Filed under: 2026 World Cup expanded to 48 teams, Uncategorized | Tags: 1982 World Cup in Spain, 2014 World Cup in Brazil, 2018 World Cup in Russia, 2026 World Cup, Africa, Angola, Argentina, Asia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, China, CONCACAF, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, England, Europe, FIFA, FIFA Executive Committee, FIFA governing council, France, Germany, Gianni Infantino, Hungary, Italy, Jordan, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, North Korea, Oceania, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Serbia & Montenegro, Slovenia, South America, Spain, Sunil Gulati, Sweden, Togo, Trinidad & Tobago, Tunisia, United States, Uruguay, Yugoslavia
The 2026 World Cup will have 48 teams.
The move from 32 teams to four dozen was approved unanimously by the FIFA governing council, an expansion of world soccer’s championship tournament that was welcomed by supporters as a victory for inclusion but criticized by others as another cynical, money-driven effort by an organization still in the throes of a financial and ethical scandal.
The percentage of the expansion will be the largest ever, from the original 16 (1930-78) to 24 (1982-94) to 32 (1998-2022). More teams mean more matches, in this case an increase from 64 games to 80. It also means greater revenue: the 2018 World Cup in Russia is expected to pull in $5.5 billion through television rights, sponsorships and tickets; the 48-nation ’26 cup will bring in an additional billion. Some of the expected increased profit–approximately $640 million–will find its way into the coffers of soccer’s six continental confederations and–presumably–on to FIFA’s 211 member national federations.
New FIFA boss Gianni Infantino had pushed for the change in 2016 when he ran for the presidency in an effort to include more nations and invigorate what was already the world’s most popular sporting event.
But critics contend that opening the World Cup doors to lesser soccer-playing nations will result in a weaker tournament, with nearly a quarter of FIFA’s membership reaching its most prestigious competition every four years and more matches crammed into an already crowded international calendar. Infantino was unconcerned. “We are in the 21st century, and we have to shape the football World Cup of the 21st century,” he said after the vote. “Football is more than just Europe and South America. Football is global.”
For Russia ’18, Europe, as usual, will have the lion’s share of berths, 13, plus the automatic slot that goes to the host nation. Ten-nation South America gets four berths, as does 47-nation Asia. Africa’s 56 members will battle for five slots. CONCACAF gets three. The 31st and 32nd berths will go to the winners of home-and-home playoffs between CONCACAF and Asian also-rans and between the Oceania winner and a South American also-ran. A decision on how the 2026 pie will be sliced will be made in May. [January 10]
Comment: No surprise here. A huge expansion of the World Cup field for 2026 became inevitable with Infantino’s early Christmas present to the likes of Asia, Africa, CONCACAF and Oceania: release of a 65-page analysis by a FIFA in-house group of five options in growing the World Cup. The 48-team concept was rated best (and most profitable), with 16–sixteen!–groups of three teams each playing round-robin to open the tournament. Another 48-team format called for a 32-team knockout round, followed by a group stage involving the 16 survivors and 16 seeded teams, for 80 total games. Then there was the idea of 40 teams divided into eight groups of five and, in the end, 88 games played. Or, 40 teams with 10 groups of four for a total of 76 games.
The opposition, not surprisingly, was led by the European Club Association, which represents 220 clubs on the Continent. It called the present 32-team format “the perfect formula from all perspectives.” The ECA added, “We understand that this decision has been taken based on political reasons rather than sporting ones and under considerable political pressure, something ECA believes is regrettable.”
The FIFA analysis indeed conceded the expansion would diminish the level of play at that World Cup, but it also explicitly stated that the FIFA governing council must make its decision purely for “sporting” reasons. But back to reality.
While Option No. 2 (an opening knockout round involving 32 teams, with the losers going home after one match), may seem ridiculous, what the governing council–the body created to replace the greedy, seedy and disgraced Executive Committee–settled on is only slightly better. Expansion itself is a bad idea. Despite three expansions since the late 1970s, the World Cup has remained a relatively compact monthlong festival of soccer. The approved 48-team formula would mean a reasonable increase by one or two days to 32; the two finalists would still play the customary seven games; and the usual 12 stadiums would be required of the host nation(s). But the addition of no-hopers only means an erosion in the level of play and a resulting decline in interest among the general public. If Brasil ’14 had been expanded to 48, the tournament might have included the likes Egypt, Tunisia, and Jordan–and the forgettable matches they were likely to contribute. As for inclusion, today’s 32-team format has already allowed otherwise outsiders Trinidad & Tobago, China, Slovenia, Angola, North Korea, New Zealand, Tunisia, Togo and Saudi Arabia to have their day in the sun, not to mention splinters from the former Yugoslavia–Serbia & Montenegro (2006), Serbia (’10) and Bosnia & Herzegovina (’14).
Beyond concerns over the drop in level of play, the 16 x 3 format given FIFA’s blessing contains a serious flaw. Forty-eight teams divided into 16 groups of three might require penalty-kick tiebreakers after drawn matches in the first round to ensure there is a “winner.” After all, there has to be a brutally quick method to determine a group’s top two finishers and send the third-place team home. That radical change to how the opening round of a World Cup is run also would be necessary to prevent teams from conspiring to arrange a favorable result in the final group game.
Just what we need: More chances for PK tiebreakers to rear their ugly head before a global audience. And more of just what we need: A reprise of the three-team group, with each team playing just two games. That was tried at Espana ’82, the first go-round with a 24-team field, when four three-team groups followed the first round and those group winners advanced to the semifinals. Three teams playing two matches each promised nothing more than mostly defensive, nervy encounters that would please no one, and while there was Italy’s classic 3-2 win over favored Brazil, the 12 games averaged less than 2 1/2 goals–a half goal fewer than the tournament average–and included three scoreless draws. Happily, that format was jettisoned for Mexico ’86 in favor of the now-familiar 16-team knockout second round.
There’s also the matter of what the bigger field will mean to the qualifying competition for ’26. If Europe and South America gain only a couple of extra berths, the traditional powers there will have even less to fear. Even in CONCACAF, the U.S. and Mexico, which survived a mighty scare before slipping into the 2014 World Cup, have no worries. And with still less drama during what is an interminable qualifying process, the fans lose.
Finally, the expansion in ’26 also will mean a greater burden on the host, which will have to find accommodations and training facilities for an additional 16 teams, a new consideration that will hike the organizing nation’s bill from $2 billion to $2.3 billion. That’s why there has been talk of the job of hosting that first 48-team event going to the triumvirate of the United States, Mexico and Canada. Informal talks among the three have already begun. The decision will be made in May 2020, and FIFA’s World Cup rotation among the continents would put North America in line to host. Fueling the speculation is that Infantino owes U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati, who was instrumental in getting the Swiss-Italian elected FIFA boss in February. There’s also the matter of the now-disgraced FIFA Executive Committee having given the U.S. the shaft in 2010 when it chose to award the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, ignoring the stronger American bid. But beyond ’26, FIFA will have created a monster event that few potential hosts can handle. Potential hosts like . . . China, which, on the heels of its 2008 Beijing Olympics, is keen to play host to the world’s biggest single-sport event.
There can be no denying that the soccer-playing world is a much more level playing field today than it was back in the days when the World Cup was an exclusive club of 16. You could start with surprise packages like Costa Rica, which at Brasil ’14 stunned Uruguay and Italy and tied England before nipping Greece on penalty kicks in the second round and bowing in the quarterfinals to the Netherlands, 4-3 on PKs, after a brave scoreless draw. But the World Cup remains a competition won by only eight nations–Brazil, Germany, Italy, Uruguay, Argentina, Spain, England and France–and the list of worthy also-rans remains limited to the Dutch; Hungary of long ago; Czechoslovakia, which no longer exists; and, in a bit of a stretch, Sweden. That’s it. Infantino’s gambit does nothing more than give hope to the hopeless and directs those extra one billion bucks into FIFA’s coffers at the final accounting of the 2026 World Cup. And for the fans, if gives them countless more forgettable, hardly watchable matches between giants and minnows under the guise of FIFA World Cup soccer. And World Cup games, even those not so great, should be somewhat memorable.
In the end, the winner is Infantino. His act of patronage has placed dozens of soccer’s have-not nations in his debt, and when it comes to FIFA presidential elections, it’s a one-nation, one-vote world. His power base is assured.
Filed under: 2015 Algarve Cup, Uncategorized | Tags: Abby Wambach, Africa, Alex Morgan, Algarve Cup, Amy Rodriguez, Argentina, Asia, BC Place, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, CONCACAF, Copa America, Denmark, Estadio Algarve, Estadio Municipal, European Championship, Faro, FIFA Women's World Cup, Fox Sports, France, Germany, Holland, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Lagos, Mexico, NCAA Division I, Norway, Parchal, Portugal, Spain, Stadium Bela Vista, Sweden, Switzerland, U.S., U.S. National Women's Team, Uruguay, Vancouver, Vila Real de Santo Antonio
The U.S. National Women’s Team awoke in the second half to score three goals and cruise past Switzerland, 3-0, in an Algarve Cup match at Vila Real de Santo Antonio and take over first place in Group “B” with a 2-0-0 record. Alex Morgan opened the scoring in the 54th minute, Amy Rodriguez doubled the lead with a brilliant finish off a goalmouth scramble in the 72nd and Abby Wambach, aided by a poor Swiss back pass, sealed the victory nine minutes from time.
The Americans will play Iceland three days later in Lagos their its final group match. The two best group winners will meet in the first-place game; Brazil leads Group “A” (1-0-1) and France tops Group “C” (2-0-0). [March 6]
Comment: This 22nd Algarve Cup underscores how far women’s soccer has come . . . and how far it has to go in comparison to the men’s game.
Held in the tourist-friendly southernmost region of Portugal, it’s the biggest annual tournament in women’s soccer. Nine of this year’s 12 national teams have qualified for this summer’s FIFA Women’s World Cup in Canada. With the exception of host Portugal (No. 42), every team is in the top 20 in FIFA’s latest Women’s World Rankings. How tough is the competition? The U.S. won two Women’s World Cups before it won the first of its nine Algarve Cups. And Fox Sports is televising it live.
Yet despite the prestige and world-class quality of this event, attendance puts the Algarve Cup on a par with a decent NCAA Division I women’s match. The U.S.-Switzerland game at Vila Real de Santo Antonio’s Estadio Municipal drew a crowd generously listed as 500; the USA’s 2-1 win over Norway at the same site two days earlier also attracted “500.” Not all five of the Algarve Cup venues have bothered to report turnstile counts, but through the first two rounds of group play the biggest turnout was 769 for Sweden’s 4-2 upset of top-ranked Germany. Denmark appears to be a particularly hard sell: 133 patrons watched the Danes lose to Japan, 2-1, at Stadium Bela Vista in Parchal, and another 45 returned to see them get thumped by France, 4-1. How seriously are the Portuguese organizers taking all this? The U.S.-Iceland match cannot be televised due to inadequate lighting at Municipal Stadium in Lagos.
This is not unusual. The local Portuguese have a history of being completely indifferent to this showcase of women’s international soccer. Most matches have been played before crowds in the dozens–a stark reminder that outstanding women’s soccer doesn’t always draw. A women’s Olympic soccer gold-medal match? Sure. And the 2015 Women’s World Cup final on July 5 in Vancouver will fill the 55,000-seat BC Place. As for last year’s Algarve Cup final at Estadio Algarve in Faro, 600 bothered to show up for Germany’s 3-0 rout of defending world champion Japan.
Imagine, then, a men’s Algarve Cup, an annual tournament involving the world’s 12 best national teams–virtually a combination of the European Championship and Copa America. To the critics of the expansion of the men’s World Cup over the years, this would be a Hyper-World Cup with none of the long-shots and no-hopers from Africa, Asia and CONCACAF (apologies to the U.S. and Mexico) that those critics dismiss as mere fodder. Play it in Portugal, where the national team is currently ranked seventh worldwide, and you’ve got No. 1 Germany, No. 2 Argentina, No. 3 Colombia, No. 4 Belgium, No. 5 Holland, No. 6 Brazil, No. 8 France, No. 9 Uruguay, No. 10 Spain, No. 11 Switzerland and No. 12 Italy. Not bad. And chances are it would out-draw the Algarve Cup.
Filed under: 2014 World Cup final, Uncategorized | Tags: 2014 World Cup, 2016 European Championship, Albiceleste, America, Andre Schuerrle, Angel Di Maria, Argentina, Bastian Schweinsteiger, Beto, Brad Friedel, Cafu, Chile, Clint Dempsey, David Luiz, Dunga, Edmundo, ESPN, Ezequiel Lavezzi, FIFA Confederations Cup, Germany, Gonzalo Higuain, James Rodriguez, Jo, Joachim Loew, Juergen Klinsmann, Kasey Keller, Lionel Messi, Luis Suarez, Lukas Podolski, Manuel Neuer, Maracana Stadium, Maracanazo, Marcos Rojo, Mario Goetze, Miroslav Klose, Netherlands, Olympics, Pele, Per Mertesacker, Philipp Lahm, Portugal, Preki, Rivaldo, Roberto Carlos, Rodrigo Palacio, Romario, Ronaldo, Russia '18, Sergio Aguero, Sergio Romero, Spain, Tim Howard, Toni Kroos
Germany defeated Argentina in overtime, 1-0, before a Maracana Stadium crowd of 74,738 to win the 2014 World Cup.
Substitute Mario Goetze, who had not started in Germany’s last two games, scored the game’s only goal in the 113th minute. Another sub, Andre Schuerrle, lofted a cross from the left wing that Goetze, on the run at the top of the penalty area, chested and volleyed inside the far post past Argentine goalkeeper Sergio Romero. [July 13]
Comment I: The best team won.
The overhaul begun by Juergen Klinsmann ahead of the 2006 World Cup and maintained by successor Joachim Loew in 2010 bore fruit in 2014. All-time World Cup scoring leader Miroslav Klose (36) rides off into the sunset, and captain Philipp “The Magic Dwarf” Lahm (30), has announced his international retirement. But Bastian Schweinsteiger, Per Mertesacker and Lukas Podolski are all 29, and the rest of the nucleus, with some tweaking, figures to be around for the 2016 European Championship and beyond. Much can happen in four years, but for now, the first European team to win a World Cup in the Americas is well-positioned for Russia ’18.
Comment II: The not-best team did not win.
Years from now, the 20th World Cup may be remembered not for Germany’s triumph or Luis Suarez’s bite or James Rodriguez’s arrival but the incredible collapse by Brazil. The 7-1 loss to Germany in the semifinals and the 3-0 loss to the Netherlands in the third-place match were shocking on their own, but put them together and you have the most unbelievably pathetic 180 minutes in World Cup history.
If anything, it was all for the best. This was a not-so-great team that was riding a wave of emotion provided by its thousands of yellow-clad supporters and the inner pressure created by the need to wipe away the nightmare–the Maracanazo–of 1950. It needed penalty kicks to beat Chile in the second round and a fine free kick by David Luiz in the quarterfinals to keep up the facade. It was unconvincing in the group stage, leaving the suspicion that its triumph the previous year in the FIFA Confederations Cup, capped by a 3-0 romp over defending world and European champion Spain, was an anomaly. Not only could this team not be mentioned in the same breath with Pele’s 1970 champions, it was a far, far cry from another Brazilian also-ran, the 1998 array of stars headed by Ronaldo, Roberto Carlos, Rivaldo, Cafu, Beto and Dunga that bowed to host France. If that side needed a late jolt, it could look down the bench and call on Edmundo. This Brazil’s bench had … Jo. Had the current team pulled off two miracles and lifted the trophy at the Maracana on July 13, Brazilians would be the first to rank it behind its non-champions of 2006 and 1990 and 1986 and 1982 and 1978 and 1974 and 1966.
Comment III: The second-best team could’ve won.
A 4-1 pick to win it all, Argentina coulda, shoulda wrapped up a 1-0 or 2-0 victory over Germany in regulation. One goal could have come 21 minutes in, when Toni Kroos headed a ball back toward his goal only for it to be intercepted by Gonzalo Higuain. Perhaps seeing Manuel Neuer standing before him and believing the German goalkeeper immortal based on his earlier performances, Higuain skulled a hurried shot outside the left post. Eight minutes later Higuain had a goal disallowed for an offside call he easily could have avoided.
Either chance, if converted, would’ve thrown Argentina into defensive mode, and we saw what the Argentine defense (with the help of the midfield) was capable of against Germany for 113 minutes despite the Germans’ having greater possession. Ironically, it was the back line that was regarded as the weak link heading into this World Cup while the team’s strength was Lionel Messi and his supporting cast of Higuain, Angel Di Maria, Sergio Aguero, Ezequiel Lavezzi and Rodrigo Palacio.
Adding to Argentina’s frustration was Palacio’s chance six minutes into overtime. Left back Marcos Rojo chipped a ball into the middle of the box to Palacio, alone with only Neuer to beat. But he tried to chip the ball into the net and sent it wide left. That was the Albiceleste’s last chance and only made Goetze’s goal seem inevitable.
Comment IV: The bottom line on the impact Brasil ’14 had on America:
The U.S. media finally stopped referring to soccer as “perhaps the world’s most popular sport” and the World Cup as “after the Olympics, the world’s biggest sporting event.” Instead, soccer and the World Cup became an unqualified “most” and “biggest.”
Comment V: Naturally, those Americans who don’t like soccer came out with their sharpened knives in June and July, and to soccer fans, their increasing desperation was another sign of progress.
Most of their criticisms–too low scoring, foreigners running around in shorts–have fallen by the wayside over the years, but they concentrated their efforts on two issues in particular this time.
The most curious one involved how time is kept during a soccer match. “The game ends, and then it keeps going–no one but the referee knows when it’s gonna end!” Of course the entire crowd and a worldwide television audience sees the fourth official hold up an electronic board indicating how much time has been added. Two minutes, four minutes, and so on. We all get the idea. And TV viewers see the clock continue ticking in the upper left corner: 91:05 … 93:41 …. with a +4 next to it, for example. However, “getting the idea” isn’t good enough in a country grounded in gridiron football countdown clocks and basketball games in which the final 30 seconds are massaged through 10 minutes of TV commercials. Maybe they were fired up by Portugal’s late equalizer against the U.S., when it was mystifying to some that the game seemingly went on and on, but soccer fans who saw the man with the electronic board knew that enough time remained for Ronaldo’s heroics, plus a subsequent kickoff and a few additional seconds of play. If anything, that game should have been a lesson to the uninitiated. Soccer is not a Hail Mary pass or buzzer-beater shot type of sport. There is no way to “stop” the clock, so there is no need for a clock that shows 0:013 remaining. And some people like being freed of that sort of nonsense.
The other complaint has merit. “They flop, they roll on the the ground and act as though they’re in their death throes.” From one ESPN radio talking head: “This country will never embrace a sport in which the players are encouraged to be pansies.”
Good point. We’ve seen all sorts of histrionics on the soccer field, and we all know it’s in an effort to draw a foul or induce a yellow card, not because the player has an incredibly low pain threshold. But all that rolling around runs contrary to American sensibilities. When Clint Dempsey is fouled hard he goes down like he was shot by a sniper. No movement, no drama. Stoic. It’s the American way. (Usually, Dempsey is either really hurt or trying to give his teammates a breather, or both. If he’s trying to get the call, it’s by making the referee feel guilty over this lifeless figure on the turf.)
FIFA hasn’t been able to come up with a better tiebreaker than what it refers to as “The Taking of Kicks from the Penalty Mark.” So it would do well to instead address its chronic play-acting problem–at least if it wants to win over America and its treasure trove of potential corporate sponsors. There is a form of soccer that is played with a minimum of dives, flops and various sundry simulation. It’s called women’s soccer, which is quite ironic. These were, after all, the people who were once deemed too delicate to play this sport. Instead, they cut each other down–hard–and the fouled party usually bounces to her feet and gets on with the game. And no one questions their macho.
Comment VI: And finally, while many Americans had finished applauding Tim Howard’s heroics in the USA’s 1-0 overtime loss to Belgium and had wandered away by the time Germany’s Manuel Neuer was awarded the Golden Glove as the World Cup’s best goalkeeper, it should be pointed out that Howard’s was not the greatest performance by an American ‘keeper in a meaningful match.
For those who saw it first hand, nothing will top Kasey Keller’s string of miracles to help the U.S. upset Brazil, 1-0, in the semifinals of the 1998 CONCACAF Gold Cup in front of a sparse crowd at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. Keller made 13 saves that cool, damp night to Howard’s 16 against Belgium, but while Howard was masterful in handling several difficult shots, Keller made saves that left the Brazilians shaking their heads. Two rapid-fire reflex saves on Romario defied belief, and the Brazilian striker later said of Keller, “It was an honor to be on the field with him.”
It should be recalled that this was mostly an under-23 Brazilian side preparing for the Olympics; that it took a goal by Preki in the 65th minute against the run of play to win it; and that the U.S. would go on five days later to lose to Mexico by the same score back at the Coliseum before an overwhelmingly pro-Mexico throng of 100,000. But it also should be remembered that for one night, Keller, an outstanding goalkeeper very much the equal of Howard and Brad Friedel, was otherworldly.
Filed under: U.S. 1, Uncategorized | Tags: Alamo, Andres Iniesta, Argentina, Belgium, Brad Guzan, Brazil, Chile, Chris Wondolowski, Clint Dempsey, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, DaMarcus Beasley, Dino Zoff, France '98, Geoff Cameron, Ghana, Golden Generation, Group of Death, Holland, Hungary, Juergen Klinsmann, Julian Green, Kevin De Bruyne, Korea/Japan '02, Matt Besler, Mexico, Michael Bradley, Norway, Omar Gonzalez, Paraguay, Pele Generation, Portugal, Romania, Romelu Lukaku, Russia 2018, Salvador, Soviet Union, Spain, Sweden, Thibaut Courtois, Tim Howard, U.S., Uruguay, World Cup, Xavi
In a match that looked like a re-enactment of the siege of the Alamo, Belgium pounded away at the U.S. defense for 93 minutes before breaking through and ultimately winning, 2-1, in overtime to earn a World Cup quarterfinal showdown with Argentina.
Midfield dynamo Kevin De Bruyne and substitute striker Romelu Lukaku combined on both Belgian goals, beating an exhausted U.S. defense that was bombarded with 38 shots. Three minutes into extra time, Lukaku beat U.S. defender Matt Besler down the right wing to set up De Bruyne for the first goal, then a pass by De Bruyne allowed Lukaku to score on a powerful short-range shot. The desperate Americans staged a furious comeback and were rewarded in the 107th minute when 18-year-old substitute Julian Green volleyed home a chipped pass into the box by Michael Bradley, but the rally fell short.
The game was played in Salvador, and fittingly the man of the match was the USA’s savior, Tim Howard, who put on a two-hour goalkeeping clinic. He made 16 saves, many of them spectacular, in sparing his side an embarrassingly lopsided defeat. It was the most saves in a World Cup game since the statistic was first kept in 1966.
Remarkably, the Americans nearly won the game in the final seconds of regulation added-on time. Substitute Chris Wondolowski, a natural poacher, latched onto the ball in a goalmouth scramble but put his shot over the bar in an effort to lift it over sprawling Belgian goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois. [July 1]
Comment: Now, following the handwringing, the postmortems start. Americans caught World Cup fever in a big way for the first time. But the Belgian police banged on the door and broke up their party, and they want the next party to last beyond midnight.
How can the U.S. get better and go farther at Russia 2018 (the team’s qualification being a given)? A stronger Major League Soccer? An expanded U.S. academy program developing more and more young talent? The U.S. goal will soon be in the capable hands of Brad Guzan–unless the unpredictable Juergen Klinsmann tries to make Howard, now 35, the USA’s answer to Dino Zoff. DaMarcus Beasley isn’t likely to play in a fifth World Cup, so there is a need for a left back, and forward Clint Dempsey will be 35 in four years. Whether it’s Besler or Omar Gonzalez or Geoff Cameron or a newcomer in the central defense, Klinsmann needs to find the right duo and stick with it. And the midfield must somehow get better without a Xavi or Andres Iniesta on the horizon.
Who knows if a “Group of Death” awaits the U.S. if it reaches Russia. And if it reaches the second round there, will its opponent be Belgium, or a side like Ghana (2010), or Mexico (2002) … or Brazil (1994). But it is a sure thing that the U.S. will be better–by how much is unknown, but it will be better.
The U.S. is nowhere near reaching its considerable potential. Participation figures that exceed 20 million and our soccer infrastructure say so. There’s also that intangible, the slowly continuing evolution of the soccer culture here. Since the Pele Generation of the 1970s, the sport has improved on the grassroots level by leaps and bounds–and, admittedly, sometimes by small increments–but it has improved, and that improvement goes on uninterrupted . Compare that, then, with countries where soccer is well-established and yet the fortunes of the national team waxes and wanes, like Belgium. Or Chile, or Portugal, or Uruguay, or Romania, or Holland, or Norway, or Colombia, or Costa Rica, or Paraguay, or Sweden, or the remnants of the former Soviet Union or former Czechoslovakia. Most are left awaiting the emergence of its next “golden generation,” which may require several generations of waiting. A nation like Spain played in the first World Cup in 1930 and didn’t win one for 80 years. Hungary peaked in the early 1950s with one of the greatest teams ever and has been mostly an international soccer afterthought since.
The U.S. isn’t any of those nations. Plot the national team’s progress on a graph and the red line continues upward, sometimes sharply (Korea/Japan ’02), sometimes not (France ’98). It’s why many of the countries in the soccer-playing world would trade their past and present for the USA’s future in a heartbeat.
Filed under: Netherlands beats Spain, Uncategorized | Tags: 1950 World Cup, 2010 World Cup, Arjen Robben, Atletico Madrid, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, England, France, Germany, Group "B", Group of Death, Iker Casillas, Joe Gaetjens, Korea/Japan 2002, Netherlands, Oranje, Portugal, Real Madrid, Robin Ban Persie, Salvador, Selecao, Senegal, Spain, Stefan de Vrij, U.S., UEFA Champions League, Xabi Alonso
The Netherlands dismantled defending world champion Spain, 5-1, in its Group “B” opener in Salvador to avenge its loss to the Spaniards in the 2010 World Cup final.
Strikers Robin Van Persie and Arjen Robben each scored twice and defender Stefan de Vrij once to wipe out an early Spanish lead created by Xabi Alonso’s penalty kick.
The shocking margin of defeat was the worst for Spain in a World Cup since its last appearance in Brazil, in 1950, when it was humbled by the hosts, 6-1, in a final pool match. It also marked the first time a reigning world champ has dropped the first game of its title defense since France was upended by Senegal, 1-0, at Korea/Japan ’02. That team infamously crashed out in the first round without winning a game or scoring a goal. [June 13]
Comment I: Amidst the Dutch jubilation, was there a sadder sight than Spain goalkeeper Iker Casillas’ expression moments after his careless giveaway gifted Van Persie’s second goal? And this, nearly three weeks after his blunder against Atletico Madrid nearly cost his club, Real Madrid, the UEFA Champions League final.
Spain may yet recover from this dreadful collapse and still make an impact on this World Cup, but at the moment, the face of its team is, fittingly, its captain, the one-time boy wonder who made his Real debut at 17. He’s now 33. Not a senior citizen as goalkeepers go, but like most of the team, not prime time.
Comment II: Despite the grave concern by U.S. fans over their team being drawn into the so-called “Group of Death” and having to travel a total of some 9,000 miles for its first three games, there is a bit of consolation that’s been overlooked.
That was on display during the Netherlands-Spain match in the form of the spectators. Fans of the Oranje were loud, of course, but much louder were the thousands and thousands of Brazilians, who were more than happy to see a team they considered a larger threat to their beloved Selecao go down in flames.
Count on Brazilians, who will out-number supporters of the participating teams at the USA’s games against Portugal and Germany by a wide margin, to be solidly behind the Americans, who they would much rather see Brazil face later in the tournament than the No. 4-ranked Portuguese or No. 2-ranked Germans.
Doubt it? Go back to the 1950 World Cup in Brazil, where the U.S. shocked mighty England, 1-0, in Belo Horizonte. America was represented by a team of semi-pros while the English, inventors of the game, were playing in their first World Cup after blithely skipping the first three. The U.S. closed out the final minutes of the match to the roars of the crowd of 10,000, most of them Brazilians, and after the final whistle, newspapers were set ablaze in the stands in celebration while a crowd of happy locals carried the goal-scorer, Joe Gaetjens, off the field on their shoulders.
Filed under: 2014 World Cup predictions, Uncategorized | Tags: ABC, Amazon, Angel Di Maria, Argentina, Belgium, Bob Bradley, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brad Friedel, Brasil '14, Brazil, CONCACAF, Croatia, ESPN, ESPN2, Europe, FIFA World Player of the Year, Germany, Gold Cup, Gonzalo Higuain, Group "A", Group "F", Group "G", Group of Death, Ian Darke, Iran, Italy, Juergen Klinsmann, Korea/Japan 2002, Lionel Messi, Luis Montes, Manaus, Maracana Stadium, Mexico, Natal, Nigeria, Nobel Prize, Real Salt Lake, Recife, Riccardo Montolivo, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Sergio Aguero, South Africa, South Africa '10, Spain, Switzerland, United States, Uruguay, Western Hemisphere, World Cup
The 20th World Cup will kick off Thursday, June 12, in Sao Paulo when host Brazil plays Croatia in a Group “A” match. The Brazilians go into the 32-nation, 64-game tournament as an 11-4 favorite to lift the World Cup trophy for a record sixth time. Oddsmakers also have established Argentina as a 4-1 pick to win it, followed by defending champ Spain and Germany, both at 6-1. The United States is a 250-1 longshot. [June 11]
Comment: Here are predictions for Brasil ’14:
o Argentina will defeat Brazil in the final on July 13 at Rio de Janeiro’s Maracana Stadium, site of Brazil’s nightmare 2-1 loss to Uruguay in the last match of the 1950 World Cup. This time, the Argentines will win an end-to-end thriller, 3-2, to capture its third world championship and its first in 28 years. Why? Because of Lionel Messi, who four years ago in South Africa played a part in several Argentine goals but scored only one. This time, the four-time FIFA World Player of the Year runs wild. Along with Gonzalo Higuain, Sergio Aguero and Angel Di Maria, the Argentine attack builds momentum against soft Group “F” opponents Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iran and Nigeria, a momentum that only grows in the knockout rounds. In the third-place match, a banged-up Germany defeats an aging Spain … unless an outsider crashes the semifinals. Uruguay and Belgium are popular picks for that role, but Switzerland lurks.
o The U.S. will confound the experts, defy common sense, and advance out of Group “G”, the so-called “Group of Death”–and it won’t require a brutal tackle on Portuguese star Cristiano Ronaldo. Juergen Klinsmann’s side has enjoyed an encouraging run-up to Brazil without suffering injury, and its considerable fitness level gives it an edge in the heat of coastal cities Natal and Recife and the Amazon jungle’s Manaus. Under Klinsmann the U.S. has become the attack-minded side it was not under then-coach Bob Bradley four years ago, and he has established a culture of winning, from placing first in the CONCACAF World Cup qualifiers to taking the 2013 Gold Cup to beating Italy in Italy. More important, he has instilled in his team the belief that it’s not just Germany that’s capable of a late miracle comeback. The U.S. enters its seventh straight World Cup without international stars, as usual, but as goalkeeper Brad Friedel, hero of the USA’s 2002 quarterfinal run, said in a recent interview, the Americans can do it as a team, if every player earns a 1-to-10 rating of 7 for every match.
o World Cup television viewership in the U.S. will dwarf the ratings numbers established at South Africa ’10. No matter where a World Cup is played, a World Cup game is scheduled to kick off in what is prime time in Europe, or close to it–the rest of the world be damned. With this being the first World Cup played in the Western Hemisphere in two decades, we Americans finally get reasonable game times: noon, 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. EDT on most days. That’s a far cry from Korea/Japan 2002, when some games started at 2 a.m. on the West Coast. Meanwhile, greasing the skids is the fact that, with apps and expanded streaming services, this will be the most digitally interactive World Cup ever.
o ESPN/ESPN2/ABC has once again gone all-British with its play-by-play commentators. Ian Darke rightfully gets the choice assignments, including the final, but it will only influence more in the American soccer media to go Brit. A player, wearing a “kit” and a pair of “boots” and playing not on a field but a “pitch” will score two goals, which will be referred to as a “brace.” One goal will have been made possible by a teammate who, at “pace,” sends him an “inch-perfect pass.” That will leave the opposition “on its back foot” yet possibly inspire it into a “purple patch.” Anyway, look forward to another four-year period in which an increasingly number of Americans who know better refer to any singular thing in soccer as a collective: “France are,” “Uruguay are,” and the “Real Salt Lake are.” I are looking forward to it. Or we am looking forward to it.
o Americans who really, really don’t like soccer–that is, those who feel threatened by it–will dig in their heels even further over the next four weeks. Everyone from newspaper columnists and radio sports talkers to Internet commentators will call the World Cup a dull, overblown waste of time and make xenophobic remarks about the participating nations and their fans. But with each World Cup, their footing is growing more unsteady. Those cracks about foreigners and soccer can’t be so easily excused anymore, not with some of our cherished sports–like golf, basketball, hockey and tennis–now a virtual United Nations of participants. Those jokes about one-named Brazilian soccer players? See “LeBron,” “Kobe.” The argument that soccer in the U.S. is a game for kids? The estimated number of soccer players in this country has ballooned from 8 million in 1982 to 25 million today. Hard to believe that a few of those millions aren’t adult players, particularly when what we see at the local park doesn’t say otherwise. And the line about soccer and 1-0 games leaving Americans bored beyond belief? That kinda lost something with Landon Donovan’s goal against Algeria four years ago. What’s left is the complaint that penalty kicks are ridiculous and the charge that players feigning injury make soccer players crying, whining wimps. PKs are ridiculous, and a Nobel Prize awaits the first person who figures out a better tie-breaker. As for the macho involved in playing soccer compared to more manful, manly and masculine American sports, you could start with the hundreds of thousands of soccer players recovering from concussions caused by head-to-head contact. Or ACL tears. Or you could go straight to last Saturday, when Italy’s Riccardo Montolivo and Mexico’s Luis Montes sustained broken legs–in friendlies.
o Finally, this official World Cup song will be forgotten three days after the Brazil-Croatia opener: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGtWWb9emYI