With this month\u2019s World Cup qualification round of matches hit again by the disruption of a global pandemic, discussion of where Asian international football should go next once more rears its head. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
With a mixture of high profile friendlies, regional get-togethers, sporadic qualifiers and complete stagnation, consistency and development across the continent as a whole are top of the bill in terms of requirements. But would the highly sought after Nations League concept, introduced so successfully in Europe, be as effective if adopted in Asia?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As a general consensus, the idea of a Nations League is broadly welcomed across Asia. The premise of which is to eradicate \u201cmeaningless\u201d friendlies, with structured, competitive matches that both assist smaller nations in organising such matchups, but also allowing them to compete against similarly ranked nations is a sound one. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The need from Europe was perpetuated by both big and small nations alike; elite nations (and the club sides that supplied them) were tired of long drawn out qualifying stages, supplemented by similarly undesirable friendly encounters, while smaller sides were continuing to lag behind, losing match after match in qualification, and losing impetus in facilitating friendlies around it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The shift to a third international tournament (in addition to the World Cup and Euros) engineered very much what it was designed for; elite sides competed for extra silverware against similarly ranked teams – generating worthwhile development and exposure ($$$); smaller sides contested for \u201cpromotion\u201d with an added chance of Euros qualification in matches they could realistically succeed in and develop from.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The big difference when it comes to Asia is the levels of teams within it, and where they sit both in their continental and global pyramids. <\/p>\n\n\n\n