The competition has multiple flaws, yet managed to serve up some fine content amid crowded soccer calender
The tears told the tale. There were two kinds. The first, and most quickly captured by eager camera operators, were those of veteran Mexican left back Jesus Gallardo, who was unable to contain his emotions at the final whistle. And then there were those of Sebastian Berhalter, the USMNT player face down on the NRG Stadium turf, reduced to a puddle after a 2-1 loss.
For some, those are lasting images of the Gold Cup. It was a strange month of soccer. Interest in the tournament was clearly down – at least, that's what the empty seats suggested. The Club World Cup, held simultaneously in the U.S., didn't help. Yet the level of competition – and abundance of storylines – made it all fulfilling.
Mexico beat the U.S. in the final, and felt like deserved winners, despite having an imperfect campaign of their own. So many people weren't watching, but those that were took in a compelling month of sport. And perhaps that's what matters.
In an ideal world, The Gold Cup should be bigger, more relevant, and taken more seriously by its hosts. But place it in a more realistic light, and consider the context in which it was played, and the Gold Cup can be considered a success – even if there are surely changes to be made for it to wriggle its way back into the national consciousness.
Getty Images SportStorylines abound
It would be harsh to suggest that no one cared. Like so many tournaments in football, the Gold Cup means to a lot of people. And it was hard, for a number of reasons, not to feel a bit sentimental about this particular iteration of the Gold Cup. The most immediate, perhaps, were the Dominican Republic, playing in their first international tournament.
The nation's footballing imprint is always expanding. To say that they have no past would be inaccurate, but CONCACAF involvement at a high level has, historically, alluded them. That is, until this year. They won all of their Nations league B games, secured Gold Cup qualification, and gave an excellent account of themselves at the tournament. They grabbed a point against Suriname and lost narrowly to both Costa Rica and Mexico. El Tri manager Javier Aguirre ultimately had to apologize for underestimating the team.
“There are no small teams in this tournament – I’ve said it before, and I stand by it. In the Gold Cup, you can't underestimate anyone," he told reporters after a 3-2 win.
The same can be said for Guatemala. They were one of the more memorable teams at any tournament in recent history. Consisting mostly of domestic players – as well as a few dual nationals who were spat out by the USMNT program – the side beat Jesse Marsch's Canada in the quarterfinals, and were a kind bounce or two away from beating the U.S in the semis.
These are tournament runs that will be kindly reflected on – in the same ilk but on a smaller scale – as Morocco at the 2022 World Cup, or Wales at Euro 2016. Sometimes, in sports, the stars align, and something truly wonderful happens. Guatemala were that team.
AdvertisementGetty ImagesFans … or lack thereof
It helps, though, if people are actually there to see it. Attendance was always going to be a concern this summer. The Gold Cup is declining in importance, and striving to find a foothold in the North American market that it has steadily lost over the years. It was going to be a challenge, anyway.
And then, the Club World Cup happened. Gianni Infantino and FIFA cornered the U.S. soccer market in full this summer, inundating the country with their very gold, very glitzy, and very flawed tournament. And although the two competitions were geographically separated – the CWC was largely an East Coast phenomenon, while the Gold Cup was mostly played out West – there was a real sense that the two were dueling in some way. There is only so much money and so much time.
The USMNT games were always going to be a bit dicey in terms of attendance – this was a depleted squad struggling for form and without some of its marquee names. What was a real surprise, though, was the relative lack of support for Mexico, especially in the early games.
Mexico didn't sell out its opener , while a select few games between smaller nations with a lesser football imprint in the U.S. were played in front of minimal crowds. Atmospheres were tepid, to say the least, for those in the stadiums. And for people watching from afar, the optics were worse.
Some of the numbers, indeed, were damning. Average attendance was down 26 percent from the 2023 iteration of the tournament, according to with just 59 percent of the available seating in stadiums was filled.
Get into the team specifics, and the numbers are as expected. Attendance at games featuring Mexico was down four percent. For the United States, it was down 12 percent. At its worst, numbers were fairly woeful. Just 2,404 people showed up to watch Jamaica vs. Guadaloupe at PayPal Park in San Jose on June 20.
AFPTelevision viewers spike
And yet, the numbers weren't all concerning. Games were broadcast on both FOX and FS1 – making them, in theory, easily accessible to the mass populous. And people tuned in. The semifinals and final were mass successes in terms of viewing audiences.
The final attracted 3.73 million viewers on FOX, making it the most-watched broadcast in Gold Cup history, and a massive leap from the 1.11M that tuned into Mexico-Panama two years ago. In 2021 – also a contest between the U.S. and Mexico – 1.79M viewers watched.
Averages for the rest of the tournament were strong, too. Across the 31 fixtures, FOX averaged 474,000 viewers – its most since broadcasting the Gold Cup. In 2023, that number was at 393,000. In 2021, it was 373,000. For perspective, though, 6.02M watched Argentina play Colombia in the Copa America final in 2024.
There are perhaps multiple reasons for the increased viewership. There has, no doubt, been a heightened interest in the USMNT and soccer in general in the U.S., especially with the World Cup just 12 months away. The fact that the final was played between Mexico and the U.S. – the matchup everyone wanted to see – might also have helped.
Getty Images SportUSMNT success?
And more broadly, the USMNT are a more captivating team than they were two years ago. That iteration of the side was six months removed from immense controversy surrounding the fallout from Gregg Berhalter's off-the-pitch issues, and less of an on-field product. To be sure, the Copa America was a draw, but the significance of that competition is undoubtedly less than that of the World Cup.
It makes sense, too, that there are more eyes on the tournament given the numerous storylines around the team. Mauricio Pochettino's impact – or perhaps lack thereof, at times – as manager will have helped. He is a global name who has some pull. The fact that the team has also made headlines for the fallout of Christian Pulisic electing to skip the competition might also have piqued curiosity – even if his influence alone makes fewer people inclined to tune in.
And then there was the fact that the U.S. were actually quite good. They came into the tournament with immensely low expectations and a depleted roster, limping through a four-game losing streak. But they went undefeated in the group stage and made it to the final. Yes, they were perhaps always doomed against Mexico, but this was a more likable side. And if there's one thing that fans love, it's winning football matches.
A word must be said, too, for Mexico, who will no doubt have drawn some English language viewers. They were a captivating side in their own right, led by the return of veteran manager Javier Aguirre, and bolstered by the fact that veteran names such as Raul Jimenez were brought back into the side after absences. Piece it all together, and the two most marketable sides in the U.S. were, well, interesting.