Analyzing Mexican football through a strategic lens reveals a fragmented system that has adopted practices and formats from various foreign leagues without a clear framework for integration. The result is a patchwork of isolated and disconnected initiatives, where the lack of cohesive strategy is glaring. Applying Michael Porter's strategic forces framework, particularly his principle of "strategy fit," highlights one of Mexican football's greatest deficiencies. According to Porter, a successful strategy requires all components to reinforce each other, creating synergy that drives a clear objective. When this principle is neglected, the system falls into the trap of "straddling"—trying to be everything to everyone and, in the process, losing its identity. This perfectly describes the current state of Mexican football.

Over the decades, Mexican football has adopted elements from sports models worldwide but has failed to integrate them cohesively. Instead of building a system where the components work together, it has become a strategic Frankenstein where parts not only fail to complement each other but often undermine one another. One of the most emblematic examples of this lack of cohesion is the adoption of short tournaments, inspired by the Argentine model. This format, splitting the season into two championships per year, generates semi-annual spikes of attention, theoretically increasing entertainment and revenue. However, it also fosters a short-term mentality, where clubs are forced to prioritize immediate results at the expense of long-term planning and development. With two championships annually, each tournament becomes a race against time, leaving little room for consolidating sporting projects.
Interestingly, in its attempt to imitate this model, Mexican football disregarded essential elements of the Argentine system that could have complemented short tournaments. For instance, in Argentina, the champion is the top-ranked team without playoffs, and multiple relegations ensure constant meritocracy. Additionally, there is a strong emphasis on youth development and nurturing local talent, something that has not been replicated seriously in Mexico. By cherry-picking only certain aspects of the Argentine model, Mexican football has sacrificed key components that could have provided greater depth and stability to its system.
Simultaneously, Mexican football has been influenced by major U.S. sports leagues like the NBA, NFL, and MLB, adopting practices such as playoffs and, more recently, the "play-in," a wildcard format inspired by the NBA. These decisions aim to heighten excitement during the league's final phase but negatively impact competitive structure. By allowing teams with mediocre performances to compete for the title, this system dilutes the importance of the regular season and discourages teams from fighting for the top spot. Moreover, eliminating promotion and relegation—also inspired by U.S. models—has protected team owners' investments but at a steep cost. The absence of relegation has turned lower divisions into purposeless spaces with no real incentives, reducing their competitiveness and leaving many teams in a sports limbo.
Although these decisions were modeled after American systems, Mexico did not adopt other successful strategies used in the U.S., such as U.S. Soccer's focus on identifying, developing, and exporting young talent to European clubs. In contrast, the Mexican system seems designed to retain players within the domestic league, fostering a comfort zone that hampers their development. Similarly, Mexico has not implemented a "franchise player" system like MLS, which balances retaining top talent with fostering competition within a sustainable economic framework.
Another attempt to elevate the league's level was the increased inclusion of foreign players, emulating major European leagues like Spain, England, and Italy. The idea was that foreign talent would boost competitiveness, but in practice, the results have been mixed. Unlike Europe, where strict criteria govern the recruitment of foreign players, Mexico's standards are less rigorous. In England, for example, only players with significant minutes for their national teams are eligible, ensuring that foreign imports raise the league's overall quality. In Mexico, the lack of clear standards has resulted in a mix of quality players alongside many who fail to justify displacing local talent. This practice has not yielded the competitive leap anticipated.
Moreover, the absence of promotion and relegation and the short-tournament structure contrast sharply with the practices of top European leagues, where long tournaments and institutional stability enable solid project development. In Europe, these formats promote constant competition, whereas in Mexico, the focus remains on maximizing immediate revenue, sacrificing the potential for long-term benefits in both sports and economic terms.
In sum, Mexican football has created a model that cherry-picks elements from various leagues based on commercial interests rather than strategic cohesion. Most decisions seem geared toward protecting investments and maximizing spectacle but neglect sporting development. While entertainment is crucial in modern football, it cannot come at the expense of competitiveness and talent, as both are essential for system sustainability.
In the world's most successful leagues, every aspect of the model is designed so that spectacle and competition reinforce each other. In Mexico, this synergy has been lost, evident in the national team's declining competitiveness and a Liga MX where many matches lack appeal or clear incentives. This has created a paradox: economic growth without the accompanying sports development that should complement it.
In conclusion, Mexican football has become a strategic Frankenstein by adopting elements from other models without a coherent integration framework. The lack of a clear, well-defined strategy has resulted in a system prioritizing short-term spectacle at the expense of talent development and solid team-building. For Mexican football to reach its true potential, its strategic approach must be reevaluated, embracing a model where all components work together toward a common goal. Only through this integration can Mexico build a competitive and sustainable football system that excels both on and off the pitch.
Comments