USMNT to Another Confederation? No Thanks.

Over the past couple of days, I've read a few pieces with this same basic idea: the US should leave CONCACAF in favor of a bigger, tougher, more prestigious confederation.  Keith Hickey, who writes a lot of great stuff at Match Fit USA and some other sites, put forth this piece, suggesting that the Yanks head south and join the likes of Brazil and Argentina in CONMEBOL.  Keith, I normally agree with your posts, but I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on this one. 

For starters, I just don't really like the idea of teams switching confederations to begin with; it compromises the general (and I say general for a reason) geographical integrity of the six confederations and could lead to a domino effect (which I'll get to later).  Of course, there are some discrepancies in terms of geography across the globe, namely Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Israel in UEFA, Australia in AFC, and Suriname, French Guiana, and Guyana in CONCACAF, but only two of those have actually changed confederations along the way: Israel and Australia.  The others, while not exactly in line with modern continental borders, are for all intents and purposes in line with their historical geography.  After all, the aforementioned quartet of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, and Kazakhstan were all once part of the Soviet Union, which competed as a UEFA nation.  The CONCACAF trio, meanwhile, have closer ties to the other Caribbean outposts of imperialism, hence their desire to play as a member of CONCACAF and the Caribbean Football Union. 


To my knowledge (which I'm hoping is right on this one), only Israel and Australia have actually changed their continental affiliation (and even if there are more, I'm pretty sure it won't really weaken my argument).  Israel's situation is very unique given the high political and cultural tensions surrounding their nation, so their jump from AFC to OFC to UEFA can't really be used as an example.  Australia, meanwhile, did something along the lines of what Keith is suggesting, as they left OFC to play in Asia instead.  The bottom line is, however, that there are very significant differences between the situation the Socceroos were facing than the one that the US is currently dealing with.

For starters, Australia's days in OFC were marked by long, long gaps in competitive play.  For World Cups '94, '98, and 2002, they only had a total of 8 qualifiers, half of which were against the minnows of the south Pacific.  In 2006, they had just 9 qualifiers, 5 of which occurred over the span of 9 days.  That leaves a lot of empty space on the ol' fixture list, particularly when those FIFA match days would roll around and essentially all quality opponents would be wrapped up in their respective continental or World Cup qualifiers.  Compare those numbers to the 18 qualifiers the US played against CONCACAF opponents this cycle.  Outside of Barbados and Cuba, all of the matches were against decent teams.  Sure, Guatemala and El Salvador might not be the cream of the crop, but qualifying was far from an easy process for the US because of some tough opponents and environments throughout.  Add in two Gold Cups, and there was plenty of intra-confederation matches to prepare and challenge Bob Bradley and company.

Australia's lack of competitive matches and difficulties in lining up consistently quality friendlies to fill the gaps severely hampered their progress at the international level.  The US, meanwhile, has had plenty of competitive matches through the years and risen from world minnow to a legitimate top 20 team in the past two decades of CONCACAF play.  They've shown over the past year that they are capable of playing with the world's best (and, in the case of Spain, beating them), and I have a hard time believing that's all in spite of their confederation.  Sure there are plenty of minnows in CONCACAF, but it's not as if half of our competitive games are against the likes of St. Lucia or Dominica.  To compare it to Australia's time in OFC doesn't acknowledge the massive differences between life in the respective confederations. 

Until the US starts utterly dominating CONCACAF, I don't think I'll be looking for the Yanks to head elsewhere (and even then, I still may have reservations).  But Matt, you may say, what do you call all those Gold Cups and consecutive Hex wins if not domination?  Okay, we've done well in our continental tournament and have finished atop the Hex in two consecutive cycles.  But did we really dominate?  Let's not forget, without that surprising victory in Honduras on the penultimate match day, we still would have needed a result against Costa Rica at RFK just to qualify for South Africa at all.  Our wins weren't in dominating fashion either, save for the home match against Trinidad and Tobago.  We had to fight back against Honduras and El Salvador, we had our typically tough match against Mexico, and we were very fortunate not to be down a couple of goals in the first half at Trinidad in September.  All of these teams might not qualify for the World Cup, but that doesn't mean their not a good challenge for the Yanks and a good way to prepare them for FIFA tournaments.  If anything, I would say the frequently hostile road (and sometimes home) crowds and difficult conditions that the USMNT has to deal with in CONCACAF qualifying helps to mentally strengthen them better than any other confederation could. 

In the end, CONCACAF qualifying is actually not nearly as bad as some make it out to be.  Keith summarizes it as "two games against Mexico and a couple of tricky away qualifiers every cycle", but is UEFA qualifying so different?  You have a couple of quality teams (USA, Mexico, Honduras), some middle of the road teams that play well at home (just like El Salvador and Costa Rica), and then a weak team or two that round out the group (with Trinidad being a much tougher foe that Andorra or Malta).  Of course, a UEFA team needs to finish in the top two to keep their qualification hopes alive, compared to the top four in CONCACAF, but I'd say that the Hex was much tougher top to bottom than almost all of the UEFA qualifying groups were.  

And aside from the actual play, a move to CONMEBOL would be a travel nightmare.  Trans-atlantic flights and trips to Central America already take enough toll on our players; do we really want to one up that and add trips to Chile, Peru, Uruguay, etc. to the calendar?  I have a hard time believing that we'd be able to earn good results against a number of CONMEBOL opponents to begin with, let alone after a 10 hour flight.

Allowing the US to do this could potentially open the door for all sorts of moves.  Why couldn't Brazil and Argentina then join UEFA?  Why couldn't the top teams just create their own super confederation/league, a la the idea that is so frequently bandied about at the club level in UEFA?  As I said earlier, the US is in a very different situation than the one that preceded Australia's move to the AFC, so allowing this would set a precedent that could lead to some radical shifts across the footballing landscape, or at least a lot of unrest.    

I agree with Keith on one thing, and that is that it would be nice to get away from Jack Warner.  I don't know if moving to CONMEBOL, however, would be in the USSF's best interests, despite Diamond Jack's dastardly dealings. 

As far as the MLS side of things goes, there are already issues of fixture congestion and depleted rosters contributing to the lack of success in the CONCACAF Champions League.  Those same issues will be present if that tournament is traded for the Copa Libertadores, if not amplified by the more demanding travel.  Sure, TV ratings and money would be there if an MLS team somehow got matched up with Boca Juniors or someone of that ilk, but would there be much excitement for a match against Cerro Porteno or Banfield?  I really don't think so, and I just don't see all of it being worth the trouble for anyone involved.

Overall, we have progressed very nicely and very rapidly over the past decade, and I for one am happy to stay on that upward path.  It might be nice to say that we'd improve a great deal in CONMEBOL, but would we really be ready to risk a spot in the World Cup or the Confederations Cup for it?  We USMNT fans are growing increasingly hungry for global glory, but I don't think any of us are ready to accept a much greater likelihood of missing out on the next World Cup to achieve that goal.  It's a conflict of impatience, and I just don't see there being a lot of support for a potentially long-term, fruitless grind prevailing over better odds in the short-term (as short as four years can be). 

Butler, Gonzaga, and Memphis have shown in college basketball that some of the best teams can come out of so-called weaker conferences.  There isn't necessarily one right way to do things, and each game or conference or confederation presents its own challenges that help build a team.  We have continued to grow and move forward in our time with CONCACAF, and the idea of the USMNT winning the World Cup suddenly isn't so far-fetched, even though the region is comparatively weaker.  Ultimately, if we continue to do that and get closer and closer to that summit, I don't see a reason to rock the boat.