A Game Of Three Thirds

Before I get to today’s rant, I ask that we spare a thought for News of the World, the right-wing, populist, Murdoch-owned, British tabloid (think New York Post but even worse) which was founded in 1843 and will publish its last edition this Sunday.  The end of News of the World was inevitable when it was discovered that the tabloid was involved in a massive phone-hacking conspiracy that just kept getting bigger and bigger over the past five or so years.  The media sees itself through self-righteous eyes and generally excuses bad behavior from fellow journalists, but this was inexcusable.  There is no good reason why innocents (famous or not) should have their privacy intruded upon.  A newspaper simply cannot do willy-nilly what law enforcement must get strict court permission and supervision to do.  Rot in hell, News of the World; may you be joined by the rest of Murdoch’s foul empire.

~*~*~*~*~*~

Speaking of horrible, slimy people, FIFA and Qatar are in the news again.  This time it because the head of the company in charge of designing Qatar’s 2022 stadia (God, it feels painful to write that) told delegates at a conference that FIFA is going to change the rules of the game to accommodate the Qatari heat.  If it gets too hot, the matches will be played as three half-hour periods rather than the two 45 minute halves that have existed since the beginning of the game.  It is so nice that FIFA cares about  players’ safety, but rather than a massive upheaval of the game’s identity, why not change the venue instead?

FIFA have denied this, of course.  They are under enough pressure already and most certainly don’t need anymore.  It has been slightly over half a year since that horrible decision to hold a World Cup in Qatar was made, and it seems that at least once every month or so some new public relations disaster ensues.

I suppose one could legitimately ask what is so important about two 45 minute periods.  If the match still 90 minutes, why does it matter how those 90 minutes are divided up?  It’s a fair point I guess, but part of football’s core identity is being a game of two halves.  It dates back to the earliest days of the game before it became formalized.  Football as we know it was saved from the Industrial Revolution by the British public (private) schools.  The faculty and administration of the schools introduced sport so that their rioting students would take out their aggression on each other rather than on the faculty and townspeople.  Different schools created different rules, and some schools codes (such as Eton’s and Harrow’s) emphasized dribbling with the feet, which others (most famously at Rugby School) allowed handling.  When teams from different schools met, they played the first half with one school’s code and the second with the other school’s code.  They players never saw themselves as playing different sports just different rules.  Hence, a game of two halves.

Association football (“soccer”) was first codified nearly 150 years, the proponents of handling the ball developed their football into its own sport, and the reasons behind two halves disappeared, but it nevertheless became an integral part of the game’s structure.  There is something simple, and symmetrically pleasing about two halves, that one does not get from smaller division such as the thirds and quarters.

In a more modern, television-driven age, a two-halves game with one break in the middle is perfect because it limits the amount of time one has to sit through commercial advertisements (which we are already bombarded by on stadium grounds and players’ kits.)  The half time break allows the viewer to get up, take a break, and ignore the ads that are selling us what we don’t need.  Compare that to sports such as baseball and American football where it feels like there are more commercials than game.

It is important to stress that FIFA denies this conversation took place, but it probably did.  Two breaks in the match instead of one would allow for increased ad revenue, and FIFA doesn’t care in the least about the soul and identity of the game.  This just provides the pretense that they care about the players rather than about the old men of the ExCo who lined their pockets with Qatari bribe money. (Speaking of that, the evidence against Mohammed Bin Hammam keeps mounting, and although it all appears to be circumstantial, he’s done.  Out of FIFA.)

The 2022 World Cup is 11 years away.  Many things could change between now and then, but I suspect I will not be watching it.  Given the way that the international game has faded and the club game has risen, I also suspect I will not be the only one.

FIFA In Crisis

If you are a longtime reader of this blog you may notice that I generally try to avoid swearing.  My rule of thumb is that if you can’t say something cleanly, you probably shouldn’t say it at all.  But today, I am going to break my own rule because all hell broke loose at FIFA today and the shit has hit the fan.

If you’ve been following FIFA politics over the last several months (and really why would you), you would have known that there is an election for President of that corrupt, wretched organization coming up on June 1.  The two candidates, incumbent Sepp Blatter and AFC head Mohammed bin Hammam of Qatar, have been campaigning for the top spot.  By campaigning, I mean debasing world football by making ridiculous promises and cozying up to dictators (like the Burmese junta.)

To lovers of the game, this is probably the worst of all choices.  The problems with FIFA go back decades, but it has gotten really bad in the past few months.  For years world football fans have basically tolerated the vileness of FIFA as a fact of life.  This past December though, FIFA chose the hosts for the 2018 and 2022.  The process was so fraught with barely-concealed corruption that the stench became impossible to ignore.  The vote left the English humiliated in their failed 2018 attempt.  Worse, FIFA gave Qatar the 2022 tournament.  Qatar, a nation that cannot possibly hold the largest sporting event in the world both for climate and size reasons.  Not to mention the extreme religious intolerance of the oil-wealthy emirate.  Any of the other four candidates (US, Australia, Japan, and South Korea) would have been better.  FIFA’s own technical committee said as much.  Yet in a secret ballot, FIFA’s bribe-susceptible Executive Committee chose Qatar.  And bin Hammam’s hands were all over it.

Since the vote, FIFA has had nothing but trouble.  FIFA’s ethics have constantly been called into question and the issue of corruption has not gone away.  No one was excited about the Presidential race because it was widely assumed that regardless of who won (and it was assumed to be Sepp Blatter), FIFA would remain the horribly corrupt entity it is.

This month, two things happened in England to renewed the strength of the maelstrom.  The Sunday Times published a whistleblower’s account of how Qatar bribed its way to be the World Cup host, and the runner had (shock of shocks) ties to bin Hammam.  Then Lord Treisman, the disgraced former head of the English FA named names before a Parliamentary committee (where he has immunity from England’s draconian libel laws.)  In particular, he named the heads of CONMEBOL, Brazil, and Thailand.  He also named Jack Warner, the head of CONCACAF and a pantomime villain if ever there was one.  But Warner was a close buddy of Blatter’s, and probably FIFA’s most effective power-broker.  It seemed unlikely that anything would be done.

Today though there was an earthquake.  Chuck Blazer, the general secretary of CONCACAF, and America’s ExCo member brought bribery charges against Warner and bin Hammam.  That a fellow insider brought charges is completely without precedent in FIFA.  That it was Chuck Blazer makes it downright shocking.  First, he has been the man behind Warner’s throne for over two decades.  Warner has been accused of many horrible (and probably true) things, and Blazer never turned on him before.  Second, Blazer is possibly the smartest man in FIFA.  If he brought these charges, they are real, and there will be consequences.

Here’s what happened.  The FIFA presidential campaign has not been going well for either Blatter or bin Hammam.  The continental confederation heads (most of whom cannot vote) favor Blatter.  Many of the actual national FA heads are less enthralled with him.  But they don’t particularly like bin Hammam either.  England’s FA is refusing to vote for either man. Most likely there will be others.

CONCACAF is an extremely important region in this vote, and historically it votes as a bloc.  Which means everyone votes the way Jack Warner tells them to vote.  Blatter got to address the confederation in Miami when CONCACAF shamefully reelected Jack Warner.  Bin Hammam was denied as visa, so Jack Warner–remember Blatter’s “good friend”–set up a special conference for him and the CFU, the heads of the Caribbean nations of FIFA (25 of CONCACAF’s votes).  No other CONCACAF nation was invited (i.e. the US, Mexico, Canada, etc.)

Thus far has been undisputed fact.  Allegedly at this meeting, Warner on behalf of bin Hammam offered $40,000 to each CFU head.  This is a major violation of FIFA law.  Some CFU heads complained to Blazer and he went to John Collins, a member of FIFA’s legal committee.   Supposedly there are multiple affidavits from witnesses.  Bin Hammam and Warner are going down.

The good news is that Warner, FIFA’s greatest crook, will be gone.  The bad news is that Blatter will win.  (Both Warner and bin Hammam noted the unusual timing of the accusations, and implied that Blatter was behind it.  Truthfully, he may have been just a tiny bit worried.)

There are so many questions that need to be answered.  Right now, I would suggest reading this article or Bill Archer’s blog, the best FIFA-watcher blog out there.

The big question now is what will happen with the 2022 World Cup.  It has been fairly obvious for some time that Qatar should not be allowed to keep it.  I imagine that Blatter would be only too happy to strip the Qataris and bin Hammam of the World Cup.  But whether that happens or not is a completely different story.  This is not going away soon.

Get the popcorn, the soap opera has just begun.

In other news, Jose Mourinho won his fight against Jorge Valdano.  Valdano has been sacked from Real Madrid.  It was pretty well-known that one of them would be gone by the end of the season.  Madrid made its choice.  It may be the right one, but expect the football world to turn on Madrid next season.  Mourinho is a virus, and he has infected Madrid with his bile.

Qatar Close To Buying Manchester United

I wrote about this before, but it according to ESPN, the Qatari royal family takeover of Manchester United is near complete, although the Glazers are still denying it.  I’ll refer you to my earlier post for a fuller take.  These oil-garchs already own too much of England, and now they are buying yet another football team.  Worldwide football as a whole will be all the worse with a Qatar-owned United.  I’m sure FIFA is thrilled, but worldwide football is all the worse off with FIFA too.

For all the flaws of MLS, and they are legion, I have to say that there is something to be said about having a smaller league that oil-garchs ignore.  Perhaps I should start buying some new Philadelphia Union gear, especially since I will never ever buy a new Barcelona jersey.

No Way Around It

No way around it.  This is just going to be a football-heavy week.  Sorry for those who would rather read about other things.

I saw this terrifying news story, and for the love of the game I had to comment on it.   Mohamed bin Hammam, the head of the AFC, has all but announced his intention to challenge Sepp Blatter for the FIFA presidency.  Bin Hammam claims he has not made up his mind and wants to see if anyone else will run–but yeah, he’s running.  The gist of his comments are that FIFA is seen as corrupt because Blatter has been there too long.  He’s also advocating for goal line technology.  Is there any other way to interpret this than a presidential run?  It goes without saying that bin Hammam completely ignores that the reason everyone is saying FIFA is corrupt is because of the horrific Word Cup bidding process which led to Qatar 2022–bin Hammam’s home nation and the bid that he championed.  (Bin Hammam also has the gall to defend to FIFA ExCo members who were suspended after being caught asking for bribes.)

If (when) bin Hammam does challenge Blatter, I have no idea how this would play out, but no matter how it does, football will be the loser.  Both Blatter and bin Hammam are awful choices.  Bin Hammam will have the entire AFC behind him, but beyond that I don’t know who else would support him.  Blatter was never completely honest about his whole “spread the World Cup around” philosophy.  Yes, he it takes the World Cup to new places, but it has always been in part a way to shore up his own power base.  The 2010 World Cup was a way of winning over CAF, and turning back a challenge to his reign the last time.  A Qatari World Cup bid was supposed to align the AFC behind Blatter.  It probably would have except that Qatar was a such a spectacularly bad idea that FIFA has almost nonstop had to deal with the fallout.  Blatter, as is his wont, opened his mouth and let the terrible ideas flow.  World anger did not abate, but this enraged bin Hammam.

I cannot imagine that Jack Warner would do vote against Blatter given how much power Warner now has, and CONCACAF does what Warner tells it to do.  I can see a lot of UEFA nations, particularly in Western Europe taking the opportunity to get revenge on Blatter for what they saw was a corrupt and unfair (and humiliating) process.  Platini does not exert the same control over UEFA that a Warner or a bin Hammam does over their respective regions.  If anyone has more insight into OFC and CONMEBOL, please share.  I can see OFC being divided (i.e. New Zealand on one side, the rest of OFC on the other), but the relationship between Blatter and CONMEBOL is a mystery to me.  Certainly Blatter has warm relationships with those aging jackals of Brazil (Ricardo Teixeira) and Argentina (Julio Grondona), and he deflected and then attacked when the BBC show Panorama reported that Teixeira and CONMEBOL President Nicolás Léoz were taking bribes.  Also Blatter was the protege/handpicked successor of João Havelange, who naturally claims that FIFA is pristine as the driven snow.

A bin Hammam candidacy is ever more indication of Qatar’s attempt to completely hijack the sport, which I have discussed numerous times.  Blatter has not helped his own case though.  Given the sustained negative attention focused on FIFA for the past two months, there is blood in the water.  FIFA is nothing if not full of sharks.

Platini Has A Point

I was not planning on writing anymore about football so soon, but this story is far too important to ignore.

If you are hearing screams right now, let me assure you that you are probably not crazy; the screams you hear are coming out of Manchester.  According to the ever-reliable British press (already a red flag), the Qatari royal family, through its investment arm Qatari Holding, has put in a £1.5 billion bid to take over Manchester United.  United is denying that the club is for sale.  Besides, the owning Glazer family will not sell for less than £2 billion.

So the screams.  There are actually two different kind.  The screams of joy are from the red side of Manchester who want the Glazers far away from their beloved United, and screams of despair are from the blue side (Manchester City).  You have to feel sorry for City fans.  Ever since the oil-garch takeover of City, the fans have been hoping that the curse that appeared to have been laid on them had finally lifted. Nevertheless, every time City came this close to Champions League qualification, the squad fell apart. Overpriced talent only added insult to injury.  Just this weekend, City lost to Aston Villa, and now they are third in the standings: behind United and Arsenal, with Chelsea and Tottenham not far behind.

Despite all these setbacks, City fans still had hope.  Over the past few years only Chelsea could spend as freely as City, and Roman Abramovich has tightened the purse string of late.  City had a plan: a Champions League berth this season, the EPL title next season, European and home domination forever after.

But now the Qataris have put a bid in for United, City’s most hated enemy.  The Qataris are oil-garchs (and natural gas-garchs) who may be even wealthier than City’s owners.  The Qataris already own a club (Spain’s Málaga CF), and more significantly, they will be Barcelona’s first ever shirt sponsors–a subject which is very sore for me.

The Qataris are doing this because of their love for football; they are doing it because of a love for themselves.  By flashing their money around, they believe they are showing how important they are (and in a capitalist economy maybe they are right.)  This self-importance was the driving motivation behind Qatar’s successful World Cup bid, and it is why they are trying to buy European football.  The bigger the club, the more important the Qataris think they are.  Málaga is a nothing club really, but a Barcelona shirt sponsorship–and the first in that club’s history–that is a big deal.  Owning the legendary Manchester United would be real clout; no need to worry about the “minnows”–West Ham, Newcastle, or Everton.

Qatari ownership of United is a very frightening prospect.  First, it further drains the already steadily eroding joy out of the sport.  It’s already bad enough when the ultra-rich buy one club as a personal plaything.  How much worse will it be when they buy multiple clubs?  Second, between an Abu Dhabi-backed City and a Qatar-backed United, the already out of control races in the EPL and Europe  would spiral into football version of the nations of Qatar and the UAE–extreme wealth at the very top and extreme poverty everywhere else.  For all those people who constantly complain that La Liga is an extreme version of Scotland, just imagine an EPL that is only United and City.

In the meanwhile, fans of Liverpool FC must be wondering what is wrong with them and their club.  When Hicks and Gillett were in charge, Liverpool fans were desperate for a sugar daddy like at Chelsea or City.  Not a word from the Qataris.  Instead Liverpool got John W. Henry and New England Sports Ventures.  The Scousers are suspicious of the new owners because (1) like Hicks and Gillett (and the Glazers), Henry is American; and (2) Henry is the owner of the Boston Red Sox, and while Henry knows baseball, he has little knowledge about football.

If the Qataris were to take over United, the only saving grace may well be the UEFA financial fair play rules that Platini successfully championed.  Those rules forbid clubs from entering European competition (Champions League or Europa League) unless the clubs at least break even over a rolling three year period.  In other words, extravagant spending may be all well and good at City or Chelsea (or Barcelona, Madrid, Inter, Bayern, etc.) but those club must earn at least the amount they spend.  For the top teams (and their owners), who want European success, which is the ultimate prize, this is a real threat causing real worry.

If somehow the financial fair play rules do not go into effect–or prove to be less than successful–then what is already a limited competition will be closed off to all but those clubs who are backed by the super-wealthy.  Eventually the super-wealthy will get bored of these clubs.  The clubs will then be sold, accumulating massive debt in the process that can never be paid off (football club ownership bears more than a passing resemblance to a Ponzi scheme.)  If that happens, clubs like City, Chelsea, and yes, maybe even United, will fall and fall hard.

Qatar Fallout

I hate to harp on this topic so much, especially since there are 11+ years left of this disaster, but I cannot let this one go.  Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini have been shooting their mouths off trying to defend FIFA’s asinine decision to hold the World Cup in Qatar.  Again.

First Blatter has been suggesting to anyone who would listen that the 2022 World Cup should be moved to the winter.  Platini, for his part, is playing up the idea of Qatar’s neighbors also holding matches for the 2022 World Cup.  Neither a Gulf State tournament nor a winter tournament is new idea; those suggestions have been thrown around almost immediately following the 2022 blunder.  Now however, the FIFA leadership is really playing it up.  Platini in particular has taken umbrage to the (completely correct) assertion that FIFA is trying to move the goalposts.  Despite Platini’s faux ire, FIFA is clearly restructuring the bid on its own in a way that really cheapens the whole process, and shows exactly how much time, energy, and money Qatar’s fellow bidder wasted.  The pressure over the Qatar decision (as well as FIFA’s dubious ethics reform) must be really high because FIFA is seriously considering video replay technology, something it has resisted for years.

The world is very unhappy about Qatar because the bribery and cheating were so transparent.  FIFA, made of old men who think they are invulnerable (largely because no one has ever held them accountable) were not prepared for the backlash and are trying to do major damage control.  However, the damage control has only further alienated everyone.  Yes, the English are bad losers, Sepp, but calling them out for it, especially when everyone knows they are right, does not deflect attention from FIFA’s failings.

Now Mohammed Bin Hammam the (Qatari) president of the Asian Football Confederation, and the major proponent of the Qatari World Cup bid (as well as the only serious potential challenger to Sepp Blatter’s continued presidency) has come out rather forcefully against Blatter’s and Platini’s suggestions.  I am actually surprised to see this, both because it is a direct challenge to Blatter but also because who knew Qatar would be intransigent?  I would have thought once they got the bid, they would let FIFA do whatever it wanted.

It will be very interesting to see what happens if Bin Hammam stands against Blatter for the FIFA presidency because of this, although he probably will not.  Giving Qatar the World Cup was supposed to reduce the challenge, and Bin Hammam will probably be the next FIFA president anyway.  I personally fear a Bin Hammam presidency.  If Rous, Havelange, and Blatter have already been terrible blights on the sport, I can only imagine the damage that Bin Hammam and the oil-garchs will do.

As always with a Blatter interview, there is a money quote and this time it is his claim that the FIFA ExCo members “vote more with their heart than they vote with their head.”  Who knew that they all kept their wallets in their breast pockets?  (This is a not-so-subtle admission that FIFA corruption really screwed the pooch this time.)

By the way, the attendances at the Asian Cup in Qatar are terrible.

On a completely unrelated (and shallow) note: John Rooney, now of the NY Red Bulls, is far hotter than his brother Wayne.

Weekend Roundup

Marriage Equality Train: Next stops–Maryland and Rhode Island?

That both states are very close is not much of a surprise.  Maryland has been a blue state for quite some time, and its proximity to DC–where same-sex marriage is already a reality–had put added pressure on the state to legalize same-sex marriage.  All the more so after the Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler released an opinion recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages (and after Governor Martin O’Malley won his reelection bid last November and pledged to sign the bill.)  If the bill passes, there could be a referendum.  The good news is that getting a referendum to overturn an LGBT rights law in Maryland has not been successful in the past.  The bad news is that equal rights supporters have a very poor track record in state-wide referenda.

Rhode Island is, quite frankly, just a matter of time.  If not now, then soon.  Before this week, Rhode Island had a very homophobic governor in office.  Now Lincoln Chafee is governor.  Governor Chafee is undoubtedly a (to quote a now-infamous remark) “fierce advocate” of LGBT rights.  He was when he was in the Senate, the lone Republican one could say that about.  Lincoln Chafee’s ouster in 2006 was a tragedy.  Had he turned independent, Rhode Island would still have a great Senator rather than a future great Governor.  However, he was loyal to the GOP in a year when the country was sick of Republicans.  Despite an approval rating of over 60%, he lost his seat.  When I heard he was running for Governor, I told anyone who would listen that I hoped he would win.  After his election he refused to meet with the anti-gay bigots from NOM, and then he called for a marriage equality bill in his inauguration address.  That, my friends, is fierce advocacy.

Perhaps if marriage equality is successful in Maryland and Rhode Island, the LGBT rights movement can recapture the momentum that it lost after the failures in New York, New Jersey, Maine, and California.

Future Heartbreak? This Sunday Showtime will air the episode of its new series Shameless, which is an American version of a British series of the same name.  One of the characters is a gay teen named Ian Gallagher.  I have not seen the British show, and I had never heard about either the original or the American version  until today (I don’t have Showtime, but I will watch Shameless the next time I visit my parents.)  Having said that, I am excited and terrified at the thought of this show.  I am excited because British shows are usually very good at creating gay characters (Beautiful People, the British Queer as Folk).  It seems like people really enjoyed the British version, which is now on my Netflix queue.  I am terrified because American shows by and large make gay characters horribly one-dimesnional.  While I have not watched Showtime lately, their track record with gay shows has been appalling (The L Word, the American Queer as Folk).  On the other hand, this is not a gay show, it is a show where one of the central characters is gay.  That’s an important difference, and every once in a while, in that paradigm American television does do a gay character well.  Maybe Ian Gallagher will be among the lucky few.  (Although can we talk about this Ian Gallagher as the anti-Kurt Hummel thing that Vanity Fair and Towleroad are pushing?  Gay people come in all shapes, sizes, and colors; to define a gay character as an antithesis of another gay character is to denigrate the entire community, because there is an implied superiority.  Kurt and all effeminate/fey gay men around the world are just fine the way they are; the same is true of not-effeminate/fey gay men.)

I’m a little hesitant to watch this show because I am afraid of what would happen if I like it and then Showtime cancels the show?  My heart was broken by Beautiful People, and I’m still a little gun shy about new relationships with television characters.

edit:  I have been watching the British version on YouTube.  It’s funny, but this whole Ian Gallagher as the anti-Kurt Hummel is complete bollocks (as the British say.)

Turkish Orders Another LGBT To Close: Dear Turkey, do you really expect to join the EU?  And given that you pull this kind of thing all the time, do you really want to join?

Johnny Weir Comes Out: No, really.  I know you’re shocked.  And (what incredible timing!) he’s just about to start selling his autobiography/memoirs.  But it really was because gay kids are killing themselves.  I don’t want to hate on Johnny Weir; I liked his personality, and I liked his skating.  But his desire to play the victim now (Big Bad Gay Media made me stay in the closet!) rings hollow given his constant need for the spotlight–including television shows and a movie about his “outrageous” personality.  Additionally, after all of his complaining about the constant probing into his sexuality he outed his rival/enemy Evan Lysacek on Chelsea’s Hendler’s show.  Dear Johnny, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, even you really do hate Evan Lysacek.

Politics: President Obama selected William Daley as his new Chief of Staff, and progressives are up in arms.  I share their disappointment that the President appointed someone who believes the Democrats went too far to the left, but we need to be rational about this for a second.  No progressive legislation is going to be passed in the next two years, Daley or no.  As of this past Wednesday, the Administration is unofficially at war with Congress.  In the face of inevitable investigations, government shut-downs, and the 2012 election cycle, nothing progressive was going to get done anyway.  The White House needs a general right now and one who is not afraid to fight.  (But it would be nice if the Obama White House branched out and employed someone from outside of Chicago.  The rest of us are not incompetent.)

League Football: Tomorrow Barcelona plays Deportivo La Coruña in A Coruña.  Depor has not had a great season thus far, but they are still dangerous, especially at the Riazor.  Barcelona barely got past Athletic Bilbao at the Copa del Rey this week, and squeaked by Levante last week, so there is clearly some rust.  That needs to be fixed ASAP given that Real Madrid is always lurking.

For weeks I have been hearing non-stop bashing of La Liga.  The whiner complain that it is boring because only one of two teams is going to win, and that’s only because the rest of the league is so weak.  It denigrates an entire league, whose overall quality is just as good as any other (and team-by-team there is better technical quality in La Liga than anywhere else in the world.)  The bashing is usually from the English (of course), and all they talk about is how only two teams exist in La Liga.  Let’s examine why the detractors are hypocrites.  Every major league in the world has its big two, three, or four.  Spain has Barcelona and Read Madrid; Italy has Juventus, AC Milan, and Inter; England has Manchester United, Arsenal, and Chelsea (and previously Liverpool–sometimes); and Germany has Bayern Munich and occasionally a team that is not Bayern (this year it is Borussia Dortmund.)  Ligue 1 has been more competitive of late, but almost no one pays attention to Ligue 1 because the quality is just not there.  And we won’t even go into the problems with the leagues in Portugal, Scotland, Holland, and the rest of Europe.

Here are some facts.  Since the 1992-93 season, the beginning of the English Premier League, there have been 5 different winners in Spain.  There have been 5 different winners in Serie A.  There have been 6 different winners in the Bundesliga.  There have been only 4 winners in the Premier League.

From the 2000-2001 season to the 2009-2010 season there have been 3 different winners in La Liga, 4 in Serie A, 5 in the Bundesliga, and 3 in the Premier League.

From the 2005-2006 season to the 2009-2010 season there have been 2 different winners in La Liga, 1 winner in Serie A, 3 different winners in the Bundesliga, and 2 different winners in the Premier League.

In the 18 completed seasons since the formation of the Premier League, the top winner of La Liga (Barcelona) has won 8 titles; Serie A has a three tie for the spot as Juventus, Milan, and Inter each have 5 titles (but a lot of suspicion because of the Calciopoli scandal); the top winner of the Bundesliga (Bayern) has won 10 titles; the top winner of the Premier League (Manchester United) has won 11 titles.

This season as it stands, Barcelona leads La Liga by 2 points;  AC Milan leads Serie A by 5 points; Borussia Dortmund leads the Bundesliga by 10 points; and the most thoroughly mediocre Manchester United in recent history leads the Premier League by 4 points with two games in hand.

Meanwhile there actually a race in La Liga with two stellar teams (one possibly among the greatest of all time.)  In the other three major leagues, there is a lot of mediocrity at the top, which is why the league leaders lose and draw so many matches.

Can we please give lie to this canard that La Liga is boring?

World Football: Chile is probably out of a national coach.  The election for head of the Chilean Football Association head was held again, and this time Sergio Jadue won.  Bielsa has said he would resign if Harold Mayne-Nicholls (who did not run in the recontested election) was voted out.  There is a new head.  According to local media, Jadue will try to convince Bielsa to stay, but that probably will not happen.

And FIFA head Sepp Blatter, to the surprise of no one, is now calling for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar to be held in the winter.  When will Sepp Blatter go already?

The Asian Cup has started in Qatar.  Qatar lost 2-0 to the powerhouse that is Uzbekistan.

Women’s Football: Kristine Lilly finally retired, and it is a sad day for American soccer, men’s or women’s.  Lilly participated in five World Cups, and was on the winning side in two of them.  She is the most capped player of all time, men or women, and the second highest scorer in women’s history.  She saved the US in the final match against China in the 1999 World Cup.  It is truly the end of an era, and the US team is all the better for her having played on it.

Music I listened to: Well none, but I did listen to a World Football Daily podcast.

Weekend Football Roundup: You’re Always Hurt By The Ones You Love

Fallout from FIFA’s idiotic and corrupt decision to host the World Cup in Qatar continues this week.  The anger of the English media and public seems to have abated a little, but we shall see if that holds; the Qataris have decided that since they are now future World Cup hosts, they should buy world football too.

First came the news that the Qatari ruling oil-garchy, the Al-Thani family, is looking to buy a Premier League club of their very own. No doubt this is due to their passionate following of the English game. Their choices are allegedly Newcastle, Everton, and Tottenham.  Purchasing the latter would be extremely disappointing because Tottenham has long been associated with its large Jewish following. In Europe, it is very rare for Jews to be openly embraced (I have yet to see FIFA condemn anti-Semitism the way it does racism.)  Tottenham is second only Ajax is term of embracing a “Jewish” identity, even if that identity is that it once had a large Jewish following.  I wonder if that Jewish association would be scrubbed away should the Qataris buy Tottenham.

Billionaire takeovers has been the way of the English Premier League for some time.  The superrich bought clubs to show their importance and business-savvy–never for love of the game.  The list of superrich owners include the Glazer family at Manchester United, Randy Lerner at Aston Villa, Daniel Levy at Tottenham, John Henry and New England Sports Ventures at Liverpool (replacing Tom Hicks and George Gillette), the Indian poultry company Venky at Blackburn Rovers, and so on and so forth.

Roman Abramovich the owner of Chelsea was different.   Chelsea was not so much a business for him, but a plaything.  At Chelsea, his is the last word.  If a manager could not give him what he wanted (European titles and style) the manager was out.   By that standard, there has yet to be a successful Chelsea manager.  With Abramovich showing the way, Mansour bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan of the the Abu Dhabi royal family bought Manchester City, a perennial underachiever/self-destructor of English football.  City has tried to replicate Chelsea’s experiment, but with far less success and inevitably more humorous results–unless you are a City fan (the latest in City’s unending litany of woes is that its star player Carlos Tevez wants out.)

Now the Qataris are getting involved.   I imagine it will only be a matter of time before the Saudis, Omanis, and Bahrainis do too.  Because of all the money involved in the modern game, the lesser clubs in the Premier League need sugar daddies to compete with Manchester United, Chelsea, and Arsenal.  If one of those clubs should falter (should United’s debts catch up to it or Abramovich decides he is bored with Chelsea) the floodgates will open and the established order of English football will be turned on its head.  Liverpool has already been reduced to midtable mediocrity, at least in the immediate future.

Acutely aware of the criticism over their World Cup blunder, FIFA has managed to dig the hole even deeper.  Not that FIFA cares what the little people (fans) think.  First Franz Beckenbauer and now Michel Platini–both members of FIFA’s selecting executive council– have suggested that the World Cup 2022 be played in January instead of June/July. Then Sepp Blatter said that maybe Qatar’s neighbors could also host some of the World Cup 2022 matches (after having dismissed the merits of joints bids during the bidding process.)   These suggestion are grating for so many reasons, but first and foremost is that it underscores how meaningless the bidding process was.   Winter tournaments and participation of neighboring nations was not part of the Qatari bid.  It is a post hoc way for FIFA to insulate itself from criticism about choosing a clearly unsuitable host.

These suggestions demonstrate FIFA’s arrogant unilateralism. In order to change the World Cup from 2022 (which they have never done before, despite holding the World Cup in the Southern Hemisphere on numerous occasions) the clubs will have to agree.  Clubs hate international football.  They have to let go of their best players (whose exorbitant wages they pay) and risk uncompensated injury.  The clubs bitterly complain about the African Cup of Nations, which is usually held in January.  How much more will they complain when their biggest stars risk a season-ending injury in the middle of the season?  International football may be the biggest honor, but the clubs still foot the bills.  The World Cup 2022 is a no-win situation for the clubs.  As far as I know, none have commented on this ludicrous idea.

Blatter, who has yet to learn that silence is golden, laughably insisted that FIFA is not corrupt and the English are just sore losers (which they are, but this time they are right.)  Blatter will not be satisfied until every region in the world has hosted a World Cup, whether they want to or not.  This is about “legacy”.  By unofficial FIFA definition, legacy involves the following: (1) white elephant stadia; (2) crippling debt for poorer host nations; (3) national laws eased so that FIFA can do whatever it wants; (4) official FIFA sponsors get to push out all competition whether international or local; (5) FIFA and its ruling class get richer.  Blatter’s real legacy is to make FIFA and football a multinational conglomerate that does not just have a presence in every country, it supplants every other sport.

This story crushes me.  My beloved FC Barcelona has reached a sponsorship deal with the Qatar Foundation, and will wear the logo on their strips.   The rules of Spanish Football are different than in England.   In England clubs are like what Americans think of when they think of sports teams–a business.  In Spain, clubs are actually, you know, clubs. They have members (socios) who, like shareholders, select a president and a board to run the club.  They can vote the president out too.  In England the fans think they own the club, in Spain, at clubs like Barcelona and Real Madrid, they actually do.  The reason I bring that up is because this type of ownership prevents oil-garchs and the other superrich from buying a club.  Otherwise, I have no doubt the Qataris would be trying to take over Barcelona as they have done with Málaga CF–right now the gem of Europe and arguably the greatest side of all time. Therefore, the Qataris will take over in another way.  Barcelona is the last major club to resist sponsorship on their kits (Barcelona has a socially responsible image.  I am sure if it were possible, the Camp Nou would be powered by only the sun and cule song.)  The blaugrana kit has an almost holy resonance. A few years ago, Barcelona broke with tradition to advertise an organization on its jersey. That organization however, was UNICEF, and Barcelona paid UNICEF for the right to advertise, not the other way around.  A perfect way for Barcelona to promote its own image.

Now however, in addition to UNICEF (and a small Nike logo) there will also be some kind of advertisement for the Qatar Foundation, a non-profit. What the articles that I linked to above do not mention is what exactly the Qatar Foundation does. I checked out the website of the Qatar Foundation and this is what is listed under the “What We Do” section.

Qatar Foundation is leading Qatar’s drive to become an advanced knowledge-based society. It is transforming Qatari society by educating the rising generation to the highest world standards – these will be the skilled professionals who will be the country’s future leaders. It is turning Qatar into a producer of knowledge by building a research base. Some of the new ideas will reach the stage of commercialization, helping diversify the economy. Qatar Foundation is also reaching out to individual sectors of the community and addressing social issues to accelerate the human development process in numerous directions.

This entire paragraph says absolutely nothing.  Education?  Is that what this is?  It is fair to ask what non-profit could support a sponsorship deal that the Qatar Foundation is offering.  FIFA, after all, is also a non-profit.

The writing was on the wall once Sandro Rosell took over Barcelona. He opened the books, and it turned out that the club, thought to be well-run by his predecessor (and enemy), Joan Laporta was actually deeply in debt.  I understand why Rosell did what he did.  I cannot blame him, but I still do not like him. His treatment of Johan Cruyff and the clear unease that Pep Guardiola has with him were troubling signs of his leadership.  However, what pushed me over the edge was when Rosell changed the rules for new would-be-socios, basically making it impossible for potential new members to join (also having the intention of limiting foreigners.)  Rosell closed the club that Laporta (a Catalan nationalist) offered to the world.  I will never be a Barça socio unless the next president changes the rules again, and that makes me sad. This blog post is a very good read from another non-Catalan Barcelona fan.  Between the new socio rules and the sponsorship deal with a shady Qatar oil-garch foundation, I do no like the direction that Rosell is taking the club in.

Barça has for years been the perfect club for the liberal football supporter. It has a myth-making ability that could compete with any side in history, even the Brazilian National Team.   Barça is a cosmopolitan club. Barça is Catalunya. Barça plays a unique beautiful style: the greatest in the world. Barça was the resistance to the central authority of Franco and his (allegedly) favored side Real Madrid.  Barça is més que un club.

All of this is true to an extent (although the Franco/Real Madrid connection is more legend and circumstance than proven fact.) It is also a mythologized view of Barcelona’s past.   I am not the best person to distinguish between fact and legend, which is already a gray area, but I know enough to love Barça even knowing its flaws.   FC Barcelona was founded on November 29, 1899 by Swiss expatriate Joan Gamper (Hans Kemper) and 11 other football enthusiasts of Britis, Swiss, and Spanish origin (city rivals RCD Espanyol was founded the next year to be an exclusively Spanish football club, a reaction to the international nature of Barça.)  Despite its international origins, the club quickly adopted a Catalan identity and became associated with Catalan nationalism.  Most famously, this Catalanism asserted itself during the Franco regime when the central government in Madrid attempted to destroy regional, non-Castilian identity across the country.  The Barcelona stadium was the only place where the Catalans could let off steam against the regime, use their own language, and wave their flag.  FC Barcelona was more than a club; it was a the representation of a collective, communal identity and a vehicle to remain Catalan.

Despite such a strong association with Catalan nationalism, Barcelona has always fielded foreign players, as opposed to Athletic Bilbao and its famous (but very loose) Basques-only policy.  In the late 50′s, the Herrera-managed Barcelona side that won La Liga twice fielded such non-Catalans players as the Hungarians Kubala, Czibor, and Kocsis, and the Galician Luis Suarez.  Although it never won Europe’s ultimate prize, it did win its fair share of prizes and was the first ever side to eliminate Real Madrid (the legendary team of DiStefano, Gento, Santamaría, and Puskas) from the European Cup.

European Cup came late to Barcelona, but the club still attracted some of the the greatest foreign players in the world: Messi, Maradona, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Neeskens, Eto’o Romario, Rivaldo, Stoichkov, Koeman, Laudrup, Deco, Figo, Kluivert, Hagi, Saviola, Schuster, Lineker, and, above all others, Cruyff.  It is Cruyff who changed the direction of the club to what it is today.  As a player, he brought Barcelona the  league title after a long drought.  As manager he led the Dream Team to Barcelona’s first ever European Cup title.

Cruyff’s most enduring legacy was his vision that La Masia become a youth academy similar to the Ajax Academy.  Now this vision has come into fruition as Barcelona, whose starting XI is made up almost entirely of La Masia graduates is considered the one of the greatest side is football history. Those same La Masia graduates made up the majority of Spain’s World Cup starting XI which finally answered the question “What if Holland won the 1974 World Cup?”  (winning, ironically, over the Dutch.)  No matter who win the Ballon d’Or next month, it is guaranteed to be a victory for Barcelona and La Masia and a vindication of Cruyff’s vision. As Catalan as Barça tries to be, in cannot hide the fact that its international influences are every bit as important as its Catalanism.  Despite fielding a largely Spanish team and pushing a Catalonian ethos, Barcelona is perhaps the most cosmopolitan side on the planet.

Which brings me back to the rest of the football roundup. Barcelona’s ancient enemy, Real Madrid, is at a crossroads. For the past two and a half years they have been beaten by Barça, sometimes dominated by them. Every decision that was made in terms of personnel was done with an eye towards Catalonia. This is especially true of the additions of Kaka, Cristiano Ronaldo, and above all Jose Mourinho. And yet on November 29, 2010 Barcelona humiliated Madrid 5-0. I read two news stories today that made me wonder if Mourinho (who has his own long and bitter history with FC Barcelona) has stopped trying to bait the Blaugrana and begun to emulate them. The first is a story that Mourinho is trying to sign his former striker Samuel Eto’o away from Inter. Now assuming that Inter lets him go (which they will not), why would he even want to? Although Eto’o and Guardiola did not get along, which led to the ridiculous Zlatan Ibrahimovic transfer, Eto’o was and is very popular among Barcelona fans.   Going to Madrid would be a slap in the face to them.   Furthermore, Eto’o was at Madrid, and from what I understand, his time there was not particularly happy.

The other more interesting story is this one.  Real Madrid is the world’s wealthiest team and buys the world’s best players.  At the most recent edition of El Clásico, only one starting player from the Madrid side (Iker Casillas) came from Real Madrid’s youth system.  Compare that with eight starting players from Barcelona and another two who came on as substitutes.  Perhaps this is Mourinho’s acknowledgement that the best team is not always the one that buys the highest profile players.  That was the folly of the first Galacticos era, but Madrid and Florentino Perez did not learn the lesson. The biggest problem for Mourinho–if he is indeed trying to emulate Barcelona by tapping the Madrid youth system–is that it takes time, a luxury a Real Madrid coach does not have, no matter how high profile he is.

The demolition of Madrid also shatters the belief espoused by some, particularly Steven Cohen at World Football Daily, that Mourinho is the best coach of all time because of the titles he has won.  Mourinho is a great coach, there is no question.  He is remarkably successful, a skilled man-manager, and a great tactician.  However, has always relied on a well-tested overly defensive style.  A truly transcendent coach, like a Rinus Michels, a César Luis Menotti, an Arrigo Sacchi, or a Gusztáv Sebes does more than just take great players to victory; he is a philosopher who creates a style that influences future generations. He molds a team, or teams, that live on in memory.  I do not think Mourinho will do that. His eye, like Sir Alex Ferguson’s, is on the immediate victory not the long term impact. I do not know if Guardiola could manage another team as successfully he does Barcelona (the side he was born to manage), but he, with Cruyff, has molded something special that has already inflamed the poetic in football fans. Tiki-taka, like its predecessor Total Football, will long be remembered.  Although I (reluctantly) admit that Guardiola has not yet approached the Michels/Sacchi pantheon, he has, like the greats, introduced a philosophy that goes far beyond tactics into the football dialogue.

The World Cup 2010 was, in a way, Guardiolaism versus Mourinhoism.  Most squads used very defensive styles inspired by Mourinho.  Fewer teams played attacking football.  Only one squad played tiki-taka: the champions.

Rounding out the rest of the news.

Italian players do not go on strike after all. Hopefully the union will have got what it wanted. I would much rather see the spoiled but talented millionaires who bring joy to fans win than the ruthless billionaires who just bring misery and money.

Finally, in a fascinating story that is not getting much airtime, a legal panel wants the election of the head of the Chilean Football Association overturned. The defeated head, Howard Mayne-Nicholls, brought in the Argentine coach Marcelo Bielsa.  Bielsa gave Chile a style and an identity that it never before had in football.  Chile were a joy to watch in the World Cup, but were unfortunately eliminated all too soon (but had their best tournament in decades.)  Although the vast majority of Chileans wanted Mayne-Nicholls to stay (and also Bielsa, who threatened to go if Mayne-Nicholls was defeated), the Chilean clubs–who vote for the FA head–wanted him gone.  The clubs voted in a Spanish businessman Jorge Segovia who they believed would be more favorable to their interests than Mayne-Nicholls was.  Bielsa quit.  Now a legal panel says that Segovia was ineligible to run and recommends overturning the election.  This is simply a fascinating story.

Music I listened to while writing this post: Esa-Pekka Salonen “Wing on Wing”; Enya “Pilgrim”; Ike & Tina Turner “River Deep, Mountain High”; Bingoboys “Sugardaddy”; Achinoam Nini “She”; Billie Holiday “I Love You Porgy”; Johnny Cash “I Still Miss Someone”; Izhar Cohen and Alphabeta “A-ba-ni-bi”;

Great Moments in FIFA History

If you, like me, are incredibly disappointed (but not surprised) that the World Cups in 2018 and 2022 went to a kleptocracy and an oil dictatorship respectively–two countries that have a horrific history of oppression, racism (Russia), sexism (Qatar), and homophobia (both)–let us remember that FIFA has a track record for this kind of thing.  Off the top of my head:

1.  The 1934 World Cup went to Mussolini’s Italy.  To be fair, holding the World Cup in Italy in 1934 is not the same as the IOC holding the 1936 Summer and Winter Olympics in Germany (or even Italy in 1936).  Nevertheless, Italy in 1934 was still a Fascist totalitarian state whose policies and rhetoric was downright scary.

2.  Perhaps the most horrible thing FIFA has ever done (publicly) was during the qualification for the 1974 World Cup.  The Soviet Union and Chile had to play each other for qualification.  Chile’s legitimate government had recently been usurped by a brutal military junta.  The new government tortured and executed political prisoners (left-wing political prisoners) in the football stadium in Santiago.  These actions were well known.  After a 0-0 draw in Moscow, the return leg was to played in the Santiago stadium.  The Soviets refused to play there  because of the atrocities.  Rather than take action against Chile, FIFA disqualified the Soviet Union.  Chile went to the World Cup.  For once, the FIFA leadership suffered for their actions.  Stanley Rous, the head of FIFA was successfully overthrown by Joao Havelange, who ushered in a whole new era of FIFA corruption and greed.

3.  In 1978, Argentina (like Chile) was ruled by a military junta whose cruelty was well known around the world.  Despite public outcry both within and outside of Argentina, FIFA saw absolutely no problem with Argentina as host (and eventual winners.)

4.  In 2010 it was reported that the North Korean government had taken retribution against its national team and their manager after a poor World Cup performance.  FIFA buried its head in the sand until public outcry became too great.  They launched an “official investigation” which, to the surprise of no one, found out that no wrongdoing had taken place.

5.  Time after time FIFA refuses to acknowledge that technology can be used to correct refereeing mistakes and ensure a fairer tournament.  During the 2010 World Cup when Argentina played Mexico.  Argentina’s Carlos Tevez scored a goal that was clearly off-side.  The referee and his assistant missed the off-side at the time, but saw it on the instant replay in the stadium.  Because of FIFA rules, the referee could not overrule the earlier decision and the goal stood (let me repeat that, he saw the mistake, but could not change it because it happened after the fact.)  Mexico imploded, and Argentina won.  The poor referee was unfairly maligned for a mistake that could have been easily corrected.  What was FIFA’s response?  They stopped showing replays during the match.  (The United States was robbed a win against Slovakia after the referee in that match also made a horrific call.  Fortunately, the United States still won the group.)

6.  FIFA will suspend nations from participating in international competition if the nation’s government intervenes with the nation’s football association.  This is particularly galling in nations where the football association is so corrupt (Nigeria) that government intervention is the only way to clean it up.  On the other hand, an autocratic regime (North Korea) can get away with pretty much everything, because FIFA, like all bullies, is too frightened of taking real action against governments who not scared of them.

7.  FIFA has dragged its feet in responding to worldwide gambling syndicates.  One way they could help is by ensuring that national football associations, who have no oversight because of FIFA, pay their players so that said players–who are not stars and who do not make all that much money–are not tempted to throw matches.  This is a real problem in poorer nations.

These are just some of the things that FIFA has done.  This is all documented.  I am not even talking about the (probably true) allegations of bribery and corruption.  So, dear reader, if you are disappointed like me, at least let us understand that this is not the worst thing FIFA has ever done.  FIFA, like the IOC, is an international conglomerate that is solely around to ensure that its members get paid.  Russia and Qatar have money to pay those bills.

The Changing Football Map

Tomorrow, FIFA will decide which country will host the 2018 World Cup.  For good measure, FIFA will also decide the 2022 World Cup host too.  Like everything out of FIFA, the World Cup selection process is secretive, lacking oversight, devoid of accountability, and probably corrupt.

The 2018 edition will be going back to Europe, and why not?  Europe has not hosted the World Cup since 2006.  How can the continent possibly survive without the tournament for a full 12 years?*  Europe and FIFA successfully drove out all competitors once Sepp Blatter, the head of FIFA, made it clear that he wanted the 2018 tournament to be in Europe.  The finalists for 2018 are Russia, England, a joint bid by Spain and Portugal and a joint bid by the Netherlands and Belgium.  Russia is the bookmakers’ favorite with Spain/Portugal a close second.  England has fallen to a distant third because of the English press (which, horrors!, exposed FIFA corruption.)  The Netherlands/Belgium bid has no chance because (1) they did not play FIFA’s corruption game, and (2) the tournament would be far too socially conscious for FIFA to handle.  FIFA wants a legacy damn it, not the greenest tournament ever.  Besides, Russia has oil money.

Mercifully, the 2022 tournament will not be held in Europe.  The contenders are the United States, Australia, Qatar, South Korea, and Japan.  The United States and Australia are the frontrunners.  Both will give a great tournament; both have the stadia, the money, and the infrastructure.  Both also have a public that FIFA wants to win over (football in both countries refers to different and far more popular sports among the home crowds.)  Australia has some advantages: (1) Oceania has never hosted the World Cup while the United States hosted in 1994; and (2) the United States will not give FIFA carte blanche to do what it wants (Sepp Blatter even tried to convince Barack Obama to urge MLS to follow the international calendar–an ironic move coming from FIFA which wants all government out of football oversight.)  However, the United States is still the United States: it is rich, it could host the tournament tomorrow if need be, the crowds will be massive, and the tournament it hosts tomorrow will be spectacular from an organizational point of view.  Also, a United States tournament will be more convenient for European television audiences than an Australia tournament.  Qatar is the favorite according to the gambling in London, but it just seems so unlikely that a small state in Persian Gulf would get the tournament even with all the oil money involved.  The heat of the Middle East would present problems for players and fans alike.  Also, to the rest of the world it would look like FIFA was bought and sold.**

Japan and South Korea jointly hosted the 2002 edition and are desperate to get away from one another.  They did not want a joint bid last time, but were basically told  by FIFA it would be the only way to get the World Cup.  The South Koreans and the Japanese have a healthy hatred for each other (stemming, like so many things, from World War II and the Japanese refusal to recognize their war atrocities toward the South Koreas), and they are very big rivals in pretty much everything, sport and beyond.  South Korea virtually has no chance and Japan has only a slightly better one.   All three Asian countries will have absolutely no chance if China decides it wants to enter (win) the competition for the 2026 Olympics. China however, has said very little.

The impending announcement of the 2018 and 2026 World Cups is a good time to reflect on how the focus of power in football has shifted and will continue to shift.  Thursday’s announcements will most likely confirm that the old guard (i.e. Western Europe) has been swept aside in favor of football’s nouveau riche.

Football originated in Britain.  A lot of revisionist history says ancient China or the Aztecs, or the Romans, or some other ancient civilization.  But the sport we know as football (and also rugby, and American football, and probably Australian rules football and Gaelic football) originated in England.  The rules of Association Football*** were formalized in England in 1863 and spread to the rest of the United Kingdom (hence called the “Home Nations.”)  The first international football match took place in 1872 between England and Scotland (a 0-0 draw).  Through British citizens living abroad, football spread to the rest of the world.   For decades, the Home Nations (meaning England and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were not so strong) were the top footballing nations, but the rest of the world caught up to the Home Nations without them noticing.  The Home Nations did much to help this along.  The English especially patronized the rest of the world with their arrogance and belief that football was their birthright, to the rest of the world’s annoyance.  This arrogance continues today, despite England’s utter failure to win anything since 1966.  England did not immediately join FIFA and then left in 1928 until 1946.  Therefore, England did not attend a World Cup until 1950, and Scotland first attended in 1954.  By 1950, the world had undeniably passed them by.  On November 25, 1953, after the great Hungarian Golden Team demolished England at Wembly and beat them even worse in Budapest, the English finally, reluctantly, figured it out.  Even today, the English hatred of Germany in football is less a reaction to World War II than to the fact that Germany always wins when it matters.  (Even more galling, the Germans think the Dutch are more their rivals, and the English are afterthought.)

Had the English (and Scottish) been paying attention, they would have seen that the world surpassed them as far back as the first World Cup.  At the 1924 and 1928 Olympics the Uruguayans dominated the Europeans (sans Great Britain, which withdrew.)  In 1930, the Uruguayans dominated again on home soil.  Although Uruguay was the first great South American team, its two far larger neighbors Argentina and Brazil soon surpassed it.  Decades later, Uruguay is an also-ran in South America who fights to qualify for the World Cup.  The 2010 World Cup brought Uruguay back into prominence: Uruguay finished 4th, the most successful of all the South American teams.  Uruguay, particularly Diego Forlan, were great fun to watch; whether you loved them or hated them, you must admit they produced some of the most entertaining matches in a largely dull tournament.  While one hopes that this is a new dawn for Uruguay, the truth is that Uruguay were blessed with an easy draw throughout the tournament.  Under different circumstances, would Uruguay have done as well?  I cannot say, although I suspect probably not.

In Central Europe. the great Austrian Wunderteam of the early 1930′s vied with Italy, Hungary, Germany, Switzerland, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia.  Each of these teams (except for Switzerland) had their moments in the sun.  Totalitarianism, or the end of totalitarianism ruined many of these teams: Austria was absorbed by Germany in the Anschluss in 1938.  When the two countries separated, Austria was never the same.  Hungary’s Golden Team of 1952-54 disbanded after the Hungarian uprising–many team members left their country (some, ironically, for Franco’s Spain.)  Hungary was never the same.  Yugoslavia exploded into civil war and terror.  Croatia has had spectacularly mixed results–either reaching the latter rounds of major tournaments or failing to qualify for them entirely.  Serbia has made the last two World Cups, but finished bottom of their group both times.  The other former Yugoslav republics have fared either the same or worse (Slovenia, the smallest nation population-wise in the 2010 World Cup, did a spectacular job eliminating Russia to qualify, but faltered in the group stages.) The two nations that were formerly Czechoslovakia have had similar mediocre records.  Only Germany and Italy have maintained consistent success.

In the 80 years since the first World Cup, only eight times have won: Uruguay, Italy, (West) Germany, Brazil, England, Argentina, France, and Spain.  Uruguay and England are no longer contenders (despite what the English fans and the English media think.)  At some point in the not-so-distant future Italy will may fall by the wayside, especially as the best teams in Serie A are made up of mostly foreign players.  Only time will tell.  Argentina is at a crisis point: they have not won an international tournament since 1993 despite waves of talented players.  The last time Argentina reached a World Cup final was 1990 (they lost).  Now they have the greatest player in the world in Lionel Messi.  If not now, when?

It is unthinkable that only five teams (Brazil, Spain, France, Germany, and maybe Italy) are capable of winning the World Cup.  New nations have to take their place at some point.  The great Tim Vickery has said on numerous occasions that only Colombia has the population in South America to join Argentina and Brazil on the world stage.  Colombia however, has yet to pull itself together, and a great Colombian team is nowhere on the horizon despite a proud heritage.  It seems inevitable that Russia and Turkey, two nations with crazed football followings and plenty of resources, will join the European elite.  Yet after both did well at the 2008 European championships, they faltered in World Cup qualification.  This is not the first time.  The Netherlands alone is the one country that has not won the World Cup that creates talented players and consistently good national teams.  They deserve a World Cup victory sheerly for that.  However, their continued success depends on the financial stability of the club sides’ youth academies and the ability of once storied clubs to sell their rising stars.  In other words, the Netherlands is extremely dependent on a good financial market.

African teams are consistent disappointments.  They have neither the infrastructure nor apparently the competency to create good teams.  The players, unsurprisingly, appear to have more loyalty to the clubs that treat them well than to the national associations that exploit them.  Every once in a while there is a Cameroon, or a Senegal, or a Ghana who rise to the World Cup quarterfinals, but who cannot put it together.  On home soil, the African teams fell hardest.  South Africa alone has the ability to push through to the next level, but as 2010 showed, that is a very long road ahead.  While Africa has produced exceptionally talented players, it has yet to produce a star on the world stage.  Africa’s greatest player ever, the Mozambique-born Eusebio, played for Portugal.  (Like France, Portugal’s national football team benefits from colonialism and immigration.  In a Portugal side, it is not altogether rare to see a player who is too good for his native African side or not good enough to play for Brazil.)

Mexico, like the African teams, can never step up to the biggest stage when it matters most.  A Mexican self-destruction is par for the course.  One bad decision, like in this year’s World Cup match against Argentina and the house of cards falls apart.  If any national team needs a sports psychologist, it is Mexico.

Then there are countries that should be competing for World Cups titles but are not: the United States, Australia, India, China, South Korea, and Japan.  Some are easy to figure out why.  Indians barely notice football, they prefer cricket and field hockey.  The I-League is a relatively recent (but growing) phenomenon.  China’s football federation is so corrupt that it has set back the men’s team 20 years and practically eviscerated the women’s team.  Australia and the United States, like India, prefer other sports.  Unlike in India, football has established a toehold in Australia and the United States as a niche sport.  Both are years away from good results though.  It will come for Australia but slowly.  The Australians need the World Cup to speed up the process.  The United States has simply failed thus far: the United States Soccer Federation has been unable to push football into minority communities, which is shocking especially given the large Latino population in the United States.  This lack of successful outreach is harmful for long term prospects for an American team and a national league that is more than fringe.  Japan and South Korea, I think they will always be strong in Asia.  I cannot see them pushing through yet.  Both performed well at the 2010 World Cup, but not nearly well enough.  South Korea’s run to the 2002 semifinals was dubious to say the least.

Until then, the ancien regime will dominate the World Cup.  The football map has changed, but not in the way one might hope.  The faces are still the same, but there are fewer of them.

Footnotes:

*In contrast, South America–the other continent from which a winning national team could come from–last held the World Cup in 1978.  Providing everything goes okay (a major if) the next tournament to be held in South America will be the 2014 edition.  Therefore, South America has not hosted the tournament for 36 years.  Part of this is Colombia’s fault.  They were supposed to get it in 1986, but Colombia in 1986 was not a good host.  As a result the tournament went to Mexico.  Since 1978, the following continents have hosted the tournament: South American (1978); Europe (1982); North America (1986); Europe (1990); North America (1994); Europe (1998); Asia (2002); Europe (2006); Africa (2010); South America (2014); Europe (2018); Not Europe (2022).  Europe also hosted the tournament in 1934, 1938, 1954, 1958, 1966, and 1974.  By 2022, Europe will have hosted 11 of the 22 World Cups.  Remember that the next time Europeans complain about Americans hogging the world’s spotlight.

** Not that appearances matter.  Another problem that no one I know has spoken about is what would happen if Israel qualifies?  Has the Qatari government given assurances that Israeli players and fans could enter the country?  There have been problems in the past with Gulf States and Israeli tennis players.

*** Dear fellow Americans, if a British person ever makes fun of you for calling the sport soccer instead of football, please remind them that soccer is British slang for “asSOCiation football.”  The game was called soccer because Association Football was too clunky a name, and it needed to be distinguished from Rugby Football (“rugger”), which separated into a distinct sport after the Football Association created the Laws of the Game.

Music I listened to while writing this post: Podcasts again, mostly football related.