier CONCACAF competition. Same with CPL. But the Central American Cup needlessly binds it to a sub-region of the confederation and cuts out teams like those.

[SpursFlu]

4 minutes ago, Kent said:

I'd rather they just bring back a 2nd tier CONCACAF competition. If a couple Caribbean teams up their game, they could potentially do well in a 2nd tier CONCACAF competition. Same with CPL. But the Central American Cup needlessly binds it to a sub-region of the confederation and cuts out teams like those.

I'm with ya but that CPL travel in both directions probably hit the pocket books pretty hard. That Central American Cup is pretty financially viable for now