Connect with us

CONCACAF Cup

The truth about the value of Confederations Cup

confderations cup

Let’s talk about that looming Oct. 10 date, the one of such super-duper importance in our part of the soccer world. And then let’s hack away at some conventional wisdom that needs taming – a false narrative has spilled out, and it needs cleaning up.

The match is United States versus Mexico inside Pasadena’s historic Rose Bowl. Preliminary rosters came out Monday, so things are starting to bubble already. We know the match will generate tremendous interest. These are bitter border rivals, and for the good, sweet, clean U.S. soccer supporter, any chance for another bite off the juicy dos a cero apple is mouthwatering stuff.

We also know about the spoils, the Confederations Cup berth at stake. A victory certainly gives U.S. fans something to anticipate in 2017, 12 months before a Russian World Cup.

But it’s that weighty competitive advantage of mere Confeds Cup participation that really stands out, right? Because ticket punchers reap huge rewards just for showing up, right? Ah, the ability dip toes into local waters in 2017, an early round of Russian inspection before stuff gets real at World Cup 2018.

Yes, the edge is massive for teams that can visit and play in a competitive (ahem) tournament a year before the big show, right? Coaches, players and officials gain tremendously from checking out the scene a year early. Presumably, they are carefully identifying the best places to bunk and train, testing the local water for mineral count, taking temperatures of stadium soil and sourcing local farms for grass fed beef.

Coaches tell us all the time that “the game is about players.” But, c’mon! We know better. Identifying the optimum bus route into the stadium a year out … that’s got to be worth at least one goal, right?

Yes, we know the Confederations Cup is critical stuff. We know so because … well … because the teams trying to get there tell us so!

Only, it’s not so. A growing sample of evidence simply doesn’t support the claim.

Again, I would personally love to see the United States go to the Confederations Cup. Simply put, it will make the summer of 2017 a lot more interesting. For any nation, given the choice of going or not going, I’m pretty sure most would stand up and proclaim, “Yeah, we’re in!”

SEE MORE: Azteca spins infamous Trump speech into amazing playoff promo.

But as a card-carrying journalist, I am duty bound to knock down any false narratives that break loose. And here we seem to have one. In providing an actual advantage to the Confederations Cup participating teams, there is scant evidence that demonstrates any real boost for the more significant events of 12 months hence.

Jurgen Klinsmann can say it all he wants, banging on about the tremendous advantage that Mexico had in 2013, buzzing into Brazil for a competitive tournament a year early, but him saying it doesn’t make it so. The Fox network started promoting this Oct. 10 showdown and talking up its bigger picture implication weeks ago, but clearly they have an interest in ginning up the significance. You know, ratings and all.

But the notion that Confederations Cup is some super fuel that drastically improves engine performance during a World Cup is just wishful conjecture, presumption and conventional wisdom gone wrong. The Confederations Cup’s usage as an eight-team dry run for the ensuring World Cup, one year out, began in 2001. Brazil did indeed grace the Confeds Cup field in 2001, and did indeed win the whole shebang one summer later. But it’s Brazil, which has won four other World Cups, so for theorem proof, that one has limited value.

You know who else got an early preview of the 2002 World Cup in South Korea and Japan? France – and how did that work out for Les Bleus? Their historic flop (no wins, two losses and a scoreless draw) was among the memorably infamous tales of World Cup 2002.

Other 2001 Confeds Cup visitors, the ones who came back a year later? Cameroon went 1-1-1 and didn’t get out of group play in 2002. Mexico lost to the United States in the Round of 16. Of course, Mexico always loses in the Round of 16, so that doesn’t prove much either.

Brazil not only qualified for the 2005 Confederations Cup in Germany, but that Ronaldinho-led team won the darn thing. So, big edge for the 2006 World Cup, right? Well, I’m pretty sure that falling to France in the quarterfinals in Berlin probably isn’t any Brazilian fan’s notion of “raging success.”

Tunisia and Japan were Confeds Cup participants in 2005. Both came and went quickly in the 2006 World Cup without so much as a first-round win. Australia is one team you might circle as a team that did gain some advantage from tire kicking the grounds a year out. Maybe. They escaped group play in 2006 and then gave Italy a handful in a Round-of-16 loss.

Mexico was a Confeds Cup 2005 participant. The next year? Yep, the fell in the Round of 16. Mexico always loses in the Round of 16.

SEE MORE: Who is Lynden Gooch? The latest U.S. prospect on Premier League radars.

More of the same in 2009 during the dry run for South Africa. Neither Italy nor New Zealand (both participants of the 2009 Confeds Cup) could propel themselves past the first round a year later. No big shock for New Zealand, of course. But Italy? Yikes.

The United States did quite well in 2009; upsetting mighty Spain was a signature win of the Bob Bradley era. But a year later, we were all saying “opportunity lost” when something that looked like a fortuitous path into later rounds was squandered in an underwhelming afternoon against Ghana.

Spain, of course, claimed the 2010 World Cup crown a year after visiting for the Confeds Cup. And you are certainly free to make the argument that getting acquainted with the Free State Stadium in Bloemfontein, or whatever, was instrumental in Spanish success. I would argue it was more about Xavi, Andres Iniesta and others in that fabulously talented group of serial winners, surely among the best national team we’ll ever witness.

Mexico claimed CONCACAF’s Confederation Cup berth for Brazil 2013. You can hoot and holler all you want about Arjen Robben’s embellishment in Mexico’s loss to the Netherlands. But either way, Mexico lost in the Round of 16. Mexico always loses in the Round of 16.

And Spain? Well, my heavens, that early inspection visit of 2013 certainly didn’t help La Furia Roja at Brazil 2014, now did it? That aging generation could have lived in Brazil for the previous year and still not have overturned a sad, miserable flameout.

Italy, just like four years early, went to the Confeds Cup and then went into the World Cup toilet. Once again, the Azzurri didn’t escape first-round play at Brazil 2014.

We can turn all this around, too. Generally speaking, the tournament surprise teams do not come from the list of eight who punch their Confeds Cup tickets. Colombia and Costa Rica were the little teams that could in 2014, and neither had the advantage of a Confeds Cup head start. Similarly, Germany, Argentina and the Netherlands did just fine last year in Brazil, all qualifying for the semifinals, at least. None were in the previous summer’s Confederations Cup.

One more time: Of course, it would be nice to be in the Confederations Cup. And it surely cannot hurt to be in the Confeds Cup.

Intuitively, it seems like there would be some kind of advantage gained. But we can learn a lot from those hard-working number crunchers from the Freakonomics franchise, who keep showing us through books and podcasts and lots of data mining that sometimes the numbers overturn conventional wisdom.

It’s OK if you want your team to beat Mexico on Oct. 10 (or, if you want your team to beat the United States.) But this notion that a Confederations Cup appearance works any better than a couple of selective friendlies inside the host country (or even just staying home to train) just doesn’t hold water.

200+ Channels With Sports & News
  • Starting price: $33/mo. for fubo Latino Package
  • Watch Premier League, World Cup, Euro 2024 & more
  • Includes NBC, USA, FOX, ESPN, CBSSN & more
Live & On Demand TV Streaming
  • Price: $35/mo. for Sling Blue
  • Watch Premier League, World Cup & MLS
  • Includes USA, NBC, FOX, FS1 + more
Many Sports & ESPN Originals
  • Price: $6.99/mo. (or get ESPN+, Hulu & Disney+ for $13.99/mo.)
  • Features Bundesliga, LaLiga, Championship, & more
  • Also includes daily ESPN FC news & highlights show
2,000+ soccer games per year
  • Price: $4.99/mo
  • Features Champions League, Serie A, Europa League & NWSL
  • Includes CBS, Star Trek & CBS Sports HQ
175 Premier League Games & PL TV
  • Starting price: $4.99/mo. for Peacock Premium
  • Watch 175 exclusive EPL games per season
  • Includes Premier League TV channel plus movies, TV shows & more

6 Comments

6 Comments

  1. Hector

    October 14, 2015 at 10:17 am

    Its a nice review of the overall results of the Confederations Cup. Still you write as if only winning or loosing and comparing it to the World Cup is the only point that matters. As mentioned by some people here, its an opportunity to play against powerful teams, the champions of each confederation. In the case of the USMNT, being able to see certain players that against team such as Honduras, Bermudas or Jamaica seemed great and compare them, in the case of Russia 2017, with Germany,Chile and the European Champion. Yes during that time you can play 5 friendly matches against strong teams that are not participating, but no team will play better than when you are trying to win a tournament, that could be the Gold Cup, Confederations Cup or the World Cup.

  2. Roehl

    September 17, 2015 at 10:57 am

    I think it’s very important to many that Klinsi is shielded from any sort of accountability that threatens his job. Hence, eh, Confederations Cup play isn’t THAT big of a deal, amirite?

  3. NaBUru38

    September 16, 2015 at 7:17 pm

    Both Cinfederation Cups were held in the United States. And the repechage is one match played in the United States. It’s ridiculous that Mexico doesn’t host a single match.

  4. Tony

    September 16, 2015 at 3:04 pm

    It’s pretty simple. The USMNT doesn’t get many chances to play world powers in meaningful games. The Confederations Cup is really the only way to do that outside of a World Cup. That’s not the case for South American or European teams, which regularly have important games against a variety of strong opponents. The US team should strive to qualify for any big international tournament it can. That’s also the US should hope the Copa America Centenario is ultimately held.

    • Giraff3

      September 23, 2015 at 12:33 pm

      That might have been the case in the past but the USMNT plays against power house countries every international break. Chile, Denmark, Switzerland, Mexico, Netherlands, Germany, Honduras, Peru and Brazil to name a few in the last year.

  5. Kei

    September 16, 2015 at 2:16 pm

    Japan also played in the Confed Cup in 2013, and finished with three losses (to Brazil, Italy, and Mexico). They looked even worse in flaming out of the World Cup, in a group that was far less imposing than the one they faced the year before.

    Still having nightmares about that one…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

More in CONCACAF Cup

Translate »