The last five Libertadores have been lifted by Brazilian hands. And it is very possible that the next five will too. And of the last fourteen, ten of them went to the clubs of Pelé’s homeland. It was fair, they were the best. However, such a domain already becomes monotonous, boring. This results in the disengagement of the rest of the continent, especially since it never has a chance to win, something that is essential to maintaining its attractiveness. Last Saturday’s final was unusually expected because one of the competitors was Boca. And, as the aphorism says, a Bottle is a Bottle, different from everything else. The bottle is not indifferent, it is a magnet that attracts the entire continent. But when the decisive duel between two Brazilians takes place, the noise in the crowd goes down, few people see it. The essence of an international tournament is that opponents from different countries face each other. That’s what they were created for. If there is a Flamengo-Palmeiras clash, then those from Flamengo and those from Palmeiras see it. The rest says the passage. And, if, in addition to the huge favoritism they are currently showing, the Maracana is chosen as a “neutral ground” for Flamengo or Fluminense, being able to beat them enters the realm of the epic.

The 2024 edition will again have eight Brazilian participants, Fluminense and São Paulo, plus another six yet to be defined. It is very possible that at least one will reach the finals. Or maybe two. If the River Stadium is confirmed as the venue for the decisive match, it would be quite funny: two Brazilians define the Monumental.

So what about the Libertadores…? It is not about reducing the level of Brazilian clubs through regulatory hurdles, but about increasing the opportunities of others. A complex challenge. Nor is it useful to give more places to countries that do not justify it and whose qualifiers will take the financial reward given to them for participation and then lose all their matches, as is currently happening.

It is a frightening fact: from 2017 until today, 42 representatives from Brazil, 33 from Argentina, 13 from Paraguay, 10 from Ecuador, 4 from Uruguay, 4 from Bolivia, 4 from Colombia, 2 from Chile and 0 from Peru and Venezuela. In seven editions, Peru and Venezuela have never made it past the group stage. Chile only twice, confirming that the football of Salas and Zamorano, in the clubs, has been very bad for decades. And very little from Colombia. In the popular imagination, these media are thought to be much higher. Both clubs are public companies with limited liability, a system that seemed right non plus ultra, although reality shows the opposite. As a rule, the owners are dedicated to finding some talent in order to sell it and make money, they are not mainly interested in sports. It does not suit them that the Brazilians are champions every year, they are in a different situation.

As of this year, Conmebol is awarding the champion of each federation $1 million as an incentive to step up for the Libertadores. Then it gives 3 million just for participation in the group stage, and 300,000 dollars per won match, which would become 400,000 in 2024, but the clubs prefer to take this income and give it to other destinations, rather than to strengthen the team.

We expressed our opinion on the forums and these are some of the responses from the public:

-“Go back to round-robin matches in the finals, so that each country has its own party.”

-“It is a joke that five national teams from the same country reach the quarterfinals out of eight, as happened with the Brazilians. To make matters worse, they can only be from Argentina or Brazil, the others don’t have that many places,” says Carlos from Chile.

-“Give two places to each country and three to Brazil and Argentina, but not much more, that’s where all the imbalance starts,” complains Ricardo, a Peruvian.

-“You have to determine the coefficients, that is, reward sports merits. “The one who has worked well in the last five years gets another seat,” says another.

-“It would be necessary to re-regulate, as before, that when teams from the same country reach the semi-finals, they must face each other in order to avoid a final between compatriots.”

-“I would cancel the fines. If there is a tie at the end of extra time, the team with the best performance so far in the tournament qualifies. So from the very beginning there is a team that knows they have to win to continue.”

– “Go back to the country against groups of countries, two from each nationality. Finally, add one as the last champion. If Argentina and Brazil want more, they should play the previous league between them.”

-“To face two Brazilians is brave, but eight is more difficult, isn’t it…?”

-“Reduce the number of competitors, 47 is too many.”

-“Since 2017, the first stage is played by teams from six countries, as always, and they go to the second stage, where the Argentines, Brazilians, Colombians and Chileans just made their debut… This is because of the television audience. criterion, and not for a sporting reason, which would be correct. That’s wrong.”

“Also, it is absurd that in leagues like the Peruvian one, the club that finishes in eighth place is placed,” admits José Luis, a Peruvian. “Not to mention Paraguay, where more than 50% of competitors qualify. Eight of the twelve enter Paraguay, four in Libertadores and four in Sudamericana. And in Brazil it’s worse, 14 out of 20 who support the championship get an international ticket, eight for the Libertadores and six for the Sudamericana.”

– Today, to reach the final, you have to face only one Brazilian or none at all, but that would be too lucky.

It is about the fact that the wealth that enters Conmebol today from the sale of the rights of the Libertadores is due to the Argentines and Brazilians. VIP sponsors and big TV networks want big names, they pay for them. And these revenues allow for a fantastic distribution of money for everyone. Metropolitanos from Venezuela is a club without tradition, fans and infrastructure, it participated in group B of this year’s Cup, lost six games, but still pocketed 4 million dollars. Its owners certainly do not want to change the existing system.

Ricardo Vasconcellos, sports editor of EL UNIVERS, is more realistic: “It is not possible to remove quotas, it is a decision that includes financial and non-sporting aspects. But what guarantee of the quality of football do Brazilian clubs have to play so many teams from that country…? Economic power is a half-true question, half a mirage. To begin with, we would have to go back to the round-robin finals, which are awarded to the countries of the qualified clubs. Fluminense in Rio and Boca in Buenos Aires. There’s no reason to copy Europe in this case if they’ve been playing back and forth for over half a century and it’s been nice.”

The Uruguayan Nacional and Peñarol have not played for 35 years, nor can they reach the semi-finals, the rest are the Colombians who have been finalists ten times. Apart from some unexpected epic, we will hardly see finalists like Once Caldas, Lanús, Nacional de Asunción, Independiente del Valle again. Today, the Libertadores is limited to Brazilian clubs plus Boca and River. And if there are no fundamental changes in football and the economies of South America, it will continue like this. The mentality of the clubs must also change: don’t reach the Cup to collect 3 or 4 million and be immediately eliminated. There is a virtuous circle in football: winning titles is about raising more money, and thus hiring more people to win more titles. How much does it adhere to…? (D)