Gold Cup: Time to Take it Elsewhere?

Finally, there's some news on next summer's Gold Cup.  It was announced today that the 2011 edition will be held from June 3 to June 25, with the final taking place at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California.  The other venues will be announced at a later date.

Though there is a slight chance that CONCACAF divides the tournament up between the US and Mexico or Canada, as they did to an extent most recently in 2003, I wouldn't put money on it.  With dozens and dozens of quality facilities, most of which are built for football and aren't used during the summer, not to mention tens of millions of soccer fans and, most importantly, lots and lots of disposable income, the US is an ideal host.  All of the infrastructure is in place, minimizing the amount of prior planning and notice that needs to be given, and the large immigrant communities across the country make pulling in a sizable crowd an attainable goal for pretty much every match up.  Factor in the advertising dollars and the success of the past couple of Gold Cups held on American soil, and it's really no wonder that Jack Warner and company seem to be heading towards giving the US the sole hosting responsibilities for the fourth straight time.

But is it a good thing for the US to be the de facto permanent home of the confederation's biggest tournament?  It seems like I'm asking myself that same question every two years, and I can't help but give two different answers.

As a fan of the USMNT first and foremost, I will not complain a bit about having the Gold Cup held in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, particularly for those editions in which a Confederations Cup spot is up for grabs.  I want my team to win, and playing at home can only help, even if the crowds make certain matches (read: matches v. Mexico) feel like away games.

But it shouldn't be about what's best for the US, it should be about what's best for all of CONCACAF (this sentiment coming from someone who, in addition to being a US fan, wants the confederation as a whole to progress in terms of quality and soccer infrastructure).  Of course, Diamond Jack has a way to reconcile those two seemingly contrasting beliefs, as holding the tournament in the US is most likely to bring in the greatest amount of revenue, which in turn trickles down to all of CONCACAF's members, from Mexico to Martinique.  As much as I think that is true to an extent, and thus a worthy intention, I can't help but be skeptical; Mr. Warner has been linked to some dastardly dealings in the past, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of the cash rolling in to the CONCACAF coffers "accidentally" found its way into his pocket instead of those of some regional minnows.

But all of that is completely besides the point.  The bottom line is, I just can't help but think that the hosting wealth should be spread around, so to speak.  It's one of those "it's the principle of the matter" beliefs that I can't form a coherent argument for right now, but I stick by it nonetheless.  And while the list of potential hosts with adequate infrastructure and demand may be a short one, I think it is certainly longer than one.

Since the Gold Cup's inception in 1991, every tournament has taken part in the US, with Mexico serving as co-hosts in '93 and '03.  If this trend were to be bucked, who could fill Uncle Sam's shoes?  Well, if we rule out the possibility of co-hosting because of the logistical issues it creates, we pretty much can eliminate all Central American and Caribbean nations.  Of course, some of them could be adequate hosts with substantial stadium upgrades and development in the surrounding areas, but they would still represent a pretty big step down from the big boys of the continent.  So, with that being said, that leaves us with just two non-American possibilities: Mexico and Canada.

The former has numerous footy stadiums, not to mention millions of fans and potential consumers that would appeal to advertisers.  It's also more centrally located in terms of the rest of CONCACAF, which might make it more accessible for foreign fans.  But it's population is hardly as cosmopolitan as that of it's neighbor to the north, which could result in low ticket sales for non-Mexico matches.  Considering that tickets would almost certainly be going cheaper than they would in the US, it's hard to believe that they could make up for the smaller premium with increased numbers in the seats.  Add in the domestic unrest related to the war on drugs that doesn't appear to be ending any time soon, and Mexico becomes a much less appealing host nation, both for CONCACAF and traveling fans.

But what about Canada?  Though the national team may be a perpetual underachiever, the nation itself has proven itself to be quite the competent host.  We only need to look back a couple of years to 2007, when Canadians flocked to stadiums in record numbers to watch the U-20 World Cup.  An average of 22,987 fans attended 52 matches, a number held down by the fact that sub-15,000 capacity stadiums were used in Vancouver and Victoria.  With renovations at BC Place well underway, a larger, more sophisticated venue would be available for Canada's third largest metropolitan market if Canada were given the hosting nod.  Add in the CFL stadiums in Edmonton and Ottawa, Stade Saputo and Olympic Stadium in Montreal, and BMO Field and the Rogers Centre in Toronto, and there are no fewer than seven quality stadiums that could be available for a Gold Cup.  13 stadiums were used to host the 2009 edition of the Gold Cup, but don't let that fool you; not even the World Cup uses that many stadiums, and the 2007 Gold Cup used just six.

So, from a stadium perspective, Canada checks out.  The impressive gate numbers from the U-20 World Cup and the support for Toronto FC, the Vancouver Whitecaps (13,000 season ticket sales ahead of their inaugural season), and the Montreal Impact also give a pretty good indication that the demand for soccer is definitely there.  It's also a comparatively safe and developed country, eliminating a lot of concerns right off the bat.  And with one of the world's highest gross national income per capita at purchasing power parity, there's plenty of disposable income to go around.  So what's not to like?  Why not give the folks north of the border a turn with our region's most important tournament? 

Well, their one biggest shortcoming is that, quite simply, they aren't the United States.  The money that can be had in the States is just too alluring, and the options are so plentiful; it is almost a no-brainer selection for the leaders of a confederation that are always looking to bring in as much money as possible.  I don't doubt that Canada would be a successful and profitable host, but it probably wouldn't be able to match the US, where a six figure crowd can be brought in for a Mexico match one day and a sizable five figure crowd can be pulled in to watch a slew of other countries the next.  Will there ever be a deviation from this 10, soon to be 11, tournament streak with the US as host anytime soon?  So long as the current crop of executives is running CONCACAF, I won't be holding my breath.

But who knows, maybe I'm overly cynical.  Maybe someone will come along and push things in the right direction, whether from outside or within the confederation.  Regardless, I'll continue to support the idea of Canada hosting our continental championship in the near future.  It'd be a refreshing change of pace and it might be to the USMNT's benefit, giving them more competitive tests on neutral ground ahead of the World Cup.  I've also enjoyed the two trips I've taken to the land of the maple leaf in the past, so I personally wouldn't mind heading north for a little summer vacation.  But most importantly, it would finally spread the hosting wealth around North America.  Why do I care so much about that?  I really couldn't tell ya.

I guess it's just the principle of the matter.