The Concacaf Champions Cup's One-Game Final Is A Fixable Problem

Forbes

2 days ago

If you're a longtime MLS follower, it can feel a little too convenient to criticize the Concacaf Champions Cup's new single-game final format, which enters its second year in Sunday's clash between the Vancouver Whitecaps and Cruz Azul in Mexico City.
Yes, the result has been an MLS team hitting the road in both occasions. And last year, the Columbus Crew looked like a shadow of themselves in a 3-0 defeat to CF Pachuca, with reports later contending the MLS side had dealt with food poisoning in the run-up to the match.
Yet on some level, MLS complaints about the format of continental competition in Concacaf has become tired, creating a culture of excuses that has helped foster Liga MX's continued lopsided domination
All that said, the reality is that if Concacaf ever has any hope of creating a competition that rivals the UEFA Champions League and Copa Libertadores for reverence, then a home-field advantage in the final has to be abandoned.
The Champions League final has been contested at a neutral site since the competition was still called the European Cup. The Copa Libertadores final has also been played at a neutral venue for the last several years, and before that was played in the same home-and-away aggregate goals format as the rest of the knockout stage.
Only Asia has an extended track record of playing a one-game continental club final in a home-field environment. And Asia's geographical challenges are considerably more difficult than Concacaf's.
And what UEFA and CONMEBOL recognize is that the influence of home field in continental play is too great to extend to one team and still give the competition even a veneer of fairness.
Since the tournament became a solely knockout competition in 2018, home teams have won exactly 54% of matches over 90 minutes. (This stat excludes numbers from 2020, in which the latter stages were played at a neutral venue behind closed doors because of the pandemic.) And remember, there are also lots of ties in soccer.
That's an enormous home-field edge – about six percentage points more than what MLS teams typically enjoy in league games. And globally, MLS' home-field edge is actually a considered stronger than the norm.
To play three to four rounds of competition in the aggregate format, then suddenly switch to a one-leg final is basically the equivalent of giving one team an extra goal in the tournament's most important game. And deciding which team gets that benefit based on tournament record alone is often an exercise in which club received the more favorable draw, not which team played better.
That said, it's understandable why Concacaf has flirted with this format after expanding the field to 27 teams in 2024, necessitating the need for an extra round.
As a 16-team tournament and four-round affair, it was possible to begin the competition in late February and wrap it up in late April or early May before the Liga MX Clausura playoffs began. That permitted enough space on the calendar to contest the final over two legs, with the home-field edge given to the team contesting the second leg in front of their own supporters only a slight one.
The larger field requires an extra round and puts Concacaf in a timing bind, given that the Liga MX playoffs run through most of May. Cruz Azul had been eliminated by the middle of the month in the semifinals. But had they played the final, they would have only had seven days to refocus on their continental aims.
With the FIFA international break following in early June, Sunday is literally the last day a match can be contested before international teams have the right to call in players. So as long as the field remains at 27 teams, a one-game final may be necessary.
Presumably, Concacaf is acting on the assumption that a neutral site contest would be a dead end commercially. If so, that's because decision makers have not been imaginative enough in considering how they could arrive at a neutral site.
For the federation's needs, the best option would be not to decide the venue well in advance, but instead after it knows the two finalists, honing in on a locale that could be a reasonable destination for a sizable segment of both fanbases. (Incidentally, this was once the way FA Cup semifinals venues were decided, until they were relocated to Wembley in 2008.)
In instances where two Mexican teams makle the final or two MLS teams make the final, Concacaf should look for a venue that is as close to equidistant as possible between the clubs and in a major transit hub.
In instances where one MLS team and one Mexican side qualified, because of the wider popularity of Liga MX clubs across the U.S., the venue would ideally be in an American market that was within one day's drive of the MLS city and in a city with a sizable Mexican American community when possible, or at the very least also within a one day's drive of such a city.
The federation could cross the bridge of a finalist from outside MLS or Liga MX when the occasion arises.
Going back to 2018, here's where Concacaf might have chosen to host a single-game final at a neutral venue:
2018: CD Guadalajara vs. Toronto FC - Chicago, Ill.
2019: CF Monterrey vs. Tigres UANL - Monterrey, Mexico
2021: CF Monterrey vs. Club America - Guadalajara, Mexico
2022: Seattle Sounders vs. Pumas UNAM - San Jose, Calif.
2023: LAFC vs. Club Leon - Phoenix, Ariz.
2024: CF Pachuca vs. Columbus Crew - Nashville, Tenn.
2025: Cruz Azul vs. Vancouver Whitecaps - Portland, Ore.
And yes, there would be some logistical issues that might prevent the perfect site from being chosen every time. But from a practical standpoint, Concacaf would have more than 45 days to sort out one of up to four potential semifinal venues, given that the semifinalists would be known by early mid-April.
In 2025, it probably would've only needed to consider two potential final locations by mid-April, given two MLS teams in one final and two Mexican sides in the other.
Tigres UANL vs. Vancouver Whitecaps - Portland, Ore.
Tigres UANL vs. Inter Miami - Houston, Texas
Cruz Azul vs. Vancouver Whitecaps - Portland, Ore.
Cruz Azul vs. Inter Miami - Houston, Texas
Ultimately, the goal should be to find venues capable of seating at least 20,000, distributing 25% of the tickets to each club and the remaining 50% to the general public.
And venue selection could involve making exceptions where the circumstances allow. For example, had Miami won, the hypothetical venue of Houston is indeed further from Miami than a day's drive. But Messi's popularity across the nation would still make selling out Houston's Shell Energy Stadium more than realistic, and more likely drawing a much larger crowd to NRG Stadium, Houston's NFL venue.
Maybe sell outs wouldn't always be guaranteed, and maybe profits for the federation would fall incrementally in the short term. But that impact could be blunted with flexible venue selection, while establishing the final as a marqee event similar to the UEFA Champions League or Copa Libertadores versions. That would also set up the competition for longer term growth, and would be well worth the tradeoff.