World Football Challenge - Bigger Joke Than Friendlies?

by Dave Clark on Jul 19, 2011 8:24 AM PDT in Sounders: Friendlies

With all these big name clubs coming to the United States for the mid-season friendlies you may have noticed that though the Seattle Sounders play Manchester United that match is not part of the World Football Challenge. Which is a little odd. Because the WFC is a real tournament - just look. You see, last night's match between Manchester City and Vancouver Whitecaps FC mattered. There's a trophy on the line. There are even tie-breakers in case some team is with another. But let's look at the crazy rules for this supposed tournament.

Teams will receive points as follows: three (3) points for a win in regulation, two (2) points for a penalty kick win (should the score be level after ninety (90) minutes then the winner shall be determined by the taking of kicks from the penalty spot in accordance with the Laws of the Game.), one (1) point for a penalty kick loss, and zero (0) points for a loss in regulation. A team will be awarded an additional (1) point for each goal up to 3 goals during the regulation 90 minutes of play for that specific match, regardless of whether they win or lose the match; no points will be awarded for penalty kick goals following the end of regulation.

That's some crazy NASL style bull right there. These are friendlies. No team gives a damn if they win or lose a game, let alone the tournament so why in the world would they go to penalty kicks? Even worse, why change the way points are awarded?

Club	G	W	L	D	GF	GA	GD	Pts.
Manchester City	2	2	0	0	4	1	3	10
Manchester United	1	1	0	0	4	1	3	6
Real Madrid	1	1	0	0	4	1	3	6
MLS Western Conf. (LA, VAN)	2	0	2	0	2	6	-4	2
MLS Eastern Conf. (NE, CHI, PHI)	1	0	1	0	1	4	-3	1
Club América	1	0	1	0	0	2	-2	0
CD Guadalajara	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
FC Barcelona	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Juventus	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

Yep, in the WFC it is better to get blown out 4-1 than lose 2-0 or 1-0. And it gets funnier. Sporting Clube will not earn points, but their opponent will.

If there is any utility for these games it may be to convince a few other people to pay attention to Major League Soccer that don't normally. It is a decent argument in favor of friendlies, and one that MLS just ruined by creating odd rules awarding points for goals and becoming the quirky, not-quite-real League it has spent the past decade trying avoid. It has tried not to be the NASL, or even MLS 1.0 and now this.

Thankfully the Sounders and Red Devils didn't dress the Wednesday night friendly up in this costume and instead are just having a fun party - tickets are available in our ticket center. Have a friendly, have fun with it. It doesn't need a falsified tournament where entrants are determined by finances. Good on the Sounders, bad on MLS.

Tweet Comment 38 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Americanized

Sounds like an Americanized way to do it. I hear so many people that don’t watch soccer use the fact that the game can end in a tie as one reason they don’t watch it. The tie factor is taken out of the game with PKs…..but I don’t like it.

by Toxtr3m34u on Jul 19, 2011 8:51 AM PDT reply actions

I heard the opposite after the latest world cup game

A non soccer fan was upset that it came down to a ‘free throw competition’ to determine the champion. I agree, but such is life.

by lysander on Jul 19, 2011 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Yet no one ever complains about that in hoops

Its not really all that different from fouling at the end of the game when you think about it.

by B-Lot tailgater on Jul 19, 2011 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions

Basketball fans hate that

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Jul 19, 2011 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

On the one hand

its great that some of these clubs are coming over so US fans get a chance to see them in person. But I agree, there shouldn’t need to be a pretense about it.

I almost wonder if the World Football Challenge is something they drummed up in order to sell ad revenue. Probably sounds better (and can get more) saying “we’ve got Man U and the LA Galaxy playing for the World Football Challenge” rather than “we’ve got a pre-season Man U match.”

Follow me on the twitters @AlanHoffmann

by 51dimes on Jul 19, 2011 8:52 AM PDT reply actions

Appealing to those not already fans of MLS

I’m thinking it’s just publicity for the non-MLS fans who might come out. If there is a feel of competition, it might sound more appealing to the fringe fans who don’t normally come out to games. Higher stakes, etc. – even if it’s B.S. (which I agree with).

Pure speculation here, but remember the point of these friendlies is to attract new fans, really – not appease the ultras or STHs.

by ABTsportsline on Jul 19, 2011 9:20 AM PDT reply actions

And nothing attracts new fans by using a different set of rules

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Jul 19, 2011 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm certainly not defending it

I’m in agreement with your entire post. Just trying to make sense of why they’re doing it.

by ABTsportsline on Jul 19, 2011 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions

Agree that its a large publicity stunt

This is just to get the non-fan who simply sees the names, e.g. Man City, America, Barca, etc. and will be curious if they “win.” And heck, RM v La Galaxy does make big headlines. Most readers here though are soccer aficionados and the WFC is not geared to us. No one is really trying to win these matches and no starters make more than a guest appearance. Although, I must confess that I will watch these matches when I can to see what the back benchers for these clubs look like.

by Brougham Hooligan on Jul 19, 2011 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions

Well......

The “International” tournament on the PGA Tour is what they call a modified Stableford points method, it is a lot different then normal scoring, but it’s still the same game, you just have more of an incentive to go for birdie where in a normal scoring system you’d go for par. This is common in golf, the WGC Accenture Match Play is totally different then stroke play, and the Ryder Cup/President’s Cup scores even differently.

There are other things that need to be worked out in this tournament like how American teams qualify, trying to make “groups” or make it fair so Real Madrid doesn’t get 3 MLS teams, mean while Chivas Guadalajara has to play 3 Euro teams or something.

So I’ll defend it, it’s okay to have a little fun with something as serious as soccer tournaments.

by python6114 on Jul 19, 2011 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions

details...

There is nothing that needs to be worked out. It is a farce, a fabrication. No one cares how many American teams “qualify”, because it’s based solely on revenue and marketing.

Come over to the Whitecaps Offside page:
http://vancouver.theoffside.com/

by Brenton Offside on Jul 19, 2011 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Another problem is the schedule

If it was a real tourney rather than a bunch of glorified friendlies then each team would play each other so there would be a fair schedule. Or at least have a group stage and a knockout stage. This is a joke all the way through and I don’t understand how it fools anyone really. The kind of fans these games appeal to watch foreign leagues like the EPL so would be quite aware of how a proper tournament is set up.

by Dizzo on Jul 19, 2011 10:08 AM PDT reply actions

I don't really have a problem with the way the WFC is structured.

Lots of teams play in pre-season tournaments with equally wacky systems. Villa played in one last season where each game went to penalties regardless of results for use as a tie-breaker.

The issue, of course, is that for MLS teams these aren’t pre-season tournaments. And while I see the appeal of hosting big name teams and understand that those big name teams aren’t going to be coming here during the MLS offseason, it’s something I sincerely hope begins to taper off in the coming years. Pre-season friendlies are great and there’s no reason MLS teams can’t continue to play them, but these mid-season friendlies and tournaments are just awful.

by Aaron Campeau on Jul 19, 2011 10:28 AM PDT reply actions

I am also fine with it

the structure places a premium on attacking soccer, and gives structure to what might be a rather boring one-sided affair. I don’t think the quirky rules are going to prevent new fans from getting into soccer, the game on the field is still the same (except for the PKs), just with a different set of incentives.

I’m pretty sure mid-season friendlies are here to stay for the foreseeable future, which I have no problem with if MLS figures out how to schedule around it better.

by agtk on Jul 19, 2011 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions

and this is all assuming the "new" fans are even aware of this competition and care about the scoring

Hell, I wasn’t, and I follow soccer.

by ABTsportsline on Jul 19, 2011 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions

I vehemently oppose gimmicks

The most fertile market yet to be tapped by MLS is long-time soccer fans. That sounds weird, but a lot of soccer fans saw the cheesy gimmicks of early MLS and tuned out forever.

Going after fans of other sports is a waste of time while people who like soccer remain unsold.

by CarlosT on Jul 19, 2011 11:53 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Honestly, many of those fans will never be sold

They are rooted in their allegiances to other leagues. Their kids are the future though, IMO.

by B-Lot tailgater on Jul 19, 2011 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

I think those fans may be sold if MLS starts producing players...

…who get sold directly to top leagues (EPL, La Liga, etc.) At that point, the league becomes something like NCAA football is to the NFL, a way to scout the next big thing. But the World Football Challenge isn’t going to sell them on anything as long as the games are fundamentally just friendlies.

by ubelmann on Jul 19, 2011 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions

SOOOOO TIRED of non-fans bitching about PK's!

I guess flipping a coin and kicking a field goal first is a much more scientific process. There used to be ties in the NFL and the NCAA by the way.

I have grown to love soccer more and more because of it’s rules not in spite of them.

by DaveValleDrinkNight on Jul 19, 2011 1:41 PM PDT reply actions

Most non-fans I've talked to have asked why they don't just do golden goal

Frankly, I think that is better than PKs too. Play until someone scores, dammit!

by ABTsportsline on Jul 19, 2011 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions

Golden goal gives both teams an incentive to play defensively

Both teams playing defensively ought to lead to lower scoring rates, which means a lower chance of the tie being broken. And if it goes scoreless long enough, awarding the team who is best at scoring after 150 minutes (or 175 or 200 or whatever) is just as arbitrary as awarding the team best at PKs.

With PKs, it’s not quite as clear. If both teams feel they are playing well, neither will want the game to go to PKs and should be attacking aggressively. If one team feels it is playing well, at least one team should be pushing for goals. And if both teams are content with PKs, I guess PKs don’t seem all that unjust to me.

by ubelmann on Jul 19, 2011 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions

PKs award the team with the better keeper and penalty kick takers

If everyone agrees that’s the better team…. well ok then I guess.

by ABTsportsline on Jul 19, 2011 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions

PKs essentially randomly award the winner

Being a better shot-stopper doesn’t make you a better keeper, and even if your keeper is better, that guarantees nothing. At the end of the day, if a game is tied after 120 minutes, you might as well flip a coin to decide the winner, since neither team has done enough to win anyway. PKs are a more soccer-related way of flipping a coin.

by ubelmann on Jul 19, 2011 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions

The Golden Goal sucked

I’m so glad the Golden Goal is no more. It settled the Euro 2000 Final and there was just a gigantic feeling of anti-climax. Oh, Wiltord scored. Well, that’s it, I guess…

If the Women’s World Cup had the Golden Goal in effect, the game wouldn’t have had that exciting finish and the valiant fight back from the Japanese. The game would have just been over and there would be no drama or tension to see if the US could hang on to the lead.

by CarlosT on Jul 19, 2011 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions

Actually the US wouldn't have been in the final because Brazil scored first the semis

Despite that I think I still prefer the golden goal, bunkering strategies and all.

by ABTsportsline on Jul 19, 2011 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions

Actually that is a good point...

the other sports have stupid things that happen to prevent ties (football FG overtime, hockey shootout), or as a last ditch effort to win (fouling in basketball). If there can’t be a tie you have to do something.

I don’t like PKs but they are a necessary evil.

by majora999 on Jul 19, 2011 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions

I feel these friendlies are organized,

so Mancini can give his sons some playing time. He is amazing. When he is with Inter, his both sons were a part of Inter’s developmental side. Now, he is with City, and younger son is with him even though he or his brother could not break into first 11 in Serie B.

I am also not a big fan of friendlies in the middle of our season, but it is only time when big European clubs can make their annual trip. For them, it is very lucrative deal because they are paid fixed fees, plus they play in front of full stadiums and in certain parts of Asia. If they play their friendlies in Europe, it would not be more than 20,000 per game at this time of the year (majority people are on their vacation). I can see them coming here for many years.

by seattle 13 on Jul 19, 2011 7:36 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Not a new thing

Y’all do realize that this is not the FIRST “World Football Challenge,” right? That it was first done back in 2005?

No, you don’t. Of course you don’t. Because, to Sounders fans, MLS began in 2009.

You complain too much. If it’s a frivolous tournament that nobody cares about, why are you complaining about how they determine who “wins” the thing? Holy cow, you people will just complain to complain.

by cleverusername on Jul 19, 2011 8:43 PM PDT reply actions

No soccer began in 2009.

Come on dude if you’re going to being a troll at least get the meme right.

by Aaron Campeau on Jul 19, 2011 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions

Our yacht club even covered this

I named my yacht Sounders because it invented everything ever to do with yachts. #ThoughtsFromMyYacht

by Derek R on Jul 19, 2011 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa..... Hold on a second

MLS existed before 2009?

by ABTsportsline on Jul 20, 2011 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions

I think he's thinking of NASL

which we also invented

Nos Audietis

by sidereal on Jul 20, 2011 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm pretty sure the world sprang into existence on March 19, 2009

by CarlosT on Jul 20, 2011 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Joke? who's smiling now?

Your point is one i must agree with. The shoot-out i have no problem with since the stalemate can be a cover up for poor defensive attitude and many other issues but the other rules are garbage. Three(3) points for a outright reg time win…and i can live with two(2) for pk win, FULLSTOP…no points for losers…or is this just another world of football madness?

by Gneil on Jul 20, 2011 10:09 PM PDT reply actions